The victory of the Republican party, especially of its right wingers, in the last November election was attributed by many to the angry white male. Allegedly he was angry because despite the economic growth, take-home pay stayed the same or sometimes even receded, whereas living expenses rose. To ease the frustration he needed scapegoats: Past liberal policies, affirmative action, welfare mothers, environmental regulation, etc., etc.

Senator Dole, the champion of regulatory reform, figured out that environmental regulations cost corporate America billions of dollars, and the consumers about $6,000 per household. Certainly this does not mean that if environmental regulations were abolished, every household shall be awarded $6,000; our wealth distribution system is not so equitable. Senator Dole considers the cost of environmental regulations a tax on industries; in fact, it should be viewed as the cost of doing business, no different from the cost of labor, materials and energy. With an expanding economy and growing production, an ever-increasing amount of waste is created. To allow despoilment of natural resources which belong to all of us, presently living and those to be born, just to keep the cost of production low, is foolish. Thus, for the welfare of humanity, pollution prevention is essential. The cost of pollution prevention is factored into the price of products. Consequently the increased prices should act as a damper to limit our consumption.

How long can we grow? The conventional economics, to which our leaders for the most part subscribe, considers growth as a solution to unemployment and low wages. The problem with this theory is that, as the experience of the last decades shows, economic growth does not necessarily translate into more jobs and better pay. Corporations are more interested in their profit than in providing employment; although corporate profits keep growing and the economy expands at 2.5 percent annually, companies are sizing down and laying off workers. If new jobs are created, they are mostly temporary or paying low wages. These shortcomings of our economic system are manmade and perhaps could be remedied.

Much more serious is the essential problem: How long can we grow without undermining our future? The earth has finite dimensions and finite resources. Presently we are reaching the limit of earth's carrying capacity. In ocean's fisheries we have already exceeded the limits of sustainability. In other areas we are approaching the limits. In some regions of the world, including some areas of the United States, water begins to be depleted. Fossil fuels and minerals are still in ample supply, but the most productive sources have been largely exhausted. Now we have to exploit the less productive ones that render increasingly more waste per each unit of the desirable material.

It is this amount of waste that puts limits on our continuous expansion. The industrialized countries comprising 16 percent of world population, consume 50 percent of world energy. The United States and Canada, with 5 percent of the world population, consume 35 percent of all resources, whereas the U.S.A. alone emits 21 percent of world greenhouse gases. Yet we are talking about the need to increase our standard of living, which means more production of consumer goods and more consumption. During the 1992 presidential campaign Ross Perot bemoaned that at the present economic growth it will take at least 100 years for the present generation of Americans to double their standard of living. Such a statement is laughable. If the present trend continues, by 2090 the United States population will reach about 416 millions. How can we expect, with already-dwindling resources, to provide for this amount of people at double the present standard of living? Moreover we have to consider that the developing countries are striving to increase their living standard also and that the total world population will be then between 14 and 15 billion.

Population pressures. Population growth in the United States as well as globally is the main factor that will force our standard of living down. In nature, when a species is subject to a stress, the first thing that goes is reproduction. Humans are exempted from such nature pressures, but are subject to economic pressures, such as a high cost of living, and a high cost of bringing up and educating children.

Since earth's resources are finite, they can support only a certain amount of people. How many, depends on how much we consume. At low numbers of people we may have a high living standard; at high numbers we have to lower the living standard. Of course, the way we carry on in our daily lives is also important. Do we live in a sustainable way, or do we waste the resources?

The alternative to growth. It is the American way that if you cannot maintain your living standard because of decreasing income, borrow the money. Hang onto your living standard no matter what, even if it means mortgaging the future of generations to come.

Since the perpetual growth cannot be sustained, what is the alternative? We may not like to hear it, but the alternative is to lower our expectations and to curtail our standard of living. Less consumption, smaller cars, smaller houses, more apartment living, more use of public transportation, in short, less emphasis on the acquisition of material goods. Instead, let us concentrate our efforts on improving the quality of life: Public safety, good and universal health care, good education, good public transportation, clean air and water, wholesome recreation, and aesthetic surroundings.

Of course, there are many among us whose living standard is so low that they have nothing to give up. On the other hand, some with a very high living standard still try to increase it. Thus, a more equitable distribution of wealth is the precondition to sustainable future.

I understand that finding a solution to all social, economic and environmental problems of the nation and the world won't be easy. However, I wish to point out that we operate under an economic system, based on continuous growth, that goes back to Adam Smith, i.e., to the 18th century, when earth's population was about one billion, when most of the earth was covered with forests, when the industrial revolution was barely emerging, when the rivers and lakes were pristine and the air was clear. With the enormous demographic and technological changes that occurred ever since, perhaps it is time that we rethink the whole idea of perpetual growth and try to develop new systems that would assure a sustainable future for all humanity.