. November. 1980 - RAIN Page 17 tidn to world energy production before 1990. But figure in the shaky assumptions ("no changes in public policies, institutions, or rates of technological advance ... no wars or other major disruptions"), the extensive reliance on computer ~odeling (see, for example, Models of Doom: A Critique of/he Limits to Growth, H.5.O. Cole, ed., NY: Universe Books; 1973), plus the fact that all· the projectio.ns grind to a dead halt at the year 2000 (it was of course after the year 2000 that The Limits to Growth, in its highly simple and aggregated.form, suggested the ap.pearance ofshortages), and you wind up with a pretty flimsy piece of cake indeed, frosted with ta.ke part in these projects. By the very nature of the _exercise, t_he use of global models will belong to status quo thinkers . ... Al~ most all statements which purport to be based on modelling reflect simply the biases and preconceived notions of the a.uthors. The models are largely redundant insofar as the analysis is concerned, their role being primarily tha.t of a propaganda device . . Conspicuously absent from The Global 2000 Report to the President are recommendations ·or even any mention of policy. Carter's this honest but humbling topping.:. • • , •. most ·important response to the report was to establish P Task Force on Global Resources and Environment, to ensure that the U.S. government provides "special leadership" in responding-to these problems at home and abroad. The Task Force has been instructed to de~elop specific proposals within the next few months. Supposedly the. national network of concerned population and environmental organizations will have a say in the development of Task Force recommendations. It is vitally important that those whose opinions are invited not lose sight of the fact that world livability in the year Many apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the Global 2000 projections are due to the weakness of the linkages among sectors of the Government's global model. ... The inescaprible conclusion is that the omission of linkages imparts an optimistic bias to the Global 2000 Study's (and the Government's) quantitative projections. ( from Glopa/' 2000) Writing in the June, 1980 issue of The Ecologist (U.K.), mathematician and futures researcher John Robinson, who in 19,73 wrote articles in s.upport of The Limits to Growth an'd has since participated in the creation of computer models for both the United King- 1 dom and New Zealand, describes his profession as follows: ·r 2000 and beyond is a matter not only of"controlling" populations but of production and consumption, exploitation and waste,.domination and human freedom. Thankfully, the Global 2000 authors, at least, are aware of this. One paragraph especially I hope will be The devefoptnent of a global model is, to date, a large-s_cale and expensive operation ..Insofar as the tool utilized, a complicated and expensive high-technology computer, has an influence bn the project rthe medium is the message') I global modeling must reflect the thinking of the high-technology school. Since alternative thinkers insist on a different emphasis, they do not w~dely read: • The solutions to the problems of population, resources, _and environment are complex and long-t·erm. These problems au inextricably linked to some of the most perplexing and persistent problems in the world-poverty, injustice, .and social conflict. New and imaginative ideas-and a willingness to act on themare essential. □□ - . • · •• GLOBAL ACCESS "Economic Development", Scientific American, September 1980, $2.50 from: • Scientific American 415 Madison Ave. New York, N:Y10017 This collection of resource surveys and case studies is a good example of current main- .· stream thinking in the field of economic d.evelopment. Written by development experts from a range of academic and cultural backgrounds (only two of the dozen or so authors are from the U.S.)., this special issue is_ stuffe~ with graphs, charts, and fun facts to know and tell. With a couple of exceptions (notably the energy modeling study), the information is eniightening. Scientific American (ends to stay within the realm ofconventional social and economic theory, and that makes this issue all the more interesting. Many of these re- • spected experts are saying things about development and underdevelopment that would have been unthinkable ten years ago. - It's.fascinating, for example, to hear the director of the World Health Organization attack the medical establishment for not promoting preventive medicine. Or consider . this quote from the director of the Institute of Social Research at the University of Me:,_cico: In th_e midst of a worldwide political and economic crisis affecting capitalism, Mexico seems to be one of the stabler countries. Only an act of intervention, which presumably ~ould only be fostered by jingoistic groups in the ll.S. I can alter Mexico's c·ourse. Such a move would surely solidjfy the nationalist and revolutionary -forces in Mexi(o. -KB The.Lean Years by Richard Barnet, 198.0, ' 349 pp., $12.95 from: Simon and Schuster 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10029 As the worldwide scramble for resources intensifies, Richard Barnet's latest study provides a tim~ly perspective on what the ' ultimate stakes are. Highly readable, tightly written, and weH researched(as with most of. Barnet's books, the bibliography is worth the price of admissi:on alone), The Lean Years begins with a survey of what resources are available and how they are controlled. If you've read any of the several recent res.ource inventories such as Energy Future or Glob.al 2000, ym.(ll probably be familiar with . some of this information. What is unique is the clarity with which Barnet highlights the patterns of con_trol of the world's resources. The fact that the primary causes of resource scarcity have more to do with political and economic manipulation than an actual physical shortage is not particularly earth-shattering. However, the question of who should control those resources become simultaneously fascinating and chilling. Much of Barnet's discussion of the implications of corporate and bureaucratic control of the international economy and the resurgent mili~arism in foreign policy is based·on his earlier ·studies, particularly his landmark analysis of corporate power, GlobalReach. Barnet believes that corporations are increasingly in a better position than countries to control the flow of world resources because of their ability to maintain a global perspective. • But the guiding star by which they plan:_ capital accumulation and profit maximization -leads to concentrati.on of power without responsibility. The Global Factory creates certain incentives that stimulate production-chiefly, acquisitiveness and competitiveness, bu_t the incentives it kills-caring, frugality, and concern about social consequences.:._are the ones needed for global survival. Barnet concludes with a'scathing analysis of the increasing tendency to regard human ,values and creativity, as well as " excess" human life, as expendable in a survival situation. It is clear that the choice is between more local control and respect for creativity, . 'or much less' than we have today. Along with a vision of the apocalypse, Barnet offers us a glimpse of the alter~atives as well. • • Th~ purpose of planning should be to enable a given population to develop a balance_d and secure economy within w[zich to achieve the quality of life that they • want. The idea that certain~cities, regions, or countries ·must be abandoned for the • greater good-of the world economy is'un- • acceptable. The goal ought-to be max:.. imum self reliance ofthose communities . large enough to survive economically and small enough to accommodate some form· of face-to-face politics. -KB
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz