COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M0BDR25\M1BDI25\M2NGR30\M3XMAS25\M4NGB25\.
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M0BDR25;\M1BDI25;\M2NGR30;\M3XMAS25;\M4NGB25;\.
\F2\CARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY
\CCOMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
\CSTANFORD UNIVERSITY
\CSTANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
\F0


\C13 September 1973






Dr. Richard Scribner, Director
Office of Science and Society Programs
AAAS
1515 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington D.C. 20005


Dear Dr. Scribner:

\J	This is in response to the letter in \F1Science\F0 of 7 September
soliciting proposals for activities of the AAAS Committee on Science and
Public Policy.

	I would like to see scientific public opinion decisively resolve the
issue of whether civilization can continue to grow.  I don't mean this in
the sense of indefinite exponential growth which is easily shown to be
impossible but in the sense of realizing presently desired improvements in
the American standard of living and extending this standard of living to
as much of the rest of the world as wants it enough to make the effort.

	At present, there is much uncertainty on this point and this leads
to half-heartedness.  Those who think that civilization and its technology
cannot expand propose rather half-hearted measures for achieving their goals,
and people who propose particular acts of expansion often make bows in the
direction of the opposite point of view.

	My own opinion is that it is possible to establish that a standard
of living much higher than the present U.S. standard can be maintained
indefinitely for a population considerably larger than the present population
of the earth.  To establish this requires listing the energy, resource,
and environmental problems that have to be solved and outlining \F1good
enough\F0 solutions.

	The object of getting good enough solutions is to restore the
self-confidence of the technological community - not to decide the future
in detail.  For example, if it can be established that one of breeder
reactors, fusion, or solar energy can be relied upon in the long run,
then which is the \F1best\F0 long run solution can be left to our descendants,
and attention can be concentrated on the most convenient short range
solution.

	My own interest in these problems arises from a book I am writing on
what good things technology should do next.  The main point of it is that
there are many ways in which technology can improve the quality of human
life and that the main problem is invention.  This is in contrast to the
view that the main problem is to scrutinize invention carefully and suppress
harmful inventions.

	In order to justify the book, I found it neceessary to read the
controversy of optimism versus pessimism.  While I found my own way to
an optimistic position, none of the literature on the subject from either
point of view seemed convincing, and I think a much better job can be
done of defining and settling these issues.

	If I can be of help in this matter I will, and I would like to be
on the Committee's mailing list.  I enclose a reprint as an indication of
some of the things I think about in this area.\.

					Sincerely yours,



					John McCarthy
					Professor of Computer Science
					Director, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory