On Growth

[p. 100]

16. Alexander King

Dr. Alexander King has been director-general for scientific affairs of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris since 1961.
He was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1909. He studied chemistry at the Imperial College of Science in London and at the University of Munich. During World War II he acted as deputy scientific adviser to the minister of production. From 1943 to 1947 he was head of the United Kingdom Scientific Mission in Washington, D.C., and Scientific Councillor of the UK embassy in the United States. From 1947 to 1950 Dr. King was head of the Cabinet Scientific Secretariat in London.
In 1968 he became a founding member of the Club of Rome.

What have been the reactions of scientists at the OECD and in the United Nations circles on Limits to Growth?

Very varied and mainly reticent. Like the general public the scientists are very divided on this. Naturally as a vested interest the scientists tend to think that the ‘technological fix’ will be able to solve everything, but they are becoming more and more convinced that the time factor is important. You see, we are agreed now that science policy must be articulated with economic policy and social policy. But as the development process takes about ten to fifteen years to develop from a new discovery as a concept, into an industrial product or into a new social innovation, this means if science is directed to problems of today, it will be fifteen years too late. It will remain as a kind of trouble shooting, rather than a creative impulse. Therefore, the importance of Limits to Growth to the scientist, which is just beginning to soak in, is that he must plan ahead much more and he must look with the economists and the politicians to the more distant problems, otherwise his results will be depassé. Nevertheless, to my mind as well as many of my colleagues, the technical factors have been understated a bit in Limits to Growth.

[p. 101]

It is possible to do more, but everything depends on the availability of abundant energy.

Tinbergen¹ said there is a need for more precise approaches in the model.

Of course there is. No one thinks this model is perfect; not even the authors. I think what is so astonishing, apart from the emotional reaction of the economists, which indicates it was high time they were stirred up, is that so many people feel that this new approach, a pioneer approach, the first research in a new field, should provide all the answers. This is contrary to the whole pattern of scientific development - it is an emotional, not a scientific reaction. It opens a door, that's all, but that is an enormous thing. The subsequent approach will be that Tinbergen and his team, and many others, will gradually give us much more information, much more certainty, will bring it down to terms which can lead to political actions.

When talking to B.F. Skinner² on his controversial book Beyond Freedom and Dignity, he said that eighty to ninety percent of the reviews had been devastating because people could not read. Does this apply to Limits to Growth?

Undoubtedly. So many of the bad reviews I've read - and I must confess that some of the good reviews are equally in terms of obvious preconceptions without necessarily having read it. For example, the book itself says again and again that it is not futurology, that it is not predicting the future; it is merely saying what will happen if we don't change. And yet so many of the reviewers say that predictions never come true, changes always intervene to ensure that they don't. Well, that is the objective of the book; so they obviously haven't read it.

How do the Third World scientists you are familiar with and how do the East Europeans, the socialist countries react?

This is an enormously interesting problem. Clearly, not only the scientists but any thinking person in the underdeveloped countries will initially react badly because it indicates a situation which places the Third World countries in a more precarious position than is generally recognized. And they must react against that. It can appear as a kind of blatant

1 See conversation no. 3.

2 See conversation no. 7.

[p. 102]

neocolonialism, the reaction of the rich man who has dirtied his nest and wants to consolidate his own position and wants to stop everything else at the same time. But my experience, particularly after the discussions the Club had at Rio de Janeiro, was that the Latin American scientists as representing underdeveloped countries change their position after a time. They realize that there are basic facts that must be faced up to. And hence, we are enormously happy in the Club of Rome that the Latin Americans will deepen the study with financial support from Canada, which the Club has obtained for them, will in fact look at this from their own point of view. This is an enormous advance.

You talk about Rio. In the June 5-16, 1972, World Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Brazil took a position that it would not allow ecological concerns to prejudice its economic growth.

That is certainly a natural tendency and a very understandable one. In a big empty country it is very difficult to give priority to the longtime future, to weight ecological damage against the short term, terribly desirable economic advantages. This is the inevitable schizophrenia which all the individuals and all countries have between our immediate interest and our more secure long-term interests.

Dr. King, do you feel that the environment problems are entering now the political consciousness of the world?

The environment problems, yes. I think from the discussions we have had - particularly Aurelio Peccei³ and I with the political leaders and others - that the body politic is becoming very well aware of the total problem. The environmental problems as such, the pollution problems, receive most attention. Perhaps partly because they are the easiest part of this complex which we call the problématique. They are problems which can be solved technically and economically at not too enormous costs. That is the most hopeful side. But whether the politicians will really face up and act on the longer-term socioeconomic, depletion and industrial problems, whether this will really lead to the beginning of the end of the economy of consumption and waste, I don't yet know.

Are you hopeful?

Yes, I am hopeful, but whether there is enough time, I don't know.

3 Chairman of the Club of Rome, see conversation no. 70.

[p. 103]

You have worked a lot with Aurelio Peccei as initiator of the Club of Rome. Professor William Thompson of York University,⁴ Toronto, Canada, recently remarked in Harper's magazine, ‘Peccei is the example of the multinational manager in search for a new concentric order.’⁵ What is your impression of him?

I have known and worked with Aurelio for many years. In fact, the whole concept of the Club of Rome arose from discussions which started in this room here between the two of us.⁶ To my mind, he is a unique person. He is not typical, unfortunately, because the average tycoon or multinational firm bureaucrat is inevitably tied up rather exclusively with company business. Nevertheless, I agree that the multinational firms with their worldwide operations do see things more globally and therefore one would expect more understanding, a little more longer-term thinking from here.

But Peccei is exceptional in that he puts this whole concept of the world difficulties before everything, and I think he is one of the most devoted people I have ever known in my life. He lives this, and his motivation, to my mind, is as pure as that of anyone I ever have met. He is enormously hardworking. He devotes a great deal of his time to these things. He has a truly world vision. He is certainly not in any way representing multinational business, nor is he representing the industrialized countries. He is one of these few rare world spirits whom we want to cultivate, but it is not easy.

He once told me, ‘How could I do anything else, when I look at my children and grandchildren?’

Yes. All world citizens might take that point of view but don't. That's the difference between Peccei and the rest; his concern is for the future of humanity.

4 See conversation no. 68.

5 William Irwin Thompson, ‘The Individual as Institution,’ Harper's magazine, September 1972, p. 55.

6 Dr. King's office at OECD headquarters in Paris, Rue André Pascal 2.