North America Needs New Philosophy

Charles Floyd

1991

Published in:

The Northwest Technocrat, 1st quarter 1991, No. 322

To the editor:

Recently, a meeting was held to discuss a proposal titled "Environment 2010." The 2010 refers to the year 2010, when agencies hope to have a plan so action can be taken.

The fault with taking so long is that we may very well not have 20 years before the situation becomes irreversible. Why devote 20 years to do a study that has already been researched and a detailed blueprint drawn up to overcome the problem.

In 1919, a group of citizens, much the same as the group which met here, gathered to study the effect on our economy of the terrible wastage of resources used to fight the war. The group was known as The Technical Alliance of North America, and consisted of several highly regarded and influential people.

At their own expense they rented space at Columbia University to look into the problem. Their study lasted 14 years -- to 1933. The research led them to all phases of social problems which they could see were going to require a solution if our society could be expected to survive. They could see that there would be serious problems with unemployment due to the increasing use of extraneous energy and the installation of modern technology. They were also concerned with the wasteful use of our water supply, and with people being forced to go without food and live in the streets. An increasing crime rate could be safely predicted.

By consolidating all the facts they uncovered, they formulated a solution and drew up a blueprint for its operation. The name was changed to Technocracy and incorporated under the laws of the state of New York as a non-sectarian, educational-research membership organization for the purpose of gathering more information and dispensing it. The response was immediate and decisive; the people were ready for social change.

Then President Roosevelt introduced what was known as The National Recovery Act. This legislation was going to give everyone a job through the sleight-of-hand of deficit spending, the idea being to create a sound economy by going into debt.

The result is now everywhere apparent: a debt burden which will never be repaid, unemployment, proliferating drug and alcohol problems, and children and older people in destitute situations.

Will the ecosystem of the planet stand the pressure of more of this treatment? With a recovery plan blueprinted and ready to use, is it wise to refuse to use it?

Charles Floyd
Port Angeles