<br />closer to what might be called ZPPG,
<br />that is, Zero Population and Produc-
<br />tivity Growth, than anyone could
<br />have conceived ten or twenty years
<br />ago,
<br />It is a fundamental principle of
<br />futurology that all projections are
<br />wrong, including mine, and certain
<br />events, of course, could postpone
<br />the coming of the spaceship earth
<br />and could lead to a longer period of
<br />productivity growth, though not per-
<br />haps of population growth, I have
<br />been able to think of only three
<br />changes, all of whicb seem to have
<br />rather low probability, that could
<br />drastically change the picture, These
<br />are artificial life, as a result of the
<br />developments of molecular biology;
<br />artificial intelligence, as a result of
<br />(he development of computers--or
<br />even a breakthrough on the under-
<br />standing of natural intelligence and
<br />human learning; and the gravity
<br />shield (a subslance or process tbat
<br />would block the force of gravity),
<br />which would drastically change the
<br />whole power picture, None of these,
<br />however, seems at all probable in
<br />the next 50 or 100 years, with the
<br />possible exception of the first.
<br />
<br />THE IMAGE of the future outlined
<br />here is bound to have a profound
<br />effect on the evaluation function of
<br />all kinds of decision makers. an
<br />effect that will increase as we move
<br />further into the future, It implies a
<br />high value on modesty rather than
<br />grandeur. There is no room for
<br />"great societies" in the spaceship. It
<br />implies conservation ism to the point
<br />of conservatism rather than expan-
<br />sionism. ft implies a high value on
<br />taking things easy, on conflict man-
<br />agement. There is no place in the
<br />spaceship for men on white horses
<br />and very little room for horsing
<br />around, We cannot afford to have
<br />war, revolution, or dialectical pro-
<br />cesses, Everything must be directed
<br />toward the preservation of precar-
<br />ious order rather than experimenta-
<br />tion with new forms, We have to
<br />stress equality rather than lncentives,
<br />simply in order to minimize uncer-
<br />tainty and conflict. It is important
<br />to realize that the case for equality
<br />may not rest at all on the concepts
<br />of social justice, Equality, indeed,
<br />denies at least one principle of social
<br />justice-that distribution should be
<br />in rough proportion to desert-for
<br />under an equalitarian regime the
<br />deserving get less than they deserve
<br />and the undeserving get more, as-
<br />
<br />suming at least something like a
<br />normal distribution of deservingness,
<br />Nevertheless, there may be a case
<br />for equality that rests not at all on
<br />social justice but on the sheer de-
<br />mand of the system for stability, A
<br />just society that provided incentives
<br />for virtue might simply prove to be
<br />too unstable,
<br />If all this sounds rather depress-
<br />ing, it is intended to be, Economists
<br />have never been very cheerful about
<br />the stationary state, and a perma-
<br />nent, planetwide stationary state,
<br />from which there seemed to be no
<br />possible means of escape, might be
<br />a very depressing prospect indeed,
<br />What is even more depressing is
<br />that a stationary state (ZPPG )
<br />might not even be stable. simply
<br />because of the intensification of con-
<br />flicts within it.
<br />In the progressive state, conflicts
<br />can be resolved fairly easily by prog-
<br />ress itself. The poor can get richer
<br />without the rich getting poorer. In
<br />the stationary state, if the poor are
<br />to get richer, then the rich must get
<br />poorer, and what is even more
<br />frightening, if the rich are to get
<br />richer, they can only do so by in-
<br />creasing their exploitation of the
<br />poor, and since the rich may be the
<br />most powerful, they may have
<br />strong incentives to do this. Thus,
<br />the banished specter of exploitation,
<br />which progress made obsolete, is re-
<br />introduced into the world, The
<br />dialectical processes to which a sta-
<br />tionary state would be exposed
<br />would thereby become much more
<br />acute and might easily destroy the
<br />state's precarious equilibrium, in
<br />war, revolution, social upheaval, the
<br />decay of all legitimacies, and a
<br />Hobbesian nightmare of retrogres-
<br />sion in the war of all against all. As
<br />Adam Smith said prophetically, the
<br />declining state is melancholy,
<br />
<br />The ultimate question of whether
<br />a stationary state would be bearable,
<br />or even stable, depends a great deal
<br />on the human capacity for social
<br />invention. One might even have an
<br />optimistic image of the present
<br />period of human expansion as a kind
<br />of adolescence of the human race,
<br />in which man has to devote a large
<br />proportion of his energy and infor-
<br />mation to sheer physical growth,
<br />Hence, we could regard the station-
<br />ary state as a kind of maturity in
<br />which physical growth is no longer
<br />necessary and in which, therefore,
<br />
<br />t
<br />2699
<br />
<br />human energies can be devoted to
<br />qualitative growth - knowledge,
<br />spirit, art, and love, One might even
<br />romantically regard the twenty-first
<br />century as symbolizing the achieve-
<br />ment of this maturity, Fortunately
<br />for us, we have to leave most of
<br />these problems to our descendants,
<br />All we can really do is to wish them
<br />well, to leave them a little elbow
<br />room, and to guide our current
<br />evaluation functions somewhere to-
<br />ward the minimax of being on the
<br />safe side,
<br />
<br />Kenneth E. Boulding, Professor of
<br />Economics Qnd Program Director of
<br />the Program of Research on General
<br />Social and Economic Dynamics, Insti-
<br />tute of Behavioral Science, University
<br />of Colorado.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />ECOLOGY AND
<br />TECHNOLOGY
<br />
<br />The chief reason for the sharp in-
<br />crease in environmental stress in tbe
<br />United States is the sweeping trans-
<br />formation in production technology
<br />in the postwar period, Productive
<br />activities with imense environmental
<br />impacts /urve displaced activities
<br />with less serious environmental im-
<br />pacts; the growth pattern has been
<br />counter-ecological. This conclusion
<br />is easily misconstrued to mean that
<br />tec~nology is therefore, per se, eco-
<br />logically hanofuL That this interpre-
<br />tation is unwarranted can be seen
<br />from the following examples,
<br />Consider the simple transforma-
<br />tion of the present ecologically faulty
<br />relationship among soil, agricultural
<br />crops, the human population, and
<br />sewage, Suppose that the sewage,
<br />instead of being introduced into sur-
<br />face waters as it is now, whether
<br />directly or following treatment, is
<br />Instead transported from urban col-
<br />lection systems by pipeline to agri-
<br />cultural are,as, where-after appro-
<br />pnate stenllza.lIon,erocedures-it is
<br />Incorporated Into the soiL Such a
<br />pipeline would literally reincorpo-
<br />rate the urban population into the
<br />soil's ecological cycle, It would re-
<br />store the integrity of that cycle and
<br />incidentally remove the need for
<br />inorganic nitrogen fertilizer-which
<br />also strains the aquatic cycle. Hence,
<br />the urban population would no
<br />longer be external to the soil cycle
<br />
<br />3
<br />
|