The next fifty years; The Future American Society, pt. II

Far. On the profit motive. Mr. Babylon suggests that we ought to. What was the word dismember. The profit motive dismantle. I can't recall. Get rid of it somehow. I would go cautiously about that. I know that there are evils in the profit motive I know that they represent. That it represents in part some base motives like greed and self seeking. But this is a mode of system that is pretty central to human experience over a long long period of time. Three thousand years at a minimum. Greek traders had a motive that was not far afield from the profit motive. So before we start to dismantle the profit motive I want to know two things. First of all I want to know how we're going to do it and as a psychologist I think that it can only be done through a real alteration in the parent child relationship. How are we going to do it. And then secondly what are we going to replace it with in terms of a key cornerstone motive for human experience I

looked in vain Dave in your paper for a statement about what it would be replaced with. And all I found with apologies was a kind of hope for detergent humanism which is very nice but which we've been working at for at least 28 or 29 centuries and we're not there yet. So let's not take the cornerstone of human motivation out until we get something to replace it with. And I'm willing to talk about what we might replace it with that would be better. But somebody on the panel whispered Saxe. Which we all need anyway because we can double the population without. And my final point on the individual system as on paper contains some

very very perceptive notes on the group an initiative and the necessity for group alignment against other groups or beside other groups to accomplish a change in the system. He also pleads early in his paper for a statement of human purpose for a statement of self what for a sense of life. And I would raise this question with you. To what extent is in the Saxony for our group punish it for the joining together of people to accomplish common purposes consistent with or contradictory to the other purpose you have in mind namely the realisation of a sense of self and purpose which I have always viewed in a rather individualistic way. You are listening to the seventh program in our 13 week series exploring America's needs during the next 50 years. You have just heard University of

Michigan psychologist Dr. Richard L. coupler our speakers this week have been reacting to past remarks from doctors Carl Gunnar Mirrorball and David T basil and they will now be given an opportunity to rebut. First the comments of the Swedish economist and sociologist Dr. Carl Gunnar mirrored all the way to my friends as I told you I am a lackey. To the carbs. But optimists and pessimists. But I am for his release. I'm starting a reality trying to find out the cultural factors and see what we can do about it. Some of my friends Little Italy wish me well I will say that I can be so what they call pessimistic in my release because I am so absolutely optimistic I've never given up the fight for gold think my year two of my friends here have expressed more fundamentally a

more optimistic view which to an extent I find I'm realistic. I so far only agree with my friend to the right ear who said we can do it by their command. Two things that in our lifetime we can make such international arrangements that wars will be ended. I agree with you we can do it and I'm prepared to give my life for trying to go there but I am very very aware of the difficulties. We can certainly do. We can certainly rearrange the Arbonne our cities here so that they are wholesome and good places for human beings to live and we can breathe heavily. The human inside because it's not race it's environment. So I mean I'm all on you. And as a matter of fact the keeper the last thing and of course also the first thing it will maybe make us a richer even materially and economically though it will take it time and it

will take sacrifices for the long investment. I also agree with my friend the father I am also a man of faith. And that's the reason why I can be rather pessimistic. But let me now take two questions. You know let me now take two questions. To illustrate what I mean by the necessity for the planners to be realistic. Professor Ruth mentioned the very quick way in which we got rid of colonialism colonialism ruled as a system to the Second World War and now it's all gone. And he sees in that something encouraging. All right. But I as a planner must say to myself it was not planned it was not part of the war aims in any country not even in America. This happened by chance it was perhaps the most important assault of the Second World War and as a planner I must say How

different would the world have been if in the beginning of the century we had seen the writing on the wall the rich countries and it puttin our efforts to put a pair of these poor people for independence. Then we would have a quite a different world today. It's a lack of planning in this very moment. What is happening now. I think we are living in a fool's paradise partly because of opportunistic that these biased theorists and we don't see how bad things are there. The main problem is not that we are not aiding them enough. The main trouble is that the upper class which rules with different types in different countries are not carrying out the social economic revolutions which they talk about. If we are going to have a hunger crisis is not because primarily because we have a lack of technology it's because we do not regulate the relation between land and man and we can do very little about it because then we understand what happened all that I can I foresee errata to be sauced finished development and

what we can do is rather little. But the little we can do we should do. If I now take their development of our cities in America while I mean it was not planned to be as it is now this is my point. And I see the difficulties of starting planning then it's not enough that some of us sit and talk and make speeches. Then we have to bring this so that the task force for the president and Congress. And that means bring it to the people so the people change. Now my friend talks about this urgent concern I mean this rebellion I mean which might be on the whole I agree with you Les they have reasons even if I don't think it's always a very rational way in which they are standing up but there is a sergeant concern. But there's my friend said here about the youth. I think the youth think mostly I think to frustrate the process and I'm not at all sure that without

the help of people like us who see reality as it dos and go to the people that you will have the result of it it might very well be that this rebellion will instead from various quarters strengthen the conservative forces in society. And if we wanted to go otherwise we just have to put our go do it. Realistic view of society I think is necessary preparation for being courageous and having a right policy. Sometimes I have a feeling even if you're say the Americans are not optimistic but if this is your civilization to believe that you need optimism in order to have carnage I think this is shameful in a weak position. I want what is needed in the press and the particular if you're going to act wisely that this with a realistic view of reality this is this is the cartridge of desperation and that if we do not have there I don't think

that all these good forces which you are talking about will be Tom in the future. There is one of the important similarities between the Russian civilization and communism and America have always seen many many similarities. One of the similarities is as you well know that optimist me said doctrine in communism and pessimists and I mean my type of study is what do they call it delineation. It's fared when American Russian troops met after the Second World War and this series embraced each other. There wasn't much of a similar culture that many traits in the society which are like those seen in Russia for instance that what I call here the human there's a Christian neighborliness but actually much of it there but it's the same thing if you meet the police a bit on the square and you look around and you don't understand if you would embrace you're going to movement and you're given excuse me that I

made it and I don't but I do believe that it's important to remember. You just heard Dr. call gunner Mirrorball defending his previous remarks remarks that were opened up for comment. Reaction criticism and support from colleagues since the speech of David teabags online was also discussed this week. It is proper he too should be allowed a period of rebuttal time doctor by Salon is an American writer and well-read social critic from New York. He speaks now in defense of his original formal paper. The discussion seems to be optimism and pessimism. Dr. Amir Dawes pessimal and he and I started this apparently because there's a ton of pessimism presentations Dr. Medows pessimism is the result of long life hard work. Distinguished work and in the sense he's earned. Mine is by constitutional nature I just happen to have a personality built around happy

despair. To go. We discussed this also at. The breakfast before the meeting and Mr Rouse was particularly talking about this he his abuse is and I certainly hope he's right that. An attitude of pessimism is keeping us from seizing opportunities which are right in front of us. And I thought about what he said in his optimism didn't look like regular optimism to me. It looked like determination. It looked like you know what he was talking about. And there was a certain happiness which accompanied this. It was that he's a businessman. And when businessmen are optimistic that they can do something they know that. But to understand fully American society businessmen have had almost a monopoly of optimism. If

we had the businessmen with us in a particular purpose we could accomplish almost anything. I would like some of their optimism and the businessmen of Mr Ross's character are the kind who are offering it to us. And I. The Oatmeal I hope they'll be a lot more of that. One other point Mr. Casserly I would point out he agreed with me and I course agree with him. It's getting happier and happier. This question this question of living a long time. I certainly agree is a major problem I don't know how I left it out of my paper I try to put everything else in. But it really is such a long subject to discuss.

It has to change and it will have a great. It will probably end up having the greatest possible cultural effect in America where we have always been dominated by youth and happiness as an image. That Mr. Ross to that would be one of the uses for the superabundant pessimism we have to undermine that image. I also agree with Dr. Kass we on this point about tribalism and primitivism particularly that is in the sense that we're told there's a great drift of what you might call intellectual dropout ism. We're all tired of this over elaborate lawyers mode of thinking and academic thinking and want to simplify so that there should be some emotion connected with ideas you want to bring the two together and we are I mean I would say going about it in the worst way in seeking out primitive

identifications. But let's understand why it's being done and on tribalism on the other hand you say back to tribalism McLuhan says forward to tribalism. He's wrong. That's what he says. To Dr. Cutler. I tried very hard to criticize me. Thank you. On the point about the profit motive. When I say dismantle I don't mean raise children differently so that they never learn how to make a dollar or value it. What I mean is to displace the tyranny of the profit motive. Obviously we still want to increase capital funding. I can say that the most firmly built in feature of our industrial

system. But the point is we've now reached a very very unusual point in history the human race or the fact that we had 3000 years of profit motive behind us is not quite enough to see us through this period namely now we have some wealth and we're not just capital accumulators we're spenders and we're not used to it. This is a problem which very rich people have had individuals they tried different solutions. Some of them got drunk and stayed drunk. Others learned how to eat elaborately. Travel much etc.. We we have to learn how and I'm I really this is like an inverted image and it's very hard to get up across but. I don't think we have yet learned how to stand prosperity. It frightens us. People work compulsively and they spend one of the reasons advertising of mass culture so effective is that people don't have to figure out on their own how to spend the money and so it comes. The solution is given to them and

they accept it for that reason. It's very frightening to have freedom and I think there is now an emphasis on the proper motive really as a cover to keep us from discovering more about ourselves other uses of freedom other ways of spending our manse resource which is frightened of it. The idea that the main reason that you hold to a moral imperative that holds us together is profit motive. And that has to be displaced. Otherwise we will not be able to entertain of the mothers of. And the final point that the couple made I think is as important at least as Dr. Cassilis point about what we can do about living so long. He suggests that. We need a new form of individuals. Henri says I and I mention that in the new organized world so show an excessive force they want to do things in groups they want to get connected. Build community act together and

that's a very important part of expression he says Isn't that a contradiction. The traditional notion of being an individual with his own identity and with full unsure sense of himself. I suppose it is but I really think that we are suffering from an inappropriate image of individual ism based on a former period in the history of the human race. To put it a little bit crudely in simple terms we have a farmer's idea of individual ism and we need a city man's idea of individuals. If you cannot be an individual and live in a group. Then there are going to be more individuals. And I say suggest that we exercise creative imagination to figure out how to be an individual in a group and forget about being a pure cowboy individual. The image that some of the Goldwater projected for our entertainment a few years ago.

Now that's that's that is as big a problem as any I could think of to exercises over the next 50 years. All I want to say is it begins not instead of the problem of individual should begin assuming the dominant existence of group group and organization. And then let's get on with the new notion of individual in that context. To round out this week's program following the remarks of David basil on which you've just heard we call now on the chairman of the panel discussion that has been represented this week. The chairman is John T Howard a city planner and head of the MIT city planning department a native of Paris France he has served as a planning consultant to governments throughout the world. He is here now to speak on this program. Dr. John Howard. What is it. There's a point it occurred to me. As a as a point occurred to me as professor was talking that that.

Clarified something for me in his paper if you read it you will find his definition of planning. And I didn't like it. It made me uncomfortable. And he acknowledges that it makes people uncomfortable but it what planning is really about. And as he spoke in terms of a minute ago planning the end of colonialism in his paper he spoke of we should have planned better for the negro rebellion and the riots. I think this is the kind of planning that we can't do. This is looking forward seriously to 50 years and planning involved I think we can't plan results. I think we have to plan processes which will permit orderly decision making and nowhere is this more germane than in the planning of the physical environment. Where we get in trouble and planning is where. We erect a positive decision regarding as a result

in the real concern about establishing a process that will lead continually to ordered orderly decision making advancing the vision that has been spoken. We have a filing I just tell you to take a little quarrel with my friend to the right here although I will say beforehand that if we had a little more time I think we'll come to the same conclusion what these planning planning is nothing else and this is true of science generally rationalization and implementation of Common Sense. It is foresight and it's that you are aware of your ideals where you want to go and I think this is necessary and it's possible. When you say that we could not have planned for the nigger rebellion I disagree with you a Sollie it could be foreseen that this would happen at that juncture and it was foreseen. And if it had been realized by those who are in

power things could have been made which would make for a better solution. Let me now say take another example. I think you said that we within our lifetime or somebody said within our lifetime I'm looking forward to a situation where wars are ended. It is possible M and I agree with them. But if we should try to get there. Let me now be very specific. Then you should not have an American policy which is illustrated by the fact that the Senate is not to ratify the 24 Geneva agreement against inhuman warfare and that the Senate that's not ratified a single one of the human rights racial Lucian's which has passed in the United Nations Assembly very often with agreement with the American administration with the government. I mean very definitely if we do want to reach the good of talking about we must know the difficulties we must fight the things which are against

it. It's in that sense I mean that that planning certainly planning is a process that must always be and you will have to change as things are changing on the road you are good. But if you should have a vision and you should you have to fight the things which stand against you. I think the last example is rather telling. And it will be up at this year's Assembly and it's bad for the reputation of the United States and it's bad for everything we're trying to do to stop the war. You have been listening to a discussion on America's needs during the next 50 years. Our last speaker was city planner John T Howard also featured on this week's program where a Swedish economist and sociologist Dr. Carl Gunnar mirrored all American social critic David T basil on British minister the Reverend J.B. Lang need Casserly University of Michigan psychologist Richard L. Cutler and Baltimore Maryland city developer James W. Rouse.

We hope you will join us again next week for the 8 then this 13 week series of programs dealing with the needs of America for development during the next 50 years. Next week we present a discussion on the needs of the future in the fields of communications. To speak on that subject area will be civil rights leader Bayard Ruston. He is executive director of the a Philip Randolph Institute in New York City. A second speaker will be the honorable Walter Washington. He is Mayor commissioner of Washington D.C. until next week then. This is Bill Greenwood a public affairs director of the national educational radio network reporting from Washington D.C.. This has been another program in the NE our series the next 50 years expressing a variety of opinions on the future of the democratic environment. Those views were given at the 50th year conference of the American Institute of planners held in

Washington in October of last year. As there is more for those buying White House. Buildings would energize first and then who am you Af-Ams American University Radio in Washington D.C.. This is any are the national educational radio network.