speedily overrun and overfill the habitable globe. Neither humanitarian
schemes, international charities nor philanthropies can prevent
widespread disaster to a people which habitually breeds up to and
beyond the maximum limits of its food supply." Upon this point, it is
interesting to add, Mr. Frank A. Vanderlip has likewise pointed out the
inefficacy and misdirection of this type of international charity.(1)

Mr. Bland further points out: "The problem presented is one with which
neither humanitarian nor religious zeal can ever cope, so long as we
fail to recognize and attack the fundamental cause of these calamities.
As a matter of sober fact, the benevolent activities of our missionary
societies to reduce the deathrate by the prevention of infanticide and
the checking of disease, actually serve in the end to aggravate the
pressure of population upon its food-supply and to increase the
severity of the inevitably resultant catastrophe. What is needed for
the prevention, or, at least, the mitigation of these scourges, is an
organized educational propaganda, directed first against polygamy
and the marriage of minors and the unfit, and, next, toward such a
limitation of the birth-rate as shall approximate the standard
of civilized countries. But so long as Bishops and well meaning
philanthropists in England and America continue to praise and encourage
`the glorious fertility of the East' there can be but little hope of
minimizing the penalties of the ruthless struggle for existence in
China, and Nature's law will therefore continue to work out its own
pitiless solution, weeding out every year millions of predestined
weaklings."

This rapid survey is enough, I hope, to indicate the manifold
inadequacies inherent in present policies of philanthropy and charity.
The most serious charge that can be brought against modern "benevolence"