Within the framework of all evolution human activity shows a double, an ambiguous face. On the one hand the "human being" is the most successful energon: it becomes the germ cell for numerous bigger energons in whose structure it becomes an increasingly smaller unit. It is tied by those bigger entities, subjugated and deprived of its own liberalness. On the other hand its striving for "freedom", an individual way of life and for enjoying life individually grows: thus it concentrates itself individually on itself. That second tendency brings the energon – first only insignificantly but in the course of development increasingly so – into conflict with the interests of the life stream which has generated it.

Within this divergence three complexes can be distinguished.

First complex: the human struggle against suppression by other human beings. This primarily concerns what in colloquial language we call "class struggle" and "struggle for liberation" (against suppression by other nations or by imposed governments). Single humans build up successful professional bodies, create positions of power and strengthen them by bequeathing them to their descendants. Thus other human beings, germ cells, are hindered in their "free progress", this or another possibility of acquisition is not open to them. This is also how they are turned by others – through force – into functional unitsor into milch cows.

That development is observed by the life stream – if I might be allowed this personification again – indifferently and without any interest. Such struggles for power, suppressions and exploitations have belonged to the daily routine from the beginning of evolution. It was precisely these processes which carried forward development overall. If in the case of human beings germ cells of energons turn against other energons, then this might be new – yet, at the these human turning points many other things changed, too. At any rate, such processes do harm overall development. They drive human beings towards new achievements and new ideas: accordingly, they serve progress and are fully in the interest of the life flow.

Second complex: human beings strive for individual luxury. This is also, at least to some extent, a new tendency within evolution. Suddenly the individual is put into the foreground, compared to the species. The individual suddenly no longer supplies its surpluses for the formation of other energons but it builds and surrounds itself with luxury items – sometimes with exceptionally big and versatile ones. One could also regard this as a way of casting off previous chains. All human culture (in terms of an expenditure of surpluses in order to increase convenience) is a huge proliferation of such luxury items. Partly they belong to individuals (e. g. yacht, harem, collection of paintings), partly they are common organs of luxury (e. g. magnificent buildings, first-class hotels).

This tendency, too, is mostly advantageous for the life flow – thus for the total development of energons. For it is precisely those luxury items which become fields of acquisition for other energons which make such additional requirements the basis of their acquisition. Indeed, they become the strongest motor for that second phase of the evolution which began at the turning point "human being".

Third complex: some people "become pensive", become "modest". They also strive for "pleasure" but it is of such a kind that it only requires small expenditures of energy. Such types enjoy "existence as such". They explore and develop subtle stirrings in themselves – their activities are no longer aligned to conquest and radical change but to their own existences.

Seen from the viewpoint of the life flow they are "renegades", as it were. They receive the present of an enormous developmental capital and instead of paying it back with interest, they are delighted. The structure which is adjusted to a particular purpose becomes some sort of a musical instrument for them. They play on their inner strings, as it were – they are happy in themselves.

In an individual case this also would not be anything new: the life flow had to accept many failures. With humans, however, such endeavours spread and condensed into traditional life recipes which were particularly strengthened by most religions. The earthly struggle is replaced by the dream world of an effectiveness in another world. The reflating drives are fought as something mean. Christianity teaches modesty, tolerance, concentration on a hereafter. Buddhism teaches liberation from all innate and acquired urges, to let oneself be taken up by the Nothing, extinction. Freedom here is the final aim.

The life flow is strongly affected by those endeavours. Here people in fighting against the motor activity which urges that process. Furthermore, as those tendencies spread like infections and hold their ground extremely persistently they constitute a serious counter-force and a serious damage to the total interest of the energon.

The power of those phenomena has such an extent that they also form a block to the forces striving progress. With Christianity’s fight against enlightenment and science this became particularly clear. However, this block was removed. Seen from the viewpoint of the life flow those were barren periods: the flow faltered, slackened. Now it was set into motion again.

What followed was the era of flourishing science and technology, the beginning of industry. In the language of the energon theory this means: humans concentrated on the development of new functional units and on new behavioural patterns. Organised in big common organs (universities, research facilities) they were concerned with an extension of power – the power of energons. Increasingly bigger energons, which worked increasingly faster were built (enterprises) and external energy was forced into the service of those acquisition structures to an increasing degree. New functional units – machines – served as mediators between these forces and the aims to be achieved.

Thus, the tendencies which were directed against the interests of the life flow retired into the background again. In a few individuals they remained active, but their organised influence decreased.

With that we reach the period in which we live.
 
 

Through the progress of technology and industry supremacies that were based on ownership of property were broken. What became a new factor of power was accumulated, joined surpluses (capital). This power factor, too, led to suppression, it also resulted in struggles for "freedom". In one part of the world (the communist one) this power, too, was broken.

Yet it was there that types of states came into existence where freedom was denied in order to provide freedom. While the interest of the individual is no longer limited by any class, it is limited by the state itself. Seen from the viewpoint of the energon theory particularly centrally steered energons came into being which were similar to animal organisms. The germ cell human being who does not work becomes a parasite in those structures. Duties and profits are determined to a large degree. Consequently, the individual’s call for "freedom" rings out again.

In states with a market economy the individual has freedom from the state. Yet, here another process takes place – which also leads to a lack of freedom.

Through the improvement of means of transport and of communication the markets for energons that acquire through exchange was extended. The acquisition area which could be profitable became larger – practically this means that the sources of acquisition that could be tapped got larger. Especially production businesses – but also suppliers and agents for services – thus had the possibility to enlarge much more than previously and to work correspondingly more profitably as a result. That possibility was utilised – this is self-evident. That lies in the nature of the development of energons, ever since the genesis of the first "living" molecule structures. If such opportunities were not taken, then this would be something new, something going against evolution as it has been so far.

Even in communist states where businesses are nothing else than functional units they become larger. This is a direct consequence of the improved means of transport which is a relationship that can be expressed in numbers.

In states with a market economy the extension of space acquired led to the increased importance of extolling the achievements supplied. If a new greengrocer opens a shop, then this gets about in the area that constitutes the potential circle of acquisition fairly spontaneously. If, on the other hand, a business in the Ruhr area manufactures a product which could be sold around half of the world, then an appropriate announcement in those areas becomes important: advertisement.

What follows closely behind, as a second function, is that this process becomes a decisive weapon in competition. Thirdly – as another extension of the function – advertisement becomes a tool for the "creation of markets". This means: through that functional unit it becomes possible to manipulate sources of energy – even, to create them anew. Strictly speaking they are not "created" but transformed. They become acquirable for other "keys" through other measures.

Today this process can be experienced by everybody. The big suppliers of products or services (an example for the latter: centres of tourism) fight for the human surplus of energy – they fight for the golden calf "vehicle of energy" ("vehicle of surplus"). They try to reach people with advertisement and thus to attract them. From all different sides wishes are implanted into humans who are looking for luxury. Today the influence has already become so subtle and effective that the majority of people accumulate more wishes than they can manage. The result is a growing restlessness and dissatisfaction with what one already possesses: the ideal breeding-ground for the growth of the economy – the ideal breeding-ground for the interests of the life flow. The respective surpluses do not suffice for the fulfilling of wishes any more: therefore the speed of acquisition is increased. Turnover grows in volume and speed. There is also an advantage to the state, higher tax income, so it supports that development. Advertising – as a further strategy – starts to devalue what has been acquired by the demander as fast as possible¹. Through fashions and through ever new models and new examples the flame of wishes is not only fanned but led in ever new directions. The consumer – the golden calf – does not have time to think but is constantly kept on tenterhooks by organised bombardment. He or she hurries to produce surpluses in order to fulfil wishes – which are implanted into the consumer².

Also, all existing habits – especially the common habit of "tradition" – are harnessed. They are "commercialised". Christmas becomes a time where it is a duty to give presents, a holiday becomes a time where there is an obligation to travel.

"Underdeveloped" countries become areas of expansion which are capable of development. There the feeling of inferiority is produced while the previous values are destroyed. The "underdeveloped person" who was content with his or her previous "luxury" now becomes dissatisfied.

Within communist countries humans are shielded from those capitalist influences. However, they are also artificially set into faster motion. Regulations are a means for that. Another means is the artificial fanning of the human instinct for community. People are also bombarded with triggers that stimulate the desire to purchase just as happens within market economies. What is attained by advertising with the latter, with the former tries to attain via propaganda. Honours and participation in common success give strong feelings of satisfaction. Here, too, the appropriate manipulation of young people can achieve effects of moulding which remain with the adult. But satisfaction in being able to serve the community, however, is exhausted faster – the driving force that is activated here is less profitable than the individual striving for satisfaction.

That is – seen from a slightly different point of view than the usual one – our situation today. Now, how do we proceed?

I will depict four possibilities of future developments with four models. This is an attempt to pursue the course of evolution so far, presented itself from the viewpoint of the theory of the energon.
 
 

The first model is well known and unfortunately it has a considerable degree of probability. It is the possibility of a nuclear war which ends with the partial or total destruction of life.

What is particularly alarming is that wars have always been advantageous for the course of evolution. Of course humans have condemned them for some time now but they are fully in the interest of the life flow. The value that results from those processes for the life flow could – with some effort – be determined arithmetically using the example of the last two world wars and the technological progress to which they led. The actual and true human "capital" consists in the total possession of behavioural patterns for the construction of functional units and their use. They are the backbone of our power potential – and their real value is, as has been said, a quantity measurable in principle. Although today we are not nearly as yet able to carry out such calculations, if we were able to do so, then we could depict that part of the human increase of capital with a graphic curve.

But even without being able to do this we know that it is a rising curve – and that it rises more rapidly in periods of conflict. Under the pressure of the threat of a war humans work harder and – driven by fear and the instincts of community – apply more intelligence.

Since the beginning of evolution improvement was always tied closely to fighting and destruction. Many of the animal instincts are aligned to that and exactly those instincts are also still strongly effective inside us. In addition, there is our biggest strength, which at the same time is our biggest weakness, our imagination. By cunningly influencing it the demagogue can all too easily cause fear, indignation and readiness to attack. As Lorenz showed very clearly, human aggressiveness which in an orderly state is denied realisation only too keenly looks for an opportunity to react³. Likewise dangerous – as Arthur Koestler rightly pointed out – is the human willingness to identify with a group and to sacrifice oneself for an idea. This noble characteristic, the subject of many songs, almost constitutes a greater source of danger⁴.

Today we have – abruptly – reached a point where weapons of destruction could devastate the whole world. Against their use there only stands the fear of those weapons and our reason. All other mechanisms of the life flow are on the other side.

If this were the end of the development of life, then from the standpoint of world development a not inharmonious picture would be produced – if one disregards our regrettable destiny . Energy develops until it reaches a certain potential and then this process destroys its own structure.
 
 

Second model: Communism – or a similar totalitarian philosophy – gains power over the whole world.

According to the theory of the energon then the following further development seems to be mapped out quite clearly: the outside enemy who is opposed by that system no longer exists. What remains is one huge energon which assigns everyone’s functional place in the world and determines one’s duties, one’s earnings and one’s possibilities of luxury.

Past experiences of human history suggest such a forcible suppression of the striving for individual development is not possible over the long term. Only as long as there exists an enemy of the system can it be maintained. With communist states this can be seen clearly by how often and how extensively the bogey of an enemy has to pay for it. If such bogey does not exist any more, then – in my opinion – such a totalitarian system must sooner or later break apart.

Then it changes into another forms of system and eventually into the system of market economy, entirely of its own accord. Why does it change into that system in particular? Simply because it is only in that system that the diverging interests of humans and of the life flow are balanced.
 
 

Third model: the consumer-economic end.

This possibility arises from the logical further development of the tendencies that today prevail in countries with a market economy. The influence that the suppliers have on the demanders becomes increasingly more effective and more perfect. Every human being is led – making a detour via his or her wishes – by others. The "I" of human beings eventually only consists of parts that have been built by others or on which others at least have put a bridle. Here humans attain a state of high satisfaction because they are manipulated in such a way that they are satisfied with that state.

This model is the culmination of applied psychology, of applied ethology – even a culmination of science and technology. With this model finally all political and philosophic opposition is dismantled – because it would disturb the flow of the economy. Birth control is regulated in such a way as to ensure that humanity reaches the optimum volume for the economic process. The interests are adapted towards each other (perhaps using the theory presented here) so that there exists a perfect balance of interests, so that everybody can be sure that he is supplied with a volume of pleasure that is appropriate within the framework of the community.

Human labour has reached its maximum with this model – the amount of leisure time on the one hand is adjusted to the recuperation that is necessary for the activity of acquisition, on the other hand to the time required for pursuing wishes for luxury. Dissatisfaction does not exist insofar as the supply is always ahead of the demand. The mechanisms of innate and acquired driving forces have been identified and can be predicted statistically: they are always met with a corresponding supply. If there is a defence reaction against such manipulation, then there are situations available where humans can give rein to it freely. They are supplied with tools and toys to work off their irritation.

This system is perfectly productive and perfectly reasonable. Once things are sorted out satisfactorily, it can last for a long time. Children are brought up according to values which later will be accessible to them, all unclear and vague aspects of drives are dismantled or directed into clear market channels.

In this model the interests of the life flow finally have gained the upper hand. Humans are wrapped up in those interests and the tendencies of human individuality – insofar as they are opposed to the interest of the total development of the energon – peter out. Thus a maximum of preservable biomass is reached. The whole planet Earth is made accessible for life process and its structures pile up in ever higher constructions and levels. Now external energies (nuclear power, etc.) operate this process to a gigantic extent. More and more functions are taken over by machines but also the functions of steering and development have been shifted to artificial organs (computers) to a large degree. The indispensable functions of humans in that gigantic block of life is to have wishes and to fulfil those wishes. A way of thinking along other lines is hardly possible anymore; it is simply pointless. as the world now has become the optimum fulfilment of one’s "own" wishes.

The result for development overall is the following: in the first period the energon species ruled. Up to the humans they carried on the life flow. In the second period the energon individual – through humans – stepped into the foreground. This process is powerfully driven on in new ways. The third and last phase is the one where the total stream dictates. It swallows, as it were, species and individuals: it does not require their services any longer.

Here one may object that also with the second model – the world as one big energon – such a manipulation of humans would be possible. Today much is said about technical influence – for instance through drugs, surgery etc. In some states and organisations already the initial stages of brainwashing can be found.

Nevertheless I think with the second model a perfect manipulation and de-individualisation of humans is unlikely to occur. Here the measures are too clear and the interests directed against the individual too transparent. Not via force but only via exchange – via the fulfilling of wishes – can a human being perfectly manipulate another one. Only in the process of total mutual manipulation can – I think –individual tendencies be stamped out.
 
 

Fourth model: still without a name.

This development is exactly in the opposite direction. Here the endpoint is the total control of the life flow through humans.

This model can be also derived from today’s developments, as it also is a market-economic structure which, however, is curbed.

The development has its starting point with the spreading of a growing dissatisfaction and restlessness without quite knowing why. The movements among today’s youth could maybe interpreted in the following way: what they, too, have in common is that they do not quite know what they are opposed to. Eventually they are opposed to the establishment and the existing structure. Here one fights against this, there one fights against that but the this and that are not the actual enemies but merely some of their many shapes.

The development in model four begins with the fact that the differences between the interests of the life flow and those of the human individual are becoming increasingly obvious and that humans are starting to investigate the question seriously and rationally. It is a widely held belief that an individual human being does knows best what is favourable for himself – but already this belief is part of the mutual manipulation. The supplier not only directs the wishes of the demander into his "stable" but also takes looks after his well-being there. The demanders also has to believe that they has acted correctly and to their own advantage – otherwise they loses trust and that makes the next deal more difficult. Therefore the supplier not only attracts the demanders but also constantly pats them on the back admiringly.

Thus it all depends on de-manipulating humans – a by far more complex task than it might seem at first sight. In the following comparison I give a few examples for the divergences that have to be taken into account here.
 

An important motor for this development is the mistrust especially of all luxury which is extolled. What becomes the guiding principle is the question: which values actually serve to increase one’s own well-being – and which values serve the interests of acquisition of others?

The ability to differentiate between supply and extolling becomes significant. In economics there has always been the following discrepancy: are the suppliers satisfiers of the requirement – or are they acquirers? Hypocrisy occurs if an acquirer pretends to be the satisfier of a requirement – even though he does not satisfy the requirement but just wants to create it.

In this development war is declared on all hypocrisy. Nobody has to be ashamed of his activity of acquisition: the activity of acquisition is characteristic of all evolution, it constitutes the normal and central activity of each energon. It is quite appropriate that this activity gives satisfaction and thus feelings of happiness. Successful work is one of the most original and natural sources of joy. Exchange is also acquisition. Wherever the exchanger pretends to be a donor while he is an acquirer there exists hypocrisy

What has an enormous power – due to innate "fixed" reactions – is the infectious effect of activities of other people. Anyone wanting to de-manipulate himself pays special attention to exactly those effects. Likewise, the property of others – instinctively – instils the wish for similar property. Both reactions clearly serve the life flow – and not the individual. If the value of one’s own house gets smaller and it provides less happiness when somebody else builds an even more beautiful house just next to it, then the loss of is not the fault of one’s house – it does not change its services at all. The loss of value only consists in one’s own reaction – influenced by the environment.

For the individual and its optimum well-being the matching of own talents and additional functional units that are not innate are important. How many objects should a human being possess? By how many units should he extend his body? This can only be answered individually because one has strength enough to cope with joining up a whole kingdom with himself, whilst for another already a little property and a little responsibility are too much. What we are dealing with here are questions of bondage and co-ordination – and also of protection and upkeep. The wishes of a human being may be insatiable, however, there are practical limits on the possibility for joining additional units to oneself. Thus, each individual has to explore for himself or herself what is the optimum size of the body of acquisition and luxury should be, i.e. optimum in the sense of the individual’s convenience and satisfaction.

Similarly, also human pleasure has its limits. If one forces ten times more pleasurable activities into the same unit of time, then this does not necessarily mean that ten times as much pleasure is thus produced. Attaining an optimum here is an art of living which is not given one on a plate but which requires training. Currently it is not taught in any school.

Thus, the direction of this development requires a considerable occupation with one’s ego and with the forces of which it consists. Here two findings are significant: the world of the emotions for humans is the most precious – and at the same time vulnerable to the influence of the environment. The imagination is the actual centre of humans and their strongest weapon – but simultaneously also the gate through which external influences reach one’s own "I". There is no easier way for external influences to gain a purchase over us I than through our emotions and our imagination.

A particularly dangerous instrument of influence is the use of moulding – because it is effective at a time when humans are not yet ready for defend themselves. Therefore with this model it is important that the children are not injected with sets of values (especially ethical ones) which will limit their ability to make assessments later in life.

Many common views that have been traditionally passed on also are a form of moulding. Therefore in this model all evaluations, even the most self-evident ones must be scrutinised.

For example: the problem of the brotherly love – which is made into a an ethical duty especially by religion – requires scrutiny. For humans it is obviously completely out of the question to love all the enormous variety of other human beings. The larger part is not worth that love. On the other hand a co-operative relationship and even one of guilt and obligation concerning all humanity is both justified and in place. Certainly, the individual only occasionally owes something to all the variety of people currently living. But practically everything the individual is, what it has, and what its achievements are based on, it owes to humanity.

The similarly promoted slogan "all humans are the same" also does not pass the critical test. Far from it. Yet, it is appropriate that humanity uses its power in order to help less capable ones. This, however, is not a duty but a free decision, much more a partial paying off of the guilt of gratitude to past generations.

In this model birth-control is dealt with much more strictly than in model three. The intention in this case is not to change the surface of our planet until it has reached its possible maximum of bio-structure but to provide the human individual with a maximum of possibilities to develop and search for happiness.

Concerning the surplus of humans in this model a firmer treatment of law-breakers – especially with capital crimes – appears probable. Here the term "punishment" is no longer justified. Society certainly has – on the basis of the immense values which it gives to the individual – the right to determine behavioural norms. Somebody who trespasses by an illegal form of acquisition (a thief) or through an illegal gratification of an urge (sex murderer) must reckon on a corresponding countermeasure. If somebody has a unfavourable disposition – then this is regrettable for him. Society by no means has the right to "punish" him, however, it certainly has the right to protect itself from him via countermeasures as tough as it wants.

In this model, scrutiny of the values "good" and "bad" in relation to drives plays a role. They are innate or acquired mechanisms – thus they are neither good nor bad but a reality. In this model humans will look for ways to cope with those forces as well as possible, to tend them, to refine them and – if they are directed against the interest of the community – to curb them. Those mechanisms are also organs like all others.

Thus, model four is typified by a kind of human beings who are characterised by a purposeful and non-hypocritical egoism. Their main interests consist in individual self-development within the framework of the possible and in remaining free from direct (forcible) or indirect (via creation of desires) influences. Their flags again say "freedom", however, maybe for the first time this is justified. Their central striving is: to be masters of their own houses. It eventually results in liberating the "I" from all units that serve some exterior interest – so that any act serving other people is one wanted by oneself and thus is a free one. The final aim is here the "freest will" possible.

Incidentally, this picture of development is similar to the one of model three in many respects. Many similar structures of acquisition and luxury are built. Here, too, one strives for progress and growth of the economy – but not in the form of an imperative that breathes down one’s neck. The speed is lower. It is accepted that with this way no optimum of economic flourishing, no maximum living standard can be reached. Less attention is paid to quantity but more to the highest possible gain of convenience. Power and possession are no longer the ideal but to derive who the highest value for oneself from one’s property and fortune, no matter how big or how small it may be.

Such tendencies are not new: they have occurred in the course of history repeatedly and everywhere. In model four they become the actual substructure.

The difference between rich and poor here loses some of its significance.. Similarly, also differences of race and intelligence become less important. This model is pluralistic – in the widest sense of the term. None of the possible developments of luxury is absolutely better than another one. Somebody who harms other interests gets restricted (not "punished" as there is no legal basis for that). Generally, everybody is his own master. Education is designed to provide the best possible support for that.

According to the trends so far, the realisation of this model is less likely than of model three. If model four is realised, then it also carries the prerequisite for long durability within itself.

Seen from the viewpoint of the life flow this model is curious insofar as in this case a process itself is tied and re-directed by a structure which it produces itself. In that case overall development is only divided into two periods. In the first one the species are responsible for development. In the second period power shifts to the individuals – and the overall interest of the life flow becomes subordinate to individual interests.
 
 

I used a quotation by Goethe at the beginning of this book because he saw or foresaw the principle of the energon in nature – so it seems to me – as nobody else did. The second quotation by Servan-Schreiber I added because it seems to be symptomatic of the stage of development today – and because it is ambiguous in its meaning.

In his widely read, and rightly so, book "The American Challenge" Servan-Schreiber describes how American companies today are advancing into the European economic area whereby they use European capital to a large degree. There he analyses the qualities that make American companies superior: flexibility, adaptability, boldness, a stronger "conscioussness of power", a better co-ordination in the organisation, the ability to "accept and cause changes" and to "put reason before emotions", higher expenditure on research, more support from the state, etc. Therefore, for Europe it would be vital to adjust to the global competition, to break down the routines of its countries, to combine the divided means and to submit to "new and strict rules of management". One should not support the weak but the strong. "Speed is necessary."

Nothing can be said against this line of argument if one considers the world as developing towards model three. Servan-Schreiber believed that: he talks about an "obviously incontrovertible development towards a consumer society without humanist aims". From the point of view of the theory of the energon this depiction, which does not lack in demagogic power, agitates very effectively for the interests of the life flow.

Europe should take up America’s challenge and fight back with the same weapons. Indirectly this means: it should take America’s economic structure as a model.

Should the world develop towards model four, then this advice would not be a very good. In model three the USA without doubt remain at the top, showing the way to follow and those who do so will remain close to the top. Contrastingly, for model four the federalist Europe forms the natural basis. Here lies the cradle of individualism. Thus, if the world’s movement changed and strived towards model four after all, then Europe, if it "hurriedly" makes an effort to become an American star pupil, would have to turn around at a some point in order to achieve the leading-role prescribed for it.

Servan-Schreiber sends out an even stronger signal by taking over predictions of the futurologists Kahn and Wiener and by describing the advantages of a "post-industrial society" which the USA would reach in ten years. The average income should then be ten times higher than in France today and human leisure time would amount to 218 free days per year. If Europe does not manage to catch up, it will become a second-class power and fall back.

Galbraith, who is very familiar with the American situation writes: "No social order has been able to reach such a high living standard as the American one and therefore none has been as good as the American one. Occasional doubts, even if they may be completely justified, go unheard."⁶

Concerning leisure Kahn’s original report does not sound so confident. Servan-Schreiber only mentions in a small footnote that the coming land of milk and honey is not for people in leading positions.

Yet, now one has to consider that within the framework of automation it is especially the rough work of humans which is most often replaced and it is especially co-ordination, that is management, which will most often remain a human function.

Whether the economic superiority of the USA really places them at the top, on the other hand, also depends on whether the world eventually turns towards model three or towards model four. In model four humans only buy what they want. Yet, this automatically breaks the positions of superiority of the organisations of acquisition which are based on influence and the manipulation of opinions.

It is interesting to read in Servan-Schreiber how important it is that there exist certain big projects – "no matter which". Only through them it would be possible to "force thousands of different technologies out of their relative routine, to join teams whose ways otherwise would have never crossed". Such intentions trigger off "a whole whirl of investigations, discoveries and productions around one stimulating idea". Here that mechanism of progress is described very cogently which has always been immensely supported by wars. If there is no "grand design" the citizen will not be willing to give more money and to make a greater effort than for overcoming a national enemy. Today, when wars become suicidal, space research – as Galbraith pointed out very correctly – forms an almost ideal replacement for the cancelled "grand design" of war.

In model three grand designs are important because the state needs to have at its disposal the biggest possible financial means for the reflation and the steering of the economy. These, however, always derive from taxes. But citizens only pay – voluntarily – if grand designs compel or inspire them to do so.

The calculation is an easy one. If citizens have to pay lower taxes, then they achieve the same surplus with less work – and thus work less. This, however, diminishes the turnover and harms the growth of the economy. Thus, as long as "the steady growth of the national product" forms the common aim (according to model three), grand designs – "no matter which" – are very important measures against idleness and laziness.

In model four everything is different. The fight against being manipulated at the same time means the fight against every one-sided ideology. That, however, deprives the fire of tension of its actual fuel. Within a de-manipulated society the economic and political conflicts of interests can be solved with the pen (or nowadays, with the computer) – and this with a large degree of fairness for all sides. High expenditures for arms are rendered unnecessary and the functions of the state can be limited in many respects.

As every economist knows, this would – especially if readiness to consume and to pay high taxes declines at the same time – mean a disastrous shock to today’s economic development. This is the prize, though, which humans in model four have to pay for their individual development. The living standard can then not be raised as fast anymore – but on the other hand there will be no striving for one that is so "high".

The joining together of Europe – in the sense of an integration of all interests – is certainly as important as a later integration of the interests of all countries. The question, however, whether Europe should emulate the USA, whether it should take up their economic "challenge" and respond to it with the same weapons in the meantime remains completely open. If humans decide to take the way towards model three, then Servan-Schreiber and all the others with the same line of argument show the right way. Europe, if it does not decide to take fast action, will become a satellite. If, on the other hand, humans decide in favour of model four, then this track – in the light of my theory – would be fundamentally wrong. Then Europe, predestined for leadership, would become a satellite simply through the pursuit of Servan-Schreiber’s ideas.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Postscript"
 
 

Comments:

¹ This was analysed very clearly by Vance Packard in his book “ The Waste Makers ”, UK, 1964.
² In order to avoid misunderstandings: by advertising I do not merely mean posters, commercials on TV, shop windows and so on. Far more effective advertising is the increasingly commercialised total orientation of newspapers, magazines, of radio and TV but also of everyday conversation with others who consider their opinions as self-evident and therefore convey them with particular persuasiveness. One’s fundamental philosophy concerning one’s summer activities, one’s housing conditions, the way one talks, what is the best way to “organise” one’s life, all constitutes advertising in the broadest sense of the term. What lies directly or indirectly behind all this are interests in selling. It is that influence which today is becoming so overpowering and at whose mercy the rising generation finds itself almost helpless – but to which they are evidently starting to oppose. The whole “establishment” is an advertisement for itself.
³ “Das sogenannte Böse”, Vienna 1966.
⁴ “The Ghost in the Machine”, 1967. I do not agree with the biological premises that are articulated there but the conclusion arrived at by Koestler is both correct and significant.
⁵ This technique of comparison is taken  from H. Kahn and A. J. Wiener (“Ihr werdet es erleben”, Vienna 1967).
⁶ “The Modern Industrial Society”.