Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

LDC White Paper: THE EFFECT OF ECONOMY ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. March 26, 1987 If the internal economy of the family household does not permit adequate parental care of children and youth until the age of approximately eighteen years, we must expect a general decline in public standards of morality, and permanent damage to the personalities of the young. Broadly, the combination of the institution of the family and sound general education are the principal vehicles through which the personal character of the young person is developed, and through which the cultural development of the personality is accomplished. During the recent forty-five years, the United States, like western Europe, has seen the institutions of family and education systematically eroded, and now threatened possibly with destruction, for chiefly two reasons. The most direct attack on the family and education has come from an organized, and increasingly aggressive effort to eradicate the values of western european and american Judeo-Christian civilization, a so-called "counter-culture" movement centered around such figures as the late Bertrand Russell and his collaborators. The ability of the institution of the family to resist the onslaught of the organized counterculture, has been greatly undermined by the elimination of the possibility, for most of our people, of both an acceptable standard of living, and also a single-wage-earner household. Let us consider how economy and education affect the vitality of the family household as an institution. Let us look first at the economic conditions which have contributed to the present problem. 1. Economy Weakened the Family It is true, that women from immigrant populations were employed as cheap-labor sorts of industrial operatives in textile and other industries during the last century, and into the present century. This was, chiefly, a practice which we imported from England during the nineteenth century, which would have been greatly disliked by the founders of our republic. However, on the good side, these immigrant families saw this and kindred suffering, as a temporary sacrifice by their generation, so that their children and grandchildren might achieve the economic levels for a normal American family life. Even when our society violated the rule in some cases, we believed in the single-income family household, as the best and normal way to bring children and youth up to their fullest potential for adult ahievements. I know this personally, as do many of you from my generation. Although my maternal grandmother's side of the family were fairly well-to-do farmers, whose ancestors had settled here during the 1670s, my mother's father came from Scotland in 1862, and my paternal grandfather came from Quebec during the 1880s. My paternal grandfather was bit of a genius, who succeeded here very quickly, but on the scottish-immigrant side of my family, there were those who worked their way up by the hard route in Fall River, Massachusetts, over the last part of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of this. Many of us have similar family histories. The destruction of the single-wage-earner family began, not during World War II, but after the war, beginning approximately 1948-1949. The war was an anomalous situation, in which women undertook industrial operatives' employment to fill the gap created by the large number of young adult men in military service. Housewives who had returned to the home during 1945-1946, responded to the effects of the 1947-1948 recession, to provide the second income needed for a child-rearing household. At first, this struck families of industrial operatives and lower-paid service strata. In each of the numerous cases I knew personally, back during the 1940s and somewhat later, households regarded this as a temporary arrangement. A housewife would view her earnings either as "tiding the family over, until things get better," or saw this second income as dedicated to some special purchases, such as the purchase of a home, or key household furnishings. They considered this an exceptional action, and foresaw a return to more normal life a year or more ahead. Gradually, the exception became the rule for an increasing ration of those households. With each subsequent deterioration in the economy, the pattern spread, until it became what it is today. Admittedly, the war-time employment of women contributed to the post-1947 pattern. The fact that women were acclimated to industrial and related forms of employment, and that this had become an accepted practice of employers during the war, made the transition an easier one. Back during the late 1940s, and early 1950s, the cause for the undermining of the single wage-earner household, was not war-time employment patterns, or feminism; the cause was what most families viewed, at that time, as a cruel economic circumstance. A popular, false explanation for this shift away from the single-wage-earner household, which I first encountered during the course of the 1950s, was that the household's appetites for new kinds of household goods had increased, and that a second household income was needed to satisfy these desire for new kinds of things. The falseness of this supposed explanation is rather simply proven. Assemble all of the physical objects -- food, clothing, housing, and so forth -- which make up a standard household's market-basket of physical-goods consumption. Now, measure the labor-content of operatives employed in producing each of those objects. Now take two such market-baskets, one for 1927, a standard pre-depression year, and another for 1957. How much labor-content did a wage-earner's market-basket buy in 1927, as compared with 1957? New objects were added to the household market-basket, between 1927 and 1957, but the operatives' labor-content of the market-basket's total number of objects actually declined over this period. If the true buying-power of a typical wage in 1957 had been as great as in 1927, there would have been no need for a shift from the single-wage-earner household during the late 1940s and 1950s. Some argue that the chief reason for the drop in average purchasing power was the increase in military expenditures. Yet, over the post-war period, the percentile of total income spent on the military has been dropping, reaching an all-time, post-war low during the 1980s. Some say that wages dropped during the post-war period because of shift of income to investment in post-war retooling of industry, yet by 1957, U.S. industries had fallen to levels of obsolescence in plant, machinery, and equipment below those at the end of the war. It is much worse today. There were several factors causing the post-war decline in single-income buying-power for the average household. One of the leading factors, was a shift in the patterns of employment. A smaller and smaller percentile of the labor-force was employed in producing physical goods, and a growing percentile was either unemployed, or employed in administration, sales, and labor- intensive services. Also, finance charges skyrocketted, so that more and more of each dollar of income, of households, of businesses, and government, was spent on debt-service. With every dollar a household spends on the operatives' labor-content of its market-basket, it must spend additional dollars on paying for the administration, sales, service employments, plus debt-service, added on to the costs of the operatives' labor-content of those goods. At the end of the war, about sixty percent of the total labor-force was employed as operatives, down to about twenty percent today. As the labor-force grew, the number of employed operatives did not. Over recent years, the absolute number of operatives employed has been dropping at an accelerating rate. In other words, at the end of the war, an average of forty cents of the after-tax, household-purchases dollar was spent on administration, sales, and services; today about eighty cents. Today, added to other overhead charges built in, debt-service is, in net effect, the largest single item of cost in everything purchased. Over the past ten years, while interest-rates have soared, a new factor has been added. Under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. government adopted a policy of deliberately lowering the average level of productivity. The way this was done, was to argue that we must save energy. On the one side, fellows like Carter's energy secretary, James Schlesinger, said that we must decrease our dependency on high-priced, imported oil; they also said that must not only ban nuclear energy, but must go back to types of energy more primitive than coal and oil, wood. Today, we are as dependent upon imported Middle East oil as we were in 1973, and we have actual or virtual brown-outs in many regions of the country, for lack of nuclear generation. So, to save energy, cruder methods of production were used, and, as a result of that, the average productivity of operatives has dropped, and continues to drop. Real purchasing power is lowered additionally, as a result of this lowering of productivity of operatives. If we understand these mistakes in economic policy, and correct them, we can get back to a system in which the average American family enjoys a high standard of living on the basis of a single wage-earner's income. That is not all that we must do to save the institution of the family, but it will be very difficult to bring the family back to its proper condition and place in society unless we make those changes in economic policy. 2. The Child-Rearing Function What, precisely, are the bad effects on the development of the child, if the child is raised in a single-parent household, or if both parents must be fully employed to provide the household's income? What is it that parents do, which is so essential, that the lack of this may probably damage the child's development? The key word is "love." Unfortunately, we use the same word, "love," to mean two quite different things. The ancient Greeks had two words, "eros" and "agape." The first is simply what we think of as "erotic love" and its connotations. The second is a higher emotion, which we associate with such experiences as love of God, the higher quality of love which (hopefully) binds a married couple together to the end of life, love of parent toward child, and love of friends. Focus upon the most beautiful experience a parent knows in the relationship to a young child. Watch a very young child, for example, playing with blocks. The child succeeds in putting more blocks on top of one another than ever before, and the child is elated with joy. Or, somewhat older, the child works out for the first time the correct solution to a problem, and the child is then suddenly elated, such that we might think that a beautiful, warm light has been turned on in the child's mind. Sometimes, seeing such joy in the child, we wish to weep quiet tears of joy. This emotion in us is "agape." A good parent is bound to the child by this special kind of emotion. It is the parent's action, to share this experience of joy with the child, and to assist the child in making such discoveries, which is the most essential role of the parent in the development of the child's character and mental potential. A healthy such relationship between the child and both parents, is necessary to the full development of the child's adult character. "Daddy is home!" the child shouts with delight, rushing to the door to greet the parent. If we are wise, such a relationship to both parents, is what we value. Provided the standards set are both consistent and rational ones, the parent's reproof of the child's errant behavior, is not something opposite to this love. Think of the defective sort of adult personality, and see where this appears early in childhood. The defective adult personality is that of the "philosophical existentialist." This sort of existentialist argues, "Whatever I feel is me. You have to accept my feelings, or you are rejecting me." It is precisely this sort of moral defect in the adult character, which parental love must prevent. We do not love equally everything in the child. We love that aspect of the child which evokes agape. We love discovery. We love the child's expression of agape toward other children. We love the child's developing potential for reason. We refuse to recognize that which is base as the child's true identity. The essence of sound reproof, is to say to the child, in effect, "Come to your true self, the self we love." There is something far more important in this, than what we describe sometimes as "teaching the child to behave." We are building the child's character, by helping the child to choose that aspect of himself or herself which is good and real. Although the existentialist's behavior is what we commonly describe as "egoistical," actually the existentialist suffers a very weak, insecure sense of personal identity. He is not really certain who or what he is; he is the victim of whatever feelings come over him. He is essentially a weak personality, a defective personality, who was not enabled, as a child, to discover which aspect of himself should be the lovable one. In adult, this existentialist character-type is not only a defective personality, his mental powers are severely handicapped. He may behave compulsively, even obsessively, but he can not really "decide for himself," not in a rational way. Most of us know the type very well. At a given moment, this child, in school, can not solve the assigned problem. In one case, he scribbles over the page where he should be working out the problem. In another case, he writes out a nonsense- answer. In every such case, in one way or another, rather that identifying what he does not know, he runs away from the problem he can not solve, and acts out an irrational impulse instead. He can not force himself to decide, because he lacks the sense of confidence in personal identity which is needed to work through problems in a rational way. The child with an adequate personality, is one who has learned to love that part of himself which is associated with rational discovery of truth. It is the self which took joy in successful block-play or other agape-provoking acts of child's discoveries. It is toward this, that both parents must direct love, especially in the young, pre-school-age child. By working with the child, to strengthen a sense of self-love in achieving these kinds of experiences, the child's character is developed. Later, during school-age years, the parents must continue to base their relationship with the child on those same standards, established, from infancy, during the pre-school- age years. In the healthy family, this role with the pre- school-age child is preformed in the greatest part by the mother, but the father's daily and weekly participation to the same effect, in his own way, is indispensable. The child's development requires a more or less equal experience of agapic relations with parents of both sexes, otherwise the child grown to adulthood will tend to suffer a flaw in personality, especially in relations with its own and the opposite sex. This requires a large amount of parents' time with the pre- school-age child. Putting the young child into the custodial care of "child care" facilities, is risking the child's character-development, unless the "child care" experience is an agapic sort of play- educational experience for that child, and the child's confident sense of its relationship to the parents is effectively maintained. Most "day-care" programs are today are essentially commercial propositions, conducted by persons with little or no insight into the matters we have considered here. Government, the so-called "social workers" profession, and so on, have treated the matter of "day-care" with a blend of incompetence and sheer hypocrisy. The functionaries in "day-care" facilities should not be less qualified than professional teachers, and must understand, and be capable of dealing effectively with the potentially anomalous features of this experience for the young child. A young child needs its parents' attentions. Even persons who are significantly defective in performance as parents, are the best for the child, on condition that they genuinely love the child. It can be argued that the performance of most parents is by no means perfect. Nonetheless, this merely signifies that parents must be helped to understand their part more effectively. The essential thing, is the protect the institution of the family, and to make it physically possible for parents to accomplish their functions. Unless those primary conditions are established, the family does not exist to be improved by any means. The single-income household knows no really satisfactory substitute. 3. Education & The Family The various "permissive child-rearing" dogmas, including the version of Dr. Benjamin Spock, which damaged so many children of the post-war period, are essentially a by-product of the educational policies introduced by the Fabian "philosopher" John Dewey. The extreme left-wing dogmas of Ivan Illich and others, or the dogmas of the National Education Association, introduced during the 1970s, merely carry Dewey's dogmas to a radical extreme. Dewey began his career as a leading figure of the Chicago Fabian School. After John D. Rockefeller II was indoctrinated in Fabian views in England, he returned to the United States and used his father's wealth to transform the Chicago Fabian School into Chicago University. As a part of that, Rockefeller backing lifted Dewey from obscurity to prominence. Dewey was associated with the socialist intellectuals of the first decades of the present century, became a leading admirer of Mussolini's fascism during the 1920s, and drifted back into a left-liberal Fabian posture during the 1930s. Overall, he probably did more to destroy American public education than any other single individual of this century. American public education began in the seventeenth century, under the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The principles of education were maintained into the eighteenth century, by a circle around Cotton Mather, and, after him, by circles around Benjamin Franklin. Public education was based on the classics, including the Greek and Latin classics, with a strong influence of John Milton, and increasing emphasis on pre-scientific and scientific education. For these reason, european visitors described the typical U.S. citizen of our young republic as "the Latin farmer" in America. Then, our labor was twice as productive, and had twice tne income of the English, largely because our population was more than 90% literate, whereas 40% literacy of a poor average quality, was the condition of the population of England. After 1815, developments in public education were strongly influenced, at first, by developments in U.S. higher education, as at West Point Academy, directly modelled upon the accomplishments of the 1794-1815 Ecole Polytechnique in France. Later, our education was influenced by the reforms introduced in Germany by the Prussian reformer and Minister of Education, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Although some, such as the left-wing Concord group around Harvard, brought in the same radical influences shaping Karl Marx at that time, beginning about the 1840s, at places such as Union College, the influence of the Ecole Polytechnique and the Humboldt reforms set the standard. The reason I have mentioned these few key historical facts, is that American educational policy before Dewey emphasized the same principles I have identified in the development of pre- school-age children. The principal goal of public education was to continue the work of the family, in developing the character and intellectual potentialities of the youth. Dewey and his collaborators set out consciously to destroy that, and, by today, have nearly succeeded. I suggest to any of you a not too difficult experiment, which would permit you to discover for yourself that I am right in what I have being saying on the decay in American education. Go back to the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Tom Paine up into 1789, the Federalist Papers, and the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. I suggest these to you, because these documents and speeches were very popular in their time. It was the Federalist Papers, for example, which won a majority of the citizens to support the adoption of our Federal Constitution. Next, place side by side popular political speeches and some of the leading newspaper columns of today. Compare these two sets of documents on two grounds. First, compare them for language. Which represents the higher level of literacy of both the authors and the majority of citizens? Second, compare them for idea-content and quality of reasoning used. Were our citizens more literate now, or then? Who thought more profoundly, our citizens and political leaders then, or now? The key to the difference is the change in our policies of public education. Many parents have said, "I know the child I sent to school, but I am not quite sure what came back." The institution of the family and public education must have the same goals for the development of the character and mental potential of the child and youth. Above the age of five or six, education policy and family policy are two sides of the same thing. The school must do what the parents can not; but public education must be designed as a continuation of early child-rearing, and as a partner of the family's rearing of school-age persons. The school pupil must be taught no wrong thing, and the method of education must be consistently rational, constantly addressing and fostering that agapic emotion which the young child experiences in discoveries made in successful block-play constructions and other ways. Irrationality, inability to decide rationally, avoiding the joy of discovery, substituting irrational beliefs and impulses for rational discovery, and so forth, must be efficiently reproved, and this reproof must occur in such a way as to strengthen the student's self- confidence in that aspect of his or her personality which is agapic, which is associated with the experience of joy in rational discovery of truth. Truth exists. We may not know truth perfectly, but it is our right choice of goal to correct constantly earlier errors in our knowledge; we should have an exceptionally high degree of pleasure in making such discoveries rationally. "Right," "wrong," and "not quite right," are what is to be known, but knowing how to prove which is true, is much more important. If education successfully accomplishes this, and if it enables a person to stand for what is proven, even against popular opinion, then education has fostered both the development of mental potentialities and also personal character. This is what Dewey consciously sought to destroy. This is what we must put back. 4. The Child's Meaning of Individual Life? Sooner or later, future adulthood dawns, as every child confronts the reality of death. A relative, a friend of the family, some public figure, or someone else dies, and this event prompts the child to ask himself, or his parents: "Will I die, too, Mommy?" As soon as this question comes into our heads, and it usually does at some fairly early age, a corrollary question begins to form in the mind of the child. "What is life all about?" Life begins, it ends. It is an in-betweeness between a moment of conception and of death. "When I die, what will it mean, that I have lived?" Perhaps, the parent's reply is: "You will be with God." Once this notion is established in the child's mind, he feels an impulse to shake his head; there is another question he wishes answered: "What will my life mean to people after I am dead?" Except to be taken up to God after death, what does it mean to live this brief in-betweenness on Earth? Will that child's living through adulthood change something, and accomplish this beneficial result in some way which is of durable value to later generations? Perhaps, Grandfather tells the child, "I helped build that." The alert child's mind searches for information on what grandparents, great uncles, and perhaps their grandparents might have done. The child's quest becomes broader. He has begun to think historically. The child is thus nearing the point of personal development at which study of the Greek classics is in order. Old literature, in a dead language? Not at all. Those Greek writers, Homer, Aeschylos, and Plato, were living men, at the center of their times, What became of what they did? Is there, in more than 2,500 years sweep of europea civilization, some common issue, some common thread, such that, by understanding that, a child might discover what might still be meaningful in his own life's work, two thousand years ahead? If a child could choose a path of self-development, toward contributing something which might be even modestly and most indirectly beneficial, a hundred or more years from now, that child would glow with joy, as he announces his intended profession "when I grow up." If the child is more modest in goals, to each is afforded the chance to rear children, such that they or their grandchildren might do some good thing, or, if lacking children of one's own, to help the development of the children of others. Death is not to be feared, but only the failure to fulfill that special sort of purpose which is the durable purpose of our having lived. Thus, a more profound reflection upon death, leads us to define more sharply, and more effectively, the personal identity which is our life, and to walk that pathway in the joy of knowing that one's life will continue to have been necessary after one's death. From the point that the child learns, that Santa Claus is a cheerful myth, and that death exists, education and personal development pass beyond mere joyful play, and education as self-development begins in deadly seriousness. We who set policies of education, must view this matter so, with that sense of deadly seriousness. Yet, a thinking child will not be long deceived in certain important matters. The child grasps the limitation of his own powers. It is through the means afforded by society, that he may act, and it is that society which will nurture, or will destroy his best endeavor. Education and family are so constrained, seeking to fulfil their purpose. If the child sees good endeavor crushed about him, sensing also the limitation of his own powers, how many children will not be infected with a deep pessimism, not only about the society around them, but also the meaning of their personal lives? In history, there have been exceptional personalities, so strong in both mental development and personal character, that they have fought for the good with an optimistic spirit, even when the entire society was steeped in contrary opinion, and steeped in degraded pessimism. Yet, it is the more general rule, that the young developed in healthy family circumstances, and of good education, are all too easily crushed in spirit, when the overwhelming trends in the society promote deep historical and cultural pessimism. It appears to be the case, that if education is poor in moral quality, and if the trends in society are demoralizing, that individuals of healthy family circumstances will rarely be able to act contrary to the prevailing trends in mood and opinion. How does a good family help to destroy, so often, however unwittingly, the moral and mental potential of a good child? Do parents realize what they are saying to the child, when they say such things as, "Keep your head down. Keep out of trouble. Stick to personal and family affairs. Learn to live with the way things are." What is the child hearing? He is hearing, that if the society around him is moving in a good direction, he will be successful in good enterprises; but, if the society is moving downward morally, he had better learn to slide downward with it. The child with a defective personality, a weak personal identity, will blow with the winds; but, even a child whose character is better developed, if he follows such parental advice, will also drift morally with the crowd. Here comes the moral duty of government. The moral function of government is to adopt, and to lead the nation in those kinds of achievements which uplift the spirits of the citizens, which encourage the child and youth to believe in the feasibility of great changes for the better, and to believe that he or she has the prospect of a meaningful participation in enterprises of such a quality. The nation must situate the family and education in a rational climate of cultural optimism, a sense that the nation exists for the improvement of the human condition, and that each person in that nation has the opportunity to be a part of such achievements. For decades, as an economist, I have understood that the future of scientific and technological progress on Earth is intertwined with mankind's exploration of space. About ten years ago, I decided that a commitment to colonization of Mars, during the first half of the next century, and the earth-forming of some planetary body, such as Saturn's moon, Titan, beginning the second half of the next century, were probably the best way to mobilize needed advances in technology on Earth. In July 1985, I had the occasion to present a general plan for beginning a permanent colonization of Mars during the year 2027 A.D. Less than a year later, the U.S. Space Commission adopted the same goal, for approximately the same date. We are now very close to making the first decisions which will actually launch such a project. In presenting this Mars-colonization project, I have been obliged to make a rather artificial distinction between the moral benefits of the project, and the practical economic ones. Governments and business firms prefer to hear about the economic benefits of an investment, without getting into the moral benefits. One has to state proposals that way, if one wishes to have them adopted. The practical economic benefits are very real ones. I have been careful to estimate the benefits very conservatively, rather than risk overstatement. Yet, although the economic benefits are enormous, I can not really separate the idea of economic and moral benefits in my own mind. God appears to have constructed the laws of the universe such, that the right thing to do, morally, usually turns out to lead to the greatest practical benefits, sooner or later, and such that undertakings of truly great practical benefit, are also the right moral choices. This equivalence of great practical benefits, and moral benefits, stands out most clearly to me, when I think of the impact of the Mars-colonization project on the minds of our children. I like to think of some child from an impoverished family today, who might grow up to make important contributions to this project, and that one or more of whose children might be among the first colonists on Mars. If a great enterprise can reach down to some child, in the worst of those circumstances we associate with despair and ignorance, and inspire that child to participate effectively in such an enterprise, I am certain that government has grasped the essence of a sense of its proper moral purpose. In that way, the Mars-colonization project typifies what government must do to strengthen the work of our institutions of family and education. 5. Economics & Strengthening the Family The most important task of U.S. domestic policy, during the coming ten years, is to restore and strengthen the institution of the family household. If we ensure the optimal development of the personal character and intellectual development of our children, we need not fear what those children will make of the future in their own time. Economic policy has an indispensable part to contribute to this result. It must be policy, to create the circumstances in which every family has the opportunity to enjoy a good level of material existence, by means of the income gained by a single regular wage-earner in that family. This requires a combination of some changes in economic policy, and some strengthening of certain useful, existing policies. First, we must reestablish the economic policy on which our republic was founded: increase of the productive powers of labor, through fostering technological progress, together with increasing quantities of ever-cheaper energy-supplies, and through growing rates of investment per-capita, in plant, equipment, machinery, and basic ecnomic infrastructure. Second, to accomplish that, we must increase substantially the percentile of our total labor-force employed as operatives in the production of modern qualities of physical goods, with much lower percentiles of employment in administration, sales, and low-skilled services than duing the recent twenty years. Although we must cut back on many categories of employment in adininistration, sales, and services, there are several special categories of administration and services in which employment must be increased. These include direct management of production, engineering, physical sciences, education, and health; all of these contribute directly to maintaining and improving productivity. To accomplish that, we must change the credit and taxation policies of government, using credit- and tax-incentives to encourage greater flow of investment into the most desirable categories of investment and employment. I propose that we adopt as a national goal, fifty per cent of the labor-force employed as operatives in the production of modern qualities of physical goods, and a medium-term goal of ten percent of the labor-force employed in research and development. I propose that we adopt the objective of meeting the physical market-basket needs of households with the productive output of twenty percent of our labor-force, and thirty percent employed in production of capital goods of infrastructure and physical production. The first step, is the use of credit and tax-policy changes, to restore production in idled work-places in agriculture and industries, and to make needed infrastructure repairs and improvements in water-management, general transportation, prodution and distribution of energy-supplies, and basic urban-industrial infrastructure. The immediate objectives are: to put unemployed to work, also to shift people from low-paid, labor-intensive services employment, into higher-paid skilled and semi-skilled employment as operatives, and to draw masses of unemployed, and often desperate youth into combined work and training programs in large-scale infrastructure projects. There is no wishful thinking in proposing this. If the President and Congress of the United States make the proper changes in credit and taxation policies, and if the President calls in the managements of key enterprises, and asks them to produce a plan for increasing the employment of operatives by, first, five percent, and then ten percent of the total labor- force, we could soon have production increasing in the major industries, and spilling new volumes of orders into the smaller industries which supply them. We did that sort of thing at the beginning of the last war, and the method would work much better under conditions of peace-time economic mobilization. Some of we older folk remember what this economy can do, if need be. As soon as we can increase the percentile of the labor-force employed as operatives by about five percent, a real and strong economic recovery will be under way. By the time the increase in percentile of employed operatives increases by ten percent, a significant increase in the general level of real household incomes will occur. As we progress from that point, our objective of the single-wage-earner household becomes a realistic one. Provided we adopt the Mars-colonization project, the spin- offs of new technology coming into production and improved product designs will increase productivity by not less than an average rate of between 3% and 5% per year. I list a few examples, so the point is more easily understood. The U.S. used to require a steel capacity of about 130 millions tons a year. We are falling below 90 millions tons now. Of 90 millions tons consumed, about 40 millions tons comes from domestic production of new iron and steel; the rest is either remelted scrap or imported. Generally, the steel capacity we have is obsolete. On this, I propose we do two things. First, shift the emphasis from old types of metals to space-age ceramics, and rebuild our steel-making or equivalent capacity up to about 150 millions tons a year, at least, using proven but uninstalled new and relatively very environentally clean methods, far better and cheaper than any in use anywhere in the world today. We have the basic technology; use it. I propose that we bring together our aerospace and automotive industries, and have them reach a consensus on the use of new, better materials, and on the fostering of a new generation of machine-tool industry, using such modern methods as laser techniques. That action would spill over from these industries, to revolutionize quality of product-design and productivities, throughout the nation's industry. We have worked-out designs for a national fresh-water management system. We have a major water crisis; we are running out of needed clean water for human use and for agriculture in many parts of the nation. Enlarge the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and use that existing system as a way of channelling desperate, unemployed youth into work-training programs, in which they make a valuable contribution, and through which we save many lives which would otherwise be condemned to the scrap-heap of crime and degeneracy. Basically, all this means is, let's get the nation back to work producing for physical needs, improving the quality of products, and producing more and more with less and less effort required to do it. With emphasis on technological progress, and with the kinds of measures I have indicated, we could double the average income of this nation by the end of this century -- and that is a very safe estimate. We have the needs to support a market on the scale; we must match needs with a sufficient number of families earning sufficient income to buy those needs. Cut the excess overhead in unemployment, administration, sales, and low-skilled services, and increase employment in either producing physical goods, or in engineering, science, education, and health. Mobilize the credit, and with the right tax policies, and a few major projects to stimulate technological progress, success is just a matter of a lot of honest work. 6. The Role of Women The rearing of children is the characteristic form of life of adult men and women into their late forties and early fifties, otherwise humanity would not exist. During those adult years, life is usually, normally centered around the care of children, and the development of their character and intellectual potentials. If this were not the case, the quality of the next generation would be more or less defective. There is no possible alternate to the assumption that for nearly all women, twenty or more years of their adult lives will be centered around the responsibility of rearing children, and, to only a lesser degree, men too. If this were ever not to be the case, as tended to be a key feature of the internal decay of Rome, the society in question would be more or less doomed, as a culture which had become functionally unfit to endure. The question of the general roles of men and women, and of the general character of their relationships to one another, must be located within that framework. A minority of adult men and women may not choose to marry, or, even if married, may adopt exceptional kinds of responsibilities which preclude occupation with child-rearing. Such cases are necessarily exceptional ones in a healthy society, and even in these exceptional cases, the roles and relationships must echo the norms of personal development established for adult members of child-rearing households, if for no other reason than that their personalities are molded by a child-rearing society. Any different setting for questions bearing upon the needs and roles of women, would be an absurd one. Although the question of culture is a matter of individual personality and practice, culture is not primarily individual. The existence of a society is a matter of successive generations, so that the question of the rightness or wrongness of any considered choices of cultural values, is a matter of knowing to what result the practice of such values would lead, several generations later. First of all, will those values ensure that a significant population exists, to continue such a culture, several generations from now? For example, it is shown, that a continuation of the present birth-rate in Germany ensures that the last German-speaker might die during the course of the coming century. Obviously, whatever cultural values are causing the low birth-rate, are defective ones. Second, presuming that population continues to exist, what quality of society will it represent? The question of the role and rights of women in society must be stated within the framework of a model child-rearing role. The necessity quality of mothers, and the rights of women as persons, are so situated. The questions are implicitly answered most effectively, by working our way outward from the child-rearing role. The quality of a mother's personal development and life bears chiefly on the relevance of that to the development of the character and intellectual potential of the child. Concretely, we live in a society which depends upon a certain level of technology. For that reason, in the development of the child, there is a premium on rationality, and upon potential for mastering new technologies, If the child lacks those qualities, the child is poorly equipped for adult life. This presupposes that the qualities of the mother are consistent with fostering that kind of development in the child. A women adequately developed to be potentially such a mother, has personal cultural needs which correspond to her development. If she becomes a mother, she requires a certain form of function in society prior to, and after child-rearing. Her personal life during the child-rearing period, must be consistent with the kind of person she must be, and her activities, prior to and after the child-rearing period of her life. Part of this challenge is addressed by labor-saving devices in the home. The time and effort she must direct to the rearing of children is unavoidable, but other elements of housekeeping labor are targets for labor-saving devices. The function of labor-saving devices, is to enable her to sustain a quality of intellectual development life equal to that afforded to the male. Thus, her opportunities for career or equivalent activity, before and after child-rearing years, must be consistent with this. Formally, women today have political equality, barring some unpleasant or outrightly unjust features of the situation in certain forms of employment. The practical problems lie chiefly elsewhere, in places more covered over, or avoided by the feminist organizers, than addressed. The greatest injustice is reflected in the incidence of broken marriages. The recent @ is, is associated with the direct and indirect cultural and moral impact of the so-called "sexual revolution." The institution of marriage is taken less seriously, to the effect that marriage tends often to be more of an existentialist event, than a serious union. Influential meddlers, most more or less directly apostles of the radical "counter-culture," aided by the news and entertainment industry, poison marriages by propagandizing ever-new criteria by which to measure desirability of maintaining the relationship. The more essential fact, is that agapic love, the true basis for a durable union, is lacking. The primary source of the increase of broken marriages, relative to earlier periods, is not the fault of either partner. It is chiefly the impact upon the individuals, of a general cultural pessimism pervading our society. List all of the putative causes for broken marriages today, and during earlier generations. Why the increase in incidence of broken marriages? The increase can not be attributed to the individuals, but rather some change for the worse afoot in the society. There are two factors in society as a whole, which are responsible for the entirety of the increased incidence of broken marriages. First, those cultural values on which durable marriage depends, have been undermined massively, and intentionally by the radical "counter-culture." Second, the society has undergone a deepening cultural pessimism since the 1963-1966 period of transition in policies of government. A society steeped in increasing cultural pessimism, creates an environment incompatible with agape. Those strongly affected by this pessimism, lose the capacity for agape. This loss promotes a loss of a healthy sense of personal identity, and a corresponding loss of the capacity to recognize such a personal identity in others. The persons so affected, become defective personalties, even losing the sense of personal identity and capacity for reason they may have once possessed. Cultural pessimism among defective personalities, is the precondition for successful spread of the influence of the radical counter- culture. There are three factors which offer us the prospect of reversing such trends. First, the justified and growing panic against the rapid spread of the fatal AIDS infection, has begun to turn the population back toward traditional family-centered values. Second, the collapse of the economy hss reached the point that growing numbers of the population are in revolt against Washington, and reaching the stage of acting to change things for the better. Insofar as this angry mood is channelled into constructive changes in policies and practices, this fosters a rebirth of cultural optimism in the population. Third, those actions which promote restoration of the family institution, as those are outlined above, will promote a powerful surge of optimism, and a discarding of those practices which are associated with the 1966-1986 rise of the radical counterculture. As families gain the material means and the cultural optimism to do so, the value of the family as an institution will be restored, and be valued all the more because we came so near to losing it. 30-30-30


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank