Archived Newsletters

October 1995 Newsletter 

Volume 24, Number 4 October 1995

In This Issue

Letters

Articles

News

Comments

Power Line Fields and Health

The article by David Hafemeister and the APS Statement did a good job of summarizing the lack of scientific evidence for concern. However both articles left the impression that huge amounts of money were being spent solely to mitigate potential EMF effects. I believe this to be incorrect.

Older homes and urban areas are crisscrossed by power lines. In many cities most utility services have been relegated to alleys in the back. But if one looks at newer subdivisions and shopping centers of suburban America, utility poles are absent. Despite the subjective nature of aesthetics, almost everyone agrees that power lines are unsightly. In the absence of any concerns whatsoever about EMF, disputes about the costs and value of placing power lines underground should be expected.

I live near Fermilab, where legend has it that first lab director and architect Bob Wilson was responsible for some aesthetically designed power lines. On one side of Fermilab, near a large housing development, there have been conventional high voltage power lines for years without controversy. Recent plans to put new lower voltage power lines along a nearby bike trail have generated a brouhaha similar to those mentioned in Hafemeister's article. This has been accompanied by loud public concern over EMF and calls for prudent avoidance. It is human nature to embrace arguments which support a position already taken. In a dispute such as the one about power lines, much of the public will embrace pseudo-scientific arguments as quickly as arguments based on science. As scientists, we have a role to help educate the public so they can separate the two.

But scientists also must not use bad economic arguments. If the resolution of the issue regarding power lines along bike path leads to a more costly solution, I would attribute those costs, along with Bob Wilson's poles, to aesthetic and land use concerns, and not to fear about EMF. Likewise, I suspect that the $1-3B estimated cost attributed to EMF is a gross overestimate and mostly includes the cost of reducing visual pollution due to power lines across the USA.

Maury Goodman
HEP362
Argonne Ill. 60439

I take issue with David Hafemeister's remarks (July 1995, pp. 9-11) concerning moneys spent on emf research. By concentrating on risk management and its catchy derivative, "prudent avoidance," he and the APS are suggesting that the potential billion dollar costs of mitigation are somehow ties to the orders-of-magnitude smaller research costs. These are quite separate issues. One cannot attack the research in this area through the back door of mitigation.

Furthermore, it is simplistic to assume that reducing research funds will have any effect on the public's concerns. In fact there is a good case for just the opposite. Outcries of "cover-up" are often heard when environmental concerns do not get a proper hearing.

Hafemeister presents a lop-sided version of the epidemiological evidence. Yes, it is true that any one study carries considerable error. However, is this not the reason why measurements are repeated? Since the first report in 1979 dealing with ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukemia there has been a remarkable narrowing of the mean odds ratio as new reports have been added, the complete set tending towards an approximate value of two. This data is graphically summarized, for example, in the April 1994 issue of the British journal Engineering Science and Education, in an article by Swanson and Renew, engineers with the National Grid in England who are by no means disposed to sounding unnecessary alarms. Indeed, most of the people I know in the electric power industry now voice similar opinions, that the epidemiological studies are simply too consistent to be ignored.

Further, granted that there is no convincing credible biophysical mechanism to support the epidemiological evidence, one cannot simply put aside the many experimental reports connecting weak ELF magnetic fields to altered physiological responses. I wonder at any reading of the literature which asserts that there have been no replicable findings.

Hafemeister and the APS question the admissibility of the epidemiological data mainly on the basis that no credible mechanism exits to explain the results. However, there is likewise no credible mechanism yet available to explain the reports on altered cellular responses. If ELF fields that are presumed to be ineffective can somehow alter cell response then why should similar fields be precluded from affecting other biological events? Paraphrasing Bronowski, what we should fear most is the replacement of knowledge by certainty.

It is disheartening to see how quickly science becomes lost in this debate. Those of us actively pursuing research in the ELF area understand that a much larger question is involved, that cancer is just one of many endpoints. There are behavioral effects in rats due to weak low-frequency magnetic fields, replicated in a number of laboratories. Successful therapeutic techniques have been approved by the FDA and are already in use. It has been shown that plant growth can be altered. In my laboratory, we recently observed changes in the rate of regeneration in planaria. Another series of papers have established that critically important growth factors are released in cell culture following exposure to such fields.

One may well ask, where is the scientific curiosity that is supposed to drive people in physics? Given that there is a wealth of biological data, that the epidemiological results albeit small are very consistent, and given that both epidemiological and laboratory evidence present a potentially fascinating physics puzzle, should not critics like Hafemeister be chafing at the bit to resolve this question?

It is also sad to see the ELF/cancer issue politicized. It is generally suspected that the EPA report was not distributed because the White House wanted a different answer to the question as to whether weak magnetic fields might be carcinogenic. Because of the tactics employed by the presidential science advisor, including trying to pack a hastily convened review committee, many otherwise objective observers were radicalized overnight. I, for one, still do not trust any of the so-called "scientific review panels" that Hafemeister puts so much faith in.

The APS is wrong for two reasons: First, it has taken a position on a subject for which it lacks competence. Second, the subject itself needs more study before any policy statement, even by a competent group, is warranted.

My opinion is that there is indeed a risk to children, a risk which at present seems rather small in view of the measured odds ratio. An important epidemiological question surrounds the magnetic metric, the specific aspect of the ELF magnetic field that provides the coupling mechanism. It is conceivable that, for those smaller sets of humans more exposed to this metric, odds ratios greatly in excess of two will be found. It seems clear that once we have a proper understanding of the physical mechanism(s) underlying the biological reports, the epidemiologists will be enabled to design better studies.

In short, despite the APS statement, more research is needed, not less.

A.R. Liboff
Director of Medical Physics
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48309-4404

Response

A.R. Liboff raises several interesting points:

  1. Research Funds: Liboff says that in my paper the "potential billion dollar costs of mitigation are somehow tied to orders-of-magnitude smaller [EMF] research costs." My papers are silent on research budgets and they DO NOT "somehow" connect mitigation costs and EMF research. I support continued research into the EMF question. I am concerned about
    1. frightening the populace,
    2. excessive litigation,
    3. a national standard of 2 mG which would waste more than $250 billion (as stated in the General Accounting Office study, reference 7 of my P&S article, July 1995).
  2. Epidemiology: I stand by the work of Washburn et al (reference 6) and the various interdisciplinary review panels, such as the Oak Ridge study, which found the totality of the data to be inconsistent. More recent compilations of over 100 epidemiology studies show the EMF effect fading away. Gary Taubes article "Epidemiology Faces Its Limits" (Science , 14 July 1995, pp. 164-169) is telling on this subject.
  3. Who should speak on EMF? Many interdisciplinary panels have come to the same conclusion as the APS, such as the American Medical Association which concluded in 1994 that "Most studies of magnetic field effects in children, workers and other populations do not meet accepted scientific criteria in terms of accurately measuring past exposure, identifying comparable test and control groups, and accounting for potentially confounding factors. Findings of studies are inconsistent in terms of whether a risk exists, what conditions might be related to exposures, and risk magnitude. Positive studies indicate, for the most part, that the associated relative risks are low."

David Hafemeister

The Federal Government and Sustainable Technologies

I was the session chair and organizer of a March 1995 APS session entitled "Federal Policy Initiatives in Sustainable Technologies" (see "Symposium on Sustainable Technology and Jobs" in this issue). If that session were held today, I would be far less optimistic about the prospects for physicists in this area. It now appears certain that the federal government will significantly decrease its investment in sustainable technologies.

Last July, the Clinton Administration identified the Department of Energy (DOE) as home to much federal research on sustainable technologies. Specifically, 72% of the FY94 federal expenditure in pollution avoidance technologies was at DOE, much of it classified under energy conservation. Now, according to a 29 August 1995 report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, DOE's energy conservation budget will be cut 36% from the president's request. The report also projects that DOE's energy conservation R&D will be reduced by 62% in constant dollars by 2002 if Congress implements the budget cuts outlined in its Budget Resolution.

These sustainable technologies must be developed together with the private sector that will produce and sell them. But the House has zeroed out all of the President's proposed technology partnerships. This is not a partisan issue. Even though the Republicans are largely responsible for the legislation, it was Secretary of Labor Robert Reich who first started the attack on "corporate welfare," as these joint industry-government partnerships have been misnamed.

I left a physics research career to work in the area of global environmental problems and sustainable technologies. I now realize that the government doesn't have all the answers and the private sector must have a leading role in much of the R&D on sustainable technologies. But I still believe that there is an urgent need for federal involvement in directed basic and applied research in sustainable technologies. I also continue to believe that physicists can and should play an increasing role in this type of research.

I urge my colleagues who are concerned about developing win-win solutions to environmental problems (and about jobs for physicists) to convey the following ideas to our House and Senate representatives:

Slowing and eventually stopping the unsustainable growth in pollution and resource depletion (see article for details) requires that we all start using orders of magnitude more resource-efficient pollution-avoiding technologies.

  • The private sector must make and sell these technologies, but it will not and cannot do so without help.
  • The government has a mission to protect the environment and provide energy and resource security, and it supports the unique technical capabilities that are needed to do so.
  • Therefore, government-industry partnerships are clearly the best way to provide these technologies, and should be a high priority.

From my years in Washington I know that, if constituents and organizations present clear arguments to Congress, budget priorities can be changed. I urge FPS members, including those physics colleagues funded by programs such as DOE High Energy Physics and Basic Energy Sciences that have received increases in FY96, to support these sustainable technology partnerships. It does not make sense to cut so disproportionately into an area that is so important to society.

Tina Kaarsberg
7101 Woodland Ave.
Takoma Park, MD 20912

Symposium on Sustainable Technology and Jobs, and Why Physicists Should Care

Tina Kaarsberg

We present here a summary of the six talks given at an invited session at the March 1995 APS Meeting in San Jose, California.

Overview
The intent of this session was to demonstrate the physics research aspects of areas of technology that are important to society because they are resource-efficient and reduce or avoid pollution. A theme in all the talks was the looming global environmental problems that necessitate increased R&D and investment in more resource-efficient technologies. The session focused on energy-efficient technologies in the end-use sectors of buildings, transportation and industry as well as on more efficient energy conversion. We discussed the technologies themselves and public policies to promote their use. Finally, because of Congressional efforts to reduce spending in areas deemed to be more appropriate for the private sector, we discussed the reassessment of the federal government's role in supporting applied R&D.

The room was packed and, with all the questions, we ran out of time. Our internet addresses are given with the summary of each talk; please contact us for more information or copies of our handouts.

Introduction
Tina Kaarsberg (Vista Technologies Inc., tina.kaarsberg@hq.doe.gov) introduced the session by discussing political changes between July 1994 when the Administration released "Technologies for a Sustainable Future" (and this session was conceived) to the end of the first 100 days of the new Congress.

In July 1994 there were high expectations of growth in federal funding for resource efficient technologies. The Clinton Administration gave pollution-avoidance technologies high priority in its proposed budgets and Congress supported this priority. There appeared to be a good argument for increased federal investment in such technologies. The Department of Energy (DOE) and others argued that environmental technologies have a high economic payoff and that these technologies create more jobs than any other federal infrastructure investment. Now, however, the federal role in programs involving such industry partnerships appears likely to decrease. Federal involvement in developing more sustainable technologies now appears to be unpopular with Congress. (UPDATE: House Congressional Resolution 67, the budget resolution agreed to by the House and Senate on 29 June 1995, would cut DOE's energy conservation R&D by 62% in constant dollars by 2002; most of the projects described in these talks come from this budget.)

Innovation and The Environment: A New Facet in Environmental Policy
Robert Lempert (Critical Technologies Institute at RAND Corporation, robert_lempert@rand.org) focused on studies of the innovation process with emphasis on environmental technologies and appropriate public policy response.

In recent years, environmental policies have begun to focus more on encouraging technological innovation throughout the private sector to help protect the environment. For instance, the Clinton Administration report "Technology for a Sustainable Future" links regulatory reform, R&D policies on environmental technologies, export promotion, and other policy areas with the aim of stimulating long-term economic growth which creates jobs while improving and sustaining the environment. The policies explicitly aim to help industry shift towards pollution avoidance instead of pollution control, and towards more efficient resources use. While environmental policies in the past have induced technical changes, they have not focused on science and technology, and in many cases have discouraged innovation. These new policy approaches explicitly aim to tap what appear to be tremendous technological opportunities which can help reduce the economic costs of environmental protection, use environmental technology as a competitive advantage for U.S. firms, and address some of the needs in developing countries for balancing both economic growth and environmental protection. Current initiatives, such as the Clinton Administration's recent excellence and leadership program, would allow firms to voluntarily adopt long-range plans to use innovative technologies to reduce pollution below the levels required by law. In return, the firms would remain substantially free of EPA permitting and reporting requirements as long as they remained within the boundaries of their pollution reduction plans.

This talk also suggested that assessments of costs and benefits of environmental regulations should take into account important new results in the economics of systems with increasing returns to scale. In such systems (which include many cases where new technology plays an important role), regulations may spur the development of new environmental technologies, which while more costly in the short-run, may in the long run provide economic and environmental benefits far in excess of current technologies. The auto industry's response to emissions regulations illustrates the effects of command and control versus using advanced technology for environmental benefits. Lempert, who did his PhD research in condensed matter theory, was asked how his physics background prepared him for policy research. He responded that general quantitative skills, as well as the ability to create simple phenomenological models, were useful.

From the Lab to the Marketplace: Harnessing DOE Laboratories to Make U.S. Buildings More Energy-Efficient
Evan Mills (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, emills@lbl.gov) gave an overview of LBNL's efforts in energy-efficient building technologies and illustrated the lab's role with examples of past research success in windows and lighting, minimum efficiency appliance standards, and computer programs for building design.

One of the great challenges facing DOE is harnessing the power of its national laboratories in the post-cold-war era. With a workforce of over 30,000 scientists and engineers and a world-class R&D infrastructure, the labs are a major national asset. In fact, some laboratories have operated as a catalyst in the energy-efficiency marketplace since the first oil crisis, providing an substantial rate of return on federal research investment by helping bring new technologies to the marketplace. In this interdisciplinary field, pioneered largely by physicists, the approach is not one of belt-tightening, but rather a coordinated technological strategy for doing more with less energy while saving money, creating jobs, and protecting the environment. Partnerships with industry, utilities, government agencies, and universities are an integral part of the story.

As a case in point, since the mid-1970s a cumulative $70-million DOE research and development investment at LBNL helped to spawn a $2.5-billion annual U.S. market for electronic fluorescent ballasts, advanced glazing materials, and residential appliance efficiency standards. As of 1993, this R&D investment leveraged energy savings worth an estimated $6 billion to consumers. By the year 2015, these technologies will be saving consumers a net $16 billion annually, after subtracting the consumer costs of purchasing these efficient technologies. These and other savings will be facilitated by new computerized building design tools also developed at LBNL. The national labs' broader role in the buildings arena includes analyzing public policy issues such as the role of efficiency options as a mitigation strategy for global climate change, developing planning and demand-management methods used by electric and gas utilities, identifying technologies and analytical methods for improving indoor air quality, contributing energy information to the Internet, focusing on the special problems and opportunities presented by energy use in the public sector, and training young scientists to work in this new field. Much of the talk was based on Mills' January 1995 report entitled "From the Lab to the Marketplace" which was distributed at the sessions and is now is posted on the Web at http://eande.lbl.gov/ CBS/Lab2Mkt/ Lab2Mkt.cfm.

Materials and The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems
Deanna Richards (Technology and Environment Program, National Academy of Engineering, drichard@nas.edu.) provided an overview of changes in material trends over the last couple of decades and its implications for managing materials from an industrial ecology perspective.

Industrial ecology, according to the White House report "Technologies for a Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action," is a new paradigm for environmentally sustainable development. This paradigm uses natural ecology as an analog for industrial systems where an assessment of the circulation of materials and energy flows through the economy and the natural ecosystem forms the basis for sound materials management strategies. To relate industrial ecology to product oriented life cycle analysis, Richards quoted physicist Robert Frosch: "a product is a transient embodiment of material and energy occurring in the course of material and energy process flows on the industrial system. "

The talk began with an overview of the changing nature of materials use in the economy, for example the increasing use of specialty materials, and the dissipative nature of their application. Richards examined trends in environmentally conscious manufacturing to highlight some of the technical challenges industrial ecology poses for industrial materials management. Barriers to better materials management include the lack of information exemplified by inadequate data to assess the potential for recovery of useful by-products from one industry to another. Other barriers are the need for reliable markets for waste stream products; the need for information about who has what (supply), who needs what (market), and who could produce something useful (potential supply); the disincentives in regulation which prevent the linking of industries or industrial processes; the lack of data for decision-making about the environmental preferability of materials. Over the long haul, improvements in separation technologies will be needed as recycling of durable products grows in importance. Finally, it takes energy to increase the recirculation of materials in the economy. Energy efficiency improvements alone are unlikely to fully meet these needs, and cleaner energy supply systems will be needed.

Energy Conversion and The Environment: The Role of Fuel Cell Technologies
Sivan Kartha (Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University, icecream@princeton.edu) outlined the key environmental issues associated with our current modes of energy conversion, which are primarily based on fossil fuel combustion, and discussed a particularly promising near-term alternative: fuel cell technology.

Fossil fuel combustion technologies have come a long way from the high emissions and low efficiency of first generation power plants and vehicles. Still, the environmental costs of even today's relatively advanced combustion technologies are unacceptably high. A recent World Health Organization study of air quality and respiratory health has concluded that it is the rule rather than the exception that health guidelines are unmet for concentrations of atmospheric pollutants such as sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead in urban areas. Combustion of fossil fuels is also responsible for more diffuse and hard to target environmental problems such as acid precipitation and the threat of global climate change due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Attempts to adapt fossil fuel combustion technologies to these increasingly apparent environmental constraints are likely to produce only marginal results. What is needed, in addition to concerted energy conservation measures, is an energy conversion technology that is inherently clean, efficient, and compatible with renewable energy sources.

Fuel cell technologies show tremendous promise for meeting this challenge. Fuel cells produce power by electrochemically reacting fuel and oxygen, avoiding those pollutants formed as a by-product of combustion and yielding higher efficiencies even at very small scales. First used in the aerospace program in the 1960's, fuel cells have in recent years advanced well beyond limited niche markets and are currently heading toward commercialization of the first generation of power plants, cogeneration in buildings, and transportation applications. A main impetus for this is the extremely clean operation of fuel cells; emissions from fuel cell power plants are two or three orders of magnitude lower than Clean Air Act standards for emission of sulfur oxides, particulates and nitrogen oxides from power plants, and emissions from fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen are zero. Moreover, the release of CO2 from the entire fuel cycle of a fuel cell vehicle would be significantly lower than that of a gasoline internal combustion vehicle even if the primary energy source were a fossil fuel such as natural gas or coal. With hydrogen produced from a renewable energy source such as biomass, wind, or solar, the carbon dioxide emissions from the fuel cell vehicle's fuel cycle could be drastically reduced below the current gasoline vehicle's carbon dioxide emissions. Since the study of fuel cells is still a fledgling field, there is considerable scope for basic research to rapidly translate into technological advances. For example, inefficiencies associated with processes occurring at electrode-electrolyte interfaces could be understood at a much more fundamental level, and efforts to advance overall fuel cell performance could thereby benefit deeply from the tools and ideas developing in surface science. As electric utilities and automotive manufacturers have realized, fuel cells have tremendous potential for answering the environmental challenges which we now face. While research, development, and the first steps of commercialization are already underway, it will still be necessary for basic and applied research to play significant roles in helping fuel cell technologies displace conventional combustion technologies from their central position.

Technology Needs for Resource Efficient Vehicles: The PNGV and Beyond
Jim Anderson (Ford Motor Company, janderson@smail.srl.ford.com) discussed the new PNGV initiative, and Detroit's commitment to partnering with the federal government.

The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), announced in September 1993, is a unique joint venture between the Federal Government and the auto industry. Three factors motivate PNGV:

  1. improving US balance-of-payments,
  2. improving the global competitiveness of the domestic auto industry,
  3. reducing petroleum consumption and CO2 emissions.

PNGV has three goals:

  1. improved automotive manufacturing,
  2. near-term technologies for lower emissions and higher corporate average fuel economy,
  3. a breakthrough vehicle with three times today's fuel efficiency.

The PNGV 3X Fuel Economy Vehicle must be affordable (i.e. it must have an equivalent price of today's Chrysler Concorde, Ford Taurus or GM Lumina adjusted for economics). Further, it must maintain safety, emissions and recycling metrics. Production prototypes are to be available by 2004. Meeting all these targets simultaneously will require such technical innovation that goal #3 is sometimes viewed as a research program only. But in fact the PNGV time line rules out unproved research concepts, and goal #3 aims at demonstration programs in which proven technologies, developed for aerospace and defense applications, are applied to automobiles. Many PNGV programs focus on reducing the cost of these aerospace technologies.

This talk described the Technology Roadmap (obtainable by sending an email), completed on March 15, to the PNGV Economy Vehicle. Current plans call for a 40 percent reduction in total weight through use of aluminum- and graphite-reinforced composites in place of steel; acvanced powerplants including fuel cells as one option; and hybrid systems that recover energy lost in vehicle braking via generated and stored electricity, flywheels or ultracapacitors. NSF and DOE sponsored a workshop in January 1995 to look beyond the 10-year horizon. Auto industry technical people identified six technological areas for further investigation: energy storage devices such as on-board hydrogen storage; energy conversion such as advanced fuel cells; lightweight materials; atmospheric emissions; emission controls using clean NO_x catalysts; and sensors. Anderson was asked a wide variety of questions ranging from the safety of lightweight vehicles ("crash tests say yes") to Congressional PNGV funding ("could go either way--industry supports PNGV objectives and partnering with the government--reduced funding may just stretch out the time frame").

Why Physicists Should Care
Finally Tina Kaarsberg emphasized the need for directed research--including physics research--in these technological areas to achieve the large improvements in environmental efficiency that will be needed.

The previous talks showed that there is important physics research on sustainable technologies. This talk showed the need for more directed basic research in the materials and systems areas by showing the large differences between non-industrialized and industrialized countries' energy use, emissions, and materials flows. Since population and hopefully per capita domestic product are both increasing, large improvements in the energy and resource efficiency of technologies will be required to sustain global society economically and environmentally. It is no accident that all of the talks in this session used transportation as examples. In the United States, the most urgent need for more sustainable technology is in the transportation sector. Crude oil and petroleum supply 97% of U.S. transportation energy and are responsible for $51 billion (38%) of the trade deficit. Vehicle miles traveled have increased 43% and transportation energy consumption has increased 14% since 1980.

As we discussed at other sessions at the March meeting, there is a need for new areas of employment for physicists. Thus, increasing physicist involvement in research that leads to sustainable technologies is a win-win proposition. This talk emphasized the role of physics and physicists in such work. In particular, all the panelists are either physicists or work with physicists and thus it is possible for physicists to work in such areas.

Finally, although there is a bright future for these types of technologies, the substantial federal role described in the previous talks appears likely to decrease. In particular, many of the programs described are funded through applied DOE programs, and DOE itself has an uncertain future. New paradigms for joint government-industry development of more sustainable technologies, such as DOE's "technology partnerships," may be nipped in the bud. These partnerships are being attacked from the left, which complains about corporate welfare, and from the right, which complains that the Government is picking winners and losers. (UPDATE: House Resolution 1816, passed by the full House Science Committee in June, specifically forbids DOE from spending funds on technology partnerships).

The author is with Vista Technologies Inc., Suite 807, 1735 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington VA 22202.

Why No Progress in ABM/TMD Negotiations?

Alvin M. Saperstein

The following observations stem from my one year of service as a Foster Fellow in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. They do not represent my beliefs or recommendations, nor may I speak for any official part of the U.S. Government; they are my perceptions of the beliefs of the relevant civil and military agencies and of how the political process is driving ballistic missile defense issues. Readers are welcome to try to affect the outcome of this important issue by engaging in the political process.

Two years ago we [for conciseness, I often use "we" for the U.S. Government] started negotiations with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian, and the Ukraine to allow the parties to develop and deploy Theater Missile Defenses (TMD) within the context of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. It was thought that the talks would be quickly concluded since the presidents of Russia and the U.S. agreed on the following goals in their September 1994 Summit Statement: "The Presidents agreed on the fundamental importance of preserving the viability and integrity of the ABM Treaty...Both sides have an interest in developing and fielding effective theater missile defense systems on a cooperative basis." Yet no agreements have been reached, the formal channel for the talks is in abeyance, informal high-level talks creep forward fitfully, and Congress seems intent on stopping even those. Why no progress, despite the agreement of all Treaty parties on the need for effective TMD?

The impact of the SCUD missiles used by Iraq in the Gulf War went far beyond the military. Many nations, some of them considered "rogues," have actively deployed such theater ballistic missiles. There is good reason to believe that much more capable (in range, accuracy, load, ease in rapid and covert firing) missiles will soon be available throughout the third world. Without the perceived ability to defend its troops against such missiles carrying conventional or mass destruction (biological, chemical, nuclear) warheads, American policy-makers would be reluctant to project our forces abroad. And they now believe that an effective defense based upon fast interceptor missiles is technologically feasible.

Preserving the ABM Treaty
The Clinton Administration and its negotiating partners from the former Soviet Union also agree on the necessity of preserving the ABM Treaty, negotiated between the U.S. and USSR. in 1972. It was generally considered that the Treaty constrained the ability of the two superpowers to defend themselves against intercontinental nuclear missile attacks launched by them at each other, thus preserving an international stability based upon mutual assured destruction (MAD). The continued Treaty compliance of the parties allowed them to restrain the growth of offensive missile stocks (the only real threat to the heart of America since the War of 1812!) and allowed them to eventually reduce the size of this threat via the START Treaty process: START 1 has been ratified; START 2 is under legislative consideration by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma; its final ratification has been fundamentally tied, by the Duma, to the maintenance of the ABM Treaty, which thus fundamentally undergirds the future security of the American heartland. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin acknowledged in May 1995 that "The United States and Russia are each committed to the ABM Treaty, a cornerstone of strategic stability."

The Treaty prohibits the testing of "non-ABM" interceptor missiles, such as the desired TMD interceptors, in "an ABM mode," i.e. against strategic ballistic missiles. However, nowhere in the Treaty are such target strategic ballistic missiles defined. Early on in the "demarcation" negotiations (the formal negotiations in Geneva these past two years attempting to create a demarcation line between the mutually desired TMD and the Treaty-constrained ABM defense), the parties agreed that testing against target missiles having a maximum speed below 5 km/s (range below 3500 km) would not be considered to be testing in an ABM mode. A TMD testing program against target missiles limited in such a way would be agreed to be in compliance with the Treaty.

However the Treaty also says that "non-ABM" systems should not be given "capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles," without defining such a capability. Russia (and the other Treaty negotiating partners) feared that highly competent interceptors, though only tested in a Treaty-compliant manner, may still have an inherent ABM capability, thus enabling the party possessing them to suddenly "break out" of the Treaty. It thus attempted to negotiate interceptor performance limits such as restrictions on their maximum speed.

We countered that the physical parameters of a single interceptor could not, by themselves, determine whether a system had ABM capability. (In fact, even a few pebbles, appropriately placed by slingshot or by rocket, have the ability to destroy an incoming strategic ballistic missile. Conversely, the fastest interceptor imaginable would not be able to counter a missile attack if it were one and the attackers many, especially if the interceptor's kill mechanism was direct impact with the incoming warhead rather than a nuclear explosion in its vicinity.) Further, we argued that we were not about to depend upon a non-ABM tested system to carry out vital ABM defenses. Nevertheless, we did acquiesce to the demand for interceptor speed limits, but only if they would not interfere with any of the TMD program development we contemplated. We thus proposed alternative and much higher speed limits for some interceptor basing modes. Russia refused to accept our proposed speed limits. And so there was an impasse at the formal Geneva negotiations.

Effect of the 1994 elections
Meanwhile, after the November 1994 elections, important parts of the U.S. House and Senate refused to entertain any limits on interceptor speeds or modes of employment nor would they consider any proposed limitations on remote or space-based sensors, for example limitations on cueing and guidance of interceptor missiles from off-base radars or satellite detectors. Fear was expressed that we were negotiating for a new TMD Treaty rather than simply adjusting the old ABM Treaty. In fact, bills were introduced forbidding us to negotiate on any demarcation terms other than the testing against 5 km/s target missiles.

We have argued that Russian concerns about interceptor capability were only valid, at best, in an engagement between one attacker and one interceptor and were irrelevant to any conceivable real encounter between Russian and U.S. strategic forces. Constraints on the latter were the real "meat" of the ABM Treaty; we said they were not diminished by the U.S. proposals.

The arguments moved to a higher level, that of Deputy Secretaries and Ministers, in London, Moscow, and Washington, where attempts were made to find agreed upon principles upon which the Russian and American Presidents could subsequently agree at their May 1995 Moscow Summit. There, agreement was announced that "Theater missile defense systems may be deployed by each side which (1) will not pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of the other side and (2) will not be tested to give such systems that capability." The term "realistic threat" was a source of contention. We have interpreted the phrase to imply force-on-force capability, where the forces are the American and Russian strategic forces. This would eliminate contentious negotiation over the properties of individual interceptors and their associated guidance and sensing instruments (though we have not specified how to measure this "realistic threat"), thus presumably allowing the U.S. to press ahead with its desired TMD developments and deployments under the Treaty. Others may take it to mean no less than the "inherent capability" interpretation held by the negotiators of the former Soviet republics at last year's Geneva sessions, a posture which denied Treaty sanction to our programs. The game is now back in the higher level court, where attempts will be made to see if there is enough overlap in the two major party's understandings of the joint Presidential demarcation principles to expect a successful outcome if we go back to the five-nation negotiations in Geneva.

Conclusions
We should go there in any case. Tradition requires two meetings per year of the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC), which is Treaty-enjoined to consider clarifications or modifications of the Treaty such as ABM/TMD demarcation, and there have been none this year. The question is whether the ball will come down on the side of an agreement allowing each side to proceed with the TMD programs they are presently contemplating, or on the no-agreement side. If there is an agreement, the ABM Treaty will still be said to be "operative"--treaties mean whatever the parties to the treaty agree they mean. In this case we will have agreed that the desired TMD is not ABM. We and the Russians can then get on with trying to create a stable, competitive peace between us as we each build our desired missile defenses, the "agreement" being an important part of that process. If there is no agreement, TMD systems will probably still be deployed, with each side acting unilaterally, but the relationship between the two countries will then be based more on weapons than on negotiations. Unilateral actions are not usually conducive to the building of communities, whether domestic or international.

The author is Professor of Physics at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, 48202.

Natural Gas and Transportation

Albert A. Bartlett and Robert A. Ristinen

A recent article entitled "The Emergence of Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel" (1) suggested that there would be great advantages if we in the U.S. would use natural gas instead of petroleum as the fuel for our vehicles. In support of this thesis the article gave a very optimistic picture of U.S. reserves of natural gas relative to our needs for fuel for transportation. The implication is that the gas reserves of the U.S. are sufficiently large to allow us to continue the conventional use of natural gas and also to supply the needs of U.S. transportation for an unspecified but long time. When we do the calculations, using data from a standard source, we find a very different picture.

Calculations
We take our data from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) publication (2). DOE gives four estimates of U.S. natural gas reserves, where the "low" estimate is the quantity for which there is a 95% probability that there is at least this amount, and the "high" estimate is the quantity with a 5& probability that there is at least this amount.

The estimates of the Potential Gas Committee (PGC) and the National Petroleum Council (NPC) are described in a footnote in these words:

There are a number of recent non-government-generated natural gas resource estimates that are large, in part because (a) they include natural gas from sources such as coal beds and light sands, beyond the conventionally producible reservoirs that were included in the 1987 Department of the Interior estimate, and (b) they reflect larger estimates of ultimate recovery appreciation. For example, the PGC published in "Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States, December 31, 1992" is 1,001 trillion cubic feet. NPC's one-time, 1992 mean estimate, published in "The Potential for Natural Gas in the United States: Source and Supply," a was 1,065 trillion cubic feet.

It is important to note that the industry estimates are larger than the DOE estimates by about a factor of three, and the estimate in Physics and Society (1) is about 60% larger than the largest industry estimate.

In order to answer the question of the substitution of natural gas for petroleum, we need to make an estimate of the quantity of natural gas that has the same energy content as the petroleum consumed as motor fuel in the U.S. In (2) we find (pg. 161) that in 1993 the consumption of motor gasoline was 7.48 Mb/d (million barrels per day), of jet fuel 1.47 x 106 Mb/d, and of distillate 3.03 Mb/d. Some of the distillate is used for heating, so we made a guess that half is used for diesel trucks. This gives an estimate of the total transportation consumption of 10 Mb/d or 3800 Mb per year.

We now calculate the quantity of natural gas that has the same energy content as 3800 Mb of petroleum. In (2, p. 161) we find that one barrel of petroleum has the energy content of 5600 ft3 of natural gas (159 m3). The energy content of the motor fuel used in the U.S. in 1993 could be supplied by 60 x 1010 m3 of natural gas. The conventional use of natural gas in the U.S. in 1993 was 57 x 1010 m3. Thus, the annual energy consumption of liquid petroleum by vehicles in the U.S. is about the same as the present annual energy consumption of natural gas. So, if all U.S. vehicles shifted from liquid petroleum to natural gas, the shift would approximately double the rate of consumption of natural gas in the U.S.

Table 1 shows the results of simple calculations using each of the estimates of natural gas reserves. Column 4 gives the life in years of each of the estimates of U.S. reserves of natural gas at present rates of consumption, i.e. the number of years to consume the stated reserves of natural gas if the rate of consumption does not change from its 1993 value. Column 5 gives the life in years of each of the estimates, at present rates of consumption, if natural gas is supplying both the 1993 conventional needs plus the 1993 vehicle needs with no growth in demand in either category.

Table 1. Life Expectancies of U.S. Natural Gas

Five estimates of the reserves of natural gas in the U.S. and their life expectancies, at present rates of consumption. Column 3 shows the life expectancies in years for the present uses of natural gas. Column 4 shows the life expectancies in years if natural gas supplies the present needs plus the energy needs of U.S. motor vehicles.

Estimate Reserves, 1014 ft3 Reserves 1012 m3 Present Life*, y Life* with vehicles, y
low(2) 3.068 8.688 14 7
high(2) 10.01 28.35 47 24
PGC(2) 10.01 28.35 47 24
NPC(2) 10.65 30.16 50 26
Ingersoll** 17.7 50.0 83 42

Notes:

* At present rates of consumption.

** Includes "unconventional recoverable resources" not included in the DOE/PGC/NPC reserves.

The Effect of Growth
The economic expectations are for growth in the resource consumption rates, and growth obviously shortens life expectancies to values smaller than those shown in Table 1 (3). For the decade 1983-1993, the average growth rate of consumption of Rmotor gasolineS was about 1.5 %/yr (2, p. 161), which indicates that, although great improvements in vehicle efficiency have been made, the annual increase in total vehicle miles more than offsets the savings from the increases in efficiency of vehicles.

Reflections
The calculated life expectancies shown in Table 1 should give pause. Would it be wise to make the enormous capital investment in shifting the fueling of even a fraction of the U.S. vehicle fleet over to natural gas when the effect would be to hasten the expiration of the resource upon which we currently depend for much of our home heating and industrial process heat? What would our children and our grandchildren use to heat their homes and operate their industries?

The estimates of natural gas reserves vary by about a factor of six from the lowest estimate cited by the DOE to the high estimate that is used in (1). When this range of uncertainty is present, and when the corresponding life expectancies are as short as those shown in Table 1, we must face the question of prudent behavior. Should we take steps to approximately double our rate of consumption of natural gas with no thought for the future, or should we reduce our rate of consumption so as to leave some of this wonderful fossil fuel for future generations?

Which path should we follow?
Some people argue that we can use resources as fast as we want because science and technology will always take care of our needs in the future. Others argue that we should reduce our rates of fossil fuel energy use, by what is popularly called "conservation," so that some of these resources will be available for our children and grandchildren. Given the enormous uncertainties in the amount of natural gas remaining, which path should we choose?

People are puzzled by the conflicting claims of scientists, some of whom say there are plenty of resources and that we need not worry, while others urge that we reduce rates of resource consumption. How does the average person choose between conflicting paths when there are "experts" advocating each path?

Fortunately there is a sound way to make the choice. Of the two conflicting paths, we suggest choosing the path that will leave society in the less precarious position in case we find later that we have chosen the wrong path. We can illustrate this by asking which of the following two positions is the less precarious: (a) We reduce rates of consumption of resources in the belief that resources are finite, and then, in 30 years we find that resources are really infinite and there was no need for our reduction of consumption. (b) We go on increasing rates of consumption in the belief that resources are infinite because scientists will always find substitutes for anything that runs out, and then in 30 years we find that resources are not infinite, the promised substitutes are not available, and/or they are too costly to be widely available.

Sustainability
"Sustainability" has become a popular term. It is used in all manner of planning at all levels from the local to the international. The definition of sustainability was given in the Brundtland Report (4): "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Because "sustainable" implies "for a time long compared to a human lifetime," and because the arithmetic of growth leads to large numbers in modest time periods, it is possible to write laws of sustainability (5). The First Law of Sustainability is: "Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources can not be sustained." Although this law is absolute, it is ignored by many who speak of "sustainability."

The term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron

We must help our students to learn to be extremely thoughtful and thorough in their evaluation of promises of great gifts when the gifts carry no indication of the range of uncertainty that goes with them.

  1. J.G. Ingersoll, Physics and Society April 1995, 5-7.
  2. Annual Energy Review 1993; U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0384(93), July 1994
  3. A.A. Bartlett, American Journal of Physics Vol. 46 (1978), 876-888.
  4. G.H. Brundtland, Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1987), 43.
  5. A.A. Bartlett, Population and Environments Vol. 16, September 1994, 5-35.

Minutes of the Forum's Executive Committee Meeting

We met at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington DC on 20 April 1995. Attendees: Anthony V. Nero (chair), Alvin M. Saperstein (chair-elect), Ed Gerjuoy (vice-chair), Caroline Herzenberg (secretary/treasurer), Art Hobson (newsletter editor), Dietrich Schroeer (councillor-elect), Barrett Ripin (APS), Margaret Vassilikos (APS), and executive committee members Lisbeth Gronlund, Tina Kaarsberg, Robert Lempert, Marc Sher, and Gerald Epstein. Executive committee members absent: Barbara Levi, Marc Ross, Jill Wittels.

Distributions and circulations: FPS committee membership and address listing for 1995/6, agenda for executive committee meeting, sign-in sheet, revised minutes of the April 1994 executive committee meeting, election report, treasurer's reports (overview, cumulative treasurer's report for 1991-1994, preliminary projected treasurer's report 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995, preliminary proposed budget 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996), bylaws, notes for the new secretary/treasurer, APS key contact list, newsletter report, membership flyer.

The Forum on Physics and Society executive committee meeting was called to order at 8:08 am by Nero. He handed out copies of the agenda and indicated that minor issues would be taken up first and then major issues, with discussion limited so as to finish by 11 am.

Copies of the revised minutes for the 1994 executive committee meeting and additional items had been distributed. The minutes were adopted.

Nero gave a brief annual chair's report. Efforts noted during the year included trying to establish better communications, budget issues, and cooperation among forums.

Nero and Herzenberg reported the results of the recent election. Elected were John Ahearne vice-chair, Michael I. Sobel secretary/treasurer, Dietrich Schroeer Forum councillor, and Laurie Fathe and Daniel M. Kammen executive committee. There was discussion of the small number of ballots returned. Sher suggested consideration of electronic balloting.

Saperstein reported the results of the fellowship committee for last year including the names of and citations for the new Fellows. These results were reported in the March issue of Physics & Society.

Saperstein reported on the program committee, with input from Nero and Kaarsberg. They reported that FPS had an impressive appearance at both the March and April APS meetings, with exceptionally good attendance at the symposia at the March meeting. Art Hobson requested manuscripts from the March meeting for the newsletter. A good summary listing of the March and April meetings symposia was presented in the FPS flyer prepared by Gronlund and included in the registration packets.

Gronlund gave the membership committee report and indicated she would be resigning as chair. She requested that someone else get out a sheet for the meeting next year, similar to the flyer she prepared for the March and April APS meetings this year. It was agreed that her successor as membership chair should continue the handout sheet.

There was discussion of the new APS membership renewal forms, which, it appears, will not track each APS member's membership in forums. In addition, there will be a new charge of $6 per forum past the first two selected. Concern was expressed that FPS membership could drop appreciably, causing significant income reduction.

The editorial report on the FPS newsletter, Physics & Society, was given by Hobson. He had already informed executive committee members that a new editor needs to be identified. However, he indicated that he will continue as editor for another year and will help the new editor during the transition period.

Since she was unable to attend this meeting, Levi had faxed the Councillor's report to Nero, who presented it. Some items were from the last APS Council meeting, and some from the agenda for the coming meeting. Items included a POPA statement that is to be voted on by the APS Council; the fact that the Physics Planning Committee is trying to involve physicists on spending issues and may ask APS members to speak to their Washington representatives; and a three-prong program of cooperation between APS and the Chinese Physical Society. Bill 314 (which prohibits profanity or obscenity on the Internet) was reported to be of concern, particularly to the APS committee on the international freedom of scientists. With reference to the text of a proposed motion from CIFS that Saperstein had emailed to the executive committee, this was concurred with and forwarded to the APS Council.

Nero reported that the centennial meeting celebrating APS's 100th anniversary will be held in Atlanta, and an FPS centennial representative was discussed. Levi had proposed Heinz Barschall, and said Barschall indicated that he is willing to serve. Saperstein moved that we accept Barschall as centennial representative, the motion was seconded and unanimously accepted.

We discussed "electrification of FPS." Sher described the new FPS home page, which includes a list of officers and information on internet conferences. He indicated that potential members can join FPS on the Web now. Kaarsberg, Lempert and Nero presented information on internet conferences and open forums. Lempert and Kaarsberg are finishing essays and shopping around for a panel; they focused on setting priorities. Nero reported that the APS is moving along on a membership directory, but indicated that it will be a year before it is fully accessible, and fully capable and searchable. We discussed contacting the membership by email. It was reported that about 60% of the APS membership has email. Barrie Ripin is to contact all electronically-contactable members of all forums regarding membership renewal in the forums, since the new APS renewal form has no carryover of Forum memberships.

Gerjuoy reported on the Fellowship committee. He indicated that four applications were in with two more in process, and that APS had sent out email regarding the nomination of new Fellows but that nothing had come of it.

The first major issue tackled was budgets. Herzenberg presented the treasurer's reports and budget projections. This including a comparison over the previous three years, a projected budget for the year ending this July, and a projected budget for the following year. Nero summarized that this year we are close to balance, and that next year's budget is a projection of this year's mode of operation to next year with reduced newsletter costs. Hobson discussed newsletter costs, and indicated that we will be sticking with 16 pages per issue as cheaper than 12 or 20 pages, and that we are going back from a 7 day foreign mailing service to an 8 to 21 day service to save money. There had been concern about delays in receipt of ballots in the election issue, but it appeared that would not be a problem next year, as next year's "April" meeting will be held in May. Hobson will inquire further into time delays in APS getting out the newsletter. Regarding travel costs, Schroeer indicated that FPS has always operated at the present level, paying costs for about one person per meeting. Nero indicated that, with the new formula, FPS will have an increase in budget if the membership remains stable. Hobson estimated that FPS will make about $0.50 per new member at the margin.

Ripin had arrived, and we discussed the new APS membership renewal forms that no longer explicitly indicate a members' current affiliation with forums, so that affiliation with any forums will have to be specifically requested rather than continued. There was concern by several attendees about loss of membership in the forums, as each forum will be starting again from zero membership. Ripin indicated that they could provide a list of non-renewers for followup. Nero indicated that FPS will need a new chair of the membership committee to track the question, get information on what is happening, and get out a follow-up letter. Epstein will take over as chair of the membership committee.

There was further discussion of the newsletter. Epstein suggested that POPA might put out Physics & Society. Gerjuoy said that the various forums might want to combine their newsletters.

Hobson suggested that FPS maintain a reserve of about $10,000 for possible future studies. Saperstein indicated that if FPS wants to do a study, we can request the funds from the APS. Schroeer affirmed that we should have such a reserve for studies and also for short courses. In that way the Forum could proceed with a study without having to wait for APS funds, with the expectation that funds would be forthcoming.

It was suggested that we will need a review in the early fall of our financial status. Nero indicated that an electronic meeting is planned for September, to find out about expenditures and FPS membership renewals.

Another topic was cooperation with other forums. Nero and Herzenberg reported on the meeting the preceding day with officers of the other forums. Major topics included better communication between officers and help for officers. A major decision was that program chairs of all the forums would work together as a committee. There had been general approval of preparing a summary of all the forum sessions to be sent out in advance by email, as we did this year.

As program chair, Gerjuoy had been attending the APS program committee which had been scheduled on the same morning as our executive committee meeting. This dealt with the next "April" meeting, to be held in Indianapolis in May. Gerjuoy reported that there will be a reduction in fees to encourage teachers to come to that meeting, and that it will be held over a weekend. Ripin noted that joint APS/AAPT membership will be available at 50% off this coming year. Gerjuoy said that at the program committee meeting that morning he learned that the AAPT did not use up all of its session allocation. Gerjuoy suggested putting some information in The Physics Teacher, and Hobson suggested the AAPT Announcer, to ask people to generate ideas for symposia. Schroeer suggested that we could provide the information in a letter to the editor. The consensus seemed to be that we will make individual contact with the AAPT to share allotments in joint sessions.

Kaarsberg suggested attention to various other issues, including national budget cuts in science and scientific hot topics that FPS should address and that we could use to energize other subunits. Nero suggests that we all agree that these are important issues, and suggested that it would be useful to have a round-table discussion of them on email. Kaarsberg will start this with a page of issues to circulate on email.

Nero and Saperstein are going to work on the committee issue, particularly identifying members for committees, two weeks after this executive committee meeting; Saperstein requested all executive committee members to communicate suggestions to him.

The issue of careers came up next. It was suggested that the new Forum on Industrial and Applied Physics forum will play a big role in the future, but right now is just getting organized. It was noted that the conference of physics department chairs is scheduled in two weeks. Nero nominated Jill Wittels to attend the chairs' meeting, and the executive committee concurred; Saperstein will be backup. Saperstein and Kaarsberg mentioned plans to move forward on educating faculty in preparing students for alternative careers; they plan to take advantage of Sunday evening at the March APS meeting for forums to arrange a symposium in this area. They suggest dropping use of the term "alternative careers."

Ripin noted that there is planning for a special issue of APS News, with a pull-out section devoted to jobs and careers; provocative articles are needed. Nero noted that we have no data on the fate of postdocs; he and Millie Dresselhaus will set up an email survey on this. We will need some points of contact in the faculties of physics departments with respect to careers. Gerjuoy suggested that POPA should consider this issue. Nero suggested that we should develop a speakers' list in the area of careers. Gronlund indicated that an FPS colloquium speakers' list with a more general focus had already been started, but that the response was too small to justify moving ahead with it now. Potential speakers would have to be contacted directly and asked to join the list. Kaarsberg will take on the speakers list. There was further discussion as to whether the speakers' list about careers should be part of a broader-based speakers list.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 am.

C. Herzenberg

Vaclav Havel on Transcendence and Science

We physicists might disagree, or agree, with the speech by Vaclav Havel that is reprinted below. In either case, we can perhaps agree that Havel's comments are sincere, and important for both science and society. The misuse of science and technology is at the root of many of the modern world's problems. These problems are worsening and they will not improve until all of us, and especially we scientists, begin to address the problems that Havel discusses--problems, that is, of spirit and meaning in the context of modern science.

Vaclav Havel is President of the Czech Republic. The speech was given at Independence Hall in Philadelphia when President Havel received the Philadelphia Liberty Medal on the 4th of July, 1994. The speech was well received and widely reprinted in national and international newspapers, newsmagazines, and elsewhere.

We present Havel's speech not because we necessarily agree with all of it, but because we hope to stimulate dialogue among physicists. We encourage your comments.

Art Hobson

The Need For Transcendence In the Postmodern World

In this postmodern world, cultural conflicts are becoming more dangerous than any time in history. A new model of coexistence is needed, based on man's transcending himself.

There are thinkers who claim that, if the modern age began with the discovery of America, it also ended in America. This is said to have occurred in the year 1969, when America sent the first men to the moon.

I think there are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended. Today, many things indicate that we are going thorough a transitional period, when it seems that something is on the way out and something else is painfully being born. It is as if something were crumbling, decaying, and exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble.

Periods of history when values undergo a fundamental shift are certainly not unprecedented. This happened in the Hellenistic period, when from the ruins of the classical world the Middle Ages were gradually born. It happened during the Renaissance, which opened the way to the modern era. The distinguishing features of such transitional periods are a mixing and blending of cultures and a plurality or parallelism of intellectual and spiritual worlds. These are periods when all consistent value systems collapse, when cultures distant in time and space are discovered or rediscovered. They are periods when there is a tendency to quote, to imitate, and to amplify, rather than to state with authority or integrate. New meaning is gradually born from the encounter, or the intersection, of many different elements.

Today, this state of mind or of the human world is called postmodernism. For me, a symbol of that state is a Bedouin mounted on a camel and clad in traditional robes under which he is wearing jeans, with a transistor radio in his hands and an ad for Coca-Cola on the camel's back. I am not ridiculing this, nor am I shedding an intellectual tear over the commercial expansion of the West that destroys alien cultures. I see it rather as a typical expression of this multicultural era, a signal that an amalgamation of cultures is taking place. I see it as proof that something is happening, something is being born, that we are in a phase when one age is succeeding another, when everything is possible. Yes, everything is possible, because our civilization does not have its own unified style, its own spirit, its own aesthetic.

Science and modern civilization
This is related to the crisis, or to the transformation, of science as the basis of the modern conception of the world.

The dizzying development of this science, with its unconditional faith in objective reality and its complete dependency on general and rationally knowable laws, led to the birth of modern technological civilization. It is the first civilization in the history of the human race that spans the entire globe and firmly binds together all human societies, submitting them to a common global destiny. It was this science that enabled man, for the first time, to see Earth from space with his own eyes; that is, to see it as another star in the sky.

At the same time, however, the relationship to the world that modern science fostered and shaped now appears to have exhausted its potential. It is increasingly clear that, strangely, the relationship is missing something. It fails to connect with the most intrinsic nature of reality and with natural human experience. It is now more of a source of disintegration and doubt than a source of integration and meaning. It produces what amounts to a state of schizophrenia: Man as an observer is becoming completely alienated from himself as a being.

Classical modern science described only the surface of things, a single dimension of reality. And the more dogmatically science treated it as the only dimension, as the very essence of reality, the more misleading it became. Today, for instance, we may know immeasurably more about the universe than our ancestors did, and yet it increasingly seems they knew something more essential about it than we do, something that escapes us. The same thing is true of nature and of ourselves. The more thoroughly all our organs and their functions, their internal structure, and the biochemical reactions that take place within them are described, the more we seem to fail to grasp the spirit, purpose, and meaning of the system that they create together and that we experience as our unique "self."

And thus today we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. We enjoy all the achievements of modern civilization that have made our physical existence on this earth easier in so many important ways. Yet we do not know exactly what to do with ourselves, where to turn. The world of our experiences seems chaotic, disconnected, confusing. There appear to be no integrating forces, no unified meaning, no true inner understanding of phenomena in our experience of the world. Experts can explain anything in the objective world to us, yet we understand our own lives less and less. In short, we live in the postmodern world, where everything is possible and almost nothing is certain.

When nothing is certain

This state of affairs has its social and political consequences. The single planetary civilization to which we all belong confronts us with global challenges. We stand helpless before them because our civilization has essentially globalized only the surfaces of our lives. But our inner self continues to have a life of its own. And the fewer answers the era of rational knowledge provides to the basic questions of human Being, the more deeply it would seem that people, behind its back as it were, cling to the ancient certainties of their tribe. Because of this, individual cultures, increasingly lumped together by contemporary civilization, are realizing with new urgency their own inner autonomy and the inner differences of others.

Cultural conflicts are increasing and are understandably more dangerous today than at any other time in history. The end of the era of rationalism has been catastrophic. Armed with the same supermodern weapons, often from the same suppliers, and followed by television cameras, the members of various tribal cults are at war with one another. By day, we work with statistics; in the evening, we consult astrologers and frighten ourselves with thrillers about vampires. The abyss between the rational and the spiritual, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective, the technical and the moral, the universal and the unique, constantly grows deeper.

Politicians are rightly worried by the problem of finding the key to ensure the survival of a civilization that is global and at the same time clearly multicultural. How can generally respected mechanisms of peaceful coexistence be set up, and on what set of principles are they to be established?

These questions have been highlighted with particular urgency by the two most important political events in the second half of the twentieth century: the collapse of colonial hegemony and the fall of communism. The artificial world order of the past decades has collapsed, and a new, more-just order has not yet emerged. The central political task of the final years of this century, then, is the creation of a new model of coexistence among the various cultures, peoples, races, and religious spheres within a single interconnected civilization. This task is all the more urgent because other threats to contemporary humanity brought about by one-dimensional development of civilization are growing more serious all the time.

Many believe this task can be accomplished through technical means. That is, they believe it can be accomplished through the intervention of new organizational, political, and diplomatic instruments. Yes, it is clearly necessary to invent organizational structures appropriate to the present multicultural age. But such efforts are doomed to failure if they do not grow out of something deeper, out of generally held values.

This, too, is well known. And in searching for the most natural source for the creation of a new world order, we usually look to an area that is the traditional foundation of modern justice and a great achievement of the modern age: to a set of values that--among other things--were first declared in this building (Independence Hall). I am referring to respect for the unique human being and his or her liberties and inalienable rights and to the principle that all power derives from the people. I am, in short, referring to the fundamental ideas of modern democracy.

What I am about to say may sound provocative, but I feel more and more strongly that even these ideas are not enough, that we must go farther and deeper. The point is that the solution they offer is still, as it were, modern, derived from the climate of the Enlightenment and from a view of man and his relation to the world that has been characteristic of the Euro-American sphere for the last two centuries. Today, however, we are in a different place and facing a different situation, one to which classical modern solutions in themselves do not give a satisfactory response. After all, the very principle of inalienable human rights, conferred on man by the Creator, grew out of the typically modern notion that man--as a being capable of knowing nature and the world--was the pinnacle of creation and lord of the world.

This modern anthropocentrism inevitably meant that He who allegedly endowed man with his inalienable rights began to disappear from the world: He was so far beyond the grasp of modern science that he was gradually pushed into a sphere of privacy of sorts, if not directly into a sphere of private fancy--that is, to a place where public obligations no longer apply. The existence of a higher authority than man himself simply began to get in the way of human aspirations.

Two transcendent ideas
The idea of human rights and freedoms must be an integral part of any meaningful world order. Yet, I think it must be anchored in a different place, and in a different way, than has been the case so far. If it is to be more than just a slogan mocked by half the world, it cannot be expressed in the language of a departing era, and it must not be mere froth floating on the subsiding waters of faith in a purely scientific relationship to the world.

Paradoxically, inspiration for the renewal of this lost integrity can once again be found in science, in a science that is new--let us say postmodern--a science producing ideas that in a certain sense allow it to transcend its own limits. I will give two examples.

The first is the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Its authors and adherents have pointed out that from the countless possible courses of its evolution the universe took the only one that enabled life to emerge. This is not yet proof that the aim of the universe has always been that it should one day see itself through our eyes. But how else can this matter be explained?

I think the Anthropic Cosmological Principle brings to us an idea perhaps as old as humanity itself: that we are not at all just an accidental anomaly, the microscopic caprice of a tiny particle whirling in the endless depth of the universe. Instead, we are mysteriously connected to the entire universe, we are mirrored in it, just as the entire evolution of the universe is mirrored in us.

Until recently, it might have seemed that we were an unhappy bit of mildew on a heavenly body whirling in space among many that have no mildew on them at all. This was something that classical science could explain. Yet, the moment it begins to appear that we are deeply connected to the entire universe, science reaches the outer limits of its powers. Because it is founded on the search for universal laws, it cannot deal with singularity, that is, with uniqueness. The universe is a unique event and a unique story, and so far we are the unique point of that story. But unique events and stories are the domain of poetry, not science. With the formulation of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, science has found itself on the border between formula and story, between science and myth. In that, however, science has paradoxically returned, in a roundabout way, to man, and offers him--in new clothing--his lost integrity. It does so by anchoring him once more in the cosmos.

The second example is the Gaia Hypothesis. This theory brings together proof that the dense network of mutual interactions between the organic and inorganic portions of the earth's surface form a single system, a kind of mega-organism, a living planet--Gaia--named after an ancient goddess who is recognizable as an archetype of the Earth Mother in perhaps all religions. According to the Gaia Hypothesis, we are parts of a greater whole. If we endanger her, she will dispense with us in the interest of a higher value--that is, life itself.

Toward self-transcendence
What makes the Anthropic Principle and the Gaia Hypothesis so inspiring? One simple thing: both remind us, in modern language, of what we have long suspected, of what we have long projected into our forgotten myths and perhaps what has always lain dormant within us as archetypes. That is, the awareness of our being anchored in the earth and the universe, the awareness that we are not here alone nor for ourselves alone, but that we are an integral part of higher, mysterious entities against whom it is not advisable to blaspheme. This forgotten awareness is encoded in all religions. All cultures anticipate it in various forms. It is one of the things that form the basis of man's understanding of himself, of his place in the world, and ultimately of the world as such.

A modern philosopher once said: "Only a God can save us now."

Yes, the only real hope of people today is probably a renewal of our certainty that we are rooted in the earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This awareness endows us with the capacity for self-transcendence. Politicians at international forums may reiterate a thousand times that the basis of the new world order must be universal respect for human rights, but it will mean nothing as long as this imperative does not derive from respect for the miracle of Being, the miracle of the universe, the miracle of nature, the miracle of our own existence. Only someone who submits to the authority of the universal order and of creation, who values the right to be a participant in it, can genuinely value himself and his neighbors, and thus honor their rights as well.

It logically follows that, in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion, convictions, antipathies, or sympathies--it must be rooted in self-transcendence:

  1. Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe.
  2. Transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all this constitutes a single world.
  3. Transcendence as the only real alternative to extinction.

The Declaration of Independence states that the Creator gave man the right to liberty. It seems man can realize that liberty only if he does not forget the One who endowed him with it.

Vaclav Havel

Back to Top

sher@physics.wm.edu

armd@physics.wm.edu