« ПретходнаНастави »
Miss FREDERICK. Senator, I would repeat what has been suggested here today, and I believe Harlan Cleveland has also suggested, that we put more emphasis on trying to reach consensus, rather than votes. I would hope that in important situations like that, a vote would be postponed or even omitted while every effort was made to reach consensus. And after all, that does not have to be in one session, a week or a month, when we consider, as Mr. Bitker has pointed out, how long it took us to get a Constitution of the United States shaped up and we consider how long it took to write the Charter of the United Nations. It seems to me that using time to try to reach consensus rather than rushing to a vote might contribute to a constructive outcome. And in one other connection, Senator Percy, if I may recall
your speaking about what we all ought to do in listening more, to quote that late statesman once more,
from your State, Adlai Stevenson, he said what the United States needs most is a good hearing aid. Perhaps that is still one of our greatest needs.
Senator PERCY. I should say that is what I need, also. My battery ran out this morning, but I am happy to say I have heard all of you quite well.
I would like to ask Mr. Scammon a question on public attitudes toward foreign economic aid. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, it is not the most popular program. And Senator Humphrey and I have long supported economic assistance to developing countries, but not without a battle back home.
SUPPORT FOR BILATERAL OR MULTILATERAL AID
Do you sense any support for continuation of bilateral assistance ? Or do you see public support moving more in the direction of multilateral assistance ?
Mr. SCAMMON. This would be too sophisticated a question. Most people are simply against foreign aid bilateral, multilateral, unilateral, anything. It is a fact of our political system that for 30 years you have been able, in the Congress, to maintain the program of foreign aid against the manifest opposition of the great majority.
The fact of the matter is that the apparatus of our society has been able to maintain a program here which has for many, many years been anathema to the substantial majority of the American people.
When you ask the question about multilateral or bilateral, this is irrelevant. They just do not think of it this way. People who read the editorial columns in the New York Times may be able to think about this a bit and say, well, bilateral, multilateral. But for the great mass of people, this would not really be a question on which they would have any particular judgment. It is spinach and to hell with it, would be the answer.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.
IS THE SOVEREIGN STATE FUNCTIONALLY DEAD?
I would like a comment from both Dr. Bitker and Dr. Fuller on the provocative statement made by Dr. Fuller that sovereign nationalities are functionally extinct. And you say, Dr. Fuller, that their continued presence is the world's No. 1 pollutant.
Do you mean by this that nationalism is dead or should be dead? :
And with specific question for both of you to comment on: Do you feel any form of world government is now in order or that we are moving toward it? Or that there is any possibility that the American people are ready to accept any concept like that?
Mr. FULLER. I have been asking myself the question you asked me for a very long time; and I am a student of large patterns and trying to see what evolution does about some of these things. And I think human beings do not often realize how powerful, knowledgeable and competent is universal evolution. X-ray cinema makes visible organization of a chicken—the gradual assembly from its embryo, all taking place inside the egg—much of which process seems chaotic and discreetly uncontrolled. Humans do not see the logical interrelatedness of big evolutionary development. All the technical happenings which were unpredicted in my youth seem only in retrospect to have been obviously sequitor to their immediate predecessor developments. Humans tend to think that Universe is waiting upon them to make the evolutionary decisions. I do not. That is why I have tried to stress the fact with you today that when considered before they occurred all the technological events in my life were thought to be absolutely impossible. Therefore they were not the consequence of society deliberately undertaking to bring them about. Individual inventors often called "crack pots” brought them into realization. It was completely unexpected. When I was 5 years of age no one realized that we would develop any of the 20th-century technology. Anyone who even suggested humans reaching safely to and returning from the moon were called lunatics and in jeopardy of being incarcerated in a lunatic aslyum.
As an infinitely small detail in designing terrestrial ecology Nature designed the honey bees with their chromosomic drive to go after honey in order to have them inadvertently cross-pollinize the vegetation so too, by a million other chromosomically programed behaviors, Nature arranged to grow and sustain humans on our planet. Also 99 percent chromosomically programed humans usually have been doing a lot of the right things for the wrong reasons. What we think of as side effects are usually evolution's main events. The time has come when we must participate directly in the main stream of universe instead of only accidentally while playing lethally biased exclusive survival games instead of the all-inclusive main show.
When our forebears evolved the system of democratic representation of the United States all the first representatives were well and favorably known to their local neighbors, everybody knew them. Their term of office was predicated on the realization that they would have
go to the central meeting place in Philadelphia by foot or by horse over foot paths, Indian trials or very small ħighways stopping over night at inns and talking with everybody along the way. And while in Philadelphia--or later in Washington—three or four important letters might come from Europe during the whole year you were there. Everybody at the capitol knew what the letters said. They all talked about the letters with one another. Then all of the representatives started back homeward talking to people along the way, at the inns, and homes. They would tell everybody at home about the four letters from Europe this year and what everybody in Philadelphia—or later
in Washington—thought about the situation and what the people along the
way think and would then say to their home people "How do
you feel about it and what do you want me to do about it?” They were told and then they walked or rode on these often many-days travel to the capital. We had what science calls a one-to-one correspondence between stimulation and response.
With the unexpected development of the telegraph 30 years later news short-circuited the representatives' direct communication system and reached people in minutes instead of in months and the people had no way to respond to the stimulation. Since that time radio and television broadcasting have added to the telegraph-fed newspapers in producing a constant barrage adding to hundreds of thousands of stimulations before any political response could be manifest by the citizenry.
DEMOCRACY IS NOT WORKING TODAY Democracy worked well with the initial one-to-one correspondence. Today, democracy is not working. It is not the fault of the concept of democracy. Democracy is unable to express itself. That is why political viewpoints samplings—have developed. The Congress conducts as many inquiries as possible to discover in advance of elections what their constituents are thinking. Particularly amongst the young there is a feeling of absolute futility. The system is not working.
Over a great many years I have been following the technology of electromagnetic communication to find out if it did not contain its own answer to how the one-to-one correspondence might be regained. In 1940 I was science and technology consultant on the staff of Fortune magazine. After checking with the telephone system engineers and finding it technically feasible and not disruptive of all other regular services proposed daily telephone voting on all prominent questions before Congress. That was back in 1940 and I published my proposal in my book, No More Secondhand God. Since World War II studies have been scientifically conducted disclosing electromagnetic energy output of human brains. The work has been scientifically conducted in veteran hospitals with electrodes fastened to the heads of volunteers.
Then, using recording oscillographs unique patterns were discovered to be identified with specific dreams. Most recently experiments have disclosed an electromagnetic field surrounding the whole body of humans which field discloses a positive or negative attitude or response to various stimuli very much as does the polygraph or lie detector through direct contact. With the sensors, now mounted in satellites orbiting our planet, broadcasting to us, there is present in this room right now one electromagnetic program amongst several million which if tuned in by the right radio set can tell us where every beef cattle on Earth is located. As a consequence we may soon have the capability to directly sense how each and every human feels about each and every common human problem of the moment as each such problem and its alternative solutions are separately broadcast. This might well develop within the critical 10 years of which I have been speaking. Senator Percy, you have asked me what kind of world government may develop. It may
well be akin to the city management concept, where the management has to do whatever the satellite sensor harvested and computer analysis says that the world majority thinks ought to be done. Undoubtedly the world majority would make many mistakes but as the mistake becomes evident the majority of humans will think that this alternative would work better and because they think so it will be satellite sensed and the computer will instruct management to immediately alter the course.
This is the way all mechanical steering mechanisms of airplanes or ships of the sea work. The servomechanisms responding to sensed error in first one direction and then the other successively correct the steering first this way then that way averaging an accomplished course halfway between. The variations get finer and finer trending toward but never attaining absolute “straightness.” This is the essence of cybernetics. This way humans reached the moon. It is the essence of all life growth. Development of such satellite harvested electromagnetic field sensing of how world democracy feels about any proposed solution of any given problem is close at hand or has already been technically prototyped. An incorruptible, true direct planetary democracy with all of humanity franchised and always voting may well render all humanity sustainable, successful. So those are my thoughts, sir.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.
In the first place, how can anyone add to what we have just heard? But let me just quote from a leading statesman in the era of the Revolution who asked and was disturbed by the very question you are asking now, Senator Percy. And this is the question which faces this committee today, and this is what George Washington said with respect to the same problem—and this is what he said, very briefly, “We are either a united people under one head and for Federal purposes, or we are 13 independent sovereigns, eternally counteracting each other."
Senator PERCY. Thank you.
Senator HUMPHREY. I want to express my deep appreciation to our witnesses. They have added immensely to our better understanding of the problem.
Let me express our thanks on behalf of the committee.
Our next meeting is on May 21. The witnesses will be William Sloane Coffin, chaplain of Yale University; Seyom Brown, of the Brookings Institution; Alvin Toffler, author of "Future Shock”; and Norman Cousins, editor of “The Saturday Review World.” We thank the witnesses once again.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene Wednesday, May 21, 1975.)