LFrolov

Progress Publishers Moscow

Translated from the Russian Designed by Vadim Kuleshov

CONTENTS

H.

rjIOBAJIbHHIE IIPOEJIEMH H Ha

HEJIOBE1ECTBA

Page

Introduction

THE WORLD AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM. THE FUTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS: MYTHS AND REALITY

Chapter 1

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND THE FUTURE OF HUMAN CIVILISATION

29

1. The World in Conditions of Peace and Disarmament. Social Development and Economic Growth

29

2. The Social and Humanistic Orientation of Scientific

and Technical Progress. Education in the Year 2000 53

3. Towards an Integrated Humanistic Culture in a New Civilisation

93

«Hporpecc», 1982 English translation @ Progress Publishers 1982

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Chapter II

THE PROSPECTS FOR MAN AND NATURE: FROM CONFLICT TO HARMONY

IQS

1. Man and Nature Today and in the Future: Problems

of Resources, Energy, Food, and tho Environment

109

2. A Dilemma Confronting Mankind. Global Models and Programme for Overcoming Crises in Man's Relations with Nature; ``Alarmism'' and "Technocratic Optimism"; a Scientific Approach

126

3. A Scientific and Social Strategy for Harmonising Man's Interaction with Nature

143

10501---761

40-82

014(01)-82

Chapter III

THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM TODAY AND TOMORROW

1. Population Growth as a Global Problem: Trends, Consequences, Prospects

2. In Search of New Approaches and Methods for Solving the Demographic Problem: Critiques of Malthusianism, "Demographic Nihilism" and Abstract Humanistic Optimism

3. A Scientific and Humanistic Approach to the Problem

of Population and to Its Regulation: a Demographic Policy Adapted to Mankind's Future

Chapter IV

MAN AND HIS FUTURE: HOMO SAPIENS ET HUMANUS

1. Genes or Socia? Man's Social Essence and His Biological Nature

2. Relapses of Anthropologism and Social-Biologism; the Establishment of a Scientific Approach to the Problem of Mankind's Future

3. Man's Prospects in the "Age of Biology": Problems of Health Care and the Possibilities and Limits of Biological Adaptation; Critique of Neo-Eugenic Projects for Producing an "Ideal Man"

Chapter V

THE NEW CIVILISATION'S NEW MAN: APPROACHES TO A SOCIAL IDEAL

1. The Ideal of Future Man: an Ail-Round and Harmonious Development of Personality

2. Socialism, the Revolution in Science and Technology, and the Molding of the New Man; the Further Moral Development of Personality

3. The New Humanism of Communist Civilisation's NewMan

Conclusion

THE PROSPECTS FOR MANKIND: A COMPREHENSIVE RESOLUTION OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS THROUGH SOCIAL, SCIENTIFIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND HUMANISTIC DEVELOPMENT

158 158

158 177

192 192

207 241

273 274

283 298

Introduction

THE WORLD

AT THE THRESHOLD

OF THE THIRD

MILLENNIUM.

THE FUTURE

IN THE CONTEXT

OF GLORAL PROHLEMS:

MYTHS AND REALITY

One cannot imagine a man who does not reflect upon the future and associate his hopes with it. Today, however, and also over the long term mankind's global problems arouse concern on all continents. *

What will the world be like at the threshold of the third millennium? This question confronts both Englishmen and Russians, Americans and Chinese, Germans and French. It is being asked in India and in Mexico, in Japan and in Portugal---wherever there are men on our planet. Its emergence is not accidental. This is not merely because boundaries between millennia form a major landmark in human history that then operates as a psychological stimulus, arousing man's interest in glancing into the next millennium and encouraging futurological studies of various types. For mankind has always dreamt of a better future. This is why unresolved social problems and political contradictions, the increasing scope of economic processes, of science, and of culture, together with proportionally increasing difficulties in governing them and also the growing number of undesirable consequences of industrial, scientific and technical development are causing men to reflect on future prospects and seek radical ways to overcome both current and emerging difficulties. This shifts our attention to the future.

Global problems comprise a complex of problems that now confront all of mankind and concern both the world as a whole and its individual regions and countries. Above all they include: avoiding a worldwide thermonuclear war and establishing conditions that encourage the development of international relations on a peaceful basis; social develop-

ment and economic growth throughout the world; the overcoming of the Earth's most blatant manifestations of social injustice---hunger and poverty; a rational and complex utilisation of natural resources; the development and implementation of an active demographic policy and of a strategy for preserving the environment; the development of international co-operation in the field of scientific research and in applying the achievements of the revolution in science and technology; and problems in education and health. An effective resolution of global problems calls for a concentration of efforts of representatives of many fields, including philosophy, which determines world-outlook and methodological approaches to the study of global problems and to their appraisal in humanistic terms.

While it is true that global problems are common to all of mankind this does not deprive them of a concrete social and class content, as is asserted by representatives of bourgeois ideology. For the success of even the most perfect scientific and technical framework depends on concrete dimensions of social reality. Similarly it will also fail if employed to justify wrong socio-political conceptions. It is this which explains the appearance of a wide variety of pessimistic forecasts in bourgeois societies, on the one hand, a "disappointment with progress" (R. Aron), as well as attempts to find ``optimistic'' solutions in ways that imply a suspension of humanity's further development, as in the case of D. Meadows and his coauthors for example. They use the conception of "limits to growth" to raise the issue of holding back the further development of production as well as population growth. When turning to an analysis of today's global problems in terms of theories and ideas, and also in developing a strategy for resolving them, Marxists, on the other hand, see their dialectical interconnection and their integral systems character. This points to a number of distinct aspects of global problems, including socio-political aspects (extending to issues of international law), as well as scientific and technical, cultural and historical, and moral-humanistic ones. Existing studies consider both their present formulation within the context of our age's major contradictions, i.e., those between socialism and capitalism, and the long-term task of the future, namely, communism. While Marxists clearly see the historical origins of global problems and the role that has been played

by the development of production and of science and technology in intensifying them, they also clearly recognise that by their nature these problems are neither fatal nor catastrophic, that they are fully resolvable. Their ultimate full resolution, however, requires an adequate social foundation, that is, a communist society.

Already today, despite their so far limited material as well as scientific and technical possibilities, socialist countries are doing their utmost to resolve global problems in ways that conform to the humanistic character of these new societies. Yet by their very nature global problems call for a concentration of efforts not only at the level of nations and of regions but at the international level as well. This is precisely why socialist countries are actively developing appropriate international co-operation, including co-operation with capitalist countries.

Today the scope and intensity of industrial development's undesirable consequences have greatly increased and the problems that they create have also become global. But the growing threats that result from failures to resolve them are increasing so rapidly that unless appropriate emergency measures are taken the further course of events may produce a catastrophe and a tragic outcome.

To envisage realistic prospects for mankind is becoming one of the necessary conditions for regulating the course of further progress and of mankind's existence. Both mankind's ability to overcome threatening prospects and ultimately its very fate and its future depend on the particular course of development that it will choose.

Many social, religious and international organisations in the bourgeois world are engaged in futurological forecasts of the best available courses of action. An important role is played by Papal Encyclicals and by reports to the Club of Rome.

For instance, already in his first Encyclical entitled Redemptor Hominis (The Redemption of Mankind) Pope John Paul II called on the church to respond with sympathy to the human ideals in man and in the modern world and to concentrate its influence on "concrete and historical" man as well as on mankind's predicaments. The Pope considers that in approaching the end of the second millennium it is necessary to establish why man finds himself increasingly in a state of fear and is subjected to dangers

that originate from the fruits of his own labour, both material and spiritual.^^2^^ One might expect that Pope John Paul II will then point to concrete socio-political causes; but he merely notes that the financial, currency, production and trade structures and mechanisms on which the world economy is based have been unable to overcome manifestations of social injustice inherited from the past and to meet new increasingly urgent problems and ethical requirements. Referring to the threat of environmental pollution, continually arising armed conflicts, the threat of self-destruction through atomic, hydrogen, neutron, and other weapons of mass destruction, Pope John Paul II calls for measures that will bring that tragedy to an end, and also terminate the inflation, unemployment and regression in moral norms that it produces. How can this be achieved? The Pope's answer is very diffuse. He mentions "principles of solidarity" as a source of inspiration in seeking the most appropriate institutions and mechanisms, rational and just planning, and a transformation of the foundations of economic life producing a "transformation of the mind and of the spirit''.

This programme, which is quite abstract in its socio-- political aspects, appeals primarily to the global humanistic ideas of Christianity and to a need to alter the "quality of man" as a prerequisite for all other social changes. Today this idea also has numerous secular variants and is reflected, in particular, in reports to the Club of Rome.~^^3^^ Being in many cases, however, merely a "humanistic accompaniment", at first sight well-intentioned and naive, this idea, in fact, is quite practical and effective as a future-oriented apology of capitalist relations. The same is most clearly evident in other social Utopias that are designed from the point of view of a "technocratic optimism" (such as the conceptions of a ``post-industrial'' and "super-industrial society of D. Bell and others, the book of a well-known American sociologist H. Kahn and his coauthors, entitled The Next Two Hundred Years. A Scenario for America and the World.~^^4^^ It is characteristic that the authors of that global forecast envisage only limited modifications of capitalist society in the future, and that they expect the entire world to follow the course that has been pursued by the United States. The same idea is reflected in the collective study entitled Europe 2000, which was carried out under the supervision of Professor P. Hall,^^5^^

An attempt to give a scientific forecast of the future global problems has been made in the 1980 report to the US President entitled Mankind 2000 prepared jointly by the Council for Environment Quality and the State Department. The report does not predict what will exactly happen, but describes the conditions which, in the authors' opinion, would arise in case no changes occur in government policies, in government institutions, or in the rate of technological development, and if there are no wars and other serious changes. At the same time, the authors of the report assume that a clearer understanding of the nature of modern tendencies could promote changes that would alter these trends and the anticipated outcome. Correspondingly, they trace the tendencies and prospects in the growth of the world's population, the economy of developing countries, production of foodstuffs in the world, production and utilisation of energy resources, man's influence on nature, etc.

The conclusions which the authors of the report arrive at are highly unfavourable and substantially correct numerous previous forecasts, in which, as the report notes, a slant was made towards excessive optimism. The authors maintain that actually more consistent and integrated forecasts would provide an even more vividly pronounced picture of increasing difficulties with the coming of the 21st century. The report underlines that available evidence leaves no room for doubts that the world, including the United States, would in the nearest decades encounter tremendous urgent and complex problems. Immediate and resolute changes are needed in the policy of states in order to avoid or minimise these issues before they become uncontrollable. Such is the principal conclusion of the authors of the report. New bold ideas and readiness to implement them are needed, they constantly reiterate, and say that " unprecedented co-operation and collective commitments" are extremely essential. Thus, everything would appear to be correct in form; however, at the same time the authors claim that the United States has possibilities and "very serious grounds" to be the guiding force; but this is already a direct way to justifying the hegemonist and expansionist aspirations of US imperialism. In this manner, due to a false social thrust, a seemingly objective, scientific prognosis appealing to humanistic motives turns into its opposite and leaves the ground of science, This also relates to the recom-

mendations contained in the 1981 report of the Council for Environment Quality and the US Department of State entitled The Future of Earth: Time to Act. The report only concretises and develops, as it were, the content of the previous report Mankind 2000.

It cannot be said that this, as all the other similar forecasts, does not contain objectively motivated factual data that are of interest to Marxists as well. But the general conclusions to which bourgeois futurologists arrive conform to their class positions and are designed to serve as an apology and assertion of capitalism both today and in the future. It is true that they seek new arguments for finding a role for capitalism in the third millennium and much is said concerning necessary changes. But all this is guided by a dominant objective, namely to avoid the socialist alternative.

In bourgeois-reformist futurological conceptions scientific and technical progress appears as a remedy for all evils and a magical means with the help of which capitalism is presumed to be able to get its "second wind" without changing its nature. But at the same time, it is represented as some kind of demonic power threatening mankind, as a "Pandora's box" threatening the human race with all possible types of catastrophes.

These outwardly dissimilar futurological myths become sensations and bestsellers. They are reflected in the West's science fiction and in its films and television programmes. They impress individuals, instruct, raise hopes, or merely entertain.

Nevertheless, in spite of their seeming kaleidoscopic nature, such futurological myths serve a single social and ideological purpose, be it, for instance, the concept of `` technocratic'' optimism that relies primarily on scientific and technical progress (J. Fourastie, D. Bell, A. Toffler) and coexist so easily in the West with a "disappointment with progress" (R. Aron), "a critique of science" (C. Reich), ``technological'' pessimism (H. Marcuse), and abstract ideas relating to the "humanisation of science" (J. Habermas).

All of them serve a common purpose, namely to prove that---independently of existing social systems---scientific and technical progress places mankind before a common problem of survival, as a result of which differences between

capitalism and socialism are asserted to vanish. This has been clearly stated by A. Toffler who asserts that

``What we are seeing is the general crisis of industrialism---a crisis that transcends the differences, between capitalism and Soviet-style communism."⁸ A number of positions that are similar in many respects but far from being identical have been expressed by members of the widely-known Club of Rome. But often without raising the question whether capitalist society does have a future at all, in following the objective logic of forecasts they provide answers to that question that are negative in varying degrees either in relation to that entire social structure or its individual essential traits.

Yet in these models as well the various crisis situations that are considered---such as the crisis of overpopulation, the environmental crisis, and the food, energy and raw materials crises---are viewed as component elements of a common crisis in world development; since the authors do not raise the question of the socio-economic nature of these phenomena, real socio-political possibilities and measures for overcoming them are also ignored.

For instance, the models of J. Forrester and of D. Meadows' group, who prepared the First Report to the Club of Rome,^^7^^ proposed a policy of "zero growth", that is, a limitation on levels of production and of material consumption as a means of avoiding a threatening situation. In the authors' view this would achieve a prolonged state of equilibrium. Such a state of equilibrium in the "world system" is viewed as a dynamic one, which does not preclude the further development of human activities in such areas as science, art, social relations, and sports. It is also assumed that in such a ``society'' man will be free from want and will possess sufficient leisure time for engaging in such activities. But it is evident that so long as such an objective is not embodied in a concrete socio-political programme capable of organising and guiding mankind in achieving it, it will remain a purely Utopian wish deprived of any practical foundations. Beside this, the models of the "world system" proposed by D. L. Meadows and his coauthors contain purely scientific limitations and shortcomings that have provoked criticism on the part of many non-- Marxist as well as Marxist scientists. In particular by proposing a policy of "zero growth" for the future "world system"

It

they in fact propose perpetuating existing inequalities, since they do not suggest any measures for overcoming differences in levels of social and cultural development both within capitalist society---among its classes---and especially between developing nations and industrial capitalist countries. It is this, together with their clearly pessimistic outlook on the future of mankind and their denial of possibilities for further progress, that has produced the sharp criticism of the said report from representatives of the most diverse ideological trends. In the course of many discussions their participants drew attention to the technocratic illusions of the authors of The Limits to Growth as well as a fetishistic attitude towards modelling techniques and a view of man as a mechanism fully subordinated to a system of external relations and unable to undertake autonomous initiatives.

The next global models of the Club of Rome were developed with due regard for the criticism of the first model. They include M. Mesarovic's and E. Pestel's Mankind at the Turning Point;~^^8^^ J. Tinbergen's Reshaping the International Order;^^9^^ the model entitled Global Constraints and a New Vision for Development-1 which was produced by a group of Japanese scientists under Y. Kaya;~^^10^^ a Latin-- American model designed to explore approaches to global problems of developing countries produced by a group under A. Herrera;^1J the model entitled Goals for Mankind ( produced by a group under E. Laszlo) which expresses a need to restructure the system of objectives and norms of social progress;~^^12^^ and the model produced by D. Gabor and his coauthors, published in a book entitled Beyond the Age of Waste.^^13^^ In particular, they view the possibilities for human progress with less pessimism and do not deny the prospect of further growth in the economy, science and culture. They also take into consideration differences in levels of economic, political and cultural development of different countries, and apply a differentiated approach in defining prospects and tasks relating to their development.

In particular, unlike for J. Forrester and D. Meadows and his coauthors, for M. Mesarovic and E. Pestel the problem whether the "world system" should or should not grow does not arise. The question is merely how it should grow--- in an undifferentiated and unbalanced manner, or else in a differentiated way, or in their words, ``organically''. " Organic growth" is viewed by Mesarovic and Pestel as a process

of structural differentiation that is essentially different from purely quantitative undifferentiated increases. They apply that concept to the growth of the "world system" by analogy with the growth (or rather development) of an organism, in which there is both a specialisation of different parts and functional interdependence among them. The need for such an approach follows, in their view, from the interdependence of crisis situations---the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, and the raw material crisis---which, it is asserted, become global and encompass the entire world, constituting a single global crisis syndrome of world development. This represents a clear step forward, since the conception of "organic growth" follows from a recognition of the diversity of parts and regions in the world that include national states. More specifically, Mesarovic and Pestel divide the world into the following regions: 1) North America; 2) Western Europe; 3) Japan; 4) Australia, South Africa and the remaining developed countries possessing market economies; 5) Eastern Europe including the USSR; 6) Latin America; 7) North Africa and the Middle East; 8) Tropical Africa; 9) South and Southeast Asia; 10) China. In analysing certain types of problems Mesarovic and Pestel identify still larger regions resulting from various combinations of the initial ten, for example that of "the developed world" ( regions 1, 2, 3, 4), "the socialist world" (regions 5 and 10), and "underdeveloped countries" (regions 6, 7, 8 and 9). Such a classification contains many inaccuracies.

But the model's important shortcoming is its abstract character and the occasionally Utopian nature of proposals that are intended to solve both current and future global problems. The authors believe that the general changes in social and individual relations that they recommend require the establishment of a new system of education that is appropriate to the needs of the twenty-first rather than the twentieth or nineteenth centuries, and that the principal object to be studied must be mankind and human experience. These purely educational measures essentially define the strategy that is proposed by the authors of the Second Report to the Club of Rome.

It is evident that in such a context that model for resolving global problems, too, represents still another utopia, in spite of the fact that it contains numerous positive aspects

that characterise the project's authors as scientists as well as humanists who are seriously concerned with the future of mankind. The elements that make the strategy proposed by the authors unrealistic and distant from actual possibilities include a non-class-oriented approach to the problems that are considered, an abstract globalism and a deliberate abstraction from the concrete socio-economic, political, and ideological factors that scientific and practically effective solutions of these problems require. As a result, the optimism that the conception of M. Mesarovic and E. Pestel was intended to instill is eventually transformed into the very same type of pessimism against which the authors initially argued.

Essentially the same shortcomings are characteristic of the report produced by Jan Tinbergen, entitled Reshaping the International Order. While envisaging a number of measures for solving problems in international economic relations (such as the establishment of a world bank and of organisations for energy and natural resources, food supplies, and industrial investments), the author also abstracts from the concrete socio-economic realities existing in the world and does not consider the experience of socialist countries in solving these problems. There are, however, major positive features in the report, such as the fact that it considers measures for changing international economic relations, and also refers to the need for disarmament and for rechannelling military expenditures to peaceful purposes. In the model of a group of Latin-American scientists headed by A. 0. Herrera, the problems of the future are analysed in ways that recognise many of the complex factors that are currently present. But it divides the world into ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries. This has the effect of placing capitalist and socialist states together, thus misrepresenting the social realities that exist in the world today. The authors view their study as proceeding from a specific "ideological position". In proposing a conceptual model of an "ideal society" its Argentinean authors deliberatly do not consider specific mechanisms with the help of which the world might achieve the objectives that are proposed, even though they do assert that that society is "essentially socialist", and that it is possible to attain it (and in this way to get rid of underdevelopment and oppression) only through "radical changes in the world's social and interna-

tional organisation". Moreover, in considering the capitalist and socialist models of socio-political systems, the authors view them together, even though they do note a number of advantages that developing countries may derive from socialism.

A step forward has been made in a special project entitled Food for a Doubling World Population (produced by a group under the Dutch researcher H. Linneman) where the world is divided into three groups of countries, namely, "those possessing free market economies" (capitalist), "countries with centrally-planned economies" (socialist) and "developing countries". It is also divided into ten regions which approximately correspond to those that are denned in Mesarovic and Pestel's model.

Similar ideas are expressed in an interesting study prepared by the Nobel Laureate, W. Leontief (USA), together with a group of coauthors at the request of the United Nations, and entitled The Future of the World Economy.^il W. Leontief is more realistic than are the authors from the Club of Rome. The global model of the world economy that he proposes includes fifteen regions (three of them relate to socialist countries). Beyond this it is not only recognised that until now socialism has allowed for more rapid rates of economic development that make it possible to resolve many problems that are still outstanding in the West, but it is noted that the new social structures will continue to retain these advantages. The authors state that the share of socialist countries in world production will increase. Yet the economic and organisational measures that the authors propose in order to overcome, or at least substantially reduce the gap between developing and developed countries, are not related to a specific socio-political context. It is therefore not clear precisely who and what class forces will carry out the measures that the authors propose in order to solve the problems of world development.

Interesting ideas that are critical of capitalism are elaborated in the Club of Rome project that was carried out by a group under D. Gabor and published in a study entitled Beyond the Age of Waste. Its authors come closer than many others to the actual essence of the problem. They note that the difficulties of today's global development relate not to the possibilities of science and technology but to the ability of mankind itself, as well as of individual states, to

develop political and social objectives, institutions and mechanisms that would channel the achievements of science and technology to a harmonious social development. In the view of the authors it is the shortcomings of social institutions and of socio-economic mechanisms that bring about an impermissible waste not only of the planet's natural resources but of material and human resources in a wider sense. Among the causes to which they attribute this waste is an excessive emphasis on economic stimuli that produce a limitless striving for increased consumption but do not contribute to social progress and to the harmonious development of society and of the individual. A rejection of such a course resulting in waste and a transition to a more balanced socio-economic development presuppose a substantial restructuring of national and international institutions, improvements in the system of decision-making and managing the use of material and human resources, as well as changes in life-styles and revision of socio-political objectives and priorities. Ultimately, the authors conclude, there must be a change in society's value system.

But how can this be achieved? The authors do not provide a clear answer to that question. They assume that the objective of new societies that will have been reformed in accordance with their project must be a continual improvement in the quality of life and a ``harmony'' among social classes, peoples, and individuals, as well as a ``harmony'' within each individual. While this is not described in concrete terms, it remains true that the authors draw attention to the role of socio-economic elements in solving both today's and future global problems. But they emphasise changes in the "quality of man", i.e., derivative factors that cannot be effected without fundamental socio-economic

transformations.

This is especially apparent in the Fifth Report to the Club of Rome, which is entitled Goals for Mankind. This was produced by an international research group under E. Laszlo (USA), who is a Professor of Philosophy. Its central conceptions relate to "internal limits to global development" and to "a revolution in world solidarity", whose realisation will represent, in the authors' view, the major mission of our time. They note that history confirms the proposition that revolutions in ideas have served as powerful stimuli to human activity. At the present time, they

view a "revolution in modern consciousness" stimulated by the development of communications and technology as the initial element in resolving global problems. In particular, they describe detailed scenarios of "epoch-making progress in human consciousness and understanding" in which a leading role at the national level is ascribed to religion and to science as well as to governments, and to science and business at the international level in producing a " revolution in world solidarity". They conclude that it is through a spirit of world solidarity that the world will transform itself from an arena in which economic and political conflicts take place, to a global society that is equally diverse but brought closer together through a collective self- reliance and a greater security and equality.

Inevitably, when the future of human civilisation is expressed in such an abstract form emphasising changes in the consciousness and moral norms of individuals rather than in real socio-economic processes, the resulting image is highly diffuse and Utopian. That is a major weakness of both this and other reports to the Club of Rome.

Unfortunately, in the most recent report to the Club of Rome, published in 1980 and entitled Road Maps to the Future (by Bogdan Havrylyshin, Director of the International Institute of Management^^15^^), the abstract approach to the world's socio-political realities that is characteristic of many of its earlier studies is being ``overcome'' in a highly questionable manner. For that study marks a transition from limitations in social perspective to direct attacks on socialism and on the Soviet system.

In the study's Introduction the author explains the grounds for his major analytical concern which is the effective functioning of societies. This is denned as the outcome of interactions between three components: a given society's system of values, its forms of political regulation, and its economic system. In the first chapter the author examines each of them more closely, and also their interaction. It is the latter, in his view, that defines the effectiveness of a particular social system in solving the problems that it confronts.

In turning to the systems of values on which different social systems are based, B. Havrylyshin distinguishes three major groups. But he does not state which one is decisive in determining a society's effectiveness. Instead he observes

2-01743

that only their interaction determines the effectiveness of a particular social system.

In the second chapter the author presents a relatively detailed survey of the current state of affairs in individual countries and regions as they relate to the problem of effectiveness. His grouping of countries is one that has now become traditional for the Club of Rome. It includes countries representing the North (USA, USSR), the South (India, Brazil) and such countries as the People's Republic of China and Japan; and the members of the European Econ omic Community which arc viewed as a separate group.

The author relates his arguments to the idea of establish ing some kind of general "world order" whose framework will permit mankind to meet successfully both those problems that already exist and those that are certain to develop. This view is closely related to a report to the Club of Rome by a group of experts under the chairmanship of J. Tinbergen (Reshaping the International Order), and also to the view that global problems can be only solved through the efforts of ``non-governmental'' organisations, which is expressed in the report entitled No Limits to Learning ( Botkin, Elmandjra, Malitza).

The author believes that such a "world order" must be based on the principles of co-operation, a renunciation of the "worship of sovereignty" by individual governments, and a certain type of ``convergence'' of different societies (the author's frequent references to the works of D. Bell, the founder of that particular theory, are presumably not a coincidence).

In pursuing the problems of establishing a "world order" the author is led to express a number of sober and reasonable views (an appeal to abandon the arms race and to establish normal forms of co-operation between states with different social systems). But they also led him to express a number of views that can only be described as interference in the internal affairs of particular states.

Thus, in describing the situation in the USSR, the author calls for a ``modification'' of the existing social system. There are similar proposals to reorganise the social systems of other countries in the light of objectives inferred from the proposed "world order''.

In a chapter entitled "The Origins of Man and Ideologies", the author examines the role that is assigned to man

in various ideological theories from early Chinese theories to Marxism.

In briefly describing the merits and shortcomings of each he stresses the importance of both ideological systems and corresponding values for the functioning of different societies.

Forms of political regulation and of state administration as well as economic systems arc also analysed in a similar way.

The problem of measuring the effectiveness of particular economic systems is considered in some details as an annex. That analysis leads the author to conclude that currently existing measures are inadequate and that an integrated complex measure must be devised.

Of course, the reports to the Club of Rome contain a great deal of interesting material, and their general tenor differs from the openly apologetic ideas conveyed in a spirit of "technocratic optimism" in such a work as H. Kahn's W. Brown's and L. Martel's The Next Two Hundred Years. A Scenario for America and the World. That study is a report on research activities carried out at the Hudson Institute under H. Kahn, the widely-known American sociologist. It draws the attention of readers both through the factual data that it contains and a number of futurological forecasts relating to transitional as well as long-term problems.

At the same time this study is a relatively elaborated social utopia, designed from a position of "technocratic optimism". And even though many of the conclusions of its authors are based on an analysis of real tendencies in scientific and technical progress, their social approach remains far more narrow and one-sided than that of the authors of many other reports to the Club of Rome. Indeed while among the latter we find a recognition of the need for at least some social changes, at least in abstract form, H. Kahn and his coauthors completely ignore the fundamental social changes that are taking place in our time and that will no doubt greatly influence mankind's future prospects. They avoid altogether the analysis of factors operating in opposite directions that define the specific differences between scientific and technical progress in the socialist and the capitalist socio-economic system. And this feature plays a decisive role in determining the quality of their forecasts, for it

2*

makes them abstract and deductive, and eventually transforms them into a specific type of defence of capitalist society.

Yet a growing part of mankind is becoming aware that global and comprehensive progress is no longer possible along the lines of bourgeois civilisation, even when it is somewhat reformed and renovated while still retaining private property relations. The capacity of capitalism to create hazards on a global scale is still another mark of its historical non-viability. Today the very existence of that structure is a global threat. For even the type of government economic regulation as it is carried out today has shown itself unable to alter the autonomous anarchic character of capitalist progress as a whole. That can only be achieved in the course of a transition of society to socialism and communism and of constructing a new communist civilisation. Engels wrote:

``By long and often cruel experience... we are gradually learning to get a clear view of the indirect, more remote social effects of our production activity, and so are afforded an opportunity to control and regulate these effects as well. This regulation, however, requires something more than mere knowledge. It requires a complete revolution in our hitherto existing mode of production, and simultaneously a revolution in our whole contemporary social order.''~^^16^^

Only then is it possible to govern social activities through planning, to anticipate the future and to show corresponding paths.

Marxists have provided a scientific answer to the question concerning mankind's prospects, one that takes into consideration both the novelty of the situation that has developed and the importance of solving global problems in the context of creating a new society. But these strategic objectives presuppose, rather than preclude, a search for joint solutions relating to mankind's future and also its development under conditions of a peaceful coexistence of opposing social systems---socialism and capitalism. It would appear that it is only by recognising that reality and perspective that it will be possible to construct models of the future and make concrete forecasts for the world at the threshold of the third millennium.

In this connection an essential role attaches to the Marx-

ist methodology of global modelling that is being developed. It includes a complex, systems approach to the object being studied that considers its change and development in historic space and time through contradictions and the struggling of opposites. Marxist methodology orients researchers towards the analysis of dialectical interrelations between the general and the specific, between the international (and in that sense global) and the national, and between aspects of global development at the threshold of the third millennium that are common to all of mankind and those that are class-oriented.

The Marxist approach to the essence and role of present and future global problems rests on an analysis of characteristic features of today's global development not only in the economic sphere but also in the sphere of socio-political relations and that of science and culture. These specific features result from the increasing scale of events, the growing internationalisation of processes and their tendency to become global, that is, to encompass the entire world and all of mankind as well as each of us individually. These historical trends were first identified by Marx, who pointed to the principal directions in which they would develop in the course of the global revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism. Lenin made these ideas of Marx more concrete, and in developing them further, emphasised the specific role that is played by the contemporary revolution in science and technology in the processes that bring about an internationalisation of social life and also the influences of existing socialism and of its economic and cultural achievements as well as of its ideology and policies.

It is thus objective internationalisation processes that have given a global character to many problems that had already existed earlier as well as to others that have developed since. Some of them derive from the deepening contradiction between the creative, transforming activities of man and the possibilities of nature: for the first time in history the problem of avoiding the negative consequences of human influences on the natural environment has emerged as an objective reality. Others have been placed on the agenda by mankind's increasing numbers: this creates a need for more rapid solutions to problems in supplying energy, food and other resources, and produces a concern for

^\

utilising the riches of the ocean and for exploring outer space. But particular importance attaches to the problems that result from the existence of modern weapons of mass destruction capable of producing truly catastrophic consequences for the planet. Ultimately, the solutions of other fundamental problems will depend on the way in which the question of war and peace will be resolved, which has been a concern of men throughout their conscious history. We Marxists fully understand that historical progress is not a smooth highway or a wide avenue, but we believe that the time will arrive when, in the words of Marx,

``human progress ... will ... cease to resemble that hideous, pagan idol, who would not drink _the nectar but from the skulls of the slain".^^17^^

A Marxist philosophical analysis of global problems stems from the proposition that both their scientific and their practical solutions call for a high level of humaneness and responsibility that corresponds to their serious nature and to the complex situation in which a failure to resolve them places mankind. In particular this makes necessary a critical analysis of bourgeois-reformist conceptions of globalism, models of "the world system", ideas of "worldwide humanism", "unity of world consciousness", etc., that are now becoming numerous in the West and are offered as ``proofs'' of a presumed ``convergence'' of capitalism and socialism, and as arguments for "non-ideological approaches", hegemonism, cosmopolitism, and for assertions that global problems are ``supraclass'', ``suprasocial'', and ``supranational'' in character.

In short there exists a philosophy as well as a pseudophilosophy of these problems, and that in one way or another their essential traits reflect specific class interests and ideological positions. Indeed if we turn to what may be described as the "socio-political determinant" of the bourgeois interpretation of global problems, we will see that it is essentially a justification of the expansionist propensities of imperialism; its ideologists seek to create the impression that today that expansion is opening a path towards the creation of a "global community" that will resolve all such problems. In this way the extension of imperialist integration, which serves large-scale capital, is disguised as a contribution to "economic progress" and "social development". The expansion of transnational firms is presented as a reli-

able way to ``co-ordinate'' mankind's economic activities in the interest of "general prosperity", while attempts of U.S. monopolies to subordinate the development of the world's natural resources to their own interests are presented as a method for solving the world's energy and raw material problems. The transfer of technological processes that are especially dangerous for the environment of developed capitalist countries into the world's less developed regions is advertised either as a way to "overcome differences in levels of economic development" or else as a way to solve ecological problems. Finally, even the arms race that is stimulated by the Western world's major monopolist groupings is presented as a condition for creating general security!

Yet such propaganda tricks cannot succeed in masking the true meaning of international monopolistic capital's strivings and activities. Their actual outcome provides convincing evidence that far from offering solutions to global problems they aggravate them still further, thus operating as a component element and one of the manifestations of the general crisis of capitalism at its present stage.

Of course, the very way in which global problems and also attempts at their partial resolution are formulated in capitalist countries largely depends on a multiplicity of systems of relationships of different types and on historically evolved forms of mutual repulsion and interaction that are governed by highly complex positive and negative feedbacks that sometimes do not lend themselves to analysis. Finally, one should keep in mind that because of their novelty and exceptional character both the formulation and solution of many global problems depend inevitably on a struggle to reconstruct forms of awareness and to develop new modes of thinking. They presuppose a restructuring of established habits and conceptions that is difficult to achieve even when a genuine striving to clarify the problem exists. But studies of a number of contemporary crises show that the principal social factor underlying the growing urgency of global problems in capitalist countries is the presence of private ownership of the means and instruments of production. These have attained their most developed forms within structures associated with state-monopoly capitalism and govern both the theoretical and practical aspects of capitalist society's attitude to Nature and Man. Having become an end in itself, the striving for profits has

become separated from those objectives that are most important for social progress, from truly human aspirations, reason, and any task that accords with a reasonable approach to social interests. As a result, while societies based on private ownership have shown themselves to be able to rapidly develop science and a powerful technology, they are unable to manage them. These are the societies, moreover, that have transformed science and technology into an awesome threat to both themselves and also to Nature.

The global problems of our times are made still more urgent by the contradictions that are inherent in bourgeois civilisation itself---namely social and national antagonisms. And the fact that these problems sometimes turn into tragedies is also a consequence of the aggravation of contradictions under capitalism---contradictions between the private interests of entrepreneurs and the interests of wide layers of workers, between the development of bourgeois economies and culture on the one hand and their increasingly numerous and far-reaching harmful consequences on the other, and ultimately between the needs of man's development and the anti-human and alienated nature of the stimuli and of objectives of bourgeois society. Similarly these contradictions account for the militarism that is inherent in bourgeois civilisation and which is the initial cause for the arms race and military adventures as well as for the predatory use of natural resources and pollution of the environment as well as the growing gap between increasing material consumption in developed capitalist countries and poverty in developing countries.

Today these initial contradictions are complemented by new ones, that are even more significant for the destinies of capitalist civilisation, namely contradictions between the political, economic, scientific, technical and spiritual possibilities that appear for resolving an entire range of global dangers and the inability of capitalism to make use of these possibilities. While large-scale measures are initiated in industrial capitalist countries with regard to a number of global problems, their scope is far more modest than are these countries' corresponding techno-economic possibilities. But above all they are not based on a general long-term programme of socio-economic development. For by its very nature capitalism does not and cannot h.ave such a programme.

This is why in developing strategies and tactical approaches aiming at a practical solution of global problems Marxists turn to the experience of existing socialism. They study both the current dimensions of global problems in the context of our age's basic contradiction, namely that between socialism and capitalism, and also their long-term dimensions, which relate to the future, communism.

While they fully appreciate the historical sources of global problems and the role that the development of production activities and of science and technology has played in intensifying them, Marxists do not consider these problems to be fatal and catastrophic in nature and view them as fully solvable. Their full and final resolution, however, is only possible in the presence of an adequate social basis, namely in the context of the communist social formation.

Still solution of such problems is made extremely complex by the historically unprecedented scope that they assume. For the first time their sphere of operation extends to the entire planet, to all countries and regions. None of them, moreover, may be solved independently of others: for example famine and poverty cannot be overcome without an increased production of material goods and of food products and also without an effective demographic policies; but the possibilities for solving these problems depend, in turn, on the success of the policy of detente and of disarmament which releases enormous economic resources, on changes in world economic relations, development of the riches of the ocean and conquest of outer space which extends the natural infrastructure of mankind's vital activities.

Problems that are qualitatively new cannot be solved through ``traditional'' means and methods that have already been tested in historical practice. This fact is a measure of the urgency of the need to develop new approaches that are adequate to the new problems. It is now widely accepted that global contradictions cannot be overcome through uncoordinated efforts of individual countries or groups of countries, and that a common integrated strategy is needed for all of mankind. Yet the development of such a strategy is proceeding in a situation in which mankind is heterogeneous in terms of social and class categories, and in the presence of continuing differences in economic, political and cultural development, as well as on the basis of different and often contradictory ideological and spiritual guidelines

that express the relevant interests and positions of various classes and social forces with regard to these issues. As a result, the search for an integrated strategy is becoming one of the major areas of struggle in the field of ideas and of theories, as well as of political struggle whose outcome will determine which ideological guidelines, social objectives and political priorities will govern the overcoming of global contradictions and identify the class forces under whose leadership this will take place, and which of the social and class alternatives being proposed in this vital area will in fact prevail.

The theoretical basis for such a strategy being proposed by Communists is their understanding of the essential nature and significance of global problems. This derives from the unity of their scientific and social aspects and organically combines scientific approaches to their resolution with practical political ones, thus describing the contours of this understanding and showing global problems in their dia lectical interconnection and interdependence, their systems, complex character and development in the historical perspective that determines the future of mankind. In doing this we base our approach on the proposition that in contrast to "projections into the future" applied from positions of bourgeois-reformist methodology (which often rests on the selection of an arbitrary set of parameters independently of their actual importance), Marxist methodology emphasises a certain hierarchical subordination of relevant parameters and of problems possessing a global character, depending on the nature of the cause-and-effect relations that exist among them within reality itself and also on the urgency and priorities attaching to their resolution.

In such a context it appears possible to identify certain groups of global problems whose nature and forms of resolution will largely determine the condition of the world at the threshold of the third millennium. These groups of problems concern:

the relations among the basic social entities of contemporary mankind (socio-economic systems and the states, classes and nations that comprise them), which conventionally may be called ``intersocial'' (the corresponding problems include those of peace and disarmament, social development and economic growth, labour and employment);

``man-society" relations, which will also develop, of

course, as strictly social ones, but at the same time are in many respects individualised, personal in nature (the humanistic problems of progress in science, in technology, education, culture, of population growth and of man's dev elopment and future);

``man-nature" relations (problems of natural resources, energy supplies, the environment, food supplies, and man's biological adaptation). This last group of problems, too, is not isolated from social factors. In fact it is only when the latter are considered that their correct understanding and solution becomes possible. At the same time many ``purely'' social global problems in the first and second group greatly depend on a diversity of natural factors, and it is this, strictly speaking, which explains why, when taken together, they form an organically-integrated system of dialectically interrelated and interacting problems, at the centre of which lies the global problem of man himself and of his future as he approaches the third millennium. Naturally, for purposes of exposition we will occasionally regroup them in ways that relate them more explicitly to the basic trends that determine the future of mankind.

~^^1^^ The word ``global'' derives from the French ``global''---general, comprehensive; and also from the Latin ``globus''---Earth.

~^^2^^ L'Osservatore Romano, March 15, 1979.

~^^3^^ Aurelio Peccei, The Human Quality, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977. The Seventh Report to the Club of Rome also deals with this. See: James W. Rotkin, Mahdi Elmandjra, Mircea Malitza, No Limits to Learning. Bridging the Human Gap. A Report to the Club of Rome, Pergamon Press, 1979.

~^^4^^ H. Kahn, W. Hrown, L. Martel, The Next Two Hundred Years. A Scenario for America and the World, New York, 1976.

~^^5^^ P. Hall, Ed., Europe 2000, London, 1977.

~^^6^^ A. Tofflcr, The Ecospasm Report, Rantam Rooks, New York, 1975, p. 3.

~^^7^^ J. Forrester. World Dynamics, Cambridge (Mass.), 1971; D. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth, New York-London, 1972.

~^^8^^ M. Mcsarovic, E. Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point, New York, 1974.

~^^9^^ J. Tinbergen. Reshaping the International Order, Rotterdam. 1975.

~^^10^^ Y. Kaya, Y. Suzuki, "Global Constraints and a New Vision for Devclopment-1", in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 6, 1974, pp. 277-97.

~^^11^^ A. 0. Herrera, H. D. Skolnik, G. Chichilnisky, et al., Catastrophe or New Society? A "Latin-American World Model", Ottawa, 1976.

~^^12^^ E. Laszlo, et al., Goals for Mankind. A Report to the Club of Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community, E P Button New York, 1977.

~^^13^^ D. Gabor, U. Colombo, et al., Beyond the Age of Waste: Science, Technology and the Management of Natural Resources Energy Materials, Food. A Report to the Club of Rome, E. P Dutton, New York, 1976.

~^^14^^ W. Leontief, et al., The Future of the World Economy, New York, 1976.

~^^15^^ B. Havrylyshin, Road Maps to the Future. Towards the Effectiveness of Societies. A Report to the Club of Rome Pereamon Press, Oxford, 1980.

cieties, A Report to the Club of Rome, by B. Havrylyshin Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980.

~^^16^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Progress Publishers Moscow, 1974, pp. 181-82.

~^^17^^ K. Marx, "The Future Results of British Rule in India" in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 12, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979, p. 222.

Chapter 1

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND THE FUTURE OF HUMAN CIVILISATION

In turning to the system of global social problems and following their determining interaction with the development of human civilisation it is natural to consider so-called ``intersocial'' problems first. For it is they that largely determine the entire system of global problems and hence the future of mankind. At the same time they constitute a condition and prerequisite for man's very existence. New trends have appeared in this area in recent decades that will apparently greatly influence the world's destiny and configuration at the threshold of the third millennium.

1. The World in Conditions of Peace and Disarmament. Social Development and Economic Growth

The problem of peace and disarmament occupies a key position within the system of current and future global problems. This may even be called the "tragic syndrome" of human civilisation throughout the entire course of its development, and especially today when its very existence is threatened. Yet new progressive forces are also developing within it in the capitalist world, in developing countries and in socialist countries, that create new conditions and prospects for solving both that problem and also others that depend upon it. Because a solution of the overall complex of global problems requires the combined efforts of mankind a climate must be established on our planet that would make this possible. There exists only one way to achieve this,

namely by proceeding further with the reduction of international tensions initiated by socialist countries, terminating the arms race and proceeding to disarmament, arid renouncing war as a means for solving international problems. It can be said without exaggeration that a return to confrontation and to a "cold war" that imperialist ``hawks'' wish'to see would be doubly perilous: not only would it increase the threat of war, but it would also greatly intensify all global problems.

The right of all peoples to a peaceful life forms the most essential basis of all other human rights. Without it the latter are simply unrealisable, and today protecting that particular right is becoming the most urgent need of man's very existence as a biological species. For because of the internationalisation of social life wars, too, have acquired a dangerous tendency to become worldwide and global at a time when unprecedented increases have occurred in the destructive power of thermonuclear weapons and missile technology. During the Second World War, when military operations were carried out on the territories of 40 states, 50-55 million persons were killed, while the number of wounded was even larger and included 20-25 million persons who became invalids. A world thermonuclear war can result in a full destruction of life on Earth and transform our green planet into a lifeless cosmic body contaminated by radioactive fallout. It follows that in the age of nuclear missile technology global wars are altogether inadmissible. Lenin envisaged such a possibility already in 1918. According to Nadezhda Krupskaya, he observed that "today modern technology contributes increasingly to the destructive character of wars. But there will be a time when war will become so destructive that it will become altogether impossible". Today mankind has reached such an historic boundary.

The formulation of the right to peaceful life in scientific terms and the identification of concrete forms of the corresponding basis is one of the major theoretical and practical achievements of Marxism-Leninism. It was the view of Marx, Engels, and Lenin that the historic mission of communism---namely to liberate people from social injustice, and all forms of oppression and exploitation^ is inseparably linked with the struggle to deliver mankind from the horrors of war, for establishing a stable peace. Already in

1870 Marx called for a struggle to achieve a foreign policy

that would constitute a component element of a general

struggle to liberate the working class. He described an

image of the future in which a new world would replace

the economic poverty and political madness of the old one.

``. . .A new society is springing up whose International

rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be

everywhere the same---LabourV ⁱ

Even at a time when the world was ruled entirely by capitalism, which in its search for profits, for new markets and spheres of influence involved the peoples of its countries into wars intended to make possible the exploitation of foreign peoples, Engels protested against an uncontrolled arms race in an article entitled "Can Europe Disarm?" and called on peoples to struggle for disarmament.

Before Marx philosophers, historians, economists and political scientists were not in a position to identify the actual causes of wars and hence to point out ways to overcome them. Marxism represented a basic shift in this regard, and it was Lenin who provided the most comprehensive analysis of the class sources of wars in the age of imperialism. It was he who made peace one of the major slogans of the socialist revolution, and produced the classical formulation of the idea of peaceful coexistence. In identifying and clarifying the socio-economic, class and historic roots and conditions of war, Marxism-Leninism also pointed to the real possibility of eliminating its immediate sources and causes as well as to the possibility of constructing a stable peace.

The problem of a peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems emerged in international politics following the victory of Russia's October Socialist Revolution in 1917. At that time the contradictions between socialism and capitalism constituted not only the basic content of the class struggle within the capitalist system but also the leading problem of international relations. In an article entitled "The Tasks of the Revolution" Lenin emphasised that

``The Soviet Government must straight away offer to all the belligerent peoples ... to conclude an immediate general peace on democratic terms. . ."² It was in accordance with this principle that one of the first actions of the Soviet Government was its Decree on Peace, adopted October 26 (November 8), 1917. Lenin repeatedly

emphasised that socialism represents the peaceful interests of mankind and that it defends these interests against the military initiatives of militarists and imperialists. Through a detailed analysis of the concrete historical situation Lenin was able to show that for a final victory of socialism on Earth under existing conditions its peaceful coexistence with capitalism is indispensable and possible.

The principles of peaceful coexistence have become an integral part of the programme of Soviet Communists and of the USSR's foreign policy. They were further developed and specified at congresses of the Soviet Union's Communist Party. In that connection the 24th Congress of the CPSU was especially important. It adopted a comprehensively substantiated realistic Peace Programme. It took into consideration contemporary realities and factors determining international relations, as well as the current needs of mankind's historical development. It provided for a number of important measures in the field of foreign policy designed to strengthen peace and international security.

The criterion of any programme's realism and effectiveness is practice itself. Today it is already possible to state without reservations that the Peace Programme has fully met the test of practical developments. All the positive changes that have taken place in the 1970s in the development of international relations are closely associated with the implementation of the Soviet Peace Programme.

The Programme of a Further Struggle for Peace and International Co-operation and for the Freedom and Independence of Peoples adopted by the 25th Congress of the CPSU is a continuation and a further development of the Peace Programme. Basing themselves on that Programme the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are engaged in active and consistent activities aimed at reorganising international relations in such a way that they may create appropriate structures and forms for resolving urgent global, continental, regional, multilateral, and bilateral problems. A separate chapter has been included in the USSR's new Constitution that gives new force to the peaceful character of the Soviet Union's external policy. It emphasises once more the decisive commitment of our people to follow a course of peace designed to free mankind from the horrors of war as well as from the material deprivations and lethal dangers associated with the arms race.

This foreign policy line of the CPSU and the Soviet state was very forcefully and convincingly shown in the beginning of 1981 at the 26th Congress of the CPSU.

``To safeguard peace---no task is more important now on the international plane for our Party, for our people and, for that matter, for all the peoples of the world" was how the 26th Party Congress noted the principal strategic target of the foreign policy of the USSR.

"Not war preparations that doom the peoples to senseless squandering of their material and spiritual wealth, but consolidation of peace---that is the clue to the future"~^^3^^

emphasised the 26th Congress of the CPSU when it put forward several new concrete foreign policy initiatives for eliminating the threat of war, for strengthening international security.

Today the whole peace coalition is carrying out a struggle to strengthen peace, for disarmament, and for detente. Aside from the socialist states and also the international communist and working-class movement which constitute its main force, this includes the national liberation movement, the movement of non-aligned states, democratic and progressive social trends, and realistically thinking forces in various countries. The further development and strengthening of the communist and worker's movement serves to increase its role in establishing peaceful coexistence, and in achieving detente and security for nations. Already at the first International Conference of 64 Communist Parties in Moscow in 1957, its participants adopted a Peace Manifesto containing the thesis that it is possible to prevent war and maintain peace. At the conference of 81 Communist Parties in 1960 a Message to the Peoples of the World was adopted that called for combined efforts in struggling to strengthen peace. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969 confirmed that communist movement views the safeguarding of mankind from a nuclear cataclysm as its historical mission. The growing conviction that Europe's Communists must adopt a common position in relation to the key problems of our time was expressed at the other conferences of European Communist and Workers' Parties.

The policy of detente and the conception of peaceful coexistence developed by the world communist and working-

3-01743

class movement and implemented in the practical activities of socialist countries constitute a far-reaching programme for achieving security and peace for all mankind. A new socio-political map of the world has developed in our time. We are now facing the need for a further strengthening of the material foundations of peace. This refers to the political, economic, and defence capacities of the socialist system, as well as to the influence of the ideas and practical activities of socialism in the sphere of ideology.

In following the principles of scientific socialism the socialist countries have transformed peaceful coexistence into a real and dominant force in the further development of international life. Today it is they who initiate fundamental proposals concerning ways to strengthen peace, stop the arms race, and disrupt the aggressive plans of imperialists. In particular the following proposals and initiatives have been especially important: the draft European treaty concerning collective security; the reduction in the size of the armed forces of member states of the Warsaw Treaty by 3,796,500 men between 1955 and 1960; the plan to establish a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe; the proposal of countries of the socialist community to conclude a non-- aggression pact between members of the Warsaw Treaty and members of NATO; arid the proposal of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty members to call an all-European conference on problems of security and the holding of such a conference in Helsinki in 1975.

Following Helsinki the socialist countries proposed a variety of new measures. These include an obligation by all states who signed the Final Act not to be first in applying nuclear weapons against each other; a proposal to conclude a World Treaty concerning the non-use of force in international relations; to avoid a widening of existing militarypolitical groupings in Europe; to stop the production of all types of nuclear weapons and to gradually reduce their stocks until they are fully liquidated; to educate peoples in the spirit of peace; to establish equal overall levels in the size of the armed forces of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty in Central Europe---900,000 persons each; to refrain from transferring nuclear weapons to the territories of countries that do not possess them; to conclude an international convention designed to strengthen the guarantees of security of non-nuclear states; and finally, the signing of a treaty be-

tween the USSR and the U.S. to limit strategic weapons used for offensive purposes (SALT-2) as well as an associated protocol and a number of other documents. A full implementation of the terms of that treaty would create new possibilities for stopping the continuing growth in nuclear missiles and for ensuring effective quantitative and qualitative limitations on their development. A solution of that problem would open the way towards a substantial reduction in arms and a realisation of the higher objective, namely, a full cessation in the production of nuclear weapons and a liquidation of existing stocks. This would represent a major contribution to maintaining peace and achieving a secure future for all mankind. I should like to stress that the fate of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT) is also a global problem, rather than a problem of Soviet-U.S. relations. In this connection, it would appear quite interesting to cite excerpts from the final document approved by the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (Palme Commission), which was in session in Vienna in February 1981.

The Commission members voiced the opinion that although successes in the process of limiting strategic arms were thus far modest, a collapse of the process would be a calamity. The talks on limiting strategic arms in the present world is something greater than simply an attempt to impose quantitative and qualitative limitations on nuclear weapons; they have acquired political significance beyond the framework of the potential effect of the talks on the arms race. The SALT talks are the principal symbol of seeking ways towards Soviet-American co-operation, the central factor in the diplomatic efforts aimed at containing U.S.-Soviet rivalry in the most important and, hence, most dangerous fields. Detente in Europe would be threatened if the process of limiting strategic arms reaches a deadlock. Besides, Soviet-American negotiations on strategic armaments have in general become the central element in the efforts towards restraining proliferation of nuclear arms.

The members of the Commission maintain that failure of the strategic arms limitation talks would most directly affect programmes for devising new weapons in the U.S.A. and the USSR. Uncontained by the terms of both SALT-1 and SALT-2, both countries would most probably take immediate measures to quicken modernisation of their nuclear

3*

forces. One may expect that both sides would make additional efforts to increase the number of nuclear warheads on existing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Each side could in all probability also additionally step up deployment of ballistic missiles on nuclear submarines and maybe of even new models of manned long-range bombers.

The Commission members warn the world public of even more serious consequences. Termination of strategic arms limitation talks would lead to sharply increased demands on revising the 1972 ABM Limitation Treaty. This agreement is to be automatically revised in 1982, and already today demands in the West for abrogating or essentially revising the treaty are quite insistent because new achievements in technology have presumably rendered anti-missile defence capable of providing protection for offensive missiles.

Having at one time agreed not to deploy arms systems capable of creating an illusion concerning the presence of a potential for defence against a nuclear strike, the USSR and the U.S.A. had officially recognised the probability that in case of a nuclear war each side would be subjected to unprecedented destruction. The 1972 agreement was an official recognition of the common necessity to avoid confrontation that could be conducive to the appearance of a real threat of nuclear war.

Without the landmarks set up thanks to the strategic arms limitation process, without minimum co-operation stipulated by the agreement on anti-ballistic missile system, each side would anticipate the most terrible action from the other. And while further improvement of defensive ABM systems would support the illusion that one side could wage nuclear wars and survive to an extent that would not make life meaningless, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons would rapidly grow.

The effect of the changes in U.S.-Soviet political relations that would accompany the failure of the strategic arms limitation process would be very directly felt in Europe, where East-West relations have for over a decade been based on relative co-operation. In Europe, ties between the two camps are becoming more developed, and so far the general worsening of East-West relations are not affecting them too much. However, it will be difficult to preserve this relatively stable situation in Europe under strong escalation of the Soviet-U.S. political conflict, an escalation

that would occur in case the strategic arms limitation process fails.

In the political situation that would in this case arise, demands for West European governments increasing their military spending would possibly become more insistent, and this could lead to various kinds of instability. This, in turn, could create a threat to the previous agreements and to mutually advantageous political and economic exchanges. Both in the East and the West, stoppage of the dialogue and loss of economic, technological and other dialogue-related advantages would signify that neither side would possess any tangible stimulus for curbing rivalry in the field of armaments; efforts in controlling conventional weapons, particularly the Vienna talks on mutually balanced reduction of armed forces, would be doomed to failure. Finally, as it always happens when political relations worsen, the threat of war in Europe could increase. Failure of the strategic arms limitation process would virtually inescapably mean a return to the cold war and a real threat of armed conflict in Europe that could momentarily develop into a world war.

The Commission members also analyse the possible consequences of the failure of the strategic arms limitation process for other areas of the globe and come to the following conclusion:

``There is every reason to criticise the strategic arms limitation process. It is slow and unwieldy. Its achievements are limited. Yet, this is the only means for fighting with the most urgent threat to the existence of mankind. If the process comes to an end, the insignificant progress achieved in the sense of containing the threat of a nuclear war would be thrown immeasurably far back.''

In terms of politics, failure of SALT would signify further aggravation of controversies, increased instability, and weakening of peaceful ties and exchanges literally all over the world. It would signify a further switching of many countries' resources for military needs with all the ensuing economic problems and negative political consequences. This could lead to a greater threat of war in Europe, increased tensions in East Asia, and more frequent cases of confrontation in other areas of the globe. And this would mean increased danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons in most of the areas of the world.

The Commission hopes that the United States and the USSR would at the first opportunity continue their twelveyear-old efforts to reach an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons. This would be in the interests not only of the United States and the Soviet Union, but of the whole world.

As for the USSR, it always was and is an active advocate of reducing armaments, and not only strategic, and had invariably striven and is striving for negotiations on these and other questions of major importance for the cause of world peace. This was also stated with full definiteness at the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Although for a number of reasons the international situation has lately aggravated, the 26th Congress of the CPSU put forward new proposals for strengthening peace and international security: on extending the scope of measures for promoting mutual trust; on curbing and reducing strategic armaments; on a moratorium on deploying new NATO and Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe; on creating an authoritative international committee from among the most prominent scientists from different countries that would show the vital necessity for preventing a nuclear calamity, and so on.

Naturally among these extremely important initiatives contributing to a strengthening of the cause of peace and a reduction in international tensions the proposals and practical activities to curb the arms race initiated by imperialism are particularly important.

According to U.N. statistics, global military expenditures since 1900 have increased thirty times. At present they amount to over 500 billion dollars a year, which is close to 1 million dollars a minute. Now, if the current tendency continues, by the year 2000 the figure may have reached 1 trillion dollars in present-day prices. But today not only the industrially developed countries, but developing states are involved in the arms race. The military spending of all these nations have over the past two decades quadrupled in real figures. World trade in military equipment, which now constitutes about 20 billion dollars a year, has also sharply increased. In 1978 alone, leading weapons, such as tanks, warplanes, missiles and warships, were imported by 118 countries, of which 90 are developing nations. Accord-

ing to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the cost of basic armaments for developing countries had increased from 3 billion dollars in 1970 to 14 billion dollars in 1978. On top of that, a number of Third-World countries have themselves become suppliers of weaponry.

From 1945 to 1978, 1,165 nuclear blasts were conducted, chiefly for testing weapons, and 667 nuclear explosions were conducted already after the signing of the Treaty on Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere. As the arsenal of nuclear armaments grows, the danger of accidents that may occur as a result of transportation, military exercises or intentional subversive activity, becomes increasingly high. Fears are also growing in connection with the proliferation of nuclear technology associated with energy production and possible switch-over to non-peaceful uses of nuclear materials.

The importance of a possible cessation in the arms race for resolving the many urgent global problems confronting mankind is clearly evident. For even a partial reduction in the intensity of global problems---a reconstruction of basic technological processes in industry in the course of several decades for example, development of new sources of energy, and the solution of other problems arising in the sphere of relations between man and nature---will require enormous means that can be obtained only by withdrawing them from military objectives. The only way in which this may be achieved is a realisation of the principles of peaceful coexistence, a strengthening of the foundations of peace and a cessation of the arms race. United Nations experts have estimated that the reassignment of a major part of the world's military spending to additional capital investments in other sectors could increase the rate of economic growth by 1-2 per cent. In particular, a programme of economic and technical assistance to developing countries for boosting food production and bringing an end to hunger would cost three billion dollars. This is less than one percent of the resources that the arms race is taking away from mankind each year at the present time. Assistance in food supplies to developing countries to meet the normal food requirements of children would require four billion dollars each year.

A cessation of the arms race and disarmament will also help reduce the intensity of the entire range of social prob-

lems facing the working people in capitalist countries. At the present time preparations for war reapportion enormous resources away from important social programmes and measures to improve living conditions. In the last analysis arguments by bourgeois ideologists to the effect that the arms race is helping solve the problem of employment have proved to be unfounded. Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A., has stressed that

``The short-sighted and opportunistic argument that war orders mean more jobs has had the rug pulled from under it. The billions of our tax dollars that the government spends for war orders do not result in a corresponding increase in jobs, since the new engines of mass destruction do not depend to the same extent on the job-making materials and processes called for in earlier wars.''~^^4^^

Today even bourgeois economists admit that military expenditures create far fewer job openings than do the equal expenditures invested in civilian sectors of the economy. American specialists have calculated that the implementation of the measures in SALT-2 could increase the number of employed by 1,800,000 persons.

Disarmament is thus not only an insistent imperative of our age. As one of the most important global problems it ultimately determines the extent to which the intensity of other global problems is reduced. Socialism, for whom, as Lenin emphasised, disarmament itself is an ideal, is playing a leading role in that struggle. This is as it should be, for the most important thing in socialism is the interests of man's free and many-sided development, which can be made possible in the sphere of social progress.

This is why the social development of countries and peoples under conditions of peace and disarmament constitutes still another major global problem facing mankind both currently and in the perspective of its historical development. This includes both a transition from capitalism to socialism and an overcoming of the state of backwardness that has been inherited from the colonial past and of the gap that exists between industrial and developing countries. There is a close cause-and-effect dependence between this problem and the problem of world economic growth.

By bringing to an end the exploitation of working people and creating the real prerequisites needed for establishing

social justice, genuine freedom and equality of people, and the development of true democracy, socialism thereby initiates a new stage in the historical progress of human civilisation and is the principal condition for progress in the culture of all mankind and a prerequisite for the further development of civilisation.

Above all socialism provides for high rates of economic development and of growth in the standard of living of the working people. In the USSR the basic production assets of all economic sectors increased 34 times between 1913 and 1977. During these years the country's overall national income increased by nearly 68 times.^^5^^ As charted by the 26th Congress of the CPSU, by 1990 the national income used for consumption and accumulation will have increased by at least 40 per cent.

Under socialism the development of production is guided to serve a continuing increase in the peoples' material and cultural level. Accordingly, nearly 3/4 of the USSR's national income serve consumption. But if one takes into account the fact that very large sums are assigned to the construe tion of housing and also buildings providing social and cultural services the share expended directly on the population's welfare is approximately 4/5 of the country's national income. During the 60 years of Soviet power the real incomes of workers in industry and construction increased by an average of 9.7 times per worker, while the incomes of farmers 14.1 times. In 1976-1980 alone, the real per capita incomes increased by 18 per cent. The average wages of workers and office employees grew almost by 16 per cent and those of farmers by 26 per cent. In the 1980s, it is planned to raise the real per capita incomes by yet another 16-18 per cent; the average wages of workers and office employees by 13-16 per cent; and those of farmers by 20-22 per cent.

Reliance on the achievements of the revolution in science and technology has led to increases in the asset-- intensity, machine-intensity and energy-intensity of labour activities, and the scale of activities associated with the introduction of new equipment and of improved technological processes has greatly increased. There have been fundamental qualitative changes in the technical basis of production under the influence of science through an increasing mechanisation and automation of production activities. In 1976,

for example, our country's increase in industrial output as a whole made up 50 per cent as compared with 1970. The production of means of production increased by 54 per cent, including an increase of 80 per cent in the production of means of labour. During the eighth five-year plan (1966- 1970) 675,000 units of production equipment were modernised; this figure rose to 732,000 during the ninth five-year plan and attained 154,000 during 1976 alone. The number of mechanised production lines in industry increased from 42,947 in 1965 to 114,108 in 1975, while the number of automated lines increased from 5,981 to 17,072.^^6^^ In 1978 an increase in labour productivity by 3.6 per cent accounted for more than 3/4 of the additional output and made it possible to economise the labour of 3.7 million persons. In 1976-1980 alone, labour productivity in the USSR grew by 17 per cent. This accounted for 75 per cent of the increment in industrial production; 100 per cent in agriculture; and 95 per cent in construction.

By stepping up scientific and technological progress, it is planned to increase the productivity of social labour in the 1980s by 15-20 per cent, which will account for at least 85-90 per cent of the increment in national income. The technical equipment of labour will appreciably improve, as will comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes.

The achievements of socialism in the social and economic spheres show a realistic path to developing countries at a time when their situation continues to be very difficult, and their lag behind industrial countries is continuing to increase.

Specialists have estimated that 78 per cent of the planet's population will live in regions of the world that are insufficiently provided by the year 2000, while in 1950 that figure was only 68 per cent. According to the latest estimates of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as much as 40 per cent of the able-bodied population of developing countries suffers from either full or partial unemployment even though those countries account for 60 per cent of currently known natural resources, 70 per cent of the world's arable land and 2/3 of the world's active population. But they account for only 7 per cent of the world's industrial production and approximately 1/3 of its agricultural output.

Unfortunately, far from declining, the urgency of these problems increases as we approach the threshold to the

third millennium. Current trends in the world's economic social and cultural development are leading to a further deepening of discrepancies in levels and ways of life of different parts of mankind. The trend towards a less rapid growth in the standard of living and of material welfare in developing countries will continue in the foreseeable future. Similarly the transition of a growing number of persons in developing countries from traditional to urban ways of life will continue to be accompanied by substantial social costs (increased unemployment, poverty, and inhuman living conditions that are dangerous to health).

A good illustration to what has been said above is the conference "Regionalism and a New International Economic Order" held in May 1980 in New York by UNITAR, the Club of Rome and the Centre of Economic and Social Studies. The participants in the conference emphasised that a global discussion of the problems of the world economy which has been under way for several years has still produced no practical results. In the face of ever growing difficulties and ever increasing problems in the world economy over the past decade, a variety of suggestions has been put forward. These were: to revise the objectives of development; to first of all satisfy the requirements of the poorest sections of the population; and to work out a programme that could at least help mankind survive. However, all these appeals remained but words. The participants in the conference put forward proposals of an absolutely different kind: they said there should be no more rhetoric concerning the necessity of political freedom and economic upsurge for the Third-World countries as a whole and their poorest strata in particular, and also that an end should be put to advancing utopian alternatives or creating salvation programmes. The only viable strategy was the strategy of regionalism, which should become a constituent component of the new international economic order.

It was absolutely evident to the participants in the conference that today political unity alone was insufficient for developing countries. Taking into consideration the growing inflation and unemployment in industrial countries, political unity of developing countries should bo supplemented by their economic unity, which should arise as a result of a common approach to the problems of international financial policy, to the activity of international corporations, to

policies in the field of science and technology, and to problems of raw material and energy resources. They should have a common view on the problems of social development as a whole, and of each individual in particular.

There is hardly any need to explain to the reader that to achieve such a unity of the Third-World countries, so different both in economic development levels and social development orientations, is if not an insoluble, then undoubtedly a long-term task. In this sense, the hope for regionalism is probably no better than the ways for eliminating the gap between developed and developing countries which were criticised at the conference.

However, it is not this that is important here, but the thought distinctly expressed by representatives of developing countries that in resolving their problems they can no longer rely on transnational corporations, international banks or developed capitalist countries. The relations existing between them and the Third World today should be revised and supplemented by broad and intensive co-operation between developing countries themselves, naturally with due regard for both their differences and common elements in the socio-political and economic fields. And in order that this co-operation be effective, it should be rooted in the actual economy. The participants in the conference maintain that this process could begin with an agreement between two or more countries with similar features both in geographic position and in the social, economic and cultural fields; between countries with mutual interests or stands towards other countries or even entire regions. This cooperation can develop in the line of ascent: from intraregional to interregional co-operation to end up at global level.

For a deeper study of these and other similar suggestions proposed at the conference, a working group was set up to include all principal UN bodies and agencies connected with regional and interregional co-operation.

In his message of greetings to the participants in the conference, the former UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim noted that the current discussions at various forums indicated that, in the near future, a further impetus would be given to economic and technical cooperation between developing countries, both at intra- and interregional levels.

The dangerous influence of capitalism produces a crisisforming intensification of the entire complex of today's glob-

al problems. Naturally, industrial capitalist countries and developing nations following the capitalist path experience various global problems with varying degrees of intensity. But there is a close interaction and interdependence among them that derives from the general principle governing the world capitalist economy and its continuous trend towards instability and permanent proneness to declines in activity in spite of all the artificial measures to avoid this that have been taken in recent years.

The state of crisis of the capitalist economy has led to a substantial reduction in economic growth rates and has increased the number of unemployed. In 1980 alone the army of unemployed numbered 19 million. For purposes of comparison let us note that between 1951 and 1977, when the volume of industrial output of the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance increased 11 times, it increased only 3.6 times in industrial capitalist countries. At the same time this growth in the economic potential of the socialist community was accompanied by socialist integration. As for the world capitalist economy even those forecasts that are intended to be reassuring contain many pessimistic elements. In particular this is evident in forecasts of its rate of growth. It is expected that there will be new disturbances and increasingly serious difficulties during the next two decades. Its reduced rate of growth is attributed, among other factors, to a declining rate of profit resulting from increased prices for energy supplies, especially petroleum. An extremely urgent problem is developing for the bourgeois world, and there are no limits to fantasy in proposed solutions. But none of the many projects based on science and technology can be of help so long as the capitalist mode of production itself is retained, for it continues to undermine the very foundations of a reasonable mode of human existence. Accordingly the problems of economic growth and employment, will acquire even sharper forms in the future, and unemployment will grow.^^7^^

Even when one considers factors contributing to economic growth (of course, this relates primarily to progress in science and technology, which has raised the yearly increment in the industrial output of capitalist countries from 1.8 per cent in 1913-1937 to 5.4 per cent between 1950 and 1973), the capitalist economy will continue to develop in a

cyclical fashion between now and the year 2000, with deep crises, declines, and recessions. At the same time its rate of growth will be substantially lower than in the 1950s and 1960s. The gross domestic product of industrial capitalist countries is therefore expected to increase by approximately 2-2.3 times between 1978 and the year 2000, while their industrial output is expected to increase by 2.5 times. Differences in rates of development of individual countries will increase, leading to a deepening of both interimperialist contradictions and contradictions among developed and developing countries.~^^8^^

Nor is there an end in sight to the tendency towards a dehumanisation of labour activities and ways of living in capitalist society in spite of attempts at "social engineering". Such phenomena as an intensification of nervous and psychological pressures in labour activities and a growing alienation of labour activities from man that produce an inner emptiness and a loss of guidelines to meaningful values and are unavoidable in societies based on private ownership, preclude capitalism as a prospect for mankind, even though the bourgeois propaganda machine seeks to present it as such as it tempts developing peoples with the image of the high material standard of living that has been attained in industrialised countries in part through a prolonged exploitation of these very same peoples.

Western specialists also confirm the correctness of our evaluations of the prospects of development of the capitalist system. In an article published in Blatter fur deutsche nnd Internationale Politik (Nos. 1,2, January-February 1981), R. Kiihnl notes that since the early seventies the capitalist system has been in throes of a serious and, probably, highly protracted economic crisis, the end of which is impossible to foresee. It is indeed the most serious crisis since the world economic crisis that began in 1929. Inflation rates in the seventies more than doubled compared with the sixties. In the first half of 1980, unemployment in the United States attained 7.8 per cent; inflation exceeded 15 per cent; and economic growth stopped altogether.

In October 1980, the number of jobless in the EEC countries was 7.4 million, i.e., it reached its highest level since 1957, the year when the organisation was founded. In Japan, unemployment has actually increased to 3-4 million, and inflation to 7 per cent. A similar picture is observed in

West Germany: at the end of 1980, the number of unemployed topped 1 million and inflation was more than 7 per cent; at the same time only 80.5 per cent of the production capacities were in use in September 1980.

All available forecasts indicate that in the coming years unemployment and inflation will increase. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) maintains that in 1982 inflation in all the 24 member-- countries will amount to an average of 8.75 per cent, and the number of unemployed will increase to 25.5 million. According to OECD assessments, in West Germany, for instance, the unemployment rate will rise from 4 to 4.75 per cent. On the other hand, the Munich Institute of Economic Studies estimated the number of unemployed in West Germany would reach 1.2 million in 1981, and the real national product would decrease by one per cent.

Kiihnl goes on to say that capitalism thus again shows that it not only creates large-scale poverty and hunger in developing countries (where 50 million people, including 12 million children, die annually of hunger), but cannot provide full employment and social security for all (despite the vast social wealth and highly developed productive forces), not to speak of reasonable distribution of available resources and their utilisation for the benefit of working people.

There is a great number of paradoxical situations in the capitalist world: on the one hand, millions of people want to work, but lack this opportunity; on the other, there are unutilised production facilities. At the same time there are tens of thousands of unemployed teachers and overcrowded classes, since lessons have to be cancelled because of a shortage of teachers; there is also a tremendous need in housing, though there is a large number of vacant houses and apartments. All this clearly shows to what extent the capitalist economic system has become outdated and has outlived itself.

In periodically occurring crisis situations, capitalists make energetic efforts to shift all the hardships onto the shoulders of the working people, the unemployed, the pensioners, and the students, being guided solely by the consideration that the crisis should not affect their profits.

In addition to this force which actuates critical develop-

ment and aggravates social conflicts in capitalist society, there is yet another force acting in the same direction. That force has resulted from the loss of power by the capitalist world compared with socialist and even developing countries. Socialism has become a world system, and the success of national liberation movements has given many Asian and African countries political and certain economic independence. Developing countries are firmly intent on increasing their share in world industrial production till the end of the century from the present 9 per cent to 25 per cent.

This process of liberation of former colonial and semicolonial countries was successful only because of the existing system of socialist states, which rendered economic, ideological and military assistance to liberation movements, and after the respective countries had gained political independence continued to help them free themselves from economic exploitation.

The consolidation of the economic independence of the Third World countries and the growing self-consciousness of their peoples signifies that raw material resources and manpower in those countries are becoming markedly more expensive (both at present and particularly in the future) and the guarantee that they would be available in desirable proportions is disappearing altogether. The fact that in some developing countries this process is being countered by establishment of military dictatorships whose function is exclusively in opening the country to foreign capital and suppressing the political and trade union rights of working people, changes nothing in the historical trend of our epoch, since those dictatorships lack firm ground under their feet. Thus, the gaining of economic independence by developing countries, a process taking place when capitalism is, as it is, experiencing a deep crisis, challenges its very existence as a social system in the more remote perspective as well.

The significance and influence of capitalist countries is diminishing also because the socialist countries have developed their economies more rapidly and have achieved a higher and considerably more uniform rate of economic growth. The share of the leading capitalist countries (West Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States) in world industrial production has reduced from

R9.C per cent in 1937 to 41.7 per cent today; at the same time the share of the USSR and that of the other member states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance has increased from 10 to 33 per cent, respectively.

Against the background of capitalism's current contradictions the socialist mode of production and way of life is becoming an increasingly apparent alternative. Of all contemporary socio-economic systems only socialism solves effectively the problem of employment, and provides to each person an effectively guaranteed right to work. Similarly it is only under socialism that changes in the structure and substance of labour activities deriving from the influence of the scientific and technological revolution do not turn against workers, since the problem of humanising labour activities is also formulated in a way that transforms them Lo one of the spheres of man's creative development. This is a stable trend whose influence on the general processes of world development at the threshold of the third millennium will apparently be increasingly pronounced. As it proceeds (without, of course, precluding contradictions and difficulties) the ability of the socialist world to solve the fundamental problems of man and society will continue to increase in effectiveness, including problems whose scope is truly global.

As we see globality is inherent not only in problems of peace and disarmament and of social development, but also in those of economic growth, which in fact relate to a world economy as a single whole rather than to isolated national and regional economic systems. Within that world economy, in spite of the qualitatively specific properties that characterise the functioning of its major components and derive from difference in their social organisation, there does nevertheless exist a growing interrelation and interdepend ence. The formation of the world economy derives from processes relating to an international division of labour, the internationalisation of production activities, and the development of the world market. It proceeds through a growing interdependence of national economies possessing similar social structures and their growing interaction witli countries of the opposite system.

All this produces urgent problems relating to the further development of international economic intercourse on the

4-01743

basis of principles of equality and mutual advantage as well as of a democratisation of the world economy. Today both developing nations and socialist countries participate in the struggle for such a world economy.

A Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and an Action Programme were adopted by the 6th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Raw Materials and Development, held in May 1974 on the initiative of both these groups of countries. Subsequently, in December 1974, in elaborating the principles contained in the initial documents the 29th Session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of the States. This related primarily to the sphere of economic relations between developing countries and industrial capitalist countries. It defines a programme for a New International Economic Order that presupposes that each state possesses full and permanent sovereignty over its natural resources and its entire economic activities, including an unconditional right to nationalisation. This envisages the development of mechanisms of international exchange and co-operation that could compensate for the changes in world market prices that are unfavourable to developing countries and provide for stability in terms of trade, and facilitate the transfer of new equipment and technologies needed to modernise the production facilities of economically underdeveloped regions; measures of economic assistance to developing regions so as to reduce existing disproportions in the world and help accelerate the economic development of newly liberated states; and the establishment of effective control over the activities of transnational corporations.

Socialist countries hold a positive view of that programme which serves anti-imperialist objectives. They support the just demands of developing countries that seek to restructure international economic relations on a just and democratic basis.

The following was declared on behalf of the Soviet Union at the 26th Congress of the CPSU:

``In the mid-seventies, the former colonial countries raised the question of a new international economic order. Restructuring international economic relations on a democratic foundation, along the lines of equali-

ty, is natural from the point of view of history. Much

can and must be done in this respect. And, certainly,

the issue must not be reduced, as this is sometimes

done, simply to distinctions between the 'rich North'

and the 'poor South'. We are prepared to contribute.

and are indeed contributing, to the establishment oi'

equitable international economic relations.''~^^9^^

The fact that the positions of socialist and developing

countries on fundamental issues relating to a democratic

transformation of world economic relations are either close

to each other or identical was also shown by the 5th United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),

held in Manila in May 1979.

Communists in general hold a positive view of all proposals for actions contributing to a progressive development of the world economy on a democratic and just basis. They view this as an objective historical trend expressing a general process of internationalisation that ultimately serves the perspectives of communism. In analysing the trend towards an internationalisation of mankind's economic life and describing the conditions that relate to the working class' revolutionary struggle and the implementation of its historical mission, Marx and Engels observed:

``Moreover, the mass of workers who are nothing billworkers---labour-power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction [of their needs] and, hence, as a result of competition their utterly precarious position, the no longer merely temporary loss of work as a secure source of life---- presupposes the world market. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a `world-historical' exist-

ence.''~^^10^^

In elaborating that thought, Lenin indicated that this trend leads to its logical completion beyond the conditions of capitalist society in which it originates, i.e., in the context of a communist social formation:

``... a tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and according to a common plan . . . has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism and is bound to be further developed and consummated under socialism".^J1

4*

It is the position of Communists that national components are not dissolved by international ones but are complemented by them. It is precisely in addition to the community of economic life as an attribute of a nation that there forms the community of economic life as an attribute of mankind. At the same time the internationalisation of economic life can serve mankind only if there develops a co-operation among all countries and peoples based on equality. A gradual solution of global problems confronting mankind also becomes possible, above all those that we have called `` intersocial'', namely, problems of peace and disarmament, of social development and of economic growth throughout the world.

It is not difficult to see that all these problems are dialectically interconnected, and that they have an internal cause-and-effect subordination. It has already been noted, however, that they merely form a subsystem of a more complex hierarchy of global problems, determining the functioning of all other subsystems, and in particular those that develop in relations between man and society and between man and nature. Let us consider those aspects of the first group of global problems that interest us and relate them to the prospects of development of human civilisation. At the same time, since, as has already been noted, the problems of that group are individualised and personal in many respects, we will consider separately those aspects relating to interactions between man and nature that are clearly present in the second group of global problems. This will be the subject of the concluding Chapter, which is concerned with man's prospects within an integrated framework relating to both his social and natural-biological aspects. Strictly speaking, of course, it is not possible to fully abstract from the "human factor" in discussing relations between man and nature and between man and society. This is especially true of the social and humanistic problems of scientific and technical progress, which greatly influences, as we know, the general course of development of human civilisation, and especially tendencies in the fields of education and culture. Let us now consider these problems and the prospects for their resolution at the threshold of the third millennium.

2. The Social and

Humanistic Orientation

of Scientific and Technical

Progress.

Education in the Year 2000

Today science and technology exert an altogether exceptional influence on the life of modern man, on his consciousness and emotions. They have inverted many of our conceptions concerning the world and concerning ourselves. But aside from revealing new horizons and directions to which human activities may be applied they have also created many complex global problems and raised urgent issues concerning man's future and that of mankind. A new social and spiritual environment has developed within which many questions relating to the future of mankind are now posed and solved. Whenever that is mentioned there are growing appeals to the latest achievements in science and technology. And answers depend on specific views of these achievements and of science itself.

One observes with regret that current attitudes towards science vary greatly, and that many of its discoveries and technical applications not only perturb our imagination and create confusion, but sometimes simply frighten modern man---particularly when the future is considered. And the point here lies not only and perhaps not so much in the insufficiency of information concerning the achievements of modern science. Rather it is because today they are so unusual and occasionally bear no comparison with what we formerly viewed as familiar and normal, that they are often perceived as something strange against which our human consciousness, our sense of self-- preservation and our ethics protest.

It is a strange feeling today to read and hear about many problems that literally did not exist yesterday and that have arisen from the rapid course of the revolution in science and technology. And the further we proceed, in the words of Alice in Wonderland, it is "curiouser and curiouser". Today possibilities that only yesterday were viewed as the product of fantasies far-removed from Mm world of science are becoming either everyday reality or else the visible reality of the not loo distant future. The term "Pandora's Box"

is employed to describe many new phenomena that have been created by the development of science and that are already exerting a considerable influence on man and on mankind, their present as well as their future. This is why the relation of modern science to man's life and labour activities and to his prospects as a bio-social being---in short, the humanistic significance of scientific and technical progress---is itself becoming a major global problem of our age.

While this topic is the subject of heated discussions throughout the world, these often present science as an anti-humanistic force. Alternatively its significance for man's life is often presented as self-sufficient. This is true, in particular, of the various ``technocratic'' conceptions that present science as a determinant of human destiny while its universal nature is regarded as a force transforming society directly, by-passing social factors. As early as 1948, J. Fourastie published a work entitled The Great Hope of the Twentieth Century.^^12^^ Subsequently this came to represent the position of bourgeois-reformist technocracy. In the opinion of Fourastie, intensive technological and scientific development makes it possible for mankind to evolve in the direction of establishing a so-called "scientific society" that is free from the burdens of political, social, religious and other antagonisms. In that future society science and technology will become the basis not only of the vital activities of the social organism as a whole, but also of individual persons within it. The "computerised utopia" proposed by J. Fourastie was presented as "the twentieth century's greatest hope''.

In his most recent works J. Fourastie asserts that it is the task of science to make impossible the existence of an obsolete system of values and to construct the foundations of a new one. This, he believes, will be associated with the development of a new, cosmic religion that will permeate the entire fabric of the future "scientific society", and serve as a health-restoring element. Fourastie expects that such a reconstruction will be brought about by representatives of science, or more specifically by theologians committed to the spirit of scientific experimentation and familiar with science's major achievements. ^1:!

Such a conclusion, while seemingly unexpected, is nevertheless logical for ``technocratic'' thinking, which easily

shifts from excessive optimism to pessimism, from exaggerated hopes to disappointment, and from an absolute emphasis on science to doubts concerning its possibilities and even to religious faith. Here again, as we see, extremes meet.

Actually J. Fourastie's views are the source of many other ``technocratic'' views that are often conveyed indirectly, through a "complex of ideas". This is apparent in later examples of ``technocratic'' thinking, such as those found in the works of D. Bell, a Professor of Sociology at Harvard University.^^14^^ He asserts that the growing social role of science and technology and the increasing utilisation of computers as well as the cyberneticiYnh'on of production activities and of life automatically produce a "new society" that is based not on the production of goods but on " intellectual technology", and in which the principal actors arc no longer businessmen and entrepreneurs but scientists, mathematicians, economists, and sociologists.

D. Bell assumes that in such a society, which lie calls ``post-industrial'', it is ultimately not production relations that play a determining role, and not property relations, but the specific types of scientific knowledge that are employed in the economy, and that it is therefore the " organisation of science" that emerges as the major problem. Accordingly, Bell characterises such a "post-industrial society" as a new social structure that is based not on property relations but on knowledge and skills. The new social structures are made up of specialists that, in his view, are divided into three classes: a creative elite (scientists and higher level professional managers); a middle class (engineers and professors); and a proletariat (technicians, junior service personnel and assistants).

Although Bell, like other proponents of the conception of a "post-industrial society", constantly refers to science as opposed to an incorrect conception of ideology, the `` technocratic'' utopia that they advocate is by no means as ideologically ``innocent'' as it may appear at first sight. Behind it one finds the very specific positions of social reformism. This is clearly apparent in the study entitled The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. ^K There the ideas presented earlier are ``elaborated'' up to a full rejection of determinism and a break between the economy and culture in accordance with the conception of "disjointed spheres''.

£4

This does not, of course, mean that the line of " technological determinism" is altogether abandoned; it has numerous adherents and apologists who believe that the influence of science and technology on man and society is becoming the major source of contemporary changes, particularly in the world's more developed countries. In his book entitled Between Two Ages. America's Role in the Technetronic Era, for example, Z. Brzezinski writes that the "post-- industrial society", too, is turning into a "technetronic society" as a result of the direct influence of technology and electronics, and in particular of computer technology, on various aspects of social life, including its norms, its social structure and its cultural values.^^16^^ While, like many other proponents of ``technocratic'' ideas, Z. Brzezinski continually refers to social changes of a global character, in fact the references to the development of science and technology in his futurological model are merely used to argue that capitalist society is able to retain its essence in the new conditions that are developing in the world.

The misleading and non-viable nature of the `` technocratic'' interpretation of the revolution in science and technology derives from an incorrect understanding of that revolution as a phenomenon that is partly isolated from social factors, or in any case that is not inherently and organically linked to social factors. By placing an absolute emphasis 011 scientific and technical progress, ``technocratic'' conceptions place man in the position of a slave to an alien and inimical force whose control is the task of a highly specific elite standing over most of mankind. Accordingly such conceptions are not only anti-democratic but also anti-human: they dehumanise science by depriving it of its link with man, which is present in both its objectives and the means that are employed to attain them.

An elitist approach to science and to its social significance is clearly expressed in D. Bell's study entitled The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. This introduces the concept of ``meritocracy''---an hierarchy based on merits and skills. This expresses the principle of "equal results" rather than of equal initial opportunities, which presupposes a compulsory quota for women, Blacks, and small groups at all levels of secondary and higher education. Bell views the latter as unacceptable, since in his opinion the principle of "equal opportunities" ignores genetically and culturally

conditioned differences in the intellectual and spiritual potential of persons and is inimical to the development of personality. As for the principle of "equal results" lie postulates that it implies the encouragement of those whose con tribution to the collective stock of society is most significant. "Instead of the principle 'from each according to hi;- ability, to each according to his ability' we have the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Arid the justification for need is fairness to those who are disadvantage^ for reasons beyond their control.''~^^17^^

Thus, Boll seeks to make use of the communist principle, while essentially attributing to it an opposite, elitist connotation that justifies social inequality and excludes revolutionary changes in capitalist arrangements and social development in the direction of communism. He considers that all the changes that are taking place in a "post-industrial society" are ultimately changes in human consciousness whose outcome is the realisation of the Utopia of individual freedom. It is therefore not surprising that critics of D. Bell's conception (and not Marxist critics alone) define it as a "technocratic utopia". For it is a fact that while Boll refers to the decisive role of the "knowledge elite", such critics as N. Birnbaum correctly observe:

``The scientists and the educated are no doubt important and indispensable. But on Bell's own evidence they nowhere command our societies, they are employees of political and economic elites." ¹⁸ Bell himself admits that the "knowledge elite" is insufficiently linked through common interest to form a class, Referring to the role of scientists in creating the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb he shows that each time it was political and military leaders who made the principal decisions. Subsequently, in analysing the position of science. Bell notes that the scientific community itself considers interference by the government to bo inevitable, and also that scientific quest is increasingly bureaucratic in nature. At the same time he counlerposcs the "ethos of science" and the "principles of disinterested devotion to Truth" to "soulless technology". He declares the former to be the "transcendental ethics of a new society". These ideas of Bell have met with criticism by many of his opponents. and not only Marxists.

A seeming antipode of such ``technocratic'' conceptions is today's so-called "critique of science", which hases its position on a mythical conception concerning the ``demonic'' character of science, i.e., its ability to threaten mankind and to be a force that is inimical to life, increasingly uncontrollable and beginning to exist independently as it were. Accusations directed against science and technology, which are stated to have merely created the illusion of human power while in fact enslaving man to an industrial ``Moloch'' that is also destroying the natural environment, producing a degradation of culture and morality, and threatening to destroy mankind itself, are usually joined to conceptions that view any form of scientific and technical progress, independently of the social conditions within which it takes place, as inimical to the development of an " integral personality". In particular, such an approach is characteristic of representatives of tbe social philosophy of the Frankfurt school. In their view the dominance of "technical rationality", which subordinates all of social life to its own norms, is predetermined by the very conception of a " technical mind". In his book entitled One-Dimensional Man, whose subtitle is Essays on the Ideology of Progressing Industrial Society, H. Marcuse writes that in the medium of technology, culture, politics and economics merge into an all-encompassing system that absorbs or else rejects all alternatives and technical rationality becomes political rationality.~^^19^^ It is thus asserted that it is not the application of technology, but technology itself that dominates nature and individuals in a methodic, deliberate and scientifically-- calculated way. As it encompasses all spheres of modern `` industrial'' society scientific and technical progress produces a specific type of thinking and of behaviour which, according to Marcuse, make it possible to describe their vehicles as "one-dimensional men". There is nothing substantive in his works concerning the possibility of avoiding such a state.

In seeking to overcome this deep social pessimism another representative of the Frankfurt school, J. Habermas, seeks to resolve the contradiction between scientific and technical progress and man's requirements by contrasting "technical rationality" with a hypothetical possibility of integrating the development of science and technology with man's needs and achieving, through a number of reforms in the regulation system, their correspondence to the inter-

ests of individuals.^^20^^ Such a reformist programme, which does not presuppose qualitative social changes as a prerequisite of a ``humanisation'' of science and technology, is, of course, at best still another Utopia and a purely intellectual attempt to gloss over the extreme positions of "techno cratic optimism" and scientism.

This problem is formulated in a different manner in the philosophical anthropology of P. Teilhard de Chardin. In his works science is recognised not only as a means but as an objective which implies a scientifically constructed future society in which science is placed at the service of man. Teilhard is opposed to any other kind of utilisation of science (militarist, egotistical, etc.). Beyond this it is his view that at the present time science is employed inadequately---merely as a

``new means of providing more easily the same old things. We put Pegasus between the traces. And Pegasus languishes---unless he bolts with the waggon! But the moment will come---it is bound to---when man will be forced by the disparity of the equipage to ad mit that science is not an accessory occupation for him, but an essential activity, a natural derivative of the overspill of energy constantly liberated by mechanisation.''~^^21^^

This is, of course, a very deep thought and even though Teilhard does not identify the social essence of science, he clearly shows its essential mission and its lofty humanistic function. According to Teilhard, man is inevitably moving towards

``a human era of science, it will be eminently an era of human science. . . . Man, the knowing subject, will perceive at last that man, 'the object of knowledge', is the key to the whole science of nature. . . Man is the solution of everything that we can know." <sup>22</sup> In a certain sense such an approach is present in many contemporary Utopias relating to the relation of science to man. And romantic "critiques of science" address themselves more to man's emotions than to his mind. In effect Iheir appeal to overcome the ``deformation'' experienced by man as a result of scientific and technical progress and of industrial development and to restore ``hi-dimensionality'' as an alternative to "one-dimensional man" (II. Marcuse) is linked to Utopian hopes that certain shifts will take place in

culture itself and in man's consciousness and moral norms. As a result, it becomes apparent that in fact such conceptions of man's relation to contemporary progress in science and technology serve to detract his attention from a scientific solution of that problem and from identifying the actual contradictions that are inherent in the social conditions within which science functions and that are characterised by antagonistic class relations; they emphasise factors that accompany scientific and technical progress and represent them as ``universal'' and ``fatal''. At the same time the future is often patterned on existing negative examples and is presented as an inevitable and inescapable fate of all of mankind.

As a result romantic and nostalgic conceptions merge with openly apologetic ones, for both share a common theoretical point of view concerning the relation of developments in science and technology to man as well as concerning an abstract understanding of man's essence. Marx had observed that

``just as it is ridiculous to yearn for such a primal completeness of the person, so it is ridiculous to believe in the necessity of stopping at the present state of complete emptiness. The bourgeois view never grows beyond the opposite of such a romantic view, and as a result that romantic view will accompany the bourgeois view as its rightful opposite to its very end." <sup>23</sup> This anticipation of Marx's has now also been confirmed in the case of the ideological evolution of leftist radical "critics of science", and in particular of the interaction of the "New Left" with bourgeois-technocratic conceptions. Thus H. Marcuse, the New Left's leading ideologist, selected from the antinomy that he proposed in One-Dimensional Man the thesis that a developed industrial society might restrain tendencies towards qualitative social transformations. Earlier he held the opposite view, namely that there was a social force that was able to change the existing social structure in a revolutionary manner. But lie came to believe that the ``counter-culture'' had exhausted itself and that an "emancipation of feelings" was insufficient without an "emancipation of mind".^^24^^

Marcuse's revised ideas, as they relate to our problem, are elaborated by P. Goodman in a study entitled New Reformation: Notes of a Neolithic Conservative.^^25^^ Unlike the

traditional counter-culture conceptions concerning the pro position that ``technological'' knowledge and the `` technocracy'' that controls it constitute a force that is inimical to man and must therefore be completely uprooted in establishing genuine and humane relations among individuals, Good man recognises the vast role of technology and merely calls for its reformation: it must be transformed, in his opinion, into a branch of moral philosophy rather than of science and must be fully placed at the service of human needs and requirements.

In such a sharp confrontation between ``technocratic'' and anti-technocratic utopia concerning the humanistic orientation of science and its future, it is the task of scientists who recognise their responsibility towards others to free that problem from various myths, ``purify'' it from pseudoscientific admixtures, clearly identify its purely scientific rational meaning and seek to persuade world public opinion to consider it with the full measure of seriousness that it deserves in view of the situation in which mankind has found itself through the ambiguous perception of science and its consequences. It would appear that world opinion must listen to the voice of scientists more closely, and in spite of difficulties seek to understand the causes of their discussions and what real conclusions and recommendations follow from them. But above all they must base their views on an adequate perception of science and see its essential powers and its humanistic orientation.

The Marxist conception of science provides such an understanding. It explains science as a force that is becoming increasingly social and widespread. Within such a framework it also becomes clear why until very recently (the turn of the century) science functioned in ``parallel'', as it were, with processes that developed in the sphere of production, without influencing the vital activities of persons in any substantial measure and without attracting the attention of broad public opinion. It is true that the absence of such wide attention does not yet imply that social life was not in fact influenced by the activities of scientists. But such influences were sporadic, and in spite of striking individual achievements in the natural sciences that revolutio nised production activities, scientific research was generally viewed as an occupation that could not be systematically included into the sphere of "business interests", even though

its unexpected power and importance could be fully recognised. The activities of scientists therefore continued to be viewed in a traditional manner, namely, as a mysterious "effort of solitary individuals" isolated from social life, contemplating nature's phenomena from some kind of "ivory tower''.

This situation changed very substantially after the first atomic device was detonated at Los Alamos, while Hiroshima further strengthened this ambivalent notoriety of science. It became apparent that even the most abstract branches of science, such as nuclear physics, are closely linked to the socio-economic life of individuals and to politics. A sensationalist press transformed science from a modest labourer of no great interest to the public into a fatal and all-powerful ``demon''.

But the unprecedented direct role of science as a major force influencing the course of human events does not, of course, concern military uses of its discoveries alone. While these have created a threat to the very existence of mankind, it is not only through nuclear explosions that the voice of science reaches public opinion. Its direct influence is also felt in a variety of constructive applications and in the daily lives of the populations of the industrial countries. There is no need for a refined analysis to know that something radically new has begun to take place since the 1950s, when science, which had traditionally been an abstract and intellectual pursuit, became an important element in the national policy of modern states that are increasingly engaged in financing, organising and planning it.

The pace of scientific and technical progress is continually increasing. Available estimates suggest that a doubling of all scientific knowledge occurs every ten years; and that it occurs every five years in biology, every two years in genetics, and every 1.5 years in physics and space science. In addition, lead times between the scientific discovery of some principle or law of nature and its practical application are continually decreasing. As a result science promotes material production increasingly transforming it by first establishing theoretical foundations relating to principles and laws of nature, rather than operating as an external influence on production activities that have themselves developed independently of science on an empirical basis. The economic effectiveness of capital investments in scientific

research activities is now widely known. The transformation of production activities through applications of science has now become a powerful force.

It is important to recognise that the social sciences, too, have begun to contribute to that process. This expresses a real trend, produced by the further development of the social character of labour activities, towards a merging and mutual interweaving of the natural and social sciences. Such an interaction has become an inherent requirement of both. As the scope of social production-oriented applications of the findings of natural science is extended (for example in projects concerned with applications of nuclear energy, the transformation of desert lands, space exploration activities, and the complex automation of production activities), a greater need is felt for specific forms of social knowledge concerning the conditions under which such applications anpossible, and also concerning their consequences. Simultaneously the availability of such knowledge influences the development of the natural sciences themselves in their role as a productive force. Today large numbers of economists, sociologists, and psychologists participate in the development of scientific projects and in their practical realisation, and the nature of their activities, as well as the criteria of scientific reliability applied in evaluating them, must increasingly approximate the precision of natural scientific knowledge.

These clearly observable facts and tendencies alone make it apparent that today the problem of science is a major social and socio-political problem, whose resolution inevitably influences very large numbers of persons, and in the case of class societies, the interests of its various groups and classes. But if one considers current developments more closely one may also see symptoms of a deeper and longer-term process of social change that encompasses both science itself and its influence on society.

What, then, is the nature of that deep-going process? In Marxist theory it is generally described as the transformation of science into a direct social productive force. In ana lysing its socio-economic essence and consequences Marxism has shown convincingly that such a transformation is by no means an immanent development of scientific knowledge, but is merely an aspect and manifestation of the further socialisation of production activities and of human

activities more generally; in such a context co-operation it self and also the social character of labour activities are becoming a powerful productive force. In particular this is true of the sphere of scientific knowledge which acquires the form of socially-developed labour activities and is utilised by society in new ways.

It is significant that Marx viewed changes in the social role of science as one of the elements of a radical transformation of society that also includes such processes as liquidation of private property, the overcoming of contradictions within production that derive from the law of surplus value, the establishment of collective control over the production process at the level of society itself, a transition to a polytechnical education for the greater part of workers, a merging of physical and mental labour, and the transformation of free time, and especially the time devoted by individuals to their scientific education, into the principal measure of social wealth.

The further development of the social potentials of contemporary production activities finds expression above all in a transformation of the general structure of labour acti vities within the sphere of material production, that is, in a transformation of the very structure of that sphere. That process is proceeding in a direction already noted by Marx, who observed that as a socialisation of production activities occurs, an increasing influence on the labour process is exerted by the embodied power of knowledge.

``The implements of labour, in the form of machinery, necessitate the substitution of natural forces for human force, and the conscious application ol' science, instead of rule of thumb.''~^^26^^

The most visible outcome of the twentieth century's revolution in science and technology, especially in such characteristic manifestations of that revolution as the complex mechanisation and automation of production activities which is today extending to the sphere of social management and accounting as well, is an increasing reduction in the share of live labour in direct production activities together with a growing influence of factors associated with a specific level of development and application of achievements in science and technology. Long before the truly revolutionary changes in production activities that characterise the present stage of progress in science and technology

t>4

took place, Marx spoke of the influence on labour productivity of

``. . .the progressive improvement of the Social Powers of Labour, such as are derived from production on a grand scale, concentration of capital and combination of labour, subdivision of labour, machinery, improved methods, appliance of chemical and other natural agencies, shortening of time and space by means of communication and transport, and every other contrivance by which science presses natural agencies into the service of labour, and by which the social or cooperative character of labour is developed." ²⁷ But this implies that changes are also taking place in the character and structure of live labour itself. As the prevailing tendency in development is the transformation of material production activities into man's dominance over the forces of nature through the means of science, the role of human labour---of the developed subject of social production activities---centers on a preparation of general conditions governing production and on the management and control over production processes. Such labour activities acquire a specific scientific content that no longer relates exclusively to the role of machines but must also encompass the personal capacities of workers as comprehensively developed human personalities.

Already today new technology produces an increased need for persons in whose activities mental labour plays an important role. Outwardly this finds expression in a growing number of workers engaged in intellectual labour. The proportion of mental and mechanical physical labour at the level of production activities is changing sharply in favour of mental labour. In particular the volume of scientific research activities and experimental design activities is increasing rapidly, while that of production activities proper is declining. Generally the new types of specifically modern production activities that are appearing and that are especially promising in terms of their role and their growth possibilities require engineering, technical and scientific labour activities as a dominant form of productive labour. Projecting that tendency into the future many researchers believe that in the next century as much as 20 per cent of the entire adult population may serve society in the capacity of scientists.

5-01743

But the structure of material production activities is not only characterised by an increasing volume of scientific and engineering design activities (and of the corresponding number of persons). There is also an important tendency that is transforming labour in the mass production activities that must continue to be performed by workers in direct contact with objects and implements of labour. Production activities that under the influence of science are now based on automatic devices, telemechanics, electronics, and cybernetics require unprecedented levels of skills among workers that correspond to those of engineering and scientific labour. An increasing proportion of their energy must be expended in the form of mental labour activities that precede mass production or else lie outside its direct sphere. As it combines with the live labour of workers, science transforms it and creates a new type of producer of material wealth possessing the qualities of a worker, engineer, and scientist. Active and creative initiatives play an increasing role within such labour activities, since standardised, routine operation characteristic of mass production activities are increasingly assigned to machines.

But scientific labour activities themselves also experience deep changes. Under the influence of the scientific and tech- < nological revolution they change their social form and draw closer to the labour activities of workers engaged in the productive sphere. While remaining an intellectual activity that is specifically concerned with the acquisition of new knowledge, scientific labour activities are becoming production activities in the form and conditions of their implementation. These conditions become a part of the conditions governing production itself, and are thus `` embedded'' in production. Scientific labour has industrial research equipment and is carried out collectively, involving a large number of workers at a time and in one place and establishing a division of functions between them; it is also embodied in material output. Within such an intrusion of production forms into the experimental and technical basis of scientific activities as well as their organisation, which endows them with the traits of a socialised production process, one may clearly discern the following motive forces.

First, the labour activities of scientists and science itself experience an industrialisation (in connection with the changing character and forms of the instruments that are

employed in achieving the experimental influences of modern science on nature). In fact it is precisely those findings that constitute the most fundamental and most revolutionary scientific discoveries in the twentieth century, particularly in its fundamental branches, that were made possible by the construction and experimental application of highly complex, costly, and occasionally grandiose machines and devices, such as atomic reactors, atomic particle accelerators, space rockets and artificial satellites, computers, aerodynamic and hydrodynamic facilities, the most delicate recording devices, and systems of space telecommunications. It is no longer possible for an individual scientist to rely on his own means and his own efforts in constructing laboratories, designing scientific instruments, and employing them in experiments that relate to the current state of his scientific discipline. While many theoretical scientists continue to require only a pencil and paper in performing their work, the data concerning nature whose interactions are recorded with the help of a pencil are obtained with the help of large-scale physical research equipment. Everything else has already been described by science, and the boundaries of the unknown are now too distant from the sphere of direct observations and of the range of the modest experimental devices that science has employed in the past.

Secondly, there has been a change in the role of individual scientific work in scientific progress: research activities have acquired a collective, large-scale character. Today's large-scale research equipment designed to facilitate scientific experiments bring together large collectives of scientific workers, engineers, technicians, laboratory assistants, and skilled workers, and require their co-operation within a complex division of labour. But independently of the most modern forms of industrial experimentation the achievements of modern science are largely produced not through the efforts of individual outstanding scientists working as members of liberal professions, but through applications of various forms of organised labour activities of members of large research collectives whose individual efforts are co-ordinated within a framework designed to solve a common problem. A new type of scientist has appeared, namely, a collective scientist.

Third, the very nature of many research tasks has become such that in terms of the required human and mate-

5*

rial resources only large social funds and the efforts of an entire society can succeed in carrying them out, following their mobilisation in a conscious and planned manner.

But all these underlying processes that are associated with the transformation of science within modern societies into a direct productive force exist and express themselves within specific systems of socio-economic relations. At the level of reality science operates as a social institution that depends on these relations. Accordingly, in order to determine the conditions, forms and consequences that attach to the functioning of science in relation to a particular society it is insufficient to have in mind merely the internal processes of modern industrial production and the corresponding possibilities of science itself. It is here that one finds the essence of the Marxist approach to the analysis of such a complex and contradictory phenomenon as modern science. And it is here that one finds the key to a correct understanding of the mechanisms that govern its social ^ functioning and its influence on the life and future of man and of mankind. This is why the Marxist-Leninist view of the world emerges today as a spiritual foundation for scientific and technical progress and for asserting man's integ- ' rity and the lofty principles of humanism, which refer to ; a harmonious merging of ends with means, and of noble aspirations with practical activities that rely on science.

Thus unlike ``technocratic'', scientistic, and abstract humanistic anthropological conceptions, the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific and technical progress makes it possible to identify the major and essential tendencies in the development of human knowledge that are becoming clearly evident today. In such a context it becomes possible to understand the specific traits that characterise its functioning within different social systems and to explain the resulting aberrations and deviations of science from its basic orientation on mankind, and even anti-human applications that are harmful to man. From the point of view of the MarxistLeninist conception of science as a social institution that may not be reduced merely to the sphere of pure knowledge, isolated from other human factors, the true essence of science, while always remaining deeply humanistic, may become hidden and even be distorted in particular social conditions, and express itself more freely and fully in others that correspond to its nature.

While in its origins and development modern science is closely linked with industrial production, it finds an adequate expression of its nature as a direct productive force within a pattern of development of social conditions that corresponds both to higher levels of scientific and technical development and to a full and all-round development of man. We refer to such a perspective as a communist one, in which, according to Marx, genuinely human relations will prevail. Accordingly, all other social forms governing the functioning of science, including the one that corresponds to the present stage of socialist development, may only be viewed as stages in its emergence which are limited in content, no matter how remarkable some achievements of science may be in relation to concrete types of knowledge and to individual specialised disciplines.

Such is the Marxist perspective on the development of science as a social institution. But there is also a specific internal logic in the development of scientific knowledge itself that leads it unavoidably to an increasing realisation of science's essential powers.

In that connection it is characteristic that a reorientation in the problems being posed is taking place not only in the social sciences but in the natural sciences as well. Moreover, it is precisely problems relating to man's development as it relates to biological, psychological and genetic factors as well as to social factors that are receiving particular emphasis. Modern science is developing a new research situation in which man is considered in the context of his relations to the system associated with scientific and technical progress, that is, not merely as its subject or its object, but in a dialectical interaction of both. The interrelation and mutual interaction of these two aspects of a single process, namely, the subjective-objective relations of individuals associated with scientific and technical progress---form the basis of a perspective that shifts the reasoning associated with the overall problem to a new plane, as it were: it is no longer limited to an analysis in terms of a single relation or a single trend of either the isolated influence of man on processes relating to scientific and technical progress or of the influence of these processes on man, to which a positive or else a negative sign is then attached.

Such an understanding of the interaction of processes relating to scientific and technical progress and to man's

development presupposes more than the latter's active adaptation in terms of forms of social responses that alter ( attenuate or fully neutralise) impacts of certain phenomena of scientific and technical progress that are negative from the point of view of man's biology, psychology and genetics as well as that of the natural environment within which he exists. A purely emotional attitude towards these phenomena, which sometimes camouflages itself through the use of ``anti-scientistic'' terminology and is ``humanistic'' in that negative sense, represents an approach that is social only at the level of words that are deprived of real substance. In fact, however, it is in the opposite approach, namely, in turning to these processes themselves in order to develop them more intensively and more comprehensively in ways designed to serve man, that one finds the greatest social content in man's adaptive responses to processes taking place in scientific and technical progress.

Such an approach, which takes into account the internal logic of science's development in its self-realisation as a humanistic social force serving man and constituting a sphere in which his creative possibilities unfold, is also able to show that certain negative human aspects of scientific •. and technical progress whose overcoming is sometimes linked today to radical transformations in the social sphere, may apparently be attenuated (although not fully removed) through a further development of scientific and technical progress. As in the case of new possibilities for the further development of productive forces this creates a certain `` selfinduction'' that extends to ever wider spheres of human existence. We must be prepared to see new and unexpected consequences of that ``self-induction'' in order to distinguish those that are inherent, as it were, in scientific and technical progress itself from those that are social in the narrow sense of that word, and which are directly governed by differences in the social conditions within which scientific and technical progress takes place.

Today new possibilities for solving those human aspects of scientific and technical progress that are relatively autonomous and partly independent of social factors as they operate within different social systems appear largely in the form of a scientific embodiment of the requirements of industrial production activities, which make unprecedentedly high psycho-physiological demands on man, his profes-

sional training, and his ability to assimilate and process the enormously increased volume of information required by Ins labour activities. This also poses new problems before science itself, which is increasingly turning towards man himself and his existence and development in the context of scientific and technical progress. It makes it necessary for scientists to study more closely the "human dimensions" of scientific and technical progress and of everything that it brings to men and that it requires from them, both at the social level and in a biological sense. An exploitation of science and of man's theoretical progress produces new contradictions and collisions in the social form of the functioning of modern science within which, in spite of achievements in serving man, its alienation from man becomes more pronounced, the alternative of scientism and anthropologism becomes ever shaper, and elitist and technocratic conceptions circulate widely, accompanied by the left-- radical and romantic-utopian ideas containing a "critique of science" as a Weltanschauung principle.

In such a context an important and fruitful role is played by the Marxist-Leninist conception of the unity of science and humanism, in which science appears as humanised science and includes man in its point of departure and final outcome, while humanism becomes scientific and presupposes the study of man and of his development in close association with social practice. It is precisely in such a concentration of research efforts and of the entire complex of sciences and of scientific and technical progress as a whole on the problem of man that one clearly sees its humanistic meaning and its genuine mission as a force at the service of man and of mankind. The advantages of that conception derive from the fact that it makes it possible not only to provide a correct explanation of the development of science and technology, but also to regulate them, and in particular to achieve their socio-ethical regulation in serving the future of man and mankind. One frequently meets assertions to the effect that a regulation of scientific and technical progress is either altogether impossible or else produces only negative results because it suppresses the Freedom to pursue any scientific research activities and thus impedes the development of science and technology. But one can only arrive at such abstract and general conclusions when science and technology are viewed in isolation from the social condi-

tions within which they function and from the humanistic orientation that determines that development under socialism.

A certain measure of socio-ethical regulation of science develops even under capitalism, as it becomes increasingly necessary. But it meets with substantial impediments deriving from private ownership and from a selfish striving for profits that is insufficiently limited by socially instituted norms. Under socialism a coinciding of the research objectives of scientists with their humanistic objectives is asserted as a matter of principle, together with a dialectical mutual interrelation between the freedom to carry on research activities, which is guaranteed constitutionally, and full social responsibility. Of course, contradictions and problems in carrying out these principles are not fully overcome under socialism. But the attempts of bourgeois writers to present them as "fatally inevitable" are groundless.

A socio-ethical regulation of science deriving from its humanistic orientation and its development as a science serving man implies a goal-oriented regulation of scientific activities not only at the national level but at the international level as well. It presupposes the development of specific ethical codes as well as of international legal agreements regulating the acquisition of scientific knowledge in areas that affect vital interests of present and future generations. Today, however, in the opinion of many scientists, the main problem is to exercise a more effective control over the implementation of socio-ethical and juridical regulations, codes and agreements that have already been adopted. A socio-ethical regulation of science towards which science and society on the whole are moving for reasons of vital necessity, may become a humanistic basis for a new type of development of science that is more free than earlier.

All this has become especially apparent in recent years, particularly in connection with discussions of the socio-- ethical problems of genetic engineering. The events and facts relating to this field are widely known. Serious steps have been taken in developing a specific set of rules to govern activities in genetic engineering. Acceptable instructions were developed on the basis of the principles formulated at the Asilomar Conference of 1975, that would make it possible to control applications of methods for manipulating the genes

of living organisms, and in particular the utilisation of weakened micro-organisms for many types of experiments.. A number of physical safety measures were established, ranging from a simple use of standard microbiological methods to the use of specially designed equipment operating under reduced air pressure, isolated by air chambers and showers at each exit. Three thresholds of biological safely were also defined for certain types of experiments.

In the present context there is no need to describe the highly specialised problems that relate to safety procedures in genetic engineering. They will, of course, continue to be perfected thus increasing possibilities for experiments with recombinant DNA molecules. Such experiments are facilitated by the development of mutant micro-organisms that lend themselves to laboratory research but cannot survive outside laboratory conditions. (They are not able to survive within man's intestines or his sperm and are easily destroyed through detergents. This removes one of the basic obstacles to research activities based on the recombining of DNA).

Yet it cannot be said that the situation that lias currently developed in the field of genetic engineering is clear and well defined. There continue to exist problems calling for urgent solutions. In the words of many persons who are concerned with the dangers of research activities involving recombinant DNA molecules "the genie has been released from the bottle". Numerous sensational articles and statements by journalists and commentators to the effect thatnew monsters of the Frankenstein type will soon emerge from laboratories have created concern among world public opinion and have also encouraged greater caution among a number of scientists. More recently, however, they have been less active in discussing matters relating to genetic engineering because of their concern with another important problem, namely, the possibility that public pressure and legislative decisions will reduce the funding of such activities. In the view of scientists this would generally impedethe development of science. This is why intensive efforts are being made to find acceptable forms for continuing activities in the fied of genetic engineering at the same time as there is a growing movement for stopping dangerous experiments in that area altogether. An important role is played by juridical aspects of the problem.

72-

In addition, certain doubts have arisen concerning the true motivation behind the establishment of a moratorium and ~the decisions of the Asilomar Conference, particularly if one considers what occurred in subsequent years. It is difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer. For in the present world situation, which is characterised by an extremely intensive political and ideological struggle, there is probably no issue, no movement and no measure that would not be •employed one way or another by reactionary social forces under certain conditions. Even the most lofty and most humane intentions are often perverted and placed at the service of altogether different objectives.

But in noting that negative aspect of this question we only refer to a specific evaluation of the political situation, •of the actions of governments and of propaganda bodies, but not of the movement of scientists as such. One cannot •question the original intentions of those scientists who initiated the movement for establishing a moratorium on certain types of experiments with recombinant DNA molecules. The fact that their subsequent behaviour conforms to a specific pattern is another matter.

This state of affairs is different under socialism where alternatives that are often disturbing to scientists and dangerous for mankind are avoided as a matter of principle, since a real and many-sided social control is provided over research activities, including activities in the field of genetic research. In one of his recent articles Academician A. A. Bayev, a leading Soviet specialist in genetic engineering, has recently stated:

``We, in the Soviet Union, do not experience either fear in facing the future or doubts concerning some kind of powerful and blind forces that are able to steer scientific research activities in the genetic engineering in evil directions despite the intentions and wishes of individuals. We are convinced that common sense and good will will prevail in this area, at least in our own socialist country.''~^^28^^

The philosophy and moral norms of a socialist society, as •well as its structure, preclude manipulative approaches to man, including those associated with the application of methods of genetic control. It is on such a basis that socialist countries develop co-operation with all countries in the field of biological and medical research activities relating to man.

Being aware of the dangers of an absence of controls in that area, and of the global character of many problems that arise in this connection, socialist countries participate in many international legal agreements relating to the regulation of research activities concerned with man. They struggle actively against the possible utilisation of findings in this area for military purposes and for a prohibition of activities designed to create new biological weapons that are even more threatening than nuclear weapons and which may in principle rely on applications of genetic engineering.

To sum up it seems to be possible to state an important generalisation, namely, that in modern science socio-ethical problems arise both in relation to each individual scientific discovery and each individual scientific problem and also in relation to the overall objectives of science itself. It is therefore not possible to view current discussions on problems associated with the regulation of research activities in the field of genetic engineering as something that is temporary, transitional, and accidental in the development of science. They are becoming an inherent trait of scientific activities, and this indicates that we have reached a new stage in the development of science and that its role in the life of society and of each individual person has increased.

The acute socio-ethical problems that have arisen in connection with the prospects of genetic engineering must, of course, be resolved on a wide humanistic basis that presupposes that priority will be accorded to human welfare, even though unfortunately this is often defined in uncertain ways. At the same time that solution must not impede the development of new approaches to understanding Nature, for such an understanding ultimately also serves human welfare and constitutes one's major hopes for the future. But in order that this hope for the future may be realised science and mankind must now ascend to a new level in their social and moral development,

We thus base ourselves on the fundamental and integral unity of scientific research activities and humanistic ideals. This also implies a unity between the social objectives that are pursued by the acquisition of scientific knowledge and mankind's ethical values, which also centre on serving human welfare. It must, of course, be emphasised that such a unitv of research activities and humanistic

ideals, and of social objectives in acquiring knowledge with mankind's ethical values exists only as a principle and as a prospect for true science. In reality, as we know well, science in its contemporary forms is often still very distant from such a state.

Just the same we must constantly recognise that an organic combining of science with humanism and its assertion as a force serving the progress of mankind is one of modern development's most vital problems. An awareness of its importance helps in arriving at a better evaluation of research activities and of their outcome from an ethical point of view, thus helping overcome an ethical relativism and nihilism that is dangerous for mankind as it preaches the ``dimensionless'' and ``irreversible'' character of knowledge as a presumed higher criterion of its human essence and a self-sufficient source of science's ethical values. It is becoming clear that it is no longer sufficient for scientists to wave "Galileo's flag", and that science cannot develop in a " social vacuum" and be separated from its Weltanschauung, socio-philosophical and ethical principles. Moral and ethical problems are not something external to science, but are interwoven in its very ``body''. The one-sided position that emphasises ``pure'' research independently of its applications is becoming increasingly obsolete. It is becoming increasingly apparent that unless the social responsibility of scientists grows at a geometric rate it will not be possible for the role of moral and ethical principles in science and for science itself, as well as mankind, to grow at even an arithmetic rate.

It should be recalled that special recommendations concerning the status of scientific workers were adopted at the 18th Session of UNESCO's General Conference (November 20, 1974). These list the following major ethical and social principles that must be taken into consideration by scientific workers of any state and serve as guidelines: intellectual freedom to search for scientific truth and express and defend it as one conceives it; participation in the definition of objectives and of the course of programmes that they serve, as well as of methods that should be adopted in the light of humanistic, social and ecological considerations; freedom to express one's view concerning humanistic, social and ecological aspects of specific projects and a possibility for refusing to participate in individual projects if their

consequences make this necessary; an obligation to contribute to the development of science, culture and education •within one's own state in accordance with the international ideals of the United Nations, as well as of requirements in solving national problems.

Today the growing self-awareness of scientists expresses itself in a variety of forms. In particular, it has found a coherent expression in the Pugwash movement that was initiated by the famous Russel-Einstein Manifesto. At the 28th Pugwash Conference, which took place September 1-5, 1978 in Varna, Bulgaria, it was again emphasised that aside from their individual responsibilities for scientific activities, scientists also bear a wider responsibility that derives from their knowledge and their technical possibilities as well as their international ties. In their own countries they have a responsibility to disseminate truthful information concerning such facts as the consequences of applying modern weapons systems; the consequences of industrial development, urbanisation, agricultural development, and the development of social structures; the situation relating to resources available for mankind's future development and also alternatives for utilising such resources, together with their advantages and disadvantages. The Declaration of the Pugwash Council states that such activities on the part of scientists, which presuppose both the existence of stable relations between themselves and political leaders and socio-political activities on their own part, are necessary in order to overcome misunderstandings, ignorance and hatred, and hence to preserve international peace.

Today science is increasingly becoming a major productive force that is called productive precisely because it is intended to create rather than to destroy and to serve man and mankind, both today and in the future. Clear, unambiguous statements to that effect have been made by scientists of many countries, in particular at the 28th Pugwash Conference in a special resolution entitled "Global Aspects of Disarmament and Security''.

To an increasing extent scientific and technical progress is acquiring a global character, and that presupposes a close and active international co-operation among scientists on a global scale, an intensification of scientific and technological development, and at the same time a balanced regula-

tion of science and technology in serving humanistic objectives of social development and the interests of the future of mankind. This idea is becoming increasingly widespread throughout the world and is meeting with the growing support of many national and international organisations. In particular, this was seen in Vienna, in August 1979, at the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development, where special attention was given to the problem of regulating science and of its significance as a guarantee of the future, including the possibility of solving a complex of global problems.

This raises a number of problems of general theory that are currently widely discussed by scientists throughout the world and that appear to play an increasing role in determining the direction of scientific and technical progress both today and in the future. This concerns the need to recognise not only science's vast possibilities in solving today's global problems but also its limits. In other words, more realism and more care is needed in designing projects and formulating hopes that rely on science in solving global problems. It is important to emphasise more clearly that science does not constitute a universal force, and that scientists therefore cannot and do not accept obligations that exceed their actual possibilities. This is because global problems are not ``purely'' scientific. They are, above all, social problems, and their solution presupposes specific social and not ``purely'' scientific conditions. One can therefore say, for example, that by the year 2000 it is possible to find scientific solutions to many global problems. But as for their social resolution, such statements cannot be made with any degree of certainty.

It follows that in the case of global problems we must also place greater emphasis on the heuristic, stimulating and catalytic role of science. Science not only provides specific solutions to global problems but it also stimulates their social formulation and resolution. In addition, it provides authoritative ``warnings'' relating to specific threats that may confront mankind if solutions to global problems are not achieved. It is precisely as current threats that most global problems exist today. Unfortunately in many cases these threats do not vanish even when we consider the prospects for the year 2000, viewed as a reference boundary whose meaning is primarily psychological rather than objec-

tively motivated. The basis for its influence continues to be a certain riddle. But this is another matter which need not be pursued at the present time.

It is probably far more important to emphasise the thought that solutions to global problems involve an entire complex of sciences (including the social sciences and philosophy) . While science is interested in the outcome of solutions to global problems, it is not indifferent to the way in which such outcomes are achieved. Yet if one considers the natural and technical sciences, they are primarily concerned with the outcome itself. As for the social sciences they are primarily concerned with the design of strategies and social forms for resolving global problems. Philosophy, as it considers the methodological and Weltanschauung aspects of global problems, largely emphasises the ways in which such solutions are achieved. In such a context we are interested not only in the outcome but perhaps in a still larger extent in the relevant scientific discussions and dialogues. Perhaps in this particular case the manner in which scientists influence each other's thinking in the course of these discussions is the most important element. And it is in this sense that we refer to the loading, stimulating, and catalytic function of philosophy in solving global problems.

Science must always contain humanistic ideals. A genuine basis for a boundless progress of science both today and in the future can only result from a continuing humanistic evaluation of science from the point of view of its ability to serve man, subordinating its immanent objectives to the overall goal of mankind's social development. And this presupposes a society in which the realisation of the essential forces of man becomes an end in itself. And it is no accident that Marx said: "Society, that is, man himself in his social relations.''~^^29^^ But according to Dostoyevsky, the "law of ego merges with the law of humanism". Naturally we know that the same Dostoyevsky (whose views are today shared by many "critics of science"), like Lev Tolstoy, was often apt to represent scientific knowledge (by opposing it to ``wisdom'' in the evangelical spirit) as a force alien to man, for which he had to pay an exorbitantly high price.^^30^^

And so, the question arises not only about the value of truth, but about its price, the "reference point" being Man and his good. True, the latter was never determined exactly

79-

and always was relative in character, filling with a concrete •historical content depending on a diverse complex of conditions, including socio-class and other conditions. Yet, it nonetheless came out really as a certain universal value, .and that is how it is also interpreted today, when we determine the interests and objectives of communism as common to all mankind, at least in perspective. Hence, at this starting point let us not allow for any relativism, since it undermines the very foundation of humanistic ethics. The choice may lie not between the ethical (humane) and the relatively ethical (expedient, necessary). As A. Schweizer had well emphasised, the latter must in all cases be clearly realised as at least a partial violation of certain initial principles of ethics and humanism.

These, at first sight, possibly somewhat general arguments have a quite concrete content, determined in particular by the situation existing in modern science in its relation with man and society. Probably as never before, today the price that mankind should (or should not) pay for a .given truth discovered, say, in nuclear physics, molecular biology, etc., is a very urgent issue since these are pure, not applied sciences, on which (like on technology) it is easier to shift the entire burden of moral responsibility, and it is even easier for them to shift this responsibility on society, whose requirements they are reckoned to satisfy, guided solely by the principle of necessity, expediency, ``optimum'' (effective) need, etc., in given conditions. Nobody can avoid the issue of ethic choice, and an assessment of given essential decisions, in case they even in the least do not coincide with ethical, humanistic norms, as a violation of these norms (and consequently as maybe an inevitable evil, but nevertheless an evil), makes it possible to maintain the development of negative processes at a strictly definite level .and counter them with a clear perspective in view. This distinguishes my stand not only from ethical relativism and nihilism (scientism), but from the "critique of science'' which comes out from Rousseauist positions and suggests that scientific and technological progress, for one thing, be slowed down (recall the concepts of ``counter-culture'', " zero growth", and so on). It is clear to us that precisely only still deeper, all round, and harmonious development of that progress for the benefit of man could lead to a ``removal'' of the negative consequences of science and its applications;

.80

however, this can only be achieved under social conditions also oriented to man's welfare as the supreme goal.

In operating as a comprehensive influence on the future of human civilisation---both its material and spiritual aspects---scientific and technical progress contributes to the solution of many social and humanistic global problems. But it especially influences and is itself influenced by the development of education in the world.

In connection with the so-called information explosion (the sharp increase in both the overall volume of information that is produced and in the volume of information required by the socialisation of the personality and its educational and cultural training), some futurologists refer to a crisis in traditional forms of education. Attempts are made to find new forms and methods of education, to develop new guidelines for education (the encouragement of creative thinking instead of memorisation, a reduction in the num ber of basic types of knowledge, in view of the impossibility of further increasing the number of required courses, etc.). These extremely complex problems will begin to be solved within the next two decades, although it is not very likely that they will meet with optimal or final solutions during that period.

Difficulties in this area derive from the fact that when defining a conception of education for the year 2000 and beyond, many futurologists invent an idyllic future that is disconnected from realities, especially those of capitalist society, even though they provide competent discussions of specialised problems. In the research project entitled Education in the Year 2000, for example, prepared by a group of Swedish scientists under the leadership of T. Husen, one of the forecasting models indicates that by the year 2000 everyone between the age of six to eighteen will attend school, while 40 per cent of young persons between the ages of nineteen to twenty-four will also be able to study in universities and in specialised post-secondary institutions. It is added that this last figure can be 100 per cent if corresponding funds are made available.^^31^^ Of course such a forecast does not take into account the specific characteristics of capitalist reality and the actual situation relating to education throughout the world. In particular, it is well known that in developing countries today as well as among exploited classes in developed capitalist countries a significant lev-

0-01743

I

el of illiteracy still exists. It thus appears that mankind will enter the third millennium with many millions of illiterate or semi-literate persons. Unquestionably that problem is of a social nature and is associated with the social inequality that exists in the world's non-socialist zone.

Turning in this context to the Club of Rome's report No Limits to Learning, I should like to dwell on it in somewhat greater detail since precisely this report must, according to the men from the Club of Rome, signify a certain turning point in its activity.

To begin with, it is necessary to note that, like the previous reports, the report No Limits to Learning~^^32^^ was a peculiar result of almost two years of work on Learning Project. For the first time in the history of the Club of Rome, the work on the Project was headed by representatives from developing and socialist countries, and this to a large extent was conducive to attracting additional attention to the report. It should be noted that the direct initiator of the work on the Project was A. Peccei, whose ideas, expounded in his book The Human Quality were also reflected on the pages of the report.

Analysing the results of the now ten-year-old discussions going on around global problems, the authors of the report arrive at the conclusion that "small signs of a shift are evident in the debates... A preoccupation with the material side of the world problematique has limited their scope and effectiveness" (p. 4). In this connection, they insist on the need to put the human being in the centre of the discussion of world problems, to shift the accent from problems of physical nature to human problems proper, to the life sustaining system as a whole. This appears to be a promising thesis, albeit it is expressed in a somewhat vague form. In this case, one should note that the vague wording, the abstract interpretation of and approach to resolving the problems at issue are characteristic features of the activity of the Club of Rome as a whole, this having been noted time and again in the Soviet and foreign press. One can say in advance that the report No Limits to Learning also proved to have these shortcomings.

Arguing about the absence of an "accent on man", the authors arrive at the conclusion that the so-called "human gap" was the result of this situation, and they characterise it as "the distance between growing complexity and our

capacity to cope with it" (p. 6). In specifying their idea, the authors of the report claim that today the issue is not so much in our inability to cope with global problems, as in our ability and possibility to realise the current problems and to take relevant measures, while envisaging and forestalling the problems that may confront mankind in future, and assuming responsibility for them. As we see, the authors of the report deliberately ``gnoseologise'' the problems facing man, thus regarding man per se only as a cognising creature. This approach also affects the objective proposed by the authors of the report, and the range of questions they discuss.

According to the authors of the report, the purpose of the Learning Project was to study how with the aid of "learn ing" one could bridge that very "human gap" mentioned above. In other words, the Project puts forward purely educational objectives, and this, in our view, permits us to characterise it as a peculiar step backward (philosophically, at least).

The authors of the report emphasise that they understand the concept ``learning'' in a broader context than others did before. By ``learning'' they imply an approach to knowledge and life that stresses the significance of human initiative; this concept includes the "acquisition and practice of new methodologies, new skills, new attitudes, and new values necessary to live in a world of change. Learning is the process of preparing to deal with new situations" (p. 8).

In addition to individual learning, the authors distinguish the so-called "societal learning", by which they imply learning that involves societies. Similarly they speak of "societal learning capability, and whether a society has the ability to learn quickly or slowly, effectively or ineffectively" (p. 9). Thus, the problem of learning acquires a truly global character with the authors of the report. Moreover, among global problems it becomes one of the principal ones, since the absence of suitable learning restricts, as they write, our ability to cope with all the other global issues. To answer this question, the authors first of all suggest that two types of learning be distinguished, namely "maintenance learning" and "innovative learning''.

``Maintenance learning" or "conventional learning", as the authors also call it, was named that way because it is intended "to maintain an existing system or an established

6*

way of life". It is indispensable, they say, "to the functioning of stability of every society". This concept includes "the acquisition of fixed outlooks, methods, and rules for dealing with known and recurring situations" (p. 10). Precisely the predominance of this kind of learning has caused, according to the authors of the report, various kinds of mankind's shock states. And if formerly Nature was the source of such shocks, today Man himself and the results of his activity may become the sources of similar shocks, which may assume an irrevocable nature (an atomic war). All this, as the authors of the report would have it, serves as evidence that conventional learning does not suit the complexity of the problems facing man.

The authors suggest searching for a way out of the situation in changing the nature of learning, both individual and societal. They call for the problem to be solved through " innovative learning". Denning "innovative learning" more accurately, the authors distinguish two principal objectives to be achieved with its assistance, these objectives being simultaneously its basic characteristics. First and foremost, it is the ability to anticipate events, an ability which must replace simple adaptation to their external expressions, orienting people to a conscious, preconceived choice of alternatives. The authors think that this ``anticipation'' must provide work for imagination and put an accent on the difficulties awaiting us in the future rather than on the experience which we had acquired in the course of preceding development.

Another important feature of "innovative learning" is ``participation''. This principle implies participation of individuals and societies in taking decisions on the international level as well as at national, regional, and other levels (p. 13). In other words, the authors come out against the established practice in many countries whereby major decisions, upon which the destinies of whole regions largely depend, are made by so-called ``experts'' who had turned into a peculiar "elite group". The authors of the report think that the accent on so-called "expert assessments" engenders issues of a dual nature: first, in their evaluations experts are never guided by the interests of the broadest strata of society and, second, the broad social layers are deprived of opportunities to effectively control the experts' activity.

The authors query: "What are the purposes and values that underlie innovative learning?", and give the following answer.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that real problems, which indeed require immediate solution, stand behind all the talk about ``survival'', "preserving human dignity", and so on. It is also evident that the authors of the report intuitively sense these issues but cannot word them adequately; hence they wander about a labyrinth of various kinds of ``participation'', "societal learning", etc. This becomes especially striking when, having outlined the objectives of the report and laid down the concept of innovative learning, they go over to discussing the obstacles to this learning.

Such, in short, are the objectives of the report No Limits to Learning inasfar as they were outlined by the authors. As we see, the objectives themselves and the way they are grounded follow the tradition of the Club of Rome involving the same old abstract wording of the problems and the same old abstract-humanistic approach to their solution. In our view, precisely these shortcomings also explain the fact that after having read the report it still remains unclear what this "innovative learning" is and, what is even more important, how do the authors imagine a real process of replacing conventional learning by "innovative learning''?

To begin with, "innovative learning" cannot be "value free". Moreover, precisely a conscious accent on value criteria is in what "innovative learning" essentially differs from conventional learning, since the latter is oriented at passively maintaining the existing system of values and completely ignores all other systems. The report puts forward the issue of "mankind's survival" as the principal value and objective of "innovative learning". The authors are not speaking of survival at "any cost"; they pose and immediately answer the questions as to what would be the conditions of such survival by saying they would essentially be in people maintaining their human dignity. However, inasmuch as various people understand this concept differently, the authors of the report suggest the following more accurate definition: "we have taken it to mean the respect accorded to humanity as a whole, the mutual respect for individuals in culturally diverse societies, and self-respect" (p. 15).

The authors divide them into ``conceptual'' and `` practical'' impediments. They start examining ``conceptual'' or theoretical impediments to "innovative learning" with a critical review of various interpretations of learning, dwelling, in particular, on the interpretation suggested by F. George,<sup>33</sup> who proposed regarding learning as a process of adaptation to changing conditions. Having noted the wide spread of this understanding of learning (especially today, in the "age of biology", which gave rise to the concept `` adaptation''), the authors stress that this interpretation reduces the process of learning to passive adaptation to environmental conditions. They say (in particular referring to the works of K. Lorenz, B. Skinner and others) that the wide currency of various kinds of biological doctrines has resulted in the emergence of "biologising concepts of learning", whose meaning is precisely in that they regard learning as a process that "follows" certain changes in environmental conditions and is unable to explain anything when the issue is concerned with changes, whose source is Man per se. As a result, the authors arrive at the conclusion that it would be wrong to apply the laws of biological evolution to the process of learning (p. 48).

They consider equally unacceptable the ``classical'' interpretation of learning as "change in the pattern of behaviour on the basis of past experience", at one time suggested by Norbert Wiener. To argue against this interpretation of learning, the authors of the report pose the question: "Why not learn from the future as well?''

Both above-mentioned views on the process of learning emphasise the passive role of man, something that does not suit the authors of the report and something to which they oppose an accent on the active role of the subject in the process of learning, the accent contained in their concept of "innovative learning''.

Further, the authors note the frequent use of the concept ``learning'' in relation to so-called "intelligent machines". In these cases, learning is interpreted as ``self-regulation'', and this, in their opinion, may serve as a splendid illustration of what they call "maintenance learning". The wide spread of various kinds of computers and relevant interpre tations of learning is, according to the authors of the report, connected with two dangers, of which they warn: the firs! one is in the anthropomorphisation of computers, and the

second in machinisation of the human brain. Both concepts, they claim, are actually directed against ``anticipation'' and ``participation'' as the guiding principles in solving global problems, and that is precisely where the danger lies (pp. 50-51).

In characterising the "practical impediments" that inhibit the spread of "innovative learning", the authors point to two particularly important varieties. The first one is a "misuse of power", and the second is so-called "structural impediments''.

Having specially mentioned that the scope of the report does not permit them to dwell in detail on all types of power, the authors indicate that they will limit themselves to examining only two examples of "misuse of power" or, to put it simpler, the negative consequences of the interference of the authorities in the process of learning. The first example refers to the "societal level" and shows that an unchecked arms race is "an obstacle to innovative learning". They mention the fact that the intellectual and financial resources of society are diverted from resolving major problems (p. 53) as the primary and most obvious consequence of the arms race. In their opinion, the other less obvious but no less widespread and dangerous result of militarisation is "the secrecy and mystique of the military" research. This atmosphere impedes free exchange of information between countries and inhibits international co-operation in a variety of fields, without which one cannot imagine effective participation of the people of the world in solving global problems (p. 54). Regrettably, the authors of the report do not pose the question who then is imposing this arms race on the world; neither do they seem to be aware of the fact that the danger of militarisation is not so much in its negative influence on the spread of "innovative learning" as in that it may one day confront mankind with a nuclear catastrophe. Nor do the authors of the report concern themselves with the question as to who then hinders development of international co-operation, particularly on such important issues as limitation of the arms race and disarmament. And the fact that the authors of the report pose no such questions because they wish to remain within their ``academic'' structures "above the combat" cannot eventually but tell on the scientific value of their concepts; this becomes evident on examining the same old concept of "innovative learning''.

However, let us turn back to the text of the report. A second example of "misuse of power", this time relating to the individual level, is the one showing misuse of opportunities provided in using the mass media for learning. Having dwelt in detail on the opportunities which mankind now possesses thanks to television, the authors of the report bitterly state that these opportunities are often used not to the benefit, but detriment of mankind. This situation is due to the commercial character of television in most countries. The so-called "educational programmes" (if any) are, as the authors put it, directed at spreading traditional "maintenance learning". However, they do not go further than state this fact.

Turning to the so-called "structural impediments", the authors emphasise that the "examples of the arms race and of television reinforce the view that, in general, the impediments to innovative learning are deeply imbedded in the structure of society" (p. 60). It should also be noted that the report does not specify precisely what society it refers to, and only from the examples cited by the authors it becomes clear that they are speaking of capitalist society.

To illustrate the thesis on "structural impediments", the authors again use two examples. The first one speaks of the inequality of educational opportunities for the urban and rural populations, and the second deals with the disproportion between global and local problems existing in school curricula. The authors rather at length and in detail discuss the conservative nature of school education, which, in their view, is a reflection of conservative social structures as a whole. At the same time, they touch on problems of interdisciplinary studies to note the urgent need to develop them in the face of global problems. As a practical proposal, they suggest the necessity of including interdisciplinary studies in existing school curricula. This is, mildly speaking, a strange proposal, since the matter is concerned with structural impediments, which may be eliminated obviously only by changing these very structures. But the authors of the report do not set such a task; hence, all their arguments concerning impediments hang poised in mid air. This becomes especially noticeable when, as if summing up these arguments, the authors come to the conclusion on the need to turn mankind's thinking towards the prospects of " innovative learning" and that only non-governmental organi-

sations possess real perspective in implementing this process (pp. 80-81). It is not accidental that they choose precisely non-governmental organisations, since they cannot but be aware that neither governmental nor inter-governmental organisations in capitalist society would agree to change the existing structures. It is because they understand this that the authors of the report decided to limit themselves to calling for a "turn in thinking". It appears that under capitalist society this call will be the voice in the wilderness. We shall again return to this question, but meanwhile let us see how after all the authors of the report imagine the use of the concept of "innovative learning" in order to solvo global problems. They cite three examples of this.

In analysing the state of the energy problem, they note that, until now, industry has developed near energy sources, i.e., occupied a definite niche in the ecosystem, and that the entire history of development of energy utilisation systems is a vivid example of adaptative learning, which for most people came out as an unrealised process (p. 104). According to the authors of the report, today the question is: what would require more time, to change the structure of energy sources or the process of learning how to manage alternative energy sources? (p. 105). Briefly dwelling on the essence of the projects for utilising new sources of energy (thermonuclear and solar), the authors note that all of them are being developed within the framework of " maintenance learning", i.e., do not exclude the arrival of a new energy shock. The use of the principles of "innovative learning" implies greater scope for discussing the energy problem; the need to take it outside the competence of "expert groups", and to take account not only of the technical, but also of the social aspects of the problem. It should be noted that the authors do not specify what they actually mean by social aspects; hence, the essence of their practical suggestions remains unclear. On the other hand, they admil that in itself the use of the principles of anticipation and participation would not solve the energy problem, since it is difficult to imagine how a specific state could balance these, often opposite principles (p. 107).

The other example is connected with utilising the achievements of science and technology. The report notes that problems connected with science and technology may bo formulated as problems of disproportion and wrong orienta-

tion (p. 108). To confirm this idea, it cites the following figures: industrial countries spend 95 per cent of their funds on research in science and technology, while developing countries spend 5 per cent. At present, about 35,000 scientific and technological journals are published in the world; they annually carry about 2,000,000 articles written by 750,000 authors in fifty languages. The information contained in these papers is incomplete from the viewpoint of innovative learning, since only very few of them are results of interdisciplinary studies. The report notes that the other aspect of the problem of disproportion is the absence of sufficiently broad contacts among the scientists and engineers of different countries. But, write the authors of the report, the most important is the problem of incorrect utilisation of the achievements of science and technology. Here the authors revert to the issue of huge spending on the arms race, to the use of the achievements of science and technology for destructive purposes, and reiterate their call to put an end to this (p. 110).

They emphasise that science is a "process of obtaining knowledge", not its result, and that since this is so (and we wish to use this process for solving global problems), it is necessary to learn to suitably direct this process. Scientific studies should be directed at cognising what should be and what is necessary, not at what may be and is possible, maintain the authors of the report (p. 111). And this process of reorientating and utilising the achievements of science and technology should, in their view, start by solving such vital issues as food, water supply, education and employment.

The third example of using the principles of "innovative learning" is the solution of the problem which the authors call the issue of "cultural identity". In their view, it has two aspects: on the one hand, there is the danger that a homogeneous world culture may arise (the authors call it "cultural homogenisation"), and on the other, the danger of "cultural and psychological disintegration", which, they maintain, threatens both individuals and societies (p. 113). The authors of the report voice the opinion that the problem of "cultural identity" is a source of national and international conflicts, since "conventional learning" has taught us to approach this problem oversensitively and regard it as an impediment to internation-

_al co-operation. In their view, the use of the principles of "innovative learning" could help in resolving this problem both in this specific case and in other above-cited instances.

Such is the principal content of the report No Limits to Learning. I would think that it presents a sufficiently vivid illustration of the positions of anthropologism when discussing the set of issues that has been called a "global problematique''.

The experience of existing socialism has shown that in the social conditions that exclude inequality and man's exploitation by man, illiteracy can be fully overcome. In the USSR, where illiteracy has been fully overcome there were 95 million persons in 1978 engaged in acquiring some form of education (among them 44.7 million persons were studying in schools of general education; 1.9 million persons were studying in secondary vocational schools; 4.7 million persons were studying in secondary technical schools and other specialised secondary educational institutions; and 5.1 million persons were studying in institutions of higher learning). In recent years a number of new directives have been adopted in the Soviet Union that are intended to develop public education still further. They include "Completing the Transition to a Universal Secondary Education for Young People and the Further Development of Schools of General Education", "Towards a Further Improvement in the System of Vocational Training", "Measures to Achieve a Further Improvement in Higher Education", "Measures to Achieve a Further Improvement in Rural Schools of General Education". In 1973 the USSR Supreme Soviet approved the Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on Education. Both these and other programme documents are concerned with the training of specialists who will be able to solve the problems of communist development at a high level of professional skills. Both in the Soviet Union and in other socialist countries considerable efforts are devoted to achieve a transition to universal secondary education, raise the level of vocational training, and extend higher education.

The 26th Congress of the CPSU noted that in recent years the USSR had achieved an important gain in completing the transition lo compulsory universal secondary education. During the past five years, the Soviet system of

higher and specialised secondary education has trained 10 million skilled specialists for the national economy; 12.5 million young people acquired professions in vocational schools. In 1981-1985 it is planned to train about 10 million more specialists with higher and specialised secondary education and 13 million skilled workers, among whom the number of those with secondary education will be 1.6 times more than at present.

The Soviet education system is constantly confronted by tasks of improving the quality of teaching and instruction.

There are, in particular, wide-ranging and comprehensive research activities that are based on the general Marxist-Leninist conception of education and real requirements and prospects of social development. These emphasise that education and training must be oriented towards the future. The prospects that are associated with the year 2000 presuppose rapid shifts in types of knowledge and skills and a continuing orientation on new developments. This implies that beginning with secondary schools persons must be trained in such a way that they may match the increasing rate of progress in science and technology. But this is not possible, however, without stimulating further the process of education itself and without encouraging the development of a genuine interest in acquiring knowledge. At the same time socialist society also recognises that education and its further development cannot be separated from the nature of the human purpose that it is intended to serve. It is one thing to train individuals as "personified functions", and quite another to educate creative persons who can actively contribute to the construction of a new society, who are well equipped with knowledge and prepared to engage in communist labour activities, that is, labour activities that do not subordinate man to themselves but liberate him. Because the full development and dissemination of communist labour is a real historical prospect for the Soviet Union, it serves as a basis for solving specific problems of education. This calls not only for an intensification of the process of accumulating knowledge in the course of education, but also for the development of creative abilities among persons engaged in studying. In formulating the problem of changing teaching methodology as one of the conditions for

increasing its effectiveness, specialists in pedagogics in socialist countries have in mind the organisation of mental activities themselves rather than what has been called the "scientific organisation of mental labour", which merely refers to the corresponding external conditions. And it is precisely in schools that this may be achieved effectively, with allowances made for changes that may take place in the development of education. This is why we view as deeply mistaken the idea that is found in the studies of some bourgeois educationalists, sociologists and philosophers considering the prospects for the year 2000, that schools are destined to vanish in modern society.

The theory and practical activities of existing socialism thus show its very considerable advantages in the sphere of education. But this means that in this field the prospects of mankind coincide with those of socialism and communism: a transition to a new civilisation appears as a condition for new major achievements of science and technology worthy of the human mind and that provide a humanistic orientation to scientific and technical progress and to an overall human culture that today is torn in many directions through the operation of a multiplicity of classantagonistic factors but must be integrated and unified in the future. In turning to a closer analysis of these questions let us consider primarily their social-humanistic aspects.

3. Towards

an Integrated Humanistic

Culture in a New Civilisation

In defining briefly the situation that has arisen today in the field of culture it may be said that one finds in developed capitalist countries in that sphere a conflict between elitist culture and so-called mass culture which is, as a rule, a surrogate for culture. Unquestionably the deepening rift between two types of culture---one for the ruling elite and a surrogate culture for the masses---is a sharp social problem. Under socialism such a division of culture on the basis of class attributes does not exist and that defines the determining tendency governing its development at the threshold of the third millennium. Already today impressive results have been achieved in this field

in socialist countries, and as time proceeds workers in these countries will actively assimilate mankind's highest achievements in spiritual culture. That deeply social process is closely linked to the overcoming of the divergence between the "two cultures"---scientific and artistic---which is also based, of course, on social causes. But they reflect deeper processes and tendencies as well, which derive from the specific characteristics of human activities in the spiritual sphere.

Over the course of centuries thinkers pursuing the most diverse approaches have sought to clarify the cause for the frequent state of contradiction between science and art and their respective roles in man's knowledge and development. The fundamental major conclusion that appears to follow inevitably from prolonged searches in the history of science and of art and of associated philosophical discussions is that in the perspective of man's development science and art are "mutually complementary" elements of an integrated and mutually-interacting whole.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that science is not all-powerful; or more precisely that its power is not universal and absolute. Even in the perspective of its development science must remain silent with regard to a number of unanswered questions concerning man's spiritual and emotional world that escape its power. It cannot fill the human soul completely, fully; for otherwise through that very fact science would cultivate a ``one-dimensional'' man. But in turning to art man moves beyond the boundaries of rational unambiguity; art opens to him a world of unanswered questions that do not lend themselves to rational scientific cognition and accordingly man needs art as an organic part of that which exists within himself as well as in the world that he perceives and which is a source of pleasure. In the words of Niels Bohr

``The enrichment which art can give us originates in its power to remind us of harmonies beyond the grasp of systematic analysis.''~^^34^^

Let us also recall how deeply Darwin regretted, towards the end of his life, the loss of higher esthetic tastes, stating that if he could have lived his life anew he would have tried to preserve the activity of those parts of the brain that are associated with esthetic tastes.

``The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.''~^^35^^

It is because of that constant concern of art with " harmonies beyond the grasp of systematic analysis", with "the emotional part of our nature", and with man's moral world that it is precisely in art that moral-philosophical problems and the humanistic problems of life and death, of good and evil and of man's freedom and integrity are most sharply defined. And like man himself, these problems do not change as rapidly as do scientific discoveries. In a certain sense they are as ``eternal'' as is the art that expresses them.

Naturally all this does not turn art into an auxiliary instrument of science, and there is no thought of a simple utilisation of its achievements for the sake of objectives that lie outside its own sphere. Being a deeply social phenomenon art is polyfunctional: it performs an active function of social transformation, appearing as a type of human activity; it possesses an important cognitive-- heuristic function in defining one's view of the world; it is able to anticipate much that relates to man and to the world in which he lives; it possesses an immense educational as well as axiological, value-creating function; finally, art plays a unique role as a means of esthetic pleasure (a hedonistic function). This has been expressed eloquently by A. Einstein:

``Personally I find the greatest feeling of happiness in works of art. There is no other source from which I derive a comparable spiritual fulfilment... I find more in Dostoyevsky than in any scientific thinker, more than in Gauss.''~^^36^^

One could cite many other statements of prominent scientists (some of which may, of course, be debatable) concerning the enormous role that art has played in their life and creative activities, and concerning the beautiful and mysterious world that it opens to man. Similarly many leading writers and painters have emphasised the enormous inspiring influence exerted on their creative endeavour by science, beauty and the grandeur of the truth that is born in the course of scientific research and discoveries. M. Gorky, for example, referring to the common traits of

creativity in science and art, noted that

``... in both cases observation, comparison, and study play a fundamental role; like scientists artists must possess imagination and an intuitive capacity to guess at the truth".^^37^^

On the other hand one could probably cite an equal number of opposite statements on both sides. Strictly speaking while such statements do not at all undermine the idea of a possible harmony between truth and beauty, they merely emphasise that there is a problem on this issue that is unlikely to lend itself to an unambiguous solution.

While originating and developing from a common root--- namely, the labour activities of persons associated with production, science and art rely on different forms in expressing man's universal capacity for creating new things. In ancient times this capacity was viewed as integrated. Subsequent developments have produced a sharp distinction between science and art within the sphere of cognition, in which science relies on logical rational forms, while art relies on intuitive and irrational ones. At the same time it was denied that art possessed any cognitive function. Such an extremely negative position concerning the possibilities of art has contributed to the development of equally extreme forms of anti-scientism in which there is an absolute emphasis on intuitive and irrational actions of artistic and other types of ``enlightenment'' and which assign to art the role of opposing science. This type of antiscientism continues to be widespread today in various forms of irrationalism, and in existentialist concepts. Nevertheless, the scientistic tendency prevails, since it refers increasingly to the current revolution in science and technology, which appears to many to be able to conquer everything and bring about an absolute triumph of scientific and technical rationality while dehumanising and deideologising art.

Yet the ideas that art must ``dissolve'' in science and abandon its humanistic orientation harbour a threat not only to the development of art itself but also of science. For art also possesses an enormous axiological significance with regard to the regulation of values. This expresses itself through the esthetics of scientific cognition, just as we also refer to the ethics of science and the sociology of science.

Since pessimistic forecasts concerning a displacement of _art by science have not come to pass, the problem of a separation of science and art lias become current. It is the view of some contemporary authors that this separation results in the development of two autonomous cultures, namely a ``scientific'' culture and an ``artistic'' one. In recent years this issue has been formulated quite sharply, especially in the 1960s and 1970s in the works of Charles Snow, an English writer educated as a physicist. In 1959 he delivered a lecture in Cambridge (U.S.A.) that attracted much attention, entitled The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.^3S In it he formulated the conception of "two cultures", and sought to demonstrate that the spiritual world and the practical activities of Western intellectuals are becoming increasingly polarised and increasingly divided into two opposing parts: the artistic intellectuals at one pole (who simply refer to themselves as intellectuals, as if no other intellectuals existed), and scientists at the other (particularly physicists, who were their leading representatives in those years). In Snow's opinion they are separated by a wall of misunderstanding and sometimes of antipathy and enmity. They view the same things in such different ways that they cannot find a common language, even at the level of emotions. Artistic intellectuals consider that scientists do not represent genuine life and are characterised by superficial optimism, while scientists are inclined to think that artistic intellectuals lack the gift of foresight, express a surprising indifference towards the fate of mankind, and that everything relating to reason is foreign to art.

Snow asserts that scientists represent a culture that is new not only in an intellectual sense, but also in an anthropological sense, namely a culture created by science. Artistic intellectuals continue to remain within the framework of ``traditional'' culture, whose non-scientific character borders on being anti-scientific. In Snow's opinion this polarisation of culture is an obvious loss to all of us, whether in practical, moral or creative turns, and that, he concludes, is not only regrettable but also tragic, since as a result a great wealth of possibilities for intellectual and creative activities are lost.

``The clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures---of two galaxies so far as that goes---

7-01743

I

ought to produce creative chances. In the history of mental activity---that has been where some of tho break-throughs came.''~^^39^^

We continue to place our creative hopes primarily on tho clashes, but today, Snow concludes, we have unfortunately lost our hopes.

Snow points to the extremely superficial character of twentieth-century science's influence on contemporary art, and concludes that science must be accepted by art as an inseparable part of our entire intellectual experience, and be employed as readily as any other material. Yet, in Snow's opinion, intellectuals, and especially writers, have shown themselves to be Luddites in relation to the current scientific revolution. At the same time an excessively specialised education system in the West makes it difficult for scientists to acquire a broad range of interests in the field of spiritual and material culture. In that connection Snow points to the experience of the Soviet Union, where in his opinion that problem is being resolved more successfully.

It cannot be said that in his book Snow succeeded in explaining the causes for the development of "two cultures"; he does understand that these causes are relatively deep and complex: some of them are associated with general principles governing historical development, while others are associated with specific circumstances that exist in the history of particular countries, and still others with the specific characteristics of the internal dynamics of intellectual activity. It would also be an exaggeration to say that Snow has indicated how the polarisation of the "two cultures" may be overcome: for the origin of a particular system of education lies in more general factors of social development. Nevertheless he has stated a number of sensitive issues sharply and has drawn wide attention to them.

Snow's book has led to heated discussions throughout the world. Many of its propositions have produced indignation among some Western intellectuals (particularly among artistic intellectuals), while others have met with approval. In any event it has produced serious thoughts concerning the very complex problems of cultural development in the age of the revolution in science and technology.

Although this was not directly related to Snow's book,

essentially the same questions were discussed at the same time in the Soviet Union. That discussion was initiated by the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on September 2, 1959, in connection with an article by I. Khrenburg entitled "Reply to a Letter". In the course of that discussion, which continued to December 14, 1959, and also of subsequent discussions (beginning in I960 and later) concerning the significance of science and of art, the participants included both ``physicists'' and ``lyricists''---prominent Soviet scientists, writers, painters, representatives of broad public opinion. Of course, when seen from the perspective of the present time, many of these discussions seem to be relatively superficial, concerned with secondary issues, and distant from an analysis of real problems. Nevertheless they represented an important stage in the social perception and understanding of problems of culture in the context of the revolution in science and technology.

Subsequently attempts were made to apply a deeper scientific analysis to the problems being debated. In particular one should mention the symposium "Scientific and Technological Progress and Art" that was held in 1970.⁴⁰ Similarly a "round table" discussion sponsored by the journal Voprosy filosofii was quite fruitful. This was concerned with the mutual interactions of science and art in the context of the current revolution in science and technology.~^^41^^ In addition a lively exchange of views on the substantial aspects of the same subject took place at a joint "round table" meeting of the journals Voprosy literatury and Voprosy filosofii held in May, 1976.^^42^^

The scientists, writers and representatives of the arts who participated in the discussion emphasised that the traditional contraposition of science to art, of the exact sciences to the humanities is coming to an end. Mathematical methods are finding application in literary studies, the theory of music, and so on. At the same time unfamiliar disciplines are emerging at boundaries between the exact sciences and the humanities, such as for example ``artometry''. Computers are able to ``compose'' music of acceptable quality and to write poems (still quite mediocre) as well as to create original works in the decorative arts. At first it may seem that this penetration of the humanistic sphere by the exact sciences is one-sided. But in fact this is by no means the case. What is occurring is

7*

hot a one-sided advance, but a mutual interpenetration and mutual influencing of two spheres. It is in the ``boundary'' spheres that the direct ties between art and science may be seen most clearly. In particular neither modern industrial art nor radio, films, and television would have been possible without a corresponding level of development of the technical sciences that make possible a new stage in the history of architecture as well as the appearance of design itself.

In seeking to clarify the basis for a fruitful mutual interaction between science and art, the participants examined general as well as specific traits in their own activities that relate to the concerns of science and of art. It was noted, for example, that today the semiotics of art and the semiotics of culture make it possible to see in a work of art produced by man a certain pattern of thought, and at the same time to perceive culture as a mechanism of a collective mind that has developed naturally and in a historical manner, that possesses a collective memory and that is able to perform intellectual operations. This removes man's intellect from its state of uniqueness and thus constitutes a substantial advance in the development of science. One may hope that a time will come when careful studies of phenomena in the field of art and also of cultural mechanisms will have become familiar to theoretical cyberneticians as well as to the creators of new forms of technology. The participants in the discussions held the opinion that a deep-rooted basis for common elements in science and art lies in the fact that both are forms of cognition and of creativity. A striving for cognition and creativity are programmed within man genetically, and are the outcome of irreversible development of the Universe as a whole, of the Solar system, of the Earth and the evolutionary development of the biosphere. Creativity represents a freely chosen path to some goal. Such a selection is possible both in science and in art as a result of the heterogeneity of the Universe and as a result of its ordering in space and time. The integral unity of science and art provides a basic foundation for the subsequent development of culture. It is important to seek and cultivate that which unites science and art rather than divides them. A new Age of the Renaissance should follow the revolution in science and technology.

In the course of current discussions the Marxist approach to the problem of specific characteristics and interactions between science and art has clearly shown its heuristic effectiveness. It became apparent that their respective roles in man's cognition and development can only be understood correctly by including scientific and artistic activities into the common context of human activities, where, according to Marxism, material production constitutes a basis.

Man's active nature which expresses itself in historically changing forms of human practical activities, communication, and spiritual life, realises itself in the development of culture. This includes scientific knowledge and art, which thus appear as different yet interrelated substantive-creative aspects of human activity. From such a point of view they are also forms of development of that activity and hence of man's development as an active being. Marx observed:

``An objet d'art creates a public that has artistic taste and is able to enjoy beauty---and the same can be said of any other product.''~^^43^^

Art reflects life in terms of integrated artistic images and addresses itself to integrated man, to his Ego, as a single whole, rather than to any unilaterally developed ability of his. This does not, of course, mean that man may therefore be characterised in relation to some kind of ``totality'' with regard to the development of his capacities as well, including his capacities for a scientific and artistic creativity. It would seem that different aspects of human nature will always express themselves unevenly, even when they are developed to the maximum possible extent. This provides a basis for hoping that in spite of an integral unity, harmony and interaction between cognitive, rational, artistic, and also emotional and imagecreating activities, they will never achieve the ``fusion'' that some theoreticians occasionally envisage as an eventual prospect for man. For biological factors, too, play a role in these differences. In particular, modern studies of the brain have shown that each of its hemispheres perceives the world in its own way: the right hemisphere does this in terms of images and emotional elements, while the left hemisphere operates in terms of rational and logical categories; so that the activities of each hemisphere

differ among different individuals. It is not for us to judge whether man will seek, for example, to alter these natural ``proportions'' through genetic methods. In any event, the element of "human diversity" that is partly attributable to psycho-physiological and biological genetic differences among persons constitutes a precious capital that should only be increased, it would seem, in the future.

Thus instead of ``merging'' with each other, capacities for scientific and artistic activity will express themselves even more vividly, be integrated more deeply and interact with each other in an increasingly comprehensive harmonious manner. This is especially true of art, which is often assigned an unjustifiably modest and also continually declining role in prospects for man's future. But it seems to us that, on the contrary, its role in man's life will increasingly grow, and its significance for the general development of man's cultural values will increase. This includes ethical values, which, as we have noted, operate as a specific type of regulator of scientific cognition.

The orientation of science and art on specific values is a reflection of more general processes that influence human culture as a whole and that add a new colour to the prospects of mankind. While we recognise historical progress and therefore provide specific value judgements concerning human history, we reject the providential interpretation of social development and an absolutisation of the value norms in terms of which the human mind passes its judgement on history. Marx wrote:

``Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.''~^^44^^

Above all this means that the values that guide individuals and their activities are not something that is predetermined by history, but that they are developed by the persons themselves. Secondly, even though they change in the course of history, these values do not change in arbitrary ways, but develop on the basis of mankind's past experience, of traditions, and of the value judgements of preceding generations. The very great role of continuity in the material and spiritual development of society is asserted in this way.

10§

Such an approach makes it possible to avoid the two extreme positions to which many persons arrive in seeking to understand the relative role of man's different value orientations, for example the striving towards truth and the striving towards beauty, the assertion of what is good and patience with regard to various cultures. One extreme position takes the form ot attempts to prove the validity of some specific value norm that is presumed to derive from some non-historical ideal origin. The other takes the form of attempts to present different value characterisations of the world as completely unrelated to each other and competing among each other in seeking to become a sole "categorical imperative" in determining man's behaviour.

We see that both these extreme positions are similar in one respect: they both recognise the existence of some value-oriented characterisation that d/jininates over other determinants of human behaviour. In such a context the multicoloured world of spiritual values dissolves, as it were (although for different reasons), into a single shade of some higher absolute value. In asserting that the world of values is the outcome of the historical creativity of man himself we do not exclude the possibility that contradictions may arise between various spheres of value determination in human behaviour. In particular we do not exclude the possibility that there may be a divergence and a dissonance between the requirements of ethics and those of culture. It is important to recognise the equal threats and destructiveness of both moral fanaticism, destroying culture, and of an uncritical acceptance of all cultural norms. There are numerous examples, particularly in the history of this past century, of the dangerous nature of attempts to judge the world and the course of human history from the point of view of a specific value principle that is contraposed to everything else in the spiritual orientation of human activities and behaviour. Yet while we reject the concept of a predetermined harmony in the system of man's value orientations, we by no means reject such a harmony as an objective of spiritual creativity and as an ideal towards which individuals strive at each moment of their historical development.

Naturally this does not imply that culture alono can overcome the evil that exists in the world. But culture

10H

can provide substantial help in struggling against it. What is important is that individuals of culture learn to distinguish all possible modifications of evil and understand the power that derives from their own unity. We are united by an understanding of the fact that higher spiritual values are created by all of mankind and for all of mankind. Each country's achievements in the field of culture must not produce self-satisfaction on the part of some and envy on the part of others, but rather happiness and a feeling of pride for man and his gifts; they must unite rather than divide individuals.

We have seen that there are thinkers who view scientific and technical progress as one of the factors that op- \ pose humanistic culture and the ethical element in his- j torical progress, as well as the development of the integrated harmonious man. This leads to a still wider generalisation concerning an insufficient ability of humanistic consciousness, culture, and humaneness to survive when confronting natural scientific knowledge and technological activities.

That is why, unfortunately, much is said and written about man's dehumanisation and the decline of personal culture, which in fact is a negation of the entire humanistic tradition of culture.

In contrast to these conceptions representatives of socialist culture consciously declare themselves to be the inheritors of the lofty humanism of the past and partisans , of a real, communist humanism. Mankind has experienced § suffering for the sake of achieving communist ideals, which is why they contain a general ethical meaning that is opposed to the panic-stricken views of the prophets of the "imminent self-destruction" of contemporary civilisation and of its culture. Communists associate the future of human civilisation with an assertion and development of culture along a course of increasing humanisation. And it is the prospect of a cvlture that subordinates its pathos and ethos to serving the free and all-round development of man that is able to inspire and motivate individuals to action at the social and individual level, as well as to dialogues and accords for the sake of such actions.

Mankind will still have to solve many complex social problems, including some that are global in character. They include problems that arise in the interaction of burn

rnan civilisation with nature. It is therefore not possible to create a more or less comprehensive picture of mankind's future without examining that group of human problems. We will therefore turn to them in the next chapter.

~^^1^^ K. Marx, "The Civil War in France", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in throe volumes, Vol. 2, Progress Publishers, Moscow, -1976, pp. 193-94.

~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, "The Tasks of the Revolution", Collected Works, Vol. 26, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, p. 62.

~^^3^^ L. I. Brezhnev. Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Immediate Tasks of the Party in Home and Foreign Policy, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1981, p. 41.

~^^4^^ G. Hall, Imperialism Today. An Evaluation of Major Issues and Events of Our Times, International Publishers, New York, 1973, p. 85.

5 Narodnoye khozyaistvo, SSSR za 60 let (The USSR's Economy Over 60 Years), Moscow, 1977, p. 12.

s Ibid.

^I Ekonomicheskoye polozheniye kapitalisticheskikh i razvivayusJichikhsya stran. Obzor za 1978 i nachalo 1979. (The Economic Situation of Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for 1978 and the Beginning of 1979), Supplement to the journal Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya (The World Economy and International Relations), No. 8, 1979. The problem of world economic growth has been considered explicitly at the Fifth World Congress of Economists (Tokyo, 1977). Interesting materials (relating to global problems and economic growth, as well MS to other subjects) were also contributed to the international theoretical conference entitled "The Revolution in Science and Technology and the Deepening of Capitalism's Economic and Socio-Political Contradictions at Its Present Stage" (Moscow, 1979).

~^^8^^ N. Inozemtsev. "Capitalism over the Next Two Decades", World Marxist Review, Vol. 22, October 1979, No. 10, p. 63.

~^^9^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Immediate Tasks of the Party in Home and Foreign Policy, p. 21.

~^^10^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The German Ideology", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 49.

^II V. I. Lenin, "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions", Collected Works, Vol. 31, 1974, p. 147.

~^^12^^ J. Fourastie, Le grand espoir du vingtieme sieclc, Paris, 1949; V. I. Legostayev, "Nauka v ramkakh tekhnokratichcskoi utopii Jeana Furastie" (Science in the Framework of .lean Fourastie's Technocratic Utopia), Voprosy filosofii, No. 12, 1974.

~^^13^^ J. Fourastie, Lcttre auvcrte a quatre milliards d'liommes.Puris, 1972, p. 145,

~^^14^^ D. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Basic Books, New York, 1973.

~^^15^^ D. Bell, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, New York, 1976.

~^^16^^ Z. Brzezinski, Between Two Ages. America's Role in the Technetronic Era, New York, 1970.

~^^17^^ D. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, p. 444.

~^^18^^ New York Times Book Review, July 1, 1973, p. 18.

~^^19^^ H. Marcuse, One-Dimentional Man, Boston, 1966.

~^^20^^ J. Habermas, Legitimations problems im Spdtkapitalismus, Frankfurt a/M, 1973; see also Technik und Wissenschaft als `` Ideologic'', Frankfurt a/M, 1969, S. 49.

~^^21^^ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, Harper and Bow Publishers, New York, 1965, p. 279.

~^^22^^ Ibid., p. 281.

~^^23^^ K. Marx, Grundrissc der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf) 1857-1858, Moscow, 1939, p. 80.

~^^24^^ H. Marcuse. Counterrevolution and Revolt, Penguin Press, London, 1972.

~^^25^^ P. Goodman, New Reformation: Notes of a Neolithic Conservative, New York, 1970.

~^^26^^ Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, p. 364.

~^^27^^ K. Marx, "Wages, Price and Profit", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 2, p. 52.

~^^28^^ A. A. Bayev, "Sotsialniye aspekty geneticheskoi inzhenerii" (Social Aspects of Genetic Engineering), in the collection Filosofskaya borba idei v sovremennom estestvoznanii (The Philosophical Struggle of Ideas in Modern Natural Science), Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1977, p. 146 (in Russian).

~^^29^^ K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf) 1857-1858, p. 600.

~^^30^^ Let us recall the famous words of Ivan Karamazov, hero of Dostoyevsky's novel The Karamazov Brothers: "The whole world of knowledge is then not worth these infant's tearlets towards `goddy'... I assert in advance that all truth is not worth that price.''

~^^31^^ Utbildning ar 2000. En framtidsstudie av Torsten Husen, Stockholm, 1971.

~^^32^^ J. W. Botkin, Muhdi Elmandjra, Murcea Malitza, No Limits to Learning. Bridging the Human Gap. A Report to the Club of Rome, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979.

~^^33^^ F. George, The Models of Thinking, London, 1970.

~^^34^^ Niels Bohr, Atomic Physics and Unman Knowledge, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1958, p. 79.

~^^35^^ The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, London, 1958, p. 139.

~^^36^^ A. Meshkovsky, Albert Einstein. Besedy s Einsteinom o teorii otnositelnosti i obshchei kartine mira (Albert Einstein. Conversations with Einstein Concerning the Theory of Relativity and the Gcncrnl Picture of the World), Niva Publishers, Moscow, 1922, p. 162.

~^^37^^ Gorky o nauke. Statyi, rechi, pisma, vospominaniya (Gorky on

106,

Science. Articles, Speeches, Letters, Reminiscences), Moscow, 1904, p 40.

~^^38^^ C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, New York, 1959'; that work is also contained in the collection C. P. Snow, Public Affairs, London, 1971.

~^^39^^ C. P. Snow, Op. cit., p. 16.

~^^40^^ Iskusstvo i nauchno-lekhniclicsky progress (Art and Scientific and Technical Progress), Moscow, 1973; also "Vliyanie nauchnotekhnicheskoi revolutsii na iskusstvo i nravstvennost" (The Influence of the Revolution in Science and Technology on Art and Morality) in ProUemy Etiki i Estetiki (Problems of Ethics and Esthetics), No. 4, Moscow, 1977; and A. V. Gulyga Iskusstvo v vek nauki (Art in the Age of Science), Moscow, 1978.

i^^1^^ Voprosy filosofii, Nos. 8 and 10, 1975, Nos. 7, 10 and 12, 1976; No. 8, 1977.

~^^42^^ Voprosy literatury (Problems of Literature), 1976, No. 11; Voprosy filosofii (Problems of Philosophy), 1976, Nos. 10 and 12. The proceedings of these discussions were published in Italy (Rossegna Sovietica, 1978, No. 1)

~^^43^^ K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978, p. 197.

~^^44^^ K. Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978, p. 398.

Chapter II

gency of individual problems and the priorities that attach to solving them at the national and at the global level may have changed quite substantially by the year 2000. Yet all of them greatly influence the fate of individuals already today, and the manner in which they are resolved will influence relations among the various parts of mankind that experience them in varying degrees.

1. Man and Nature Today and in the Future: Problems of Resources, Energy, Food, and the Environment

Man lives and develops within a specific living environment representing that part of nature which interacts with him. Beyond this he is himself a part as well as a product of "Mother Nature". In the words of Marx,

``Man lives on nature---means that nature is his body with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die." ⁴ And further:

``... society is the complete unity of man with nature---the true resurrection of nature---the accomplished naturalism of man and the accomplished humanism of nature".~^^2^^

As it has turned out man's dependence on nature exists jointly with a reverse dependence of nature on man. The revolution in science and technology and the intensive industrial development that this has brought about has made this amply evident.

Today the interaction between society and nature resulting from intense industrial growth throughout the world on the basis of existing technologies that produce a diversity of by-products has already attained dimensions that are so extreme that they have produced a threat to mankind's very existence, both through the depletion of natural resources and through the pollution of man's environment that is dangerous to his life.

As it turned to increasingly powerful technical means in intensifying its consumption of natural resources, mankind progressively improved the conditions that permitted

THE PROSPECTS

FOR MAN AND NATURE:

FROM CONFLICT

TO HARMONY

In turning to this group of global problems we have in mind above all the problems of natural resources, energy, food supplies, and the environment. Clearly, these do not encompass the entire system of relations between man and nature. In a certain sense one should also include under that heading certain aspects of the problem of a growing population, and of man's biological adaptation (health care, etc.). Nevertheless it seems more appropriate to consider these problems separately, as we propose to do at a later point. It should be emphasised again that global problems of various types are interrelated and interact with each other, and that economic growth, for example, depends substantially on the problem of energy resources, while both depend on continued social development within a framework of peace and disarmament. It is this which provides for their integrated and mutually interrelated functioning that should always be kept in mind when considering individual global problems, even the most acute ones. This is particularly important in analysing global problems that emerge in man's relations with nature. The extreme urgency of many of them should not bring about, as often happens, an exclusive emphasis on these problems and a tendency to isolate them from others, particularly from social problems, which often also play a key role in solving problems arising from man's interactions with the environment.

Today this group of global problems affects in varying degrees various countries and regions of the world as well as mankind as a whole. Yet if one considers their probable future development the relative ur-

the development of its civilisation as well as of its own growth as Homo Sapiens. Bent on ``conquering'' nature, however, it has largely undermined the natural basis of its own vital activities.^^3^^

This contradictory character in the development of man's civilisation as it interacts with nature is illustrated by the following facts and figures. It has been established that during the last hundred years the world's consumption of energy resources has increased by 1,000 times, producing a sharp increase in industrial and agricultural output. The aggregate volume of goods and services in developed countries now doubles every 15 years, and there is a tendency for that period to decline. But the volume of waste from economic activities continues to double, too. It pollutes and contaminates the atmosphere, water bodies, and the soil. For each inhabitant of industrially developed countries approximately 30 tons of matter are extracted each year, of which only 1-1.5 per cent are embodied in products that are consumed, while the rest is waste whose properties are often harmful to nature as a whole.

In many cases this has produced tension and occasionally critical situations in man's interaction with nature that carry grave threats for the future of human civilisation. This is clearly evident, for example, with regard to the problem of natural resources. The continually growing needs of the world economy for natural resources and mineral raw materials call for a serious analysis of the extent to which there is a realistic possibility of depletion of known and accesible reserves during the next several decades. That time may be postponed by developing and introducing new technological procedures that make is possible to derive raw materials from poorer and less accessible resources that are economically unprofitable today; also through a rational economic utilisation of natural resources in production activities; by developing technologically more effective methods of extraction and processing; and by recycling materials.

The uneven distribution of natural resources among various countries at a time when abundant, accessible and economically profitable reserves in developed capitalist countries are being depleted may lead to dangerous international conflicts. Already now there are heated debates

between industrial capitalist countries and developing nations concerning both the utilisation of resources that are important to all of mankind (the continental shelf, the Ocean) and the wealth that falls under the national jurisdiction of developing countries. The dangers that this produces can only be avoided by developing relations among all countries and peoples on a democratic basis. '•

The problem of natural resources has thus become one of the world's urgent global problems, on whose solution economic growth, social development, and mankind's future greatly depend. That problem becomes even more urgent when one considers that mankind's requirements for energy are not declining. On the contrary, the corresponding figures per capita will increase during the third millennium both in absolute and in relative terms. Those energy resources that can be extracted and used today through existing technological procedures are close to depletion. This is especially true of petroleum. At the same time estimates made by Soviet geologists indicate that the total world output of energy and other materials in 1976-2000 will be as follows: approximately 90-100 billion tons of coal (regular and brown); oil---some 75-80 billion tons; natural gas---at least 40-50 trillion cubic meters; iron ore---around 25-28 billion tons. Clearly such a large extraction of mineral and energy resources from nature will greatly affect overall reserves. It is true that the estimates for petroleum relate to 30-40 per cent of the real reserves. But generally the technology that is employed, i.e., so-called primary extraction, does not make it possible to proceed further. Similarly the reserves of coal deposits neglect the largest deposits that are located at depths greater than 1,200-1,500 metres. If they were taken into account the corresponding volume of reserves would increase by 5-10 times.

Potential mineral and energy resources are currently estimated as follows. Let us imagine a cube-like portion of the Earth's mantle whose side is one kilometer long. Such a cube will weigh approximately 2.6 billion tons, it will contain on the average 210 million tons of aluminium (its world consumption is currently 15 million tons), 120 million tons of iron, 50 million tons of magnesium, 250,000 tons of zinc, 150,000 tons of nickel, 130,000 tons of copper, 40,000 tons of lead, 20,000 tons of tin, 1,500 tons of mer-

Cury, 250 tons of silver, and 10 tons of gold or platinum. The overall volume of the Earth's mantle is estimated at 500 million cubic kilometers if one considers its average thickness to be 3.5 kilometres. Such an overall volume will contain 5 billion tons of the rarest metals---gold and platinum and similar resources in the ocean. One cubic kilo meter of the Earth's mantle also contains 10,000 tons of uranium (an energy equivalent of 190 million tons of coal if one has in mind an atomic power station of the first generation, and 10 billion tons if a supergenerator is utilised), while a cubic kilometre of sea water contains 1,500 tons.^D

The problem is thus to gain access to these additional mineral and energy resources and to find new ways to utilise them. But that depends on the level of development of science and technology, which is determined by social factors, and on mutual relations among the states that own and consume natural resources. The problem of natural resources is therefore not a ``purely'' scientific or technological one, as some bourgeois ideologists assert: ultimately it is governed by the operation of a number of socio-economic and political factors; accordingly, the developing global crisis in that area possesses social origins associated with specific characteristics of the social system. In particular this is true of what is currently called the threat of an energy crisis.

The energy problem has truly become a nightmare for developed capitalist countries, and especially for the United States. In a report to the Club of Rome published in 1978 under the title Energy: the Reverse Account the threat that the energy crisis poses for mankind is compared to the danger of an atomic war.^^6^^ As a result of economic growth, which is accompanied by an increase in the energy-- intensity of labour activities, the production of primary energy of all types has increased from approximately 2.7 billion tons of standard fuel in 1950 to 9.0 billion tons in 1975, that is, by 3.3 times. At present it amounts to 10 billion tons. Available calculations indicate that one may expect a significant continued increase in the absolute level of consumption of energy resources until this reaches approximately 18-23 billion tons of standard fuel by the year 2000. At the present time world's energy consumption is largely that of industrial countries, whose share is more than 80 per cent of the world's consumption. By the year 2000, however, it is ex-

pected that approximately one-third of the world's energy needs will be those of countries that are listed today as developing countries.

This has caused the energy problem to be viewed as one of the most urgent global problems of our time. Capitalism, however, impedes the finding of an optimal solution to that problem. This was illustrated by the outcome of the conference of heads of state of the seven leading capitalist countries held in Tokyo on June 28-29, 1979, when a renewed attempt was made to overcome the energy crisis through joint efforts aimed at a continuation of the neocolonialist exploitation of developing countries, rather than at a reliance on internal resources. In particular it is clear that projects seeking to ``resolve'' the energy problem through the use of force and the threat of force in appropriating resources belonging to other countries should be excluded altogether. For this merely leads to military conflicts. This is the very type of ``solution'' that appears to guide certain circles in the United States. The United States is currently organising an entire expeditionary force for operations to seize Arab petroleum, for example.

Attempts are also being made to carry out a number of measures or programmes in capitalist countries designed to economise energy. Programmes for rationing energy resources have been developed in a number of countries in the event of a cessation of imports. Increases in the consumption of energy are held down by encouraging price increases for energy and reducing differences in the prices of different types of energy resources, and particularly in the prices for petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Increases in prices for basic energy resources are given much emphasis in the United States' new energy programme. Yet even though the economising of energy resources is planned and carried out as a long-term many-sided and multi-factor process in the capitalist world, it plays a subsidiary role and for that reason economising measures cannot solve the basic problems of the energy crisis.

It is true, of course, that over the last several years the energy problem has exacerbated in the socialist world as well, and that this has caused a number of countries to increase the prices of certain energy resources.^^7^^ But in such countries that problem is being solved on a fundamentally different basis. In particular this is effected within the

8-01743

framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which provides for a mutually advantageous co-operation of countries in an integrated energy programme based on equality. The corresponding measures relating to fuel, raw materials, and energy provide for exploratory activities and geological studies whose aim is to identify long-term reserves of fuel and raw materials, for the development of new sources of energy, and for measures designed to encourage the economising of available resources. A more intense development of atomic energy will contribute a major element in solving the fuel and energy problem.

The 26th Congress of the CPSU gave serious attention to the energy problem. It stressed the need for improving the structure of the country's fuel and energy balance, particularly in reducing the proportion of oil as fuel, replacing it with gas and coal; for quicker development of atomic power engineering including fast reactors; and for continuing a search for fundamentally new sources of energy, including the creation of foundations for thermonuclear power engineering. In this connection, the Congress put forward a number of specific tasks: to save 160-170 million more tons of standard fuel in 1985 than in 1980; to produce in 1985 as much as 1,550-1,600 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy; and to put into operation 24-25 million kilowatts of new power capacities at existing atomic power stations.

The problems of nuclear power play a central role in the energy programmes of many countries. It may even be said that they have today acquired a truly universal character and that this will continue to increase in the future.^^8^^ In this connection a leading specialist in this area, Academician A. Alexandrov, has emphasised:

``During the past 30-40 years the pattern of world energy resources consumption has shifted considerably towards oil and natural gas. These fuels account for approximately 70 per cent of the world's energy output because they are the most convenient and universal. But the exhaustion of oil and gas resources is inescapable. As for coal, although there are adequate resources for another two centuries, it is not a universal fuel. The only way to solve the energy problem, parallel with a growth in the use of coal, is inevitably to promote the rapid development of large-

scale nuclear power engineering. Moreover, the broad and diverse application of nuclear energy is a longterm economic policy aimed at preserving oil and gas resources for as long as possible by using them more expediently than for combustion (as raw materials for the chemical industry). This makes the development of the enormous resources of nuclear conversion energy a major duty of scientists to mankind." ⁹ Of course neither today nor in the future (at least not at the threshold of the third millennium) does nuclear power appear as an alternative to existing ``traditional'' energy resources and as many scientists correctly emphasise, mankind is not faced with choosing between "atoms and candles". A wider and more effective utilisation of all types of natural energy resources (including solar energy, etc.) will contribute to mankind's ability to attain new levels of social and economic progress, and that, in turn, will exert a reverse influence on the strengthening and development of man's and nature's sources of energy. Nevertheless it is the view of A. Alexandrov that

``Nuclear power engineering permits using nuclear fuel resources on an unlimited scale and covering any deficit in the fuel balance with natural or manufactured reserves of nuclear fuel. Moreover, mankind has yet to develop the practical possibility of using the unlimited thermonuclear resources.''~^^10^^

It is, of course, true, that in its present state of development nuclear power engineering cannot fully solve the energy problem today or in the future. This is because there are only 4-5 million tons of more or less inexpensive uranium on the earth, of the type that is currently employed, and like petroleum resources these may be depleted during the next 20-30 years. That is why the problem of a second stage in the development of nuclear power engineering arises already now. This refers to a wide utilisation of fast breeder reactors, in which the production of energy deriving from the combustion of uranium or plutonium is accompanied by the production of large quantities of a secondary nuclear fuel, namely plutonium. In this connection A. Alexandrov observes:

``Power engineering can combine reactors using slow neutrons and reactors using fast neutrons, that produce plutonium, which would then be employed for

8*

I

enlarging the scale of power engineering. In this case, power engineering would not be restricted to natural cheap uranium and would develop without hindrance---regardless of its scale---for hundreds and even thousands of years, because the resources of oceans and acid rocks running to billions of tons would then be economically accessible." ^u

Another trend of atomic power engineering observable in recent years is connected with the synthesis of light atomic nuclei, the utilisation of plasma reactors of the Tokamak type, the use of lasers and electrons to heat thermonuclear targets.^^12^^ Since this relates to resources that are practically unlimited, inspiring prospects open up before mankind. These include a gradual transition of the overwhelming part of energy-consuming sectors to nuclear sources of energy that will make it possible to reduce the pressures of many global problems that currently generate political tensions in the world and threaten to turn into military conflicts. It is true that the wide use of nuclear energy in industry, which would lead to a reduction in environmental pollution by products of combustion (carbon dioxide, sulphur) produces another danger, namely a pollution of the environment by radioactive products resulting from the fission of uranium and plutonium nuclei. Much is already being done today throughout the world, however, to avoid this danger and eventually exclude it altogether.

``

This can only be made possible, however, by the world's social development along the path of socialism and com- ' munism, since under capitalism, as a result of a striving for profits and towards an imperialist domination, the safety measures that are needed at nuclear power stations and other energy-producing facilities are often disregarded and a dangerous pollution of the environment takes place. This is why large masses of the population in capitalist countries often react so sharply and negatively towards the construction of new nuclear power stations. In short, this is essentially not a matter of the peaceful use of atomic energy itself but rather of the dangerous forms such use acquires under capitalism. This provides still another argument against a social structure that impedes the solution of today's urgent problems, including the energy problem, and stands as an obstacle to a future that we conceive in terms of man's harmonious integration with nature.

A similar situation exists with regard to the supply of those energy resources that serve directly the vital activities of the human organism---that is, the problem of the world's food supplies. The urgency of that problem both today and in the future is indicated clearly by the following facts and figures. According to data published by the FAO, approximately 75 million tons of food protein are produced throughout the world, or less than 60 grams per person daily, while the average norm is 100 grams. The need for calories by persons engaged in average physical activities is 3,000 kcal per day and 4,000 kcal for persons engaged in heavy labour. In developing countries, however, the level of consumption is less than 2,1,10 kcal per person per day, while 10 per cent of the population receives less than 1,900 kcal. Tens of thousands of people die from hunger every year. The production of grain crops must be at least doubled in order to feed the world's population by the year 2000. If one also considers the need to overcome the current shortage of calories, the world's food production must then triple in the next 20-25 years. Yet certain estimates indicate that already in 1980 the global shortage of protein was 10 millions tons, and that this will have doubled by the year 2000. Estimates prepared by UNESCO suggest that already in 1973 approximately 400 to 500 million children in developing countries experienced famine. On the average 16 per cent of the world's population do not eat enough (3 per cent in industrial countries and 25 per cent in developing countries).

Theories proposed by bourgeois researchers seek to attribute the increasing urgency of the world's food problem to ``natural'' causes (such as an increasing population that is growing more rapidly than the quantity of food products, the shortage of arable land, and diminishing returns) as well as to the technological backwardness of developing countries---without considering differences in income and in the level of consumption of food products between different social layers within both industrial and developing countries. In fact, the world's food shortage is relative rather than absolute, and it should be attributed not to ``natural'' and technological causes but above all to socio-economic factors that also inhibit the introduction of advanced agricultural methods that could provide a solution of the food problem at the global level.

This is made evident by the following facts and figures. One of the principal ``arguments'' of bourgeois ideologists and politicians is the assertion that the world has become too ``crowded'' and that in a relatively short time "living space" will be fully exhausted through a "catastrophic growth" of population. But is this really true? Actually only 11 per cent of the Earth's land surface ( approximately 1.5 billion hectares) are used for agriculture, and only 30-35 per cent of black soils are utilised while, in the opinion of many specialists, at the present level of technology approximately 70 per cent (about 10.5 billion hectares) of the Earth's land surface are suitable for agriculture and for life. An effective utilisation of these vast land areas alone, provided there is a more intensive development of desert land, saline soils, and permafrost areas, will make it possible to feed many billions of persons. A further very large volume of nutritious substances can be derived through a proper utilisation of the ocean.

Equally untenable are references by bourgeois ideologists to the ``law'' of diminishing returns. Essentially that ``law'' states that additional investments of labour and capital in land yield declining quantities of product. This represents the continuously declining fertility of soils as an "absolute law of nature" that results from rapacious forms of farming based on private property relations.

Marx noted that capitalist production develops technology and the social production process only in ways that simultaneously undermine the ultimate sources of all wealth, namely land and workers. In criticising advocates of the "universal law of diminishing returns" Lenin wrote that they neglected the most important factor, namely the level of technology and the state of productive forces. Taking these into account it may be said that part of the Earth's surface which is currently used for production activities is far from having exhausted its possibilities. These can still produce vast increases in the yield of agricultural crops and the productivity of animal husbandry. And further ahead lie truly remarkable prospects opened up by the development of science and technology for peaceful purposes. This refers to the era of abiotic food production without plants and animals, that the efforts of scientists are bringing closer. It provides a scientific basis for the humanistic proposition that man possesses a right to a better life. In terms of

their significance for the destiny of human civilisation future achievements in the world's production of artificial food products associated with the application of new developments in science and technology are sometimes compared to the introduction of agriculture itself 6,000 years ago, which resulted in the emergence of the first advanced civilisations (Sumer, Babylon, Egypt).

By itself, however, techno-economic modernisation will not solve the food problem. This is amply illustrated by the "green revolution". It has, of course, resulted in a substantial growth in the production of wheat in many countries of Europe and North America. Yet, even though abstract calculations and forecasts, based on an analysis of purely scientific and technical possibilities in utilising new varieties of wheat, "miracle rice" and new technologies of agricultural production have led to exceptionally optimistic expectations for countries of Asia and Latin America, the actual results in those regions were quite modest. At best increases in agricultural production matched increases in population, for example in a number of Asian countries. This is also characteristic of the 400 million people living in Africa. There, according to data produced by the FAO, the average increase in food production was only 0.5 per cent per year between 1971 and 1975, but in view of the rapid growth in population the output of food products per capita declined by 2.1 per cent each year. During the first half of the 1970s the volume of food imports into African countries tripled. The "green revolution" has not yet reached Africa's main centres of population, and it is unlikely to change the situation there unless a well-developed infrastructure is created to make it possible to implement achievements in science and technology. But that requires a restructuring of the mode of production, of production relations, and of socio-political structures, including the introduction of longterm planning.

The experience of the "green revolution" has shown that certain successes in increasing agricultural output combine, at the social level, with serious negative phenomena, and that ultimately social conditions neutralise achievements of the revolution in science and technology, that are applied to agricultural economies of capitalist oriented developing countries. The "green revolution" has greatly intensified social and class contradictions in countries following the cap-

1J9

italist path of development, thus intensifying, rather than overcoming, the objective economic need for radical agrarian transformations that would serve the interest of the overwhelming majority of the peasantry. The techno-- economic modernisation of agricultural economies, which is a necessary condition for overcoming their backwardness, is truly effective only when combined with a fundamental restructuring of agrarian relations and with a revolutionary social modernisation that includes the abandonment of large-scale private farming and the establishment of various forms of joint labour activities on the part of farmers enjoying the support of the state.

Similarly the pressing global ecological problem is also very much a social one. It is closely linked, through causeand-effect relations, to the problems of economic growth, progress in science and technology, natural resources, energy, and food supplies. In many cases the environmental problem has come to be a dominant one in relation to many others, at least if one has in mind the way in which global problems are reflected in general public awareness. This is understandable, for the relevant facts are both evident and simple to grasp.^^13^^

The pollution of the environment, the destruction of ecosystems, the destruction of many species of plants and animals have now reached threatening proportions. An increasing influence on nature and the application of new technological procedures (whose consequences are increasingly dangerous for the environment) may bring about catastrophic results. Negative anthropogenic influences threaten to disrupt nature's basic cycles and to undermine the self-- regenerating capacities of the biosphere and of its individual components. This is illustrated by the following data. By comparison with the beginning of the twentieth century the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as of aerosols, has increased dozens of times over in many cities, and has increased globally by 20 per cent. As a result of the formation of a layer of carbon dioxide around the Earth which encloses it like a glass cover the threat of unfavourable changes in climate has arisen that may transform our blue planet into an enormous greenhouse during the next decades, with possibly catastrophic effects. Those include changes in its energy balance and a gradual increase in temperature that will transform fertile regions into

arid ones, raise the level of water in the oceans (through the melting of polar and drifting ice) and produce a flooding of large numbers of coastal lands and cities. The threat of a disruption in the oxygen balance has arisen through the destruction of the ozone screen in the lower stratosphere as a result of the flights of supersonic aircraft (its destruction by 50 per cent will increase ultraviolet radiation 10 times, with corresponding influences on the sight of animals and humans). Pollution of the ocean has increased at a rate that threatens to make it global (4.10^^8^^ tons of petroleum are channelled to the ocean, i.e., approximately 0.1 per cent of petroleum production on maritime shelves).

All this exerts a substantial adverse influence on Ihc health of individuals, their labour productivity, and their creative activities and requires increasing capital investments in order to sustain the fertility of agricultural land and to purify water bodies, since their waters are becoming unsuitable both for general use and for use in the economy. The pollution of the environment through chemical, physical and biological agents (the development of micro-organ isms and agricultural pests that are immune to drugs and poisons) together with increases in the volume and types of ionising radiation, produce, among other things, an increase in their mutagenic influence on individuals, that is, in pathological changes in heredity, and a greater number of hereditary defects, diseases, genetically determined forms of vulnerability to serious and chronic diseases. These impede the vital activities and reproductive functions of individuals and bring about their genetic degeneration. Calculations of researchers indicate that increases in natural background radiation by only 10 rads may lead to the birth of 6 million hereditarily defective persons in each generation. Already now, according to UN experts, 10.5 per cenl of people are born with hereditary (genetic) defects. Data concerning deaths from cancer published by the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. indicates that 60 per cent or more of the cases (500,000 cases of cancer per year) are attributable to various cancer-producing factors in the environment. Wars and preparations for them, such as tests of new types of armament, are having a tremendous destructive effect on the natural environment. New types of weaponry, including shells with great explosive force, chemical substances and incendiary agents, used in recent wars, havn

produced a destructive effect on the environment. In South Vietnam, herbicides completely destroyed 1,500 square kilometres of vegetation and caused damage to an additional 15,000 square kilometres of land; at the same time, natural restoration of vegetation there is catastrophically slow. About 100 kilogrammes of dioxin was sprayed as an additive to one of those defoliants, and precisely dioxin is still regarded to be the cause of congenital defects in children, numerous miscarriages and liver cancer.

Millions of people in Southeast Asia were driven out of their homes and from the plots they tilled, and this resulted in a further worsening of the environment, including the growth of secondary vegetation and destruction of drainage systems. Decades will be needed to get rid of the results of these numerous violations.

Even greater damage to the environment may be done if the new types of weapons presently being developed are widely used. A nuclear war would destroy all the principal towns of the Northern Hemisphere; it would destroy a considerable part of the urban population as a result of blast and fire, and a considerable part of the rural population through radioactive irradiation. In addition, many millions of people in the Southern Hemisphere would perish on account of radioactive fallout. Even though it is difficult to foresee the long-term consequences of a nuclear war, they would globally affect the climate, causing the ozone layer to seriously deplete. On top of that, radioactive affection would cause genetic consequences. The previous experimental nuclear blasts have seriously contaminated the atmosphere with radioactive materials and caused damage to considerable areas of the Earth's surface.

A ten-kiloton nuclear blast may cause complete or partial destruction of vegetation over 400 to 1,300 hectares. The use of nuclear weapons in a large-scale war would destroy vegetation and erode soil over vast territories, and lead to blow-outs of huge amounts of radioactive dust into the stratosphere. On the other hand, nuclear blasts in the stratosphere would, albeit temporarily, decrease the concentration of ozone and increase the extent of ultraviolet irradiation of the Earth's surface to cause a number of unfavourable effects on man and the ecosystem.

The use of the neutron bomb, i.e., a not so powerful nuclear weapon designed chiefly to put people out of action by

affecting them with ionising radiation, rather than by blast or high temperature, would also result in condiserable damage to the environment. Experts have calculated that an explosion of a one-kiloton neutron bomb at an altitude of 200 metres would destroy a major portion of micro-- organisms over 40 hectares, a multitude of insects over 100 hectares, amphibia and reptiles over 350 hectares, and also numerous species of unprotected mammals and birds over an area of 490 hectares.

The use of chemical and biological weapons could also result in very serious ecological consequences. Chemical dehydration of tropical regions with vulnerable soils, or of semi-arid regions already on the dangerous verge of `` desertification'' could cause rapid soil erosion and irreversible consequences. Wide use of incendiary substances like napalm could lead to similar results. The experience of recent wars in Southeast Asia shows that even in areas characterised by ecological stability, it is possible to remedy the damage inflicted by fire and chemical substances only after a lengthy period of time.

Experts have made various assumptions on the possibility to cause economic or other damage to the enemy population by affecting the environment. Techniques for affecting the weather are being developed for peaceful purposes; some people are voicing their concern not only because those who apply them could inflict incidental damage to neighbouring states, but because these methods could be used for deliberately hostile purposes. For instance, one could deliberately increase cloudiness and precipitation in one region in order to cause draught and do damage to farming in other regions. These operations can be conducted covertly: it is very difficult to reveal or counter them. The very possibility of such actions could lead to a complication of international relations, taking into account the difficulty of deciding whether a flood, draught or crop failure was due to natural reasons or hostile actions of the opposing side.

An increase in the world stockpiles of weapons and in their destructive force presents an obvious danger to man and the environment. Even tests of these weapons could lead to serious ecological damage. On the other hand, the use of weapons against the environment could result in the danger of long-term or even irreversible damage to soils, farming, and ecological balance.

Now, if all the above-listed forms of direct influence on man, populated areas, food and the environment were customary features of all wars over the centuries, today wars may lead to even greater damage to the environment, since the potentials of the world's armed forces to desolate vast territories are now many times greater than ever before. Moreover, grave ecological consequences also result from the arms race, since it takes away the resources needed for improving the quality of life on Earth.

We thus see that ecological problems are exacerbated by the scientific and technological revolution and the industrial application of its results in traditional technological conditions and also with a view to preparing new wars and intensifying the armaments drive. In such a context a number of Western authors refer to theories describing an approaching ecological crisis that is said to be global in scope and equally threatening to all countries of the world, irrespective of their social systems. They associate this crisis, moreover, with growth in industrial production, the revolution in science and technology, and generally with the technological aspect of relations between man and nature. As a result, wide currency is given to ``alarmist'' ideas, recalling those of Rousseau, and which result from a one-sided and superficial perception of the problem. For the latter is viewed in terms of concepts emphasising a love of nature, that are divorced from social reality, while the corresponding analytical conclusions and proposed solutions are reactionary and Utopian in character. Ultimately such Rousseauist conceptions are anti-humanistic since they propose limiting mankind's cultural progress for the sake of preserving nature in its primordial state.

Equally one-sided and anti-humanistic, however, are the conceptions of "technocratic optimism" that at first sight appear to be the opposite of "ecological alarmism". In fact they form parts of an integral whole. They are based on the idea that a dominant role may be ascribed to the creative person operating as the demiurge over an inimical nature that is to be transformed through purposeful practical activities. Such a distorted understanding of human freedom is embodied in a stereotype of economic production activities that is in fact incompatible with the actual scope and modes of man's practical activities in relation to nature in the age of the revolution in science and

technology and is becoming a source of ecological

threats.

While anti-technicist interpretations of the problem of relations between man and nature are characterised by attempts to view that stereotype as an inherent consequence of utilising the achievements of science and technology in man's interactions with nature and as an inevitable evil of a civilisation based on science and technology, the conceptions of "technocratic optimism" assign an absolute value to such applications and consider that these problems can only be resolved with the help of "purely technological means". But in fact, however, even though most dangerous disharmonies in man's interactions with nature are associated with modes of interaction that are based on science and technology, they are also governed by the social mechanisms of the original social formation in which they have taken place, i.e., the capitalist socio-economic formation, which is characterised by a dominance of private property relations and a drive for profits that distort the natural relationship of man and society as a whole to nature.

Thus, even though the revolution in science and technology itself does create certain conditions for the development of a system of non-contradictory technological measures that make it possible to regulate the growing stream of various types of influences on nature, the formation of such a system of scientifically-grounded policies reveals its inner dependence on socio-political conditions and general Weltanschauung and cultural guidelines and are not reducible to "ecological engineering". Since the problem of man's interaction with nature is essentially a social problem it is only as a result of a fundamental social transformation that it may be resolved. Such a transformation will produce sociocultural, economico-productive and axiological shifts that are needed to overcome dangerous disharmonies in man's relations with nature. A comprehensive solution of that problem may only be attained through a radical social reorganisation of the world and overcoming class antagonisms. It is on such a transformed social basis that it will be possible to apply positive technological methods on a global scale for fully overcoming the contradictions between society and nature that the revolution in science and technology produces under a capitalist system. Such a process does not begin after the completion of particular stages in mankind's

development (social, scientific-and-technological, and industrial revolutions). It begins and proceeds together with them, and becomes just as much an inherent component of social progress as is the revolution in science and technology itself.

Let us consider this in more specific contexts that relate not only to theoretical approaches but to the actual practice in the sphere of interactions between man and nature that is developing, in particular, in socialist countries. Let us also analyse global models that differ in many respects and that are based on different scientific and social foundations.

2., A Dilemma Confronting Mankind. Global Models and Programme for Overcoming Crises in Man's Relations with Nature; ``Alarmism'' and "Technocratic Optimism"; a Scientific Approach

The gravity of the ecological threat that is hanging over mankind as well as the global and complex nature of the problem of man's interactions with nature greatly impede its positive resolution. They also provide grounds for the pessimistic and gloomy forecasts that have recently become abundant in both scientific and quasi-scientific literature. Yet many of them show evidence of a certain ``ecoshock'' on the part of their authors (to paraphrase Toffler's concept of "future shock"). They also represent a purely negative approach and abstract examination of the future that is carried out in a certain "social vacuum" in so far as existing world socio-economic structures under which particular expectations and projects may or may not be realised are not considered. As a result, many such forecasts lack a concrete foundation and remain distant from actual developments.

Yet at the same time by defending liberal humanistic positions in relation to ecological threats a number of authors of such models and projects---both scientists and popular writers---clearly point to contradictions in capitalist civili-

sation and draw attention to problems whose solution requires far-reaching social changes. In particular a remarkable image of threatening ecological catastrophes has been described by J. Dorst,~^^14^^ who has shown the extraordinary dimensions that environmental pollution has attained in the U.S.---a country that consumes approximately 30 per cent of the world's natural resources, and accounts for more than 40 per cent of the globe's pollution.^t5 The Council on Problems of Environmental Quality has estimated that at least 271 billion dollars would be needed during the next decade to overcome its effects.

A truly apocalyptic picture of the possible destruction of all life on Earth as a result of the growing contamination of the biosphere has been drawn by Katharine and Peter Montague in their work Wo World Without End.^^16^^ According to the authors' calculations continued growth in economic activities will increase man's influence on the environment at a rate that will double every 12-14 years and will have increased by at least four times by the end of the century. They assume that such a process is inherent in an industrial civilisation in which a growth of production for its own sake represents an "ideology of cancer cell". They therefore propose reducing and even discontinuing the rate of further economic development, especially in the case of industrial activities, and moving into a stage characterised by a dynamic equilibrium between human civilisation and its natural environment.

Pessimistic and ``alarmist'' views characterise an entire approach to this problem in Western literature which is also associated with the "critique of science" that we have already noted. Occasionally, when speaking of the ecological crisis of Western civilisation, its advocates are inclined to ascribe that phenomenon to mankind as a whole. They therefore call for a rejection of all earlier values, a priority emphasis on the ecological problem, and the creation of an "ecologised culture''.

Another group of models for avoiding crises in the mannature system appears to be more comprehensive and better grounded in scientific analysis. In particular this is true of the series of reports to the Club of Rome, mentioned earlier. In the model developed by D. Meadows and his coauthors, and published in the work entitled Limits to Growth, use was made of relationships among such factors

as the depletion of non-renewable natural resources, growth in industrial and agricultural production, population growth, and the growing environmental pollution. Changes in these factors produce changes in the behaviour in the world model as a whole, which appears as a system composed of these particular factors. A ``standard'' variant of behaviour for the world model is one that is based on the assumption that no significant changes will occur in its system of variables (that they will retain their values for the period 1900-1970). An exponential growth then occurs for the time segment extending from 1900 to the year 2100 in the volume of food products, of industrial production, and of world population, until a rapid depletion of natural resources begins to impede that process. As a result the authors of Limits to Growth believe that the world is moving towards a catastrophe.

In seeking to explore possibilities for avoiding this alternative, modes of behaviour of the world model were examined that assume that the volume of available resources is twice as large as the one originally established for 1900. In that variant the growth of industrial production attains a far higher level but a more rapid pollution of the environment occurs that results in an increased mortality of the population and a decline in the production of food products. Once again a catastrophe occurs at approximately the same time (before the year 2100).

The authors therefore reject the conception of " technological optimism" which asserts that it is possible to avoid an impending catastrophe by developing science and technological solutions. In order to show the limitations of such an approach other variants of the model are examined in which a) the problem of resource depletion is avoided altogether (this produces increasing environmental pollution); b) an unlimited increase in the volume of resources is assumed, together with control over environmental pollution (this results in a depletion of agrarian land resources and in a declining output of food products together with a cessation of industrial growth); c) the preceding variant also assumes a doubling of agricultural productivity by 1975 (once again increases in environmental pollution create limits to further growth); d) ``unlimited'' resources are assumed as well as control over pollution and over population growth (the ineffectiveness of demographic control produces

a food crisis); e) fuller use of resources is assumed together with a recycling of 75 per cent of their volume, as well as a reduction of pollution to one-fourth of its 1970 level, a doubling of crop yields, and the introduction of effective birth control (after a temporary stabilisation a similar catastrophic outcome follows before the year 2100).

The authors arrive at the important conclusion that the system of technological variables must be complemented by social factors that in their view are largely ethical. This results in a voluntary limitation of birth control (a model of the world with its population stabilised at its 1975 level), but this again results in a depletion of non-renewable re sources and a consequent reduction in industrial outnut thai once more leads to a catastrophe. Additional measures to reduce growth in the production level give the same result. But if further measures are added to the last variant that include technological measures to regulate growth and an emphasis on food production and services rather than on industrial production, a state of dynamic equilibrium for the "world system" is reached.

In criticising the analytical basis of the conception of "zero growth" a number of scientists have noted the following shortcoming: it is insufficient to assume that the dynamics of each of the parameters being considered is dependent on changes in some others and to ignore the inlegraJ properties of the system of parameters corresponding to human society which in fact is presented as a linear system. There are also objections concerning D. Meadows' estimate of available natural resources and of the influence of growth in production on environmental pollution. After studying the corresponding data for the United States during twentysix postwar years Barry Commoner has shown that the immense increase in pollution (by approximately 7-8 times per capita) is in fact attributable largely to changes in forms of production and consumption (the wide use of chemical fertilisers, synthetic materials, detergents, larger automobiles, etc.) deriving primarily from the interest of monopolies in receiving larger profits, rather than to a growth in the volume of production (approximately 50 per cent) and in per capita consumption (approximately 6 per cent).^^17^^

Such phenomena draw the attention of researchers to the most important point, namely, to the role of socio-economic

9-01743

factors in the ecological problem. And that is the principal shortcoming of the model of the "world system" of D. Meadows and his associates: in fact, they do not relate solutions to the ecological problem (the achievement of "ecological equilibrium" in their terms) to far-reaching changes in socio-economic structures and to overcoming relationships based on private ownership.

To a certain extent that shortcoming, namely the neglect of linkages between solutions of ecological problems and changes in social conditions, is overcome by Barry Commoner in his study entitled The Closing Circle. It is true that the conclusions to which the author eventually arrives do not extend beyond the framework of liberal reforms. Nevertheless, that very tendency, which is increasingly visible in the studies of many of today's progressive scientists, is itself symptomatic.

In considering the origins of the environmental crisis ! B. Commoner states explicitly that this crisis

'

``is not the outcome of a natural catastrophe or of the misdirected force of human biological activities... The fault lies with human society---with the ways in which society has elected to win, distribute, and use the wealth that has been extracted by human labour from the planet's resources. Once the social origins of the crisis become clear we can begin to design appropriate social actions to resolve it.''~^^18^^

What are then the measures that Commoner proposes? He resolutely opposes a "cessation of progress" and of industrial development, although he considers it vital that its direction be changed. He relates this primarily to a fundamental restructuring of technology. This in his view, when combined with a voluntary and partly spontaneous reduction in population growth, will produce a new ecological situation. Commoner identifies the methodological principle underlying the "ecologically inconsistent" methods embodied in existing technology. In his opinion this is a reductionism that "has also tended to isolate scientific disciplines from the problems that affect the human condition".^^19^^ But the most important causes are social ones and, accordingly, Commoner believes that it is appropriate social measures that will make it possible to re-establish a harmony between human society and the ecosphere. He then notes that

``we come then to a crucial question: who is to be the Solomon of modern technology and weigh in the balance all the good that comes of it against the ecological, social costs?" ²⁰ Commoner concludes that

``modern technology which is privately owned cannot long survive if it destroys the social good on which it depends---the ecosphere. Hence an economic system which is fundamentally based on private transactions rather than social ones is no longer appropriate and increasingly ineffective in managing this vital social good. The system is therefore in need of change."²¹ At first that conclusion appears to be decisive. Yet Commoner sees an alternative to private business only in some kind of "democratic society", in which the main element in production will be an ecological criterion rather than a striving to maximise profits. In our opinion, such an utopia has little in common with a genuine answer to the question concerning the nature of social measures that are needed to solve the ecological problem. Nevertheless, it is important that Commoner sees the lack of prospects for solving it on the basis of private property relations. He believes in the progress of today's modern civilisation and expresses an optimistic view that differs both from that of "ecological pessimism" and from the explicitly apologetic conceptions of "technological optimism" that defend the foundations of private ownership and seek to show that they are compatible with a "rational ecological policy''.

A similar optimistic view based on different methodological and scientific foundations is presented in the Second Report to the Club of Rome written by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, under the title Mankind at the Turning Point. From the very outset its authors, who dedicate their report to "future generations", reject the pessimistic forecasts, described as prophecies of a ``doomsday'', to which many of the recent philosophical perspectives on mankind's future have come. At the same time it is their view that the rapid succession of crises that are gradually encompassing the entire planet provides direct evidence that mankind has now reached a turning point in its historical evolution. It is impossible, they state, to ignore obvious symptoms of danger and rely exclusively on faith in a favourable outcome; passive behaviour will lead to a catastrophe.

9*

What then will prevent this catastrophe and what are the active measures that Mesarovic and Pestel propose? And what are the methodological foundations on which they develop their conception of a "survival strategy''?

Their principal conclusion concerns the need for man to pursue an "organic growth". They believe that if mankind wore to reorient itself along the path of "organic growth" a new world would result, forming a system of mutually interlinked and harmonious parts, each of which would effect its own specific contribution to the economy, resources or culture. In proposing their "survival strategy" Mesarovic and Pestel had hoped

``to furnish political and economic decision-makers in various parts of the world with a comprehensive glob- ' al planning tool, which could help them to act in \ anticipation of the crises at our doorstep and of those that loom increasingly large in the distance".<sup>22</sup> As we see the hopes that the authors of the conception of "organic growth" attach to their project are quite farreaching. It is true that while seeking to develop a strategy i for overcoming the most threatening crisis situations Mesa- > rovic and Pestel express doubts that mankind will find sufficient wisdom and strength to adopt their strategy for a i transition to "organic growth", until that transition emerges , by itself as a real necessity. And that, in their view, will occur in those places where current and future crises will point to past errors and serve as catalysts of change thus placing undesirable events to a constructive use. It is to help explore possibilities for avoiding crises in the "world system" that models and scenarios formalised in terms of a theory of multilevel hierarchical systems and computer simulated are intended for. It is in such a context that a multidisciplinary set of descriptions of regional development processes is structured hierarchically in terms of levels which are called ``strata''. In particular the environment, technology, and economic factors are stratified in this way. Crisis situations are then examined in relation to several different scenarios, whose analysis forms the principal content of the conception of "organic growth''.

It is neither possible nor necessary, in this exposition, to consider the particular scenarios of crisis situations that the authors ``simulate''. Let us only note that Mesarovic and Pestel conclude that it is possible to avoid the energy crisis,

for example, by shifting to now sources of energy (nuclear energy, solar energy, etc.) and that they recommend that the principal efforts of governments be directed to the solution of the problems that arise in that connection. With regard to the more general problem, namely the nature of global crises, the authors conclude that they develop simultaneously and in close connection with each other, originating in both negative and positive developments: in their view their occurrence today originates in man's very best strivings (man's intervention in his natural environment in order to serve his welfare, for example, constituted his conquest of nature, but this also produced an ecological crisis).

As we see, Mesarovic and Pestel do not identify the socio-economic origins of the crises, which derive above all from social relations based on private ownership that lead to a rapacious exploitation of the natural environment. Naturally, it is hardly possible to develop a concrete and a realistic strategy for avoiding such crises, including crises in man's relation with nature, from such an abstract conception.

In summarising the results of a computer analysis of the conditions that are required to solve major world crises and of the corresponding strategies the authors emphasise that: 1) today's crises are not temporary phenomena; rather they reflect a continually operating tendency that is characteristic of a historical model of development; 2) a solution to these crises may be developed only in a global context, and this requires full and precise data concerning the "world system", the new economic order and the global resource location system; 3) solutions cannot be found with the help of traditional means that consider only some particular aspect of the "world system"; instead a full integration of all ``strata'' is needed, that is, a simultaneous consideration of all aspects of human evolution, ranging from individual values and attitudes to the ecology and the current state of the environment; 4) these crises may be resolved through co-operation rather than confrontation. But more generally, the authors conclude, strategies for resolving crises in world development point to the need for'a "world system" that will provide for "organic development", rather than " limited growth''.

The authors of the conception of "organic growth" anli-

cipate that attempts to proceed along the indicated path may fail. This will make inevitable, in their opinion, " surgical interventions" to control morbid forms of growth. What are then the measures they propose at the level of societies and of individuals in order to carry this out?

At the social level these include 1) an understanding that any activity undertaken solely in the light of shortterm considerations may eventually be counter-productive; accordingly, long-term evaluations constitute a norm for examining fundamental solutions to problems of development; 2) an axiomatic acceptance of the futility of narrow national policy-oriented approaches in developing and taking decisions, and a realisation that global problems may only be solved through global activities based on consensus; 3) the development of a practical international structure within which co-operation, viewed as the principal condition for the emergence of a "new mankind" following the path of "organic development", will be perceived as a necessity rather than an act of preference or of good will; 4) a full recognition of the priority importance of crises in global long-term development and a readiness by governments and international organisations to accord priority to that problem.

In elaborating on this last point Mesarovic and Pestel assert that future history will begin to emphasise the utilisation of resources and the survival of mankind, rather than individual personalities or classes, as in the past. They believe that the time to influence the course of that history has now come since atomic wars cannot be regarded as the reasonable alternative.

From the point of view of individual values and relations a big role in developing the new global ethics that is implicit in these requirements is played by the following propositions: 1) it is important to develop a global consciousness that helps individuals become aware of themselves as members of a world community; 2) it is necessary to develop a new, more sparing ethics in utilising material resources; 3) an attitude towards nature should be developed that emphasises harmony rather than subordination; 4) if the human race strives to survive man must develop a sense of identity with future generations, and be ready to sacrifice his own welfare for their sake. If on the other hand each generation seeks to provide as much as possible for itself alone, then, the authors conclude, the Homo Sapiens is

both unhealthy and doomed. It is by no means a coincidence that Mesarovic's and Pestel's study, which is devoted to "future generations", is preceded by a prologue in which the words of Alan Gregg are cited as an epigraph: "The world has cancer, and that the cancer cell is man".^^23^^ Not a very inspiring message to future generations.

These same problems are viewed somewhat differently in other reports to the Club of Rome. There is no need to examine them at length in the present context. Let us merely note that in the Glub of Rome project carried out by a group under D. Gabor, for example, the authors seek a transition to an economical and rational management of resources to solve the problems deriving from an ineffective and irrational utilisation of the planet's resources. It is their opinion that the current state of development of science and technology is able to supply mankind (with due consideration of its expected size) with the energy, raw materials, and food that its vital activities require. Insofar as this is possible, economic development should be based on the utilisation of types of energy resources whose supply is practically unlimited, on the use of widely available renewable types of mineral resources and a recycling of raw materials in short supply and on the development of technological processes that require modest supplies of energy and raw materials. This must be accompanied by a reasonable and just distribution of food supplies at the level of the planet itself as well of individual countries and regions. Economic and social policies should recognise the problems of protecting the environment and of maintaining acceptable climatic conditions.

The authors stress the international character of these problems and the interdependence of the planet's regions in resolving them. In their view the formulation of national development objectives should be based on the genuine needs of societies and take into consideration all possible consequences of particular policy decisions. In such a, context an evaluation of the socio-economic consequences of introducing new technologies is particularly important. The authors attach great importance to the development of a system of social indicators that would make it possible to compare expenditures and advantages in the social sphere as well as in the economic sphere. An identification of parameters reflecting satisfactory living standards in various

types of society would make such comparisons possible, in their opinion, and, hence evaluations of the social and economic consequences of progress in science and technology at the level of the planet as a whole.

While the authors formulate that problem correctly, they do not provide a concrete answer. Nor do we find one in the Report to the Club of Rome developed under the guidance of E. Laszlo. Even though that study is based on sociological survey data taken from various layers of the population in various countries and on the study of government documents as well as the analysis of the ideas and political and economic platforms proposed by today's major social movements, the measures that are proposed to avoid possible crises, and in particular a crisis in the man-nature relations refer primarily to the sphere of consciousness and to mankind's ethical principles.

The authors believe that the development of such new forms of awareness as ecological consciousness, an awareness of the need to control population growth, and to conserve non-renewable resources may serve as a foundation for developing an integrated self-awareness relating to mankind as a whole.

``A change from self-centered and short-term goals to mankind-centered and long-term ones is in the interest of all the people. To work for such a change has become a moral imperative for all who are concerned with the future of humanity.''~^^24^^

Such is the programme that is proposed by the authors of the Fifth Report to the Club of Rome.

In the view of the authors the "new world order" corresponding to that programme must develop as a result of the appearance of a new global ethos based on trust and solidarity, and on new standards of humanism as a behaviour norm in all major spheres of state activity. Support for this view is adduced from an analysis of the "great religions", (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, the Chinese religious tradition---Confucianism and Taoism---as well as African tribal religions) and also of major contemporary world views---"liberal democracy", "Marxist communism", and "alternative cultures". The Report described the latter as reactions not only to low levels of development but also "super development", to dehumanising forms of progress in science and technology, and to the alienation of personality.

Active support for these ideas were expressed in a special introduction to that Report by the President of the Club of Rome Aurelio Peccei. Nor is this surprising, since such an emphasis fully corresponds to the objectives and tasks of the Club of Rome as they were formulated by its organisers.

These have been clearly expressed by Peccei in his book entitled The Human Quality. In his opinion the

``real problem of the human species, at this stage of its evolution, is that it has not been able culturally to keep pace with, and thus fully adjust to, the changed realities which it itself has brought about in this universe. Since the problem at this crucial stage is within, not outside of, the human being, individually and collectively, the solution must also come primarily and fundamentally from within.''~^^25^^

In this connection Peccei identifies six tasks (or ``missions'') for mankind that derive from the planet's "outer limits", man's "inner limits", the cultural heritage, the "world community", the natural environment within which man lives, and the efficiency of production. In particular, in consider ing nature's "outer limits", Peccei emphasises that as man utilises nature's wealth he should remember its limits. An unregulated utilisation of resources may perturb nature's equilibrium and cyclical patterns needed for the development of life generally. The author proposes that a general approach be developed that would indicate precisely what man may and must do in utilising nature for his own objectives and at the same time exist in harmony with it. In formulating this and other problems for mankind, Peccei expresses the hope that this will contribute to the " rebirth of man's spirit". He expresses a faith in man and in a "human revolution" even though this may be accompanied by great sacrifices and suffering. Of course, because it is expressed in such an abstract form, this hope cannot become a concrete and effective programme for mankind. And in that respect, like the other global approaches considered earlier, this particular approach to the problem of avoiding crises in the man-nature system is also Utopian in many respects. But this does not cast any doubts concerning the humanistic nature of the author's general aspirations, even though their social and class foundations do not extend beyond the framework of bourgeois reforms.

A different world view, but one that leads to the same negative results, underlies the approach of Herman Kahn and his coauthors to the problem of avoiding crises in the mannature system in the above-mentioned study The Next 200 Years. As convinced advocates of "technocratic optimism" they rely on that basis in developing their forecasts of global problems in the fields of raw materials, energy resources, ecology, and food supplies. For example, with regard to energy they describe an impressive picture of a shift from depletion to new unlimited sources of energy. To support this view comparative calculations are presented relating to future needs and possibilities of their satisfaction from fossil fuels, nuclear fission energy, and a transition to longterm sources---solar and geothermal energy and nuclear fusion. The abundance of energy, in their view, provides a basis for a similar abundance of material goods for mankind over many centuries to come (even for a world population of 15-20 billion persons).

A similarly optimistic forecast is presented in that study concerning reserves of mineral resources. Making use of revised calculations that disprove D. Meadows' pessimistic forecasts suggesting that the time horizon for the depletion of major natural resources ranges from 6 to 154 years,^^26^^ Kahn and his coauthors conclude that 99.9 per cent of probable future needs for metals may easily be met, at least in a world whose population is 15 billion persons and whose gross product is $300 trillion. In particular the authors take into account the future appearance of new approaches to technological development that will make it possible to extract mineral raw materials from a much greater depth than at the present time, to derive minerals from sea water or else from the processing of rocks with a rich mineral content.

In turning to the problem of the environment in the near future Kahn and his coauthors present the following major proposition: while measures to develop and preserve the environment during the next quarter-century will be expensive,~^^27^^ they will nevertheless make possible its utilisation in the course of the subsequent 200 years even if the world's population and economy will attain the 15 billion persons and $300 trillion gross world product that are forecast.

What are the grounds for these assertions? Above all

they express the scientific and technological aspect of the ecological problem viewed from a position of "technocratic optimism". It is true that Kahn and his coauthors draw attention to the fact that environmental protection has required substantial changes in the legislation of capitalist countries even though they agree that in many cases they have been clearly inadequate. Serious economic measures are needed (the authors estimate that in 50 years the share of gross national product expended on the prevention of environmental pollution must increase from the present 1.5 per cent to 5-6 per cent). But this suggests that there are in fact few grounds for the optimism that Kahn and his coauthors express when they consider this aspect of the matter without analysing the impediments that derive from the orientation of capitalist societies on private ownership. This is equally true, of course, of the measures that are proposed for solving the urgent food problem. After rejecting pessimistic views concerning the possibility of meeting adequately the world's future population's needs for food, the authors turn their attention primarily to an analysis of scientific and technological possibilities for developing food production in the future. This includes 1) the use of conventional means for producing conventional types of food products; 2) the use of unconventional methods for producing conventional types of food products (for example, the growing of plants without soil) 3) the use of unconventional methods for producing unconventional types of food products (for example, the growth of unicellular proteins through abiotic means). While they describe in some detail and in a colourful way future scientific and technical possibilities for producing both conventional and ``exotic'' types of food, they completely neglect that problem's social dimensions, which are closely associated with the general level of economic, scientific and technical development of particular countries. As a result, their calculations and forecasts are also quite distant from reality.

Thus, as we have seen, not one of the global models and projects for avoiding a crisis in the man-nature system, whether expressing ``alarmist'' views or a position of " technocratic optimism", provides a satisfactory realistic solution. Within their contexts sketches and occasionally dramatic pictures are drawn that are observable in this area in the capitalist world. It is noted that recent decades, which are

associated with the current revolution in science and technology, have brought not only an unprecedented progressive change in productive forces but an equally unprecedented intensification of the problem of man-nature relations as well and that this raises the need to consider seriously the limitations that attach to the use of natural resources and to the capacity of nature's renewal processes to withstand the uncontrolled consequences of human activities. But no answer is provided to the following questions: does scientific and technical progress and the application of its achievements automatically produce a destruction of the natural environment, a depletion of natural resources, and a worsening of the conditions of human existence? Or are these negative consequences attributable to concrete methods and forms of interacting with nature and forms of utilising the achievements in science and technology that are closely associated with a specific social system, which in fact determines the direction and forms of development of science and technology, as well as of all productive forces, and, hence, forms and methods of interaction with nature as well?

That, in turn, raises a still more general question, name ly: What is the essence of the problem of man's interaction with nature and with what real dilemmas does it confront mankind? And what are the ways leading to its theoretical and practical resolution both today and in the future?

Marxism provides a scientific answer to these questions. That answer takes into account the complex and global character of the problem relating to man's interaction with nature, as well as its origins, essence and the causes for its growing intensity. It relates them, moreover, to a concrete social context and to wider processes governing social development, including the growth of modern production activities, progress in science and technology and cultural progress.

While the analysis of interactions between man and both the natural and social environment in which he lives has a long tradition in the history of scientific and philosophical thought, Marxism has not only inherited that tradition but has also formulated a fundamentally new position in solving that problem, thus establishing its own tradition for scientific studies of that problem, which continues to develop creatively with regard to the modern context.

Already in the last century Engels observed that

``after all nature and history are the two fundamental component elements of the environment in which we live, move, and express ourselves".^^28^^

What is it, then, that establishes a dialectically contradictory unity and interactions between society and nature, between man and the environment in which he lives, that very condition for man's vital activities? Marxism provides a clear and definite answer: it is established by material production activities. Marx noted that

``labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and nature".²⁹ It is precisely this exchange of matter that achieves an integral unity of man and nature and the latter's transformation and adaptation to man's needs, that is, the creation oi' a "second nature", i.e., man's artificial living environment, which is also influenced by specific cultural characteristics and by social organisation.

But we know that man's material production activities exert a powerful influence on nature in negative as well as positive ways. As a result, man's ecology and his interaction with the environment is becoming a substantial problem with a relatively autonomous field of study. Nevertheless the key to a scientific solution of those problems lies in an analysis of social factors and of corresponding characteristics of production. This is the relevant position of Marxism and its social philosophy which is characterised by an emphasis on identifying the linkages between the problem of man's interaction with nature and various aspects of social existence and by a concern with problems of fundamental social and humanistic significance. Aside from purely scientific (cognitive) and technological as well as socioeconomic and political aspects (including relevant aspects of international law) this leads us to recognise the very great significance, within that problem, of cultural, ideological, ethical-humanistic and finally esthetic aspects, that, taken together, constitute the content of the man-nature problem, which is both complex and global.

Accordingly, to scientifically understand the principles that govern interactions between society and nature means to show the full diversity and often multiple directions in

which a large spectrum of factors operate, and to identify their internal contradictions whose resolution produces a new quality and achieves their integral unity. But it also means to approach the problem being analysed in concrete historical terms, and to follow its development as an organically integrated system. Above all the objective dialectics, the internally contradictory nature of society's interaction with nature expresses itself in that in the course of material production activities we observe both an increasing ``liberation'' of man from direct dependence on spontaneous forces of nature and an ever closer integration of man with nature as he assimilates an ever wider range of materials and types of energy that he intensively involves into the sphere of his own vital activities. At the same time it is becoming apparent that it is impossible to retain a "natural equilibrium" of nature's processes through conservation. The path to a harmonisation of man with nature lies in a goal-oriented transformation of nature on the basis of further scientific and technical progress.

But the dialectical method requires that this idea be made both deeper and more concrete. This is why it necessarily leads not only to an analysis of the social form within which man's interaction with his environment takes place, but to its concrete characterisation in the context of specific socio-economic formations. Marx and Engels observed that "a particular attitude to nature is determined by the form of society.. .''^^30^^ One should also keep in mind that today the global problem relating to interactions between man and nature must be resolved within a setting in which various countries and peoples are unequally developed. This refers not only to levels of per capita income but to an entire complex of social, economico-industrial and cultural factors. To neglect this and not differentiate the social and class aspects of development would be fundamentally misleading.

Accordingly, it is evident that industrial and developing countries possess unequal possibilities for establishing healthy living environments. The social conditions of developing countries are insufficient to permit rapid solutions. On the other hand, they possess very great natural advantages. Industrial countries possess a significant economic potential, but their natural environment is experiencing significant unfavourable influences from intensive produc-

tion activities. This calls for differences in emphasis in solving a common ecological problem: for developing countries this is an ecologically justified development, while for industrial countries it is an ecologically justified development.

In addition, the regulation of a society's natural conditions of existence cannot be simply reduced to a regulation of resource consumption: in a wider sense it relates to the creation of a healthy human environment whose social and natural parameters would create the greatest feasible possibilities for man's development. Marxist science views the harmonious organisation of the environment as one of the conditions governing the formation of a new type of man. Accordingly, ecological development refers to a rational transformation (development) of the environment designed to serve man's interests. The fundamental objective of an ecologically balanced strategy of development is to achieve the greatest possible correspondence between a natural environment developed in this way and the vital needs of individuals. "Cultivation when it progresses spontaneously and is not consciously controlled.. .leaves deserts behind it.''~^^31^^ The unregulated development of production activities and of society at large that takes place under capitalism impedes the solution of the ecological problem, even though individual projects do achieve substantial results. A scientific analysis of the problem of man's interaction with nature leads one inevitably to conclude that an overcoming of disharmonies and crises in that area calls for a scientific social strategy that identifies real measures. Such a strategy is proposed by Marxism and is gradually embodied in the developing experience of socialist approaches to the utilisation of nature. Let us examine this in more specific terms.

3. A Scientific and Social Strategy for Harmonising Man's Interaction with Nature

A new strategy to establish man's relationship to nature consists in a correction of its development in accordance with a scientific and technological civilisation. While such a theoretical solution does not bear the stamp of Rous-

seauist or natural philosophical Utopias, it does permit a sufficient recognition of the specific characteristics of elements of nature that are engaged in social processes, as well as relative proportions between social and natural reality. The new strategy is based on a harmony between the eternal objectives of human practical activities---the real welfare that man achieves through acting upon nature---and eternal laws of nature. Otherwise a retribution is inevitable for man if these laws are violated. When the transformation of the natural environment is regulated consciously, with due regard for nature's laws, complex interactions in biogeocoenoses and a variety of possible side effects and remote consequences, and if it is based not on striking projects but on a deep and comprehensive scientific analyses achieved through prolonged and persistent efforts---such a transformation of the natural environment can and should produce a state of fulfilment for man on Earth.

A transition to a strategy of man's rational interaction with nature is possible only if society is sufficiently aware of man's functions and of his practical activities within nature's current evolution. The theoretical models that are proposed are based on the proposition that man and his material production activities have now become a powerful factor in effecting both conscious and spontaneous changes in nature; and should that influence continue to be spontaneous in the future, without being subjected to regulation, it may eventually bring about a disruption of nature's equilibrium and a consequent fateful catastrophe for all forms of life. A fundamental solution thus appears to require a transition to a strategy for influencing nature that recognises the need to preserve and maintain dynamic natural equilibrium. Approaches to such a transition are envisaged in mankind's socialist and communist prospects.

The methods that are applied in socialist countries to solve the problem of man's interaction with nature are specific to socialism as a socio-economic system. It is in such a context that we refer to the specific characteristics of a socialist approach to nature and to principles that govern socialist forms of utilising nature.

Since the objectives of economic development under socialism are a further increase in the welfare of people, an improvement in their working and living conditions and further achievements in health care, education and culture---

in short, everything that contributes to the moulding of the new man and to a comprehensive development of personality---it follows that the socialist approach to solving the man-nature problem is fully subordinated to the achievement of that particular objective. In this connection the USSR's Constitution states:

``In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms, to preserve the purity of the air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve human environment" (Article 18). And to protect the natural environment is a constitutionally defined responsibility:

``Citizens of the USSR are obliged to protect nature and conserve its riches" (Article 67). From the very outset but especially in recent years the Soviet government has been carrying out an ecological policy whose essence is to reduce to a minimum the unfavourable consequences of production activities on the natural environment and to achieve the greatest possible measure of favourable influences deriving from scientific and technical progress. In the USSR the protection of nature is effected by the people itself. As a collective owner of all social and natural wealth in the country it regulates the utilisation of natural resources and establishes rules for protecting the environment through the legislation of its socialist state of the whole people. The Soviet Union was the first country to set scientifically based limits to atmospheric pollution. Today either new or modernised industrial facilities are not permitted to operate unless they posses anti-pollution devices.

A number of important laws have been adopted by the USSR's Supreme Soviet in recent years, whose aim is to protect the natural environment from harmful activities. These include the laws entitled "Fundamentals of Land Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics", " Fundamentals of Health Legislation of the USSR Union Republics", "Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on Water Resources", "Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on Mineral Resources", and "Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union

10-01743

Republics on Forests". The Soviet government has published a number of directives concerning measures on further improving the protection of nature and a rational utilisation of natural resources, with particular reference to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Volga and Ural river basins, as well as Lake Baikal.

A major role in protecting nature is played by the scientific development of both medium-term and long-term re gional planning projects and of general schemes for locating individual sectors of the country's economy and large industrial complexes. These documents provide for a rational utilisation of territories and natural resources as well as for improvements in labour conditions and conditions of everyday life aad leisure. They include recommendations derived from scientific norms concerning the location of population centres, industrial and agricultural enterprises, technical facilities, recreation areas and preserves.

In accordance with a resolution of the GPSU's Central Committee and of the USSR's Council of Ministers entitled "Concerning an Increased Protection and Improved Utili sation of Natural Resources" (1973), substantial changes have been introduced into the state planning of economic measures to protect the environment. Together with measures for the rational utilisation of natural resources these are entered into a separate section of state plans of economic development. In addition, a various types of activities as well as increasing funds assigned to protecting the environment are entered into sections concerned with specific economic sectors. State capital investments in activities serving to protect the environment and the rational utilisation of natural resources increased by 54 per cent between 1973 and 1976, and amounted to more than 6 billion rubles. In 1978 corresponding capital investments were 1.8 billion rubles. During the previous five-year-period (1976-1980) direct investments into environmental protection alone amounted to 11 billion rubles, a 50 per cent increase com pared with the preceding five years. Subsequently, these funds will continue to increase.

The concrete efforts that are being undertaken in the USSR to solve the ecological problem integrate the technoeconomic, technological, socio-political and humanistic aspects of the problem. This is because the point of departure and highest objective of socialism is to serve the interests

of society as a whole, the welfare of people and their free and all-round development.

Socialism provides a real basis for increasingly successful solutions of urgent ecological tasks. Above all this refers to the prevention of unfavourable influences on the natural environment deriving from the production activities of individual enterprises. In a socialist state natural resources and the conditions of life provided by nature are the property of the whole people, and each enterprise, as an element of a country-wide economic system, may be brought to account for causing harm to that social property.

A transition has been effected in the USSR to the principle of payment for the utilisation of basic types of natural resources. According to this principle, any form of utilisation of natural resources for production activities must bo compensated through corresponding monetary contribution,- to measures concerned with the preservation and improve ment of natural conditions. An example is provided by the restoration of soils that w^Tere damaged in the course of iron ore mining operations in the region of the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly. This occurred because open-cast mining is one of the more economical forms of extraction of mineral resources even though it is extremely destructive. The ne\v system of measures will now make it possible to develop large iron ore deposits without damaging the environmonl.

The effect of such an approach could be enormous if i! could also be applied on a wider international scale in situations in which the interests of mankind at large are harmed by the activities of individual persons or organisations pursuing private interests. In our opinion, it is especially important to apply this principle to the ocean and the atmosphere, which constitute the common property of mankind as a whole and whose pollution carries grave threats to the present generation and future generations. It would he wise to agree that each user assumes an obligation lo avoid or else compensate for the damage that his activities may bring to either his contemporaries or his posterity. In the future such a condition must apparently become a fundamental element in solving the ecological problems that arise from the socio-economic development of the world's various countries.

Our planet's nature constitutes a complex and interconnected whole, and each extraction of its individual ole-

10*

ments into the sphere of private activity inevitably enters into a contradiction with the environment. From a Marxist point of view only social property in natural and social con ditions of production makes possible the further development of production in such a way that the utilisation of natural resources or transformation of nature's systems is not accompanied by the degradation of the environment. Such forms of development are optimal in the sense that they presume a satisfaction of man's reasonable needs, i.e., a complex of needs whose satisfaction is necessary for an all-round development of his abilities and gifts. Finally, such a type of development is also most preferable because it makes it possible to overcome the initial economic inequality of individual countries rapidly and effectively. This is confirmed by the development of the Soviet Union and of countries of the world's socialist system.

The advantages of a complex approach to the ecological problem are clearly evident in the experience of socialist economic management, which permits to design strategies of development that do not produce dangerous forms of the destruction of the environment and of resource depletion. In this way ecologically appropriate forms of development coincide with socially appropriate forms that lead mankind to a kind of social organisation whose objective is a harmonious relationship of man to man and of man to nature.

But the achievements of existing socialism in protecting the environment do not imply that the ecological problem is fully solved in the USSR, that the state of affairs is satisfactory in this area, and that one does not find objective as well as subjective difficulties. Unfortunately there are still instances of non-socialist utilitarian approaches to natural resources, and this is a serious cause for concern. There is a determined struggle against such practices and efforts are made to encourage a truly communist attitude towards nature.

The sphere of man's interaction with nature is one of the major areas in which the achievements of the revolution in science and technology should be combined with the advantages of the socialist economic system. A solution of that problem requires not only a further development of science and technology but also a comprehensive further improvement in the structure of economic and production activities, as well as applications of a comprehensive, systems ap-

proacli designed to prevent the ecological damage inflicted by one sector on another and a deterioration in the overall ecological situation. This also requires a gradual reconstruction of production activities on a qualitatively new basis and the creation of production complexes that avoid irra lional losses of valuable types of raw materials and do not harm the natural environment with industrial waste products.

When combined in an integral manner with the advantages of socialism the revolution in science and technology produces the conditions that are needed to carry out techno logical measures designed not only to reduce environmental pollution and protect nature but also to gradually improve it, thus optimising the biosphere. Of course, this calls for considerable material and labour expenditures that will be effected gradually and will increase as socialist society develops further towards communism.

At the present time the principal ecological tasks relate to balancing the increasing influences on nature with care for nature and a protection and comprehensive reproduction of natural conditions and resources. This approach is the only correct one under developed socialism and constitutes an inherent component element of communist development Already now all possible measures are being taken in the USSR so that Soviet people may live and work in both artificial and natural environments that should correspond fully to man's social and biological needs as well as to humanistic ideals.

In this connection the resolution adopted by the CPSU Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers in December 1978 entitled "Concerning Further Measures to Strengthen the Protection of Nature and Improve the Utilisation of Natural Resources" marks a major step forward. It notes not only the achievements in environmental protection and a rational utilisation of natural resources in our own country in recent years, but also new problems that call for new solutions and new types of practical activities and research. It defines the rights and obligations of the USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Control, and complex measures relating to environmental protection, preventing the pollution and degradation of the environment, and providing for the most effective utilisation of natural resources within the economy (the development of complex territorial systems of environmental pro

14!.!

toctioii, the implementation of a complex of measures relating to the introduction of low-waste technological processes, as well as of systems for neutralising, reprocessing and purifying waste products).

This resolution also provides for an ordering of the network of research organisations concerned with the protection of the environment and the rational utilisation of natural resources, problems of the biosphere, low-waste technologies, and expanding techno-economic research activities in these areas. It is planned to design standard specifications for state preserves, botanic gardens and national parks. Considerable attention is given to enhancing the role of the societies for environmental protection in carrying out measures of public control over the observation of relevant legislation, and for disseminating knowledge concern ing environmental protection and the rational utilisation arid reproduction of nature's resources.

A deep analysis of the measures taken in the USSR to protect the environment and rationally utilise and reproduce natural resources was made at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, which at the same time charted the prospects of ecological measures for the 1980s. Moreover, the Guidelines for the Economic and Social Development of the USSR for 1981-1985 and Period Ending in 1990 adopted by the Congress carries a special section devoted to environmental protection. This document outlines a broad programme of relevant measures, the essence of which is in the following:

---to improve environmental protection; intensify measures for conversing arable land; to counter soil erosion; to quicken work for recultivating lands and to provide their protection from mud flows, landslides, avalanches, salting, swamping, partial flooding, and dehydration;

---to develop more comprehensively mineral deposits, and prevent their losses during mining and processing activities;

---to speed up construction of water-protecting facilities in the Black, Azov, Baltic and Caspian sea basins and in major industrial areas of the country; to take measures for improving protection of seas, rivers and other water bodies in the Arctic basin from pollution; to enhance capacities of water recycling systems, and to develop and in-

troduce drainless systems of water utilisation at enterprises; to improve conservation of water sources, including small rivers and lakes, from depletion and pollution; to continue work for protecting and rationally utilising unique natural complexes, primarily Lake Baikal;

---to start developing automated systems for controlling water-economy complexes in the basins of major rivers in the European part of the USSR and in Central Asia;

---to improve production processes and transportation facilities in order to reduce emissions of harmful substances into the environment and improve the process of purifying waste gases of harmfiu admixtures; to increase the output of highly effective gas-and-dust trapping devices, water purifying equipment, and instruments and automatic stations for controlling the state of the surrounding natural environment; and to considerably reduce the use of peat as a fuel for thermal power stations;

---to improve protection of forests from fires and harmful insects, and diseases;

---to expand protective afforestation; and to create new green zones and improve management of existing ones in towns, settlements and surrounding areas;

---to continue setting up scientifically grounded networks of preserves and national parks and to use them as bases for studying natural systems and objects in order to develop recommendations on rational utilisation of natural resources; to take measures for achieving a balanced increase in the number of wild animals and reproducing valuable fish species in natural water bodies and reservoirs;

---to take more active measures for creating and developing systems for cadastring natural resources; to improve state management and strengthen control over nature utilisation and environmental protection; and to enlist wider participation of the public in nature conservation measures.

In this connection, major tasks have been set before Soviet scientists with a view to raising the efficiency of measures in protecting the environment and developing the ecology of the USSR.

At the present time Soviet scientists are engaged in wide research activities in these areas. But it is evident that because of the global origins and character of the ecological problem its resolution will require research and

•151

practical measures at the international level as well. A full resolution of such worldwide problems requires, of course, a long historical period.

The experience of existing socialism provides convincing evidence that it is only after a worldwide victory of socialist social relations that a global comprehensive, and dependable resolution will be achieved of the contradictions that exist between man's civilisation and nature, which is a prerequisite for the further development of civilisation. And it is only as the result of a renovation of its life -on communist foundations that mankind will arrive at a complete harmony with nature.

But there are possibilities in our own times as well for taking specific steps towards that objective. Under conditions of developed socialism they are made possible, first, by combining the achievements of the revolution in science and technology with the advantages of the socialist economic system; second, by the balanced pooling of the efforts of socialist countries dictated by socialist economic integration; and third, by the expansion of economic, scientific and technical co-operation between states with differing social systems.

The emergence of urgent problems in preserving the natural environment, conquering outer space and using the riches of the ocean, and in developing medicine, together with the emergence of a number of fundamental problems in science and technology of unprecedented scope and importance (the discovery and utilisation of new types of energy, the creation of an "artificial intellect", and control over the secrets of heredity) has made co-operation of most, if not all, countries on the planet a vital necessity. Resolution of global scientific and practical problems calls for co-ordinating the planet's intellectual capacities and a mobilisation of the material and other resources of many countries and peoples. Today an understanding of this fact is becoming an effective factor in strengthening international detente and in widening international co-- operation in every possible way.

The activities of scientists, social and political leaders and journalists who have drawn attention to the very great urgency of the ecological problem in world politics have greatly stimulated further developments in this respect. In June 1972 a special Conference of United Nations was

held in Stockholm that adopted a Declaration on the Human Environment that defined principles of environmental protection. A plan was also worked out that provided for specific forms of international co-operation of states on problems of the environment and of natural resources. Since then major efforts have been made in that area. The role of international co-operation in solving the ecological problem will undoubtedly continue to grow as new and even more complex and important problems arise, including problems relating to a conscious regulation of the planet's biosphere.

Within the international ecological movement a major role is played by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (TIICNNR), which was established in 1948, and operates with the support of UNESCO, as the major research and advisory body to which the United Nations Economic and Social Council as well as other inter-governmental and non-governmental international organisations and also individual governments turn. The Fourteenth General Assembly of the TUCNNR (held in Ashkhabad, in September 1970) marked as important stage in its activities. At that time the basic elements of a world strategy for protecting nature were endorsed, as well as a draft Charter of nature conservation, two very important new documents containing recommendations concerning man's interaction with the environment.

The effectiveness of inter-governmental forms of co-- operation in this area is illustrated by the activities of Ihe Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, and more specifically its Council on Problems of Protecting and Improving the Environment. Together with colleagues from other CMEA member countries specialists from the USSR have developed a joint comprehensive programme for protecting nature and utilising its resources rationally. Joint research activities have permitted socialist countries to resolve many current economic problems in achieving high rates of economic and social development with due regard for the need to preserve the environment.

Both the Soviet Union and other socialist countries attach great importance to co-operation with capitalist countries in solving the ecological problem. This expresses the realism of the general position and of concrete policies of

Communists, as well as their non-utopian humanism, which lays emphasis on practical activities in solving the urgent problems ol' our time while contributing to the future development of mankind.

Important research activities are being carried out under the United Nations Environmental Programme, as well as UNESCO's programme entitled "Man and the Biosphere", to which the Soviet Union conlributes actively. Also within the framework of UNESCO there are major activities in disseminating knowledge concerning the environment. An example is provided by a working document, prepared by UNESCO's Secretariat with the participation of experts from various countries, entitled "Trends in the Development of Environmental Education: Concepts and Basic Problems". That document was discussed at an inter-governmental conference held in Tbilisi (USSR) in October 1977.

The reduction of international tensions makes possible a further normalisation of the political climate throughout the world, and by strengthening mutual confidence among states it opens new possibilities for extending international co-operation in protecting the environment. A further development of that co-operation is envisaged in the provisions and understandings embodied in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, at which the Soviet Union proposed that All-European conferences be held on cooperation in protecting the environment, and problems of transport and power engineering. As a further development of the ideas of the Final Act the first such highlevel conference was held in Geneva in November 1979, under the aegis of the UN Economic Commission for Europe. It was concerned with problems of environmental protection. Representatives of the United States and Canada as well as of European countries participated in the work of that conference, which approved three important documents: a convention concerning transborder air pollution over large distances and a corresponding resolution, as well as a declaration on low-waste and waste-free technologies and the utilisation of waste products. The convention contains a list of measures designed to reduce movements of air pollutants across the borders of European states. The corresponding resolution notes that the countries participating in the convention resolve to en-

courage co-operation in the problem areas covered by the convention even before it conies into force. They define their task as a limitation and, whenever possible, a gradual reduction and prevention of air pollution. The third document---the declaration---contains a summary of recommendations relating to the development and introduction of waste-free technologies which will make it possible to avoid harming the environment and to utilise natural resources, including energy resources, rationally.

Such measures make it even more evident that solutions to the problems of protecting and improving the environment and of a rational utilisation of natural resources and also of other global problems emerging through man's interaction witli nature are closely linked to the need to preserve peace throughout the world and to bring about a general and complete disarmament. These problems cannot be solved in a setting in which the arms race is taking place and new types of weapon systems are being developed, whose application could be fatal for all life on our planet. It is only within the framework of a general peace and disarmament and in the context of a progressive social, scientific and technological development taken as one whole that an effective solution of the mansociety problem can be solved for the sake of all of mankind and in the interests of its future.

Such are the prospects which define the dimensions of a constructive scientific and social strategy to be developed for solving this major problem and for its practical implementation on a global scale. In the words of V. 1. Vernadsky, an outstanding Soviet scientist who devoted his entire life to the problem of man's interaction with nature,

``The thoughts and efforts of mankind are now confronted by the problem of reconstructing the biosphere in the interests of a humanity that is liberated in its thinking and that appears as a single entity." 32

Only then can nature continue to serve as a basis lor the future of human civilisation.

The prospect of solving the problem confronting mankind calls for a further development, changes in both the world and man---his production and labour activities, his way of life, and his consciousness (including his at-

iHndo to nature). Modern man must develop a harmonious relation to nature, understand the processes through which it develops, and make use of them wisely in ways that contribute to a greater richness and to the humanisation of nature to which Marx referred. In writing of that future time when man will actively and consciously construct interactions with the natural environment on a scientific as well as humanistic basis in the interests of all of mankind he observed that

``Freedom in this field can only consist in ... the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature, and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature." ³³ But nature's contribution to man's future, however, is closely linked to a wider complex of global problems. And one of them concerns man's interaction not only with his environment but with mankind itself, of whom he is a part as a member of the Homo Sapiens species. The demographic processes that take place in this area constitute the particular reality whose trends must be analysed in order to consider the prospects of mankind.

~^^1^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 276

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 298.

~^^3^^ B. Maklyarsky, Ekologichesky bumerang: klassovlye aspekty problem;/ okhrany okruzhayashchei sredy (An Ecological Boomerang: Class Aspects of the Problem of Environmental Protection), Mezhdunarodniye Otnosheniya Publishers, Moscow.

~^^4^^ 0. Dreyer, B. Los, Ekologicheskiye problem;/ razvivayushchikhsya strati (Ecological Problems of the Developing Countries), Znaniye Publishprs, Moscow, 1979.

~^^5^^ Economic ct politiqne, January 1979, p. 36.

~^^6^^ Tierry de Month-rial. L'energie: le compte a reboars, Rapport an Club de Rome, Lattes, 1978.

^^7^^ Sotsializm i okhrana okrnzhaynshchci sredy. Pravo I npravlenii/c v stranakh-chlenakh SEV (Socialism and Environmental Protection. Law and Management in the CMEA Member States), Yuridicheskaya Literatura Publishers, Moscow, 1979.

~^^8^^ It is expected that by the year 2000 the share of nuclear fuel in the composition of tbe world's fuel balance of power stations will have rencbed 45 per cent, and 60 per cent by the year 2020.

~^^9^^ A. Alexandrov, "Scientific and Technological Progress and Nuclear Power Engineering", World Marxist Review, June 1979,

Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 18-19.

~^^10^^ Ibid., p. 19.

~^^11^^ Ibid., p. 19.

~^^12^^ It is considered probable that already by the year 2000 extremely high capacity power stations will have been constructed that will be based on the principle of thermonuclear reactions.

^K) 1. Frolov, "Filosoiiya globalnykh problem" (Philosophy of Global Problems), Voprosy filosofii, No. 2, 1980.

~^^14^^ .lean Dorst, Avant que nature, nicure. Pour unc. ecologie politique, Neuchatel, Delachaux et Niestle, 1970.

~^^15^^ Oliver S. Owen, Natural Resource Conservation: an Ecological Approach, Macmillan, New York, 1971.

~^^16^^ K. Montague and P. Montague, No World Without End. The Threats to Our Biosphere, Pulman, New York, 1976.

~^^17^^ Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle. Nature, Man and Technology, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972.

nology, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972.

~^^18^^ Barry Commoner, The Cloning Circle, Nature, Man and Technology, Alfred A. Knopf, N. Y., 1972, p. 178.

~^^19^^ Ibid., p. 192.

~^^20^^ Ibid., p. 195.

~^^21^^ Ibid., p. 287.

~^^22^^ Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduavd Pestel, Mankind al the Turning Point. The Second Report to the Club of Rome, E. P. Button and Co., Inc., New York, 1974, p. XL

^2:1 Alan Gregg, "A Medical Aspect of the Population Problem'', Science, Vol. 121, No. 3150 1955, p. 682.

~^^24^^ E. Laszlo. et al., Goals for Mankind. A Report to the Club oj Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community, E. P. Button, New York, 1977, p. XV.

~^^25^^ Aurelio Peccei, The Human Quality, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Paris, 1977, pp. XI, 188-204.

~^^20^^ B. L. Meadows, Dynamics oj Growth in a Finite World, Cambridge, 1974, pp. 372-73.

~^^27^^ In the view of the group headed by Wassily Leontief, by the end of the century environmental protection will call for yearly contributions from the world's industrial countries amounting to 1.4-1.9 per cent of their gross social product and 5-8 per cent of their capital investments, while the corresponding figures for developing countries are 0.5-0.9 per cent of their gross product and 2.4 per cent of their capital investments.

~^^28^^ K Marx/F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 39, Bietz Vorlag, Berlin, 1973, S. 36.

~^^29^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 173.

~^^30^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The German Ideology", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 44.

~^^31^^ "Marx to Engels in Manchester, April 30, 1868", in Marx, Engels, Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 190.

~^^32^^ V. I. Vernadsky, "Neskolko slov o noosfere" (A Few Words Concerning the Noosphcre), in Uspekhi sovremennoi biologii ( Bevelopments in Modern Biology), Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Moscow, 1944 (in Russian).

~^^33^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, p. 820.

Chapter 111

200,000 years ago, 5 million 60,000 years ago and 500 million .100 years ago. This figure had increased to 1 billion by 1860, 2 billion by 1930, 3.0 billion by 1970 and is currently more than 4 billion persons. In short, Ihe world's population increased from 2.5 to 4 billion persons between 1950 and 1975. According to optimal demographic forecasts of experts, however, certain changes will take place in average rates of population growth in the 1980s, and they will probably decline from 1.8 per cent at the present to 1.5 per cent by the end of the century. This expected reduction will take place largely due to the decreasing birth rates in developing countries. This is expected to reduce the rates of population growth that are observed in these countries from 2.2 per cent today to 1.8 per cent in the year 2000. That reduction will also be partly attributable to an expected decline in rates of growth in industrial countries, namely from 0.74 per cent today to approximately 0.55 per cent.

In spite of the fact that a decline in the rate of growth of the planet's population has now begun to lake place. that population will have increased by 2.26 billion persons by the year 2000, that is, by 50 per cent, and it will then constitute 6.35 billion persons. In other words, the population will increase by as much during the last 25 years of the twentieth century as it has increased during the first 1,950 years of the new era. Nearly 90 per cent of this growth in population will take place in developing countries, where population willl grow four times more rapidly than in industrial countries. As a result, assuming the continuation of the existing differences in living standards, 78 per cent of the planet's population will live in insufficiently provided regions of the planet in the year 2000, instead of 68 per cent in 1950.

All this serves to produce a tense demographic situation at the threshold of the third millennium. In that connection many specialists believe that there exists a certain limit to the size of population (it is sometimes estimated at 10 billion persons), beyond which a threat to the very existence of mankind appears as a result of the depletion of all types of vital resources. But other calculations suggest that 40-50 billion persons can live on Earth in a normal way, provided food production everywhere attains the levels that exist in industrial countries today.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM TODAY AND TOMORROW

Wo have seen that all global models relating to the future that include such variables as growth in production activities, depletion of natural resources, and increasing environmental pollution, also consider changes that take place in population dynamics, that is, in the number of people living on Earth. Demographic processes have thus become essential elements in the general forecasts that relate to mankind's future. What are the principles and trends that we find operating in that sphere, and what can we expect by the year 2000 and beyond?

1. Population Growth as a Global Problem: Trends, Consequences, Prospects

The current social interest in demographic problems is attributable to the unprecedented demographic shifts that have taken place during the past 100-150 years, whose historical consequences are global in scope. Demographic conditions have changed radically and will never be again what they were in the past. The scope and significance of these shifts is still insufficiently recognised both in scientific research and by public opinion. And yet new relationships are identified each year between the economic, sociopolitical and cultural development of individual countries and their demographic problems.

This is vividly illustrated by the following figures. There were approximately 1 million persons on the earth about

15!)

How will this influence environmental pollution and the depletion of energy resources? Will not catastrophic limits be attained in this respect? Will we not find ourselves in a "vicious circle", from which there is no way out? These are the truly perplexing questions that are confronting mankind today with increasing urgency. But in this case the answer to the question: "To be or not to be?" does not completely depend on mankind itself: it is also associated with nature's objective processes that may easily and indifferently (this brings to mind Pushkin's words concerning "indifferent nature's eternal radiance") destroy the very products that it has itself created with such ef- i forts and seeming ``concern'', namely life and the human mind. But on the other hand there seems to be nothing lyrical in the demographic dimensions of man's prospects. 1 It is not nature alone, moreover, that will determine mankind's fate, but its forms of social organisation, which will determine the forms of mankind's interaction with nature.

We now turn to the basic question in the scientific analysis of the demographic problem, namely the essence of the problem and ways of solving it. Here we are confronted witii a number of complex problems whose formulation calls for closer attention.

The reproduction of population is usually viewed as a i biosocial process. This refers to the fact that while the ! physiological mechanism for man's proliferation is created by nature and is governed by its laws, the social forms of ^! existence of individuals also influence their reproduction, in the animal world there exists a mechanism shaped by natural selection to regulate reproduction at a supra-- organism level relating to the population as a whole. It brings tiie reproduction activities of individual members of the species in accord with the ``interests'' of the population as a whole. Such a regulation of reproduction at a supra-- individual level, that is, at the level of the population as a whole, exists among humans as well, although the corresponding mechanisms appear to differ. Basically, however, regulation mechanisms derive from specific economic and socio-cultural processes and standards.

An important aspect of demographic processes is that the quantitative characteristics that reflect particular aspects of these processes always represent aggregated, sum-

niary indicators, that reflect a multitude of factors: biological, social, cultural, ethical, ethnic, socio-psychological, etc. But is it also possible to identify certain historical types of demographic reproduction, and if so, what are the particular factors that influence their specific characteristics most? Naturally we are especially interested in the current mode of population reproduction, which emerged following the destruction of feudal and pre-feudal social relations. The overcoming of the orientation on `` traditions'', that characterised the cultures of all pre-- capitalist societies, and a transition from rigidly determined behaviour to a freedom of individual choice that extends to all aspects of human life has also radically changed the mechanism that regulates the population's reproduction. This places the problem of interaction between individuals of society in relation to the demographic process in a new perspective.

In evaluationg the nature of these changes many researchers assume that unlike in earlier stages of history, when a major role in production was played by such characteristics of the population as its size, age and sex, today, when it is the professional and educational structure of the population that plays a decisive role in production activities, there is a qualitative leap that is sometimes called the demographic transition, or even the demographic revolution. A distinctive feature of that process is an overcoming of a certain parallelism between demographic and socio-economic development that existed in the past. This concerns qualitative changes in mortality and in birth rates. In the view of the many demographers who argue in support of the idea of a demographic revolution, its first phase is a transformation in mortality rates which is then followed by a similar transformation in birth rates. In the words of A. G. Vishnevsky, for example,

``Each of these phases is characterised by fundamental qualitative shifts in the systems that exercise social control over mortality rates and birth rates and then by corresponding quantitative changes, that is, by a decline in each. The second phase usually begins after a more or less prolonged period of time. During that time a declining mortality is matched by a high birth rate, and, as a result, population growth increases rapidly, even by comparison with

11-01743

the already accelerated growth that often precedes the demographic revolution. That acceleration continues until the second phase of the demographic revolution begins. At that time the acceleration in population growth ceases, and to the extent that declining birth rates 'catch up' with declining mortality (and sometimes overtake it), population growth itself declines. The subsequent dynamics of population size (following the completion of the demographic revolution) depends on factors that are not associated with the transition to the modern type of population reproduction, but is governed by principles that are characteristic of that mode itself." ⁱ

The asynchronous character of the processes that result in a reduced mortality and birth rate has produced the so-called demographic explosions, whose precise dimensions depend on the concrete situations within which the demographic revolution proceeds.

Incidentally some researchers consider the term " demographic revolution" itself inappropriate in referring to the current stage of demographic processes at the global level, since in the case of developing countries the qualitative changes in the dynamics of mortality that take place barely influence the population's behaviour in regard to birth rates. They view the term "demographic transition" as more suitable, since it reflects more accurately the existing stage of population dynamics as it is influenced by socio-economic development.^^2^^ That demographic transition depends on such factors as rates of industrial development, urbanisation, growth in the standard of living, the development of health services, social services and education, and the level of emancipation of women.

The task is to evaluate the significance of each of these mutually interacting factors within the overall system that they constitute. That presupposes a scientific understanding of the fundamental methodological principles underlying the general theory of population. Here, too, a Marxist position illustrates its very great heuristic effectiveness, for it makes it possible to define in a more comprehensive and many-sided way than other conceptions the essence of the overall demographic problem, as well as relations among tts individual aspects and the significance of each.

As they turn to this complicated set of questions Marxist researchers base their point of departure on the proposition that population, viewed as a self-reproducing totality of persons, is both an outcome and a condition for social development.^^3^^ Because it is a social phenomenon, the growth and development of population is closely associated with the economic relationships prevailing in a society, the character of its division of labour, and its forms of ownership and class structure. Marx noted:

``Population is an abstraction if, for example, one disregards the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn remain empty terms if one does not know the factors on which they depend..." ⁴ According to Marx these foundations refer to a "... to' tality comprising many determinations and relations",⁵ ' that encompass economic, political, national, cultural, religious, ethical, family and other relationships.

Marxism emphasises the leading role of economic relations, the level of development of productive forces and the mode of production in demographic processes.^^8^^ But it by no means reduces them to these relations alone, as some of its opponents have asserted. In disproving such assertions Engels noted:

``According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. .. Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis a vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place, or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction.''~^^7^^

Marxists view demographic processes in a way that includes a variety of "elements involved in the interaction", while emphasising the role of the main element, i.e., the economic factor. Accordingly the demographic problem, which is an integrated problem, is subdivided for purposes

11*

of scientific analysis in Ways that identify a number of aspects that are studied by specific disciplines.

Above all the general sociological, socio-philosophic and political-economic foundations and aspects of the general theory of population are identified. This refers to studies of demographic processes from the point of view of the governing principles of the general theory of social and historical development, divisions of labour, property relations, and of the division of society into classes. The character and specific features of social relations are also taken into account, as is the extent to which specific forms of democracy are developed, the status and rights of individuals, the level of their spiritual development, and the influence of ideological, juridical and moral norms. Similarly the political-economic aspect constitutes the central element of social relations in the broad sense of that word and governs demographic processes through production relations and the mode of production. It also influences the economics of population in a narrower sense that includes material expenditures on education, the acquisition of labour skills, health care, and social security.

Within the complex of various aspects of the demographic problem current scientific approaches also identify natural-geographic, economic, ethnographic, socio-- psychological, socio-hygienic, and finally genetic aspects. Each of them is clearly important when considering man's future from the demographic point of view. But this is precisely what makes demographic forecasts so problematic, since they require that a very large number of highly diverse factors be taken into account, some of which are objectively stochastic in nature and are subjected to continual and frequently unpredictable changes. The general principles that are identified by demographic research are therefore generally statistical in nature, that is, probabilistic, as in all other situations in which a great many diverse factors and phenomena operate. Yet by making use of the methods of mathematical statistics demographic studies are already able to produce scientific forecasts of trends in population development, and this constitutes a theoretical foundation for effective demographic policies. But the development of demographic studies as a science is proceeding. It contains many important divisions that are still in the process of being formed, and it is

therefore important to identify corresponding scientific problems. For example, according to Marx, the liberation of man from all ``natural'' relations and the emergence of a developed human personality takes place simultaneously with the emergence of the most developed social ( universal) relations.^^8^^ Unfortunately the dialectic governing interactions between individual and general factors in modern demographic processes is still insufficiently understood. Why is the demographic behaviour of persons as we observe it to be, and not different; why do they have a specific number of children and no more or less; why do they generally seek to have children, even though it is quite possible for them not to have them; in what way and to what extent are the demographic interests of each person linked to the demographic interests of all? Generally these and other questions continue to be discussed in terms of common sense rather than in a scientific language, which largely remains to be created.

The problems that we have mentioned concern an understanding of the essence and qualitative features of demographic processes. But there is also another approach to their study, namely in terms of concrete and practical aspects. We see that qualitative changes in the population's reproduction processes lead to enormous quantitative shifts and sharp declines in mortality and in birth rates. These shifts and their consequences greatly influence each individual and create a variety of practical problems that often call for immediate goal-oriented activities. For example "demographic explosions" in developing countries produce social consequences that affect not only the populations of these countries themselves but all of mankind. It may seem that rapid economic development is the main answer to rapid population growth. But this can only be modern economies, based on large-scale industry. "Demographic explosions", however, often occur precisely because the populations concerned are still too closely tied to traditional ways of living, and in terms of such factors as their culture and the status of women are still unprepared for either a regulation of birth rates within the family itself or effective labour activities in modern industrial establishments. Elements of that contradiction may be seen in many developing countries today. And, of course, for Marxists, ``solutions'' to that contra-

diction that are characterised by an exclusive emphasis on the biological and economic aspects of demographic phenomena that ignores a wider set of social aspects are inacceptable.

The need to regulate population growth is by no means a problem that is specific to developing countries alone. Particular rates of population growth greatly influence the economies, educational systems and social structures of industrial countries as well, and create complex problems associated with the redistribution of labour power among economic sectors, changes in the composition of its skills and professions, changes in age and sex composition, improvements in the training and retraining of specialists, in urbanisation processes, and many others. Here again it is necessary to consider the entire spectrum of social aspects of the demographic problem.

This does not imply an understatement of biological factors or of the consequences of historically unprecedented migrations and the resulting intermixing of human populations. Those recommendations of modern human genetics that are truly scientific will undoubtedly exert a very considerable influence on the demographic policies of the various countries of the world.

Inevitably declining mortality rates and birth rates have had important consequences for man as a biological species. Over a prolonged historical period mortality at a young age played the role of an active factor in natural selection. Now it has almost lost that role. What are the consequences? In industrial countries one now observes a growing mortality among older age groups. Many researchers attribute this to an ``artificial'' survival of less able-bodied persons at a young age (made possible by progress in medicine). A biological role is apparently also played by such factors as changes in the age at which women give birth, the frequency of pregnancies, and the fact that the proportion of first-born children in the population has been increasing.

A difficult complex of problems results from the combined effect of demographic changes and other changes in modern life, particularly those that affect young people. A physical and intellectual acceleration, on the one hand, and a longer education period and, hence, a later attainment of social maturity, on the other, produce a stage in

the life of individuals at which they are ready for sexual life but still not ready to form families. Existing social norms and social institutions protect the resulting vacuum, while life itself seeks to fill it. As a consequence, there are more and more cases of pre-marital sexual life. Naturally this gravely influences sexual ethics and leads to a reexamination of the very conception of the human family. A partial solution to this collision is provided by the apparent increase in marriages among young people in industrial countries, but it is unlikely that the larger problem may be entirely solved in this way.

Finally there is still another problem in this area, name ly that of the place in society of the "third age group". The transition to new levels of birth rates as well as of mortality results in an aging of the population and a significant increase in the proportion of older persons. This aging appears to be irreversible. Mankind will never return to its earlier age structure. But this purely quantitative shift inevitably produces changes in the position of older persons in social life. There are two aspects to that problem. One of them concerns difficulties in the adaptation of older persons to the conditions of existence that follow their retirement from work and to the resulting loss of prestige, decline in income, and absence of activities. Another concerns the influence of the growing number of older persons on social life at large at a time when it is characterised by enormous dynamism. This problem is made urgent by modern social development and calls for serious research before a correct social strategy can be found.

Unfortunately discussions of many of these problems are sometimes associated with an unnecessary element of sensationalism. Perhaps this is partly unavoidable, since demographic problems are of vital importance to all and in one way or another concern each of the Earth's inhabitants. Nevertheless it would probably be best to avoid this, whenever possible, and to be guided by a sober scientific approach and by the scientific discussions that are taking place throughout the world in which advocates of a variety of demographic conceptions participate, including Marxist scientists. These discussions will help understand the essence of demographic processes and of trends in their development more fully and in a more diversified

manner and evaluate more accurately their possible social consequences and influence on the prospects for mankind.

2. In Search of New Approaches and Methods for Solving the Demographic Problem: Critiques of Malthusianism, "Demographic Nihilism" and Abstract Humanistic Optimism

In developing a scientific approach to the demographic aspects of mankind's future one encounters a diversity of mutually exclusive conceptions, solutions and proposals, many of which are extremely tenacious, in spite of their clearly unscientific or even anti-scientific character. Above all, this is true of Malthusianism. The founder of that approach was an English priest, Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 produced a study that attracted much attention, and that was entitled An Essay on the Principle of Population. Since that time, while Malthusian doctrines have underwent modifications, depending on historical conditions and on the state of development of scientific thought, they have not vanished from either the historical or the scientific stage.

In his work Malthus asserted that he had discovered the source and cause of all human suffering, namely, "the natural law of absolute overpopulation", which operates "in every age and in every state in which man has existed or does now exist".~^^9^^ According to that ``law'', population is presumed to grow at such rates that if not held back by some kind of impediments it doubles every twentyfive years and thus grows in accordance with a geometric progression, while the means of existence, it is asserted, even under the most favourable conditions for man's labour activities, never grow more rapidly than in accordance with an arithmetic progression. Therefore, Malthus concluded, a man who appears on land that is already occupied by other persons does not have any right to require any food for himself, for he is an unwanted

person. There is no setting for him at nature's feast. Nature orders him to go away and itself takes measures to ensure that its orders be carried out: motivated by a " rational love for man" it removes "uninvited guests" who continue to approach a table in which all places are already occupied.

Both Malthus and his modern followers---the neo-- Malthusians---propose that man should not struggle against his "eternal law of nature" but on the contrary, should contribute to its most ``harmonious'' manifestation. As is well known, Malthus himself recommended mankind to take measures to reduce what he viewed as an excessive birth rate by way of sexual continence. In this respect contemporary Malthusians have proceeded much further than did their predecessor: they propose not only reliance on ``moral'' factors but reducing the world's population artificially through a wide reliance on such means as wars, disease, the sterilisation of "genetically undesirable" individuals, accelerating the death of old persons, and regulating birth rates with the help of ``licenses''.

Above all, modern Malthusians seek support in such sociological conceptions as social Darwinism, racism, and geopolitics. By applying laws of nature to social life they attribute the causes of war, for example, to the eternal law of "struggle for survival", which, it is asserted, operates in human society as well, and to the eternal struggle of ``higher'' and ``lower'' races. References are also made to a rejuvenated form of such fascist conceptions as that of "living space" (geopolitics). For example in his notorious book entitled Human Fertility. A Modern Dilemma an American geneticist, Robert Cook, draws a frightening picture of a dismal problem of overpopulation and expresses a great concern with the decline in the "struggle for survival" that has occurred as a result of progress in science and medicine. That struggle, in his view, is an inherent characteristic of human society. This has resulted in a "genetic erosion" of mankind, because persons who are "genetically inferior" have begun to survive and to leave a progeny. A similar notoriety attaches to the works of William Vogt entitled Road to Survival, and People! Challenge to Survival.

It is sometimes believed that such anti-human conceptions represept a stage that has passed. In fact, however,

this is far from being the case. It is simply that contemporary neo-Malthusianism has now taken past experience into account and now camouflages itself more cleverly and more thoroughly. Although it sometimes even relies on a humanistic terminology that does not alter its essence.

Unfortunately such ideas are sometimes defended by relatively prominent scientists---not demographers, but specialists in other scientific disciplines. For example in a work entitled Chance and Necessity^^10^^ the biologist Jacques Monod considers the appearance of man as a thinking being and offers a cursory survey of major stages in man's spiritual evolution. He asserts that initially one of its basic factors was a process of selection on the basis of an intra-species struggle, and that this expressed itself in wars among races and tribes. He believes that the operation of selection contributed to the dissemination of races that were "more gifted in terms of reason, imagination, will-power, and self-esteem". Monod agrees with an anticipated criticism of his scheme which, he agrees, is `` simplified''. Nevertheless he proceeds from the point of view that man's cultural evolution influenced not only his physical evolution but also that of his genome (the aggregate of genes) until this produced its full separation from other processes. While selection continues to operate in modern society it no longer favours the "survival of the ablest", Monod observes with regret, (statistical data reveals a lack of correspondence between coefficients of intelligence and the average number of children). This constitutes a danger, in his view, since the highest genetic potential may be concentrated among a declining number of persons. Monod believes that attempts to protect the human race from its threatened degradation with the help of molecular-biological operations on the genome and to enrich man's heredity with new properties are doomed to fail: at the present time the microscopic size of the genome does not permit such manipulations, nor will this be possible in the future. Only a rigorous and planned selection, he believes, can save mankind and make it possible for it to ``improve'' its genetic potential.

A similar position is expressed by Julian Huxley. In a chapter of his The Human Crisis entitled "Problems of World Population" he discusses the world's ``surplus'' population, that constitutes a greater danger in his opinion

than does nuclear war, since demographic explosions are themselves associated with new wars. He states that

``the demand for Lebensraum has repeatedly been made the excuse for aggressive war. We saw it in Germany, we saw it in Italy, we saw it in Japan, and I am sure that it was one of the reasons behind China's invasion of Tibet. It will become an increasing threat to peace if population continues to build up at its present rate." ^u He then adds that the world's overpopulation

``will inevitably cause overpopulated countries to become increasingly authoritarian in practice or even overtly and deliberately. Overpopulation tends to breed dictatorship",^^12^^

degradation of human personality and of human society as a whole. In his argumentation Huxley refers to Malthus and to his ``law'' of population growth, recognising it as a ``classical'' theory whose validity is increasingly evident

today.

A similar rehabilitation of Malthus is presented by J. Pages. In the work entitled Birth Control in France and Other Countries she seeks to defend Malthus from. . . socialists and Marxists.ⁱ³ Pages associates the appearance of Malthusianism with the French Revolution and views Malthus as the bearer of a "new civilisation". In her opinion, because it reflects a new civilisation, the ideology of neo-Malthusianism should be embodied in legislation.

A different objective and a different perspective on these problems are expressed in the works of Ernst Mayr, who seeks to apply a humanistic "principle of equality", which he defines as "equal status before the law and equal status in human social relations in spite of genetic differences". ^u Interpreting freedom as an "equality of opportunities" and a diversity of such opportunities as well as tolerance towards "those who do meet the standards" Mayr nevertheless makes evident the abstract character of the humanism that he defends. It was already noted earlier how important it is to refer to concrete social contexts in which real forms of a humanistic "principle of equality" are embodied.

Nevertheless Mayr's thought that the influence of genetics on intellect and its relation lo fertility is a statistical phenomenon marked by a very low correlation, and that

w

the low fertility of persons of high intelligence that is currently observed is explained by social rather than biological factors that include relations within the family appears to be quite persuasive. On the other hand his interpretation of social factors is extremely abstract and in many ways Utopian in that context as well. It is limited to discussions of taxation policy as well as a number of administrative rules and of government laws that are currently directed in Mayr's view "against the most gifted members of the community".^^15^^ In calling for a struggle "for sense and sanity in population policy" he agrees with those who propose that the "right to an unlimited procreation should be removed from man's freedoms".^^16^^ It is not clear, however, who will carry out such a "sensible policy" and on what social basis. It is also worth considering whether its implementation in societies that are divided into antagonistic classes will not lead to a still greater usurpation of privileges in this regard as well.

Mayr does not consider such questions, and it is this, in our opinion, which brings him to an almost apocalyptic conclusion concerning a presumed overpopulation catastrophe threatening mankind. Yet even though he does not point to effective measures for avoiding it, his position is quite distant from neo-Malthusian ``solutions'' of the demographic problem, in which the very basis of analysis, namely the "eternal law of absolute overpopulation", is anti-scientific and false. The facts indicate that currently available means of existence on Earth can easily feed a population much more numerous than it is at present. In replying to Malthus' assertion to the effect that there is no place for "surplus persons" at "nature's great feast", K. Timiryazev, a Russian scientist, had already asked: "But how many servings are being given to those who are seated at this feast, and would it not be more just if, before preventing anyone from joining it, a possibly more equitable distribution of available dishes be carried out? And then there arises a second question: Is it actually true that all the gifts that nature can yield to man are already placed on that table?''

These questions raised by a humanist scientist point to the very essence of Malthusianism. Scientific answers to those questions are fatal to that pseudo-theory. The point is that in a number of countries the realistic possibilities

that are appearing before mankind today for obtaining means of existence are meeting obstacles Llial are far from being ``natural''. They are of a social nature and derive from relations based on private property and on the exploitative character of prevailing mode of production, under which the development of means of production is governed not by the actual needs of individuals but by their effective demand and by the profit that the owner of means of production derives from particular products. Famine and the poverty of workers are explained by social causes rather than by the ``eternal'', "natural laws" to which Malthusians refer, or ``natural'' shortages of food products. Marx wrote that

"utter baseness is a distinctive trait of Malthus . . . in the cautious, not radical, conclusions which he draws from scientific premises".^^17^^

This ``baseness'' is especially evident when we consider the current situation with regard to the world's food problems and compare data on consumption in industrial capitalist countries and in developing countries that were earlier in a state of colonial dependence on the former. It is characteristic that here again modern Malthusians seek to prove the correctness of ``Malthus' law" by attributing to it the economic difficulties of developing countries, which are asserted to have developed as a result of "demographic explosions". They neglect those causes that are associated with their level of socio-economic development. Accordingly the measures that they propose to eliminate that gap are essentially demographic and relate to an artificial reduction in birth rates through sterilisation and medical campaigns. In this connection Lenin observed: "Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neoMalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.''~^^18^^

Marxism pursues a consistent struggle against that "reactionary and cowardly theory" in all its social aspects and applications, and particularly in explaining the ima-

ginary problems of "surplus people". In Capital, Marx has shown the falsity of the thesis concerning an "absolute overpopulation", behind which one finds the relative overpopulation that exists under capitalism, the existence of a large number of fully or partly unemployed persons, a "reserve army of labour" that continues to increase as production technology and productivity increase further, thus making possible a still more intense exploitation of workers. Marx has shown that this refers not to some ``eternal'' law of overpopulation but to a law that is inherent in capitalism. That law of population changes together with changes in social organisation and with the overcoming of production relations based on private ownership.

The socialist system of economy not only precludes absolute overpopulation (which does not exist under capitalism either) but relative overpopulation as well. The development of production activities under socialism does not lead to the appearance of ``surplus'' persons (not engaged in production) since producers who are freed from current responsibilities through technological progress find applications for their labour in other areas of production that continually expand in serving a maximal satisfaction of the growing needs of workers. Socialist society thus has its own specific population laws and these express themselves still more fully in the course of its movement towards communism. In contrast to the pessimistic forecasts of Malthusian defenders of bourgeois society socialism presents a picture that is full of optimism and faith in the future.

That optimism, which derives from an assertion of real humanism, has nothing in common with abstract-- humanistic utopianism and with "demographic nihilism", which do not see any problems at all in the growth of population and assume that everything will "come right in the end" independently of our own efforts. The problem of population growth does, of course, exist and one must be truly blind not to see its acuteness. But this does not offer grounds for being a pessimist, and that is why we cannot accept the Malthusian ``recipes'' for solving it and must concern ourselves instead with creating conditions that will be favourable to a many-sided and happy life for new generations.

This does not imply that population growth should be abandoned to the play of chance. That question should be considered sensibly, with due consideration of real factors that operate in today's world rather than only in the light of abstract assumptions, as is the case, for instance, with the global models of the future considered earlier. It is not fortuitous that D. Meadows, for example, turns to Malthusianism once again and willingly accepts comparisons between his own works and the ideas of Malthus. "We are indeed Malthusians", he writes. " Malthusians see only rising populations; destruction of the land, extinct species, urban deterioration, and increasing gaps between the rich and the poor." ¹⁹ That position has been reflected in the work of Meadows and his coauthors entitled Limits to Growth, where, as we have seen, a cessation of population growth is proposed as one of the conditions for saving mankind from a catastrophe.

As for the project of M. Mesarovich and E. Pestel entitled Mankind at the Turning Point, they propose, in accordance with the concept of "organic growth", a different strategy that is not reducible to measures for decreasing population growth only. The.y view that problem primarily as one that relates to the problem of food resources in the "world system", and seek to identify an acceptable strategy for resolving it by examining a number of alternatives. Eventually they conclude that the conflicts that may develop because of insufficient global food resources appear to be even more far reaching than the ecological ones and others. These cannot be resolved through economic measures alone and all aspects of social and individual activities should be taken into account.

But we have already seen to what these aspects of social and individual activities eventually refer and noted that they generally do not extend beyond good intentions and moral and ethical appeals addressed to mankind itself. In the opinion of Mesarovich and Pestel "the only possible" solution for the world food situation calls for: 1) a global approach to the problem; 2) assistance with capital investments, which is preferable to assistance with goods, except food products; 3) a balanced economic development for all regions; 4) an effective policy of population control; 5) a worldwide distribution of various in-

dustrial sectors resulting in a truly global economic system.

They do not indicate, however, how these measures can be carried out in practice with due account of the social and political realities of the modern world. They merely call for changes in ways of living, a voluntary renunciation of excessive material wealth in industrial countries, and a conscious adoption of simpler ways of life in order that persons living in undeveloped regions may merely survive. In their opinion the world's economic and technical growth, at least in terms of its present orientation, since there exist weakly developed regions, is inherently incompatible with mankind's social, moral, organisational and scientific growth. They assume that a policy of holding back economic growth and technical development or else of changing its present directions will lead to a moral revival as a necessary condition for mankind's subsequent "organic growth''.

A similar reduction of the demographic problem primarily to its moral aspects is clearly evident in a study by R.L. Shinn, an American sociologist, entitled " Population and the Dignity of Man".^^20^^ In it the author asserts explicitly that the "demographic explosion" is a moral problem. He raises the need to re-examine ethical traditions, symbols of prestige, political measures, and family traditions and to replace the old ethics by a new one.

Much attention is also given to the demographic problem in the study of H. Kahn, W. Brown, and L. Martel entitled The Next 200 Years. The authors emphatically reject the neo-Malthusian thesis concerning a rate of population growth that exceeds the development of food supplies and leads to a presumed inevitable famine as mankind's eventual fate. They reject the conception of "zero growth" and examine ``scenarios'' that envisage a gradual reduction in rates of population growth and its eventual stabilisation at a level of 15 billion persons, as well as a more rapid growth in the supply of food products attributable to scientific and technical progress and to an economic development that results in the creation of `` superindustrial'' and ``post-industrial'' economies.

The authors envisage the construction of floating ocean and underwater industrial complexes on the earth as well as the migration of people into outer space. Above all, how-

ever, they rely on an economic and demographic `` transition'' and on a transformation of ``poor'' countries into ``rich'' countries, without, however, analysing concrete causes and factors that may produce such a ``transition'', but emphasising instead corresponding expectations regarding the scientific and technical as well as the economic aspects of the problem.

Yet such factors will not ``operate'' effectively in individual capitalist countries until a well-developed infrastruc* ture has been established that makes it possible to implement achievements in science and technology. This requires substantial changes in the social structure of capitalism itself and a transition to socialism and communism. Today that conclusion is becoming increasingly widespread among those who turn to the problem of population. This illustrates the fruitfulness and effectiveness of a Marxist approach to the problem, for as we have seen that conclusion follows directly from such an approach. The Marxist approach bases its extrapolations into the future on the real practice of socialist countries today.

3. A Scientific and

Humanistic Approach

to the Problem of Population

and to Its Regulation:

a Demographic Policy

Adapted to Mankind's Future

While the positions of Marxist researchers are marked by some diversity that occasionally leads to sharp discussions, they clearly outline an approach to the population problem and to its regulation that combines both social and humanistic aspects in an integral manner. It is only through an integrated scientific and humanistic approach that the problem of regulating population growth may be carried into the sphere of specific demographic policies.

While rejecting Malthusianism (or else formally `` recognising'' it but assigning to it an altogether different meaning, and occasionally simply accepting the idea of regulating population growth which is not present in Malthus) many researchers express support for an active and

12-01743

effective demographic policy and for a conscious regulation of demographic processes. They emphasise, however, that while such a policy may be associated with specific constraints on the freedom and right of individuals to a large number of children, it should not harm human dignity. In the words of R. L. Shinn (in his Population and Dignity of Man), the now medicine must not be worse than the affliction itself.

Of course, a decisive role will be played not only by the forms in which an active demographic policy will be carried out, but its relations to wider processes of socioeconomic development, to specific features of social organisation in particular countries, and to prevailing ideologies and traditions. This is why even though a certain regulation of population growth is practiced today in many industrial capitalist countries and also capitalist-oriented developing countries, it does not produce the required effect because the antagonisms of a structure based on private ownership create many obstacles and costs. An integral combination of scientific and humanistic approaches to demographic policy can be achieved only under socialism, which thus opens new channels into the future for all mankind in this respect as well.^^21^^

In the Soviet Union the operation of socialist socioeconomic factors, a continual improvement in living conditions, the existence of opportunities to work for all, and the development of a system of social security and health services, have produced a qualitative change in the composition of the population. The incidence of disease has declined, as has mortality, and the average life expectancy has increased. The natural rate of growth of the population continues to be approximately one per cent per year, i.e., it is higher than in such industrial capitalist countries as the United States, Britain, and France. At the same time, particularly in recent years, a number of negative demographic trends have also become evident. These include an increase in the age coefficients of mortality among the male population, a sharp decline in birth rates in a number of regions, and unfavourable prospects in supplying labour resources. Soviet demographers explain this in terms of a number of specific causes, including the consequences of the Second World War, during which the Soviet people have lost 20 million persons, intensive

urbanisation processes, and the increased employment of women in social production activities.

These are the factors that define the need for developing and implementing an effective demographic policy in the USSR that envisages an extended and even reproduction of the population as well as an improvement in its composition and its qualitative indicators through the country's general socio-economic development and further growth in the Soviet people's material welfare. As has been emphasised by the 25th Congress of the CPSU the development of an effective demographic policy constitutes an important task for an entire complex of natural and social sciences. This has stimulated research activities and discussions concerned with finding the direct object of demographic policy: should this be the processes of birthrate, mortality, marriage, divorce, etc., themselves, or should these be merely viewed as elements deriving from the wider complex of factors relating to the way of life and working conditions of individuals, whose changes will also lead to changes in demographic processes? Many Soviet demographers view that question as a key to demographic policy itself. The findings of Soviet demographers will doubtless contribute to a further development of both the scientific and humanistic foundations of an effective demographic policy in the Soviet Union.

A scientific as well as a humane approach to demographic policy is embodied and elaborated in the USSR's new Constitution, in which new prospects for such a policy are presented and new research activities, including theoretical research, are encouraged. Above all, the USSR's Constitution guarantees the legal foundations of scientific and humanistic policies, namely the equality of all citizens before the law,

``without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status" (Article 34). A separate article states that women and men have equal rights.

``Exercise of these rights is ensured by according women equal access with men to education and vocational and professional training, equal opportunities in employment, remuneration, and promotion,

J2*

and in social and political, and cultural activity, and

by special labour and health protection measures for

women; by providing conditions enabling mothers to

work; by legal protection, and material and moral

support for mothers and children, including paid

leaves and other benefits for expectant mothers and

mothers, and gradual reduction of working time for

mothers with small children" (Article 35).

It is well known that the USSR's demographic policy

seeks to increase birth rates. In recent years corresponding

measures include the payment of subsidies for children in

the case of families receiving less than 50 rubles per

month per family member, increases in the period of

paid leaves during the illness of children, and payments

during pregnancy and birth that are equal to full normal

wages, irrespective of the length of service.

The USSR's Constitution provides for a system of measures that contribute to the achievement of the objectives of a socialist demographic policy in which the interests of individuals are combined with those of society. While citizens possess a full range of socio-economic and political and personal rights and freedoms their utilisation must not harm the interests of society and of the state, nor rights of other citizens (Article 39). They have a right to work, including the right to choose a profession, a right to rest, to housing, and education, as well as a right to health care which

``is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environments; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life" (Article 42).

According to the USSR's Constitution, the family is under the protection of the state. Marriages are based on the voluntary consent of women and men; and the husband and wife are fully equal in family relations. The Constitution states that

``the state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance" (Article 53).

At the same time the USSR's Constitution specifies the obligation of citizens

``to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society. Children are obliged to care for their parents and help them" (Article 66).

New tasks in solving concrete problems related to implementing an effective demographic policy in the USSR were set by the 26th Congress of the CPSU. The Congress emphasised that the principal way of solving the recently aggravated problems of population was to take greater care of families, newly-weds, and primarily of women. During the past five-year period (1976-1980), a number of measures was taken for improving the conditions of working women, family recreation, and everyday household and cultural services. However, as the Congress noted, so far no noticeable improvement has taken place; broader and more effective measures are needed, and they are the ones charted in the Guidelines for the Economic and Social Development of the USSR for 1981-1985 and the Period Ending in 1990.

Immediately after the 26th Congress, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the USSR Council of Ministers adopted a resolution "On Measures for Enhancing State Aid to Families With Children", which concretises the decisions of the Congress in the sphere of demographic policy. The resolution provides for:

---starting with 1981, stagewise introduction in respective areas of the country of partially paid leaves for nursing children under one year of age for working mothers with a length of service of not less than one year, and also for women attending school or college, work being discontinued. These paid leaves would amount to 50 roubles a month in the Soviet Far East, Siberia and the

northern areas of the country, and 35 roubles a month in the other regions;

---simultaneously granting working women the right to additional non-paid leaves for nursing their children till they turn one and a half, and later two years old, the women in question retaining their continuous length of service.

Under the twelfth five-year plan (1986-1990), measures will continue to be taken for increasing the duration of and pay for leaves for looking after new-born children and infants.

The eleventh (1981-1985) and subsequent five-year periods will witness continued all-out development of networks of kindergartens and nurseries, schools and groups with extended hours, young pioneer camps and other children's institutions. The USSR State Planning Committee, the Councils of Ministers of Union Republics, and the ministries and departments of the USSR have been told that the draft plan should envisage measures for most fully satisfying the need in permanent and seasonal pre-school institutions, so as to eliminate in the immediate years their shortage in areas with high levels of female employment in social production.

Pre-school institutions or round-the-clock groups for children, on Sundays and holidays, too, should be organised in case of need.

To improve staffing of nurseries, nursery groups, nurseries-kindergartens and children's homes with skilled personnel, it has been decided that in 1981-1985 the six-hour working day and 36-day leave established for kindergarten instructors be spread to nurses employed by these institutions.

In the eleventh five-year period (1981-1985) spending on nutrition in pre-school institutions is to be raised by an average of 10-15 per cent; in addition, families whose average total income per member does not exceed 60 roubles a month will be freed from paying fees for their children in nurseries, kindergartens and boarding schools.

To provide women with more favourable conditions permitting them to combine work in social production with raising of children:

---the Council of Ministers of Union Republics and the ministries and departments of the USSR have been in-

structed to work out and take measures for widely spreading the practice of women working short hours or short weeks, on a sliding (flexible) schedule, and at home;

---beginning with 1981, to grant working women with two or more children under 12: additional three-day paid leaves (provided that the total duration of the leave does not exceed 28 calendar days); priorities to receive their annual leave in summer or some other time that suits them; the right to an additional non-paid leave of up to two weeks for nursing children, provided the administration agrees and when production conditions permit;

---to increase in 1981-1985 the duration of the paid leave for nursing sick children to 14 days, paying, unlike under the existing legislation, 50 per cent of wages for the additionally granted days.

The resolution provides for a number of measures to increase the material welfare of families where there are children, for instance:

---to introduce during the eleventh five-year period payments of extraordinary 50 rouble state allowances to mothers who either work or attend schools or colleges and have given birth to their first child, and 100 roubles for their second and the third child, the allowance for the fourth and following children remaining unchanged;

---to raise in 1981 state allowances for single mothers to 20 roubles a month per child, paying them till the child turns sixteen (or eighteen for students who receive no stipends).

As early as in 1981, additional benefits are to be established for granting old-age pensions to women with incomplete length of service, but who have raised five or more children or a child disabled from birth.

A number of measures have been planned for increasing the privileges enjoyed by families with children and newly-weds in receiving state-owned flats, and also for individual and co-operative housing construction. It has been decided to stop taxing childless newly-weds during tho first year since their marriage was registered.

It has been recognised as necessary to continue the policy of reduced state retail prices for children's commodities. The resolution also provided for raising the responsibility of the ministries and enterprises producing goods for children, and for satisfying the requirements of fami-

lies with different incomes in these items, without letting cut down production of inexpensive children's goods that are in demand.

The resolution defines the tasks for greatly improving the work of shops, public catering establishments and everyday services in order to make easier household work and reduce the time spent on domestic chores.

The resolution provides for a system of measures to protect and improve the health of pregnant women and their offspring. It is also planned to introduce additional privileges for paying for accommodations at young pioneer camps and to ensure further development of a network of rest homes and other sanitation institutions for family recreation.

Respective organisations have been instructed to increase publication of literature on demography, the family, matrimonial hygiene, upbringing of children, health improvement measures, and organisation of normal rest and recreation. They have also been instructed to intensify educational work so as to consolidate the family as a supreme moral value of socialist society.

In specifying these activities of the Soviet state that implement an effective demographic policy the USSR's Constitution in effect summarises the efforts that have already been carried out in this field and defines new tasks and objectives. This serves to develop and further improve the general principles on which a socialist demographic policy is based. Such policies assume specific forms in different socialist countries depending on their historically specific conditions, the conditions governing their socio-economic development, their cultural traditions, and their way of life.

For example the current main objective of demographic policy in Czechoslovakia is to increase natural population growth. This is closely related to the shortage of labour power that exists in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and that is why emphasis is placed on increasing birth rates. The measures that have been taken in Czechoslovakia have led to the natural rate of growth of population to increase since 1970. While 229,000 children were born that year, this figure rose to 291,000 in 1974 (the highest number of children since 1947). The number of new births per thousand persons has increased to 19.8.

This has placed Czechoslovakia in third place in Europe in terms of birth rates. It is the only European country where birth rates increase each year. This development has also reduced the rate at which the population is aging. Today nearly 51 per cent of the citizens of Czechoslovakia were born after the Second World War. These positive changes in the natural rate of growth of the country's population were made possible by a complex of measures concerned with improving the position of families with children and of newly-weds. This does not, of course, imply that the demographic situation no longer presents any problems there. In particular, demographers draw attention to the problem of family stability. The number of divorces is still relatively high. Another negative influence on demographic processes results from increasing rates of migration.

In Bulgaria all population categories---workers, peasants, and civil servants---receive monthly bonuses for children under the age of sixteen years. These bonuses are larger for additional children.

In Poland a number of decisions have been made in recent years that have substantially increased payments to working women with children and to expectant mothers. The rights of working women expecting children have been extended.

In Hungary nearly one-fifth of expenditures on social security take the form of subsidies to children, and expenditures on child care, pregnancy and birth. In 1967 the government of the Hungarian Peoples' Republic adopted a decision concerning the payment of subsidies for upbringing children under the age of three by mothers on leave from their work. During such leaves mothers retain seniority rights at their place of work.

In the German Democratic Republic mothers retain their place of work for a year after the birth of a child. Following a child's birth mothers receive their average monthly wages for a period of 26 weeks while on maternity leave. A monthly bonus of 20 marks is provided after the first two children, 50 marks for the third, 60 marks for the fourth, and 70 marks for each subsequent child. Thus a family of five children receives 2,640 marks annually in addition to their normal income. Large families are given preference with regard to housing and pay only

one-half of the rent. Since 1974 large families have also been granted discounts in purchasing clothing, furniture and household commodities.

These are some of the forms and methods employed in socialist countries to solve the population problem. But there are also wider aspects of demographic problems not only at the level of individual nations and regions but at the level of the globe as a whole. This is why socialist countries attach great importance to the international aspects of corresponding solutions.

The Soviet Union and other socialist countries participate actively in the work of international organisations concerned with problems of population and support all measures that contribute to mankind's further progress in this area. In particular, the USSR has followed with an interest and understanding the work of the World Population Conference that met in Bucharest (Rumania) in 1974, and in which delegations from more than 140 countries participated.

A world plan of action in the area of population was proposed to that conference (a draft report prepared by a working group under the leadership of Wendy Dobson). This proposed that countries that believe that their current or expected rates of population growth impede increases in their welfare consider the adoption---within the framework of socio-economic development---of demographic policies that conform to basic human rights as well as to national values and objectives. According to that plan of action, countries seeking to achieve a moderate or low rate of population growth should seek to do this through low birth rates and low death rates. Countries seeking to increase birth rates and possessing high death rates should emphasise reductions in death rates as well as, in appropriate cases, increases in birth rates and the encouragement of immigration. Because the utilisation of world resources per capita is much higher in industrial countries than in developing ones, it is proposed that industrial countries follow policies relating to population, consumption, and capital investment that would recognise the need for wider international justice.

The plan of action recognises the diversity of national objectives with regard to birth rates and does not propose any global norm in relation to the size of families. It is

recommended to all countries that whatever their general demographic objectives they respect the right of individuals to freely make their own decisions concerning the number and frequency of birth of their children in the light of full relevant knowledge and with a due sense of responsibility. It is suggested that the mortality of infants and children should be reduced through such steps as improvements in nutrition, better sanitary conditions, the protection of children's health, and the education of mothers.

The report notes that the wish of individuals to have children may be subjected to the influence of both programmes of material incentives and programmes impeding such an interest. But the adoption of such programmes or of changes in the measures that they envisage should not result in a violation of human rights. The family is recognised as society's basic unit. Accordingly, it is recommended to governments that they provide assistance to families insofar as this is possible in order that they may fulfill their social role. In particular, governments should provide for the full participation of women in their countries' educational, so cial, economic and political life on the basis of equality with men. The report emphasised that an equality of men and women in both families and society serves to improve the general quality of life. That principle should also apply to regulating the size of families. Both husband and wife should then also consider the welfare of all the other family members. Improvements in the position of women within the family and in society may contribute to a reduction in family size, when this is desired, while the possibility of planning the birth of children improves the personal status of women as well.

The report recognises that economic and social development is the major factor in solving problems of population and emphasises the need for accelerating economic growth in developing countries, noting that the entire international community should help in this regard. Detailed recommendations are also made concerning the formulation of population policies. Particular importance is attached to scientific research activities in this area and in adjoining disciplines, and, in particular, to methodological and other research, which plays an important role in formulating, evaluating and implementing population policies. Considerable

attention is also given to problems of administration, the training of personnel, and education. It is recommended that governments make use of all available means for disseminating information concerning the problems of population.

A separate section is concerned with the design and evaluation of population policies. It is recognised that each government is itself responsible for defining its policies and developing its programmes and activities relating to demographic problems as well as to economic and social progress. At the same time emphasis is placed on the important role of international co-operation based on peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.

In one of its resolutions the World Population Conference embodied the principle that "man is the world's supreme value, and each country's population is its most valuable treasure" and reaffirmed the recommendations concerning the activities in the area of population that were contained in the working group's draft report. It emphasised that a humane and effective demographic policy calls for major efforts based on human solidarity and national and international justice. The Conference expressed its strong conviction that the United Nations Organisation will be able to contribute increasingly to the resolution of the urgent problems that now confront all mankind and that it is called upon to become an effective instrument in carrying out efforts that serve the development of a more just world.

It is, of course, true that the resolution of the World Population Conference essentially refers to a number of general objectives whose implementation often presupposes substantial transformations in individual countries and regions, and especially in the socio-economic sphere. But there arc many aspects of that problem whose solution cannot be governed by any universal and eternal rules and with regard to which it is not possible to follow general, abstract, and universal models. This is especially true of demographic policy in the narrow sense, and in particular of specific methods of birth control. That problem may be solved in different forms in various countries (primarily in developing countries) but in all cases the principle of a humane approach and of solving it in the context of general problems of socio-economic development should be followed.

As we turn to the future of mankind we should proceed

with great caution in this area as well and should seek to solve only those problems that admit of no delay and to avoid everything that could eventually harm mankind's future. This was stated very well by Engels as he considered the abstract possibility of a rate of population growth that will make it necessary to limit it:

``If it should become necessary for communist society to regulate the production of men, just as it will have already regulated the production of things, then it, and it alone, will be able to do this without difficulties.''^^22^^

And that will eventually take place, here on Earth, rather than in ``settlements'' on other planets, which mankind will supposedly be compelled to set up as a consequence of its purely numerical growth. For if we admit mankind's ability to settle in other planets in the future we cannot consider it to be incapable of doing something that lies much closer at hand, namely to apply reason to the solution of its problems on Earth, and regulate its numbers when such a need arises. And that will by no means take place in some kind of human incubators designed to produce generations of persons with pre-specified qualitative and quantitative characteristics in the manner described in Aldous Huxley's work of social science fiction entitled Brave New World.

While rejecting all kinds of Utopian constructions it is important to emphasise that only a gradual progressive development of society and of individual personalities over an entire historical period can produce wise solutions of the demographic problem in forms that in many ways are still unknown today, yet worthy of man and of the new society that he is himself creating. Individuals and mankind will then indeed become inseparable, and each person's welfare will be in harmony with that of all of mankind, just as the goals of humanity will be in harmony with the objectives of each individual person. And it is precisely this which is real freedom, that is perceived as an appreciated necessity in relation to demographic behaviour as well.

Mankind's general fate is thus inseparable from that of each person: it is each person's fate. This raises new questions: What kind of future awaits man, what are his prospects in connection with the processes that are now developing so ambivalently in the socio-economic and naturalbiological as well as cultural spheres of today's human ci-

vilisation? How does all this interact with the complex of global problems and with approaches to their solution in the future? These questions call for a separate examination to which we will devote our attention in the exposition that follows.

But it is important to emphasise from the very outset that the problem of mankind's future provides a certain focal point for the entire system of global problems. In one way or another they are all connected with it and man, his current needs, and his future appear as a certain "point of departure", as it were, in establishing the social and humanistic significance of particular global problems and of particular approaches and methods in solving them. At the same time the problem of man and his future is in some sense an autonomous global problem, which may be viewed in terms of at least two aspects, namely 1) as a question relating to man's prospects at the biological level, when he is viewed as a representative of the Homo Sapiens species; 2) as a question relating to the future of a unique, creatively active personality, whose development is governed not only by the presence of material and spiritual conditions but also by specific social ideals. It is with a consideration of these two aspects of the problem that the concluding chapters of our study are concerned.

production there are different laws governing population growth and overpopulation... These different laws should simply be reduced to various types of relationship to the conditions of production or, as far as a living individual is concerned, to the conditions of his reproduction as a member of society." (K. Marx, Grandrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf) 1857-1858), p. 498.

~^^7^^ "Engels to J. Bloch in Koningsberg, September 21 (22), 1890", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, pp. 487-88.

~^^8^^ See K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, p. 189.

~^^9^^ T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Ward, Lock and Co., London, New York, 1890, p. 295.

~^^10^^ See Jacques Monod, Le hasard et la necessite, Ed. du Seuil, Paris, 1970.

~^^11^^ Julian Huxley, The Human Crisis, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1963, pp. 78-79.

~^^12^^ Ibid.

~^^13^^ J. Pages, La controle des naissances en France et a I'etranger, Pichon et Durand Aurias, Paris, 1971.

~^^14^^ Ernst Mayr, Population, Species, and Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, p. 399.

~^^15^^ Ibid., p. 408.

~^^16^^ Ibid., p. 409.

~^^17^^ Karl Marx, "Theories of Surplus-Value", in Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. IV, Part II, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 117.

~^^18^^ V. I. Lenin, "The Working Class and Neo-Malthusianism", Collected Works, Vol. 19, 1963, p. 237.

~^^19^^ D. Meadows, et al., "A Response to Sussex", in Models of Doom. A Critique of the "Limits to Growth", Universe Books, New York, 1973, pp. 227, 240.

~^^20^^ See R. L. Shinn, "Population and the Dignity of Man", in Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis, New York, 1971.

~^^21^^ See Vosproizvodstvo naseleniya sotsialisticheskikh stran ( Population Reproduction in Socialist Countries), Moscow, 1977 (in Russian).

~^^22^^ "Engels to Karl Kautsky in Vienna, London, February 1, 1881", in Marx, Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 315.

~^^1^^ A. Vishnevsky, Demograficheskaya revolutsiya (Demographic Revolution), Statistika Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 193 (in Russian).

~^^2^^ See Ya. Guzevaty, "0 sotsialno-ekonomicheskoi obuslpvlennosti demograficheskogo razvitiya mirovogp naselenia" (Concerning SocioEconomic Factors in the Demographic Development of World Population), in Narodonaseleniye zarabezhnikh stran (The Population of Foreign Countries), Statistika Publishers, Moscow, 1974 (in Russian).

~^^3^^ Aside from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin relating to fundamental concepts, see the collective monographs: MarksistskoLeninskaya teorlya narodonaseleniya (The Marxist-Leninist Theory of Population), Moscow, 1974; Sistema znanii o narodonaselenii (The System of Knowledge about Population), Moscow, 1976; also see B. Urlanis, Narodonaseleniye: issledovaniya, publitsistika ( Population: Research Studies and Publications), Moscow, 1976; V. Kozlov, Ktnicheskaya demografiya (Ethnic Demography), Moscow, 1977. Concerning the development of demographic problems in Western countries, see Problemy naselenlya (Problems of Population), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977.

~^^4^^ K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, p. 205.

~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 206.

~^^6^^ It was Marx's view that "Under different social modes of

Chapter IV

Countless myths and legends, religious teachings and philosophical systems, scientific hypotheses and fantastic visions, utopia and anti-utopia have been produced by man in his attempts to find an answer to these torturing questions---to know himself, his mission and his fate. It is as a precious discovery and as a reward following prolonged and anxious quests, hopes and disappointments that modern man accepts---not immediately and not without vascillations---the increasingly evident truth: that it is further progress in science that offers the key to understanding man's problems and also serves as a "magic crystal" through which man's prospect and future may be seen.

Today man's future and scientific progress combine as readily in our consciousness as religious myths and philosophical and other Utopias formerly seemed to be inseparable from man's destiny. Myths and utopia are replaced by a scientific approach based on proofs and on a rigorous support of conclusions by available facts. Yet science, too, does not provide unambiguous answers to many questions concerning man's future. Accordingly, both the formulation of and solutions to many aspects of that complex problem inevitably acquire a debatable character.

Today's scientific discussions of the problem of man devote much attention to the question of a very substantial increase, through the revolution in science and technology and through society's increasing consumption of its results, in a number of factors that contribute to man's biological disadaptation in ways that threaten his future. This includes not only physical but also psychological factors related to the pollution of man's environment, to growing noise levels, and to nervous and mental stress in labour activities and in communication among individuals that lead to a whole range of ailments that are regarded as the "illnesses of civilisation" (cardio-vascular diseases, mental derangements, cancer).

Essentially modern man confronts with increasing urgency the problem of preserving himself as a species that is adapted to changing environmental conditions---both social and natural, in short, the problem of his adaptation to the environment. At the same time we know that today's revolution in science and technology produces new possibilities and means for serving man's development as a biosocia! being, but these may only be realised within a framework of

MAN AND HIS FUTURE: HOMO SAPIENS ET HUMANUS

It is only relatively that the biological aspect of the problem of man's future and that of the entire human species can be viewed autonomously, in some isolation from social factors. Beyond this the nature of relations among biological and social factors constitutes an old and complex problem on whose solution an understanding of man's essence greatly depends, as does an understanding of ways to bring about his development in a historical perspective. Let us therefore consider that problem at least briefly, in order to then proceed more freely along the main direction that is denned by the theme of this study.

1. Genes or Socia? Man's Social Essence and His Biological Nature

Today as never before mankind is engaged in an intensive examination of itself and at times rediscovers Man as it were: sometimes with a feeling of happy surprise and even elation, but occasionally with bitter disappointment... Man is a unique and remarkable being, in the view of some, nature's and history's most striking product, whose future is wonderful and eternal. Others, on the other hand, view man as the product of an error on the part of nature, as an unfortunate creation endowed with countless vices, that he is accordingly doomed to degrade and perish. Who is right? And who is in error? Or possibly neither the first group nor the second are correct, and there is some third point of view that combines and ``overcomes'' the first two.

13-01743

wise and humane social conditions. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of our civilisation and it is not even possible to correctly formulate the question relating to man's prospects without considering that particular contra diction.

Never before did the technological basis of production and labour activities subject man to such demanding psychological requirements as in the context of today's revolution in science and technology. But at the same time never before were man's labour activities so highly productive, and this creates new possibilities for his development. In studying his biological nature and his psycho-physiological characteristics modern science seeks objective ways to actually contribute to the development of human capacities bearing on technological development, The automation and cyberneticisation of production that make it possible to assign to machines not only labour-intensive and monoto nous physical operations but also those mental activities that do not require creativity, are complemented by its biologisation that is connected with the active adaptation of man's organism to new conditions of production, above all, by changes in his psycho-physiological activities.

But what lies ahead? What new possibilities emerge before man as still greater knowledge is acquired concerning the secrets of his brain, his subconsciousness, and his instincts?

Never before were the acceleration and intensification of rates and rhythms of life so rapid, never before did they produce such a rapid proliferation in nervous and psychological illness and stress. The urbanisation and technicalisation of human life, while intensifying the regular pressures to which his psyche is subjected, is accompanied by a minimisation of physical tasks and a growth in the incidence of cardio-vascular diseases. But at the same time never before did mankind experience such striking progress in medicine that has changed its demographic composition and has almost fully displaced natural selection as a factor governing its development.

Finally, never before was man's environment so saturated with ionising radiation and polluted with chemical substances that are harmful to his very existence and ex tremely dangerous to his future, since mutation processes exerting a negative influence on man's heredity have great-

ly increased. But at the same time for the first time in history medical genetics may bo able to reduce the load of pathological forms of heredity accumulated in the course of evolution and to free man from many hereditary diseases. This includes the use of methods of genetic engineering to replace pathological genes by normal ones.

Is science itself in a position to assist more adequately the social realisation of man's essential powers? How can it influence the development of future man's abilities and needs and the achievement of true equality among persons, while retaining that which is unique and specific to each personality? These are the fundamentally important questions that have a truly global character.

They do not lie somewhere outside the main path on which the basic socio-philosophical problems relating to man and his future are being solved. Moreover, the answers to these questions directly depend on the solution of these problems and greatly influence the emphasis that is given to concrete problems both now and in the future. Accordingly, it is very important to identify what we should anticipate in this respect and how many specific socio-- philosophical problems relating to the future of mankind may be formulated and resolved already today. In that connection it has perhaps become more evident today than ever before that answers to these ``eternal'' questions concerning man and his prospects do not depend on factors that lie in the philosophical sphere alone. They cannot be solved merely from a position of a "pure love of wisdom"; a good understanding is needed of the essential social relations that make man what he is and of the new and increasingly complex problems of modern science that bear directly on man's biological existence and his social development.

It cannot be said that modern philosophy was completely unprepared for such a situation: the problem of man has always occupied a central position in philosophical reasoning concerning the world; in that connection classical philosophy, beginning with ancient Greek philosophy, produced not only that image of man that reflected a specific age, but also developed a certain ideal, an ``idea'' of a future man, and as we shall see below, many of its anticipations have shown themselves to be by no means mistaken.

The need for a complex approach to the problem of man and of his future is becoming increasingly urgent. The re-

is*

quirements of practical activities, of "life itself", which insistently point to the problem of moulding the new man as one of the central tasks, make evident the close relationship between carrying out that task and achieving the socio-- economic objectives of communism, a further development ol progress in science and technology, and of all other spheres supporting the vital activities of the modern social organism.

The problem of man and that of man's all-round development, which confronts the social sciences, including philosophy, is thus complex by its very nature. This means that science must follow man's prospects not only in terms of particular aspects, but above all in terms of their dialectically interconnected system, and that it must analyse that system in terms of its dynamics of development. Only then can one hope that the conclusions derived from the corresponding scientific analysis will have a realistic meaning and can become the basis of practical recommendations.

A prominent Russian writer, M. Prishvin, observed that each person should immediately turn to practical activities in such a way that all scientific disciplines contribute to the integration of man throughout the world and at all times. This is both a beautiful thought and an inspiring objective in guiding the acquisition of scientific knowledge concerning man's prospects. One can only add that philosophy plays a particular role in such an integration of sciences in serving the integration of man to which M. Prishvin referred. The global character of the problem itself calls for universal philosophical approaches; and while this produces both discoveries and deep disappointments the latter should not discourage us: it is not possible to find truth without experiencing what Lev Tolstoy described as "insistent philosophical doubt''.

It is with such an orientation, then, that we shall turn to the problem that concerns us. We will also keep in mind that it is not possible to consider man's future without a scientific understanding of his essence, which is precisely the central issue in all past and present philosophical discussions concerning man's future. Accordingly the very first task must be to attempt to answer the question: "What is man?''

If we cast a retrospective glance at the past we will see that the problem of man was usually solved with the help of methods constituting a certain set of "complementary"

elements: idealistic, ascribing absolute significance to the spiritual principle in man, and naturalistic, which assign primary importance to man's natural-biological characteristics. That dualism of the soul and the body has been a continuing theme in philosophic interpretations of man since ancient times. In addition, in the history of philosophy, the problem of man was also subdivided in terms of the role of internal and external factors defining man's essence. Of course, in referring to external factors, to the environment, within which the formation and development of man proceeds, philosophers had in mind not only natural but also social factors, such as, for example, education. Yet their essential characteristics were not analysed in depth.

Already in antiquity man was viewed as both an organic part of nature and of the cosmos and as a being belonging to the objective existence of eternal ideas and essences (and therefore as a derivative of them), or else as something possessing a higher value in itself, a fundamental principle, a "measure of all things". But if one considers early Greek philosophy (the Miletian School and oven the Pythagoreans) he will not yet find a contradiction and even less a gap between what is natural and what is human. It is in the philosophy of man presented by Socrates that we find the most impressive development of that contradiction. While the statement carved at the entrance of Delphi's temple, "Know thyself", was known even before Socrates, but it is with his name that it has come to be associated---so great was his influence. Yet Socrates narrowed the philosophy of man to that of ethics and to teachings about the soul; he was only interested in man's moral qualities, in which he saw some kind of third dimension lying between the world of animals and the divine world, the world of things and the world of ideas.

The principles proposed by the Sophists and by Socrates for gaining a knowledge of man were subsequently used by Democritus and Plato from opposing positions. Democritus was a materialist and an atomist who believed that human nature is determined by objective processes in the cosmos, but is also a result of education and learning. A materialist (naturalist) conception of man was developed in the philosophy of Epicurus and Lucretius, who asserted an earthbound view of man that was free from spiritualism and idealism. As for Plato, his philosophy presents a view in

which man's nature is determined by an objective world of ideas. In Platonic idealism man's living soul which Socrates interpreted as a striving upwards, a surge, and Eros, ap pears as an impersonal expression of absolute principles. It is in this view that one finds the origins of the anthropological dualism that Aristotle already sought to overcome in his own anthropological conceptions, by combining cosmological-naturalistic and religious-ethical approaches.

These specific characteristics of ancient philosophy have been interpreted and developed in various ways both in medieval times as well as in antiquity, and subsequently in the age of the Renaissance and in modern times. In medieval times man was declared to be a component part of a cosmic order deriving from God. The Christian idea of an immortal soul and of the uniqueness and inherent value of human personality as well as that of mankind's spiritual community was developed further by Christian philosophy. Such an interpretation of man which finds many adherents today as well (such as neo-Thomists), met with decisive objections already in the age of the Renaissance. At that time the idea began to be asserted that man may be understood not through the sphere of transcendental knowledge but simply by analysing those conditions of his real existence on which his freedom and integrity as a personality depend. Montaigne's famous statement that "The souls of emperors and of cobblers are based on the same pattern" became a symbol of that proposition. The ideals of antiquity were revised, and the ideas of humanism were disseminated and developed further, as was the teaching concerning the integral nature of man's individual spiritual-bodily existence and concerning his organic ties to the Universe. These ideas were expressed especially vividly and effectively in the creative works of such giants of the Age of the Renaissance as Nicholas de Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Moore, Dante, Telesio, Montaigne, and Campanella. Yet earlier contradictions resulting from a view of man based on abstract-rationalist and naturalist positions either came into being once again or continued to develop.

In modern times that contradiction reached its apogee in the philosophico-anthropological teachings of Descartes, Hobbes, and Spinoza. While admitting the possibility of studying man as a natural body, Descartes saw the essence of man in his capacity to reason. Let us recall the famous

Cartesian thesis: Cogito ergo sum---"I think, therefore 1 am". This made inevitable an assertion that rationalism is a universal characteristic of man and a universal method for gaining a knowledge of him, even though Descartes himself did not deny the existence of ties between thought and man's natural properties. He even referred to the unity of the body and the soul, postulating that God created a rational soul and joined it to a body. Unlike in Descarte's dualism, in Hobbes' philosophy man appears as the object of knowledge that is not only a natural, biological being, but also a social phenomenon. But at the same time Hobbes' interpretation of that problem placed an emphasis on extremely mechanistic forms that were combined with an idealistic view of society, and in particular of the "Great Leviathan"---the State, whose "artificial body" he confronted with man's "natural body". The position of materialistic monism was given a more consistent foundation and also developed more consistently by Spinoza, who viewed man as a part of nature in which material elements combined with spiritual ones that were themselves inherent in material elements. Spinoza rejected Descartes' view on the way in which the soul is joined to the body by turning to God. Subsequently that naturalist interpretation of man and of society acquired new foundations and undervent a further development, especially in the philosophico-anthropological conceptions of eighteenth-century French materialists. Within that development La Mettrie and Diderot emphasised the natural scientific problematique of man, while Holbach and Helvetius emphasised the social dimension and the mutual ties that link man to society. The French materialists viewed man as nature's greatest creation which continues to be fully subjected to its laws. This made it possible to dispense with the dualism of body and soul. On the other hand, Helvetius had already asserted that men are not born as they arc but become what they are. Yet the French materialists relied on an abstract interpretation of the social dimension of man as well in discussing problems of morality and education. They asserted a rationalistic determinism that subordinated man to an inevitable necessity. Their conception of an abstract "general man", together with their reduction of society to a sum of individuals and of social laws to natural laws given by nature led French materialists to construct Utopian futurological conceptions in the spirit

of Rousseau's "social contract", whose terms, they believed, could make possible a complete harmony of social and individual interests.

A different philosophical image of man was drawn by classical German nineteenth-century philosophy. In it nature's abstract-universal rationality embodied in matter is transformed to an abstract-logical universality of the spirit, and this was, of course, reflected in the corresponding conception of man. It is true that in the philosophy of Kant, who adhered to a dualistic philosophical position, man, too, is characterised in a dualistic way: on the one hand, as a part of the world of senses, he is subjected to the laws of causality and necessity and as the possessor of a capacity to reason he is a law-giver to the world of phenomena that he commands; but on the other hand, as the carrier of a spiritual principle, he adheres to the world of highest moral values and ideals, and as the possessor of pure reason and will he is a law-giver to the moral world of freedom and absolute values. Kant formulated the idea of a "categorical imperative" as the fundamental law of practical reason in accordance with which man's actions must be such that his will and norms of behaviour may always serve as a principle of general legislation as well. In developing the foundations for that law Kant relied on postulates asserting man's free will, the soul's immortality (and hence the possibility of posthumous recompense), and, finally, a supreme cause, "the highest good", i.e., God.

As is well known, the subsequent development of German classical philosophy has led to a subjective-idealistic interpretation of man's identity in the works of Fichte. There, an emphasis is placed on the dominant role of elements of ethics and of will in man's consciousness. It also led to the development of objective-idealistic conceptions asserting the dominance of esthetic-emotional elements (Schelling) and logico-rational elements (Hegel). In Hegel's philosophy, moreover, an attempt was made to show the dialectics of man's emergence as it related to individuals and to history. In Hegel's philosophy the dialectics of man's emergence is considered in its relation to labour as well. It appears as a process of self-alienation and of sublating alienation.

Already in the nineteenth century Hegel's conception was criticised by Kierkegaard from a religious-existentialist position, and by Feuerbach from a materialistic and atheistic

position. But while in the case of Kierkegaard that critique represented a specific type of defence of individualism and of a self-isolation of man viewed as a spiritual-moral being, the philosophico-anthropological teachings of Feuerbach represented a synthesis of the material, sensory, spiritual ami rational-moral aspects of man's existence. The anthropological principle that he announced served as the point of departure and foundation of his philosophy, which, he thought, transformed both man and nature as man's basis into a single universal and highest object of philosophy, and thus transformed anthropology, including physiology, into a universal science. In fact, however, Feuerbach merely viewed man as a natural being without understanding his social characteristics. He did not arrive at an understanding of the dialectics of man's emergence that was identified in an idealistic form by Hegel. Feuerbach postulated that ultimately social relations are based on certain natural, and more specifically, physiological factors.

Of course, such a naturalistic and also extremely abstract view of social relations could not serve as a basis for a scientific answer to the question "What is man?" Everything, however, led to that answer, and it appeared not only as a result of a critique of Feuerbach's anthropology but partly as an historical continuation of that anthropology as well as of other formulations of that problem during the prolonged history of philosophical searching. This is precisely the work that was carried out by Marx, who then provided a scientific answer to the question that was posed in the history of philosophy.

It is true that in developing a scientific understanding of man's essence Marx was not able, for a number of historical reasons, to make use of new anthropological ideas developed by such distinguished Russian thinkers as V. G. Relinsky, A. I. Hertzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, among others, who in developing the materialist traditions of Fouerbach's philosophical anthropology associated them with dialectical approaches that were closely linked to the practice of revolutionary-democratic struggle. This is especially true of Chernyshevsky's philosophical conception of man developed in his Anthropological Principle in Philosophy, ⁱ where it is asserted that elements of nature (the organisms' biological and physiological processes) form the primary basis of spiritual and moral elements in man (and

the latter is given a naturalistic interpretation); at the same time attempts are made to arrive at an historical, social and class-oriented understanding of man and of his development as a social being in the context of revolutionary-democratic transformations leading to socialism. Nevertheless, like other revolutionary democrats proceeding along this correct scientific course, Chernyshevsky was not able to fully overcome the general constraints of the anthropological principles that were already present in Feuerbach's philosophical conceptions. Only Marx was able to achieve this fully and in a consistent manner.

In contrast to idealistic and religious-mystical conceptions of man and to naturalistic anthropologism Marx formulated a thesis already in the middle of the nineteenth century that provided a key to the scientific understanding of man. He stated that

``.. .the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.''~^^2^^

Marx's formula describing the essence of man as the set of all social relations was presented in his famous Theses on Feuerbach. By that time Marx had already understood that man is not only a natural being but is a human natural being. Individuals are members of the human species as well as representatives of specific social communities such as mankind, specific classes, and specific nations. For Marx it was clear from the first that a person's essence is constituted not by "its abstract physical character, but its social quality",~^^3^^ and that accordingly "all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature".^^4^^ Nevertheless, he asserted, we ". . . must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch".^^5^^

Thus while Marxism recognises the essence of man deriving from his membership in the human species, it draws the attention of researchers to the most important element, namely a concrete-historical analysis of man, and to the identification of specific traits of social relations such as the nature of labour activities As we see, all other approaches to identifying man's essence and his specific nature did not succeed, just as attempts to select specific external attributes that distinguish him from animals do not sue ceed.

``. . .Anyway, what sort of man is this `man' who is not seen in his real historical activity and existence, but can be deduced from the lobe of his own ear, or from some other feature which distinguishes him from the animals?''~^^6^^

Marxism seeks a definition of human essence in the specifics of human activities and human existence and finds it in human labour. Already in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Marx had observed that for man

``. . .production is his active species-life. Through . . . production, nature appears as his work and his reality.''^^7^^

It is labour that has created man, and it is in labour activities that specifically human qualities are realised and developed. In Critique of Political Economy Marx defines human labour as "purposeful activity directed at assimilating elements of nature"; it

``constitutes a natural condition for human existence, a condition for exchanging matter between man and nature independently of specific social forms".⁸ According to Marx, labour is not only a means of existence but also a form through which man asserts himself; man engaged in labour "really proves himself to be a speciesbeing".~^^9^^

In such a context for Marx labour is above all a social relation towards nature, and accordingly reflects man's social nature, which must be included into the understanding of man's essence. Man and society are inseparable and only in society, in the framework of specific social institutions, does he realise himself as man. Man's consciousness and thought emerge as a social product, and accordingly are secondary in relation to his social existence. It is on that basis that the specifically human material and spiritual needs develop that are also associated with man's essence and are included in his definition.

Such, then, is the Marxist position on man's social essence. But while it emphasises the importance of man's social ties and characteristics, Marxism by no means ignores the specific traits that distinguish individuals, and does not seel; to reduce the importance of their specific qualities as personalities possessing a character, will, gifts, and passions. On the contrary, it draws attention to the most general principles in order to provide a background for revealing and

making scientifically understandable these personal qualities of individuals. And in such a context a consideration of man's biological nature as well as his social essence is important. It is well known that Marx attached much importance to this. The concept of "human nature" that he initially employs is subsequently complemented by the notion of a "set of needs and instincts", while in Capital Marx develops the thesis concerning interactions between man's external nature and his own nature as a result of which both are changed.^^10^^ The definition of man's essence as the set of all social relations was intimately linked in Marx's conception with an understanding of man as a tangible sensory being whose individual characteristics and strivings (such as passions) he also viewed as his "essential forces". He noted:

"Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is, on the one hand, endowed with natural powers, vital powers---he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities---as instincts.' ⁿ That approach was given a diversified basis in the works of Engels, who also developed it further, and who emphasised that we do not have power over nature but on the contrary ".. .we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst...''~^^12^^ In providing a philosophic generalisation of findings on anthropogenesis in the works of Darwin and Morgan, and in analysing critically the limitations of Feuerbach's conception of man, Engels naturally emphasised a most important and essential element in the Marxist understanding of man, namely his social and social labour-oriented and production-oriented characteristics. It would be extremely one-sided, however, to identify such an emphasis, which is attributable to specific tasks, with principles, and to ignore the fact that Engels viewed man's biological nature as a primary element, even though it is of course not sufficient to explain both history and man himself.

Man as a social being is not in opposition to his natural essence, which is its prerequisite. At the same time the relative significance of social and biological factors may change in various respects and in particular research situations. Accordingly to establish how "the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man...",^^13^^

expresses itself today implies not only a consideration of man's specific biological characteristics as they relate to a social analysis. It is not only because sociological problems have emerged that must be solved with the help of a knowledge of man's biology (even though here, too, there have been new developments) that man's biology has acquired a powerful voice in modern life, posing new problems for sociology. The main event is that the intensive development of social factors and conditions of life constituting man's essence, and above all of production and labour activities, have begun to influence the foundations of man's very existence as a living sensing being. In this one may see a certain paradox.

This has become particularly evident in the context of the revolution in science and technology, which at the human level is changing many connections and relations that existed in the past. In particular it deepens appreciably the interdependence and mutual influence between the social and biological aspects of the study of man. This is primarily associated with changes in the character of production and labour activities caused by the revolution in science and technology. But it is also associated with new factors in man's living environment that have appeared in recent decades and that have in some cases exerted so adverse an influence on his biology, genetics and psyche that it may be viewed as a threat to man's very existence. At the same time the current revolution in science and technology offers new possibilities and means for man's development as a biosocial being.

Naturally these developments call for careful study and must be taken into account in identifying man's prospects. It is necessary to take a careful analysis of the new elements that have been contributed by man's modern life and the scientific knowledge about him to understand the relative roles of biological and social methods. These now call for a greater emphasis on the importance of biological methods in gaining a knowledge of man and of his development.

Engels had emphasised:

``Man is the sole animal capable of working his way out of the merely animal state---his normal state is one appropriate to his consciousness, one that has to be created by himself."~^^14^^

Man seeks to achieve this by creating social conditions that correspond to the current slate of his consciousness and of the scientific understanding of objective tendencies in the development of production activities, culture, and of all oi' history along the way to progress, lie brings all these forces into motion and they change him in turn. This is why his normal condition is the one that he himself creates.

Faith in the boundless possibilities of man's mind, combined with an historical optimism, permits one to think that man's future is as infinite and as glorious as is the wisdom of nature, which created him. But that future is not inevitably predetermined. It is produced by man himself, who brings colossal material forces into play, together with a vast spiritual potential contained in his culture and in particular in science. What will be the road along which a realisation of the material and spiritual possibilities of human development will proceed?---That will also largely depend on a correct choice in selecting a general strategy for acquiring a knowledge of man and on its methodology and view of the world. This is why in answering the question "What is man?", it is so important to formulate correctly the problem concerning the relative roles of social and biological elements in man.

Marxism has provided the principle that leads to a solution of that problem, which has been formulated in the history of thought. But because it is closely linked to revolutionary conclusions concerning the necessity and inevitability of a communist alternative to bourgeois society that scientific solution was received very differently from many other solutions and discoveries in the natural sciences, for example, even though there, as well, the struggle for truth is often a prolonged historical process. Bourgeois thought continued its ``parallel'' movement in relation to anthropological problems. And even though it was no longer able to ignore the Marxist teaching concerning man (while accusing Marxism of ignoring these problems and seeking to contrast Marxism, as bourgeois ``Marxologists'' have done, with the anthropological and humanistic views of young Marx), it reveals with increasing clarity the traditional dilemma and ``complementarity'' of idealistic and naturalistic anthropological conceptions. Just the same, since Marxism has dialectically ``sublated'' that dilemma and that ``complementarity'', we can view modern idealistic and

naturalistic conceptions of man as merely relapses of what had already been in the past.

This does not mean, of course, that there have not been new developments relating to their philosophical, and especially their concrete scientific foundations. In particular, as a result of rapid progress in a complex of biological sciences naturalistic conceptions of man that attach an absolute significance to the specific characteristics of his biological nature have met with an especially rapid development in various branches of modern social-biologism. This calls for a greater emphasis on critiques of such conceptions which seek to take advantage of new discoveries in modern biology. At the same time this also presupposes a positive development in the scientific conception of man in the light of such discoveries.

2. Relapses of Anthropologism and Social-Biologism; the Establishment of a Scientific Approach to the Problem of Mankind's Future

The methodological basis of contemporary anthropologism and naturalism is an alternating contraposition of integral and reductionist methods of cognition of man. It is true that in both cases a certain element of arbitrariness in their contraposition remains, since an anthropological approach may be accompanied by a naturalistic reduction of man (usually by considering his biological nature in isolation from other elements), while reductionist tendencies may make it necessary to rely on integral (above all philosophical) approaches.

Nevertheless such a methodological dualism in studying man is merely a specific instance and a manifestation of the general gap between philosophy and concrete sciences (above all natural scientific knowledge) that has developed historically. In the context of that gap, even when they are related to physics or biology, teachings about man were always externally complemented by metaphysical constructions such as Cartesian cogito, and Hegelian panlogism. On

the other hand, an absolute emphasis on integral approaches, and a contraposition of anthropologism to reductionism and naturalistic positivism in which anthropologism is presented as a universal principle that derives methodologically from a conception of man that is somehow opposed to science, and in particular to the natural sciences, has produced a tradition in which man was viewed in a purely philosophical manner. In its extreme forms this was expressed in various irrationalist, critical-realistic, neoThomistic, personalistic, and other variants of philosophical anthropology. That tradition derives from the works of two German philosophers, Nietzsche and Scheler, and subsequently led to existentialism, in which the conception of philosophical anthropology found its most pronounced embodiment. While there are many important differences among contemporary variants of philosophical anthropology, they share a central common feature, namely a striving to view the problem of man as an exclusive (or else predominant) problem of philosophy. As a result, the gap between philosophy and concrete sciences concerned with man becomes even wider, even though this is frequently not admitted. In fact it is often asserted that philosophical anthropology is closely related to these sciences and takes their findings into consideration.

Such positions are most often related to the teachings of Christian humanism as well as to various conceptions of man in which a need is asserted to view him `` naturalistically'', outside of time. Both the specific features and limitations of such a form of humanism are clearly seen in existentialism. In particular, in seeking to strengthen certain philosophical prerequisites of a liberation from technological determinism (since, in his view, the future of technical civilisations may be conceived only in terms of a further dehumanisation), M. Heidegger postulates a certain ``shift''---a turning of man towards himself, and a spontaneous emergence of a new spiritual climate. Within it man could perceive in a new way both himself and the nature of his relations to everything else, including the meaning and significance of technology. Heidegger believes that if this does not occur the rapid movement of dehumanisation will bring man to a catastrophe. This is why it is necessary to liberate one's self from a "technicist interpretation" of thought and complement that "neologistic

rationalism" with artistic intuition, combine wisdom and poetry, and become aware of an integral ontological basis of the essence of both technology and art.

The existentialist approach to that problem has i'ouiid a specific expression in the teachings of J.-P. Sartre whose fundamental principle is a decisive rejection of problems of science and technology and an assertion of an "ontology of man" in which the concepts of subjectivism and transcendentalism play a central role. As a result, man is viewed not as a type of objective, but as a continuous self-- consciousness and self-discovery in which the only basis for finding meaning and defining values in man---that " irreducible centre of uncertainty"---is in Sartre's view freedom, but in a sense that is separated from society's objective principles, i.e., subjectivism.

The limitations of the existentialist approach are also evident in K. Jaspers' conception of man. In his view the human personality exists independently of any linkage with history, whose course touches only something external in the personality, which is itself dominated by elements that are absolute, eternal, extratemporal, and lying beyond history. Social elements, in Jaspers' view, only constitute man's membership in an abstract species, as an individual member.~^^15^^

It seems to me that such an abstract philosophical approach does not clarify the problem that concerns us. Accordingly it is best to turn to more positive and concrete attempts to identify the mutual relation between social and natural-biological factors in man's development. From such a point of view the philosophico-anthropological views of I'. Teilhard de Chardin are of great interest. According to his teachings, man embodies and summarises in himself the world's entire development. In criticising "bad anthropocentrism" he writes that

``man is seen not as the static centre of the world---as lie for long believed himself to be---but as the axis and leading shoot of evolution, which is something much finer.''~^^16^^

In his view, evolution represents the cosmos' essence, and passes through mankind's entire history, from its appearance to the full unfolding of the noosphere, i.e., of the sphere of collective consciousness, when a certain "Omega point" is attained. According to Teilhard, "Noogenesis, ascending

14-01743

irreversibly towards Omega through the strictly limited cycle oi a geogenesis" ^l7 attains its completion as a `` superlife'' and ``super-individual'', at which, he asserts, mankind will attain the level of God. It is then, in his view, that the conflict between science and religion will be overcome, and that their synthesis will occur. They appear as two inseparable aspects or phases of a common complete act of cognition.

``in the conjunction of reason and mysticism, the human spirit is destined ... to find the uttermost degree of its penetration with the maximum of its vital force.~^^18^^

Teilhard thus displays a scientific approach to the problem of the experimental scientist side-by-side with a theologian's mystical faith, and this greatly influences his overall philosophical anthropology. On the one hand he emphasises the biological aspects of man, and in fact he neglects social elements as supra-biological components; man is merely seen as

``. . .the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life ... the last-born, the freshest, the most complicated, the most subtle of all the successive layers of life.''~^^19^^

Accordingly a transition to ``super-life'' is viewed essentially as a biological revolution leading to a conscious transformation of man's biology, psyche, and genetics.

``What medical and moral factors," he asks, "must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them? In the course oi the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed." ²⁰ Teilhard sketches an entire programme of scientific transformations that in his view should bring mankind to an ideal state:

``Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society. It should be more convenient, and we would incline to think it safe, to leave the contours of that large body made of all our bodies to take shape on their own, influenced only by the automatic play of individual urges and whims. 'Better not interfere with the forces of the world!' Once more we are up against the mirage of instincts, the so-called infal-

libility of nature. But is it not precisely the world itself, which, culminating in thought, expects us to think out again the instinctive impulses of nature so as to perfect them? Reflective substance requires reflective treatment. If there is a future for mankind, it can only be imagined in terms of a harmonious conciliation of what is free willi what is planned and totalised. Points involved are: the redistribution of the resources of the globe; the control of the trek towards unpopulated areas; the optimum use of the powers set free by mechanisation; the physiology of nations and races; geo-economy, geo-politics, gee-demography; the organisation of research developing into a reasoned organisation of the earth.''~^^21^^

Yet, according to Teilhard, all this also converges towards "human energetics''.

``We need and are irresistibly led to create, by means of and beyond all physics, all biology, and all psychology, a science of human energetics. It is in the course of that creation, already obscurely begun, that science, by being led to concentrate on man, will find itself increasingly face to face with religion." <sup>22</sup> In conclusion Teilhard expresses his opposition to a scientific materialistic interpretation of man, having in mind, it is true, simplified and vulgar forms of materialism. In his view, man rises towards ``super-life'' and `` superindividuality'' (i.e., in his view, to God) with the help of love, in accordance with the laws of social heredity, which he identifies with psychological heredity and with verbal or written communications of human experience.

This internally contradictory nature of Teilhard's philosophical anthropology also shows that it is not always possible lo clearly identify a polarisation between anthropologism and naturalism or biologism, since between these extreme poles there exists a theoretical space that is occupied by ``transitional'' forms, so to speak, whose gravitation to one or another pole is not explicitly clear. This is especially evident in cases in which particular Utopias relating to man's future make wide use of contemporary scientific data. An instance of such a utopia is presented very vividly in A. Toffler's widely-known book Future Shock.^^23^^ Because the author considers that most studies concerned with the future express a "harsh metallic note" he seeks to em-

|4*

phasise the ``personal'' or human aspect of tomorrow. More specifically he emphasises an analysis of man's spiritual and psychological state, which he calls the "desease of change" and a "future shock" that appears as a result of man's encounter with an increasing acceleration in the pace of life. In his view, it is necessary to alter one's attitude to the future and to understand hotter the role that this plays in the present. He therefore proposes what he considers to be a new general theory of adaptation---of adapting human nature to changes, and of preparing people for the future. What are its main elements, if we keep in mind our present concern, namely the role of scientific progress in man's futtire? They include the ability of a very small number of persons living today (two or three per cent according to Toffler) who no longer belong to either the past or the present to pursue ways of life that he believes are characteristic of the future, that is, to "live faster" than those around them. These also include striking changes in technology (for example the integration of living tissues into nature's physical processes, and the creation of biological machines), as well as designing man's physical appearance (including the creation of "carbon copies" of man and a reliance on "vegetative reproduction"), the implementation of eugenic projects, the transplantation of organs, and the stimulation of psychic processes. In short, it is the " superindustrial revolution" and its personal psychological and social consequences that constitute man's prospects and his future.

Toffler describes these consequences of a "super industrial revolution" in considerable detail, noting the limitations of man's adaptability to accelerating changes; he discusses a strategy designed to help man survive under such conditions. In viewing the physical aspect of "future shock" as a response of the human organism to excessive stimulation Toffler assumes that in order to study that phenomenon it is necessary to bring together knowledge from such areas of science as psychology, neurology, communications theory, and endocrinology. He believes that by accelerating the rate of scientific, technical and social changes we disrupt the human race's biological and chemical stability. But that is not necessarily bad: for change is not merely necessary for life, it is life itself, while life in Toffler's view is adaptation. Yet ultimately man remains what he

was from the first, namely a biosyslem possessing a limited capacity for adaptation. And when that ability is no longer sufficient, there results, in Toffler's view, a shock from encounters with the future. This may result from psychological overload, excessive stimulation, a ``bombardment'' of the sense organs with an information overload, and stress produced by the need to take decisions.

How can man survive under such conditions, how can he "cope with the future" and avoid "future shock"? Toffler understands that this depends not only on the specific characteristics of man's "biological equipment", but also on the state of integration, orderliness and degree of regulation of the environment. In his view that struggle should begin at the personal level, where it is necessary to develop new tactics that will be able to help us regulate the level of stimulation to which we are subjected. At the same time he believes that it is also necessary to wage a struggle against "future shock" at all other levels and in particular at the technological and the social level.

The critical element within the network of causes producing an acceleration in the rate of change is, in Tofflor's view, progress in science and technology. It may even be that this is the element that underlies all patterns within that network. Accordingly, he concludes, whatever the efforts of individuals in regulating the pace of their own life, and whatever psychological crutches they may be offered, whatever changes may be brought to the educational system, society as a whole will not be able to free itself from the neck-breaking rate of progress in science and technology so long as there is no shil't to its conscious regulation. We cannot, nor should we, seek to interrupt progress in science and technology by pulling an emergency cord. In Toffler's view only romantic fools can chatter about a return to a "natural state". In raising the problem of "taming technology" Toffler opposes both technocrats and technophobes. He considers that it is no longer possible to solve the problems of developing science and technology as rigorously scientific and technical problems. These are political problems. They influence us more directly than most of the superficial political issues that concern us today.

But it would be vain to search in Toffler's work for a scientific answer to Hie question: What social mechanisms may simultaneously contribute to the development and

deepening of progress in science and technology and to its reasonable regulation in serving the welfare of individuals and of society? Toffler considers as equally outdated both the "system based on economic gain" existing in Western countries and a rigorous state centralism that exists, he asserts, in socialist countries. The "super-industrial society" to which he refers requires some other structure. But of what kind? Toffler does not provide a clear answer. Nevertheless from his discourses concerning the " humanisation of planning" and the art and politics of futurism, which, in his view, is able to anticipate the future, and also concerning the need to "bring about a revolution" in the very definition of our social objectives, one can clearly conclude that essentially Toffler has in mind the very same capitalist society except somewhat reformed and more adapted to rapid changes produced by progress in science and technology. Everything else---including his appeal to not merely overcome technocracy and replace it by a "more humane", "more far-seeing and democratic planning", and to subordinate the process of evolution itself to a conscious guidance by man, to anticipate the future and plan it---remains as a pious wish and still another Utopia that influences the present much more than it does the real future.

Approaches of this kind are frequent in contemporary futurological literature. And while they cannot provide a basis for real activities leading to a future that will be favourable to the development of man and of mankind, there is no reason to view them solely as a negative phenomenon, since a number of scientists are discovering much in them that must be taken into account and that calls for further reflection.

The ideas presented by V. Ferkiss in a study entitled Technological Man. The Myth and the Reality offer a somewhat different perspective. Its author seeks to show the destiny of man in the age of science and technology in a philosophical form.^^24^^ He speaks of an impending " existential revolution", that is, of a self-transformation of mankind thai will bring it to the "era of a new man"--a technological man. That type of man, he states, will differ radically from today's "industrial man", who set the tone for "industrial civilisation". According to Ferkiss, the latter is characterised by a large-scale production and consump tion of material commodities, an alienation from nature and

a struggle against nature, a suppression of instincts in favour of play or thought, and their redirection primarily towards competition and war. Its appearance is attributed to an interaction of man's elementary passions with Christianity, especially its Puritan forms, as well as with science and Darwinism.

It must be admitted that it is difficult to understand how these entirely different phenomena may be combined. But one cannot deny that Ferkiss presents a highly critical view of the flaws of bourgeois civilisation. Yet the way out that is proposed, namely an "existential revolution" is very elusive. What does it mean? Ferkiss analyses the forecasts of "sociological prophets" (such as Brzezinski and Etzioni) and generally disagrees with them, for he finds more persuasive the forecasts of "existential prophets" (Skinner, Clarke, Landers, Teilhard de Chardin) who assert that man finds himself at the threshold of a new age in which he will acquire new powers over himself and over his environment, and that this will radically change the entire nature and meaning of human existence. The essence of an " existential revolution" lies precisely in this, and in Ferkiss's view it will bring both a psychological shock and practical problems on an historically unprecedented scale.

Individual questions relating to the "existential revolution" are then examined more closely. They include an expansion of man's environment (the conquest of outer space and of the ocean); changes in economic life and especially in labour activities (automation, the application of computers); the invention of new biological and pharmacological means of coercion that do not destroy man or his personality and operate through a direct influence on his will; a substantial expansion---with the help of electronics--- of possibilities for centralised surveillance and social control available to ruling groups; and finally changes in man's biological nature and psyche with the help of biological means and in particular through genetic engineering. But even this is not all. For aside from purely scientific factors that are bringing mankind to the threshold of an " existential revohition", there are also others and one of them is the growth of population.

``Beneath the surface of twentieth-century civilisation the rumbling can be heard clearly and the earth is already starting to move.''~^^25^^

This is the movement of the "existential revolution" which announced the creation of "technological man". The latter, it is true, is still more a myth than a reality, since it is bourgeois man who prevails in society and is unable to cope with that revolution. As for "technological man", according to Ferkiss, he is "by definition" developing an approach to the world of science and technology that will in turn provide value standards for the future civilisation. It is true that this is "by definition", for Ferkiss does not point to any practical paths, even though he does devote much attention to the development of a "new philosophy" that includes a "new naturalism", a "new holism", and a "new immanentism"---in short, everything ``new'', although its content, I find, is quite old. Beyond this Ferkiss assumes that such a "new philosophy" makes it possible to develop certain ethical norms that may provide a basis for a policy that will permit man to survive in new conditions. He also believes that this will produce a reorientation of human culture.

Ferkiss rejects the path of replacing capitalist regimes by socialist regimes, as he refers to them; more generally he believes that even though some changes will refer to institutions, generally they will bo changes in positions and attitudes. In concluding Ferkiss admits that while it is clear that the "new philosophy" includes new forms of decision taking and that new social and political institutions are needed to embody the norms into policies and practical activities, in order that education, the economy, and both domestic and international political regimes may become social instruments with the help of which "technological man" will develop his awareness of himself and express his abilities, it is far less clear what specific policies will best be able to cope with the crisis produced by the "existential revolution". This is partly the state of affairs and partly how things should be, since in his view, the future must always remain uncertain until man is man. This, it must be stated, is a very philosophical conclusion, but one that is hardly likely to inspire anyone. But then Ferkiss probably did not expect that it should, even though it is quite evident that he does view himself as one of the "existential prophets''.

A similar anthropological approach that also recognises the current situation produced by the revolution in science

and technology is found in the work already mentioned earlier by A. Peccei entitled The ffuman Quality. In it the need of adapting to changing realities is reduced to the problem of improving "human quality". A. Peccei believes that it is only through a corresponding development of human qualities and abilities that our material civilised world may be changed, and that its enormous potential may come to be employed for the welfare of mankind.

``This is the human revolution, which is more urgent than anything else if we are to control other revolutions of our time and steer mankind towards a viable future.''~^^26^^

The author considers that to change man's quality will require that several decades be devoted to a mobilisation of his will, abilities, and resources throughout the world, He does not show, however, how this may be carried out in concrete terms. In referring to the need for human development he does not suggest anything more specific than general wishes with regard to universal education, professional training, and fruitful applications of abilities in cultural development. This is also true of the tasks that Peccei formulates for mankind, and in particular those that concern mankind's "inner limits". As man becomes more civilised, the author notes, it becomes more difficult for him to overcome external difficulties and he turns to protecting his organism through medicines and other means. Peccei proposes that the actual relevant capacities of the average person be studied in order that they be better adapted to life in tomorrow's world. We must learn how our brain may be better utilised not only in order to withstand changes and complexities, but also in order to master them and to derive gains from them. This refers to ways in which man's capacities may be used and developed further without causing harm to the organism through increased tensions and stresses. In formulating this task of mankind Peccei oxpresses the hope that it will help produce a rebirth in man's spirit. He expresses faith in man and in "the human revolution" even though the latter may require considerable sacrifices and suffering.

We thus see new approaches to anthropological trends that have found a vivid embodiment in the Club of Rome's report, No Limits to Learning (dealt with in Chapter I),

which clearly illustrates the stand of anthropologism in global problems.

But on the whole the general gravitation is not towards a ``pure'' anthropologism, even though its positions are quite strong and in some cases are being made even stronger by a number of negative developments within the revolution in science and technology. Rather it is the conceptions of social-biologism that are increasingly emerging to the fore.

We find a more pronounced and increasing exploitation of biologising conceptions of man in modern scientific and popular scientific literature, in science fiction, and in the works of many philosophers, as well as in works of fiction and in art. Occasionally this acquires a sensational character. This development is at least partly explained by exceptional achievements in biological science in recent decades. Neo-Freudian conceptions of man and social Darwinism have been considerably revitalised, and they now seek to find a "scientific basis" in genetics. In answering the incorrectly formulated question---genes or socium?---the answer frequently favours the universal significance of the activities of genes. Man's genetic programme thus becomes cither the only source or else the decisive source of his essential properties. Such a stress on the absolute role of biological factors in man's development is producing a stable approach in modern thought that may be called social-biologism, and that includes a variety of theories and conceptions possessing a common methodological basis. A critique of that approach is one of the most essential conditions for asserting scientific principles in studies of man and his future.

Epistemologically the intense revival of the conceptions of social-biologism in recent years, which universalise man's biological nature in opposition to his social essence, may be explained by a one-sided interpretation of the findings of modern neurophysiology, ethology and genetics as they apply to man. In such a context it is asserted that man is a "mistake of evolution" and that nature has endowed him with a number of negative genetically determined attributes constituting a "delayed action bomb", as it were, that man will be able to defuse only if he will fathom the mysteries of its ``clockwork'' (A.Kestler). A number of ethologists also believe that certain properties of man's behaviour are

genetically determined, including his presumed inborn a. ggressivity or else, conversely, his altruism.

In recent years these developments have produced a certain ``explosion'' in studies whose purpose is to demonstrate that generally many fundamental social principles that guide the behaviour of individuals originate primarily in biological conditions, rather than social ones, and especially in evolutionary and genetic sources. Today the presumed existence of biological sources of man's social behaviour is widely discussed in the world of science. This is especially true of those aspects of social behaviour that emerged largely under the influence of the ideas of S. Freud as well as of ethology (K. Lorentz, R. Ardrey).

One cannot, of course, ignore the fact that specialised studies of ethologists have produced a large number of findings that make it necessary to view the problem of genetic factors in man's behaviour in a new way. But frequently such facts lose their value by being placed at the service of social-biologism in arriving at a conceptual basis for their interrelations. In that connection Lenin had observed that

``. . .the transfer of biological concepts in general to the sphere of the social sciences is phrase-mongering. Whether the transfer is undertaken with `good' intentions or with the purpose of bolstering up false social conclusions, the phrase-mongering none the less remains phrase-mongering.''^^27^^

Beyond this since such conceptions seek to declare as `` eternal'', and ``inherent'' manifestations of aggressive behaviour leading to wars, instincts of private ownership, and the division of society into classes, they serve to disorient the social efforts of individuals. The view of social-biologism is that these biologically-determined traits of human behaviour can only be overcome with the help of purely biological methods and that social conditions merely constitute a background against which man's biological qualities express themselves. They may either impede their manifestation or else contribute to it.

Of course, such a social orientation of the conceptions of social-biologism is not always expressed "in a pure form". But it is present implicitly in the very methodological basis. Consider, for example, ethology once again. Since in its view the roots of aggression and violence are found in at-

tavistic elements in man's biological nature, R. Ardrey, one of the founders of that conception, asserts that when persons defend the rights or independence of their country they do so under the influence of motivations that do not differ from corresponding motivations of less organised animals. He asserts, in short, that these motivations are inborn and cannot be uprooted.^^28^^

This approach has been employed by many contemporary ideologists and persons who are active in the field of art in seeking to gain acceptance for the thought that man is a cruel animal, and that all of human culture cannot change his cruel nature. What is particularly regrettable is not so much the way in which man is represented (science and the history of mankind also provide a very ambivalent picture), but that as a result mankind is deprived of the weapon that it needs in opposing social rather than biological evils.

Biologising trends reveal their scientific inconsistency and disorienting social-ethical role in the conceptions of modern social Darwinism as well. It is true that following its wide dissemination towards the end of the last century and in the early years of the present century this currently exists more as an approach within other theories and conceptions. In particular, the fundamental thesis of social Darwinism concerning the struggle for survival within human society and natural selection is now defended not only by ethologi cal but also certain anthropological-genetic conceptions. This is illustrated by the controversial study of J. Monod, a Nobel Laureate, entitled Chance and Necessity.~^^29^^ In his argument the author follows an extreme position in biologising and misrepresenting problems relating to man's development. In particular, social factors determining man's essence are completely ignored, including possibilities for man's physical improvement, for the development of culture, and for productive activities of individuals as the basis of social progress.

One finds a certain overemphasis on the importance of biological mechanisms in human life and in society oven in the works of T. Dobzhansky, a prominent American geneticist who believes that natural selection will not cease to operate either in contemporary society or in the foreseeable future. ^w Nevertheless it is not possible to associate the studies of Dobzhansky with the general approach that we have described as social-biologism, for he considers only individ-

ual aspects of the problem of man in the context of a specialised dimension, namely that of genetics.

E. Mayr, a widely-known American evolutionary biologist, interprets these problems in a somewhat different way.^^31^^ In showing the advantages of a demographic and historical approach to man's biology Mayr does not shy complicated social problems, although it is true the solutions he proposes are not always convincing from the point of view of Marxism. Nevertheless Mayr's general world view as well as his concrete approaches to the problem of man and his future are based on principles of humanism and democracy and on a recognition of the uniqueness of the personality and of its freedom.

While criticising sharply and convincingly the consequences

of "typological thinking" of which racism is an extreme

form, Mayr stresses the significance of both heredity and

the environment in the development of the personality. lie

argues against the "principle of identity" as one that is

both harmful to mankind and anti-democratic, and leads to

a loss of freedom. He emphasises that each individual must

be valued on the basis of his own characteristics rather than

the characteristics of his race. While this argument carries

much weight in the struggle against racism, nevertheless

Mayr by no means proposes to identify concrete ways leading

to the development of individuals with due consideration of

the social background, so to speak. Marx has observed that man

``. . .will develop his true nature only in society, and

the power of his nature must be measured not by the

power of the separate individual but by the power

of society". ^ffi

As we see, in such a context it is not the "great truths of population zoology", to which Mayr refers, that play the greater role, but the sociological truths developed by Marx. In fact Mayr is aware of the insufficiency of a purely biological approach when he refers, for example, to the sphere of operation of natural selection in modern conditions, and also to the future of mankind. He does see the role of labour in man's development and believes that man is

``the only mammal that continuously depends on tools for survival. This dependence on the learned use of tools involves development of a previously unexploited potentiality of behaviour and thus releases entirely new selection pressures.''~^^33^^

Mayr assumes that selection also continues to operate as an active factor in contemporary society, especially in the presence of major food shortages, and of unsanitary conditions. He also points to the genetic foundations of diversity in human abilities. This is not at all inconsistent, in my view, with a scientific understanding of the relative influence of social and biological factors on man's development.

Aside from the ethological and evolutionary-genetic approaches of modern social-biologism, a wide influence is exerted by modern Freudism, which greatly exploits new findings concerning the role of psycho-physiological factors in man's vital activities.^a4 Already in the works of Freud, who founded the modern conceptions of psychoanalysis, we find a fully explicit identification of man's essence with asocial biologically-determined instincts. According to Freud, social factors merely serve to suppress biological instincts. This leads him to conclude that social progress is based on eros---a sexual instinct underlying both life and self preservation, and tanatos---representing the destructive and aggressive death instinct. It is in terms of their operation that Freud classifies stages in mankind's cultural development.

It should be noted that Freud drew the attention of scientists to the sphere of the unconscious, which was not studied systematically by traditional scientific approaches, and demonstrated its great importance in life and in culture. But he failed to correlate the natural in men with his social sphere of existence.

The social analysis of man's activities has been a fundamental barrier to all contemporary conceptions of psychoanalysis, which greatly suffer, as a result, from internal contradictions and inconsistencies. In particular, this is characteristic of the psychoanalytic conceptions of C. Jung and also of K. Homey. Nor can one expect any help from attempts to combine the psychoanalytic ideas of Freud with a Marxist conception of personality as those of E. Fromm, for example. In seeking to bring together these two diametrically opposed conceptions, he tries to move beyond each of them, and in doing this interprets Marxism in the spirit of a vulgarised sociology. Fromm defines his point of view as "neither biological nor social",^^35^^ yet the psychoanalytic approach to man remains almost unchanged, since, according to Fromm, social conditions merely produce specific manifestations of man, while his essence is not determined

socially but derives from hidden strivings and conflicts within the sphere of the unconscious. Fromm assumes that it is these factors that play a decisive role.

This brings Fromm to Utopian conceptions of the future, in which man's relation to science and technology as well as his relations to the natural environment will become harmoniously integrated. But in his view this will be attained not as a result of the operation of social factors that lend themselves to rational explanation, but as a consequence of an effective, immediately experienced `` enlightenment'' that is destined to free man's primary potentialities and block the forces of evil, thus bringing him closer to a state of unburdened, natural behaviour.

Such an approach is also shared by H. Marcuse, who believes that first some kind of internal transformations must take place in man and only then will there be changes in social relations. Like Fromm, Marcuse ``improves'' Marx, by introducing man's "biological dimension", which, it is asserted, is missing in Marx. In such a context his teachings concerning eros play an even greater role than in Fromm in attempting to biologise Marxism.

Thus, relapses of social-biologism in philosophical interpretations of man's essence assume a variety of forms. '•* In that connection I would like to mention a scientific approach that is currently producing much discussion. 1 am referring to so-called sociobiology which aspires to be a separate scientific discipline. Its founders believe that sociobiology occupies an intermediate position between the teachings of B. Skinner, who assumes that man's behaviour is fully determined by the environment, and those of K. Lorentz, who seeks to prove that man is a prisoner of his aggressive instincts. As in the case of Freud, sociobiologists emphasise that which is inborn in man but also admit environmental influences. They believe that they can breathe new life into Freudism. R. Trivers, who is one of the lead ing theoreticians of sociobiology, even asserts that sooner or later political science, juridical knowledge, economics, psychology, psychiatry and anthropology will become branches of sociobiology. Naturally all this was met not only with sympathy among some scientists, but with sharp criticism by many others, in which the excessive aspirations of sociobiologists are rejected even though it is recognised that a number of observations and hypotheses that they

propose deserve careful attention and an objective appraisal.

In particular these observations apply to the ideas of Edward 0. Wilson, one of the founders of this approach, presented in his Sociobiology. '•" The main objective of that work is to show the genesis and nature of social propensities and their largely constructive role in the evolution of living creatures. According to Wilson, sociobiology is usually de lined as the systematic study of the biological foundations of all social behaviour. At the present time it emphasises population structures, means of communication, and physiological processes underlying social adaptation. It is also concerned with the social behaviour of primitive man and the adaptive traits of organisation in today's most primitive human societies. Accordingly, Wilson proposes codifying sociobiology in such a way that it may be transformed into a sector or branch of evolutionary biology, and in particular of contemporary population genetics.

In establishing the theoretical foundations of a science of sociobiology that is alleged to be common for all living beings, including man and human society, Wilson places particular emphasis on the attempt of biologists to draw parallels between insect societies and societies of vertebrates, including human societies. He seeks to establish some common traits in the behaviour of all highly-developed living creatures, to infer some general principles that govern their behaviour, and to show that sociability is a trait of all living creatures. According to Wilson, all living creatures live as some form of ``community'', and in a sense they are all social. He appears not to be a proponent of the conception that qualitative changes in ``sociability'' are possible in the course of evolution, but is rather inclined to see growth of a particular quality, a type of ``variety'' in a single quality of living creatures, namely their ability to form social `` associations'' in the course of evolution. Thus, he views the activities of the insects (ants, bees) as a labour activity. This is a proposition that cannot be stated without weighty grounds. And the essence of the matter is not changed by the fact that towards the end of his study he considers the unique specific traits of man and of human societies in considerable detail. This leads to much confusion in Wilson's use of concepts that were developed in relation to man's social foundations, even though, of course, we do not possess any other language except a human one, and accord-

ingly admit much that appears to be anthropomorphic into a science concerned with objects that are distant from man and are occasionally even altogether foreign to him. In particular this refers to the use of the term ``aggression''.

It is interesting to note that Wilson does not view aggression as a primary genetic trait of living creatures.

``Aggression evolves not as a continuous biological process as the beat of the heart, but as a contingency plan... Aggression is genetic in the sense that its components have proved to have a high degree of heritability and are therefore subject to a continuing evolution. .. Aggression is also genetic in a second, looser sense, meaning that aggressive and submissive responses of some species are specialised, stereotyped, and highly predictable in the presence of certain very general stimuli." ^ffi

Further down, however, in analysing systems of roles and casts among animals as well as the problem of leadership among them, Wilson gives free rein to biologising views. He compares man with ``non-human'' primates or more precisely their societies, while adding that the low state of development and undifferentiated character of the institute of roles among societies of primates (more specifically among apes including the highly-developed chimpanzees) serves to underscore even more the very great importance of roles in human societies. In his opinion, each profession, each role (for example of a physicist, a lawyer, a guard) is car ried out precisely as ``expected'', independently of other considerations and of individual understandings of truth. Significant observable deviations from role performance arc viewed in human societies as manifestations of unreliability and of spiritual or intellectual failure. Human roles are quite numerous, he adds, and in developed societies each individual knows well the norms of behaviour and obligations, and hundreds of professions and social positions. The division of labour is based on these perpetuated differences like the physiological determination of castes among socialised insects. Yet while the social organisation of insect colonies depends on a programmed altruistic behaviour that is achieved through an ergonomically optimal mixing of castes, the welfare of human societies is based on exchanges among individuals. Wilson does not see such a division of labour and of roles in other animal and insect societies. He con-

15---01743

eludes that in a qualitative sense human societies are unique". In the concluding chapter entitled "Man: from Sociobiology to Sociology", Wilson repeats his view concerning the relation of biology to the humanities and to social sciences. "Let us now consider man in the free spirit of natural history, as though we were zoologists from another planet completing a catalog of social species on Earth. In this macroscopic view the humanities and social sciences shrink to specialised branches of biology; history, biography, and fiction are the research protocols of human ethology.''~^^39^^

According to Wilson, one of the key problems of human biology is whether there exists a genetic predisposition for the ``membership'' of individuals in a particular class or for carrying out a specific role. It is not difficult to imagine the conditions under which such a genetic heredity may be discussed. In answering that question, which is very important for contemporary social philosophy and psychology, Wilson asserts that it is possible, for example, to refer to the hereditary character of certain parameters of intellect, and certain characteristic features of emotionality, to differences in intellect. Even if they are not very great, these differences lead to the appearance of class barriers, to racial and cultural discrimination, and to physical ghettos. Darlington, who is a geneticist, postulates that such a process is one of the primary sources of genetic differences in human societies.^^40^^

Wilson for his part does not agree with that point of view. In his opinion, in spite of the evident plausibility of that ``general'' argument, the view that hereditary factors strengthen the social status of individuals is not very probable. Citing the case of Indian castes that have existed for two thousand years, Wilson writes that members of various castes differ little from each other in purely genetic terms in relation to such anatomically or physiologically measurable attributes as blood types. Beyond this he points with reason to many cases of historical disappearances of distinctions among classes in the presence of specific conditions, and mentions the frequent ``functional'' transfers of representatives of one class into another, ``mixed'' marriages ---in the sense of marriages between persons from different classes, and the participation of representatives of various classes on an equal footing in the political and eco-

nomic life of individual countries. In short, he rejects that conception as a matter of principle and admits genetically determined heredity only within certain boundaries and with regard to specific relations.

Of course, this causes Wilson's conception to differ somewhat from more clearly expressed forms of social-biologism. Yet on the whole the basic conception of sociobiology continues to draw on that methodological approach. Not only does it not possess the precision and definiteness that is needed for solving the fundamental problem concerning the correlations of the social and the biological, but in many cases there is an obvious tendency to absolutise the latter.

A somewhat different answer to that problem is proposed by Rene Dubos, a well-known American microbiologist who is currently studying the problems of man.^^41^^ He notes that each personality is unique, unprecedented and unrepeatable, and defines the problem of seeking to identify and show the biological mechanisms through which the personality develops and asserts the uniqueness of its behaviour. Some of these mechanisms have their roots in the evolutionary past of man and his species. These have similar consequences and external forms of manifestation among all persons without exception. Other mechanisms originate in the specific characteristics of the genetic heritage of each individual, while a third group---and these are perhaps the most important ones---are associated with relationships that develop in each specific response to the overall environment through which each person is irreversibly modified in the course of these responses.

Dubos explains that genes do not determine the traits of individuals. They only govern the specific responses that, individuals produce to stimuli in their environment. Accordingly, Dubos assumes that individuality is equally a product of the environment taken as a whole and of genetically derived abilities and capacities. At every moment in a person's life biological and psychological characteristics are governed by the person's entire history. Accordingly, individuality may be viewed as an embodiment of responses to external stimuli and to changes that they produce in the organism in the course of its development.

Dubos analyses the complex of biological and social factors that play a role in the formation and expression of human individuality. He also discusses the enormous role that

15*

is played by biological processes of which individuals are not aware. We find one of the most interesting and specific forms of manifestation of these processes in Plato's dialogue entitled ``Phaedrus''. In it Socrates speaks of a basic element existing in man and manifesting itself in his actions, to which Plato refers as a "divine madness". From Plalo's text it may be seen that the term ``madness'' has nothing in common with the familiar psychic or spiritual state of a person who is upset. Rather it refers to far deeper human qualities that lie outside the range of reason's control. These properties remain hidden under normal conditions of life, but they deeply influence our behaviour under a wide diversity of circumstances. And, as Plato states, they may serve as a powerful source of inspiration and motivation.

In emphasising the significance of interactions between biological factors and the social environment and also of education in man's vital activities, and in referring to the consequent theoretical impossibility of planning any form of social life envisaging absolute freedom, Dubos concludes that the best that society can do for man is to create such a diversity of environmental conditions that within that diversity each personality will be able to choose that which it wishes. From such a point of view, Dubos states, today's world is just as conducive to an unfolding and ``expression'' of biological freedom and to the development of individuality as any other period in human history.

Of course such an abstract conclusion which neglects the quality and specific characteristic of social conditions in fact eliminates the initially formulated problem, namely to show the interaction of biological and social factors in man's development and vital activities. Apparently this is a logical outcome of the basic methodological position and world view that is employed, which do not make it possible to reach beyond that which is already defined at the beginning of the analysis as a prerequisite.

In that connection it should be emphasised that MarxistLeninist theory has not simply shown the significance of social factors operating together with biological ones---for the joint operation of both by no means constitutes, as some theoreticians occasionally try to show, an equally weighted dual determination of man's essential manifestations. Instead Marxist-Leninist methodology determines the dominant significance of social methods for studying man, thus

opposing biological tendencies in the course of which a scientifically unjustified reduction takes place, in which essential properties of man that appear in his integrated biosocial existence are reduced to individual aspects of man as a living tangible and sensing being. At the same time Marxist-Leninist methodology is distinct from simplified sociological approaches to man in which (often together with misleading references to Marxism) the biological nature of man is ignored, and the importance of biological methods in acquiring the knowledge of man is denied. Marxism draws the attention of researchers to an analysis of concrete modes of combining social and biological methods and to their dialectical mutual interaction and mutual interpenetration in a context in which the dominant significance of social methods is retained. Nevertheless, we often continue to see today merely a certain ``coexistence'' and complementarity within science of social and biological methods for studying man. At best we may establish a very general methodological rule: at the present time sociologists should carry out an analysis of social factors governing the development of man in such a way that the characteristic features of his biological nature are considered; while biologists, seeking to study man as an object of the analysis, must consider him with due account of social factors.

One of the approaches that is currently developing in scientific studies of the problem of man emphasises the identification of ``interfaces'' and ``boundary'' points at which social and biological methods cross paths. This is intended to overcome a corresponding dualism and those characteristics of each method that for the time being continue to be mutually exclusive. Much remains unclear in that area that calls for research activities and discussions. Today no one can pretend to have completely resolved these questions.

That this is in fact the case is indicated by the numerous discussions that are developing among scientists especially in recent years. ^ffl These emphasise that the central element in the problem of man concerns the understanding of two types of heredity (N. Dubinin). Biological heredity makes possible the existence and development of a reasoning man. Yet the development of each person takes place within a specific social environment. The outcomes of historical development are cemented in a social programme that transmits in an adequate form to each new generation the expe-

rience of all preceding generations. Of all the creatures on Earth only man is a biosocial being, and only man experiences the mutual interaction of genetic and social programmes. The carriers of genetic properties are DNA molecules, while the carrier of social programme is man and his brain, or more precisely, the experience of mankind that is not recorded in genes but is transmitted to new generations through education. In the case of man natural selection no longer plays a leading role and this has terminated for him a biological evolution that is taking place in the formation of races and species. The genetics of population confirms that man's hereditary potential is boundless and may be preserved indefinitely. Under such conditions, following the emergence of man, when a social form of movement of matter developed, it is precisely its laws that came to define man's social progress.

On the other hand, a number of scientists (L. Krushinsky and others) hold the view that in referring to the specific mechanisms that underlie man's evolution it is important to see clearly what is known today concerning the activities of the brain and the role of genotypes in the behaviour of animals and of man. Unfortunately at the neural level we know very little concerning the behaviour of man, while in the case of animal behaviour we have already como to know much more at that level with the help of modern micro-electronic technology. In recent years it has become clear that a single gene governs the mode of functioning of neurons. Similarly we may assert with a high degree of probability that specific cells are governed by different genes. Thus a brain is a collection of an enormous quantity of specifically determined neurons. Within the brain the mode of functioning of each neuron is determined. The reasoning activities of the mind are determined by the formation of such constellations. Man has evolved and has adapted to the particular conditions within which we live, and continues to adapt to rapidly developing changes in technology and to novel conditions of existence in outer space. This is taking place because there exists an enormous potential reserve for forming such constellations. Accordingly, man's social progress under any conditions is practically boundless. But genetic constraints do exist, particularly with regard to instincts. Accordingly, one must of course view as one-sided and erroneous tendencies to ignore the biological roots of

23Q

social phenomena and to emphasise social governing principles alone. This has created a situation in which many phenomena that are by no means independent of biological factors have come to be viewed as lying outside man's material biological basis which is subordinated to social governing principles. On the other hand, it is widely known that geneticists and biologists often tend to underestimate the importance of the social factor.

In that connection attention was drawn to very important interfaces between social and biological disciplines in certain areas (in pedagogics, jurisprudence, psychology). In the view of a number of scientists (B. Astaurov and others) problems in these areas must be solved not in terms of mutually exclusive influences, but in terms of mutually complementary ones, and through concrete studies of the type that ethologists carry out.

But in referring to biological factors these may not be reduced merely to the genetic level. There is a considerable distance between genes and attributes, and information is required concerning complexes of genes and their mutual interaction with the external environment, which perhaps will not necessarily be social in character. In the view of N. Bochkov, for example, it is therefore necessary to extend the discussion of biological factors beyond the sphere of genetics and in viewing the genetic aspects of man's development one should not forget ontogenetics. More emphasis should be given to physiological and to ontogenetic aspects of development, and particularly to those factors that produce pathological effects, since they alter the biological essence of man. In such cases individuals will perceive social factors in altogether different ways.

Corresponding discussions have also drawn attention to the evolutionary aspects of the problem concerning the relative weight of social and biological influences. In this connection it was stressed that it is precisely basic biological factors that ensured to man the very possibility of a social development. In the course of this social development man has largely liberated himself in certain respects from the influence of natural selection, even though this does not extend fully to a number of attributes (such as for example blood types and hemoglobin). With regard to many niorpho logical attributes, however, selection has nearly vanished. This socially determined reduction in the role of selection

has influenced the biological aspect, namely the migration of genes has become more frequent and sharp divergences in external attributes have begun to occur without causing far-reaching physiological changes. This in turn has facilitated the historical process of ethnic differentiation. Thus, having influenced the overcoming of selection, social factors have influenced the biological differentiation of races, and this in turn may have influenced historical ( ethnogenetic) phenomena to a certain extent. It is thus through a complex intertwining of biological and social factors that development has proceeded in this area. Their interrelations must be considered within a specific system and through an analysis of the precise ways in which they interact and of the reasons why this results in particular outcome.

This draws attention to ideas that were developed by B. Ananyev in recent decades, and in particular to the idea that there exists a deep dependence of the structure of the life path of a person and of its basic moments---its beginning, optimum, and finish---on the course of historical development and of historical shifts from generation to generation.

Some of the more elementary psychic governing constraints are recorded genetically, as are certain morphological facts. But the most essential factor is that in the process of ontogenesis, which in the case of man proceeds in the context of a social development of psychic processes, radical changes take place in their structure which also alter their relationship to man. Evidence indicates that while elementary psychic processes are recorded in genotypes, the roots of higher functions should be sought primarily in the sphere of communication among persons (for example of mother and child), and that as a result elementary forms of memory bear a different relation to man than do higher forms of memory.

A major problem that is in many respects autonomous concerns the historical conditions of man's spiritual quali ties (in particular altruism, aggressiveness, etc.). Today it has become the subject of major discussions among scientists. Among the latter some (in particular V. Efroimson and others) emphasise that this relates to the question whether in the course of its emergence mankind has experienced a natural group selection with regard to altruism.

Many scientists assumed that this did occur, and in their view this provides a materialistic answer to many mysteries.

The problem whether there exist biological foundations for ethics, particularly with regard those problems of ethics that developed primarily under the influence of the ideas of S. Freud and also of ethology (K. Lorentz, R. Ardrey and others) is widely discussed throughout the world. One of the studies in which these discussions are clearly reflected is the collection entitled Biology and Ethics.^^43^^ This is a collection of short reports and contributions to discussions that took place at a symposium organised by the Royal Georgraphical Society in London. In the preface to the collection F. Ebling, the symposium's organiser, identifies the most important aspects of relations between ethical problems and biological science as it exists today. He also notes that the hypothesis concerning natural selection places particular emphasis on a continuous competition among individuals in their struggle for survival. But today it is clear that in many spheres of the animal world the continuation of a species depends more on the survival of social groups than on that of individuals. Groups possess two main advantages from the point of view of selection: they guarantee protection against enemies and they are more effective in the collection of food.^^44^^ Accordingly, Ebling concludes, the principle of selection begins to operate at the level of groups and within the framework of groups. Joint actions of members of species thus are in fact factors of major significance in evolution. If we have established that in the course of evolution the survival of groups becomes more important than that of individuals, we can then assert that this is produced by two phenomena: on the one hand, organisms are more inclined to act jointly and to `` cooperate'' than to act as rivals; and on the other, individuals may sacrifice themselves for the sake of a group; and it is here that we see the emergence of altruism.

If we admit that "joint actions" and ``altruism'' are terms that may be employed to describe behavioural phenomena the question still remains whether there are grounds for interpreting this phenomenon as the appearance of ethical behaviour. In order to answer it we must attempt to define what is ethical behaviour.

In Ebling's view human behaviour is ethical or moral when it is correct, just, and as such the opposite of "incor-

rect and unjust"; an ethical code is a system that includes everything that is viewed as "correct and just" in each particular society. It is the nature of ``justice'' and `` injustice'' that endows this discipline with the concrete substance that we call ethical or moral philosophy ... In spite of all the philosophical errors and distortions that we commit in seeking to infer or define our value judgments, an important element remains, namely, all ethical behaviour must involve a choice. Neither moral sanctions nor moral approval is possible for actions that are unavoidable.

In a biological sense the nature of that choice appears to be evident. That principle emerges from the conflict between mechanisms contributing to the survival of the organism (of an individual member) and mechanisms contributing to the survival of the social group as a whole. One could assume that individual stimuli---such as hunger, sexual attraction, and fear---possess instinctive components, and that the latter could be channeled in such a way as to be useful to society through education and training. Yet such an approach would not be very correct, since any particular behaviour is governed both by genetic and ecological factors and a moral choice may emerge on the basis of a conflict (more precisely from the conflict) between acquired models of behaviour.

Ebling's attempt to compare such a view with Freud's survival and reproduction (the continuation of the species, of point of view. He writes that the instincts of individual well-known conception is interesting from the philosophical the ``self'') is comparable in his opinion with Freud's "id". This refers to a vastly powerful unconscious attraction that includes sexual motivations and strivings to satisfy them. Ebling states that only a part of our ethical behaviour passes through the channels of the conscious.

In considering how and when ethical behaviour appeared in the course of evolution he recognises that examples of altruism may be found among birds, and that they are also able to ``learn''. Their behaviour, however, is comprehensively ``programmed''. In Ebling's view, in order to follow the appearance of morality in the course of evolution more successfully particular attention should bo given to the evolution of mammals, and especially to primates that are closest to man. He bases this proposition (as well as others with which he agrees) on a speculative assumption, namely

that man occupies a unique position because in the course of evolution (more precisely in the course of development) his ethical behaviour is conceptualised and codified.

In summarising Ebling notes that behaviour which servos the interests of a group and may at the same time contradict the strivings and wishes of the individual is not only subjected to evolutionary development but is also its outcome. Behaviour of this type is ``inherited'', and then `` introduced'' in some measure into the structure of each individual through the mechanism of ``consciousness''. Subsequently it is strengthened and sustained in a society through an entire system of arrangements that range from informal sanctions to threats of law enforcement.

According to Ebling, ethical concepts are not merely directives originating in society and addressed to individuals. They are also directives that individuals themselves contribute to society. Each individual and each group of components seek to influence the norms of the greatest possible number of members of society, including the national and international norms in relation to which the individual or given group is a part.

Thus in seeking to establish a relation between man's biological nature (a substratum) as a member of animal life, and ethical norms Ebling does not arrive at any consistent finding. He merely observes that ethics has biological evolutionary foundations.

M. R. Chance seeks to make that proposition more concrete in an article entitled "Towards the Biological Definition of Ethics". His aim is to develop a behavioural model of ethics. In Chance's view behaviour is a link between an organism and its environment, and its study yields a greater understanding of the process noted by Darwin, although no one undertook this until ethology had appeared as the latest outcome of the development of behavioural science. Further, the author explains the reason why it is necessary to consider the ethological aspects of organisms and of their behaviour: it is here, in his view, that the ethical problem arises. Ethics, he writes, is a path recorded in language, in terms of which it is desirable to alter behaviour in a given direction. The author recommends that the principles of ethology be applied to the selection of leaders, both in the political sphere and in the economy.

In an article entitled "The Development of Moral Attitudes and Behaviour" B. Foss notes that in the case of animals living in groups, just as in the case of men, the evolutionary value of behaviour derives from a movement from what is important to the survival of the individual in the direction of what is important for the survival of the group. Naturally it follows that in a comprehensive sense such a survival will depend on the evolution of the structure of the groups themselves, but it is also possible that through a process of selection new individual characteristics could have been formed. For example, it is evident, that in the case of changes resulting in increased passivity (as in the case of a disposition of individuals to be led by someone) a result may be an increased viability of the group itself, even though the increased passivity itself may to some extent be harmful to the individual. But while in the animal world ``altruistic'' actions are rooted in instincts and their mechanisms, in the case of man such actions are a consequence of learning.

The author's subsequent argument concerning the typology of moral personalities or moral typology are purely ethological. Point VII in his classification states: "There may be an important genetic component involved in an inability to behave morally." In Point VIII, however, it is noted that the environmental factor, which includes both social and economic elements, may exert a very substantial influence on the personality's behaviour.

E. Wilson advocates a similar approach in the work entitled Sociobiology that has already been mentioned. For example, in his view altruism should be considered from the point of view of the species. Many authors have stated that the existence of altruism in the animal world contradicts the concept of natural selection as the basis of evolution. Wilson does not agree with this and states his objections. Having asked precisely how in the process of natural selection altruism could have emerged and developed as an element that by its very nature contradicts individual adaptation the author answers that it is kinship. If genes producing altruism exist in two organisms as a result of their common origins, and if the act of altruism increases and multiplies the joint contribution of these genes to the next generation, then a disposition towards altruism will extend, in his opinion, to the entire genetic pool, Subsequently the

author seeks to provide logical grounds for the proposition that within the complex process of evolution the hypothalamus-limbic complex of highly developed living creatures serves to activate an effective combination derived from principles of individual survival, reproduction, and altruism. Complex relations develop between the individual and the species whose outcome is the preservation of the species and its viability.

The foundations of such an approach to the problem of altruism and its emergence were formulated in 1964 by the English biologist William D. Hamilton, who assumed that this is a quality that develops in the course of evolution and makes it possible for the individual to disseminate his genes. In this way altruism is essentially defined as genelic egoism. In particular this is the way in which Hamilton explains the social life of insects. On the average threequarters of the genes of all types of ants, bees, and wasps that are daughters of a common queen are similar. Since these daughters are linked to each other through kinship ties that are closer than those of their progeny they are genetically interested, Hamilton assumes, not in reproducing but in helping the queen produce new daughters. As a result, sterile workers appear that co-operate with each other within their community under the influence of genetically egoistic causes.

R. L. Trivers, a biologist at Harvard University, has developed these ideas further by proposing the conception of mutual altruism. In particular this is intended to explain the fact that certain birds convey signals of danger to the entire flock even when it does not contain direct descendants or close relatives. The author assumes that this takes place among all organisms. It is therefore senseless, in his opinion, to view human beings as the only species in which altruism does not possess genetic foundations.

That conception has become the ultimate basis of socio biology, and E. Wilson extends it not only to altruism but also to other ethical phenomena. He asserts that both

``scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of philosophers and biologicised.''~^^45^^

He then immediately turns to a critique of existing conceptions of this subject. Contemporary ethical philosophy, in

his opinion, consists of several unintegrated attempts to conceptualise that science. He characterises the first as "ethical intuitivism", which, in his view, rests on the conviction that human consciousness, reason or mind possesses a capacity to directly perceive good and evil as well as a capacity to further formalise knowledge acquired in this manner into a logical system and then transform that system into rules governing social actions and the social activities of individuals and of the society as a whole. The author views the conception of a social contract in the works of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant as typical examples of such an approach in Western culture. Among contemporary philosophers, sociologists, and anthropologists, Wilson names John Roles who, in his view, has transformed that idea into a rigorous philosophical system. E. Wilson considers that the Achilles heel of that conception is that it rests on emotions creating judgements of the brain (the author has in mind consciousness, whose organ is, in his view, the brain), as if the brain were some kind of "black box". In fact, Wilson asserts, the brain has long ceased to be a mystery of nature, a "black box", and at the present time is studied comprehensively from many points of view. It is not possible to exclude the human genotype and ecosystems from ethics. In any case comprehensive studies of the neuromechanism of ethical propositions, he concludes, are highly desirable and are already being carried out and making progress.

Wilson considers so-called ethical behaviourism to be one of the attempts to conceptualise ethics (Wilson refers to it as a second form of conceptualisation). The basic proposition of ethical behaviourism is that moral behaviour is fully denned by training, and that in addition to the process of training there also exists a certain dominant mechanism, a background element (which in all such conceptions is society), in short, a determining principle. In other words, children fully assimilate or internalise the behavioural norms of society.

According to the author, the evolutionary genetic conception stands in opposition to all such ``conceptual'' views.

``Ethical philosophers intuit the deontological canons of morality by consulting the emotive centres of their own hypothalamic-limbic system. This is also true of

the developmentalists. .. Only by interpreting the activity of the emotive centres as a biological adaptation can the meaning of the canons be deciphered."⁴⁶ Further he analyses, or more precisely, ``unfolds'' this assertion in the language of biological studies. Essentially he asserts that ethics is closest to biology, and that this philosophical discipline, which is linked to it through its `` destiny'', cannot be constructed in terms of logical mental means alone. This is because it relates to interpretations of the behaviour of persons, while that phenomenon is rooted in the biological evolution of man and of primates, and even in the history of invertebrates if one considers altruism.

This is why, Wilson asserts, ethics as a science must be constructed on a biological foundation, but this first requires that it be "removed and taken away from philosophers". In such a context it remains unclear why it is not possible to study and formulate many propositions of ethics on the basis of the currently existing level of its objective development by society (as a set of behaviour norms) and by scientists (as philosophical systems and world view systems) and why biogenetic studies cannot be carried out merely as complementary to philosophical ones or else as an independent and possibly even altogether different form or ``model'' for studying ethical problems and especially the genesis of ethics.

Similar ideas, and specifically ideas relating to the evolutionary genetic foundations of the origins of altruism have recently been presented in Soviet literature as well. For example in the course of a round table discussion of the journal Voprosy Filosofii devoted to the socio-ethical problems of man's genetics, V. P. Efroimson has stated that if one considers closely the specific characteristics of the operation of natural selection to which mankind was subjected in the course of its emergence, it will be seen that it is precisely natural selection, which is nature's most ruthless law, that has created altruistic emotions in man of unusual power and stability.^^47^^ Unlike sociobiologists, however, V. P. Efroimson believes that it is not at all geneticists who will have the last word in solving the problem of the origins of human ethics and of humanism. It is important that philosophers do not neglect the fact that both social and biological factors influence the emergence of ethics.

There is no doubt, of course, that the evolutionary genet -

ic and ethological findings that are presented in support of this idea are extremely important. Engels had already noted that

``It is, however, inherent in the descent of man from the animal world that he can never entirely rid himself of the beast, so that it can always be only a question of more or less of a difference in the degree of bestiality or of humanity." ^

Yet it is difficult not to see that in the works of many ethologists, neo-Freudians, and sociobiologists as well as of those who rely on their conclusions concerning the origins of ethical values there is precisely an overemphasis on the animal nature of man and a neglect of his human properties, in short, an exaggeration of the importance of biological factors and an underestimation of the significance of social factors.^^49^^ In this connection Lenin had observed:

``Nothing is easier than to tack an `energeticist' or `biologico-sociological' label on to such phenomena as crises, revolutions, the class struggle and so forth, but neither is there anything more sterile, more scholastic and lifeless than such an occupation." <sup>50</sup> The social origins of ethical values and of their changes and development as societies progressed, and finally their class-oriented character are of decisive importance in formulating the problem of mankind's future. This is why attempts to exclude specific spheres of human activity and the corresponding ethical values from the wider socio-- ethical context cannot be viewed as positive. In effect they appear as continuations of purely biological, evolutionary-- genetic approaches to the origins of ethics, with which they share a common ``naturalistic'' foundation. But as a result, even though it originates in science, such an extrapolation into a qualitatively different sphere of human existence becomes anti-scientific---a ``semi-science'' in the words of Dostoyevsky. This is particularly evident in those approaches to the problem of man's biological adaptation to the conditions and development of modern civilisation in which one finds proposals to ``breed'' some kind of comprehensively adapted "ideal persons" through purely biological (genetic) methods. Let us turn to a critical analysis of these projects and, while doing this, consider the relevant problems in a positive way.

3. Man's Prospects in the "Age of Biology'': Problems of Health Care and the Possibilities and Limits of Biological Adaptation; Critique of Neo-Eugenic Projects for Producing an "Ideal Man"

Thus man's specific characteristic as a biosocial being is that his transformation into a ``supra-biological'' being has largely freed him from the power of evolutionary mechanisms. From that moment his adaptation must be viewed not as an adjustment to changes in the external natural environment, but as an active practical alteration of that environment in accordance with his own needs. These very needs, moreover, can no longer be understood in a simply biological sense. And while following man's transformation into a "super organism" the satisfaction of directly vital biological requirements remains a self-evident basis for his corresponding activities, an entire range of cultural requirements develops over that basis: man asserts his physical existence in order to satisfy his higher needs which are expressed in his objectives and values.

It has already been stressed that this does not at all imply that biological factors do not play any autonomous role in man's vital activities and in his future. On the contrary, they occasionally acquire such a vital significance and transform the personality's social sphere to such an extent that one would simply have to be blind not to see this. This is particularly true of man's development in early years. The problem of health care has become one of the most urgent global problems of our time. Changes in the way of life of persons under the influence of the revolution in science and technology influence their health in a number of unfavourable ways. An increasing role is played by socalled diseases of civilisation. ID spite of substantial progress in medicine and health care they no doubt constitute a threat both today and in the future. This calls not only for a further development of medical science and of health

Jg-01743

care practices but also for an entire complex of social measures that are not possible under capitalism. At the same time developing countries still fail to meet needed sanitation norms and this results in epidemics of cholera, the plague and other dangerous diseases. Developing countries are not able to overcome these dangerous phenomena by themselves. They are hindered by their lagging development which has resulted from colonial exploitation, as well as by neocolonialism which has in fact conserved earlier social evils.

According to data published by the World Health Organisation more than one billion persons---approximately onefourth of the planet's population---live in unsatisfactory conditions. Each year more than 18 million children below five years die in the world, 95 per cent in developing countries. Approximately twice as many children become complete or partial invalids as a result of brain disturbances, deafness, stunted growth, etc. Altogether 50-70 per cent of children living in developing countries are afflicted by infectious and parasitic diseases. Of 1,000 newly-born children 160 will not reach the age of adult life.

A global scope is now assumed by the struggle against dangerous and widespread epidemics, infectious, and parasitic diseases, prophylactic measures and treatment of cancer and cardiovascular diseases, genetic defects and diseases of genetic origin. The socialist countries are solving many of these problems effectively because they possess wide networks of medical and scientific institutions. In the USSR alone the number of doctors has increased from 16,500 in 1917 to 862,000 in 1977. This represents an increase from 1.1 doctors to 33.4 per 10,000 persons. In 1980 the number of doctors in the USSR attained 1 million.

That problem, however, is global in character, and socialist countries contribute actively to international co-- operation designed to solve it. One can no longer accept striking inequalities in the distribution of medical aid and medicaments, in access to the achievements of medical science, and a situation in which each year millions of children die from hunger, disease and the lack of immunisation. The numerous measures that are being carried out in recent years by the World Health Organisation and other international organisations are evidence of the growing striving of peoples throughout the world and of progressive communities to bring this glaring inequality in the field of health

care to an end. In that connection the international conference on primary medical care held in Alma-Ata in September, 1978 jointly by the World Health Organisation and UNIGEF was particularly important, for it concerned a key problem in health care that is truly global in nature. The establishment of effective and complex nation-wide health care systems in all countries that could effectively provide for the right of each person to health care and health improvement and to receive qualified medical assistance is very much a problem of our times and one of the highest priority. In recent years this problem has concerned the sphere of primary medical care. The 28th World Health Assembly defined this as the "zone of primary contact" between persons, families, communities on the one hand, and national health services on the other. The Declaration that was adopted by participants in the conference at Alma-Ata recorded the unanimous view that health is a basic human right and that the achievement of the maximum that is possible under present health conditions in the shortest possible time constitutes a major global social task. The Declaration stressed the responsibility of governments for the health of their countries' populations, and for co-- ordinating activities in the field of health protection not only at the national level but at all levels, including that of primary medical care. The importance of an active participation of wide layers of the population in these activities was noted. This defined the common basic line of development in arriving at the most rapid solution of health care problems at the global level.

The conference's participants addressed an appeal to their governments to strengthen co-operation in the field of health care, and emphasised the importance of international support for measures that lie within the jurisdiction of national governments. Naturally the effectiveness of these measures will ultimately depend on the extent to which national governments will be guided by scientifically established principles in designing policies in the field of health care, and the extent to which they will view the establishment of a health care system as a major element of general socio-- economic development. Will man be able to preserve himself as a representative of the Homo Sapiens species over an indefinite historical time horizon? Is he not threatened, as some of today's futurologists are asserting, with biological dege-

16*

neration? Perhaps some measures to avoid this could be initiated already today? Finally, is it possible to interfere with the intimate processes of man's biology and genetics without harming man's nature and what are the limits of permissible intervention in this sphere, if it is needed at all?

These are some of the issues that are discussed widely in contemporary scientific literature, and in works of science fiction as well as works of ordinary fiction, both low quality and artistic. Let us consider which elements of various proposed answers are directly related to science and must therefore be taken into account, and which merely result from the play of imagination and sometimes of ill-intentioned pseudo-scientific constructions that compromise science.

As we turn to the biological aspects of man's future we cannot ignore the concept of the "age of biology", which while not fully precise, is quite widespread among scientists. What does it mean and suggest, and how does it pose the problem of man? The "age of biology" is a new stage in scientific and technical progress associated with and largely made possible by a revolution in biological science. The latter has placed it in a leading position in the natural sciences, succeeding physics and chemistry. It is beginning to determine the main direction of their development as well as applications of scientific knowledge to production activities. In transforming production it also transforms other spheres of human life.

A revolution in biological science has already begun. Its principal features include: an intensive application of methods borrowed from allied disciplines (above all physics, chemistry and mathematics) to studies of living systems that make biological knowledge precise and demonstrable; the attainment of biological knowledge at the molecular level, which has produced an intensive development of molecular biology; and a wide application of a systems approach and of cybernetic modeling to biological knowledge. This has produced a research situation in which other currently more developed disciplines adjoining biology ( particularly physics, chemistry and mathematics) have become increasingly concerned with the study of living processes and with serving biology as the latter becomes one of the central disciplines within the system of natural sciences.

These trends, which are taking place with regard to specific processes of scientific cognition, are the ones that will

eventually bring it to a state that may then be described as the "age of biology". But at the present time they constitute a complex process. Even though it has already produced scientific discoveries of epochal significance (the deciphering of the genetic code and the synthesis of genes), considerable time will apparently be needed before the new trends in biological knowledge can develop further and become dominant. Just how they will in fact develop is a difficult question the answer to which is today highly uncertain.

A wide variety of forecasts are now current concerning the type of biological discoveries that will take place and their estimated time. Generally this refers to the solution of problems that have already been defined in science. For example according to forecast data produced by a number of scientific experts, by the year 2000 explanations will have been provided in terms of molecular biology of the mechanisms that transmit sounds and visual images originating in the organs of hearing and sight; effective scientific methods will have been developed for avoiding some epidemics; the influence of chemicals used in agriculture and also of industrial waste on the environment will have been studied comprehensively and methods will have been developed for arriving at precise forecasts of the consequences of using such chemicals and waste; global standards will have been specified for maximum permissible pollution of the environment. By 1989, according to experts, centralised systems will have been created to which data concerning the medical diagnoses of individuals will be channeled (these systems will serve to monitor their health); work on the development of effective methods of identifying carriers of hereditary diseases in human organisms will be completed; and data on corresponding surveys will be conveyed to "marriage consulting services". By 1990 automatic diagnostic machines will be developed. By 1998 experts expect that methods will be developed to warn of allergic reactions to medicines by establishing the sensitivity of organisms to these medicines. In the same year norms for optimal diets designed to avoid age diseases will be identified. Similarly experts anticipate that after the year 2000 the chemical basis of complex processes associated with mental activities will have been understood and chemical structures participating in the functioning of memory processes will have

been studied; methods and medical drugs will have been developed for improving man's mental capacities, the aging mechanism will have been studied, and methods for avoiding the aging of cells will be developed; and the simplest living unicellular organisms will have been synthesised. As ethical norms will change euthanasia will be permitted in those cases in which the patient experiences extreme pain and there are no means for saving his life, as, for example in the final stages of cancer; and operations will be carried out on unborn children to correct hereditary defects.

In the series of forecasts relating primarily to the year 2000 we thus see that particular emphasis is given to developments in molecular biology, to the influence of physics and chemistry, and to the biology of cells. As for the most fundamental and general biological problems that relate, in the words of the Nobel Laureate F. Crick, to "complexes of interaction",^^51^^ there is much caution in this regard, and it is generally assumed that they will still be at an early stage of research in the year 2000.

A deep impression is left by the convincing image encompassing all these elements as well as possible avenues of progress in scientific knowledge that is provided by The Encyclopedia of Ignorance. This has been produced by a group of prominent scientific specialists from various disciplines and published not long ago in England with a characteristic subtitle: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Unknown.^^52^^ Usually encyclopedias are summaries of available knowledge. That book, on the contrary, contains articles concerning what we do not know about objects lying at the boundaries of our knowledge. It is observed that by comparison with that which we know the scope of what we do not know is boundless. Unquestionably the horizon of the unknown recedes as we approach it, and this is especially evident today in the case of biology. But it is also clear that the science of life confronts problems of unusual difficulty. As F. Crick has observed in referring to the problems of developmental biology, what we do not know in this area possesses the following curious feature: we know how an organism constructs even the most complex molecules, and we know much about what takes place inside a cell, but we do not know how thcso cells link with each other constituting tissues, organs and entire organisms. Life is constructed at a molecular level

and in order to explain what we see we must understand that which we cannot see. In summarising Crick observes that developmental biology is the area whose biological importance is greatest and in which our lack of knowledge is far more remarkable than what we do know.^^53^^

This is only one of several very important fields of biological knowledge. It is therefore not surprising that many scientists believe that we are moving towards a "biology with many unknowns". This means that the "age of biology" to which many scientists refer today as an immediate prospect and even as something which has already taken place, will probably not even begin at the turn of the next century: for a long and difficult road lies ahead along which epoch-making and unforeseeable scientific findings will be made. In addition, a specific form or linkage between biology and practical activities, and especially with the productive activities of individuals, must take place along this path, which effectively leads to the creation of a new type of science. At the present time such a linkage with practical activities is largely taking place in indirect ways through an elaborate complex of specialised medical and agricultural sciences. It would appear that this will remain a central avenue in the future as well. Nevertheless as biology and science more generally are increasingly transformed into a productive force, direct linkages between scientific research activities of fundamental problems and practical activities will become more comprehensive, and a greater emphasis will be placed on the role of biology in production, which, incidentally, also represents one of the major scientific avenues for avoiding the approaching "ecological crisis.''

This may be illustrated by future practical applications to the creation of fundamentally new types of production of findings concerning the chemical synthesis that occurs in living cells under normal temperatures and concerning direct transformations, with very high efficiency, of the energy of chemical reactions into mechanical work, as occurs in the muscles of animals. Their modeling and replication will make it possible to create fundamentally new types of engines.

The prospects for practical applications of biological knowledge in areas that are directly concerned with man, his genetics, and psycho-physiology, as well as the structure

and activities of his brain are especially far-reaching. It is the study of life processes as they relate to man and to his biological nature and living environment that probably characterises most the particular state of scientific development that we call the "age of biology". It is there that we find the greatest potential possibilities for progress in science and technology in the "age of biology", whose implementation---both its intensity and its forms---is naturally governed by social factors.

This is expressed already today in an unprecedented progress in medicine and health care, a search for methods for regulating the biosphere and biogeocenoses, and achievements in mastering the laws governing goal-oriented-changes in heredity in ways that will make it possible to learn to govern life and its development. All this unlocks truly fantastic prospects, and today we are simply not able to imagine the new world that will be created by man who possesses the secrets of life and is able not only to sustain it or destroy it but also to create it.

Thus the biological stage in the revolution in science and technology, whose formative conditions may be seen with increasing clarity today as a result of achievements in molecular biology, genetics, and biocybernetics, represents an increasingly rapid ``shift'' of scientific activities to man and from lower to higher levels of organisation of living systems. With the help of science man's biological nature will be increasingly adapted to the new environmental conditions that are created by scientific and technical progress. But this may raise new, more complex and more difficult problems.

We know, for example, that today many proposals concerning an intensification and increased effectiveness of mental activities through the ``uninhibiting'' of wider sys terns of linkages among the brain's neurons (at the present time only 7 per cent of 14 billion neurons actively participate in work) confront the threat of a ``disco-ordination'' of the organism's integrated functioning, and that the general biological consequences of such initiatives and their boundaries are not known. On the other hand, man's mental abilities, or at least the corresponding biological formative conditions, are programmed genetically. This is why in studying interactions between heredity and the environment human genetics has become one of the channels through

which science in the "age of biology" may be placed at the "service of man" by adapting his nature to existing conditions of civilisation and enhancing man's adaptive possibilities in new conditions.

Already today genetics is able to propose a number of methods that open new approaches to solving these problems. But this is only a beginning, and even though that beginning is highly encouraging, it is still problematic in many respects and continues to pose new questions before science. Just the same one cannot fail to note such an epoch-making discovery as the artificial synthesis of a gene that reproduces within a colony of bacteria exact copies of the hormone that is produced by the hypothalamus at the base of the brain (called samotostatin) and which helps regulate the activity of the hypophysis which governs many functions of the organism. A similar discovery concerns the successful utilisation of artificial genes to produce hormones, in particular insulin. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the use of bacteria to prepare medicines based on hormones.

The prospects for practical applications of artificial genes will bring us to the threshold of new forms of medicines and will widen man's adaptive possibilities. In particular, this may be achieved through a prophylactic intervention into man's heredity in struggling against hereditary diseases and in seeking to reduce the load of pathological mutations.

At the present time hereditary diseases are extremely widespread (each year 2-3 per cent of newly-born children throughout the world suffer from them). Both physically and morally they ruin the lives of many millions of persons. The struggle against them as well as the care of persons suffering from hereditary defects is a heavy burden. In addition, increasing background radioactivity on our planet and discharges of mutagenic chemical substances into the atmosphere produce significant increases in pathological changes in heredity. Mankind faces the problem of not only protecting itself from these negative phenomena, but also of ``improving'' nature in some respects. Genetics is particularly suitable for this purpose and its dominant role in the science of life will therefore increase as science enters into the "age of biology''.

For man genetics is everything that he can receive from

science as a result of mastering the laws governing heredity and the mutations of organisms. This concerns not only the creation of more productive varieties of agricultural plants, animal breeds, and types of micro-organisms, but more generally a transition to a fundamentally new mode of obtaining food products---by abiotic means. Human genetics represents a penetration into the inner secrets of man's biological existence that will, perhaps, allow for man's greatest possible liberation from nature, for he will then truly become his own creator.

In such a context those branches of research that have recently come to be called genetic engineering are excep tionally promising. Their distant objective is to produce organisms possessing new, preset hereditary properties in laboratory conditions. This is achieved through a direct intervention into the genetic apparatus of organisms, through the introduction of a new gene or genes that are either removed from other organisms or else artificially synthesised by biological or chemical means. The nearest stage in genetic engineering as applied to man will be a ``correction'' in the operation of pathological genes, and beyond this the replacement of pathological genes by normal ones, in ways that will permit new types of prophylactic activities with regard to hereditary diseases.

Initial results have already been achieved. Above all this refers to the development of methods for obtaining genes outside organisms (the synthesis of genes), of methods for introducing them into genetic structures (transgenosis), and of ways for adapting new genes to unusual genetic and physiological environments. It is true that the results are still very limited in terms of their significance and are distant from practical applications in human genetics. They have, however, become the subject of intensive discussions among scientists and are sometimes met with excessive scepticism and unjustified optimism. The scientific literature relating to man's future has given much attention to this subject.

In that connection a survey published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States several years ago (by its commission on science policy) has met with considerable attention. It is devoted to the life sciences and presents an integrated perspective of the development of its major branches, including those that relate to man's fu-

ture.^^54^^ With regard to that particular issue the authors believe that the forces that will determine man's immediate future are already apparent and that the corresponding events have already been determined. The world in the year 2000 and man's position within it will depend on how mankind will resolve certain fundamental problems. If it is able to escape the dark chasm that it is preparing for itself, then the future will truly belong to mankind, the only product of biological evolution that is able to control its own destiny.

Further the survey rightly observes that all speculations concerning man's future must be based on the supposition that mankind will not be drawn into a nuclear war. For if such a war takes place priority in all human affairs will be given to the problems of remaining or else newly established forms of social organisation, the development of health services, the distribution of vital medicines, and the subsequent threats of global epidemics. Modern technology is sufficiently powerful to make possible the complete destruction of mankind. That would require the utilisation of nuclear weapons over large territories and a deliberate attempt to disseminate lethal radiation levels to all uninhabited regions. As a result of defensive actions, some part of mankind will still be able to survive and probably again populate the earth. But those who will survive will be exposed to a continuing radiation that will produce many unpleasant consequences. Aside from a danger to their own organism survivors will develop ova and spermatozoids carrying a large number of new mutations that will produce an abnormal progeny. Still the radiation dose that they will receive from initial explosions and from residual doses may be low and permit them to have children that are normal in appearance and functioning, assuming that survivors will wish to produce a new generation. While this may be paradoxical in the view of the survey's authors, these may be the reasons that will bring about a more rapid abandonment of social prohibitions against the regulation of human genetics; for after a nuclear war it is almost certain that man will make use of genetic concepts and biological technology in order to govern the evolution of his species. Even if Homo Sapiens as such withstands a nuclear war, he may not be able, in the authors' view, to reconstruct his civilisation, but if he does, this may take place in a different way. It will

be practically impossible to prevent the ecological consequences of residual radiation throughout the world and of a high level of general radioactivity. Plant and animal species will greatly change, the present selection of food will cease to be possible, and it is not clear whether man will continue to be able to find food, heat and shelter in nature.

The authors of the survey pose the problem of protecting man's genetic qualities very sharply. In their view man's genetic fund provides mankind's greatest resource, both today and in the future. Today's genetic fund represents the culmination of an evolution and natural selection over a period of many million years. The physical strength, long life, and intellectual capacities of most persons express the fact that historically natural selection has minimised the sphere of activity of those genes received in a homozygotic state that would lead to serious physical and mental defects. But the achievements of medicine during the past two decades have altered that situation dramatically. The formation of types of human development that permit individuals to survive in spite of a poor genetic composition is called euthenics. By making possible the survival and permitting the reproduction of such homozygotes medical practice overcomes the operation of selection in relation to harmful genes.

For example, earlier intellectually underdeveloped children (phenylketonurics) were not able to reproduce; today, if from the time of their birth they are kept on a diet that is low in phenylalanine, they can have a progeny. Instead of ``absorbing'' the genes that are responsible for the disease, within a non-reproducing homozygote there occurs an increase in the frequency of these genes in future generations, and accordingly an increase in the number of phenylketonurics. A similar situation exists with regard to all other genetic diseases that may now be neutralised by various medical means.

The rate at which undesirable genes are accumulated within a population depends on many factors. Generally this is a very slow process that will not display clear consequences for many centuries. It can be said that many of the ``bad'' genes whose effects are overcome euthenically have lost their harmful character either completely or else in a large measure, so that their accumulation no longer constitutes a major biological load even though the associated economic load may be significant.

Such an accumulation may be held back through the development of wide networks of genetic advice bureaus that may recommend to some of the carriers of such genes that they limit their families or even not have any children. Frequently genetic consultations may convince individuals concerned that their fear of a defective progeny is unjustified. There is a growing knowledge concerning the transmission and mutations of certain types of human defects. More work is needed in developing methods that will make it possible to identify persons who are symptomless heterozygotic carriers of undesirable genes. As medical euthenics becomes more effective a universal practice of genetic consultation will become increasingly important. For otherwise, after a relatively small number of generations, the ethics that guides medical practice will be seriously compromised through the inheriting of countless diseases from previous generations. Because it impedes the process of natural selection against undesirable genes civilisation must provide for a corresponding substitute.

The authors of the survey assume that future achievements of molecular biology may permit the replacement of specific undesirable genes within cells. But they believe that the development of such a genetic ``surgery'' is unlikely in the near future. While a certain possibility exists for introducing desirable genes into body cells, it seems unlikely that it will also be possible to introduce new genes into a significant number of sexual cells.

But there is another difficulty which is far more serious in the authors' opinion. There has not been much progress in prolonging the period during which the human brain functions normally. The preservation of normal functioning in many other parts of the human body are not accompanied by a preservation of normal mental capacities. The death of individual neurons in the central nervous system is a property of a normal process of ageing as well as of injuries to the brain that frequently result from traumas and disease. This forms a major problem calling for fundamental research. Some of the best minds among biologists, physiologists and physicists have turned their efforts to the neurophysiology and the functioning of the brain. Their research activities will help understand the mystery that attaches to the physical basis of reasoning and help find a way to mitigate tragic situations in which the body is kept

alive but without retaining the mental capacities that characterise a normal personality. Biology, the science of life, must be complemented, in the views of the authors, by a new understanding of the biology of death. The use of such conceptions enhances interest in questions that are already calling for answers today. Is it justified for society to preserve the life of old people who have lost those mental abilities that distinguish human existence from other living beings? Where is the threshold of suffering and material care below which it is impossible to preserve the ties of such aged persons with society? These are questions which, in the view of the authors, increasingly call for answers.

A highly developed civilisation must find reasonable solutions to that problem. In the meantime the need to provide support for research activities that will serve the health of newly-born and young productive people competes for the human and material resources that are needed to study the problem of ageing. The tendency to provide greater support to children and young persons may limit those efforts of society that could preserve the life of old persons beyond reasonable limits.

Similar considerations, moreover, must be applied to the planning of resources assigned to the care of non-productive persons by comparison with the care of potentially productive individuals. Viral children's diseases, hereditary diseases, child leukemia, diseases of the endocrine system, traumas, and accidents all seem to be more worthy of attention than care for prolonging life. They imply, the authors conclude, harsh decisions, for which there are no absolutely valid methods; when a nation possesses the necessary resources it can afford to move forward on all fronts. But in addition, the authors note, by their very nature research activities do not lend themselves to coercion.

These thoughts of the survey's authors appear to be extremely interesting and important. It is true, of course, that they contain much that is debatable, particularly concerning the possibilities and boundaries of man's biological adaptation and especially concerning changes in his genetic qualities. With regard to the latter the authors note that historically the human selection process took place unconsciously and that much in it remains unclear. Many groups of persons differ with regard to many attributes; and in the authors' view the significance of most of these differences is

unknown. Why should there be differences among genes determining different attributes, instead of a single type that is best adapted to survival and thus specified through natural selection? What is the biological and social significance of polymorphism? The fact that it is impossible to answer these questions for most if not all cases of human polymorphism points to unsolved fundamental problems in the genetics of human populations. Some kind of selection forces must exist that operate more strongly in preserving the variety of genes than by eliminating all those that are currently not the most advantageous. It is not clear how these forces operate concretely in increasing the survivability of genes within specific genetic or environmental conditions and in reducing their survivability in different conditions. And so long as such a lack of clarity continues to exist we will not be able to forecast man's genetic future.

The authors believe that in spite of the complexity of the dynamics of population genetics intervention in these processes is possible. While more fundamental research is needed concerning the heredity of human traits, it is nevertheless clear, in their opinion, that selection can be effective even in relation to attributes whose transmission to succeeding generations is low. It is true, the authors also see considerable difficulties here as well. For even though man is potentially able to select his own genetic construction he still does not employ that possibility. Selection is a cruel process. In order to achieve rapid progress reproduction must be limited to those who possess desirable genotypes. But who will decide what is desirable? What particular variability in relation to genotypes and phenotypes will be optimal in the human society? Who will have the courage to prevent the majority of men and women to produce children and limit that activity to some elite group? And to whom will society entrust such decisions?

Can we expect changes in the attitudes of entire societies that will cause them to recognise a self-regulation of human evolution as necessary at the cost of sacrificing the personal wishes of the majority of individuals to create prolongations of themselves in the form of children? The authors believe that it is highly unlikely that such changes in attitudes will take place soon. But then man's future may encompass an infinitely long period sufficient not only to consider these possibilities but to actively utilise them as well.

The authors refer to the study of G. Muller who has advocated a partical selection in serving man's welfare by utilising the sperm of outstanding men preserved in a frozen state. Such forms of preservation may be effective over long periods of time, possibly decades after the death of donors, in order to arrive at a judgement concerning their true value. The sperm of those who will stand the test of time will then be utilised by a married couple. The wife and the donor will be the biological parents while the husband will be a foster father, as it were, influencing the child through his personal qualities. Such an approach possesses a low genetic effectiveness by comparison with the processes employed in crossbreeding animals. Its emotional aspects are also limited. It does make it possible, however, to control man's genetic future through methods that will leave the possibility of free choice.

The authors believe that a far more effective approach to the selection of specific human genotypes can be achieved through experiments with frogs and other amphibia. It is possible to remove a haploidal nucleus from a frog's egg before fertilisation, and instead of fertilising it with sperm to transplant a diploid nucleus from the cell of a frog embryo. Such an egg may develop into a normal frog. It will have the same constitution as the frog embryo whose body cell provided the transplanted nucleus. The further development of that method and its application to man will provide a powerful means, in the authors' view, to control the genetic development of future generations. Since the nucleus of a body cell preserves its genes, a child produced from a denucleised egg and the nucleus of the mature body cell will be genetically identical with that cell's donor. Beyond this it is possible to remove the nuclei from any desired number of unfertilised eggs of many women and replace them with nuclei of body cells of selected men and women. The eggs are then returned to the womb of a woman who will then experience a normal pregnancy. In this way it is possible to produce a multiplicity of identical copies of any man that has been selected as exceptional.

The authors point to the difficulties that such an approach will confront. From the technical point of view there is still a considerable distance between the eggs of frogs and human eggs, but they believe that what can be done with frogs today will become possible for men tomorrow.

The current biological problem, in their opinion, is largely one of developing skills with regard to detailed procedures. Possibly the next step in that field will extend to laboratory mammals the application of existing techniques with amphibia. Success with regard to a mouse or rabbit may make it possible to turn to the crossbreeding of animals. Prize bulls and cows will be continued through an identical ``progeny'' obtained from body cells. From there technical steps in the direction of man are a matter of time, and if there develops a strong desire to transform the potentiality into reality it will be possible to achieve this within several decades. At the same time the authors believe that it is essential to weigh the personal and social implications that derive from such a biologically possible procedure. Powerful social forces will silently oppose such practices just as they will oppose forced crossbreeding programmes in the selection of people. Today at a time when there is an extremely rapid growth in population, social pressures are directed to achieving the lowest possible level of reproduction without consideration of quality. But at some point, when populations have stabilised, there will be peace on Earth, and human social and political institutions will be sufficiently mature to guarantee that biological knowledge will not be utilised for military and other inhuman objectives, man will himself govern his own evolutionary destiny.^5r>

The authors state that undoubtedly many apparent changes in mental, behavioural, and social traits may be explained in terms of qualitative differences in genetic factors, such as health and strength, intellectual development or its absence as well as by favourable or unfavourable environmental conditions in early life. The principal problem that mankind confronts is to make these non-genetic factors operate in such a way that each individual will fully realise his genetic potential. At the same time even though the characteristics of unchangeable genotypes may be widened in this way, an intensive study of existing genetic mutations will make it possible to develop realistic plans for controlling man's biological structure. These plans will be postponed until there is deeper knowledge concerning the genetic fund and the genetic volume of populations.

Speaking abstractly, control over man's genetic future refers to manipulations of his genetic fund. Concretely such manipulations are effected through the reproduction of the

17-01743

human race. Even though the genetic production of a multiplicity of identical copies, considered above, may become technically feasible, one cannot be certain that a particular genotype which is successful under one set of specific conditions, will also be successful in a different environment. Most probably man's future will acquire enormous possibilities through a utilisation of the potentials of specific genetic funds for mutation rather than through a standardisation of some particular form of Homo Sapiens. And even though this may be technically feasible, the authors write that they reject the repulsive thought that subgroups of persons may be produced that are specifically adapted to carry out different tasks, thus producing a highly efficient but undesirable society.

When some day man assumes responsibilitiy for the power to control his own genetic destiny of which he will have become aware, the selection of individual plans must be based on thoroughly examined judgments. When he begins to make use of his power to control his own evolution man will have to clearly understand and define the values whose realisation he will be seeking.

We thus see a carefully considered scientific and humanistic position, which although does not define concrete social conditions for its implementation, nevertheless rejects ideas concerning irresponsible types of manipulation that are currently being reborn within the framework of socalled neo-eugenics. The need for a greater consideration of social conditions in discussions of possibilities to realise particular projects associated with the reconstruction of man's genetics is clearly expressed by a number of English scientists who have addressed themselves to that problem.^5a They even assume that it is desirable to prohibit certain research activities in that area, since the possibility exists that their results may be applied in dangerous ways by other persons. Many persons believe that the very existence of knowledge in this area is potentially so dangerous that it must not be widely available. With regard to eugenics the view is expressed that in a civilisation in which personality is sacred eugenic procedures are unethical. Eugenics is faced with many difficulties. An initial one consists in that the most resistant hereditary diseases are recessive, arid the carriers of corresponding genes are widely disseminated throughout the human population. A second difficulty

is that in place of the abnormal genes that have been lost new mutations will develop within the population.

Galton's idea was that eugenics would bring about in a more humane and effective way an increase in the rate of genetic changes in man in certain directions. But genetic engineering does not possess such clear specific objectives. For example, the idea of producing a large number of children from single ``exceptional'' males is dangerous, since any dictator possessing power, even though he is not genetically exceptional, may want to bring about a wide dissemination of his own genes. It is also dangerous because science today does not possess sufficient knowledge concerning the genetics of a genius.

Another avenue is also considered, however, in which genetic knowledge may serve humane objectives and at the same time bring about changes in a eugenic direction. This refers to medical aspects, which may be called phenotypic engineering (for example advantages deriving from a knowledge of the genetics of blood cells and from genetic advice). In that case all important ethical problems are reduced to the fact that the mother can always take into account information provided by genetics.

The logical objective of genetic engineering is to create an exceptional human race adapted to the environment. In the future this may mean the creation of persons who are specifically adapted to life on the Moon or in other parts of the Universe. Clearly it is impossible to anticipate these needs at the present time.

Such views concerning the possible application of methods of genetic engineering to a reconstruction of man's genotype are held increasingly widely by scientists. In particular they were reflected in the works of such major contemporary geneticists as T. Dobzhansky, G. Beadle, and B. Glass. Nevertheless, all types of speculation concerning the biological aspects of man's future that are based on an abstract examination of the possibilities that are being made available by science cannot perhaps be taken as anything but utopias. We know that scientific possibilities that are not limited by anything except the limits that attach to human knowledge (which are of a concrete-historical character) are actually realised only under specific social conditions. Accordingly, a consideration of such conditions must always be applied to effect corresponding corrections.

17*

This distinguishes realistic scientific forecasts from the numerous Utopias that also contain references to human genetics.

One can therefore understand the reservations and sometimes the sharp criticism that are expressed by progressive scientists with regard to all types of past and present eugenic Utopias. Neo-eugenics, like all eugenic projects generally, largely seeks to find a scientific and emotional as well as personal support in the idea of a ``comprehensive'' care for man and for mankind, for their dignity and freedom, for their future. In particular it is assumed that a man who has been subjected to eugenic measures ("positive eugenics") will correspond more fully to his own true essence. In terms of the classification employed by G. Muller he will possess, at the physical level, a better health; mentally---a stronger and more creative intellect; morally---a great warmth, and more sincere feelings for others as well as collectivist inclinations; and in relation to perception---a richer understanding and its more adequate expression.

It is characteristic that neo-eugenics places more emphasis than did the old eugenics on the means to be employed for realising its projects and on their moral character and their ethical permissibility. References are usually made lo a "noble human form of eugenics" (P. Teilhard de Chardin), that will be applied gradually and on a voluntary basis over a time horizon lasting many centuries. In this respect there is sharp criticism "from within", so to speak, of the positions of extreme scientism and social-biologism that are advocated by a number of contemporary neo-eugenicists. This kind of criticism is obviously of great importance in struggling against neo-eugenics, for it is motivated by humanistic considerations and a general understanding of the social responsibility of scientists. It may even be said that in some sense it is typical of most of today's scientists. There are individual attempts to develop a methodology for a ``balanced'' socio-biologism, as it were, in which eugenic projects for creating an "ideal man" are combined with social projects, including projects of a socialist type. This was clearly expressed in the works of G. Muller, who believed that by guiding man's evolution, programmes of planned eugenics make it possible to achieve unlimited progress in man's genetic constitution in ways that correspond to and repeatedly strengthen his cultural progress, which in turn

again strengthens his genetic constitution. In some respects this position of Muller is close to that of a number of scientists who are already advocating the idea of a "socialist eugenics''.

Yet Marxists cannot accept the idea of neo-eugenics even in such a ``noble'' form. This is not only because these ideas have compromised themselves in the past. Essentially it is because Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning man and concerning approaches to his development do not need such ``improvements''. They have already incorporated the findings of science concerning man, including those which have made use of the achievements of genetics. They draw attention to the fact that solution to the problem of creating a new man are social by their very nature. And it is from such a position that they turn to biology---and especially to genetics, which today continues to widen the sphere of direct ``services'' to man, his health and his development.

As for neo-eugenic projects for creating an "ideal man" they are above all not viable in a scientific sense, since in many cases they define an "ideal man" in a one-sided manner and continue to be based for the time being both on a very limited knowledge of human genetics and false ideas concerning a direct linkage between man's genetic foundations and his mental characteristics and spiritual qualities in general. They are also defective in a social sense, since they draw attention not to social factors governing changes in man but to purely genetic ones; this is why they are utilised by racist theories and ideologies and are employed in defence of genocide. Neo-eugenic projects also reveal their misleading essence in a philosophico-Weltanschauung sense, as well as a methodological sense. For they misrepresent the essence of man and his position in the world, including his role as both a formative element and a product of history. Instead they emphasise a one-sided orientation on socialbiologism. Such projects also deserve all types of condemnation from a humanistic point of view, for they are ready to sacrifice the sovereignty and unrepeatable uniqueness of personality by sanctioning scientistic and manipulative approaches to the personality. Finally, neo-eugenic projects call for rejection on moral and ethical grounds, since in all cases their implementation carries a threat to mankind and casts doubt on the basic values of human existence, such as, for example, love and parental feelings.

m

This does not mean, of course, that all forms of active intervention into man's heredity are impossible and undesirable, as a matter of principle, and that a real prospect for changing mankind's biological nature in desired directions will not appear in the distant future. But one should clearly distinguish such a scientific possibility from actual practice, which cannot be guided by abstract assumptions and calls for a concrete definition of the social conditions under which particular ideas may be carried out. In the conditions that exist in the world today neo-eugenic projects can objectively play---and in fact do play---only a reactionary social role. It is our deep conviction that their implementation would constitute a genetic catastrophe for man that is far more dangerous than the one from which neo-eugenics states it wishes to save us.

While rejecting neo-eugenics on purely scientific as well as social, philosophical, humanistic, and ethical grounds, we cannot fail to recognise the real biological prospects for man that are developing in connection with studies of human genetics and of medical genetics that have proceeded so intensively and uncovered now possibilities in recent years, especially in the field of genetic engineering. While these studies have nothing in common with neo-eugenics, they pose new and sometimes even more complicated and delicate social and ethical problems. This again confirms the importance of considering the social aspects of genetic and anthropological studies and of emphasising humanistic directions that are incompatible with those of scientism and with manipulative approaches to man, but rather follow from a respect for his freedom and uniqueness as an unrepeatable "sum total of all social relations" (Marx) and as a representative of the human race that is deeply individualised in a biological and genetic sense.

In this connection many discussions are devoted to the question as to whether some or other experimental manipulations on man are permissible. Criteria establishing whether they are permissible are defined on the basis of specific ethical and humanistic initial assumptions. Most scientists agree that these positions must be adhered to from the very beginning in designing an experiment, rather than following possibly important discoveries that were made post hoc. That which is post hoc can never be ethical, and in that sense, in the case of biological experiments on

human beings as well, the end does not justify the means.

The ethical problems that arise in connection with the transplantation of organs are especially delicate and complex. Many problems, including ethical ones, also arise in such experiments on human beings as ``cryogenisis'', that is, the freezing of persons who are incurably ill in the hope that they will be revived and cured at a time when medicine will have acquired the corresponding knowledge.

In all such cases medical scientists engaged in experiments confront the following alternative: either the patient will die or there is a hope for curing him. How far can one proceed, for example, in transplanting tissues and organs and what are the negative consequences? And more generally is the transplantation of human tissues and organs itself ethical? For this is after all the only branch of surgery in which there is a conscious departure from the principles on which therapeutic and surgical care rests, namely never do harm and prescribe regimen according to your ability and judgement. Medicine has always followed the principk that it is impermissible to sacrifice man's welfare, yet the removal of tissues and organs from a healthy donor reduces and in some cases destroys altogether his own capacities for immunity. A similar ethical and general human problem arises in stating the fact of death, after medical practitioners have found it necessary to declare the brain to be "the carrier of life", rather than the heart as was the case earlier; a person is now considered dead following the cessation of neurological activities. And since the brain dies earlier than the heart will that not produce situations in which medical practitioners will be more concerned with the saving of the patients' organs for purposes of transplantation while they are still ``fresh'', rather than with prolonging the life of the patient?

All this raises sharply fundamental questions relating to medical ethics, deontology, which establishes moral and ethical principles and obligations similar to those of the Hippocratic Oath. This is well stated in the words of the great humanist Albert Schweitzer:

``Only an absolute and comprehensive purpose seeking to preserve and develop life is ethical which is guided by veneration for life. Any other necessity or purposefulness is not ethical, but is merely a more or less necessary necessity, or a more or less purposeful pur-

26,3

pose. In situations of conflict between preserving my existence and destroying or harming others I can never combine what is ethical and what is necessary into something that is relatively ethical, but I must choose between what is ethical and necessary, and in cases in which I intend to choose the latter, I must realise that I am taking on myself the guilt that is associated with creating harm to another life. Similarly I must not think that in the event of conflict between personal and supra-personal responsibility I can compensate what is ethical and purposeful through something that is relatively ethical, or more generally suppress the ethical through what is purposeful---I can only choose between the members of that alternative. If under the pressure of supra-- personal responsibility I give priority to what is purposeful, I will find myself guilty of violating the morality of veneration for life".^^57^^

This is of course very much, and in fact too much, and is appropriate only to experimental scientists and doctors working with human beings who possess high moral aspirations and a strong sense of duty. That, however, cannot be the only basis for a code of principles regulating experiments with human beings. Juridical norms are needed that would correspond to moral and ethical ones.

The laws of many countries, including the USSR, permit clinical experiments on human beings. This requires, however, that the occasions, frequency, limits and permissible risks of such experiments be clearly specified. Clearly any scientistic manipulating that is incompatible with the ethical principles of humanism and the sovereignty of individual persons is completely inadmissible. But it is not the scientific community alone, it would appear, that should define this concretely. This is why one hears increasingly insistent references to the need to develop global criteria in relation to experiments on human beings, that could be embodied in unified codes of behaviour to be applied on a worldwide scale.

Examples are provided by the Nurenberg Code (1947), the International Code of Medical Ethics (1949), the Geneva Declaration (1948), and the Helsinki Declaration (1964). They contain recommendations to medical practitioners engaged in clinical research activities and ethical

principles governing experiments on live persons whose scope is global in character. They also determine objective and subjective criteria of ethical permissibility or impermissibility for carrying out particular experiments on human beings. With regard to the current situation additions to the Helsinki Declaration adopted by a colloquium held in Switzerland on the subject of "experiments on human beings" are also of great importance as are articles Six and Seven of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966, and also other United Nations documents.

In this connection a major role is played by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Medical Association (WMA) and the World Council of Medical Science Organisations (WCMSO), which have produced a number of important documents relating to medical ethics. A major constructive role was also played by a joint conference of the WCMSO and WHO held in 1973 in Geneva. It was concerned with the "Protection of Human Rights in the Light of Scientific and Technological Progress in Biology and Medicine". Much emphasis was given to the need to introduce a number of specific constraints and prohibitions, in particular in the field of genetics and psycho-surgery, in order to protect man's rights and his dignity and freedom as a personality. A document was adopted that defines the types of experiments that are permitted on human beings as well as relevant constraints.^^58^^

We thus see that the ethical regulation of biological knowledge about man is increasingly complemented with juridical regulation, and that this trend must apparently be viewed as a progressive one designed to serve man's welfare. It must result in more precise formulations with regard to establishing a rigorous correspondence between the objectives of scientific research, the needs for its further development on the one hand, and the objectives and rights of the individual, as well as the interests and rights of society as a whole on the other. It is difficult to say how this trend will develop over the long run in the third millennium. Nevertheless it is clear that without an increasing emphasis on juridical norms at the global level there is nothing to say concerning the outlook for man in the "ago of biology''.

In briefly summarising these discussions concerning the future of man in the "age of biology", it should be stressed

that they largely involve opinions concerning the degree to which man's nature is ``perfect'' or else ``imperfect''. As a rule, views regarding the possibility and permissibility of changing human nature follow directly from the authors' views on the relative role of social and biological factors in human development. There have been sharp encounters between pessimistic and optimistic approaches that often rest on very different philosophical and scientific foundations.

What is suggested today as the outlook for genetic engineering? While eugenics asserts a need to improve human nature through selection and crossbreeding at the level of human population, genetic engineering localises intervention into the activities of hereditary structures at the level of macromolecules and of cells. Its task (at least in the foreseeable future) is far more narrow than the creation of organisms for which an ``improved'' set of genetic attributes would be planned beforehand.

There are grounds for believing that this particular task, which is envisaged by "positive eugenics", will not arise, either scientifically or from a social point of view, at least for a very long period of time, since mankind can develop successfully through its present genetic foundations When mankind actually confronts that problem, it will find worthy forms for solving it. A science will be created concerning the progressive alteration of human heredity, and reasonable, noble and humane methods for applying it in practice will be developed (whether or not that science will be called eugenics is another matter).

But it seems to us that this is only possible at the concluding stage of the "age of biology" and following the achievement of a social homogeneity in the world on the basis of communist principles. This is why the "age of biology" expresses itself above all as the "age of man". That is quite logical, since it presumes a genuine flowering of the science of man---an integrated science created by people, about people, and for people, that recognises both man's biological nature and his social essence.

On that road to the "age of man" there are still many attributes of man's biological nature that remain problematic and mysterious to us at the present time. Of these the greatest challenge concerns the human brain and the psyche---as a complex of consciousness and instincts---i.e., hu-

man intellect. At the present time this last problem is studied by a variety of methods. In particular the design and analysis of "artificial intelligences" is of considerable importance for studies of man's natural intellect. This is an approach that promises to produce fundamental shifts in many humanities, in psychology, in pedagogics, and of course, in medicine and more generally in practical human activities.^^59^^

Possibilities that we cannot imagine today will apparently arise from systematic studies of the various ways in which the potentialities of the human brain may be developed. This refers not only to social potentialities (education, training) but also to biological ones, such as the genetic correction of hereditary brain pathologies and pharmacological possibilities for influencing brain structures so as to correct functional disorders of the brain.

In this connection a few observations are to be made on the prospects of so-called parapsychology which has been the subject of much discussion over a number of years, especially in recent years. It is sometimes presented as a new approach to unfathomed phenomena of the human psyche whose development is occasionally presented as almost the central task confronting mankind today and in the future. Parapsychology related its field of research to forms of sensing that provide methods for receiving information unexplainable through the activities of known sense organs. It also studies corresponding forms of action of living beings on physical phenomena outside their organisms without muscular efforts (through will, mental influencing, etc.). The forms of sensing that parapsychologists have in mind include telepathy and clairvoyance, while forms of actions include psychokinesis, psychophotography, and paramedicine.

Even though there currently exist a large number of organisations throughout the world that study parapsychological phenomena (extra-sensory perceptions) as well as specialised publications, the main problem continues to concern the reliability of parapsychological research. Leaving aside clear cases of fraud and the mystical speculations of parapsychologists that result in sensational exposures, specialists nevertheless agree that it must be admitted that:

``It would appear that some of the so-called parapsychological phenomena do take place. Yet a recognition of their existence is hindered by the lack of knowl-

§67

edge concerning the channel through which information or else influences are conveyed. At the present time the major hopes and efforts are concentrated on studies of the electromagnetic field of organisms as a means of biological linkages and carrier of information. These studies are performed on insects, animals, and man but in recent years many of their authors do not appear to associate their work with parapsychology. The physical basis of these phenomena remains to be discovered.''~^^60^^

It follows that since the concept of parapsychology includes ``supernatural'' phenomena, on the one hand, and on the other, phenomena that really do exist but have not yet been adequately explained in psychological and physical terms, the former call for exposures and demystification, while the latter call for study with the help of psychological, physical, biophysical and medical methods. It is only in this way that one may hope to establish the true nature of the phenomena that are described by parapsychology, and such an approach will lead to the understanding of many mysteries of the human psyche that are not understood today.

It is difficult to anticipate what this may yield to mankind, what new forces will be activated as a result, and how this would influence the life of men in the future. But then is it necessary to do this today, when we are still at the very beginning of the road leading to unknown mysteries? Norert Wiener, the father of cybernetics has wisely observed that the greatest error of forecasts is an excessively narrow projection of the current possibilities of science into the future. Let us therefore seek to avoid that error and merely hope that the eventual understanding of new mysteries relating to the human psyche will serve the welfare of man and of mankind and will make men still more powerful, more reasonable, and more humane. But that inevitably calls for an assertion in all spheres of human life, including the science that studies man for his own welfare, of reasonable relations that are only possible in reasonable social conditions, that is, for us, under communism.

That, however, requires the completion of a long and complex journey in man's social development. And it is precisely that social development that will make it possible to solve, in the future, the problems of man's further biologi-

cat improvement in accordance with those ideals that throughout history man has created only in myths and utopias, but that he will assert in the future as the outcome of a synthesis between science and art, reason and beauty. Hegel wrote that

``Man's soul is great and vast, and a true man carries many gods, within himself, and encompasses within his heart all the forces that are scattered among gods; his breast contains all of Olympus."⁶¹ But it would appear that not only noble but also many repulsive creations occasionally come to the surface of man's soul. This is why his history is coloured not only with the light shades of reason and humanism, but also the dark colours of unreason, and of senseless manifestations of cruelty and baseness.

While it is naive to see the causes for this in man's biological nature, the latter must not be ignored. For to some extent that would disarm us in the struggle for True Man--- a man who is reasonable and humane, and harmoniously developed both in a spiritual sense and physically.

The relevant words of a remarkable Soviet scientist, B. Astaurov are truly prophetic:

``One must wish and hope that as man intervenes in his environment in increasingly rational ways, as he creates for himself a continually more perfect living environment and as he begins to find increasingly humane and effective ways to improve his own heredity, the creations of evil and darkness will recede before the spirits of good and of light. There is no doubt that in a society governed by social justice, a society based on the lofty ideals of communism, the factors deriving from the social sphere and influencing directly the outcome of an ambivalent heredity will favour a comprehensive unfolding of all hereditary potentialities that contribute to the development of humaneness and altruism and, conversely, will suppress those manifestations that man has inherited from his zoological ancestors, i.e., aggressiveness and egoism. One must hope that as a result of that process both man's future environment and his future heredity will merge harmoniously and eventually become what they should be in order to create a truly wise and humane Man.

It is towards this that the highly moral Man of a progressive social structure should strive, a man helonging to the future as well as to the present. But he must also remember clearly that even though his own evolutionary progress has entered a social phase of development, the laws of biology that prevail in his environment and within his own organism are by no means neutralised as a result. In particular he must remember the law of nature that we mentioned at the beginning, namely that each of his properties depends not only on the environment but also on his own heredity and that as he masters his fate and takes mankind's evolutionary progress into his own hands, he must learn to act with regard to both his environment and his heredity with great care, wisely, and humanely. In the social phase of his evolution he must earn his right to a new name---Homo Sapiens et Humanus---a wise and humane man.''~^^62^^

Our examination of the problem of man's future in the "age of biology" may be summarised in these remarkable words. But in doing this we raise a new problem that follows directly from the preceding one. This concerns the social parameters, factors of human development and corresponding prospects in a new, communist civilisation. In turning to that problem we also summarise, as it were, our entire preceding examination of mankind's future in the context of today's global problems.

' See N. G. Chernyshevsky, Collected Works, Vol. 7 (in Russian).

~^^2^^ K. Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 4.

~^^3^^ K. Marx, "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 21.

~^^4^^ K. Marx, "The Poverty of Philosophy", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, Moscow, 1976, p. 192.

~^^5^^ Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1977, p. 571.

~^^6^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The German Ideology", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 512.

~^^7^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 277.

~^^8^^ Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 13, S. 23-24.

~^^9^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 277.

~^^10^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, pp. 173-74.

~^^11^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 336.

'^^2^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971, p. 180.

~^^13^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederic Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 303.

~^^14^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p. 195.

~^^15^^ Cf. K. Jaspers, Philosophic, Bd. 2, Berlin, 1956.

~^^16^^ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1965, p 36.

~^^17^^ Ibid., p. 273.

~^^18^^ Ibid., p. 285.

~^^19^^ Ibid., p. 224.

~^^20^^ Ibid., p. 282.

~^^21^^ Ibid., pp. 282-S3.

~^^22^^ Ibid., p. 283.

~^^23^^ A. Toffler, Future Shock, Random House, New York, 1970.

~^^24^^ Victor Ferkiss, Technological Man. The Myth and the Reality, George Braziller, New York, 1970.

~^^25^^ Victor Ferkiss, op. cit., p. 115.

~^^26^^ A. Poccei, op. cit., p. XI.

~^^27^^ V. I. Lenin, "Materialism and Empiric-Criticism", Collected Works, Vol. 14, 1968, p. 329.

~^^28^^ R. Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative. A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations, New York, 1966.

~^^29^^ See J. Monod, Le hazard et la nfcessite, Paris, Ed. du Seuil, 1970.

~^^30^^ See T. Dobzhansky, "Natural Selection in Man", in The Structure of Human Populations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972.

~^^31^^ E. Mayr, "Chelovek kak biologicheski vid" (Man as a Biological Species), Priroda, No. 12, 1973; No. 2, 1974.

~^^32^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The Holy Family", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 131.

~^^33^^ E. Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 634.

~^^34^^ V. Leibin, Psikhoanaliz i filosofia neofreidisma (Psychoanalysis and the Philosophy of Neo-Freudism) Politizdat, Moscow, 1977 (in Russian).

~^^35^^ E. Fromm, The Sane Society, A Fawcett Premier Book, Greenwich, 1966, p. 16.

~^^36^^ A detailed critical essay concerning contemporary biologism is contained in a work of W. Hollitscher, an Austrian Marxist philosopher. See W. Hollitscher, ``Kain'' oder Prometheus? Zar Kritik des Zeitgendssischen Biologismns, Acad.-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.

~^^37^^ E. 0. Wilson, Sociobiology. The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

~^^38^^ E. 0. Wilson, Sociobiology. The New Synthesis, pp. 248-49.

~^^39^^ E. 0. Wilson, op. cit., p. 547.

~^^40^^ C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1969.

~^^41^^ Sec R. Dubos, "Biology, Society and the Individual", Dialogue, No. 1, 1974. pp. 37-45.

~^^42^^ Cf., Voprosy filosofii, No. 9, 1971. Also Biologicheskoe i sotsialnoe v razvitii cheloveka (Biological and Social Elements in Man's

Development), Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1977 (in Russian).

~^^43^^ Biology and Eihics. (Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, on 26 and 27 September, 1968). Symposia of the Institute of Biology, No. 18. Ed. by F. Ebling, 1969. Published for the Institute of Biology by Academic Press, LondonNew York, 1969.

~^^44^^ W. H. Thorpe, Science, Man and Morals, Methuen, London, 1965.

~^^45^^ E. 0. Wilson, Sociobiology. The New Synthesis, p. 562.

~^^46^^ E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology. The New Synthesis, p. 563.

~^^47^^ Subsequently Efroimson has developed these ideas further in an article entitled "Rodoslovnaya altruisma" (Altruism's Family Tree). Its basic principle generally also met with the support of B. Astaurov (Novy mir, 1971, No. 10).

~^^48^^ F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 120.

~^^49^^ This problem is examined in considerable detail in A. Shishkin's article "Etologia i etika" (Ethology and Ethics), Voprosy filosofii, No. 9, 1974.

~^^50^^ V. I. Lenin, "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 328.

~^^51^^ F. H. C. Crick, "Molecular Biology in 2000", Nature, Vol. 228, No. 5272, 1970, pp. 613-15.

~^^52^^ The Encyclopedia of Ignorance. Everything You Ever Wanted lo Know About the Unknown, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York. Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt, 1979.

~^^53^^ F. H. C. Crick, "Developmental Biology", in The Encyclopedia of Ignorance, pp. 300-03.

~^^54^^ Biology and the Future of Man, New York, London, Toronto, 1970.

~^^55^^ Biology and the Future of Man, p. 927.

~^^56^^ W. Fuller, Ed., The Social Impact of Modern Biology, Routledge and Paul, London, 1971.

~^^57^^ Albert Schweitzer, Kultur und Ethik, Verlag C. H. Beck, Miinchen, 1960, S. 347-48.

~^^58^^ Protection of Human Rights in the Light of Scientific and Technological Progress in Biology and Medicine, WCMSO and UNESCO, Geneva, 1974.

~^^59^^ P. Anokhin, "Filosofsky smysl probleniy estestvennogo i iskusstvennogo intellekta" (The Philosophical Meaning of the Problem of Natural and Artificial Intelligence), Voprosy filosofii, No. 6, 1973; M. Arbib, "Metaforicheski mozg" (The Metaphoric Brain), Moscow, 1976; Iskusstvenny intellect i psikhologiya (Artificial Intelligence and Psychology), Moscow, 1976 (all in Russian).

~^^60^^ V. Zinchenko, A. Leontyev, B. Lomov, A. Luria, " Parapsikhologia: fiktsia ili realnost?" (Parapsychology: Fiction or Reality?), Voprosy filosofii, No. 9, 1973, p. 135.

~^^81^^ G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetic, Band 1, Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin und Weimer, 1965, S. 233.

~^^62^^ B. Astaurov, "Homo sapiens et humanus---chelovek s bolshoi bukvy i evolutsionnaya genetika chelovechnosti" (Homo Sapiens et Humanus---Man and the Evolutionary Genetics of Mankind), Novy mir, No. 10, 1971, p. 124.

Chapter V

THE NEW

CIVILISATION'S

NEW MAN:

APPROACHES

TO A SOCIAL IDEAL

In all of its diverse aspects man's future is intimately linked to the emergence of a new civilisation within which the entire complex of global problems that is currently confronting mankind so urgently will find a comprehensive resolution. Individual global processes as well as trends in social, scientific, technical and cultural development are being combined and greatly amplified within that new civilisation, as man is becoming its "end in itself". And for us such a civilisation is the coming communist society.

Marx has provided a deep analysis of the fundamental Iraits of such a civilisation, which he characterised as a true "realm of freedom", in a sense that recognises its inseparable association with necessity, as well as with the highest level of development of material production activities that free man from a direct participation in production. Marx wrote:

``In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production... Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis." ⁴ According to Engels, communism offers the prospect oi' creating

``.. .for all people such a condition that everyone can freely develop his human nature and live in a human relationship with his neighbours...''~^^2^^

18-01743

This will resolve a problem that truly concerns all math kind, and the human race can then assert itself in a process of boundless development.

Marxist-Leninist teachings on the coming communist society emerged as an expression of mankind's best aspirations and hopes concerning the future. But they do not contain any element of utopianism. More generally communists do not engage in inventing myths promising salvation and intended to console mankind, and even less in inventing threatening apocalyptic myths. They rely on scientific methods in identifying the objective principles and motive forces that govern the historical process, and point to its prospective outcome, namely communism, as both an inevitable and desirable future for all mankind. Above all, however, Communists pursue theoretical studies of the ways that lead to communism and then embody them into the practice of existing socialism, which passes into communism.

What kind of men will live in such a truly human society? Thinkers of various epochs have sought to answer that question. Having inherited a long tradition, Marxism has formed a communist ideal of future man without specifying details, since dialectics, which is the "soul of Marxism", is incompatible with various Utopian constructions by its very nature. But Marxism does more than this---it provides, by analysing actual past and present trends, the general theoretical foundation and method that is needed to study future man. It is in such a sense that we refer to the communist ideal of man as a scientifically established objective as well as a certain "governing principle" that makes it possible to define scientifically ways' leading to that goal.

1. The Ideal of Future Man: an All-Round and Harmonious Development of Personality

We view the communist ideal of man as an outcome of the history of thought and a scientific forecast as well as an artistic image. It thus combines knowledge received over centuries through the use of art as well as of scientific analysis. But as in the past, it is philosophy that provides the

integrating basis for such an interaction of science and art.

Ideal conceptions of man were already present in myths and traditions of prehistoric times, although their quality was naturally determined by the dominant hierarchy of values. Subsequently that ideal was embodied in art and in philosophy. Images of a perfect man always represented a certain long-term extrapolation of qualities that played a leading role in the conceptions of man and of the world in which man lives that were held by particular thinkers and artists.

A harmony of soul and body, a lofty spiritual development and a physical perfection of man provide a leading theme of ancient classical culture. For Socrates, for example, this also implied a man who was well intentioned and highly moral as well as knowledgeable. Plato developed a utopian conception of an ideal state and a perfect man on the basis of his general understanding of man and of the world, of problems of education and ethics and of an hierarchical classification of individuals. For Aristotle the perfect or skillful man is one who while striving for the highest good is also skillful in guiding sensible activities with a view to the achievement of moral perfection.

In medieval philosophy contemporary man is essentially an evangelical man following the teachings of Christian morality.

The ideal man of the Age of the Renaissance, of the materialistic philosophical teachings of that time, and of the French materialists of the eighteenth century was also determined, of course, by a general conception of man's nature, his destiny, and his essence. As has already been noted, that ideal contains an element that is directly opposite to what is developed in idealistic philosophical conceptions, and in particular the philosophies of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, where an excessive emphasis is placed on man as a bearer of moral qualities, will-power, reasoning, who reproduces a certain theoretical---philosophical and logical---culture in his consciousness. In contrast to this, for Feuerbach, the distinctive attributes of what is truly human in man include not only his mind and will but his heart. In his opinion, a perfect man possesses the power of thinking, of will, and of feeling, namely love.

In the history of thought concerning man's future the social teachings of the Utopians---T. Moore, T. Campanella,

18*

A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, and R. Owen represent a dis tinct layer. In reading them we often find elaborated and detailed characterisations of future man that, in spite of their shortcomings, naivete and even occasionally fantastic character, also contain much that was subsequently incorporated into the communist ideal of man, which was constructed on scientific foundations. This point was noted repeatedly by the classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The "new men" created by revolutionary-democratic thinkers, and in particular in Russia, represented a more realistic set of images that was associated with the practical aspects of the struggle for liberation. One should recall the deep influence of the heroes of N. G. Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done? on entire generations of Russian revolutionaries. More generally from the times of antiquity literature and art have made an enormous contribution to developing an image of a future, ideal man as a creative personality engaged in constructive struggles and activities.

This accumulated legacy was available to Marxism already at the time of its emergence. At the same time the Marxist approach to this problem differs radically from all preceding ones. The transformation of socialism from a Utopia into a science was closely associated with a renunciation of the very attempt to construct an image of future man containing specific details. The use of a scientific basis could only be applied to identify the most general features of communist man made possible by the socio-economic and also cultural and spiritual as well as value characteristics of such a society.

Once it is developed on the basis of the theory of scientific communism the communist ideal of man, too, ceases to be a merely hypothetical construction. This is because Marxism extrapolates into the future on the basis of scientifically established theoretical and practical propositions that are ultimately based on a general understanding of man's essence. Thus according to the Marxist conception, future man represents the "sum-total of all social relations" that characterise communism both as a socio-economic formation and a new type of civilisation.

Future man is a reasoning and humane man, who is both curious and active and at the same time can appreciate what is beautiful; he is an integrated comprehensively developed personality embodying the ideal of a genuine unity

of man's essential powers and of his spiritual and physical perfection.^^3^^ And it is precisely as a unique personality that man asserts himself as a social being.

Marxism emphasises that it is only in the context of a society and of its progressive development that man may express his individuality and more generally become a distinct individual. Marx observed:

``Man is ... not only a social animal, but an animal that can be individualised only within society. The further back we trace the course of history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear to be dependent and to belong to a larger whole.''~^^4^^

The emergence of personality in the course of history is a process through which man's essential powers and his integrity are increasingly realised. It represents a development leading to man's integral unity. Different periods in socio-historical development therefore appear as stages on the road to such a unity, and as a process in which the gap between man's existence and man's essence is bridged.

It is known for example that in antiquity the concept of integrated man was not accompanied by a recognition of his individual self. That process began in European civilisation at the time of the Renaissance. But as the division of labour became more comprehensive and as private property developed, man's alienation and his division increased. Engels noted that "in the division of labour man is also divided.''~^^5^^ Together with a "partial worker" a social type of personality developed that may be described as a "partial individual". This is why the communist perspective discovered by Marxism was from the very first asserted as an overcoming of alienation and of the division and subdivision of personality, a striving towards integrating the general with the unique and the social with the individual in man, and the formation of a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality. According to Marx and Engels, the humanistic meaning of that perspective centres on a control by man and society over the

``conditions of the free development and movement of individuals . .., conditions which were previously lel't to chance and had acquired an independent existence over against the separate individuals. . ."⁶ The image of Prometheus---as a protector and liberator of

mankind---served as a poetic and social ideal to young Marx, who wrote that if each drop of morning dew radiates all the colours of the rainbow in an unrepeatable way, then so much greater is the need for each individual person to express his own unrepeatable gifts. Accordinlgy, in an historical context, Marxism affirms an image of man in which he is endowed with a variety of gifts and in which he is creative and active. This is a man possessing a clearly expressed individuality---a "Faustian man", in terms of an image borrowed from the German popular legend concerning Doctor Faust. That image has been given a classical form in the works of Lessing and Goethe.

Today one often hears that that "Faustian man" has exhausted his powers and possibilities, and that he will be replaced by a different type of man, who will be passive and contemplative and will seek to return to the "bosom of nature" and merge with it in some kind of undifferentiated harmony. It is asserted that only in this way can he acquire true freedom. But this would contradict man's very essence which expresses itself in purposeful activity. For man "is free not through the negative power to avoid this or that, but through the positive power to assert his true individuality. ..''^^7^^ What is life if it is not activity? Marx noted that different social functions refracted through individual persons are largely "modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers".^^8^^ Beyond this, "just as society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him".^^9^^ Lenin in turn observed that "all history is made up of the actions of individuals who are undoubtedly active figures".^^10^^

It is the development of the individual's active nature that the communist ideal of a comprehensively developed personality pursues.

What are the fundamental traits and qualities that enter into this ideal? Above all it includes a scientific view of the world and a communist attitude towards labour, which is the basic sphere in which man's abilities and gifts arc freely realised; also a highly developed and diversified ability to orient one's self in production processes and a high level of development of corresponding skills; also a creative attitude towards one's activities. The communist ideal of a personality presupposes a high level of general education and a general cultural development; it includes a number

of socio-moral, and psychological qualities, such as discipline and self-discipline in work activities; a clear adherence to the rules and norms of a communist way of life, a correct formulation of needs; honesty, modesty, collectivism; a recognition of civic responsibilities; kindness, love, and integrity in attitudes towards comrades; activity and a sense of responsibility in social and political affairs; physical perfection and generosity.

Of course, these qualities by no means encompass all aspects of the communist ideal of a harmonious, comprehensively developed personality. Ways leading to its development are diverse as well as complex, and new qualities continue to appear in the process of development of a communist civilisation. It is therefore unlikely that we should be able to anticipate today the many unknown human values that will acquire great importance tomorrow. But the basic and fundamental traits and qualities of the communist ideal of man are defined by Marxist-Leninist theory and they serve as a point of departure in the process of communist education.

The development of a new society and the problems that are being solved at the present stage of its development do not supersede these ideals. Rather they endow them with living content and a practical orientation. Persons possessing many of the qualities that are characteristic of the communist ideal of personality already exist, and they are numerous. Not all of them possess these qualities in equal measures. But they confirm the reality of the process through which the new man is formed. These are persons possessing great powers of creativity and great constructive powers, a sense of honour, high moral qualities, and active good will. They inherit and develop further---not through genes, but through social forms---mankind's best historical achievements. We find elements of the future ideal man not only in persons living today, but in others who have lived in the past. They remind us of the attractiveness and nobility of man as he will be represented by all persons in the future. These are persons, who, in the words of A. Pushkin, reconcile individuals with mankind just as nature reconciles mankind with its fate. Such persons embody all that is truly human in man.

This emphasises both the vital nature of the communist ideal of man and its dependence on specific historical cir-

cumstances. And this is why Communists view with contempt those bourgeois myths that deliberately distort this ideal by ascribing to it a variety of repulsive traits conceived in the spirit of "barracks communism". For the communist ideal has nothing in common with these inventions. It affirms a truly humanistic image of man embodied in a wide diversity of social and individual manifestations. And far from opposing the best traits of a common human ideal, it coincides with it in a historical perspective, just as the perspective of communism itself coincides with mankind's general historical destiny.

But as Marx and Lenin repeatedly emphasised, the full, comprehensive and free development of each individual, of all members of society are more than a distant objective of society's historical movement towards communism. It is not only in the distant future that man will display remarkable gifts, just as, in young Marx's poetic image, each drop of morning dew displays unique patterns in reflecting all colours of the rainbow. Writing in his later years Marx observed that man

``becomes the permanent pre-condition of human history, likewise its permanent product and result, and he is pre-condition only as his own product and result." "

At all stages in history the combined operation of its material and spiritual motive forces---within which objectoriented labour activities have played a decisive role---has had a formative influence on man. In such a context, each exploitative social structure, while developing (either spontaneously or else through a specific system of educational instruments) a corresponding type of man, also produced forces that contributed to its demise and subsequent transition to a new stage of social development. But no society defined human development itself as an independent task. It was socialism that first identified that problem as a scientifically perceived social objective, and it is only in the course of socialist and communist development that this problem began to be resolved consciously, in a new, planned manner, and at an overall social level.

Lenin, expressed highly critical views of theoretical as well as practical-political approaches according to which man's nature is presumed to be unchangeable and afflicted by an instinctive attachment to private property and inborn

defects that make it Utopian to seek to develop a socialist society. Proponents of that view asserted that it is first necessary to develop some kind of special persons who would constitute the "new material" from which socialism can be constructed.^^12^^ In criticising these views Lenin observed:

``We want to build socialism with the aid of those men and women who grew up under capitalism, were depraved and corrupted by capitalism, but steeled for the struggle by capitalism.. . We want to start building socialism at once out of the material that capitalism left us yesterday to be used today, at this very moment, and not with people reared in hothouses, assuming that we were to take this fairy-tale serious-

ly.''^^13^^

It is in the context of such a humanistic orientation that the Great Socialist Revolution of October 1917 was carried out. During the past sixty odd years the Soviet people have recorded major achievements both in creating new social conditions, developing the economic potential, and increasing general welfare, and in developing the new man. And these achievements create the material and spiritual conditions that are needed by the future development of the communist ideal of man.

In pursuing that objective and historical perspective and relating to it the major tasks of modern development the Soviet Union designs both its economic and social policies and its policies for developing the new man in corresponding ways. In moving towards a solution of that historical task of global importance Soviet Communists have come across a complex of new theoretical problems relating to the specification of concrete ways and forms for educating the new man and also to the need to overcome age-old prejudices and traditions, cultural backwardness and underdevelopment and humiliation that working people have inherited from the past. Experience has shown much that had not been anticipated in theory, and the latter has encountered difficulties that had been underestimated. It is through a dialectical interaction between theory and practice that there has been a further development of the Marxist-- Leninist conception of man in his relation to a society developing along the road to communism and that the new man was

formed who is both the product of that social development and its principal motive force.

Men of the socialist type do not appear immediately following a revolution, and those who carry it out are responsible for the adequateness of the forms of ideals emerging in life. Unfortunately that is not always the case. In addition, our ideals, too, and our conception of a new type of man are subject to change. This does not always take place in a direction that is appropriate for a communist perspective. As a result, the contradictions that arise in the process through which the new man develops under socialism may be of a subjective as well as an objective character. In short, some of them are associated with contradictions occurring in life itself while others refer to their reflections in human consciousness. From the point of view of both theory and policies it is extremely important to distinguish between these contradictions clearly, since this may greatly influence the selection of strategies and activities concerned with the development of the new man at various stages of socialist and communist construction.

Today many more of the prerequisites for solving that task are available than in the initial years after the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is people who have developed under socialist conditions who are now building a communist society. At the same time the problem continues to be extremely complex, for both communism itself and the rate of advances produced by the revolution in science and technology are imposing new requirements in relation to man that are unprecedented and unfamiliar. Lenin's basic approach to solving that problem continues to be followed, namely to develop the new man while constructing a new society, and to construct a new society---namely communism---while developing the new man.

This continually poses new increasingly complex problems for a socialist society steadily advancing along the road to communism. Their resolution indicates that a developed socialist society cannot be imagined without a corresponding personality structure: it presupposes a definite level of human development as one of its basic foundations and as a motive force in building communims. This expresses the dialectical character of social progress in the direction of communism and of man's all-round development.

2. Socialism,

the Revolution in Science

and Technology,

and the Moulding

of the New Man;

the Further Moral

Development of Personality

The dialectics of the formation of the new man is such that on the one hand all the economic, social and cultural achievements of socialism depend on it, while on the other, the moulding of the new man is itself objectively dependent on the level of production activities, the nature of labour activities and the social relations between and cultural level of individuals.

That approach has been developed and elaborated in the USSR's new Constitution. As we examine the various sections of the new Constitution of the USSR relating to that problem we see a precise and carefully considered programme that envisages the development of the socialist social conditions that are needed for a realisation of man's essential powers and of his future. Above all the USSR's Constitution does not merely declare a need for creating such conditions; rather it consolidates the already existing practical activities bearing on their development and identifies further prospects in that direction.

The Constitution of the USSR states that

``The state helps enhance the social homogeneity of society, the elimination of class differences and of essential distinctions between town and country and between mental and physical labour, and the all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR" (Article 19). "The state concerns itself with improving working conditions, safety and labour protection and the scientific organisation of work, and with reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes in all branches of the economy" (Article 21). It further notes that

``A programme is being consistently implemented in

the USSR to convert agricultural work into a variety of industrial work, to extend the network of educational, cultural and medical institutions, and of trade, public catering, service and public utility facilities in rural localities, and transform hamlets and villages into well-planned and well-appointed settlements" (Article 22).

``The state pursues a steady policy of raising people's pay levels and real incomes through increase in productivity.

``In order to satisfy the needs of Soviet people more fully social consumption funds are created. The state, with the broad participation of public organisations and work collectives, ensures the growth and just distribution of these funds" (Article 23). The USSR's Constitution notes that

``systems of health protection, social security, trade and public catering, communal services and amenities, and public utilities, operate and are being extended.

``The state encourages co-operatives and other public organisations to provide all types of services for the population. It encourages the development of mass physical culture and sport" (Article 24). "In the USSR there is a uniform system of public education, which is being constantly improved, that provides general education and vocational training for citizens, serves the communist education and in tellectual and physical development of the youth, and trains them for work and social activity" (Article 25). Finally, the Constitution of the USSR lays down that

``In accordance with society's needs the state provides for planned development of science and the training of scientific personnel and organises introduction of the results of research in the economy and other spheres of life" (Article 26).

``The state concerns itself with protecting, augmenting and making extensive use of society's cultural wealth for the moral and aesthetic education of the Soviet people, for raising their cultural level.

In the USSR development of the professional, amateur and folk arts is encouraged in every way" ( Article 27).

As we see the USSR's Constitution defines concretely the social conditions that are required for the development of man, which in turn exerts an effective influence on changing these conditions in the direction of communism. Of course, much remains to be done in this area, and it cannot be said that socialism is merely something transitional and of short duration in the life of a new society. It is a prolonged stage of social development in the course of which the economic prerequisites of a new civilisation are created, socio-political relations are perfected, a growth in culture takes place, together with progressive changes in the way of life. But it is also one in which there are also many unresolved problems calling for purposeful social efforts.

Marx and Engels observed that "as individuals express their life, so they are".^^14^^ This means that socialist relations create new conditions linking social elements with personal ones under which an opposition between the personality and society disappears. An evaluation of individuals in terms of the actions, that they undertake for society is an inherent attribute of the socialist way of life. But this does not bring people to a common level. On the contrary, it creates conditions for expressing their individuality within the framework of society. It is precisely the socialist way of life that releases man's natural striving to live in society, for only there can he find optimal conditions for the development of his vital activities. Socialism ever more fully realises an integral unity between all the spheres of life and their humanistic content.

In the conditions that are established in socialist society, where a unity of the interests of individuals and of society is achieved, the way of life of individuals acquires an integral quality. Still, specific contradictions, even though not antagonistic ones, may also manifest themselves under socialism. This is true, for example, of contradictions between methods deriving from the need for a centralised management of the economy and the fullest possible realisation of possibilities for the free and comprehensive development of each person. In particular this may occur when there is an insufficient co-ordination of the problems of optimal economic programming with objectives of men's development and conditions for his vital activities expressed in terms of values. It is also natural that substantial differences exist between forms of organisation of production and labour ac-

tivities and those that relate to vital activities of individuals outside of the production sphere. While labour collectives are characteristic of the former, the family and informal relations are characteristic of the latter, even though there too the nature of social relations of co-operation and comradely mutual help produces a basic type of relations among persons that is collectivism

This fundamental feature of a socialist way of life is reflected in all spheres of social life. Each of them acquires lofty humane objectives which therefore guide material production activities as well as social relations, the development of science and technology, and the cultural development of a socialist society as a whole. It is in a dialectical interaction of the spheres of existence that one finds a resolution to the problem of man as both the major productive force of a society and a socially active individual determining the future of the society in which it lives and acts.

The principal sphere in which the essential forces of man are expressed is that of his labour activities. Accordingly, one of the most important conditions of a person's development in his capacity as a worker relates to the transformation of the technical basis of his labour activities, to an increase in their meaning, and to their saturation with elements of creativity. The very social climate and specific features of social production under socialist conditions contribute to this. In the words of Engels,

``.. .so also will the common management of production by the whole of society and the resulting new development of production require and also produce quite different people... Industry carried on in common and according to plan by the whole of society presupposes moreover people of all-round development, capable of surveying the entire system of production.''~^^15^^

A transformation of production activities is basically in sight that will leave managerial functions to man, while the centre of gravity of the work process will increasingly move towards the preparatory stage, namely construction activities, designing, planning, forecasting. This will undoubtedly be associated with a universalisation in man's development. Under such conditions the role of engineering forms of labour increases, as does the application of the findings of fundamental natural and technical sciences in produc-

tiOn activities. Such a prospect is becoming increasingly realistic, even though the structure of production today still makes it necessary (and probably will continue to do so for a prolonged period of time) that both highly skilled workers and unskilled workers be available. It is thus on the basis of perspectives resting on a scientific analysis that both policies of social and economic development and policies guiding the moulding of the new man are elaborated.

A fundamental methodological significance in solving these problems continues to attach to the relevant theoretical propositions of Marx. In particular he observed that

``saving of working time is equal to an increase in leasure time, i.e., time needed for a full-scale development of the individual, which, in turn, as a great productive force has a reverse effect on the productive force of labour. From the viewpoint of the direct pro cess of production saving of working time can be regarded as the production of fixed capital, this fixed capital being man himself.''~^^16^^

Above all the practical activities that are required to solve that problem include systematic efforts in increasing the education and professional skills of workers. This work must anticipate corresponding rates of development of new technology and equipment. Such an approach further stimulates the intensification of scientific and technical progress. Economists have estimated that the training of skilled specialists in various sectors of the economy as educated and cultured workers in the sphere of material production is also one of the most advantageous applications of material resources. Generally the level of education and of professional skills is a direct determinant of the efficiency of labour activities, the extent to which production norms are met, improvements in the quality of output, and participation in the rationalisation of production activities.

As early as the end of the last century Lenin wrote that ".. .an ideal future society cannot be conceived without the combination of education with the productive labour of the younger generation: neither training and education without productive labour, nor productive labour without parallel training and education could be raised to the degree required by the present level of technology and the state of scientific knowl-

ii 17

This is particularly relevant at the present time, when there is a network of educational institutions in our country engaged in training specialists who combine comprehensive theoretical knowledge with a high level of professional training and a capacity for proceeding independently in further improving their general and specialised education.

The need for further increases in the level of education and culture and in the professional competence of workers engaged in socialist production activities follows from the need to further develop production through intensive methods alone, that is, almost entirely by increasing the productivity of labour. There the possibility of combining the achievements of the revolution in science and technology with the advantages of a socialist economic system plays a decisive role. The development of science as a direct productive force within a socialist society also represents a development of the productive forces of man himself. Engels wrote:

``By generating a race of producers with an all-round training who understand the scientific basis of industrial production as a whole .. . this society will bring into being a new productive force...''~^^18^^

In the article entitled "Better Fewer But Better" Lenin stressed the need for a comprehensive development of science and for its comprehensive application under socialism. In particular he called for an approach under which science would

``.. .actually and fully become a constituent element of our everyday life".^^19^^

That proposition has served as a fundamental principle in the activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government in developing the country's productive forces. Relying on the achievements of science the Soviet Government has carried out a transition of production activities to a new technological basis, has established a new system of organisation and management, and has provided conditions for the full development of all powers and abilities of workers. An integral unity of science and production activities, an alliance between science and labour activities have thus become a major factor in the development of a socialist society.

A reliance on the achievements of the revolution in science and technology has led to increases in the asset-in-

tensity, equipment-intensity and energy-intensity of labour activities. There have been substantial increases in the scale on which new equipment and better technological processes have been introduced. Under the influence of science in connection with the growing mechanisation and automation of production processes there have been fundamental qualitative changes in the technical basis of production activities.

Of course, this defines new requirements with regard to individuals and enormously increases the role of the " human factor" in material production activities that are experiencing the effect of the revolution in science and technology. For the most productive scientific ideas and the most perfect technological designs can fail to produce the anticipated ``effect'' in cases in which the required number of well-trained workers is not available, or else in cases in which required organisational structures are missing, that are adapted to the level of development and type of social relations that exist as well as to existing habits in collective labour and to the workers' psychology. The effective? realisation of a truly scientific organisation of labour activities presupposes a substantial level of development of socialist labour discipline and of collectivist habits, and moral motivations rather than professional qualities alone. In short, the necessary qualities of a socialist worker includehis general cultural and moral development, his social participation, and his political consciousness.

Even though these qualities do not lend themselves easily to quantitative measures, they are important factors in increasing the initiative of workers in labour activities and in enhancing a creative attitude towards labour processes, towards the interests of collectives, and towards the objectives; and tasks of social production. These qualities of the " human factor" in material production constitute one of the decisive advantages of socialism by comparison with capitalism. A creative attitude towards labour activities, a corresponding morally motivated climate within workers' collectives, an integral combining of material and moral stimuli, and the fullest utilisation of the possibilities of socialist emulation are all factors that play an important role not only in national economic planning but also in developing complex plans of socio-economic development at the level of enterprises, production associations, cities, and rural settlements.

!/2 19-01743

289-

These are precisely the elements that were emphasised by the Communist Party and the Soviet State, particularly in recent years. The effective and deeply humanistic ideas that they express have been embodied in concrete decisions, including decisions taken at the 26th Party Congresses, which stressed that success in educating the new man is ensured only when this education relies on a firm foundation of socio-economic policy. The 26th Congress of the CPSU pointed out that a major task of the country's social policy is active and purposeful forming of the interests and requirements of the individual, the struggle against egoistic and Philistine mentality, against property amassing and money-grubbing, and against indifference to the affairs and concerns of the people. All this is an inseparable component of the social policy of the CPSU and the Soviet state, the goal of this policy being the welfare and happiness of Soviet people. That serves as a basis for the development of integrated research activities in which scientists join their efforts with those of practical workers in finding effective solutions to the problem of human development in the context of the revolution in science and technology, especially as it relates to workers directly engaged in the sphere of production. The growing role of the working class emphasises the importance and need for further developing such of its remarkable qualities as collectivism, which emerges in the course of the labour process, as well as internationalism and progressive social strivings. It is precisely in modern society, and in the context of the revolution in science and technology that the working class is drawing increasingly closer to other layers of the working population, to peasants, and intellectuals. Naturally that is a very complicated process in the course of which the working class itself experiences a spiritual development; it creates and educates its own intellectuals with whom it continues to be closely associated. This plays a decisive role in understanding the entire process through which working men develop under socialism. It is therefore important not to view as something absolute the particular state in which the working class finds itself today. For in the course of further advance towards communism it continues to change and continually enhances its spiritual and intellectual powers. At the same time its social role within society also ex-

periences change, as do its relations with the other social forces under socialism.

By providing for a comprehensive scientific and practical solution to the problem of human development in the context of the revolution in science and technology and by creating all the objective and subjective prerequisites that this requires, socialism realises the "fundamental law of production" in accordance with which, as Marx indicated, a progressive tendency in productive forces rests on the gradual replacement of ``partial'' workers.

``... by the fully developed individual ... to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.''~^^20^^

This is not, of course, merely a matter of increasing professional skills and learning to apply new equipment and new types of labour. Ultimately these are merely means for realising the particular social tasks that a socialist society defines in seeking to bring about man's development. The personality becomes spiritually richer as its social ties widen. There are then truly endless possibilities that include participation in the management of production activities, in the work of government bodies, and in other spheres of social life. It is precisely the performance of many-sided activities in the service of all the people that distinguishes man in a socialist society from the types of personalities that were produced in the preceding historical epochs. It results from the operation of objective conditions characterising the socialist system and from the enormous emphasis on corresponding forms of education by the government, social organisations, and work collectives.

The communist education of working people encompasses a complex of specialised issues, each of which is important in its own right. One of its main tasks is to strengthen international awareness and to oppose any manifestations of nationalism and chauvinism. Because the objective social basis of socialist internationalism is continually widening, this enhances its political significance. At the same time its. world outlook, social and moral content become richer. Internationalisation processes are increasingly based on a conscious, scientific approach. These are not spontaneous developments: they are planned and regulated just as social life itself is planned and regulated under socialism.

19*

Communist education presupposes continual improvements in the system of public education and professional training (which is especially important in the context of the revolution in science and technology), as well as the development of a system of education in economics, and finally the moral education of working people. As the development of socialist society proceeds deviations from moral norms become increasingly intolerable. This includes corruption, private property-oriented tendencies, hooliganism, bureaucracy, and indifference towards other persons. Lenin had noted that the establishment of socialism is

``. . .a matter of transforming the very habits of the people, habits which, for a long time to come, have been defiled and debased by the accursed private ownership of the means of production, and also by tho entire atmosphere of bickering, distrust, enmity, disunity and mutual intrigue . ..''~^^21^^

An important element of moral education at the present stage of development is a struggle against Philistine philosophy that has gained some currency. Philistinism assumes a variety of forms. Today it may also assume ``ultramodern'' disguises that seek to represent it as something that is ``compatible'' with socialism and with the revolution in science and technology and their material consequences, while spiritual norms in relation to human behaviour are abandoned as ``unnecessary'' and "not the principal thing". All possible means for influencing the consciousness and behaviour of persons are employed in struggling against such phenomena in a socialist society. This includes the •opinions of work collectives, the critical voice of the press, persuasion, and the force of law.

In this connection the problem of a rational utilisation of free time is becoming relevant. It is clear from theoretical considerations that the decisive element in the development of personality is not merely a quantitative increase in the free time of workers but a concern with its quality and content. Free time should contribute to man's comprehensive development, a strengthening of his creative abilities, and his further spiritual and physical improvement.

Major efforts in this area are undertaken in socialist countries and much that is new and positive has been achieved. But there are, of course, many complex problems that are associated both with our society's insufficient eco-

nomic development and with the occasionally very low level of culture and of personal development of some individuals. This exerts a negative influence on the way of life and the behaviour of such persons, and finds expression in violations of norms of socialist life.

As progress in science and technology increases the skills that are applied in production activities it also creates the material prerequisites for a more rational utilisation of free time and enhances the capacity of workers to share in the greatest spiritual achievements of human culture. And in this regard socialism has achieved notable results that are now widely known throughout the world. An important role in solving these problems is played by the mass media. Under socialism they serve not the dissemination of so-called "mass culture"---which is a surrogate of genuine culture based on an exploitation of poorly developed appreciation norms among the mass of the people---but the dissemination of the best specimen of genuine culture.^^22^^

It has already been noted that both in the USSR and in other socialist countries major efforts are being made to complete a transition to universal secondary education, thus enhancing the level of vocational training, and extending the population's post-secondary education.

In the present situation man's education in ecological matters is acquiring an increased scope. This refers to the development of specific norms of behaviour in relation to the natural environment, to a striving for harmony with it and to an optimising of the biosphere in serving human welfare. Mental stereotypes that strengthen purely consumerist and ``conquest-oriented'' approaches to nature will be increasingly displaced by norms that orient man on preserving and cultivating the natural environment, whose capacities for self-reproduction have shown themselves not to be unlimited.

A major and increasingly serious problem concerns the demographic education of individuals, their greater awareness of principles and norms governing family and marital relations and obligations as regards the birth and upbringing of children. Without such an awareness it is not possible to implement the active demographic policies that are unquestionably needed today.

Naturally an important trait of the new man in a communist society will concern scientific concepts of a medico-

genetic nature. They must be cultivated by society in tliecourse of caring for the population's health. In this connection the necessary steps are being taken to develop medicogenetic education among young people (to establish a network of consultation centres and publish popular books on these problems for young people). In particular serious attention is already being given to this problem by the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences.

Each of these problems naturally calls for the elaboration and substantiation of concrete proposals. This presupposes further research activities on a complex approach to the problem of communist education. And certain progress has already been achieved in this regard.

Obviously the problems of education that are being formulated and solved today make it necessary to reconsider many issues and to assign priority to those that are most urgent. This is only natural, since further development along the path to communism creates new objective conditions for such developments in the theory and practice of education. But their strategic purposes and objectives as formulated by Marxist-Leninist science remain unchanged.

In this connection considerable importance attaches to research relating to the professional orientation of young^ people and also their "cultural orientation" in the widest sense of that word. This is especially true of the problem of developing reasonable requirements among young people as one of education's basic tasks. An analysis of sociological research data indicates that there are growing demands in the sphere of personal consumption. They do not always correspond, however, to real possibilities. What, then, is the meaning of the word "reasonable requirement" for the individual of the socialist type, and what are the principles that can establish such criteria of reasonableness?

Above all these criteria include a correspondence between the requirements of individuals and the objective possibilities that are currently available to society. Second, a correspondence between the requirements of individuals and those of collectives. This makes it possible to include the individual into a collective as an active member possessing full rights. Third, the extent to which the requirements of the individual are matched by his contribution to labour activities, his abilities, and the extent to which these require-

ments contribute to the individual's comprehensive development. Fourth, a correspondence between the demands of individuals and the position they hold within the system of division of labour that has developed and the role they play in society. A neglect of these principles may contribute to the appearance and development of consumerist individualism, competition, rivalry, a loss of a sense of responsibility before society and before one's collective, and to a disruption of creative social ties among individuals.

Education in the field of culture and aesthetics plays a major role in the upbringing of young people. The true meaning of culture includes not only a taming of nature •or an assimilation of culture but a merging of these two spheres. In this sense of the term, which is deeper than the traditional one, culture is not merely a distinct sphere of activity; it is an aspect and the core of each sphere of activity. The concept of culture presupposes a striving and a wish to achieve something in a manner possessing spiritual dimensions. This proposition is particularly important for the practice of aesthetic education and the development •of an individual's internal aesthetic culture, which should be associated not so much with his aesthetic views as with his aesthetic taste. Aesthetic taste does not refer to the knowledge that an individual has received (even though this, too, is important), but to the manner in which he has developed his taste and his inner free social capacity for approaching phenomena aesthetically, as well as to the nature of his real needs in this regard and modes of satisfying them and appraising them.

The result of a system of education providing for an integral unity of mental, physical, labour, political, aesthetic, and moral education is an all-round development of the individual. And it seems that to prepare individuals for the type of social life that will exist tomorrow extends beyond providing a specific general cultural education and professional training. The main thing is to develop an active and thinking personality, to foster certain moral principles in men, and develop an active stand in life, a conscious attitude towards social responsibilities, a correspondence between words and deeds as an everyday behaviour norm, and a respect for each individual person together with an irreconcilable attitude towards all forms of evil and its carriers and an ability to follow boldly and consistently

one's ``line'' in life and adhere to lofty objectives and ideals.

All this concerns accordingly an active morality, in which communist principles of morality follow from the individual's requirements and become a permanent norm of his everyday behaviour.

It is in following these norms that individuals discharge their social responsibilities and acquire an awareness of such responsibilities. At the same time they are free if their moral norms coincide with progressive social strivings and with all the factors that contribute to the emergence and development of truly human, that is, communist relations among individuals. It is then that individuals become free, since they subordinate their life to freely chosen principles and objectives. Lenin observed that

``the idea of determinism, which postulates that human acts are necessitated and rejects the absurd tale about free will, in no way destroys man's reason or conscience, or appraisal of his actions."²³ The moral philosophy of the man of the communist future includes all these fundamental principles of morality deriving from reason, conscience, and evaluations of human activities, while also emphasising their correspondence to common human ideals that were asserted in the course of centuries, both in life itself and in works of philosophy, literature and art. Among the latter the best ones always expressed an elevated moral inspiration, a love of man, and a shared feeling for his painful experience. At the same time they call for a struggle to affirm justice, reason and humanism. And that is one of the most important and grandiose achievements of the human spirit.

Such an ethical enthusiasm made productive by a scientific view of the world, which is the enthusiasm of a communist humanism embodied in reality, lies at the very foundation of a socialist way of life and of socialist culture. It inspires it and motivates its development, thus expressing the striving of both man and society towards a continual further moral perfection whose ideal for us is the new man of the communist future.

As individuals proceed towards that ideal their sense of responsibility increases. This includes their responsibilities at cosmic level. For in the view of certain scientists there are weighty reasons for accepting the uniqueness of both

intelligent life in the Universe and man's cosmic solitude. The moral and ethical significance of that fact is truly enormous, since it may serve as a powerful motivation for a further awareness of the value of human life and of the mind, as well as of man's cosmic destiny as a "forward detachment" of matter within a vast part of the Universe, if not throughout all of it.^^24^^ But even if that hypothesis should not be confirmed, the moral and ethical philosophical proposition to the effect that man will continue to assert himself, in the words of Feuerbach as a unique and absolute value in the Universe, will continue to hold true (even though this may rest on a different set of scientific grounds). Such an assertion of the absolute value of man does not represent an anthropocentric position; it is a social and scientific fact drawn from reality on which man's hope for the future rests.

Creative activities and hope produce optimism---a faith in the future, in historical progress, and in man's power and invincibility. In the words of Ernest Hemingway "Man was not created to be defeated---man can be destroyed but he cannot be vanquished." Man's victory is his free affirmation and development within a boundless historical perspective; it is the triumph of his mind, that "infinitely great and undefinable" ingredient (L. Tolstoy), which lives in his soul, to which only the Universe's own infinity corresponds, and towards which he aspires through his noblest thoughts and

actions.

It is in striving to move further into the unexplored mysteries of the Universe and the mysterious depths of his own self that man carries out his cosmic mission and affirms himself as Man.

Man's future is an increasingly comprehensive realisation of his essential powers, and can therefore occur only if man himself relies on these essential powers in his activities. Scientific truths and humanistic ideals as well as the logic of cognition and the laws of aesthetics, and freedom and necessity---all these are merely external expressions of numerous processes relating to the growth and development of truly human elements within man that are still unknown to us. One thing is clear: his future cannot be separated from these processes. For their part these depend directly on society's progress in the direction of a new civilisation--- communism.

20-01743

3. The New Humanism

of Communist Civilisation's

New Man

A new humanism is an essential element in man's and society's progress towards the future, as well as an important spiritual foundation of the new civilisation in which man will be in harmony with nature and with the society that produced him. The need for such a new humanism is felt increasingly already today, and it is made especially urgent by attempts to find solutions to the global problems that confront mankind. There is a growing awareness that aside from socio-economic, scientific, technological and cultural changes, substantial shifts are also needed in the consciousness of individuals and in the morality of contemporary mankind in the direction of developing global approaches.

It is along this road that the most important development will take place, namely an awareness by each individual that he is part of mankind.

As an epigraph to his novel For Whom The Bell Tolls Ernest Hemingway cited the following remarkable words of John Donne:

``No man is an Hand, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manner of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." Each man is an integral part of mankind---this truth was perhaps never perceived as sharply as it is in our own times. He is part of all of mankind both in life and in death. This is why individuals cannot have a future that is distinct from the destiny of all of humanity, while the destiny of mankind itself is inseparable from that of each individual: it is also his own destiny. It is this which makes it necessary that future man possess that "worldwide responsiveness" (F. Dostoyevsky) that is called humanism and is the antithesis of all possible forms of egoism and fanaticism. And it is with satisfaction that we may note that in recent years in many respects, and under the influence of global

problems, a shift has taken place in the consciousness of modern man, changes have taken place in his values, and the priority of humanistic and social objectives is becoming increasingly apparent, including their extension to the field of scientific and technical research in the narrow sense of that term. In recent years attempts to define this have been made by numerous thinkers. While for us, Marxists, the concrete interpretations of the concept of humanism that these attempts contain do not always appear adequate, we understand the diverse humanistic trends that make themselves felt in the world today and are always ready to participate in discussions and dialogues.

It must be mentioned that one of the first who anticipated the need for a new humanism closely connected with global problems was J. Huxley, one of the major contemporary scientists and a prominent public figure. He presented his views immediately following the Second World War, in an article entitled "A Philosophy for UNESCO".^^25^^ According to Huxley, the conception of a ``world'' humanism must derive from a "truly monistic, unitary philosophical basis", resting on an evolutionary approach linking the natural sciences to the history of mankind. J. Huxley assumes that such a ``world'' humanism must be global in scope and evolutionary in essence.

Yet a non-class-oriented abstract approach to the interpretation of humanism brings J. Huxley to Utopian constructions in which, in comparing social processes to biological evolution, he views a certain cumulative trend that is presumed to relentlessly carry mankind along the road to a "world political unity" as the determining factor in history. That is, according to J. Huxley, the "global aim" and it may be achieved, in his opinion, providing there is a "unity of world consciousness". The idealistic character of such an approach is evident, as is the attempt to provide a natural scientific foundation, as it were, for the idea that in the course of solving global problems and of a global coexistence and co-operation among states possessing different social structures, an ideological as well as a political `` reconciliation'' is inevitable; that is an abandonment of struggles in the ideological sphere.

J. Huxley assumes that the task is to help the emergence of a "single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose". The

20*

time for this, in his view, has arrived since for the first time in history mankind has acquired the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification, and also the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a worldwide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species.

In recognising the real fact of a struggle among different world views and the fact that the life, thoughts and political aspirations of hundreds of millions of persons crystallise around them, J. Huxley asks: "Can this conflict be avoided, these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?" He replies that he is not only persuaded that this may occur, but also that as a result of the inexorable dialectic of evolution this must occur, although lie does not know whether this will occur before or after a new war. Since a new war will be so destructive as to set back the march of human progress by centuries, he is convinced, he adds, that the overriding task must be to achieve this synthesis in time to forestall open conflict.

Believing that the two opposing philosophies of today differ essentially on one point, namely the relation between the individual and the community, J. Huxley writes that this engenders different moralities and systems of ethics; different methods of education, different conceptions of the role of art in society; different economic systems, different ways of integrating science with national life, different interpretations of the fundamental human freedoms, and different conceptions of the possibilities and limits in international co-operation. Huxley believes that these differences, though they will undoubtedly become irreconcilable without armed conflict if they are permitted to be expressed as dogmas, become embodied in rigid social systems, and to become translated into terms of politics and power, can in principle be reconciled.

Huxley assumes that there are two approaches to this reconciliation. It can be approached from above and from outside, as an intellectual problem, a question of agreement in principle and it can also be approached from below and from within, as a practical problem, a question of agreement through action. "The world is potentially one," Huxley writes in concluding, "and human needs are the same in every part of it to understand it, to control it, and to enjoy it." It is therefore necessary to strive to

achieve a "unified way of life and of looking at life" as a contribution to a "foundation for the unified philosophy we require''.

Such is the position that J. Huxley proposes to modern man: it is one of ``reconciliation'' that begins and ends not merely in an ideological and philosophical coexistence, but produces a certain mutual interpenetration and ``fusion'' of opposing ideas as a result of which Marxist-Leninist philosophy, in particular, must ``disappear'' because it is presumed to have been developed "too soon" to possess a universal and permanent significance and therefore to be a genuine philosophy providing an adequate explanation of global problems.

Huxley's position has been developed in a vivid and impressive (although often equally one-sided) way in the works of the Club of Rome. It has already been noted in considering individual reports to the Club of Rome that in varying degrees they nearly all appeal to a need to develop a new "world consciousness", and a "global ethos". It is, in fact, in the most recent reports that this theme is emphasised most strongly, and as a result the resolution of global problems and, hence, the future of mankind are made dependent directly on changes in its humanistic objectives, its consciousness, and its morals.

That approach is clearly expressed by A. Peccei, the President of the Club of Rome, in his book entitled The Human Quality. After shifting the solution of the problem to the anthropological dimension, namely to changes in the quality of man, he expresses his conviction that "only a New Humanism can bring about such a transformation in man".^^26^^ In Peccei's view, such a new humanism can then guide the development of other revolutions in the industrial, scientific, technological and social and political fields. It must be revolutionary in nature and contribute to the revival of a harmony between man and nature, as well as lead to a "human revolution" and bring new qualities and values to life---spiritual, philosophical, ethical, social and others. This refers not to elites but to all of mankind and the entire human system.

According to Peccei, the new humanism includes three aspects: globality, which constitutes in his view "the essence of our world", love of justice, and revulsion against violence. Peccei does not show, however, how this will be

carried out in practice. And this is the major shortcoming of all his discussions concerning the new humanism. When we refer to a new humanism of the new man in a communist civilisation we have in mind the scientific humanism that was announced by Marx already in the middle of the last century, and that continues to develop today in close association with the practical activities of socialism, as it develops into communism, as well as with the general regularities governing the current development of mankind, including developments in the sphere of global problems.

From the very outset of his social activities Marx was not only an outstanding revolutionary but also a great humanist and democrat. It is noteworthy that Marx viewed real humanism to be a synonym of communism, and that he denned a communist society as a society possessing "genuinely human relations", in which man will acquire unlimited possibilities for his free and all-round development.

"Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man, communism, therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being---a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism.. .''~^^27^^

Marx's teaching, which retains an integrated concept of man extending to both his practical and spiritual activities, represented a continuation of the philosophy of humanism that sought to establish classical Antiquity's ideal man as an integrated and harmonious being. But that teaching was also a critical continuation, since it abandoned many elements that accounted for the Utopian and non-scientific character of earlier humanism, and above all associated humanism with a concrete historical understanding of social development as self-development in the course of production and social activities.

Having discovered the "social dimension" of man, Marxism thereby critically overcame the principles of earlier humanism, whoso point of departure both in historical concepts and in the theory of knowledge and ethics was a

problem of human nature and of a given universal essence of man as the basic attribute of individuals. At the same time Marxism does not deny its linkage with earlier hiimanism: it lends real substance to the general humanistic ideal that had been expressed in speculative and abstract form. It is this substance, which is produced by a scientific analysis that permits the ideal to become a guide to practical activities.

No basis in fact thus exists either for attempts to present the very idea of humanism as an achievement of bourgeois culture alone, which is asserted to be the sole recipient of past humanistic traditions, or for more general attempts to declare that idea as somehow lying in opposition to science and to defend the "theoretico-cognitive anti-humanism" of Marxism. Marxism has transformed humanism from a utopia into a science by advancing a dialectico-materialistic understanding of the history of science and of man. It is this which constitutes its historical contribution and significance, both for the present age and for the future of humanity.

While the new humanism announced by Marxism was class-oriented in its foundations, it emphasised from the very first the idea of international community of mankind that will be fully and adequately realised in the future communist society. It therefore inherently includes global approaches as well, and raises them to the level of concrete policies that recognise the presence of coexisting systems of socialism and capitalism in the present world and the need for comprehensive socio-economic, scientific, technical and cultural transformations in order to develop a new civilisation.

On the basis of the communist ideal of society and man as "an end in itself" in history, the new humanism presupposes social and individual initiatives in achieving both the short-term and long-term objectives of humanity in ways that are based on a scientific approach. It includes as an essential element a constant striving for change, including radical and revolutionary changes, that are viewed as means that must always be adequate to the aims.

The new humanism derives from the proposition that these aims can only be achieved under conditions of democracy and freedom, which are elements of enormous value and without which human progress is not possible. It is

also associated with a striving towards overall international co-operation and an ability to participate in dialogues on both current and historical issues.

In analysing critically and rejecting false views that serve as a basis for imaginary differences we cannot forget that in doing this we still do not arrive at the "ultimate truth". In seeking to resolve that problem we must be extremely critical of our own generalisations and conclusions, and to view them merely as material for further thinking and for developing positions that are objectively true with regard to vital questions that are new to us, such as those that relate to man's future and to the prospects of mankind in the context of global problems.

The new humanism asserts itself on the basis of a specific understanding of the future of man and of humanity, and this is why it emphasises justice and altruism, parsimony and generosity, active sympathy and responsibility, a striving towards new developments and a respect for mankind's present and past, a marvelling at beauty and " reverence for life", in the poetic words of Albert Schweitzer, one of the founders of the new humanism.

It is, of course, true, that in many respects, today such a humanism still exists as a certain objective and ideal and as a Hope. But at the same time some of its individual elements are increasingly becoming a part of the reality of global development, and in this respect socialism plays the role of leading detachment. The process through which the new humanism is emerging and develops is closely related to the solution of the complex of global problems that now confronts mankind and is a specific prerequisite and condition for its future. One must therefore wish and hope that it may be embodied in actual developments.

Wbile in the future mankind will be united in many ways, today it is divided because many of the major components of its vital activities (socio-economic, cultural, etc.) operate in different directions. In the future it will channel its entire creative potential on the comprehensive and free development of man, and at that time the global character of its activities will express itself directly, by-passing all the elements that are dividing today's world and the world of contemporary man.

~^^2^^ F. Engcls, "Speeches in Elberfeld", in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, J375, p. 263.

~^^3^^ I. Kon, Sotsiologia lichnosti (The Sociology of Personality), Moscow, Politizdat, 1967; also Otkrytiye "la" (Discovering the ``Self''), Moscow, Politizdat, 1978; A. Leontiev, Deyatelnost, soznaniye, lichnost (Activity, Consciousness, Personality), Moscow, Politizdat, 1975; M. Demin, Problemy teorii lichnosti. Sotsialno-filosofsky aspekt (Problems in the Theory of Personality. Socio-Philosophical Aspects), MGU, Moscow, 1977; V. Kemerov, Problema lichnosti: metodologia issledovania I zhiznenny smysl (Problem of Personality: Methodology and Meaning), Moscow, Politizdat, 1977; G. Smirnov, Sovctsky chelovek; formirovanie sotsialisticheskogo tipa lichnosti (Soviet Man; the Development of a Socialist Type of Personality), Moscow, Politizdat, 1975; N. Shulga, Klassovaya biologia lichnosti (A Class-Oriented Biology of Personality), Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1978 (all in Russian).

~^^4^^ K Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,

p. 189.

~^^5^^ F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, p. 346.

~^^6^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The German Ideology", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 80.

~^^7^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The Holy Family", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 130.

~^^8^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 458.

~^^9^^ K Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 298.

~^^10^^ V. I. Lenin, "What the 'Friends of the People' Are and How They Fight the Social Democrats", Collected Works, Vol. 1, 1963, p. 159.

~^^11^^ K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part III, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 491.

~^^12^^ This idea continues to be current today. In particular, H. Marcuse considers that "a social revolution must be preceded by a revolution within man associated with radical changes in all his aspects ... this is a question of education and one should begin with this today". Neues Forum, No. 179/180, Vienna, November/December 1968).

~^^13^^ V. I. Lenin, "The Achievements and Difficulties of the Soviet Government", in Collected Works, Vol. 29, 1965, pp. 69- 70.

~^^14^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, "The German Ideology", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 31.

~^^15^^ F. Engels, "Principles of Communism", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 353.

~^^16^^ Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf) (1857-1858), p. 599.

~^^17^^ V. I. Lenin, "Gems of Narodnik Project-Mongering", Collected Works, Vol. 2, 1963, p. 472.

~^^18^^ F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, p. 352.

~^^19^^ V. I. Lenin, "Better Fewer But Better", Collected Works, Vol. 33, 1966, p. 489.

~^^20^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 458.

~^^21^^ V. I. Lenin, "From the First Subbotnik on the Moscow-Kazan

~^^1^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, p. 820.

Railway to the All-Russia May Day Subbotnik", Collected Works, Vol. 31, 1974, p. 123.

~^^22^^ The number of distributed books, journals and newspapers in the USSR exceeds that of any other country. Each year an average of 7.1 books and brochures, 12.6 journal issues and 160 newspaper issues are produced per citizen.

~^^23^^ V. I. Lenin, "What the 'Friends of the People' Are and How They Fight the Social Democrats", Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 159.

~^^24^^ I. Shklovsky, "0 vozmozhnoi unikalnosti razumnoi zhizni vo vselennoi" (Concerning the Possible Uniqueness of Intelligent Life in the Universe), Voprosy filosofii, No. 9, 1976.

~^^25^^ The UNESCO Courier, March 1976.

~^^26^^ A. Peccei, The Human Quality, p. 130.

~^^27^^ K. Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 296.

Conclusion

THE PROSPECTS

FOR MANKIND:

A COMPREHENSIVE

RESOLUTION

OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS

THROUGH SOCIAL,

SCIENTIFIC,

TECHNOLOGICAL

AND HUMANISTIC

DEVELOPMENT

. . .If one attempts to summarise very briefly the complex of today's urgent global problems---namely universal peace and disarmament, the problem of social development and economic growth throughout the world, of scientific and technical progress and education, of growth in mankind's culture and its interaction with nature, and finally of the very future of man himself at biological and social levels--- then the following conclusion is unavoidable: the prospects for resolving these particular problems coincide with mankind's wider prospects. Moreover, they mutually condition each other and together define comprehensive progress in human civilisation, ranging from its material aspects and prerequisites to the sphere of culture and of moral norms. And we have associated that progress with the development of a communist society within which genuinely human relations among people are asserted and all essential human powers, which are embodied in the communist ideal of a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality, unfold. Such, then, is the logic of the development of human history, the truth of human knowledge, the meaning of human existence, and mankind's hope for the future.

A wonderful and boundless future awaits man and humanity if reason and humaneness triumph. Similarly there is no end to the chasm into which individuals and humanity

may fall if the forces of evil and destruction prevail. This is why it is not only historical optimism that motivates our analysis of alternatives for global development, but unfortunately a very realistic doubt, alarm, and concern as well.

But all this should motivate us to initiate active measures rather than disappoint us. Only mankind's purposeful activities in solving the social, scientific, technical, and humanistic aspects of today's global problems can bring us to our universally desired objective. Today a careful optimism and hope are usually expressed with regard to the first, a boundless optimism and hope with regard to the second, and generally skepticism and sometimes hope with regard to the third. A final resolution of global problems will apparently be reached when all three of these aspects are viewed in an integral manner from a position emphasising reasonable realism and a scientific determination of the prospects for mankind's future development, within which optimism and hope will derive from real social initiatives in the name of humanism and of man's and humanity's future.

That will represent a triumph of the new humanism, whose real course proceeds through the development of socialism and through international co-operation, including co-operation in resolving global problems. Of course, solution of global problems is not merely an international issue. It is intimately interwoven with the structure of today's class struggle in the capitalist world and with the mutual opposition of two social systems---capitalism and socialism, as well as the internal social and economic policies of socialist states. Solution of global problems also depends on the efforts of national states and the governments and peoples of individual countries and on their striving to take global problems into consideration as they formulate various aspects of their development strategies. But a co-ordination of these efforts and the most effective combining of mankind's economic and social potentials can only be achieved through international co-operation.

This is clearly apparent in the case of co-operation in science and technology. Today there is no country that can itself provide for the development of all branches of scientific research; most countries cannot afford certain types of large-scale research projects (for example, their own space

exploration programmes, or experimental studies in the field of nuclear physics, in which expensive research facilities are employed). International ties and co-operation offer the only solution. In short, as the entire range of problems of human existence becomes international in scope the measures needed for their solution must be given a similar scope. As a result, co-operation in the field of science and technology, which not so long ago lay altogether outside the sphere of international world politics, has been transformed into one of its major elements: the number of contacts among countries and peoples in this field is increasing, as is the number of research agreements in major areas, and exchanges of scientific and technical information relating to major scientific and technical developments, including the study of global problems.

It is common knowledge that in recent years, under the influence of different reasons, a strong tendency has shown in the West to inhibit this progressive process, and even set it back. Contacts in science and technology between the USSR and other socialist countries, on the one hand, and the West, primarily the United States, on the other, are being cut off under various pretexts; the West has launched a political and propaganda campaign of a distinctly pronounced anti-Soviet and anti-communist nature. It is clear, however, that this is not to the benefit of peace and progress; nor is it conducive to solving global issues, of course. The point is that not only the socialist countries are interested in scientific and technological co-operation. As for the Soviet Union, it was clearly stated at the 26th Congress of the CPSU:

``Life requires fruitful co-operation of all countries for solving the peaceful, constructive tasks facing every nation and all humanity.

And this co-operation is no futile utopia. Its first signs---be they ever so small so far---are already in evidence in our time. They should be noted, cherished and developed.

Useful co-operation is now under way, also within l,he framework of international organisations, between a considerable number of states in such fields as peaceful uses of atomic energy, the battle against epidemic diseases, elimination of illiteracy, protection of historical and cultural monuments and weather fore-

casting. Our country is taking an active part in all this.

In short, there already exists a valid basis i'or the further extension of practical peaceful co-operation among states. And the need for it is increasingly apparent. It is enough to mention such problems, for example, as discovery and use of new sources of energy, provision of food for the world's growing population, preservation of all the riches of Nature on Earth and exploration of outer space and the World Ocean.''~^^4^^

The need to co-operate in solving global problems enhances still further the internationalisation of mankind's activities that results from its economic and cultural development. In the future the internationalisation of these activities will provide a basis for a further development of mankind's overall civilisation.

But, while objective tendencies in world development aro proceeding precisely in such a progressive direction, and while they are forcing a reconsideration of the principles of international relations with increasing frequency in directions corresponding to the requirements of social progress and the need of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, the forces of imperialism and reaction are seeking to impose a strategy for overcoming global contradictions that would open new prospects for a capitalist, bourgeois internationalisation in which all productive forces in society would be subordinated to imperialism. That dangerous trend distorts the actual direction of mankind's development, leads to misleading anticipations, and aggravates actual problems.

There is no doubt that in the restructuring of international relations that is needed to resolve the problems confronting mankind existing socialism will play an increasing role. Its internal development and approach to international relations provides a good example of the ways that are most appropriate for solving mankind's major problems. But purposeful efforts are also needed by the people of every country together with a wide and constructive co-operation of all countries and peoples on the basis of the principle of peaceful coexistence. The struggle for asserting these principles in international life and for a responsible approach to observing them is one of the most important tasks

of our time. 11 will continue to play a central role throughout the course of world development leading to the third millennium, and it is upon its outcome that humanity's hopes for the future primarily depend.

~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU lo the, XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Immediate Tasks of the Party in Home and Foreign Policii

REQUEST TO READERS

Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.

Please send all your comments to 17, / ubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.