Graduation Address

"Know Your Times" (17 May 1973). (UA Case 67, Box 2)

President Anderson, Distinguished Guests, Friends of the University, and particularly, Members of the Graduating Class. This Encaenia and Commencement will remain for you a memorable occasion. It is a vantage point for looking backward and looking forward. It is a happy and joyous occasion. Warm congratulations and the highest commendation are due to the members of the graduating class for your accomplishment. I would also like to congratulate your parents, for in every case it required effort and sacrifice of some degree to see you through this day. And incidentally, welcome to the Establishment.

What does one of my generation say to your generation which would be meaningful and helpful in the days ahead? At my Commencement in 1926, the speaker was able to hold forth the prospect of a limitless future of "bigger and better." The world was surely our oyster and we were eager to open it and swallow it. But as an example of how imperfectly the future can be predicted, including anything I might say today, within three years we found ourselves in the worst depression my country has ever known, and within 13 years into World War II. From the evidence since that time, I am not al all convinced that "bigger makes better."

So I decided to talk to you today about two problems to which I have been devoting attention for many years and which I think will have a priority status for you in the period ahead. There are the prevention of nuclear war and the stabilization of population growth. My interest in the second grew out of the first, since the pressure of population could trigger World War III.

As a result of my own experiences in World War II, I decided to do what I could to help prevent the next one since I concluded that there must surely be a better way to settle our conflicts. My studies brought me in contact with the cyclical historians – the Italian Vico, the German Oswald Spengler, and the British Arnold Toynbee. I know that their conclusions are not accepted by many professional historians, but they were both helpful and fascinating to me. It you are not already familiar with them, I commend them to you. Their contribution is that history should be studied as a comparison of civilizations rather than as a progression of names, dates and places. Spengler identified six civilizations – Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Classical (a combination of Greece and Rome), Arabian and Western. By listing the origins of each of these six civilizations on the same line and setting forth their major political, cultural and spiritual events chronologically in parallel columns, he identified a spring, a summer, autumn and winter for the earlier five civilizations. He believe that only Western is today alive, dynamic and creative, and by comparing Western with the other five endeavored to predict Western possibilities for its remaining life.

In the 30 years which intervened between the publications of Spengler and Toynbee, such strides were made in archaeological and anthropological discoveries that Toynbee was able to identify 29 civilizations of which he designated 12 as dead, eight in the last stages of disintegration, three abortive, five arrested, and only Western as alive, dynamic, historic and creative. In this analysis of these various civilizations, Toynbee found that those which had died did so because they were incapable of making a successful response to some overwhelming challenge which had confronted them. Of these challenges, ranging from climatic changes to land erosion, the most frequent one was incessant warfare among the leading nation states of the civilization. He states that war is the primary challenge of Western Civilization because of its heavy toll upon the intellectual and creative leadership of each nation, constituting a fraction of 1 per cent of the population, without which the rest of society cannot function. He concludes that if the West can make a successful response to this recurring challenge of war, there is no reason why it cannot go on indefinitely. If it cannot, he implies Western Civilization must eventually go the way of all its predecessors.

The major civilizations appear to have a life span of approximately 1,500 to 1,700 years. For example, the one most familiar to us – Classical – began in the Aegean Islands about 1,100 B.C. and ended with the fall of Rome in 450 A.D. If Western is considered to have begun with Charlemagne around 840 A.D., then it is some 1,100 years into its progression. The point of this is to realize that you will be living the productive years of your life not in the springtime or the summer of your civilization, but in the late fall or early winter. This early winter encompasses a period of some 200 years which Spengler called "The era of contending states and annihilating wars" and Toynbee termed "The Times of Troubles." If this period began for the West, as these historians suggest, with Napoleon in 1800, then the likelihood is that your generation and the next will have to see it through.

In trying to pinpoint the analogy more precisely with the Graeco-Roman civilization which I admit can be nothing more than a pleasant exercise or game because of the differences of conditions, I have postulated that we are somewhere between the Second and the Third Punic War – 200 to 150 B.C. The Third Punic War, which ended with the complete destruction and obliteration of Carthage in 146 B.C., removed Rome’s most serious rival and paved the way for its final domination of the Mediterranean world. A review of this sordid chapter in Roman history leads to two observations: if future wars cannot be prevented, particularly with the nuclear weapons which are now in our armaments, for goodness’ sake let’s not lose them; and second, only the victors write the history. Possibly before the year 2,000 A.D., when you and your contemporaries in the United States and Europe are in positions of command and decision-making, you may have to help determine the question – Who is going to be Rome and who is going the be Carthage in our day? Will the balance of Western Civilization continue to be run by peoples of the Atlantic democracies or by the dictatorships of the East? Before that time you will have to determine your own positions on what I regard as the basic issues: freedom versus tyranny; does the state exist for man or does man exist for the state; and freedom of religion versus worship of the state.

It comes as something of a shock to a person who flies from New York to Los Angeles and observes vast areas of open land to learn that competent observers consider the United States to be overpopulated. But the point is that people do not want to live in the mountains, in the deserts or on the abandoned farms. And to support the burgeoning populations of the great cities, a vast hinterland of open land is needed for agriculture, mining, manufacturing and recreation. Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist and ecologist, has stated that the optimum population for the United States for quality living in relation to our natural resources, and particularly water to wash away enormous industrial and human wastes, is 150,000,000 people. The May 1973 population is 210,000,000. At current growth rates we are well on our way to 230,000,000 people by 1985. Predictably, these warnings of ecologists and demographers were either ignored or ridiculed, but the first signs of the energy crisis in 1972 produced some sobering reactions, as does the realization that out of 36 important raw materials, the United States is sufficient only in 10, and must now import each year certain percentages of 26 others.

As for the underdeveloped countries, the outlook is grim. Over many years, Western science has intervened to lower the death rate. Simultaneously, it has not intervened to lower the birth rate. Massive death control – worldwide – has not been offset by massive birth control. Death control is popular, birth control is unpopular. As a result, the exponential growth of populations at 2 per cent per annum world wide is now so rapid that many demographers predict that the world’s three and one half billion humans will multiply to seven billion by the year 2,000. In my own opinion, long before such numbers are reached, the misery and chaos will be such that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, death, war, famine and plague, will combine to reduce and limit these populations to new viable numbers. How ironic such a solution would be to the promise of our vaunted science and technology!

So why not utilize our science and technology to prevent these disasters? Only during the past decade have family planning programmes gained acceptance in many of the over-populated areas of the world. But we are also learning that family planning is not the answer, because many couples do not begin to plan their families until after they have already had three or more children; by which time the damage has been done. The administrators of our AID programmes have learned that it does little good to dispense contraceptives to people who do not have the incentive or the knowledge to use them. And how does one create incentives among peoples largely illiterate and where pro-natalist customs are ingrained in the cultural heritage? The answer is tragically, we do not yet know how to stabilize populations anywhere and neither are they being stabilized anywhere.

From the standpoint of these population pressures triggering future war, I would give as my opinion that the war which began with the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a population war. In recent years, I believe a good case can be made that such pressures were also a basic cause of the conflicts between Egypt-Israel in 1967, Honduras-El Salvador in 1969, and Bangladesh in 1972. From the standpoint of diplomacy, I would think that in the next 50 years the North-South confrontation between the developed areas may rival that between East and West. In the United States, there is a growing body of informed opinion which believes that overpopulation is the fundamental cause of our unemployment, inflations, pollution, and many of our social problems.

One of the most dramatic events to aid in the growing realization and understanding of this world dilemma, was the publication in early 1972 of The Limits to Growth by a team of MIT scientists. As many of you know, this pioneering study was commissioned by the Club of Rome, a group of some 70 citizens of 25 nationalities, who share a deep concern regarding the current predicament of mankind. The human mind is a good computer, but it can ordinarily handle only one or two variables. In The Limits to Growth the MIT team was interested in the constant interaction of five variables: populations, food per capita, industrial output per capita, depletion of non-renewable resources, and pollution. They gathered known world data on these five subjects and fed them into a global computer model. In every doubtful case the most optimistic estimate was made of unknown quantities and the model was constantly biased to longer growth than would probably ever occur in the real world. Nevertheless, no matter how there variables were combined, the behavior mode of the system is clearly that of overshoot and collapse, permitting the investigators to say with confidence, "Under the assumption of no major changes in the present system, population and industrial growth will be compelled to stop within the next century, at the latest."

The study assuredly struck some raw nerve of the scientific and academic community, particularly among the Keynesian economists, for a veritable torrent of criticism arose. This has been most valuable for it has created tremendous interest, caused the book to be translated into many languages and initiated a world-wide dialogue. The criticisms have been tabulated and answered by Dr. Aurelio Peccei of the Club of Rome at the request of the Council of Europe. Numerous computer projects have been undertaken to test the findings of The Limits to Growth on a regional and national basis.

Although the sponsors of The Limits to Growth go to considerable lengths to point out that they are not attempting to predict the future and that they do no advocate immediate zero growth, I hope you will follow the conclusions and the continuing dialogue carefully – for the results are applicable not in the wild blue yonder but to your lifetimes and certainly will be to the life spans of your children.

If by now you have come to the conclusion that I am forecasting for you a pessimistic and dismal future, such is not the case. In the same sense that Socrates advised, "Know Thyself," I would say to you "Know the time into which you have been born, what is possible and what is not possible." Certainly you have not been born into the springtime of Western Civilization, when the spiritual forces were so strong that men laboured gladly for 50 years to build magnificent Gothic cathedrals and in later centuries slaughtered opposing sects by droves in wars of religious zeal. This was the time of great painting during the Renaissance - Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael; of Shakespeare; late of music – Beethoven, Mozart. A new genius may appear tomorrow to surpass them, but the odds are against it. The fall and winter are the time of science and technology, and the congregation of people into the great cities in formless mass. It is no more dismal for a civilization to grow old and fulfill its destiny than it is for a man to be born, grow to manhood and old age and die. If you understand the times into which you were born – its possibilities and its limitations – there is no reason why you cannot live as happy a life as that of any previous generation.

I would like to conclude these remarks with the suggestion that there are solutions to the two major problems of war and exponential growth. These solutions will require new ways of thinking, discipline and responsibility, and will test whether our free institutions can survive.

As to preventing future war, pose the questions: If in 1938 the United States, Canada, Britain and France had been able to form a military alliance, would Hitler have marched? The answer invariably given by political scientists, generals and politicians has been that he would not. In other words, World War II was preventable, it did not have to happen. After the event, and after spilling much blood and treasure, and in the face of another similar threat, we and others who recognized that threat finally formed the military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in 1949.

After 24 years, however, it is becoming evident that as the threat is relaxed, the cement of the Alliance is beginning to loosen. If we wish to develop the common policies in defense, foreign affairs and economics that are required for instantaneous response and credibility in a nuclear age, then it is also becoming evident that a political mechanism must be injected into the NATO structure that will make consultation automatic and permit decisions to be taken without delay. The key is how to obtain adequate and fair representation for all partners in accordance with their populations and strength. On April 23, President Nixon’s National Security Advisor called for "a new Atlantic Charter" and "a new structure of international relations," and said, "A revitalized Atlantic Partnership is indispensable for it."

Canadian statesmen made a most constructive contribution in the formation of NATO in 1949 and had much to do with the inclusion of Article 2 of the Treaty which provides the great hope for its evolution. I am sure they will again be responsive and creative in the course of the restudy of the Atlantic relationship which the President has proposed. The important point for all the NATO countries is that peace, like all desirable commodities, and which everyone says he wants, has a price. The price in this instance is sharing. Will we, as the sovereign citizens of our democracies, be willing to pay this price of peace in the days ahead? If so, World War III is preventable.

The authors of The Limits to Growth concluded that man can create a society in which he can live indefinitely on earth, but only if he imposes limits on population growth and production of material goods to achieve a carefully selected state of global "equilibrium." Population should be stabilized by equalizing the birth and death rates. As one who made numerous speeches during the 1960’s stating that exponential growth of population would not be good for business, I welcomed the conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future that "We have not found any convincing argument for continued national population growth. The health of our economy does not depend on it, nor does the prosperity of business or the welfare of the average person." To halt industrial growth, investment in new non-polluting plants must not exceed the retirement of old facilities. Instead of yearning for material goods, people must learn to prefer services like education and recreation. All possible resources must be recycled, including the composting of organic garbage. Products like automobiles and TV sets must be designed to last long and be repaired easily.

The result is pictured as a sort of Utopia – not the stagnation of civilization. "A society released from struggling with the many problems imposed by growth may have more energy and ingenuity available to devote to research, education, art, music, religion, recreation, athletics." The emphasis would shift over a period of time from quantity to quality in all things. Quantity is easy; quality is difficult. What a stimulating challenge this would provide to your own and succeeding generations!

It should be apparent to all who think that exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite world of limited resources. Eventually growth will have to come to a halt. If, therefore, by bringing the birth rate down to equal the new lower death rate, your generation could achieve an orderly conscious transition to equilibrium by the year 2,000, and simultaneously achieve such political, economic, and military strengths within the framework of NATO that no power or combination of powers would dare to attack it, you will have made successful responses to the challenges of war and growth that face your times and generation. If you can thus come safely through your Time of Troubles you and your children can look forward to a Post-Industrial Society such as man never before experienced – a magnificent, new Golden Age.

With the great creative accomplishments of Western Civilization to date – in art, literature, mathematics, science, space, the dignity of man – I have always hoped that Western Civilization might end by making a small quantum jump over all its predecessors in man’s relation to man. So that when future archaeologists dig us up several thousand years from now they would write: "We discovered a people who were able to live more in harmony with each other and with nature than all those who went before." I leave with you this challenging and noble prospect.