3.1.1--THE ECONOMICS OF THE COMING生态经济学生态经济学

THE ECONOMICSOF THECOMING SPACESHIPEARTHBy KennethE.Boulding,1966We arenow in the middleof a long process of transitionin thenature of theimage whichman hasof himself and hisenvironment.Primitive men,and to alarge extentalso menof theearly civilizations,imagined themselvesto belivingon avirtually illimitable plane.There was almost alwayssomewhere beyond theknown limitsof humanhabitation,and over a verylarge part of the time thatmanhas beenon earth,there has been somethinglike afrontier.That is,there wasalwayssome placeelse togo whenthings gottoo difficult,either byreason of thedeterioration of the naturalenvironment ora deteriorationof thesocial structureinplaces wherepeople happenedto live.The image of thefrontier isprobablyone of the oldestimages of mankind,and it is notsurprising that we findit hardtoget rid of.Gradually,however,man has been accustominghimself to the notionof thesphericalearth and a closed sphere of human activity.A fewunusual spiritsamongthe ancientGreeks perceivedthat the earth was a sphere.It wasonly withthecircumnavigations and the geographicalexplorations of the fifteenthandsixteenth centuries,however,that thefact that the earthwas asphere becameatall widelyknown and accepted.Even in the thirteenthcentury,the commonestmapwas Mercatorsprojection,which visualizesthe earth as anillimitablecylinder,essentially aplane wrappedaround theglobe,and itwas notuntil theSecondWorld Warand the development of the airage that the globalnature oftileplanet reallyentered thepopular imagination.Even nowwe are very farfromhaving madethe moral,political,and psychologicaladjustments which areimplied in this transition from theillimitableplaneto the closedsphere.Economists inparticular,for the most part,have failedto cometo gripswiththe ultimateconsequences of the transitionfrom theopen to theclosedearth.Onehesitates touse theterms openand closedin this connection,as theyhavebeen usedwith somany differentshades ofmeaning.Nevertheless,it is hard tofindequivalents.The open system,indeed,has somesimilarities to the opensystemof vonBertalanffy,1in that it impliesthat somekind of a structureismaintained in the midstof athroughput frominputs tooutputs.In a closedsystem,the outputsof allparts of the systemare linkedto theinputs ofother parts.There areno inputs from outsideand nooutputs to the outside;indeed,there is nooutside at all.Closed systems,in fact,areveryrare inhuman experience,in factalmostby definitionunknowable,for ifthere aregenuinely closed systemsaround us,we haveno today,with alltheir foulair andpolluted waterways,areprobably notas badas thefilthy citiesof thepetrochemical age.Nevertheless,that foulingof thenest whichhasbeentypical ofmans activityin the past on alocal scalenow seems to beextending to the wholeworld society;and onecertainlycannot viewwith equanimitythe presentrate ofpollution of any of thenatural reservoirs,whether the atmosphere,the lakes,or even the oceans.I would argue stronglyalso thatour obsessionwith productionandconsumption to the exclusionof the state aspectsof humanwelfare distortstheprocess oftechnological changein amost undesirableway.We areall familiar,of course,with thewastes involvedin plannedobsolescence,in competitiveadvertising,and inpoor quality of consumergoods.These problemsmay notbeso importantas tilenview with alarm/school indicates,and indeed the evidenceatmany pointsis conflicting.New materialsespecially seemto edgetowards thesideof improveddurability,such as,for instance,neolite solesfor footwear,nylon socks,wash and wear shirts,and soon.The case of householdequipmentand automobilesis alittle lessclear.Housing andbuilding constructiongenerallyalmost certainlyhas declinedin durabilitysince theMiddle Ages,but thisdeclinealso reflectsa changein tastestowards flexibilityand fashionandaneed fornovelty,so thatit is not easyto assess.What isclear is that noserious attempthasbeen madeto assessthe impactover the whole ofeconomic lifeof changesindurability,that is,in theratio of capital illthe widestpossible senseto income.Isuspect that we haveunderestimated,even inour spendthriftsociety,the gainsfromincreased durability,and thatthis mightvery wellbe one of theplaceswhere the price systemneeds correctionthrough government-sponsored researchanddevelopment.The problemswhich the spaceship earthis goingto present,therefore,are notall in the futureby anymeans,andastrong casecan bemadefor payingmuch moreattention tothem in the presentthan wenow do.It may be complainedthat theconsiderations Ihave beenputting forthrelateonly tothe verylong run,and theydo notmuch concernour immediate problems.There maybe somejustice inthis criticism,and mymain excuseis thatotherwriters havedealt adequatelywith the more immediate problems ofdeteriorationin thequalityof the environment.It istrue,for instance,that manyof theimmediate problems ofpollution of the atmosphereor ofbodies of water arisebecause of thefailure of the pricesystem,and manyof themcould besolved bycorrectivetaxation.If peoplehad topay thelosses duetothenuisances whichtheycreate,a gooddeal moreresources wouldgo into the preventionofnuisances.These argumentsinvolving externaleconomies anddiseconomies arcfamiliarto economists,and there isnoneed torecapitulate them.The lawof tortsis quite inadequateto providefor thecorrection of thepricesystem which isrequired,simply becausewhere damagesare widespread and theirincidence onanyparticular personis small,the ordinaryremedies of the civillaw arequiteinadequate and inappropriate.There needs,therefore,to bespecial legislationtocover thosecases,and thoughsuch legislationseems hardto getin practice,mainly becauseof thewidespreadandsmall personalincidence of the injuries,the technicalproblems involvedare notinsuperable.If wewere to adopt inprinciplea lawfor taxpenalties forsocial damages,with anapparatus formakingassessments underit,a verylarge proportionof currentpollution anddeteriorationof theenvironment would be prevented.There aretricky problemsofequity involved,particularly whereold establishednuisances createa kind ofnright bypurchase toperpetuate themselves,but theseare problemsagain whicha few ratherarbitrary decisionscan bringto somekindof solution.The problemswhich Ihave beenraising inthis paperare oflarger scaleandperhaps muchharder to solve thanthe morepractical andimmediateproblems ofthe aboveparagraph.Our successin dealingwith the larger problems,however,is notunrelated tothedevelopmentof skillin the solution of themoreimmediateand perhapsless difficultproblems.One canhope,therefore,that asa successionofmounting crises,especially inpollution,arouse publicopinion andmobilizesupport for thesolutionof the immediateproblems,a learningprocess willbe setinmotion whichwill eventuallylead to an appreciationof andperhaps solutionsfor the largerones.My neglectof the immediateproblems,therefore,is innoway intendedto denytheir importance,for unlesswe at least makea beginningona processfor solvingtheimmediateproblems wewill not have muchchanceof solvingthe largerones.On the other hand,it mayalso betrue that along-runvision,as itwere,ofthedeep crisiswhich facesmankind maypredispose peopletotaking moreinterest in theimmediateproblems and to devotemore effortfortheir solution.This maysound likea rathermodest optimism,but perhapsamodest optimismis betterthan nooptimism atall.1Ludwig vonBerlalanffy,Problems ofLife New York:John Wileyand Sons,

1952.2Richard L.Meier,Science andEconomic DevelopmentNewYork:JohnWiley andSons,

1956.3K.E.Boulding,“The ConsumptionConcept inEconomic Theory,“AmericanEconomic Review,35:2May1945,pp.1-14;and“Income orWelfare,Reviewo/Economic Studies,171949-50,pp.77-

86.4Fred L.Polak,The Imageo/the Future.Vols.I and II,translated byEliseBoulding NewYork:Sythoff,Leyden andOceana,

1961.way ofgetting informationinto themor out of them;and henceif theyare reallyclosed,we would be quiteunaware oftheir existence.We canonly findout aboutaclosedsystemif weparticipate in it.Some isolatedprimitive societiesmayhave approximatedto this,but eventhese hadto takeinputs from theenvironment and give outputsto it.All livingorganisms,including manhimself,are opensystems.They haveto receiveinputs in the shape of air,food,water,andgiveoff outputs in the form ofeffluvia andexcrement.Deprivation ofinputof air,even fora fewminutes,is fatal.Deprivation ofthe abilityto obtain anyinput orto disposeof anyoutput isfatal in a relativelyshort time.All humansocietieshave likewisebeen opensystems.They receiveinputsfrom the earth,the atmosphere,and thewaters,and theygive outputsinto thesereservoirs;theyalso produceinputs internallyin the shapeofbabies and outputsin theshapeofcorpses.Given acapacity todraw uponinputs andto getridofoutputs,an opensystemof this kind canpersist indefinitely.There are some systems—such asthe biologicalphenotype,for instancethe human body—which cannotmaintain themselvesindefinitely by inputs andoutputsbecauseofthe phenomenonof aging.This processis very littleunderstood.It occurs,evidently,because there aresomeoutputs whichcannot bereplacedby anyknown input.There is not thesame necessityfor aginginorganizations and in societies,although ananalogous phenomenonmay takeplace.The structureand compositionof allorganization orsociety,however,canbe maintainedbyinputs of freshpersonnel frombirth and education astheexisting personnelages and eventually dies.Here we have aninterestingexample of a systemwhich seemsto maintain itself by the self-generation ofinputs,and inthis senseis movingtowards closure.The input of people that is,babies is also alloutput ofpeoplethat is,parents.Systems maybe openor closedin respecttoanumber ofclasses ofinputsand outputs.Three importantclasses arematter,energy,and information.Thepresent worldeconomy isopen inregard toall three.We canthink ofthe worldeconomyor econosphereasasubset ofthe worldset/which is the setof allobjectsof possiblediscourse in the world.We thenthink ofthestate of theeconosphereat anyone momentas beingthe totalcapital stock,that is,the setofall objects,people,organizations,and soon,which areinteresting from the pointof view ofthe systemof exchange.This totalstock ofcapital is clearly an opensystem in the sensethatit has inputsand outputs,inputs beingproduction whichaddstothecapital stock,outputs beingconsumption whichsubtracts fromit.From amaterial point of view,we seeobjects passingfrom the noneconomic intothe economic setin theprocessof production,andwesimilarly seeproductspassing outoftheeconomic setas theirvalue becomeszero.Thus wesee theeconosphereasamaterial processinvolving thediscovery andmining of fossilfuels,ores,etc.,and at theotherend aprocess bywhich theeffluents ofthesystem arepassed outinto noneconomicreservoirs—for instance,theatmosphere and the oceans—which arenot appropriatedand do not enterintothe exchangesystem.From thepoint ofview ofthe energy system,the econosphereinvolvesinputs of available energyin the form,say,ofwaterpower,fossil fuels,orsunlight,whicharenecessary inorder tocreate the material throughputand tomovematter from thenoneconomicset into theeconomicset oreven outof itagain;and energyitself isgiven offby the system ina lessavailable form,mostlyin theform ofheat.These inputsof available energy mustcome eitherfrom thesunthe energysupplied byother starsbeing assumedto benegligible orit maycomefrom the earth itself,either through its internalheat orthroughitsenergy ofrotationor othermotions,which generate,for instance,the energyofthetides.Agriculture,afewsolar machines,and waterpower usethe currentavailableenergy income.In advancedsocieties thisis supplementedvery extensivelybythe useof fossil fuels,which representas itwere acapital stock of stored-upsunshine.Because of this capital stock of energy,we have been able to maintainanenergy input into thesystem,particularly over the lasttwo centuries,muchlarger thanwe wouldhavebeenableto do withexisting techniquesif wehad hadtorely on the currentinputofavailableenergyfromthesun orthe earthitself.This supplementaryinput,however,is byits verynature exhaustible.The inputsandoutputsof informationare moresubtle andharder totrace,but alsorepresent an opensystem,related to,but notwholly dependenton,thetransformations ofmatter andenergy.By farthe largeramount ofinformationand knowledgeis self-generated bythe humansociety,though a certain amountofinformation comesinto thesociosphere in theform of lightfromthe universeoutside.The informationthat comesfromtheuniverse hascertainly affectedmansimage of himselfandof hisenvironment,as we can easilyvisualize if wesuppose thatwe livedonaplanet with a totalcloud-cover thatkept outallinformation fromthe exterioruniverse.It isonly invery recenttimes,of course,that the information comingin fromtheuniversehasbeencaptured andcodedinto theformofa compleximage ofwhat theuniverse islike outsidetheearth;but even in primitivetimes,mans perceptionoftheheavenly bodieshas alwaysprofoundlyaffected hisimageofearth andofhimself.It isthe informationgeneratedwithin theplanet,however,and particularlythat generatedby manhimself,which formsby farthelargerpart oftheinformationsystem.We canthink ofthe stock of knowledge,or asTeilhard deChardin calledit,thenoosphere,and considerthis asanopensystem,losing knowledgethroughaging anddeath andgaining itthrough birthandeducationand theordinaryexperience oflife.From thehuman point ofview,knowledge orinformation isby farthe mostimportantofthethree systems.Matter onlyacquires significanceand onlyentersthe sociosphereortheeconosphere insofar as itbecomes anobject of humanknowledge.We canthinkofcapital,indeed,as frozenknowledge orknowledgeimposed on the material world intheformof improbablearrangements.Amachine,for instance,originated inthe mindofman,and bothits constructionand its useinvolve informationprocesses imposedon the materialworldby manhimself.The cumulationof knowledge,that is,the excessof itsproduction overitsconsumption,isthekey tohuman developmentof allkinds,especially toeconomicdevelopment.We cansee thispre-eminence of knowledge veryclearlyin theexperiences ofcountries where thematerialcapital hasbeen destroyedby awar,as inJapan andGermany.The knowledgeofthepeople wasnot destroyed,and itdid nottake long,therefore,certainly notmore thanten years,for mostofthe materialcapital to be reestablishedagain.In acountry such as Indonesia,however,wheretheknowledge did not exist,thematerialcapital did not comeinto being either.By knowledge“here Imean,of course,thewholecognitivestructure,which includesvaluations andmotivations as well asimages ofthefactual world.The conceptof entropy,used ina somewhatloose sense,can beapplied toallthree of these opensystems.In thecaseofmaterial systems,we candistinguishbetween entropic processes,which takeconcentrated materials anddiffuse themthrough theoceans orovertheearths surfaceor into theatmosphere,and anti-entropicprocesses,which takediffuse materialsand concentratethem.Material entropycan betaken asa measure oftheuniformity ofthe distributionofelements and,more uncertainly,compounds andother structuresontheearthssurface.There is,fortunately,no lawof increasingmaterial entropy,as there is inthecorresponding caseof energy,as it isquitepossible toconcentrate diffusedmaterialsif energy inputs areallowed.Thus theprocesses forfixation ofnitrogenfrom theair,processes for the extractionof magnesiumor otherelements fromthesea,and processesforthedesalinization ofsea waterare anti-entropic illthematerial sense,though thereduction ofmaterial entropyhas to be paidfor byinputsof energyand alsoinputsofinformation,or at least astockofinformationin thesystem.In regardto matter,therefore,aclosedsystem isconceivable,thatis,a systemin which there isneither increasenor decreasein materialentropy.Insuch asystem alloutputs fromconsumption wouldconstantly berecycled tobecomeinputs forproduction,as for instance,nitrogen inthe nitrogencycle ofthenatural ecosystem.In regardtotheenergysystemthere is,unfortunately,no escapefrom thegrimSecond Lawof Thermodynamics;and ifthere wereno energyinputs intotheearth,any evolutionaryor developmentalprocess would be impossible.Thelarge energyinputs which we haveobtained fromfossil fuelsare strictlytemporary.Even themost optimisticpredictions wouldexpect theeasilyavailable supplyoffossilfuels to be exhaustedinamere matterof centuriesatpresent ratesof use.If therest ofthe worldwere torise toAmerican standardsofpower consumption,and stillmore ifworld populationcontinues toincrease,theexhaustion offossilfuelswouldbeeven morerapid.The developmentof nuclearenergyhas improvedthis picture,but hasnot fundamentallyaltered it,at leastinpresent technologies,for fissionablematerial is still relativelyscarce.If weshouldachieve theeconomic useof energythrough fusion,of course,a muchlargersource ofenergy materialswouldbeavailable,which wouldexpand thetimehorizons ofsupplementary energyinputintoanopensocial systembyperhaps tensto hundredsof thousandsof years.Failing this,however,thetimeisnot very far distant,historically speaking,when manwill oncemore havetoretreat tohis currentenergyinputfrom tilesun,even thoughthis couldbe usedmuch more effectivelythan inthe pastwith increasedknowledge.Up tonow,certainly,we havenot gotveryfarwith thetechnology ofusing currentsolarenergy,but thepossibility ofsubstantial improvementsinthe future iscertainlyhigh.It maybe,indeed,that thebiological revolutionwhich isjust beginningwillproduce asolution tothis problem,as wedevelop artificialorganisms whicharecapable ofmuchmoreefficient transformationof solarenergy intoeasilyavailable formsthan anythatwenow have.As RichardMeier hassuggested,wemay runour machinesinthe future withmethane-producing algae.2The questionof whetherthereis anything correspondingto entropyin theinformationsystem isa puzzlingone,though ofgreat interest.There arecertainlymany examplesof socialsystems andcultures whichhave lostknowledge,especially intransitionfromone generationtothenext,andin whichtheculturehas thereforedegenerated.One onlyhas tolook at the folkculture ofAppalachianmigrants toAmerican citiesto seea culturewhich startedout asafairly richEuropean folkculture inElizabethan timesand whichseemsto havelost bothskills,adaptability,folk tales,songs,and almosteverything thatgoes uptomake richnessand complexityina culture,inthecourse ofabout tengenerations.The AmericanIndians onreservations provideanother exampleofsuch degradationoftheinformation andknowledge system.On theother hand,overagreat partofhumanhistory,the growth ofknowledge intheearthasawhole seemstohavebeen almostcontinuous,even thoughthere havebeen timesofrelatively slowgrowth andtimes ofrapid growth.As it is knowledgeof certainkindsthat producesthe growthofknowledgein general,wehavehereaverysubtle andcomplicated system,anditishardto putones fingerontheparticularelements inaculturewhich makeknowledge growmore orless rapidly,or evenwhichmake itdecline.One ofthe greatpuzzles inthisconnection,for instance,iswhy thetake-off intoscience,which representsan nacceleration/or anincrease intherate ofgrowthofknowledgeinEuropean societyinthesixteenth century,didnot takeplace inChina,which atthat timeabout1600was unquestionablyaheadof Europe,and onewould think even moreready forthe breakthrough.This isperhaps themost crucialquestion inthe theoryof socialdevelopment,yetwe mustconfess thatitisverylittleunderstood.Perhaps themost significantfactorinthisconnection isthe existence of,slack”intheculture,which permitsadivergence fromestablished patternsand activitywhich isnot merelydevoted toreproducingthe existingsociety butis devotedto changingit.China wasperhapstoo well-organized andhad toolittle slackinitssociety toproduce thekind ofaccelerationwhich wefind inthe somewhatpoorer andless well-organized butmorediverse societiesof Europe.The closedearth ofthe futurerequires economicprinciples whicharesomewhat differentfrom thoseoftheopen earthofthepast.For thesake ofpicturesqueness,I amtempted tocall theopen economythe cowboyeconomy/the cowboybeing symbolicoftheillimitable plainsand alsoassociated withreckless,exploitative,romantic,and violentbehavior,which ischaracteristic ofopensocieties.Tile closedeconomy ofthe futuremight similarlybe calledthespaceman economy,inwhichtheearthhas becomea singlespaceship,withoutunlimited reservoirs of anything,either forextraction orfor pollution,and inwhich,therefore,man mustfind hisplace ina cyclicalecological systemwhich iscapableof continuousreproduction ofmaterial formeven thoughit cannotescapehaving inputsofenergy.The differencebetween thetwo typesofeconomy becomesmost apparentintheattitude towardsconsumption.In thecowboyeconomy,consumption isregarded asa goodthing andproductionlikewise;and the success ofthe economy is measuredbytheamount oftilethroughput fromthe factorsofproduction/a partof which,at anyrate,isextracted fromthe reservoirsof raw materialsandnoneconomic objects,andanother partof whichis outputinto thereservoirsofpollution.If thereare infinitereservoirsfrom whichmaterial can be obtainedand intowhich effluviacan bedeposited,then thethroughput isat leasta plausiblemeasure ofthe successof theeconomy.The grossnational productisarough measureofthis total throughput.It shouldbe possible,however,to distinguishthat partoftheGNP whichisderived fromexhaustible and that whichis derivedfrom reproducibleresources,as wellas thatpartofconsumption whichrepresents effluviaand thatwhichrepresents inputintotheproductive systemagain.Nobody,as faras I know,hasever attemptedto breakdown theGNP inthis way,although itWould beaninteresting andextremely importantexercise,whichisunfortunately beyondthescope ofthis paper.By contrast,inthe spaceman economy,throughput isby nomeans adesideratum,and isindeed to be regarded as somethingtobeminimized ratherthanmaximized.The essentialmeasureofthesuccessoftheeconomyisnotproduction and consumption atall,but thenature,extent,quality,and complexityofthe totalcapitalstock,including inthis thestateofthehumanbodies andmindsincluded inthesystem.In thespaceman economy,what weare primarilyconcernedwith isstock maintenance,and anytechnological changewhichresults inthe maintenanceofagiven totalstock witha lessenedthroughput thatis,less productionand consumptionisclearlya gain.This ideathat bothproductionand consumptionare badthings ratherthan goodthings isverystrange toeconomists,who havebeen obsessedwith tileincome-flow conceptstothe exclusion,almost,ofcapital-stock concepts.There areactually somevery trickyand unsolvedproblems involvedin thequestionsas towhether humanwelfare orwell-being istoberegardedasa stockora flow.Something ofboth theseelements seemsactually tobe involvedinit,and as faras Iknowthere havebeen practicallyno studiesdirected towardsidentifyingthese twodimensions ofhuman satisfaction.Is it,for instance,eatingthat isa goodthing,or isit beingwell fedDoes economicwelfare involvehavingnice clothes,fine houses,good equipment,and soon,or isit tobemeasured bythe depreciationand thewearing outofthesethings Iam inclinedmyselfto regardthestockconcept asmost fundamental,that is,to thinkof beingwell fed asmore importantthan eating,andtothinkevenofso-called servicesasessentially involvingthe restorationofadepleting psychiccapital.Thus Ihaveargued thatwe gotoa concert inorder to restore apsychic conditionwhich mightbecalled”just havinggone toaconcert/which,once established,tends todepreciate.When itdepreciates beyondacertainpoint,we goto anotherconcertin ordertorestoreit.If itdepreciates rapidly,we gotoalot ofconcerts;if itdepreciatesslowly,we goto few.On thisview,similarly,we eatprimarily torestorebodily homeostasis,that is,to maintain a conditionof beingwellfed,andso on.On thisview,thereisnothing desirablein consumptionatall.The lessconsumptionwecanmaintainagiven statewith,the betteroff weare.If wehadclothes thatdidnotwear out,houses thatdidnotdepreciate,andeven ifwecouldmaintain ourbodily conditionwithout eating,we wouldclearly bemuch betteroff.It isthis lastconsideration,perhaps,which makesone pause.Would we,forinstance,really want an operationthat atwould enableus torestore allour bodilytissuesby intravenousfeeding whilewe sleptIs therenot,thatisto say,a certainvirtuein throughputitself,in activityitself,in productionandconsumption itself,in raisingfood andin eatingit Itwould certainly be rashto excludethispossibility.Further interestingproblems areraised bythe demandfor variety.We certainlydonotwantaconstant statetobemaintained;we wantfluctuationsin thestate.Otherwise therewouldbeno demandfor varietyin food,for varietyinscene,as intravel,for varietyin socialcontact,and soon.The demandforvariety can,of course,be costly,and sometimesit seemstobetoo costlyto betoleratedor at least legitimated,as intile caseof maritalpartners,where themaintenanceofahomeostatic stateinthefamily isusually regardedas muchmoredesirable thanthe varietyand excessivethroughput ofthe libertine.Thereare problemshere whichthe economicsprofession hasneglected withastonishingsinglemindedness.My ownattempts tocall attentionto someofthem,forinstance,in twoarticles,3as farasIcall judge,produced noresponsewhatever;and economistscontinue tothink andact asif production,consumption,throughput,andtheGNP werethe sufficientand adequatemeasureof economicsuccess.It maybe said,of course,why worry about allthis whenthe spacemaneconomyisstilla goodway offatleastbeyondthelifetimes ofany nowliving,so letus eat,drink,spend,extract andpollute,and beas merryaswecan,and letposterityworry aboutthespaceshipearth.It isalways alittle hardto findaconvincing answer totheman whosays,nWhat hasposterity everdone formenand theconservationist has always hadto fallback onrather vagueethicalprinciples postulatingidentity ofthe individualwith somehuman communityorsociety whichextends not only backintothepast butforward intothe future.Unless the individual identifieswith somecommunity ofthiskind,conservationis obviouslynirrational.n Whyshould wenot maximizethe welfare of thisgenerationatthecost ofposterity nApresnous,le delugen hasbeen themotto ofnotinsignificant numbersofhumansocieties.The onlyanswertothis,asfaras Icansee,istopoint outthat thewelfareoftheindividualdepends onthe extenttowhich hecan identifyhimself withothers,and thatthemostsatisfactoryindividual identityisthatwhich identifiesnotonlywithacommunity inspacebut alsowithacommunity extendingover timefromthepast intothe future.Ifthis kindof identityis recognizedas desirable,then posterityhasavoice,even ifitdoes nothave a vote;andina sense,if itsvoice caninfluence votes,ithasvotestoo.This wholeproblem islinked tipwith themuch largeroneofthedeterminants ofthe morale,legitimacy,and nerveofasociety,and thereis agreatdeal ofhistorical evidenceto suggestthatasociety whichloses itsidentitywith posterityand whichloses itspositive imageofthe future losesalso itscapacityto dealwith present problems,and soonfalls apart.4Even ifwe concedethat posterityis relevantto ourpresentproblems,westill facethe questionof time-discounting andthe closelyrelatedquestion ofuncertainty-discounting.It isa well-known phenomenonthatindividuals discountthefuture,evenintheir ownlives.The veryexistenceofapositive rateof interestmaybetaken asatleaststrong supportingevidence ofthishypothesis.If wediscount ourown future,itiscertainly notunreasonable todiscountposteritys futureeven more,evenifwe dogive posterityavote.If wediscountthis at5per centper annum,posteritys voteor dollarhalves everyfourteenyears aswe lookintothefuture,and aftereven amere hundredyears itispretty small--only about11/2cents onthe dollar.If weadd another5per centforuncertainty,eventhevote ofour grandchildrenreduces almosttoinsignificance.We canargue,of course,thattheethical thingtodoisnottodiscount thefuture atall,that time-discounting ismainly theresult ofmyopia andperspective,and henceisanillusion whichthe moralman should not tolerate.Itis avery popularillusion,however,and onethat mustcertainlybetaken intoconsiderationintheformulation ofpolicies.It explains,perhaps,whyconservationist policiesalmost havetobesold undersome otherexcuse whichseemsmore urgent,and why,indeed,necessities whichare visualizedas urgent,suchasdefense,always seemto holdpriority overthose whichinvolve thefuture.All theseconsiderations addsome credencetothepointofview whichsaysthat we shouldnotworryaboutthespacemaneconomy atall,andthatwe shouldjustgo onincreasing theGNP andindeedthegross worldproduct,or GWP,inthe expectationthatthe problemsofthefuturecanbeleft tothefuture,that whenscarcitiesarise,whether thisis ofrawmaterialsor ofpollutable reservoirs,theneeds ofthe thenpresent willdetermine thesolutions ofthe thenpresent,andthere isno usegiving ourselvesulcers byworrying aboutproblems thatwe reallydonothavetosolve.There iseven highethical authorityfor thispointofview intheNew Testament,which advocatesthatwe should takeno thoughtfortomorrow andlet thedead burytheir dead.There hasalways beensomethingrather refreshingintheview thatweshouldlive likethe birds,and perhapsposterityis forthe birdsin moresenses thanone;so perhapsweshouldall callita dayand goout andpollute somethingcheerfully.As anold takerof thoughtforthemorrow,however,I cannotquite acceptthissolution;andIwouldargue,furthermore,that tomorrowisnotonly veryclose,but inmany respectsitis already here.The shadowofthefuture spaceship,indeed,isalreadyfalling overour spendthriftmerriment.Oddly enough,it seemstobe inpollution ratherthan inexhaustion thattheproblemis firstbecomingsalient.Los Angeleshas runoutofair,Lake Eriehas becomea cesspool,theoceans aregetting fullof leadand DDT,andtheatmosphere maybecome manfsmajorproblem inanother generation,attherate atwhichweare fillingit upwithgunk.It is,of course,true thatatleastonitmicroscale,things havebeen worseattimes inthepast.The citiesof。