SOME DAYS IT

JUST DOESN'T PAY
To COME VP

IN THE MORNING.

_ BY PROF. NIKOLAI GLADKOV

‘he Constantly increasing accumula-
‘you Of “waste” matter and energy
€ biosphere has many adverse
So adverse, in fact, that Cali-
University meteorologist Morris
erger predicts that our civilization
é destroyed by an unrelenting
‘SS Of asphyxiation. According to
Cuberger, poisonous fog, saturated
Smoke and gases, will eventually
ae the earth—civilization will
Come to an end.
7 iN danger has also been emphasiz-
ie distinguished Soviet scientist,
e Academician A. E. Fersman.
the w= to his calculation, doubling
: Carbon dioxide content of the
sphere would raise the earth’s
Tature by as much as 4 degrees
3 Would materially change cli-
ely growth and geological pro-
- Fersman believed that this
‘ pau be reached within 500
ot figure, however, has been
Kid “Ubud reduced: the carbon dio-
ld ement in 1968 suggested this.
this . perpen in 160 years. But even
bly . ate has now been consider-
Cut, because the annual carbon
. increase is much greater than
Bec rchers supposed. Industry
carbo between 8 and 9 billion tons
i - dioxide, or 15-20 times more
The World's vegetation can absorb.
SaaS temperature is being
ergy also by the steep rise in
Budyko sees tion. Soviet scientist M. I.
the . @S advanced this hypothesis:
as yg Ul energy increase is taken
will ocean, then within 100 years it
tio reater than the world’s radia-
—} tion t6 ance (the present ratio of radia-
5} 9:0.09) aggregate energy production is
3] Product; hould that materialize, energy
| as the oo Would have the same effect
Lage yaa S radiation; the earth’s sur-
Nician a be overheated and Acade-
Com €rsman’s prediction would

4

eatlig
rel

Begj
Chan t@S. these global atmospheric

i likey there are also local changes,
- Bregg Caused by technological pro-
Porta,, 24 these are particularly im-
¢ Plate, pocause they effect densely
| Cities communities, our large
Center.  WnStance, or big industrial
e mos ‘ € most common, and one of
Which deadly, phenomenon is smog,
Piiditions specific meteorological
®ven death can lead to mass disease,

An .
a eed tere have been cases of both.
i trated 1930, 70 died from con-

OF indine pecember 1952, which directly
®ctly caused some 4,000 deaths.
) amplen of course, are outstanding
/ tion ‘in 8; but even “normal” air pollu-
damm Bie large cities can be very
eno, 4n Tokyo, for instance, police-

~ Point duty often have to use

lon Smog in Li Belgium. A
Ong, iege, Belgium.

é Lown Stable smog in the American
if) &ray tho Donora in 1948 affected sev-
, — Gieg. Usand people, twenty of whom
3 hoe
My ‘Mog oe 'S also the famous London

oxygen masks. The incidence of can-
cer, according to the evidence of many
doctors, is much higher in smog-in-
fested cities—Chicago is probably a
classical example—than in smaller,
non-industrial communities.

The rapid expansion of mining de-
prives man of certain essential natural
components. In particular, it has an
adverse effect on the hydrological bal-
ance. Open-cast coal and ore mining
robs agriculture of valuable farmland
and leaves us with what are sometimes
described as ‘‘industrial deserts.” Even
wide use of sea gravel destroy our
beaches and causes landslides.

And still another aspect of this con-
flict’ between technology and nature:
the technical means of destroying wild
animals have far surpassed all reason-
able bounds. It can be said that con-
tinued technological development in this
particular area is .unnecessary, un-
justified ana’ narmful—one need only
point to the sad state of the world’s
whale reserves. And yet the logic of
technical progress leads to the inven-
tion and manufacture of more sophisti-
cated weapons. One solution, perhaps,
is to find new.objects and new areas
for their application. But that will have
to be attended by stringent regulation,
for as things are today more techno-
logy here will destroy . the world’s
breeding reserve.

That there is a contradiction be-
tween technological progress and na-
ture is obvious enough. It stems not
only from the fact that technology tends
to*‘‘destroy”” nature. There is a more
important aspect. Technology is sup-
ported to help man create all the mate-
rial things he needs out of the natural

‘resources, but in the process techno-

logy has a destructive impact on na-
ture. Or it might be put this way:
through nature technology comes into
contradiction with itself.

Can the contradiction be resolved?
Can the interests of technology and na-

_ ture be harmonized? Must technology

reckon with nature?

Tne earth’s surface is now pretty
well covered by industry and agricul-
ture, so that man cannot, having de-
stroyed the productivity of one area,
pass on to another. To all practical
purposes, there are no “other” areas.
And now that the world’s natural re-
sources have largely been tapped, de-
struction of one component is bound to
react on all others. This is something
mankind simply cannot afford. Produc-
tion centers on one and the same na-
tural component and one and the same
area. Consequently, preservation of
each component becomes an essential
element of the production cycle and, in
a broader sense, conservation of the

natural environment is essential to the

very existence of human society. And
so, this brings us back to the question
of the technological impact on nature.

Marxism draws a clear distinction
between technology as such and the
social conditions in which it is em-
ployed. Marx wrote that “capitalist pro-
duction . . . develops technology and

the combining together of various pro-
cesses into a social whole, only by
sapping the original sources of all
wealth—the soil and the laborer.”’
Technological progress must be bas-
ed not only on economy of labor effort
and materials. There is another cardi-
nal requirement—economy (preserva-
tion) of the natural environment and
its individual components. Every new
technological process, every new ma-
chine, should be assessed from that
standpoint. Much of the materials (and
their derivatives) that go into the pro-
duction process are returned to nature
in the form of contaminated matter.
That is clearly contrary to. progress,
technological or any other kind. Be-

‘sides, this deprives industry of valuable

potential products, and this alone should
make it plain that the protection of na-
ture must be closely associated with
all industrial activity. ‘
These new demands on technolo;
are both logical and realizable. Any

~ analysis will show that parallel with

contamination of the natural environ-
ment and destruction of natural re-
sources, technology reveals another in-
trinsic. trend which, however, has not
met with adequate support because
technological influence on nature is
customarily regarded as something of
very minor importance.

There are numerous examples to
show ‘that it is not. Improved heating
techniques, notably wider use of elec-
tricity, gas, central heating plants, etc.,
have sharply reduced air pollution.
Some of the new Soviet cities, where
electrical heating is widespread, enjoy
much purer air than communitfes with
antiquated heating arrangements.

The railways offer another example.
The change-over of all Moscow sub-
urban traffic to diesel and electric trac-
tion has cleared the air in communi-
ties near. big rail depots and mar-
shalling yards. Incidentally, electric
traction has also removed one source’
of forest fires. And still another exam-
ple: traffic underpasses in large cities
have cut the pollution figure from more
than ten times the norm to well below
the norm.

The . increasing volume of waste
material should be seen as a result of
the contradiction between the  con-
tinuously rising volume of production
and obsolescent technology and produc-
tion methods. Indeed, it can be said
that technological progress is lagging
behind its own potentialities :

Soviet industry offers many exam-
ples of oil refineries, cement mills,
etc., acquiring sizeable quantities of
valuable raw materials by the simple
device of introducing water re-cycling,
smoke control, etc. Today Moscow, a
vast industrial center, enjoys relatively
purer air than any other city of com-
parable size. re

More examples could be cited to
show that the solution lies in techno-
logy itself, that air and water pollu-
tion and destruction of the natural re-
sources is, rightly, a thing of the past

that persists in the present, and is not

inherent in technology, but follows from
the conditions under which it is em- —
ployed.

3

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 1, 1969—PAGE 5