Technocracy -> Periodicals -> NW Technocrat -> Q4, 96 #345 -> Reorganizing a Continent

Search

Reorganizing a Continent

Wilton Ivie

1958

Published in:

• Technocracy Digest August, 1958
• An article reprint circulated to this day.
• The Northwest Technocrat 4th quarter 1996, No. 345

This article was slightly updated for the 1996 printing.

Before attempting to comment on Technocracy's projected reorganization of the Continent, we might try to visualize this Continental area without social organization of any kind (although we realize that such a condition could be only hypothetical). Under such a condition, each individual would be free of all social regulation as well as benefits, being a truly rugged, anarchistic individual. An individual might be respectful of the ``rights'' of others or might be predatory and homicidal in behavior. There would be no law or other control over that person, other than the possibility of reprisal by individuals. There would be no cooperative effort and no division of labor. Each individual would have to be self-sustaining.

The very nature of human reproduction requires that humans form family or communal units for the care and protection of the children; hence, absolute anarchy is out of the question. With family life, there comes a primitive order of organization. It might be a loose, mutually-cooperative group; but more likely it would be a patriarchal (possibly sometimes a matriarchal) tyranny.

It is only a matter of social evolution, step by step, through family groups, small tribes, large tribes confederations of tribes, and nations until we have huge populations more or less integrated under a loose sort of social organization, such as in the major nations and empires of today. This evolution, however, has been neither tranquil nor continuously progressive. It is blemished with hostilities and slaughters, as well as with massive destruction of man's works. Had there been a harmonious progression from the early family organizations to modern continental organizations, characterized by mutually cooperative endeavor and stimulated with a unified social objective, it is a certainty that the resulting accomplishment would be far advanced over anything on the earth today, and there would not have been the high cost in hardship, waste, frustration and bloodshed that our history records. There would now be social tranquility and an easier way of life for everyone. But social organization is a new thing for the human species, speaking in anthropological terms, and it has progressed slowly and painfully through trial and error plus the obstacles of human cussedness. In the end, human society may prove to be a biological failure, leaving nothing but scars on the surface of the earth to show (to the uncomprehending denizens of a new wilderness) that there ever had been such a thing as human social organization. Or human society can move on to new heights and achieve such functional harmony that it shall endure as long as life on the earth itself.

In the course of social evolution, there have crept into it certain tendencies that have proven destructive to social organization over the long term, but under the circumstances which fostered them in the beginning, they had survival value. One of those tendencies was that of competitiveness. This tendency developed in part from a struggle for the necessities of life which were scarce. Later, competition provided more drama than did cooperation; hence, it stimulated more immediate interest among the people, so its perpetuation was encouraged. But competition set man against man and group against group until, now, it has reached the point where virtually half the world is pitted against the other half. Whatever may be said for the productive stimulus derived from competition, it can be countered by manifold examples of destructiveness spawned by it.

Another tendency has been that of acquiring property rights. This grew up naturally and gradually from the simple possession of personal items, to where it proceeded to other things, including human beings (beginning with wives and children), and eventually came to ownership over real estate, slaves and commodities, as well as the means of production. In time, possession became a passion and a symbol of social prestige. The struggle for individual possession has underlain much of the competiveness that has bedeviled human society. Most wars have been fought with the hope of gaining possessions, if not as the major motive, at least as a prominent secondary motive. The acquisitiveness for possessions on a large scale led to the formation of corporate structures, designed to wage massive economic competition within and against society. This trend has become so vicious that the major corporations on this Continent regard their service to society as merely incidental to their accumulation of wealth, while the customers are regarded as the ``enemy'' -- to be looted for all they have plus all they can borrow. Recently, most of the public domain of the United States has slipped into private hands. The struggle is now on among the economic giants for the sole ownership of the earth and all that is on it.

A third tendency has been that toward authoritarian power. This tendency has closed in on humanity from three directions -- political, economic and ecclesiastical. Authoritarianism among humans presumably began in the primitive family organization, where the male assumed a position of dominance over other members of the family. Later, among the early barbarian tribes, authority resided in the political chief, the medicine man and the wealthy landowners and merchants. In order to standardize and impersonalize this authority, each of the above groups established laws to protect their authority. The personal authorities then became guardians and administrators of the law. The investiture of authority in individuals has become rather complicated in the political and ecclesiastical fields, but in the economic field it generally goes with the successful accumulation or inheritance of wealth.

We do not pretend that these tendencies were invented and consciously pursued by the human species as things distinctively human. Humans have only refined them; they had their simple beginnings in our pre-human ancestry. Competition is strongly entrenched as a tendency among the vertebrates as a whole, with the individual struggle centering on food, habitat and mates. Property rights among non-human animals pertain mainly to food, abodes, territory, mates and offspring. Such rights are often vague and extend only so far as individual possession and power to defend them reaches. Seldom does the possession of trinkets occur among the lower animals, and more seldom are such trinkets protected with passion (occasionally, among dogs, for example). The struggle for authority among vertebrates is on a ``peck rights'' basis, where individual strength, astuteness and aggressiveness are the dominant factors. All of these anti-social tendencies have grown out of a struggle for food, mates and living room. Human beings have elaborated on these tendencies and have loaded them down with complications, tradition and regulations.

In the socializing process known as civilization, the trend has been to nullify the above mentioned tendencies by means of another animal tendency, known as mutualism. This tendency provides for cooperation and collective endeavor as an antidote for competition. We see it exhibited by beavers in building a dam or in blackbirds driving off a hawk from their nesting site. It discounts individual possessiveness in favor of group ``ownership.'' There is respect for the food supplies, the dwellings, and the mates of others in the group. Peck rights are de-emphasized in favor of ``live and let live.'' Animal species in which mutualism is prominent tend to dominate an area by sheer numbers rather than by individual fierceness; for example, lemmings, barn swallows, baboons. The tendency of mutualism is in conflict with the others, but they all co-exist in even the most cooperative of vertebrate associations.

Human societies for the past several thousand years have emphasized competition, property rights and personal authority. And they have suppressed mutualism. The result has been continual conflict, tension, hardship and cruelty among humans. Mutualism has not been practiced with any enthusiasm since the age of savagery, except sporadically by small groups. Yet, in the future, it must become the dominant tendency in our Continental society. The other tendencies, while they will not be completely eliminated, will be much downgraded from their present status. This principle must be a paramount factor in planning for the social organization of the future on the North American Continent. A high-energy civilization cannot afford the frictional waste generated by competition for wealth and authority.

In organizing the Continent as an area of social operations, Technocracy deals in factors of mutualism rather than competitiveness. It would abolish property rights of individuals over public property (meaning anything used by more than one individual). It would greatly downgrade authority in favor of functional capability. Technocracy highlights that old slogan of mutualism -- ``One for all and all for one.''

In Technocracy's design, the human effort required in operating the Continental society shall be apportioned equally among all citizens of the Continent on a man-hour basis, regardless of the kind of function or degree of responsibility involved. Since in a highly mechanized society there will be very little time required of each individual during their lifetime, there will be no occupational hardship imposed upon anyone. Nor will there be the phenomenon of personages deriving their prestige from the number of toiling ``peasants'' under their authority. In general each citizen will do that function which appeals to him or her and for which he or she is qualified. This will be part of the individual citizen's contract with society, and no position or function will be rewarded with greater income.

The Health Sequence will provide complete service, with frequent examinations, for all. Hence, the facilities for administering to the health of the population must be expanded, standardized and modernized. They must also be organized to give equivalent service to everyone -- in contrast to the class distinctions that prevail in present day health service. While the operation of the health Sequence shall be on an overall basis, the attention given to each individual will be highly personalized; for, it will be given with reference to the lifelong medical record of that person.

In the field of education, each person shall have full and free opportunity to advance as far and fast as his or her capabilities will permit. Education will be administered through a centrally-controlled Continent-wide system, with a standardized curriculum, and with standardized presentation and testing. The petty politics of local school boards and the inconsistencies and differentials of the present educational ``system'' will be eliminated; there will be no private or parochial schools. Further, the emphasis will be placed on the objective factors in our society rather than on philosophy and tradition.

The tendencies of competition, possession and authority will find their play in avocational fields rather than in the management of social affairs. No doubt, there will be cults of artists, authors, philosophers, gardeners and sports enthusiasts wherein competition (non-commercial) shall appear, where a sort of possession can be achieved, albeit one which reflects individual achievement rather than mere buying capacity; where authority among one's peers can be gained, either through keeping ahead of others by superior accomplishment or by climbing the ladder of a synthesized reputation. (We anticipate no basic change in human nature, only modifications in human behavior arising from a change of environmental and social circumstances).

Competition for wealth and authority is far too wasteful and hazardous to be permitted in a high-energy civilization. In spite of its cruelties and repressions, competition could get by in past societies; for, the rate of dissipating the natural resources under human-toil, hand-tool techniques was so slow that it took centuries or milleniums to devastate an area. But, with modern technological methods of harvesting resources, along with the incentives of bonanza exploitation, a high energy civilization would be short-lived. That fact is now being forced upon our attention the hard way.

One must take into consideration the demonstrated fact, that human beings -- at least a large portion of them -- are never satisfied with merely having their needs supplied; they must go in for wasteful ostentation, if their economic resources permit, as a way of enhancing their personal prestige. In colloquial terms, they ``go Hollywood'' or ``go Park Avenue'' at the first opportunity. The free expression of this tendency must be eliminated from the social design, for, the society simply cannot afford to support such grandiose waste, especially if a large number of people are to participate in it.

The simplest way of eliminating prestige waste, and at the same time abolishing its corollary, poverty, is to program an efficient production and distribution of abundance to all citizens on an equitable basis. In this way, everyone is amply supplied with the facilities of life and enjoyment of living; none can acquire prestige from ostentation; and the natural resources can be conserved for many centuries.

Technocracy proposes that this problem be handled by the simplest and most effective of all means: It would operate the economy as a Continental unit under the control of the Continental society. Most general services and facilities would be provided to all citizens -- special goods and services would be accounted for individually -- by means of a technological distribution system possibly similar to today's ``smart cards'' -- as a right of citizenship.

One of the principal factors of social cost on the Continent today is that of transportation, both of materials and people. For the future, this cost must be drastically reduced and must be given primary attention in any plan for organizing the Continent. The least costly form of transportation is shipment by water. To a certain extent, coast-wise shipping can be effected by ocean-going vessels, but far greater tonnage of freight must be moved around within the Continent away from ocean channels. For this purpose (and others), Technocracy suggested in the thirties a plan for inland waterways, involving deep water transportation to the Great Lakes via the Mississippi, Hudson and St. Lawrence Rivers. Most bulk freight of the Continent would be carried by water-trains over this inland system of waterways. Large numbers of people, particularly children on educational excursions, could be transported in comfort on leisurely cruises about the Continent. However, now, any such proposal might not be feasible because of the mismanagement of our water resources. Any such proposal, as with other details of Technocracy's design, would be considered in an orchestration of the entire Continent by the most competent functional people. North America must be operated in a dynamic fashion, able to take advantage of new situations and information, with decisions made with all aspects considered carefully by the functional personnel responsible -- each in their own sequence.

Next to waterway transportation, the least costly is railroads. This will be particularly so after the railroads and the railroad systems are properly re-designed for the increased tonnage, speed, efficiency, passenger service and other functional requirements. Among the changes which Technocracy has specified for railroading is a three-meter gauge.... Because of its high cost, air transport will be limited to those things and passengers which require high-speed movement. The physical cost per ton-mile is too great for general use.... Trucks and cars would be used much less than today for long trips. Even now, there is a trend toward carrying long-distance trucks ``piggy back'' on railroad cars to reduce costs. Few people would want to drive a car across the Continent when they could travel that distance by fast train, then be able to pick up a personal car at the other end for local transportation. Personal cost would not be a controlling factor in prohibiting the using of railroad services as it is today.

The roadways of the Continent would be designed into a transportation system, with more controlled-traffic super-highways and much less mileage of secondary and tertiary roads, such as make up our haphazard network of roads today. In many places the roadway mileage would be reduced. Yet, at the same time, far more efficient highway transportation would be provided. A Continental system of pipelines would serve to transport gases, liquids and suspended solid particles over great distances, while secondary systems would be used for local distribution or collection. Most power would be transported by underground high-voltage direct current cable, with a power grid of the entire Continent, for transportation of energy -- another of Technocracy's designs for an efficient, low-cost operation of North America.

Another factor in the present high cost of social operations is the inefficient methods of material packaging, handling and distribution. Although there is a growing trend toward automaticity. The packaging, the methods of handling and terminal facilities could be designed for more automatic, low-energy-cost operation, with a Continental integrated system.

In reorganization of the Continent, one of the primary problems is that of land use. Certain areas are suitable for agricultural crops of one or more kinds. Other areas are suitable only for forests and recreation, and these include much that is now in marginal and sub- marginal farms. Besides the reforestation (replacing forest) and afforestation (creating forest) of large areas, many forest and fruit trees can be grown along the margins and in the interspaces of the highways. At present, these strips of land are largely wasted and unsightly, or when an attempt is made to improve them it is with ornamental grasses, shrubs and trees of little or no economic use, while the upkeep is high cost.

Certain pieces of land would be flooded with lakes and ponds for water storage, transportation, recreation, and climate modification, while other areas would be drained or filled in, depending on the circumstances and requirements. The flow of some rivers would be reversed, that of others, directed into different channels or into reservoirs. Thus, the precipitation falling on the Continent would be put to maximum practical use before being allowed to flow back to the sea. Among other things, it is highly important that the water of the geological formations, which has been so heavily depleted by deep wells and pumping, be replenished -- and more added. Most parts of the Continent can use much more fresh water than they normally have available; yet, they are not prepared to conserve the water which does come their way, allowing most of it to flow off and eventually become lost in the oceans.

In any plan for the Continental society of North America, the first concern must be for the people who inhabit the area. After all it is for the people that the organizing is done. The reorganization must be in reference to the people, the number and kinds, who are here now. What are their living requirements and consuming needs; rather, what will they be under conditions of abundance? What is essential to maintaining tranquility among them? How can their welfare be effected with a high degree of efficiency and minimal cost?

While Technocracy is not a reform movement and is not involved in a philosophy of ``brotherly love,'' it does provide for the elimination of most causes of human distress, such as poverty, illness, toil, insecurity and frustration. Even in a new society, there will be people with personal problems and worries, but those problems won't be of an economic nature. No one will want for a place in which to live, or for clothing, or food, or transportation, or health care. One will be more or less burdened, however, with the problem of what to do with one's own self -- with finding some interest or activity to give zest to living. We say ``more or less,'' since, for those of little imagination or creativeness, there will be many kinds of stereotyped activities available to absorb one's time and interest, ranging from bridge and chess to mountain climbing or boating, and from exhibition dancing to the reading of classical literature. But opportunities for ``getting ahead'' by gypping the other fellow will be nil. One will have to rely more than ever on personal qualities and achievements for gaining recognition.

The problem of reorganizing North American society to conform with the requisites of a high-energy civilization is not a political problem, nor is it a moral problem; rather, it is technological. It involves a realignment of the physical factors of the environment so as to provide the most in the way of goods and services for the longest time at the least cost in energy, scarce materials, and human effort.

The design of Technocracy is an inevitable pattern for any area which reaches the technological magnitudes of the North American Continent. Other continents, should they reach the same magnitudes, would have to consider a similar design for their areas. There can be no retreat into any of the classical social forms of the past. A new design to fit a new and unique situation must be applied. The design developed by Technocracy is so appropriate, so fool-proof, so technologically correct, and so beneficent to the population of North America that one may wonder why it was not adopted with open enthusiasm long ago. The answer can be summed up in two words which apply to human behavior characteristics: ``inertia'' and ``cussedness.''

Many people may claim mitigating circumstances for their ignorance or misinformation regarding Technocracy; but considering what is at stake and considering the amount of effort put forth by Technocracy over the past several decades to inform the public -- the basic reason is still inertia and cussedness.

Unfortunately, the advent of Technocracy depends to a large extent upon a few thousand more people becoming sufficiently disillusioned in their attempts to beat the Price System game to demand a change. By ``change,'' we do not mean a shift within the patterns of the status quo, but something fundamentally new and different. On the Continent of North America, a shift to socialism is not enough. The only change that has any meaning is a change to the technological social pattern of Technocracy. When that change is effected, the people of North America can set about reorganizing their Continent for their mutual welfare -- not a ``welfare state'' but a Technological Social Design.