102 The Crucial Value Problems 



the cost of not conserving our natural resources could easily be made to 

 match hostile ICBM's in potential horror and human misery. On the 

 other hand, it is possible, as Harrison Brown has indicated, that the 

 control of solar and nuclear energy could, with cheap enough power, 

 provide us with an almost limitless supply of "things," from the air, 

 the sea, and the earth. 



One can, therefore, depending on one's temperament, be so im- 

 pressed with rates of resource consumption and the prospect of a pop- 

 ulation of a billion, as to make these items the significant facts for 

 policy and action. In this position, vigorous conservation policies seem 

 indicated. Contrariwise, if one's faith in science is predominant, espe- 

 cially now that the Army has equipped us with an Explorer to com- 

 pete with Sputnik, one might conclude that innovation, recovery, and 

 cheap energy will indefinitely, or as far as it is necessary to foresee 

 the future, provide us with all the things we need. In this position, 

 conservation programs may be regarded as palliatives for the more 

 excitable members of our society. 



This choice of alternative and conflicting postures in respect of the 

 need for conservation is presented and skillfully exploited by Gal- 

 braith. He appropriately points to the uncertainties in respect to the 

 need for conservation. What is more important, he justifiably depicts 

 the vulnerability of those who accept the premise that there is such a 

 need; he then proceeds to explore the problem of what to do about it 

 in a highly segmental and selective, rather than in a holistic manner. 

 In doing so he reduces the problem of conservation to specific prob- 

 lems of values. His discussion is, therefore, concerned largely with 

 policy decisions or value judgments. Hence my labeling of Galbraith's 

 paper as essentially philosophical and normative in character. 



Before considering the value questions involved, an observation or 

 two on the question of the need for conservation which may reveal 

 my own bias is appropriate. In my judgment there is adequate justifi- 

 cation for conservation measures for both internal and external rea- 

 sons. In the former category, I would place the desirability of not un- 

 duly risking the levels of living of future generations of Americans. 

 Even though it must be admitted that technological advance, innova- 

 tion, recovery and, above all, the possibility of cheap energy may 

 obviate the need for conservation of many if not all things, it is by 



