COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES 
RECORD PAGE   DESCRIPTION
 00001 00001
 00002 00002	\\M0BASL30\M1BASI30\.
 00013 ENDMK
⊗;
\\M0BASL30;\M1BASI30;\.
\F0\CA PROPOSAL FOR A STATEMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR OPTIMISM  THAT
\CTECHNOLOGICALLY  BASED  HIGH  STANDARD OF LIVING CAN CONTINUE FOR THE
\CINDEFINITE FUTURE

\J	This memorandum is an invitation to participate in a  meeting
to  be  held  at xxx to discuss possible statements of "technological
optimism" in the general sense implied below.  The details that
follow should not be taken as final; they are intended rather to
provide a specific starting point for further discussions.

	Many  people have come to believe that the United States does
not have the resources within its own borders to continue its present
standard of living for very long.  Naturally, they are also convinced
that the rest of the world cannot hope to match the present  American
standard.     This  belief  is  unpleasant, and moreover, it suggests
policies quite different from  those  that  are  appropriate  if  the
American standard of living can be continued and improved, and if the
rest of the world can, if they act appropriately, reach the  American
standard.

	Many  scientists who have looked into the matter
believe that the technological optimism that characterized  the  post
war  world  until the late 1960s is still justified. While changes in
technology will have to be made from time to  time,  a  technological
civilization  supporting  a high rate of consumption can be continued
together with an improvement in the environment  for  the  indefinite
future,  e.g.    until the sun uses up its hydrogen.   The only major
provisos are that nuclear war  is  avoided  and  that  population  is
limited in the near future.

	The  view  a person takes of this general question of whether
optimism is justified  strongly  affects  his  attitude  towards  many
immediate policy issues concerning energy, pollution, life style, and
even politics.  However, the  long  range  issue  is  rarely  debated
directly  but  rather as a sideline to issues of immediate policy. In
our opinion, it would clear the  air  for  discussions  of  immediate
policy,  if there were a convincing argument that long range optimism
about the technological options was justified.  Again, we  would  not
have to agree on whether political optimism was justified or how society
might  adequately  be  organized  in  order  to  realize  the  living
standards  made  possible  by  technology.  We would also not have to
agree on how the fruits of technology are best divided.

	To serve the purpose of allaying anxiety and pointing  policy
in  constructive  directions,  the  statement  could not simply be an
expression of faith in the power of  science  and  technology,  since
this  faith  is precisely what has been put in jeopardy.  Instead, it
would have to address the specific long range  problems  about  which
doubts have been raised.

	Thus  it  would  have to show that enough energy to bring the
whole world substantially beyond the present American level of energy
use  will  be  available  for  the indefinite future.   The statement
would not have to determine  the  \F1best\F0  long  range  source  of
energy;  it  would only have to establish
the existence of at least one adequate source.  Still
less would it have to determine the  best  immediate  energy  policy.
Thus, if it were agreed, the statement might simply assert that there
is enough extractable uranium and thorium in  the  United  States  to
supply  energy  at  reasonable  cost for millions of years.  It might
also say that central station solar power plants are  also  feasible.
It  would  not have to say which is better even in the long run.  The
energy technology used even  one  hundred  years  from  now  will  be
determined  by  our descendants, and our views on the subject will be
of only historical interest. The purpose of this example  is  not  to
prejudge how the statement will resolve the energy problem but simply
to give a sample of what might be  said.    Naturally,  even  if  the
above   position  were  agreed  upon,  a  detailed  and  quantitative
statement would be required to be convincing.

	Naturally, many of us are working on questions excluded  from
the  statement  -  immediate  questions  of  technological  or social
policy.  Nevertheless, we believe that the narrow question of whether
long term technological optimism is justified needs to be settled and
can be settled more easily if treated separately.

	As we see it now, the following other  problems  have  to  be
faced besides energy:

	1.  Food.   We may have to go beyond agriculture and consider
the synthetic possibilities.

	2.    Mineral resources.       It  may  be  difficult  to  be
comprehensive   here,  because  it  would  be  necessary  to  discuss
substitutability.     Thus  if  platinum  were  cheap,  it  would  be
considered a necessity for high quality cookware.

	3.   Environmental effects.  It is necessary to be convincing
that we can avoid poisoning ourselves.  It is not necessary to  agree
on what degree of preservation of wilderness is desirable.  It may be
necessary to discuss control over natural fluctuations in climate  in
order  to determine that naturally caused ice ages can be avoided and
that climate changing side effects can be compensated for by  actions
that directly affect the climate.

	The first form of the statement might merely be an expression
of opinion.  Even such a statement will relieve some of the gloom.

	The  second  form  of  the  statement  should  be  aimed   at
convincing   other   scientists   and   technologists,  because  many
scientists  and  technologists  are  affected  by   the   pessimistic
atmosphere.      Besides that, the argument must withstand scientific
criticism before we can justify asserting it authoritatively  to  the
non-scientific  public. Most likely, we would have to admit some gaps
in our argument, especially in the areas  of  resources  and  climate
control, but we could hope to establish a presumption of optimism and
suggest  research  specifically  aimed  at  reinforcing  or  refuting
tentatively adequate solutions.

	The  third  form  would  be  popular and aimed at the general
intellectual public  and  policy  makers.       Naturally,  the  mere
acceptance  of  an optimistic view would not determine policy, but it
would affect it.\.


				S. J. Kline, Mechanical Engineering


				John McCarthy, Computer Science

				xxxx
				yyyy
				etc.