The Scientist's Role
It is
fashionable nowadays to say that Malthus was wrong, because he did not foresee
that improved methods of transportation can now guarantee that food surpluses
produced in one area shall be quickly and cheaply transferred to another, where
there is a shortage. But first of all, modern transportation methods break down
whenever the power politicians resort to modern war, and even when the fighting
stops they are apt to remain disrupted long enough to guarantee the starvation
of millions of persons. And, secondly, no country in which population has
outstripped the local food supply can, under present conditions, establish a
claim on the surpluses of other countries without paying for them in cash or
exports. Great Britain and the other countries in western Europe, which cannot
feed their dense populations, have been able, in times of peace, to pay for the
food they imported by means of the export of manufactured goods. But
industrially backward India and China — countries in which Malthus' nightmare
has come true with a vengeance and on the largest scale — produce few
manufactured goods, consequently lack the means to buy from underpopulated
areas the food they need. But when and if they develop mass-producing
industries to the point at which they are able to export enough to pay for the
food their rapidly expanding populations require, what will be the effect upon
world trade and international politics? Japan had to export manufactured goods
in order to pay for the food that could not be produced on the overcrowded home
islands. Goods produced by workers with a low standard of living came into
competition with goods produced by the better paid workers of the West, and
undersold them. The West's retort was political and consisted of the imposition
of high tariffs, quotas and embargoes. To these restrictions on her trade
Japan's answer was the plan for creating a vast Asiatic empire at the expense
of China and of the Western imperialist powers. The result was war. What will
happen when India and China are as highly industrialized as prewar Japan and
seek to exchange their low-priced manufactured goods for food, in competition
with Western powers, whose standard of living is a great deal higher than
theirs? Nobody can foretell the future; but undoubtedly the rapid industrialization
of Asia (with equipment, let it be remembered, of the very latest and best
postwar design) is pregnant with the most dangerous possibilities.
It is
at this point that internationally organized scientists and technicians might
contribute greatly to the cause of peace by planning a world-wide campaign, not
merely for greater food production, but also (and this is the really important
point) for regional self-sufficiency in food production. Greater food
production can be obtained relatively easily by the opening up of the earth's
vast subarctic regions at present almost completely sterile. Spectacular
progress has recently been made in this direction by the agricultural
scientists of the Soviet Union; and presumably what can be done in Siberia can
also be done in northern Canada. Powerful ice-breakers are already being used
to solve the problems of transportation by sea and river; and perhaps
commercial submarines, specially equipped for traveling under the ice may in
the future insure a regular service between arctic ports and the rest of the
world. Any increase of the world's too scanty food supply is to be welcomed.
But our rejoicings must be tempered by two considerations. First, the surpluses
of food produced by the still hypothetical arctic granaries of Siberia and
Canada will have to be transferred by ship, plane and rail to the overpopulated
areas of the world. This means that no supplies would be available in wartime.
Second, possession of food-producing arctic areas constitutes a natural
monopoly, and this natural monopoly will not, as in the past, be in the hands
of politically weak nations, such as Argentina and Australia, but will be
controlled by the two great power systems of the postwar period — the Russian
power system and the Anglo-American power system. That their monopolies of food
surpluses will be used as weapons in the game of power politics seems more than
probable. "Lead us not into temptation." The opening up of the Arctic
will be undoubtedly a great good. But it will also be a great temptation for
the power politicians — a temptation to exploit a natural monopoly in order to
gain influence and finally control over hitherto independent countries, in
which population has outstripped the food supply.
It
would seem, then, that any scientific and technological campaign aimed at the
fostering of international peace and political and personal liberty must, if it
is to succeed, increase the total planetary food supply by increasing the
various regional supplies to the point of self-sufficiency. Recent history
makes it abundantly clear that nations, as at present constituted, are quite
unfit to have extensive commercial dealings with one another. International
trade has always, hitherto, gone hand in hand with war, imperialism and the
ruthless exploitation of industrially backward peoples by the highly
industrialized powers. Hence the desirability of reducing international trade
to a minimum, until such time as nationalist passions lose their intensity and
it becomes possible to establish some form of world government. As a first step
in this direction, scientific and technical means must be found for making it
possible for even the most densely populated countries to feed their
inhabitants. The improvement of existing food plants and domestic animals; the
acclimatization in hitherto inhospitable regions of plants that have proved
useful elsewhere; the reduction of the present enormous wastes of food by the
improvement of insect controls and the multiplication of refrigerating units; the
more systematic exploitation of seas and lakes as sources of food; the
development of entirely new foods, such as edible yeasts; the synthesizing of
sugars as a food for such edible yeasts; the synthesizing of chlorophyll so as
to make direct use of solar energy in food production — these are a few of the
lines along which important advances might be made in a relatively short time.
Hardly
less important than regional self-sufficiency in food is self-sufficiency in
power for industry, agriculture and transportation. One of the contributing
causes of recent wars has been international competition for the world's
strictly localized sources of petroleum, and the current jockeying for position
in the Middle East, where all the surviving great powers have staked out claims
to Persian, Mesopotamian and Arabian oil, bodes ill for the future. Organized
science could diminish these temptations to armed conflict by finding means for
providing all countries, whatever their natural resources, with a sufficiency
of power. Water power has already been pretty well exploited. Besides, over
large areas of the earth's surface there are no mountains and therefore no
sources of hydroelectric power. But across the plains where water stands almost
still, the air often moves in strong and regular currents. Small windmills have
been turning for centuries; but the use of large-scale wind turbines is still,
strangely enough, only in the experimental stage. Until recently the direct use
of solar power has been impracticable, owing to the technical difficulty of
constructing suitable reflectors. A few months ago, however, it was announced
that Russian engineers had developed a cheap and simple method for constructing
paraboloid mirrors of large size, capable of producing superheated steam and
even of melting iron. This discovery could be made to contribute very greatly
to the decentralization of production and population and the creation of a new
type of agrarian society making use of cheap and inexhaustible power for the
benefit of individual small holders or self-governing, co-operative groups. For
the peoples of such tropical countries as India and Africa the new device for
directly harnessing solar power should be of enormous and enduring benefit —
unless, of course, those at present possessing economic and political power
should choose to build mass-producing factories around enormous mirrors, thus
perverting the invention to their own centralistic purposes, instead of
encouraging its small-scale use for the benefit of individuals and village
communities. The technicians of solar power will be confronted with a clear-cut
choice. They can work either for the completer enslavement of the industrially
backward peoples of the tropics, or for their progressive liberation from the
twin curses of poverty and servitude to political and economic bosses.
The
storage of the potentialities of power is almost as important as the production
of power. One of the most urgent tasks before applied science is the
development of some portable source of power to replace petroleum — a most
undesirable fuel from the political point of view, since deposits of it are
rare and unevenly distributed over the earth's surface, thus constituting
natural monopolies which, when in the hands of strong nations, are used to
increase their strength at the expense of their neighbors and, when possessed
by weak ones, are coveted by the strong and constitute almost irresistible
temptations to imperialism and war. From the political and human point of view,
the most desirable substitute for petroleum would be an efficient battery for
storing the electric power produced by water, wind or the sun. Further research
into atomic structure may perhaps suggest new methods for the construction of
such a battery.
Meanwhile
it is possible that means may be devised, within the next few years, for
applying atomic energy to the purposes of peace, as it is now being applied to
those of war. Would not this technological development solve the whole problem
of power for industry and transportation? The answer to this question may turn
out to be simultaneously affirmative and negative. The problems of power may
indeed be solved — but solved in the wrong way, by which I mean in a way
favorable to centralization and the ruling minority, not for the benefit of
individuals and co-operative, self-governing groups. If the raw material of
atomic energy must be sought in radioactive deposits, occurring sporadically,
here and there, over the earth's surface, then we have natural monopoly with
all its undesirable political consequences, all its temptations to power
politics, war, imperialistic aggression and exploitation. But of course it is
always possible that other methods of releasing atomic energy may be discovered
— methods that will not involve the use of uranium. In this case there will be
no natural monopoly. But the process of releasing atomic energy will always be
a very difficult and complicated affair, to be accomplished only on the largest
scale and in the most elaborately equipped factories. Furthermore, whatever
political agreements may be made, the fact that atomic energy possesses unique
destructive potentialities will always constitute a temptation to the boy
gangster who lurks within every patriotic nationalist. And even if a world
government should be set up within a fairly short space of time, this will not
necessarily guarantee peace. The Pax Romana was a very uneasy affair, troubled
at almost every imperial death by civil strife over the question of succession.
So long as the lust for power persists as a human trait — and in persons of a
certain kind of physique and temperament this lust is over-masteringly strong —
no political arrangement, however well contrived, can guarantee peace. For such
men the instruments of violence are as fearfully tempting as are, to others,
the bodies of women. Of all instruments of violence, those powered by atomic
energy are the most decisively destructive; and for power lovers, even under a
system of world government, the temptation to resort to these all too simple
and effective means for gratifying their lust will be great indeed. In view of
all this, we must conclude that atomic energy is, and for a long time is likely
to remain, a source of industrial power that is, politically and humanly
speaking, in the highest degree undesirable.
It is
not necessary in this place, nor am I competent, to enter any further into the
hypothetical policy of internationally organized science. If that policy is to
make a real contribution toward the maintenance of peace and the spread of
political and personal liberty, it must be patterned throughout along the
decentralist lines laid down in the preceding discussion of the two basic
problems of food and power. Will scientists and technicians collaborate to
formulate and pursue some such policy as that which has been adumbrated here?
Or will they permit themselves, as they have done only too often in the past,
to become the conscious or unconscious instruments of militarists, imperialists
and a ruling oligarchy of capitalistic or governmental bosses? Time alone will
show. Meanwhile, it is to be hoped that all concerned will carefully consider a
suggestion made by Dr. Gene Weltfish in the September, 1945, issue of the Scientific
Monthly. Before embarking upon practice, all physicians swear a
professional oath — the oath of Hippocrates — that they will not take improper
advantage of their position, but always remember their responsibilities toward
suffering humanity. Technicians and scientists, proposes Dr. Weltfish, should
take a similar oath in some such words as the following: "I pledge myself
that I will use my knowledge for the good of humanity and against the
destructive forces of the world and the ruthless intent of men; and that I will
work together with my fellow scientists of whatever nation, creed or color for
these our common ends."
(From Science, Liberty and Peace)
