“Very good,” I said, “and all you say interests me keenly. For Acquilla, you must know that there were many solitary thinkers, even in my day, who held with you. In fact, the British sought to reinvigorate their own aristocracy by the generous introduction of strong new personalities. But the weakness in all such systems is, of course, in the decline in vigor and effort which comes with the generations that inherit. How do you handle the second generation?” “It is a pleasure to converse with you, Bogardus,” said Acquilla, brightening up. “Truly, you have the mind of a woman. The answer is simple. You have correctly pointed out the danger of all inherited institutions. We have eliminated it.” “How so?” “There is no second generation.” “You--you suppress the children of your aristocracy?” I cried, gazing at her in horror. “Not exactly. But we have suppressed the family which amounts to the same thing. You see, as our great philosopher, Manfreda, has pointed out in her epochal work which led to the final abolishment of your archaic tribal institutions, not only did the family idea constitute a rebellious element in society but--” “One moment, I do not quite seize the implication.” “Oh, you must read Manfreda, the greatest creative thinker of all times. You didn’t understand? But what is the object of the family; the strong must carry with them the weak. The moment a leader begins to provide for his family, his loyalty is to his children and not to the state. The parasitic second generation of which you speak retained artificial power, only by inheritance. Is that plain?” “As you state it, it’s made plausible.” “Furthermore, Bogardus, was not the family in itself an institution curiously contrary to the principle of the survival of the fittest?” “In what way?” “Was it not generally the weak that preyed upon the strong? In the family as you knew it, how often was the strongest member sacrificed for the incompetents?” “The idea is a novel one--” “Reflect.” “I am reflecting--yes--and many incidents come to my mind that bear out your statement. But--” “Now you are going to talk morality.” “I was.” “Let us postpone morality for the present.” “I am curious to know how you would define it.” “Morality is order. Immorality disorder.” “I like the definition.” “There is no other possible. So you see until you are conversant with our new institutions and manners, you cannot argue on morality in the terms of the twentieth century, any more than you would have argued then in the terms of the middle ages.” “To go back a little,” I said, keenly interested, I must confess, “may I ask some questions?” “Do.” “You have abolished marriage and the family, I perceive, but how do you handle the question of the children?” “The determination of sex was solved in the last century. Birth control was in force all over the world long before that.” “So you permit birth control?” I exclaimed.