Friday, August 29, 2014

The Horseman: A 1976 exploration of global crises and solutions




Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1887

Presented to the Club by Robert M. Henderson in 1976



On this final evening of a very enjoyable year of camaraderie and discussions you might wonder what "The Horseman" has to offer to such an illustrious group. Particularly so in this bicentennial year of our nation's history. I'll start by thanking our host, Bill Selke, for a delightful dinner and the opportunity to share with him his lovely home.



Then, let me ramble just a bit and state some seemingly unrelated bits of information, mostly of my early life, as they all do have some bearing on the main point of this evening's presentation.



As a young boy and for many years thereafter, horses were my first love. My only goal as a youngster was to have my own horse to train and to ride. In due course, this came about, and I thoroughly enjoyed riding, pack trailing, and training horses. Even today it is a pleasurable experience for me to ride a good horse. During high school and college days, I broke several horses to ride — and in my senior year in college, I rode in the first intercollegiate rodeo. This sport has now developed into a rather large affair, and some 57 schools have organized rodeo teams today. (Editor's note: As of 2014, there are more than 135 colleges who are members of NIRA, the National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association). My participation was in the less strenuous roping events and my success was absolutely zero. Nonetheless, I did consider myself quite a horseman and a judge of good horses.



Sometime when I was in the lower grades of Sunday School, the lesson was on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. A picture of the same title still lives etched in my memory. Four beautiful steeds charging dynamically forward  — beautiful animals, but what riders! Conquest, War, Pestilence, and Famine. At that young age, I could only think these were a thing of the past, had not my father and his buddies just won the "War to End All Wars." The family doctor knew how to cure everything from colds and broken legs to pestilence, if there ever was such a thing. And while we had poor families in the area, no one I knew ever came even close to starving. However, my Sunday School teacher did bring me into a little more realistic viewpoint by pointing out that throughout history there had been and still was war and famine and pestilence. No matter, thought I, with wars now a thing of the past, we can soon conquer famine and pestilence. Ah, youth!



A third event that had some major bearing on my philosophical outlook on life was a college debate in which I took the affirmative side of "Resolved: There should be a world government." I was not, and am not, an expert debater — and I cite the almost zero success I have in arguing with my good wife as evidence — but I did not find myself getting more involved with the idea of a world government. I concluded that a world government or reasonable facsimile thereof is an absolute necessity to securing the future of mankind.



More recently, about ten years ago, I headed up the marketing effort for Jones Division, Beloit Corporation [a maker of paper manufacturing equipment], and was looking for ways to build our business. We had, for a number of years, toyed with food processing machinery. However, we had never really looked at the overall global picture and I set about to do so. It was pretty simple arithmetic to view the then 3.5 billion world population and the so-called balanced diet of protein, fat, carbohydrate, minerals and vitamins, relate these to the world's ability to produce and distribute and require foodstuff and reach the conclusion that we were facing continued and large problems.



The short-range picture, of course, indicated the most critical shortage was in the supply of protein, and we spent considerable time analyzing potential protein sources. How to utilize these sources and how to distribute the protein. But enough for the short-range picture. What about the long-range viewpoint? Again it did not take any mathematical genius to extrapolate the data to a 10 or 20-year time range. The amount of tillable land is reaching a known limit, the effect of fertilizer and improved seed varieties are quite predictable and with fairly predictable birth rate and mortality rate figures, the global long range food pictured looked anything but good.



Simultaneously, many other factors become involved; some were easily defined, other factors were almost impossible to imagine, let alone define. Such factors as the availability of energy, water and raw material, together with the use rate of each, all have an interrelationship to our ability to produce food. Then add governmental, social, environmental, economic, religious and cultural factors and the total food problem becomes tremendously complex.



Needless to say, I,  as an individual, simply ran out of mental capacity to comprehend the magnitude of the problem — like the pilot experiment so notably illustrated in Scientific American a number of years ago. The experiment used a candid camera arrangement and the pilot was supposed to monitor an increasingly large number of dials, gages and indicating devices. After a certain number of instruments, he finally, mentally — and physically, too, simply closed his eyes as recorded by the hidden camera.



In any event, confused as I was, yet no less concerned, I felt that with all our intellectual, creative capability, somehow some meaningful directions and guidelines for the future could be formulated.



In 1968 I noted with interest the discussions of the Club of Rome as they started to focus on the future of Planet Earth. "Aha!" I thought!  This is just what the world needs. A group of highly intelligent people with a wide range of experience and education, from a variety of nations, and with essentially unlimited financial resources. Certainly, this is just the kind of group that we need. Intellect, internationality, money — how could they fail?



Those of you who read the Club's first report issued in 1972 entitled The Limits to Growth undoubtedly shared my disappointment. In my opinion, with the exception of again highlighting the urgency of the total global crisis, with which urgency I readily concur, The Limits to Growth was pretty much another doomsday report.



In the meantime, in my limited ability to quantify the various catastrophes that could happen or are happening, it appeared to me that the food and/or population explosion crisis was by far the most critical of all the factors facing us today. I do not mean to minimize any of the others — energy, environment, health, safety, the ever-present threat of a major war —all are crises in themselves and all are inter-related not only with each other but also through social, economic, cultural and governmental strata.



My analysis of such noble efforts as our church's One Great Hour of Sharing, the Harvest of Hope, together with the total foreign aid budgets and the many other gallant efforts in this crisis is that they have three things in common:


  1. They all help.

  2. They are excellent means of increasing individual awareness of the problems.

  3. In total the efforts are small in comparison with the magnitude of the problem. In essence, in spite of these noble and gallant efforts, we continue to lose ground in the long-range picture. Something has to happen to change the situation. Either we take large positive steps toward a solution or a catastrophic solution of self-generating nature will occur.



So my search over the years had still been in vain. But, I did run into a few new angles that had some interesting aspects. For example, a global study of breast feeding versus bottle feeding indicated that bottle feeding was gaining both in the developed countries and the under-developed countries. One of the few areas where breast feeding is gaining is among the well-to-do, college educated, American mothers. This information would be only of passing interest except the magnitude of the matter is such that world-wide, over $1 billion per year of high-class protein is already being lost by bottle feeding. In addition to the economic loss of valuable protein — and the billion dollar figure is only the milk value alone, not including bottles and nipples — two other measurable side effects occur.



  1. Bottle-fed baby mortality rate is measurably higher than the breast fed rate.

  2. The mothers of bottle-fed babies return to the ovulation cycle 2 1/2 to 25 months sooner than the mothers of breast-fed babies, thereby further contributing to the population explosion.



So my search for meaningful long-range solutions continued. Numerous articles and a number of books failed to yield the clues needed. However, when searching these past few weeks for additional data for this presentation, I came across a concept that comes closer, for me, than any other to a positive approach to our long-range global problems.  The concept and ideas are outlined in the book Mankind at the Turning Point, published in 1974. The book covers the "second report of the Club of Rome." Possibly the reason I had not read it previously was because of the great disappointment I had in their first report.






Mankind at the Turning Point presented to me new, exciting, innovative concepts. Positive concepts that can be implemented within our life times to solve our long-range problems. Time tonight does not permit any more than a brief outline of the report, but I urge each of you to read it.



Why do these particular concepts intrigue me? There are a number of reasons:


  1. As I mentioned previously, I was intrigued with the Club of Rome. Intellectuals from many fields, many nations, well-financed and essentially no government restrictions.

  2. The approach taken by the Club was global.

  3. The time span studied was 50 years, not the usual five to ten years.

  4. Sophisticated computer technology and equipment was utilized. Sophisticated to the degree that judgment factors could be added at any point and further, that time factors could be simulated so that a multitude of "what-if" scenarios could be programmed and evaluated.

  5. The interrelation of the various problems could be programmed to the study was not limited to just the food crisis or the population crisis or any single problem, but the total global problems.



Their goals were to seek positive approaches to solutions of the problems. To me, these were the basic ingredients required for resolution of a highly complex problem. Let me briefly outline the computer programming techniques used as the degree of complexity is significant.





They divided the world into ten regions with similar cultural, environmental, economic and technological conditions. They next factored into each region six stratums starting with the individual — his inner world, his psychological and biological make-up.





Next the group stratum, representing the system of institutional and societal responses and on throught the economic, technological, ecological and geophysical stratums.





When all these factors and their interrelationships to such things as diet requirements, land availability, land production capability, water requirements, energy demands, etc., etc., are programmed the need for highly sophisticated computer techniques and equipment is obvious.





A basic five-point thesis was established for this effort consisting of the following:



  1. The world can be viewed only in reference to the prevailing differences in culture, tradition, and economic development, as a system of interacting regions: a homogenous view of such a system is misleading.

  2. Rather than collapse of the world system as such, catastrophes or collapses on a regional level could occur, although in different regions, for different reasons, and a different times. Since the world is a system, such catastrophes will be felt profoundly throughout the entire world

  3. The solution to such catastrophes in the world system is possible only in the global context and by appropriate global actions. If the framework for such join action is not developed, none of th regions would be able to avoid the consequences. For each region, its turn would come in due time.

  4. Such a global solution could be implemented only through balanced, differentiated growth which is analogous to organic growth rather than undifferentiated growth. It is irrefutable that the second type of growth is cancerous and would ultimately by fatal.

  5. The delays in devising such global strategies are not only detrimental or costly, but deadly. It is in this sense that we truly need a strategy for survival. 



The thesis sounded logical and workable to me. So, the program was developed, and thousands of scenarios have been fed to the computer, and what are the readouts?






Basically, a viable plan is presented to resolve our long-range problems. Again, time does not permit anything other than a brief resume of a very complex and sophisticated action program. And again I would recommend reading the report as it, more clearly than I can, outlines the solutions. But for tonight, here are the optimum read-outs for the food and energy crises. 





A feasible solution to the world food crisis requires five things:



  1. A global approach to the problem

  2. Massive investment aid rather than commodity aid, except for food

  3. A balanced economic development for all regions

  4. An effective population policy

  5. World-wide diversification of industry leading to a truly global economic system



Only a proper combination of these measures will lead to a solution. Omission of any one will surely lead to disaster.






In regard to the energy crisis, the computer read-out shows the way to maximize the wealth of not only the OPEC countries but also the developed countries is to increase the price of oil approximately three percent per year until a price increase of 50 percent over today's price is reached. From then on, oil prices should level off. In the intervening years, new energy sources — nuclear, goal gasification, geothermal and solar — must be developed to fill the gap between demand and supply. And it appears that solar should have the most emphasis. 





The foregoing results in both the food and the energy crises are achievable only through global cooperation and any war or major conflict would seriously interfere with the attainment of the goals. 





What does all this mean to the Monday Evening Club? Frankly, many things. First, if the premises present are of interest but subject to debate, let us do so, but do it in the spirit that has prevailed in the past toward seeking a better world.





Second, let us do so soon, as delays will cause great losses monetarily and in human lives.





Third, if the premises presented do, after suitable discussion and debate, prove viable, let us start to do our part toward implementing them.





We can start by self-education followed by educating our children, contemporaries and the rest of the world.





We can work toward global cooperation, and let's be realistic, such cooperation is going to require the sacrifice of some of our so-called freedoms and rights.





We can, once headway is made toward global cooperation, urge for major reductions in the armaments race.





We can urge now for increased foreign investment aid and can increase our gifts of food to the underdeveloped countries.





We can practice all kinds of conservation — food: eat less, and particularly less beef; energy: reduce pleasure driving, less hot water, lower room temperatures, etc.





And there are many more things we can do, but let us each earnestly seek them out and implement them accordingly. We can indeed conquer the four horsemen of the apocalypse. 





In closing, I would like to read one short paragraph from the report:


The analysis of the report, as stated, extend over a period of fifty years. If, during this coming half century, a viable world systems emerges, an organic growth pattern will have been established for mankind to follow thereafter. If a viable system does not emerge, projections thereafter will be academic.


Winston Churchill stated in his farewell speech to the House of Commons that "man is facing the ominous choice between supreme disaster or immeasurable reward." (Editor's note: Although other sources attribute similar words to Churchill, his farewell speech contains no such language, not does any other speech or work by Churchill.)





Gentlemen, the choice is ours to make.







Read More

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Lunacy: Norman Rockwell's views and questions about the space program





"Grissom and Young" by Norman Rockwell, 1965. Oil on canvas.

Norman Rockwell was a member of the Monday Evening Club from 1961 until his death in 1978. This paper is transcribed from a typescript with handwritten marginal notes in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass. The title "Lunacy" is written on the envelope in which the paper was originally stored, along with the notation, "Monday Evening Discussion Group paper delivered Monday, March 24, 1969." This dates the paper about four months before the first landing on the moon, which was on July 20, 1969.


The original typescript may be viewed here at the Norman Rockwell Museum's digitized archives. Also in the collection of the museum is a manuscript, in outline form, of Rockwell's notes that evolved into this paper.



The Club is grateful for the assistance of Corry Kanzenburg and Jessika Drmacich of the collections staff at the museum for providing access to the manuscript of this and other papers Rockwell presented to the Club, to the museum's director, Laurie Norton Moffatt, for alerting us to their existence (via a Facebook comment!) and to the Norman Rockwell Licensing Company for permission to publish the papers. Licensed by Norman Rockwell Licensing, Niles, IL.



According to an account of Rockwell's involvement with the space program by Anne Collins Goodyear ("On the Threshold of Space: Norman Rockwell's Longest Step"), "Rockwell's desire to represent accurately the new Gemini G3C suit led to an unprecedented con­cession from the space agency: in response to his repeated requests, NASA permitted the top-secret suit to be brought to Rockwell's Stockbridge, Massachusetts, studio under the protection of [Joe W.] Schmitt, the elder of the two suit technicians portrayed in the painting."*



The Club's late secretary, Rabbi Harold Salzmann, recalled that in late 1964 or early 1965, at another meeting a few years before the delivery of "Lunacy," Rockwell also spoke about the space program. This meeting took place at Salzmann's house, and Rockwell had arranged for Salzmann's son Josh to enter the gathering at some point during the reading, fully attired in an actual NASA space suit — presumably the one lent to him for the Grissom and Young painting. Rockwell sometimes brought his own paintings to Club meetings, as well, and may also have brought the Grissom-Young painting along with the space suit to that meeting.



The NASA technician, Schmidt, was no doubt diligent in his duty, but would not have been able to watch the suit 24 hours a day. So perhaps, after they locked up the studio at the end of a work day and Schmidt went to his lodgings, Rockwell snuck back into the studio and hauled the space suit up to the Club meeting at the Salzmann home.



The Salzmann family recalls that while Josh was supposed to wear the suit, it turnout out be be too big for him, so his sister Ariel, about 11 years old at the time, modeled it for the Club. It's quite likely this made her the first child ever wear a NASA space suit. 



*Published in 2001: Architecture and Design for Space, Vision and Reality, exhibition catalog, 102-7, Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2001: New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001.





Topic is space program. [sic]



My wife Molly, after hearing my fumbling start on this paper, suggested the title, "Lunacy."  I thought that was fine but went to the dictionary to look up the definition of the word.  Webster says it is “The condition of being a lunatic, or intermittent insanity as formerly attributed to the changes of the moon”. This was perfect but should I add a question mark to it [?]



I am sure you all know the debatable question I am bringing up — is the space program a lunatic idea now, when we in America are confronted with the problems of poverty, racial unrest, national security and the Vietnam War?



I am not at all sure of the answer and look forward to the ideas and comments of you men.



I hope you will pardon my telling you of some of my experiences of, and reaction to, visits to Cape Kennedy and Houston.



Well, here goes.



[marginal note: Show Grissom and Young Print]  Back in 1964 Look Magazine (God bless them) asked me to go to Cape Kennedy to paint Grissom and Young as they prepared for their space flight.



Let me interpolate here, that all pictures about space exploration are very difficult because they, of necessity, have to have a most inartistic but terrific amount of technical machinery that has to be painted in accurate painstaking detail.  No artistically inspired glorious generalities!  Maybe some later day, some greater artist than I, will be able to transcend these artistic difficulties.  To me, scientific detail diminishes artistic results.



Then again in 1966 Look sent me to Houston to paint a prophetic picture of the hoped for landing on the moon.  Believe me, it was a real challenge.  Look sent along with Molly and me, and my photographer, their science editor and Pierre Mion, the science artist.






Man on the Moon (United States

 Space Ship on the Moon),

1967, oil on canvas

[marginal note: Show Prints of Prophetic Moon Landing] When we arrived we had a number of talks with the space scientists who spoke a language I did not know.  They even went so far as to attempt to get through my thick skull the effect of the sun lighting the earth when seen from the moon’s surface.



They finally strung up an apple as the moon and a small balloon as the earth in the correct positions and used a lighted electric bulb to impersonate the sun.  Still I cannot understand what they call lunar light performance, but I painted it as they told me.  Look received a lot of letters from self-styled experts that my version is wrong, but the science editor says they were all wrong and the scientists were right.



Well!!! I only paint what I’m told.



In Houston NASA had constructed a large simulated surface of the moon with a life size landing module.



[marginal note: Show Modul Model][sic]



We went out  there and photographed the module on the moon surface and they sent along a technical worker who wore the astronaut’s space suit as they then believed it would be.  Of course the outfit is greatly changed but essentially it has the same basic elements.  That is a complete system of scientific apparatus that will create livable atmosphere within the suit, excluding all foreign penetration from without.



Even so, they told me the two astronauts who will land on the moon surface will be isolated completely from everything and everyone when they return to earth until the doctors and scientists can be positive the astronauts will bring no contamination from the moon.  This isolation will last 2 months.



This seems awfully cruel but necessary.



I can hardly believe it, but my moon landing picture of 1966 is in the broader sense quite accurate as it will appear in the 1969 July Project, except there is one great unpaintable change.



The surface of the landing module will be completely covered with a strange material that will make its details almost unrecognizable.  It will look like an object covered with strange Christmas-like tinsel which will protect it from the intense heat and cold on the moon.



About two months ago Look told me they wanted me to paint yet another series of pictures to celebrate this proposed actual landing on the moon.



They told me they would give these pictures more pages and more color than the other space exploration subjects.



After all, they said, this is the culmination of all the effort and expense so far.  The great event!!!!



What should I paint? I had no definite idea when we arrived at the Cape Kennedy Space Center.  I say “we”, because we were now a team of five:



Will Hopkins, new art editor of Look.

Pierre Mion, a very fine science artist from National Geographic Magazine.

Brad Herzog, my friend and fine photographer.

And Molly, who is a darn good photographer herself and brings back a lot of color shots that are a wonderful help.



We were met by Gatha Cottee, the Cape Kennedy public relations man who had guided us before, on the Grissom-Young project.



[marginal note: Show pictures Saturn Building] Cape Kennedy was now even more impressive.  The most striking new development was the massive, and I do mean massive, vehicle assembly building.  It is the largest building in the world and taller than any other building in the world not on an island.



The main door would allow passage of 1 ½ U. N. buildings.



The high bay of the building has vertical cells for preparation of four great Saturn rockets at a time.



Each operation in the building includes the combined rocket and missile: a three-hundred-and-eighty-foot all red steel tower also called the umbilical tower with seventeen platforms, nine swing arms and a crane on top! And a four-hundred-and-two foot steel service structure with bays that swing around and enfold the missile so that workers can reach it at any level. This thrust service structure, itself, weighs nine million eight hundred thousand pounds and has three hundred and sixty degree access.



[marginal note: show pictures Door + Tower] When the complex is ready, a mammoth mobile transporter carries it out the giant door and over a specially built road bed at the rate of a mile an hour, being always kept absolutely vertical even when going up the slight hill to the pad from which the rocket is to be launched.



[show picture: This shows the rocket in place with the umbilical tower]



After receiving all this information and listening to endless statistics, talking to workers, scientists and astronauts, I decided to try to paint a picture that would somehow express the complexity and the terrific effort, intellectual, physical and financial, involved in this great historic event of human history.



[TYPED NOTE:

SHOW PICTURES.

TALK.]



The Look editor agreed. I am sorry to say I am laboring but I am bringing forth a mouse.  This is a job for Michelangelo.



[final pictures]



Now we come back to my original question.  Is all this lunacy or is it not?



Here are some facts to take into consideration.



The total program is run by a government-industry team.



The man-power involved in the total space program is three hundred thousand men.



I do not know the total cost in money but the following figures will give you some idea.



At Cape Kennedy alone the total budget for the fiscal year of 1969 is four hundred and eighty-five million dollars.



The expense of the development and completion of the landing module alone is about two billion dollars, and please remember that all parts of all the landing modules will be jettisoned in space..



Those are some of the facts and these some of the questions I hope you will discuss.



First, why do we do it?

Is it to keep up with Russia, or to find new worlds?

Is it because of humanity’s instinct to aspire?



Second, would it be better to put all this thought, energy and money into improving conditions here on earth?



[handwritten: large question mark and:]



What happens if we lose moon [illeg] kids and Public Relations

Astros all to Mars

Tax payer

Right or wrong what subject





Read More