5094 BEYOND AFFLUENCE

 More than a generation after Galbraith's book 'The Affluent Society', we have gone beyond mere affluence; certainly in the West, and the rest of the world probably is not too far behind. The best assumption to make now is that we are, as humanity in general, the owners of effectively infinite resources. On the other hand, it should be reported that almost all our focus groups still expected there to be some problems with food supplies, in terms of shortages - perhaps created by plant diseases, pests or pollution. These were, though, usually seen as local problems, where something over half our general groups (but only a third of our experts) also saw that there would be - overall - food for all; possibly as a result of the introduction of food substitutes. Just over half the groups also foresaw shortages of other non-renewable resources (though again only a third of the experts, here possibly being more optimistic, commented on this). Just over a third highlighted the specific problem of water supplies - possibly giving water utilities considerable political power and possibly even leading to 'water wars' where the resources crossed national boundaries.

 Assuming that resources are effectively infinite is necessarily a crude model, for we cannot instantaneously meet every demand which appears. We cannot give every family a Rolls-Royce car, or even a small Japanese one; though, given the political will and a decade to carry out the task, we probably could achieve the latter task. The point is that even this crude model is preferable to the one currently in use; which emphasises our limitations, often artificially induced ones (such as money-supply) in the context of the longer term, and demands that we must fight each other for the scarce resources.

An important, but rarely recognised, footnote to this debate is that resources should be measured relative to the likely demands upon them. Most Malthusians assume that our ever growing wealth will pose ever growing demands on our physical resources - as has happened in the period since the first Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, it is already clear that the post-modern society (and especially the post-materialist one) will require progressively less in the way of additional physical resources. By definition, post-materialism is not based on the use of materials. The demands are, instead, made on intangible resources; usually provided by human beings - or computers - who are not yet in short supply. The relative balance between resource supply, which is still growing as fast as ever, and demand, which will not grow as rapidly as it has in the past, should therefore improve!

 The best assumption to make is that - in the long term - we have access to infinite resources; and can choose to do almost anything we consider needs to be done.

Most futurologists follow much the same approach; though usually in the form of a tacit assumption rather than an overt statement about unlimited resources. On the other hand, the present-day environmental lobby - which contains a few important futurologists and has an especially influential relationship with the media - takes a much more Malthusian line.

 The most important ‘professionals’ who ignored the changed reality were the economists. Friedman and Hayek, and their colleagues in the Chicago School, proved most destructive in linking economics with politics; and providing the ‘moral’ underpinning for the (US) ‘market economy’!