Logo DBNL
On Growth Two (1975)

On Growth Two

(1975)–Willem Oltmans–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

31. Jermen M. Gvishiani

Jermen M. Gvishiani was born in Georgia, USSR, in 1928. He studied sociology and philosophy and became what is called a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1951 he studied at the Institute for Foreign Relations. Then he served in the Soviet Navy. In 1965 he was nominated deputy chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. From 1966 to 1968 he lectured in philosophy at Moscow
University. Since 1969 Professor Gvishiani has been concentrating on management problems, heading a special faculty which is doing concrete social research. Dr. Gvishiani is married to the daughter of Prime Minister Aleksei N. Kosygin. His wife, Lyudmila, is a historian in her own right and some years ago she published a 328-page study, Soviet Russia and the USA: 1917-1920. In 1962 Professor Gvishiani published a study on Soviet business practices, Sotsiologia Biznesa. In 1972 appeared Organization and Management. That year Dr. Gvishiani became chairman of the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA).

In 1971 you told me that a model like the one in Limits to Growth tended to neglect the necessary psychological and social factors, and that a multidisciplinary approach to these problems was needed. At present, Club of Rome teams in Japan, the Netherlands, and Latin America are creating new global models employing this multidisciplinary approach.

Deep and apparently irreversible changes are taking place in the world we live in. The tremendous growth rates of social development, the transformation of science into a direct productive force, the constantly increasing impact of mankind on its natural habitat, the contradictions of scientific and technological progress - these are all facts which make even inveterate idealists think in realistic terms. Mankind today is confronted by new problems which create a justified anxiety all over the world. One such problem, the limits to growth, has already been widely discussed among politicians, scientists, and the general public. The Club of Rome played a notable role in attracting public attention to these matters especially in your country, the Netherlands, I understand. The publication of the MIT study has caused anxiety, in certain cases some pessimism, about the future, and raised considerable controversy.

Soviet scientists are quite familiar with the activities of the Club of Rome and other similar groups. We maintain certain differences in our approach to such question as the limits to growth as well as to evaluation and interpretation of the MIT world-model. However, cooperation on global modeling is gradually developing. One example is the newly founded Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, where Soviet scientists actively participate and where also, for this year 1974, a series of conferences on these matters is organized. Incidentally, these are attended both by Soviet scientists and members of the Club of Rome. One can hope that the meetings

will outline new methods of global modeling and use multidisciplinary approaches to these problems, which above all will reflect reality more closely. An important role in achieving success in this field is attributed to the improvement in political developments in the international situation, or, one might say, the performance of wisdom on the international scene.

 

In writing the first volume of interviews of Western scientists, I came across a situation in which I was asked by a prominent economist from Yale why he should sit down with Professor Forrester at MIT to discuss Limits to Growth, because, he maintained, ‘I am an economist. What will I do with a systems engineer?’ Professor Barry Commoner sounds lonely when he advocates over and over again the social responsibilities for scientists to society as a whole.

The question of mistrust and professional jealousy among scientists is perhaps more of an ethical nature, although it does originate from the social responsibilities of the scientist in general. After all, a scientist, like any other member of society, cannot live in splendid isolation from common goals and needs. Professor Commoner is right stressing the social responsibility of scientists toward mankind.

But let me return for a moment to the importance and necessity of the multidisciplinary approach to large-scale problems. For us this necessity has become an indisputable fact. It has already led to the organization of scientific teams with researchers representing many different disciplines. Irrespective of how qualified an individual scientist is in his particular field, when applying systems analysis to complicated problems, he needs the cooperation of scientists and specialists in many other fields.

In the USSR Academy of Sciences, in the State Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers for Science and Technology, and in a number of other scientific organizations, we now have numerous multidisciplinary teams already functioning. They are scientific councils investigating various complex problems. They unite leading Soviet scientists and other highly qualified specialists. The councils render important assistance in developing programs and decision making on the state level in solving major economic problems. The experience of these scientific councils has proved to be a highly efficient way of organization. As an example I could mention the Council of the Academy of Sciences on socioeconomic and ideological problems of the scientific and technological revolution comprising economists, philosophers, engineers, sociologists, lawyers, geographers, mathematicians, and biologists.

Soviet scientists are of the opinion that problems of human development

and rational use of natural resources are global, and that they can only be dealt with by the joint efforts of various sciences and scientific groups. Scholars of the USSR Academy of Sciences are providing methodologies for the economic evaluation or utilization of the main natural resources and participating in drawing up scientific and technological forecasts of possible changes in the biosphere within twenty to thirty years under the influence of the combined productive activities of our global society. Such forecasting needs the widest exchange of information between representatives of different fields of knowledge.

 

Professor J. Bronowski of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, has been advocating for some time now a separation between government and science as in the past between government and Church.

Soviet scientists fully recognize their social responsibilities. It cannot be otherwise in our country, because of one of the basic principles of Soviet society, namely the incorporation of science into social organisms. The aims of science are formulated in conformity with our social motivations. Soviet scientists do not consider science to be a purely academic activity isolated from practical social goals. They look upon it as an important instrument for improving social development.

That is our point of view regarding the relationship between the state and science. Scientific goals coincide, as state policy is also aimed at the welfare of all members of society. Therefore, for us it makes no sense at all to separate science from the state.

 

One conclusion I drew from my seventy interviews with Western scientists was that they almost all seemed pessimistic about the future. In socialist countries my experience is different. When I related to Professor Moisey A. Markov that Toynbee had expressed grave concern tome about the future of his grandchildren, Markov replied, ‘I, too, have grandchildren, but I am sure they will have a great future.’

Looking after the destiny of future generations is our prime and honorable task. But at the same time it is a difficult task. Here, I do not share the views of some Western scientists who do not believe in the ultimate victory of human wisdom or in the happy future of our children and grandchildren. On the other hand, though opposed to pessimistic viewpoints, I should like to caution against unwarranted optimism. Optimism should be based solely upon the management of social development, upon the recognition of future social consequences of the decisions we took in our time. In this connection we recognize that conscious management, planning, and forecasting of

social development are beginning to play a vital role; they are widely employed in our country. Therefore, optimism should not only be based on abstract hopes. Its very essence is the desire to understand the future and to manage the processes of development in all necessary directions.

Furthermore, speaking of the future of mankind or the destiny of our planet, or for that matter, the destiny of life on earth, one should stress that all people in the world are vitally interested in avoiding thermonuclear war. All states are equally interested in thwarting the danger of ecological catastrophe. But neither of these tasks could be solved by one country alone, no matter how powerful it is economically. What is necessary is to find a solution through a collective effort on an international scale. What is required is the joint work of all peoples and states who have realized what their common problems are, namely that we are faced with problems that do not depend on existing differences or contradictions.

We are all divided by differences in our social systems, our languages, and our working methods. But the elements that unite us are acquiring an ever-increasing importance. When we think of the future, we should always keep in mind that it is shaped by people. The destiny of man lies in the hands of man.

 

In your book Organization and Management, you said that imperialism was the highest and last stage of the development of capitalism, and you rendered a detailed analysis of the operation of monopoly corporations. But in September, 1973, attending a conference of some 650 industrialists from seventy-five nations in San Francisco, you expressed, on behalf of the USSR, the willingness ‘to enter into a planned and programmed cooperation on a stable and long-term basis’ with capitalist companies of the West.

The conclusion that imperialism is the highest and last stage of the development of capitalism was drawn by Lenin as a result of analyzing the development of capitalist society. Lenin proved that the economy develops through the concentration of production in creating a world economy. However, in capitalist societies, the international division of labor, mutual cooperation, and combined specialization develop spontaneously and take contradictory forms. The appearance of multinational capitalistic corporations is the result of the contemporary high level of socialization of productive forces in capitalist societies.

 

You have also spoken of the necessity of stimulating social progress through economic development ‘for the destiny of all life on Earth.’

In the socialist economy, expansion of production and the increase in the

productivity of labor are not ends in themselves. In the USSR, economic problems are subordinated to social goals. This means in effect that economic plans constitute part of an integrated program leading to the socioeconomic transformation of society. We know therefore of no opposition or contradiction in social development in relation to economic growth.

Often, humanists of the past were true utopians. They tried to carry out social transformations irrespective of economic development and without taking into account technological progress, often without even stimulating such progress. But are modern humanists, who often propose giving up economic growth, really devoting themselves to finding solutions for our social problems?

In many regions of the world we are faced with poverty, starvation, and economic backwardness. Even in the developed industrial nations, the problem of satisfying the vital needs of the population as a whole is not yet solved, especially when we take into consideration that the needs of people are also growing. Therefore, the problem is not to stop altogether or even to considerably limit economic growth, but to ensure economic growth in the most effective way. After all, only economic growth will create the real conditions for improvement in living conditions of the human race.

 

Sicco Mansholt1 has called the energy crisis a blessing, for he expects it to bring Europe to its senses, making it aware ‘that there are precise limits to the earth's resources.’

The present energy crisis is not related to the problem of future shortages of fuel resources. It is more likely to be a reflection of contradictions between the advanced capitalist countries on the one hand and the developing countries on the other. The giant multinational corporations deliberately utilize these crises for their own political, commercial, and financial speculations aimed at ever higher profits.

These crises, we have seen since 1973, might be called a rehearsal of what can happen to our world in the near future. To a certain extent, this situation might encourage a search for new energy sources. I think, however, that the problems of future energy supplies are considerably more complicated. Nevertheless, international cooperation among scientists in the energy field should bring new and sufficiently reliable and accessible energy resources.

 

C.L. Sulzberger mentioned in the New York Times that according to statistical evidence, crude oil and natural gas consumption in the COMECON countries would far exceed the area's production capacity by 1980.

In the USSR, both the current and future domestic needs in oil and gas will

be fulfilled by our national oil and gas industry. The oil and gas needs of CMEA countries will be partly covered by the domestic production and partly by imports. We never maintained that in 1980 fuel needs in socialist countries will be met by domestic capacities alone.

 

The Club of Rome is presently engaged in a major planetary debate over how the tremendous gap between rich and poor nations could be narrowed or even bridged.

This question of how to bridge the scientific, technological, and economic gap between developed and developing nations is a most urgent contemporary problem. All over the world very serious efforts are being made toward helping to solve it.

First, it should be pointed out that the most decisive and important step is undoubtedly to extend political and economic independence to the developing countries. The United Nations and its special agencies are playing an important role toward this end. In this connection we should note a recent proposal by the Soviet Union, submitted to the General Assembly, aiming at the partial reduction of military expenditures of all nations that are members of the Security Council. These funds, now used for armaments, could be fully utilized to render assistance to the developing nations. I consider this initiative by the Soviet government an important and concrete step toward reducing the gap in the social and economic development of nations.

 

Prime Minister Kosygin announced the goal of selling 2.6 million automobiles to Soviet consumers during 1975. Does the USSR take measures to combat automobile pollution and the like?

By the directive of the Twenty-fourth Congress of the CPSU on our five-year plan for the development of our national economy [1971-1975] , it was announced that we were aiming at the annual production of from 2 to 2.1 million cars by 1975. In accordance with these targets we have been planning new plants and additional production lines for spare parts and other materials.

The Soviet Union has been taking drastic measures to combat environmental pollution by cars. We have issued standard regulations to limit toxic fumes in exhaust gases in compliance with international standards. We have also been improving automobile engine designs, while highways are being constructed so as to reduce traffic within urban districts. Our new freeways will bypass the concentrated areas of our cities and towns.

 

All over the world, the stress on science and technology increases.

Professor Mikhail Millionshchikov, speaking about the ninth Five Year Plan of the USSR, stated that you are now employing over 940,000 scientific workers in some 5,000 research institutions.

It is interesting to note that the number of research institutions and scientific workers in the USSR has considerably grown over the past two to three years. You must be citing figures Professor Millionshchikov gave some time ago. In April, 1974, there were 5,251 research institutions and 1,108,000 scientific workers in the Soviet Union. Therefore, one quarter of all the scientists in the world work in the USSR.

The international character of science has been manifest throughout time. However, in our epoch this feature of science was given a new stimulus. On the one hand, science was fostered by more distinct specialization in research areas. On the other hand, science, in our time, has confronted quite a number of vitally important problems concerning mankind. Furthermore, in many respects this was done on a global scale for the very first time.

 

Knowing of your personal friendship with the president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Philip Handler, I still would like to ask you whether you are satisfied with the present forms of cooperation between the Academy of Science in the USSR and its counterpart in the United States.

We have regular scientific exchanges with the Americans, both with the National Academy of Sciences and the Council for Learned Societies. The National Academy deals with the natural sciences and the Council with the social sciences. As a result of summit meetings and negotiations we have signed a number of special agreements which enlarge the sphere of mutually beneficial business cooperation between our two countries - another example of a creative approach to global problems. We concluded, for example, agreements on cooperation in environmental protection, space research, the oceans of the world, the peaceful use of atomic energy, transportation problems, agriculture, medicine, and problems concerning health services. We also designed joint scientific work in several fields, for instance, in problems concerning the power industry; transportation of energy, especially over long distances; the design and maintenance of powerful thermal and hydroelectric stations; problems concerning atomic energy, computers, and theoretical and experimental physics; the planning and organization of research; and new technologies in general. In several cases, an exchange of scientists led to the establishment of long-term scientific cooperation. Examples are to be found, for instance, in the participation of Soviet scientists in deep-sea drilling projects on the US research vessel ‘global

Challenger.’ Another excellent example is the US-USSR cooperation in the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, as I mentioned earlier. This institute was created at the initiative of both our academies. We are definitely interested in scientific cooperation. A vivid example was given by Dr. Handler, who said in a speech, ‘My colleagues; we, US specialists, have but the highest praise for the research in astronomy, physics, and applied mathematics in the USSR. It is our opinion that research in the Soviet Union is under way in all directions and we recognize these as the most important in the world of science. The necessity for joint research is becoming more and more apparent.’

I think that the continued cooperation of these two largest scientific institutions in the world will further fruitfully develop, and newer and even more efficient and long-term forms of cooperation will be found, since this would be the key to the solution of important global problems of the future. Perhaps I should add here that from this development of international scientific and technological cooperation, further economic cooperation between nations could ensue. For it is quite obvious that when peaceful coexistence between nations is to be guaranteed, it will be strengthened by the further development of active economic, scientific, technological, and cultural cooperation. In other words, peaceful coexistence is not simply based on one agreement, but also on a large variety of activities which will further assist in creating mutually beneficial relations and an ever-widening understanding. I would even say that such activities could lead to a form of mutual dependence. This is why the main principles of Soviet foreign trade are based on the concept of a continued growth of cooperation. In spite of our own powerful economic, scientific, and technological potential, we are very much opposed to an ideology of isolationism. A historically shaped division of labor does exist. It is an objective condition of what I have termed the mutually beneficial cooperation among nations in the fields of science, technology, and the economy.

As a matter of fact, the most important feature of the contemporary stage in the development of economic relations between the USSR and the most advanced countries in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan is the transition from sporadic deals to a planned and programmed exchange of business on a stable and long-term basis. The same goes, of course, for the United States. Many agreements with large American firms and corporations have been signed, among them General Electric, ITT, General Dynamics, Singer, Monsanto, Control Data Corporation, Joy Manufacturing Company, Arthur Anderson, Hewlett-Packard, Bechtel, FMC, Dresser, ARMCO Steel, In-

dustrial Mechanics, Philip Morris, as well as with the Stanford Research Institute. We are expecting to sign numerous more contracts in the near future.

 

This takes me back to the pessimism of some Western observers, who told me that they did not think our technological or scientific problems insurmountable, but felt that our human problems had become too awesome for the human mind to face, and let alone solve.

The problems now facing mankind are extremely complicated. Yet, the future still depends on man. I am still optimistic that we will surmount whatever may come, through the joint efforts of scientists, political leaders, and the public at large. But to achieve success, a much higher level of organization of society is needed. We shall have to create a purposeful management in the development of human life. Otherwise our optimism will be groundless and our efforts wasted. Therefore, I would once again remind you of the need for human wisdom in the creation of the future of mankind, since this future lies but in the hands of man.


Vorige Volgende