I cannot see any effective substitute for family life so long as there are children to bring up. Children feed on love as they do on food and fresh air, and no vicarious love can take the place of the natural affection between children and their parents. The institution of marriage may undergo many and far-reaching changes[3], but nothing is likely to change the paramount necessity of parental care of, and responsibility for, children. Children are rooted in their parents. They are, in a sense, survivals of their parents’ personality, and constitute their chance of physical immortality. It is, therefore, absurd to suppose that the human race will at any time in its history consent to the “nationalization” of its children. On the other hand, the supervision of ill-disposed or incompetent parents by the State will, no doubt, become more and more strict. [3] Its early history shows it to be a contrivance for the safe-guarding of infants in their earliest years by allocating a large proportion of responsibility to the father. Among Semitic and other Asiatic tribes, this allocation of responsibility was fortified by the somewhat crude precaution of secluding women. Marriage as a means of allocating responsibility will become superfluous as soon as parentage can be infallibly traced with the aid of the microscope, as some biologists confidently foretell. The chief _raison d’etre_ of marriage will then be gone, but it will no doubt continue for a considerable time as a picturesque survival of an ancient custom. _Education._――In spite of the prodigious advance in educational methods in the last two generations, education is still in a state of primitive barbarity. We may, therefore, expect some very profound changes in the centuries to come. There is still too much of the methods of the pump about our education. The idea seems to be that the teacher draws from the well of knowledge and administers copious draughts to his pupils, and when they have swallowed these they are educated! There is no better illustration of this curious view than the modern method of imparting “higher” education. The University lecture is, of all methods of imparting knowledge, about the least effective. The student sits in a stiff attitude and maintains a pose of strained attention. He endeavours to keep his mind concentrated on the words and meaning of the professor. Every now and then he succeeds, but then his thoughts persist in following their own train of associations and the thread is broken. He jots down disconnected notes, hoping to piece them together afterwards. This piecing together is often the only process which really advances his knowledge. It brings his own will-power and faculties into action. The lecture only requires will-power for concentration on somebody else’s thought, and this effort is negative and sterile.