X Editor's Introduction 



This pattern can be best explained, perhaps, by recalhng briefly the 

 series of pubUc lectures and discussions at which the material in the 

 book was first presented. The Forum consisted of six programs, held 

 in the Assembly Hall of the Cosmos Club in Washington during the 

 first three months of 1958. 



Resources for the Future planned the series with three objectives 

 in mind. One was to offer a forum in the nation's capital to some lead- 

 ing thinkers in fields concerned with resources from which they could 

 express their critical appraisals and interpretations of conservation 

 problems from their respective viewpoints. Another was to provide an 

 audience of interested persons, not necessarily specialists, with a broad 

 view of significant problems and trends in the field of resource con- 

 servation and perhaps with new insights on some of them. The third 

 was to look forward as well as back from the anniversary year of 

 1958 in an effort to draw upon analysis of what has happened for 

 some indication of future needs and problems. 



The problem then was to subdivide this vast subject into sections 

 that would be manageable but still hang together. One of several pos- 

 sible ways was the time-honored division by types of commodity or 

 activity such as "forestry," "minerals," "recreation," "wilderness," 

 etcetera. But a better way seemed that of taking a few of the most 

 significant aspects of the whole conservation field. That is why after 

 an introductory program that critically reviewed the historical back- 

 ground, there were successive programs on the role of science and 

 technology, the place of the ultimate consumer in resource conserva- 

 tion, continued urban growth and its implications, problems of eco- 

 nomics and political economy, and patterns of organization to gain 

 conservation ends. The general pattern for each two-hour program 

 was a principal paper dealing with the whole subject, briefer com- 

 ments by two or three persons who had read the main paper in ad- 

 vance and could either take issue with or supplement its content, and 

 a short period for discussion by both the participants and the audience. 



In the choice of persons to give the principal papers and the com- 

 ments, a well-tested method again was passed up for a less usual one 

 that seemed to offer more promise. The most obvious course would 

 have been to select prominent conservationists or others who have 

 taken leading parts in conservation issues. There are many among 



