EDITORIAL
Population/resources outlook gloomy NRC report "Resources and Man" gives grim outlook, but intelligent exploitation of science holds key to solution esources and Man," a report of a National Research Council committee, paints a grim picture indeed of the population/resources outlook (see page 13). By the year 2000: upwards of 40 million people in the U.S. and 7 billion in the world—additional urban units in developed areas equal to what now exists—dwindling mineral resources. Malthus, who has fallen into a certain disrepute, may be vindicated after all. Most of us become so wrapped up in our own everyday worlds that we tend to forget that this earth of ours contains a finite amount of real estate with a finite amount of resources. It can therefore support only a finite number of people. The only real questions are: how many and how best to manage resources to support that number? While the NRC report may be overly pessimistic, it's hard to fault its basic conclusions and recommendations. The report concludes, for example, that only through population control and management of resources can the ratio of resources ( in a total sense ) to man be kept at an acceptable level. It recommends, among other things, that agricultural and forest lands be assessed and classified, that a comprehensive geochemical census, worldwide, be taken, that the Helium Conservation Program be re-evaluated, and that a new and more rigorous monitoring system for radioactive waste disposal be undertaken. And as a matter of national policy, the committee recommends population control with a goal of zero rate of growth by the year 2000, renewal and enlargement of our mineral
R
resource base, increase of agricultural productivity, acceleration of work on high-neutron-economy nuclear reactors, among other things. This all sounds eminently sensible. In addition to sounding a needed alarm, the report underscores what we feel will be a critical role of science and technology in the coming 100 years. Several months ago (C&EN, June 30, page 24) Dr. Philip Handler, president of National Academy of Sciences, noted in a C&EN interview that some mature scientists seem no longer sure of their role in society (which feeling Dr. Handler does not share). In the same issue on this page, we pleaded the case for science as a "potent weapon for good" in raising the quality of life. We feel this even more strongly after having read the NRC report. For virtually all the problems cited in the report involve at least in part technical solutions. How can any scientist or engineer doubt the key role he will be playing in the coming decades? How can those students and others disaffected with science fail to see that while science has led to some of our problems it is also science that holds the key to their solution? Science has taken its lumps in the past several years and has served as sort of a whipping boy for certain elements of our society. We think there may now be a basis for restoring some of the tarnished image.
C&EN editorials are signed and represent only the views of the signer. Unless stated to the contrary they do not represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Rather they are aimed at focusing attention on some controversial point, at sparking intelligent discussion, at raising legitimate questions.
NOV. 17, 1969 C&EN 5
