- Email: [email protected]
The future of technological civilization
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 8,101-l
101
11 (1975)
Book Reviews Russell L. Ackoff, Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 1974, 260 pp., $10.95. Victor Ferkiss, The Future of Technological Civilization, George Braziller Inc., N.Y., 1974, 369 pp., $12.50. Erich Jantsch, Design for Evolution, George Braziller, Inc., N.Y., 1975, 322 pp., $9.95 cloth, $5.95 paper. Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future, George Braziller, Inc., N.Y., 1974, 238 pp., $8.95 cloth, $3.95 paper. These four books, all by prestigious names in systems and/or futures research, not only present a remarkably broad spectrum of thought, but also a surprisingly wide gamut of quality. Jantsch is brilliant, Laszlo and Ferkiss are stimulating, and Ackoff qualifies for the annual “Futures-Book-the-Present-Can-Best-Do-Without” Award. The last is an all-around embarrassment. When we cannot even design our future, Ackoff already has the hubris to redesign it! As the machine age produced the Industrial Revolution, the new “Systems Age” is producing the Post-Industrial Revolution. This glib promotion makes the systems scientist the direct descendant of the medicine man of the American West a hundred years ago. His elixir today has exciting ingredients: cybernetics, management and policy sciences, systems engineering, and operations research. The perceptive lay reader-the book is meant for a general audience-may see through this conceit, but many will succumb to the sales pitch. Ackoff begins the “general” portion of the book by applying new labels-always effective one-upmanship. Planners are of four kinds: inactivists who do not really believe in planning, reactivists who concentrate on correcting deviations from the accepted standard, preactivists who base planning on trend extrapolation, and interactivists who normatively search for, and design, new futures. The last represent the “new” kind of planning for the Post-Industrial Revolution. This superficial discussion never suggests the difficulties laid bare by Ackoff’s colleague Hasan Ozbekhan in Perspectives of Planning or by Donald Michael in his recent book, Learning to Plan-and
Planning to Learn.
The second part, the “particulars,” provides a very non-systemic discussion of Ackoff’s views on subjects ranging from education and race to transportation and solid waste. Not surprisingly, the author’s favorite solution, usually quite conventionally upper middle class, in each case is defined as the “interactivist” one. There is no legitimate discussion of alternatives or of disbenefits associated with the preferred solution. There are, to be sure, some worthwhile ideas in these sketches. The best section is the description of blackwhite relations involving the University of Pennsylvania Management and Behavioral Science Center and its adjacent Mantua ghetto area. More representative of the general quality is the chapter on crime. The reactive approach is identified with punishment of the criminal, the preactive approach with correction of the criminal, and the interactive with correction of society. One is reminded here of Ken Boulding’s perceptive comment: in the old days we blamed ourselves for any failure-now we blame others. The trend is evident not only in crime but in medicine (malpractice suits), business (improper governmental support), and education (failure of schools rather than students). 0 American
Elsevier Publishing
Company,
Inc., 1975
102
BOOK REVIEWS
Perhaps the saddest chapter is the one on solid waste. Ackoff begins by attacking the ban on non-returnable bottles and cans. His arguments: (1) If returnable bottles were used exclusively, the weight of the contribution to solid waste of beverage containers may increase; (2) reusable bottles are frequently not returned; and (3) “by reducing consumption of soft drinks and beer, it could easily result in reduction of revenues to governments in excess of the cost of effectively collecting and disposing of all solid wastes generated by these beverages.” No mention is made of the more obvious implication of reduced consumption-lower profits to breweries and soft drink manufacturers. There is also no mention of reasonable alternatives such as separation of containers at the household level as currently being done in several areas (see Compost Science, Vol. 16, No. 1). Nor is the significant research of Harmon at the University of Illinois on the economics and energetics of returnable and non-returnable beverage containers considered. Ackoff’s discussion will strike most readers as peculiarly selective at best. Incidentally, one of the individuals to whom the book is dedicated-a dubious honor-is August A. Busch of the Anheuser-Busch Brewery! Thus the author unintentionally undermines the credibility of several of his valuable points, such as the suggestion of a disposal tax and longer lifetime for products. In sum, we should assume that this book represents an isolated misstep of this distinguished and highly respected systems scientist. After all, Shakespeare was entitled to “Titus Andronicus” and Puccini to “Suor Angelica”! An entirely different systems oriented look at the future is that of Ervin Laszlo. His book might be called a general systems theorist’s response to the Club of Rome early warning reports (“The Limits to Growth” and “Mankind at the Turning Point”). This fascinating work presents the schematic of a regulatory mechanism applied at the global level to avert the catastrophic world system behavior envisioned by the Club’s studies. Laszlo’s concept of a “world homeostat system” rests on the idea that control in the cybernetic sense is mandatory in an organic, dynamically stable system. The proposed central guidance system is not to be confused with a world government; it is confined to the most critical areas which must be addressed globally, e.g., world population and world ecological balance. Laszlo outlines a three-phase approach which encompasses a 50 year period. Phase 1 concerns the raising of world-system consciousness through widespread discussion of current issues and practices. The key disseminators in this ten year effort are not only academics but students, corporations, and foundations. Phase 2 initiates action in the form of a continuous information flow on world-order issues and creation of an effective political participatory process through multilevel in deliberate analogy to response mechanisms. Laszlo calls this process “ecofeedback” biofeedback and views it as a method to permit people to respond to factual information relevant to their joint future, adapting their aims to the realities of the world situation. A hierarchical information structure extends from the local neighborhood (town-hall meetings) to the global level. Messages communicated through this structure indicate the differential between actual and normative values for any given subsystem. This process should be completed in the 1990’s. In Phase 3 the World Homeostat System becomes a reality as global self-regulation is institutionalized. Laszlo’s system concept uses two transmission lines, with information flow and energy flow controlled by a regulator. On the information side “sensors” monitor world population, ecology, economy, and security. The “correlator” which stores and processes the information is the main administrative body of the system, the
BOOK REVIEWS
103
Council of Principals. On the energy side the World Revenue Service acts as the “receptor” for a flow of funds from governments, corporations, and individuals. The World Treasury serves as “accumulator” and thus becomes the key to implementation of decisions. The “regulator” or central decisionmaking body is the Optimum-State Steering Committee; it interacts with the “correlator” and the “accumulator”. The operational arm or “effector” is an entity termed World Executive Services; it carries out decisions of the Optimum-State Steering Committee with funds from the World Treasury and information from the Council of Principals. There are separate operational units responsible for Ecological Balance, Population Control, World Economics System, and World Security Forces, all coordinated by an Implementing Board. The whole system should be in operation by 2020. The World Homeostat System is not a precise and practical blueprint, but rather a general systems theorist’s image of a process and structure utopia. This in no way diminishes its value. We need bold normative thinking today which moves us constructively beyond the early warning “doomsday” extrapolations. There are some intriguing connections which come to mind in reading Laszlo. Calhoun’ builds on his experiments with mice to suggest that man has entered 50 years of crisis (197@2020) in which he must decide his future course-uncontrolled population leading to senescence or death of the species, constant population and stagnation, or declining population with continual human evolution. This “decide” era is almost precisely that needed for the implementation of the World Homeostat System. Further, Calhoun’s experiments on space and the strategy of life lead him to construct the evolution of appropriate socio-political units as a function of population during man’s presence on the earth. The result: a single world unit or brain is reached at about the same time as Laszlo’s World Homeostat System.’ We also recall that the extrapolative studies by von Foerster3 and Meyer and Vallee4 of historical population data independently yielded strikingly similar dates for infinite world population (2025, 2026). Again the criticality of the next 50 years is underscored. There are obvious limitations to Laszlo’s general systems approach. The totally rational framework assumed for system design is perhaps most serious. Laszlo is still too much under the spell of John Locke and his disciples whose God is rationality. His concept would require staggering reorientations: considerable surrender of national sovereignty by all nations; an ability to steer the new system clear of becoming the ultimate bureaucracy to enforce a dismal stasis and shackle the evolution of the human mind; finally, a shift in the Western world away from the liberal philosophy which encouraged individual self-aggrandizement through material gain achieved by economic growth. This brings us to Victor Ferkiss’ vision of the future. His perspective is that of political philosophy rather than systems science and he begins by focusing on John Locke. Prior to the Age of Locke social stability, religious cohesion, and economic control were the norm. In the eighteenth century rationality, reason, free enterprise, and technology in the ’ John B. Calhoun “RxEVOLUTION, Tribalism, and the Cheshire Cat: Three Paths from Now,” this Journal, Vol. 4 (1973), pp. 263-282. The Use of * John B. Calhoun, “Space and the Strategy of Life,” m Behavior and Environment: Space by Animals and Mart, Plenum Press, N.Y. 3 H. van Foerster, P. M. Mora, and L. W. Amiot, “Doomsday: Friday 13, November, A.D. 2026,” Science, 132: 1291-1295, 1960. this Journal, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 4 F. Meyer and J. Vallee, “The Dynamics of Long-Term Growth,” 285-300.
104
BOOK REVIEWS
pursuit of man’s material happiness became the central elements of liberalism.5 The Declaration of Independence strongly reflected this philosophy and thus gave America a running start in the direction of the new age. “The business of America is business,” “Winning counts, not how the game is played,” “Fly now-pay later,” are all characteristic of the Liberal Era. The first cracks in the foundation came with the depression, requiring government action and control, and World War II, establishing the government as vital entrepreneur (military-industrial complex and space program). Technology itself created other cracks. Perhaps the least understood consequence of technology (specifically nuclear weapons and communications) has been the gift of God-like power to destroy mankind to one or a few human individuals, e.g., the U.S. President. A better understood effect has been the population explosion and attendant scarcity of resources to support it. Ferkiss’ normative answer is Ecological Humanism. Built on ideas described in his earlier book, TechnoZogicaZMa?z, the concept is based on three elements: naturalism-man is a part of nature and not its conqueror, holism-there is a single “global” system, and immanentism-any change process must emerge from within and cannot be blueprinted in advance. Hence ecological humanism is a political philosophy that eschews concentration on man-man relationships. It thus draws away from the Judeo-Christian call for man to “subdue the ends of the earth” and toward the allegedly “primitive” religions in which nature is an object of piety. Man must live in an ecological relationship with nature and with other men. Humanism to Ferkiss represents man’s will and judgment expressed through political action, specifically the freedom to move up the Maslow hierarchy without undue constraint by abstract forces. At present such forces are particularly evident in economic and technological determinism: economic growth is considered to be the only means to enhance the sense of equality and technology has prescribed our living style (suburbia, nuclear family, privacy, crime). Like Laszlo, Ferkiss sees no alternative to governmental control. With Heilbroner, he considers a new economics essential. Among its ingredients: no “free” goods, a break in positive feedback loops (growth feeding on growth), and land use planning. In discussing how to get from here to there, we again find considerable agreement between Ferkiss and Laszlo: first, a switch of allegiance by intellectuals (from liberalism to ecological humanism); second, gradual reform without violence; third, movement toward a world political order where the global common good is involved. It should be stressed that Ferkiss does not equate these trends with either loss of all personal freedorn, authoritarianism, or global cultural homogeneity. We also note that the reliance on international solutions is questioned by many. Jay Forrester argued against this approach in his recent speech at the World Future Society Assembly.’ Obviously many questions are raised. With the emphasis on political action, there are implicit some very hazardous asuumption-(a) the existence of intelligent and wise political leadership, (b) a new holistic belief system for all human beings, and (c) the feasibility of non-violent revolution. As an ironic aside we recall that even Richard Nixon called for a “New American Revolution” in one of the many short-lived image formulations during his Presidency. Only a pathological optimist would see these as achievable with reasonable likelihood. If the changes are to be non-violent, how can they occur with is actually closer to the classical definition of liberalism ’ Today’s “conservatism” “liberalism”, which would be better understood as neo-liberalism by John Locke. 6 Cf. Report on the Assembly in this Journal (vol. 7, No. 4).
than today’s
BOOK REVIEWS
105
sufficient speed? Irish history and the post-Civil War era in the American South both illustrate the exceedingly long time needed to alter strongly held views (in this context liberalism). It is far easier to construct scenarios that proliferate mismanagement until the situation is overripe, and then burst into violent revolutions. Questions such as these in no way detract from the Laszlo and Ferkiss visions. As Boulding has observed, the American Revolution was preceded by years of tough, intensive debate on normative political futures. Now at the time of our Bicentennial, there is again a glaring need for such discussion. Today’s technology, particularly the most important medium of television, discourages meaningful debate. In this desert of normative thinking, the efforts of Laszlo and Ferkiss with all their faults are precious lonely flowers which deserve attention. Jantsch takes us on a unique journey-the systems analyst probing the world beyond rational modeling, moving from the “know how” to the “know what” (goal formulation) to the “know where”: the design of dynamically evolving systems and processes. He is concerned not merely with the process of change but the order of the process, i.e., evolution. There is none of the usual defense of the traditional scientific approach. With Churchman’s Singerian inquirer, Jantsch takes seriously all modes of holistic insight: paradigms of physical and social science, artistic expression, mystical insight, and psychic revelatory processes. The word “process ” is central to the whole book. Recognizing the usual systems emphasis on structure, Jantsch categorically insists that process precedes structure and alters structure when the latter is no longer appropriate. With Ferkiss he sees man embedded in the higher order movement of nature and its evolution. Not merely regulation, but design of regulation, is a critical task to permit man to steer a viable course (“centering”) in this fluid stream. Hence, utopia is not a goal or an optimal structure, but an evolutionary process. The stream serves as an excellent vehicle for analogy. In the traditional rational scientific approach, man is the “objective” observer standing on the shore, measuring physical quantities. At the normative or “mythological” level of inquiry, man is in a boat in the river using his oar to try and steer his course according to the visual signals he perceives (e.g., nearness of banks, rapids). Man is a participant, he has emotional and qualitative involvement, he sets process goals (e.g., speed-up, turns) to center his movement between the opposite banks. He interacts with the stream in an I-thou relation, rather than an I-it relation as an observer on the bank would do. At the third or “evolutionary” level, man is the stream, the source and flow, the carrier and the carried. It is a sharing or “we” relation in which man seeks to center the process itself. His ability to regulate becomes his chief contribution to evolution. Another way to view the differences between the three levels is in terms of change process. At the rational level man either observes or imposes change as an outsider; at the mythological level man is an element in the system which responds primarily in terms of negative feedback; at the evolutionary level a new cybernetic concept is the key.7 In this we clearly see the departure from the Forrester-Meadows-Mesarovich concept of regulation. The latter are concerned with the search for stability. Jantsch, like Calhoun and Ferkiss, stresses the inherent instability of evolution. With Holling he is more interested in human self-regulation to minimize the chance of disaster in the process of mutational change rather than to maximize success through equilibrium. “Safe-fail” planning is more desirable than “fail-safe”, resilience a better base for evolution than efficiency. 7 Cf. M. Maruyama’s Second and Third Cybernetics, e.g., self-organization ing system behavior, (American Scientist 51 (1963), pp. 164, 250).
and deviation
amplify-
106
BOOK REVIEWS
The systems approach is perceived as a means to relate the rational and mythological levels, empiricism with creative design. In forecasting the analogous aspects are the extrapolative and normative formulations. In Jantsch’s conceptualization, the systems approach lifts us from deterministic cause and effect models to probabilistic models, from mechanistic to adaptive models, from game theory to gaming. Having climbed this far, he must now face the problem of moving from the second to the third level, i.e., search for means to relate the mythological to the evolutionary level. And here at the ultimate “centering” task he is by and large stymied. One valiant attempt resorts to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the work of Prigogine. Its principle of “order through fluctuation” seems to suit the concept of the mutational transitions to successively higher orders of complexity which appear to characterize the evolutionary process.8 But the inclusion of “dissipative structures” in an enlarged general systems theory does not suffice. How do we actually proceed with regulation, i.e., “centering” of the evolutionary process? A remarkable feature of Jantsch’s book is its integration of spiritual thought into the systems-oriented discussion. The Chinese “tao,” the right way between the opposing forces of yin and yang; the Hindu “Sadhanas” as ways to enlightenment and the seven “Chakras” or levels of consciousness; the statements of the Yakui Indian Don Juan (as described by Castaneda); and the evolutionary theory of Teilhard de Chardin suggest the range of sources called upon to grapple with the higher levels of the systemic hierarchy. If the reader is frightened by this array, he should be reassured. Jantsch’s writing is enlivened by absolutely delightful quotations (e.g., Goethe, Schiller, Valery, Furtwangler, Chuang Tzu, Zen, I Ching), references to films (e.g., “The Conformist” and “Blow-Up”), as well as personal touches. If he yearns for the comfort of systemic organization, he will find more than twenty characteristic systems diagrams. And finally he arrives at an epilogue entitled “Planning and Love.” The book is truly a rare treat-read, think, and let yourself go on this exquisite trip! HAROLD
A. LINSTONE
Senior Editor
Donald N. Michael, On Learning to Plan-And San Francisco, 1973,341 pp., $12.50.
Planning To Learn, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
In a global environment in which notions such as long range planning, limits to growth and technology assessment are competing for attention, a book on planning can arouse interest as well as indifference and complacence. But, this book by the author of The Unprepared Society gives us an honest and inspirational portrayal of the process, philosophy and future of long-range social planning. Like The Unprepared Society, this book is stimulating, intelligent, honest and at times provocative and pessimistic. Michael’s pessimism, however, is based not on bitterness or outright criticism, but on genuine ” Incidentally, this will come as a shock to economists who have just discovered entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., encrgetics). Marx and Keynes may be overthrown, but to find that monotonic entropy increase and the Laws of Thermodynamics are now being questioned also-it is too much!
101
11 (1975)
Book Reviews Russell L. Ackoff, Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 1974, 260 pp., $10.95. Victor Ferkiss, The Future of Technological Civilization, George Braziller Inc., N.Y., 1974, 369 pp., $12.50. Erich Jantsch, Design for Evolution, George Braziller, Inc., N.Y., 1975, 322 pp., $9.95 cloth, $5.95 paper. Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future, George Braziller, Inc., N.Y., 1974, 238 pp., $8.95 cloth, $3.95 paper. These four books, all by prestigious names in systems and/or futures research, not only present a remarkably broad spectrum of thought, but also a surprisingly wide gamut of quality. Jantsch is brilliant, Laszlo and Ferkiss are stimulating, and Ackoff qualifies for the annual “Futures-Book-the-Present-Can-Best-Do-Without” Award. The last is an all-around embarrassment. When we cannot even design our future, Ackoff already has the hubris to redesign it! As the machine age produced the Industrial Revolution, the new “Systems Age” is producing the Post-Industrial Revolution. This glib promotion makes the systems scientist the direct descendant of the medicine man of the American West a hundred years ago. His elixir today has exciting ingredients: cybernetics, management and policy sciences, systems engineering, and operations research. The perceptive lay reader-the book is meant for a general audience-may see through this conceit, but many will succumb to the sales pitch. Ackoff begins the “general” portion of the book by applying new labels-always effective one-upmanship. Planners are of four kinds: inactivists who do not really believe in planning, reactivists who concentrate on correcting deviations from the accepted standard, preactivists who base planning on trend extrapolation, and interactivists who normatively search for, and design, new futures. The last represent the “new” kind of planning for the Post-Industrial Revolution. This superficial discussion never suggests the difficulties laid bare by Ackoff’s colleague Hasan Ozbekhan in Perspectives of Planning or by Donald Michael in his recent book, Learning to Plan-and
Planning to Learn.
The second part, the “particulars,” provides a very non-systemic discussion of Ackoff’s views on subjects ranging from education and race to transportation and solid waste. Not surprisingly, the author’s favorite solution, usually quite conventionally upper middle class, in each case is defined as the “interactivist” one. There is no legitimate discussion of alternatives or of disbenefits associated with the preferred solution. There are, to be sure, some worthwhile ideas in these sketches. The best section is the description of blackwhite relations involving the University of Pennsylvania Management and Behavioral Science Center and its adjacent Mantua ghetto area. More representative of the general quality is the chapter on crime. The reactive approach is identified with punishment of the criminal, the preactive approach with correction of the criminal, and the interactive with correction of society. One is reminded here of Ken Boulding’s perceptive comment: in the old days we blamed ourselves for any failure-now we blame others. The trend is evident not only in crime but in medicine (malpractice suits), business (improper governmental support), and education (failure of schools rather than students). 0 American
Elsevier Publishing
Company,
Inc., 1975
102
BOOK REVIEWS
Perhaps the saddest chapter is the one on solid waste. Ackoff begins by attacking the ban on non-returnable bottles and cans. His arguments: (1) If returnable bottles were used exclusively, the weight of the contribution to solid waste of beverage containers may increase; (2) reusable bottles are frequently not returned; and (3) “by reducing consumption of soft drinks and beer, it could easily result in reduction of revenues to governments in excess of the cost of effectively collecting and disposing of all solid wastes generated by these beverages.” No mention is made of the more obvious implication of reduced consumption-lower profits to breweries and soft drink manufacturers. There is also no mention of reasonable alternatives such as separation of containers at the household level as currently being done in several areas (see Compost Science, Vol. 16, No. 1). Nor is the significant research of Harmon at the University of Illinois on the economics and energetics of returnable and non-returnable beverage containers considered. Ackoff’s discussion will strike most readers as peculiarly selective at best. Incidentally, one of the individuals to whom the book is dedicated-a dubious honor-is August A. Busch of the Anheuser-Busch Brewery! Thus the author unintentionally undermines the credibility of several of his valuable points, such as the suggestion of a disposal tax and longer lifetime for products. In sum, we should assume that this book represents an isolated misstep of this distinguished and highly respected systems scientist. After all, Shakespeare was entitled to “Titus Andronicus” and Puccini to “Suor Angelica”! An entirely different systems oriented look at the future is that of Ervin Laszlo. His book might be called a general systems theorist’s response to the Club of Rome early warning reports (“The Limits to Growth” and “Mankind at the Turning Point”). This fascinating work presents the schematic of a regulatory mechanism applied at the global level to avert the catastrophic world system behavior envisioned by the Club’s studies. Laszlo’s concept of a “world homeostat system” rests on the idea that control in the cybernetic sense is mandatory in an organic, dynamically stable system. The proposed central guidance system is not to be confused with a world government; it is confined to the most critical areas which must be addressed globally, e.g., world population and world ecological balance. Laszlo outlines a three-phase approach which encompasses a 50 year period. Phase 1 concerns the raising of world-system consciousness through widespread discussion of current issues and practices. The key disseminators in this ten year effort are not only academics but students, corporations, and foundations. Phase 2 initiates action in the form of a continuous information flow on world-order issues and creation of an effective political participatory process through multilevel in deliberate analogy to response mechanisms. Laszlo calls this process “ecofeedback” biofeedback and views it as a method to permit people to respond to factual information relevant to their joint future, adapting their aims to the realities of the world situation. A hierarchical information structure extends from the local neighborhood (town-hall meetings) to the global level. Messages communicated through this structure indicate the differential between actual and normative values for any given subsystem. This process should be completed in the 1990’s. In Phase 3 the World Homeostat System becomes a reality as global self-regulation is institutionalized. Laszlo’s system concept uses two transmission lines, with information flow and energy flow controlled by a regulator. On the information side “sensors” monitor world population, ecology, economy, and security. The “correlator” which stores and processes the information is the main administrative body of the system, the
BOOK REVIEWS
103
Council of Principals. On the energy side the World Revenue Service acts as the “receptor” for a flow of funds from governments, corporations, and individuals. The World Treasury serves as “accumulator” and thus becomes the key to implementation of decisions. The “regulator” or central decisionmaking body is the Optimum-State Steering Committee; it interacts with the “correlator” and the “accumulator”. The operational arm or “effector” is an entity termed World Executive Services; it carries out decisions of the Optimum-State Steering Committee with funds from the World Treasury and information from the Council of Principals. There are separate operational units responsible for Ecological Balance, Population Control, World Economics System, and World Security Forces, all coordinated by an Implementing Board. The whole system should be in operation by 2020. The World Homeostat System is not a precise and practical blueprint, but rather a general systems theorist’s image of a process and structure utopia. This in no way diminishes its value. We need bold normative thinking today which moves us constructively beyond the early warning “doomsday” extrapolations. There are some intriguing connections which come to mind in reading Laszlo. Calhoun’ builds on his experiments with mice to suggest that man has entered 50 years of crisis (197@2020) in which he must decide his future course-uncontrolled population leading to senescence or death of the species, constant population and stagnation, or declining population with continual human evolution. This “decide” era is almost precisely that needed for the implementation of the World Homeostat System. Further, Calhoun’s experiments on space and the strategy of life lead him to construct the evolution of appropriate socio-political units as a function of population during man’s presence on the earth. The result: a single world unit or brain is reached at about the same time as Laszlo’s World Homeostat System.’ We also recall that the extrapolative studies by von Foerster3 and Meyer and Vallee4 of historical population data independently yielded strikingly similar dates for infinite world population (2025, 2026). Again the criticality of the next 50 years is underscored. There are obvious limitations to Laszlo’s general systems approach. The totally rational framework assumed for system design is perhaps most serious. Laszlo is still too much under the spell of John Locke and his disciples whose God is rationality. His concept would require staggering reorientations: considerable surrender of national sovereignty by all nations; an ability to steer the new system clear of becoming the ultimate bureaucracy to enforce a dismal stasis and shackle the evolution of the human mind; finally, a shift in the Western world away from the liberal philosophy which encouraged individual self-aggrandizement through material gain achieved by economic growth. This brings us to Victor Ferkiss’ vision of the future. His perspective is that of political philosophy rather than systems science and he begins by focusing on John Locke. Prior to the Age of Locke social stability, religious cohesion, and economic control were the norm. In the eighteenth century rationality, reason, free enterprise, and technology in the ’ John B. Calhoun “RxEVOLUTION, Tribalism, and the Cheshire Cat: Three Paths from Now,” this Journal, Vol. 4 (1973), pp. 263-282. The Use of * John B. Calhoun, “Space and the Strategy of Life,” m Behavior and Environment: Space by Animals and Mart, Plenum Press, N.Y. 3 H. van Foerster, P. M. Mora, and L. W. Amiot, “Doomsday: Friday 13, November, A.D. 2026,” Science, 132: 1291-1295, 1960. this Journal, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 4 F. Meyer and J. Vallee, “The Dynamics of Long-Term Growth,” 285-300.
104
BOOK REVIEWS
pursuit of man’s material happiness became the central elements of liberalism.5 The Declaration of Independence strongly reflected this philosophy and thus gave America a running start in the direction of the new age. “The business of America is business,” “Winning counts, not how the game is played,” “Fly now-pay later,” are all characteristic of the Liberal Era. The first cracks in the foundation came with the depression, requiring government action and control, and World War II, establishing the government as vital entrepreneur (military-industrial complex and space program). Technology itself created other cracks. Perhaps the least understood consequence of technology (specifically nuclear weapons and communications) has been the gift of God-like power to destroy mankind to one or a few human individuals, e.g., the U.S. President. A better understood effect has been the population explosion and attendant scarcity of resources to support it. Ferkiss’ normative answer is Ecological Humanism. Built on ideas described in his earlier book, TechnoZogicaZMa?z, the concept is based on three elements: naturalism-man is a part of nature and not its conqueror, holism-there is a single “global” system, and immanentism-any change process must emerge from within and cannot be blueprinted in advance. Hence ecological humanism is a political philosophy that eschews concentration on man-man relationships. It thus draws away from the Judeo-Christian call for man to “subdue the ends of the earth” and toward the allegedly “primitive” religions in which nature is an object of piety. Man must live in an ecological relationship with nature and with other men. Humanism to Ferkiss represents man’s will and judgment expressed through political action, specifically the freedom to move up the Maslow hierarchy without undue constraint by abstract forces. At present such forces are particularly evident in economic and technological determinism: economic growth is considered to be the only means to enhance the sense of equality and technology has prescribed our living style (suburbia, nuclear family, privacy, crime). Like Laszlo, Ferkiss sees no alternative to governmental control. With Heilbroner, he considers a new economics essential. Among its ingredients: no “free” goods, a break in positive feedback loops (growth feeding on growth), and land use planning. In discussing how to get from here to there, we again find considerable agreement between Ferkiss and Laszlo: first, a switch of allegiance by intellectuals (from liberalism to ecological humanism); second, gradual reform without violence; third, movement toward a world political order where the global common good is involved. It should be stressed that Ferkiss does not equate these trends with either loss of all personal freedorn, authoritarianism, or global cultural homogeneity. We also note that the reliance on international solutions is questioned by many. Jay Forrester argued against this approach in his recent speech at the World Future Society Assembly.’ Obviously many questions are raised. With the emphasis on political action, there are implicit some very hazardous asuumption-(a) the existence of intelligent and wise political leadership, (b) a new holistic belief system for all human beings, and (c) the feasibility of non-violent revolution. As an ironic aside we recall that even Richard Nixon called for a “New American Revolution” in one of the many short-lived image formulations during his Presidency. Only a pathological optimist would see these as achievable with reasonable likelihood. If the changes are to be non-violent, how can they occur with is actually closer to the classical definition of liberalism ’ Today’s “conservatism” “liberalism”, which would be better understood as neo-liberalism by John Locke. 6 Cf. Report on the Assembly in this Journal (vol. 7, No. 4).
than today’s
BOOK REVIEWS
105
sufficient speed? Irish history and the post-Civil War era in the American South both illustrate the exceedingly long time needed to alter strongly held views (in this context liberalism). It is far easier to construct scenarios that proliferate mismanagement until the situation is overripe, and then burst into violent revolutions. Questions such as these in no way detract from the Laszlo and Ferkiss visions. As Boulding has observed, the American Revolution was preceded by years of tough, intensive debate on normative political futures. Now at the time of our Bicentennial, there is again a glaring need for such discussion. Today’s technology, particularly the most important medium of television, discourages meaningful debate. In this desert of normative thinking, the efforts of Laszlo and Ferkiss with all their faults are precious lonely flowers which deserve attention. Jantsch takes us on a unique journey-the systems analyst probing the world beyond rational modeling, moving from the “know how” to the “know what” (goal formulation) to the “know where”: the design of dynamically evolving systems and processes. He is concerned not merely with the process of change but the order of the process, i.e., evolution. There is none of the usual defense of the traditional scientific approach. With Churchman’s Singerian inquirer, Jantsch takes seriously all modes of holistic insight: paradigms of physical and social science, artistic expression, mystical insight, and psychic revelatory processes. The word “process ” is central to the whole book. Recognizing the usual systems emphasis on structure, Jantsch categorically insists that process precedes structure and alters structure when the latter is no longer appropriate. With Ferkiss he sees man embedded in the higher order movement of nature and its evolution. Not merely regulation, but design of regulation, is a critical task to permit man to steer a viable course (“centering”) in this fluid stream. Hence, utopia is not a goal or an optimal structure, but an evolutionary process. The stream serves as an excellent vehicle for analogy. In the traditional rational scientific approach, man is the “objective” observer standing on the shore, measuring physical quantities. At the normative or “mythological” level of inquiry, man is in a boat in the river using his oar to try and steer his course according to the visual signals he perceives (e.g., nearness of banks, rapids). Man is a participant, he has emotional and qualitative involvement, he sets process goals (e.g., speed-up, turns) to center his movement between the opposite banks. He interacts with the stream in an I-thou relation, rather than an I-it relation as an observer on the bank would do. At the third or “evolutionary” level, man is the stream, the source and flow, the carrier and the carried. It is a sharing or “we” relation in which man seeks to center the process itself. His ability to regulate becomes his chief contribution to evolution. Another way to view the differences between the three levels is in terms of change process. At the rational level man either observes or imposes change as an outsider; at the mythological level man is an element in the system which responds primarily in terms of negative feedback; at the evolutionary level a new cybernetic concept is the key.7 In this we clearly see the departure from the Forrester-Meadows-Mesarovich concept of regulation. The latter are concerned with the search for stability. Jantsch, like Calhoun and Ferkiss, stresses the inherent instability of evolution. With Holling he is more interested in human self-regulation to minimize the chance of disaster in the process of mutational change rather than to maximize success through equilibrium. “Safe-fail” planning is more desirable than “fail-safe”, resilience a better base for evolution than efficiency. 7 Cf. M. Maruyama’s Second and Third Cybernetics, e.g., self-organization ing system behavior, (American Scientist 51 (1963), pp. 164, 250).
and deviation
amplify-
106
BOOK REVIEWS
The systems approach is perceived as a means to relate the rational and mythological levels, empiricism with creative design. In forecasting the analogous aspects are the extrapolative and normative formulations. In Jantsch’s conceptualization, the systems approach lifts us from deterministic cause and effect models to probabilistic models, from mechanistic to adaptive models, from game theory to gaming. Having climbed this far, he must now face the problem of moving from the second to the third level, i.e., search for means to relate the mythological to the evolutionary level. And here at the ultimate “centering” task he is by and large stymied. One valiant attempt resorts to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the work of Prigogine. Its principle of “order through fluctuation” seems to suit the concept of the mutational transitions to successively higher orders of complexity which appear to characterize the evolutionary process.8 But the inclusion of “dissipative structures” in an enlarged general systems theory does not suffice. How do we actually proceed with regulation, i.e., “centering” of the evolutionary process? A remarkable feature of Jantsch’s book is its integration of spiritual thought into the systems-oriented discussion. The Chinese “tao,” the right way between the opposing forces of yin and yang; the Hindu “Sadhanas” as ways to enlightenment and the seven “Chakras” or levels of consciousness; the statements of the Yakui Indian Don Juan (as described by Castaneda); and the evolutionary theory of Teilhard de Chardin suggest the range of sources called upon to grapple with the higher levels of the systemic hierarchy. If the reader is frightened by this array, he should be reassured. Jantsch’s writing is enlivened by absolutely delightful quotations (e.g., Goethe, Schiller, Valery, Furtwangler, Chuang Tzu, Zen, I Ching), references to films (e.g., “The Conformist” and “Blow-Up”), as well as personal touches. If he yearns for the comfort of systemic organization, he will find more than twenty characteristic systems diagrams. And finally he arrives at an epilogue entitled “Planning and Love.” The book is truly a rare treat-read, think, and let yourself go on this exquisite trip! HAROLD
A. LINSTONE
Senior Editor
Donald N. Michael, On Learning to Plan-And San Francisco, 1973,341 pp., $12.50.
Planning To Learn, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
In a global environment in which notions such as long range planning, limits to growth and technology assessment are competing for attention, a book on planning can arouse interest as well as indifference and complacence. But, this book by the author of The Unprepared Society gives us an honest and inspirational portrayal of the process, philosophy and future of long-range social planning. Like The Unprepared Society, this book is stimulating, intelligent, honest and at times provocative and pessimistic. Michael’s pessimism, however, is based not on bitterness or outright criticism, but on genuine ” Incidentally, this will come as a shock to economists who have just discovered entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., encrgetics). Marx and Keynes may be overthrown, but to find that monotonic entropy increase and the Laws of Thermodynamics are now being questioned also-it is too much!