Now let me return to the question of ' fuels' with which I bad dealt in a cavalier manner. No-one is suggesting that the world-wide industrial system which is being envisaged to operate in the year 2000, a ahead, would be by water or wind power. Now we are told that we are moving rapidly into the age. Of course, this has been the story for quite some time, for over twenty years, and yet, the of to man's total fuel and is still minute. In 1970, it amounted to 2.7 per cent in Britain; 0.6 per cent in the European ; and 0.3 per cent in the United States, to mention only the countries that have gone the furthest. Perhaps we can that nature's tolerance will be able to cope with such small impositions, although there are many people even today who are deeply worried, and Dr. Edward D. David, President Nixon's Science Adviser, talking about the storage of radioactive wastes, says that 'one has a queasy feeling about something that has to stay underground and be pretty well sealed off for 25,000 years before it is harmless'.

However that may be, the point I am making is a very simple one: the proposition to replace thousands of millions of tons of fossil fuels, every year, by means to 'solve' the fuel problem by an and ecological problem of such a monstrous magnitude that Dr. David will not be the only one to have 'a queasy feeling'. It means solving one problem by it to another - there to an bigger problem.

Having said this, I am sure that I shall be confronted with another, even more daring proposition: namely, that future scientists and technologists will be able to devise safety rules and precautions of such perfection that the using, , and storing of radioactive materials in ever-increasing quantities will be made entirely safe; also that it will be the of politicians and social scientists to a world society in which wars or disturbances can never happen. Again, it is a proposition to solve one problem simply by it to another , the of everyday human behaviour. And this takes us to the third of 'natural capital' which we are recklessly squandering because we treat it as if it were : as if it were something we had made ourselves and could easily replace out of our much-vaunted and rapidly rising productivity.

Is it not that our current of production are already eating into the very substance of industrial man? To many people this is not at all . Now that we have solved the problem of production, they say, have we ever had it so good? Are we not better fed, better clothed, and better housed than ever before - and better educated? Of course we are: most, but by no means all, of us: in the rich countries. But this is not what I mean by 'substance'. The substance of man cannot be measured by Gross National Product. Perhaps it cannot be measured at all, except for certain symptoms of loss. However, this is not the place to go into the of these symptoms, such as crime, drug addiction, vandalism, breakdown, rebellion, and so forth. never prove anything.

I started by saying that one of the most fateful of our age is the belief that the problem of production has been solved. This illusion, I suggested, is mainly due to our inability to recognise that the modern industrial system, with all its intellectual sophistication, the very basis on which it has been erected. To use the language of the , it lives on irreplaceable capital which it cheerfully treats as . I three of such capital: fossil fuels, the tolerance of nature, and the human substance. Even if some readers should refuse to accept all three parts of my argument, I suggest that any one of them suffices to make my case.

And what is my case? Simply that our most important task is to get off our present collision course. And who is there to tackle such a task? I think every one of us, whether old or young, powerful or powerless, rich or poor, influential or uninfluential. To talk about the future is useful only if it leads to action now. And what can we do now, while we are still in the position of 'never having had it so good'? To say the least - which is already very much - we must thoroughly understand the problem and begin to see the possibility of a new life-style, with new of production and new patterns of : a life-style for permanence. To give only three examples: in agriculture and horticulture, we can interest ourselves in the perfection of production which are biologically sound, build up soil fertility, and produce health, beauty and permanence. Productivity will then look after itself. In industry, we can interest ours selves in the of small-scale , relatively non-violent , ' with a human face', so that people have a chance to enjoy themselves while they are working, instead of working for their pay packet and hoping, usually forlornly, for enjoyment during their leisure time. In industry, again - and, surely, industry is the pace-setter of modern life - we can interest ourselves in new forms of between management and men, even forms of common ownership.

We often hear it said that we are entering the era of 'the Learning Society'. Let us hope this is true. We still have to learn how to live peacefully, not only with our fellow men but also with nature and, above all, with those Higher Powers which have made nature and have made us; for, , we have not come about by accident and certainly have not made ourselves.

The which have been merely touched upon in this will have to be further elaborated as we go along. Few people will be easily that the to man's future cannot be met by making here or there, or, possibly, by changing the political system.

The following is an attempt to look at the whole situation again, from the angle of peace and permanence. Now that man has the means of self-obliteration, the question of peace looms larger than ever before in human history. And how could peace be built without some of permanence with regard to our life?

(Small is Beautiful by E F Schumacher)