It has been objected that I have left no place for altruism in my system.[231] Certainly I have tried to find an egoistic basis for moral conduct, as I have shown above. I think, however, that the wish to live according to the ideal of orthobiosis and to make others live a normal life would be a powerful agency in improving social life, in preventing mutual damage, and promoting mutual help. Such a motive, within the reach of persons whose altruistic feelings are not specially strong, must largely extend moral conduct amongst human beings, and even although in future such manifestations of high morality as the sacrifice of life and health will become wholly or nearly wholly useless, I think that for the present there is still room for altruism. The practical application of scientific knowledge already gained admits much self-denial and good feeling. Struggle against prejudices of all kinds and the development and diffusion of sound ideas require a conduct very highly altruistic. The fears of my opponents are still less justified when we reflect that the feelings of sympathy and of cohesion must play a large part in the business of helping the evolution of man towards the goal of normal life. Although our actual knowledge already provides a basis of rational morality, it may be admitted that in the future, if science continues its forward march, the rules of moral conduct will become still more improved. There will be no ground for reproaching me for a blind faith in the all-powerfulness of science. Much more trust can be given to one who has faithfully carried out his promises, than to one who has promised much and fulfilled nothing. Science has already justified the hopes which have been placed in it. It has saved people from the most terrible diseases, and has made life much easier. On the other hand, religions, which demand an uncritical faith as the means of curing the ills which afflict humanity, have not fulfilled their promises.