phases, promotes population growth. Even in its later phases, this can still occur at a high rate (0.5 per cent in the UK). Jobs must constantly be created for the additional people—not just any job, but those that are judged acceptable in terms of current values. This basically means that the capital outlay per person employed must be maintained, other­ wise the level of "productivity" per man will fall, which is a determinant of both the "viability" of economic enter­ prise and of the "standard of living".

Thirdly, no government can hope to survive widespread and protracted unemployment, and without changing the basis of our industrial society, the only way government can prevent it is by stimulating economic growth.

Fourthly, business enterprises, whe­ ther state-owned or privately owned, tend to become self-perpetuating, which means that they require surpluses for further investment. This favours con­ tinued growth.

Fifthly, the success of a government and its ability to obtain support is to a large extent assessed in terms of its ability to increase the "standard of

2000-

living" as measured by per capita gross national product (GNP).

Finally, confidence in the economy, which is basically a function of its ability to grow, must be maintained to ensuie a healthy state of the stock market. Were confidence to fall, stock values would crash, drastically reducing the availability of capital for investment and hence further growth, which would lead to further unemployment. This would result in a further fall in stockmarket values and hence give rise to a positive-feedback chain-reaction, which under the existing order might well lead to social collapse.

For all these reasons, we can expect our government (whether Conservative or Labour) to encourage further in­ creases in GNP regardless of the consequences, which in any case tame "experts" can be found to play down. I t will curb growth only when public opinion demands such a move, in which case i t will be politically expedient, and when a method is found for doing so without creating unemployment or excessive pressure on capital. We believe this is possible only within the

reserves

framework of a fully integrated plan.

165. The emphasis must be on integra­ tion. I f we develop relatively clean technologies but do not end economic growths then sooner or later we will find ourselves with as great a pollution problem as before but without the means of tackling it . I f we stabilise our economies and husband our non­ renewable resources without stabilising our populations we will find we are no longer able to feed ourselves. As Forrester1 and Meadows6 convincingly make clear, daunting though an inte­ grated programme may be, a piecemeal approach will cause more problems than it solves.

166. Our task is to create a society which is sustainable and which will give the fullest possible satisfaction to its members. Such a society by definition would depend not on expansion but on stability. This does not mean to say that i t would be stagnant—indeed i t could well afford more variety than does the state of uniformity at present being imposed by the pursuit of technological efficiency. We believe that the stable society, the achievement of which we shall discuss in the next chapter, as well as removing the sword of Damocles which hangs over the heads of future generations, is much more likely than the present one to bring the peace and fulfilment which hitherto have been regarded, sadly, as Utopian.

* 1500H D C o

7 1000-

(D

Q_
6

1900

1950

1975

2000

Figure 1. World reserves of crude petroleum at exponential rate of consumption. Note that in 1975, with no more than 15 years left before demand exceeds supply the total global reserve

has been depleted by only 12| per cent.

2050
2240

2230

2220

2210

2200

2190

2180

2170

2160

2150

2140

2130

2120

2110

2100

2090

2080

2070

2060

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

2000

1990 1980 1970

(1.8)

unti l 2530

unti l 2370

assuming current usage rate continues t o increase exponentially as between 1960 and 1968 (% rate i n brackets) assuming current usage rate

(3.2)

(0.5)

(8.7)

(4.2) • (0.5) n • , (2.9) i—i ( 6 - 2 )

• •il l Au Co Cr Cu Fe Hg Mn Mo N i Pb Pf Sn W Zn

Figure 2. Mineral resources: static and exponential reserves.7

(For key, see page 41)