But this is not the true state of the matter. The irresistible tendency of the human mind, stimulated by self-interest and assisted by a series of discoveries, is to substitute natural and gratuitous co-operation for human and onerous concurrence; so that a given utility, although remaining the same as far as the result and the satisfactions which it procures us are concerned, represents a smaller and smaller amount of labour. In fact, it is impossible not to perceive the immense influence of this marvellous phenomenon on our notion of value. For what is the result of it? This, that in every product the ‹gratuitous› element tends to take the place of the ‹onerous›; that ‹utility›, being the result of two ‹collaborations›, of which one is remunerated and the other is not, Value, which has relation only to the first of these united forces, is diminished, and makes room for a ‹utility› which is identically the same, and this in proportion as we succeed in constraining Nature to a more efficacious co-operation. So that we may say that mankind have as many more ‹satisfactions›, as much more ‹wealth›, as they have less ‹value›. Now, the majority of authors having employed these three terms, ‹utility›, ‹wealth›, ‹value›, as synonymous, the result has been a theory which is not only not true, but the reverse of true. I believe sincerely that a more exact description of this combination of natural forces and human forces in the business of production, in other words, a juster definition of Value, would put an end to inextricable theoretical confusion, and would reconcile schools which are now divergent; and if I am now anticipating somewhat in entering on this subject here, my justification with the reader is the necessity of explaining in the outset certain ideas of which otherwise he would have difficulty in perceiving the importance. Returning from this digression, I resume what I had to say upon man considered exclusively in an economical point of view.