2100.org

12 Programs for the 21st century

The ruling classes are not yet worried enough to change their strategy. They are certainly aware that social exclusion and urban insecurity are growing but still believe that they can respond defensively to them. They will not be prevailed upon to implement constructive projects until the law and order option has been exhausted. Our estimation is that the transition to a society of education and major projects will occur between 2010 and 2020.

Already the need for economic revival via a programme of civil, peaceful and generous initiatives is becoming more apparent all the time. Instead of letting a mass of millions of unemployed without hope build up, we need to make work satisfying again and find a way of using everyone's talents in constructing a new and better world for our children. Voices are already being raised to propose audacious schemes comparable to those of the 60's when we dared proclaim "In ten years, we'll have landed on the moon". But technological projects will not be enough. The world needs more humanity.

In proposing these programmes aren't we in contradiction with innovation, which develops out of micro-initiatives, and with the flourishing and estimable school of thought which defends the "small is beautiful" thesis, corroborated by the decentralization scenario which we have described as a consequence of the communications network? After a period in which megalomaniac engineers reckoned only in millions of dollars and constructed "industrial cathedrals in the desert" , two out of three of which no longer work, we then experienced the opposite, the cult of austerity and autonomy as expressed in the pedal wheels of the disciples of Gandhi and the goatskin windmills developed for the Third World by militant European ecologists. There are fashions in technology as in everything else. They are only a testimony to the indecisiveness of our judgement. The idea of technology itself cannot be bound by our prejudices. It concerns the essence of existence itself, which cannot be controlled by humankind.

In my opinion there is no contradiction. The choice is not between small and large. The idea of programmation is fractal and expresses a common attitude whatever the size of the project. The largest deeds come from small groups. This will be even more true in the future as there will be less of a need for mobilizing a vast army of participants. Repetitive and mechanical tasks will be taken over by machinery.

The idea is not to propose programmes taking refuge in technology, with the intention of blotting out and forgetting the real difficulties which people face in their daily lives. Modern means of measurement, forecasting and communication allow the input of schemes to be evaluated and social dialogue to occur where previously one used force, secrecy or surprise to get one's way. The risks of technological frenzy are shown by the ecological damage caused by certain large projects, (Aral sea, Aswan dam). But is this a reason to give up all projects ? Certainly not ! Each period had its own, the pyramids of Antiquity, the cathedrals of the Middle Ages, the palaces of royalty. They express themselves at all levels from the individual to the species as a whole.

Past experience shows that finance is made available on an all or nothing basis. Either money is brusquely refused or on the contrary the floodgates are opened without any restraint so as to provide without delay huge amounts of money for projects which have suddenly become urgent. In the latter case, if the groundwork has not been prepared then politicians are liable to be swayed by illusions and finance poorly planned projects just to give the appearance of doing something.

Now there is a logic to infrastructures which is neither that of the market nor that of prestigious projects, like castles in days gone by. This is the logic of public utility which consists in providing the necessary public services in appropriate conditions of availability at optimum cost to the community. This logic applies at a municipal level for public transport and other local services and at a global level for the protection of whales, lemurs, bears, parrots and other endangered species, for satellite weather forecasts and the standardization of industrial products.

Currently, people of goodwill have a few years before them to prepare programmes for the next century. It is important to start work now as the design of quality infrastructures takes time both in terms of engineering and of negotiations. Computerization allows more rapid progress to be made and more research into variants. Once stored in memory, a project becomes a modifiable virtual universe through which one can wander in images. It becomes presentable to future users prior to actually being built. Discussions can then take place and a common consensus can be found. If we set aside the time, we do have the means to carefully study and discuss our programmes in all their ramifications and to integrate them in a more social and democratic process. The imaginary should precede the real and not follow it. We need to start work now on the infrastructures of the next century, so that they are ready when the ruling class changes strategy. Here then is the outline of 12 programmes in the form that 2100.org intends to study them.