The Ecologist

an environmental monthly published in England, consistently runs lucid, well-reasoned observations on the "fine mess" we've all gotten ourselves into. We'd like to introduce you to the magazine with the following editorial that appeared in the August 1971 issue . . . it's one of the most concise, level-headed overviews of England's (and our) ecological problems we've seen.

We can no longer recall the U.S. subscription rate for THE ECOLOGIST, but $5.00 should get you close to a year from 73 Kew Green, Richmond, Surry, England.

The vessel without a pilot.
It is sheer illusion to suppose that our Government is controlling this society.

Yet unless it is controlled, it cannot remain stable, which is the same as saying that it cannot survive.

Control is the process of keeping a system on its right course. This implies that it has a right course. The fact that it has is one of the most important and least recognised scientific principles. All systems including social ones are goal-directed and their goal being spatiotemporal is in fact a course or trajectory—a "creode" as Professor Waddington calls it. This course leads towards continued or in some cases increased stability which is to say that it is the one most favouring survival.

Unfortunately, control mechanisms can occasionally break down, and this is what has happened to our society, which is increasingly out of control, and which can be likened to a vessel without a pilot whose aimless course is determined by the random play of winds and currents.

Absence of control is evident in everything our Government does.

Thus, we know that vast cities are undesirable. The example of America is only too eloquent. Yet do we try to prevent further urbanisation? No, we simply set up bodies like the Centre of Environmental Studies to devise means of overcoming the countless social and ecological problems that arise as society becomes increasingly urbanised.

We know that this country is grossly over-populated, but do we try to work out and implement ways of reducing the population? No, instead we lodge people in housing developments which we know to be socially undesirable, and feed them on mass produced food containing an ever-increasing number of potentially dangerous chemical additives.