Then, "How did you come to know what you know?" Well, I was given a lot of equipment, for instance, a brain, to store the information and pull it back

Going on with our questions, the first one this afternoon, "We are all aware of the documents documenting Phase One of the Design Revolution, what is Phase Two?" I think we call that the Design Decade, rather than the Design Revolution, those documents. I do talk about a Design Revolution versus a bloody revolution, but I don't think there are any documents of Design Revolution. Those documents are Phase One, there were five phases of the Design Decade, and the first one was the statement of the problem that is how to get people to realize the problem existed, and then it did go into the resources. I think that was all spelled out, there were five 2-year phases, and they were all literally spelled out. The design decade came about when the world, there is an International Union of Architects, they have congresses every three years, and now this spread into five years apart because the expenses are high, and they are holding in countries all around the world, both sides the Communist and then the Western world, and at the London meeting in 19 I think it was around '56, it was about that time that they asked me to speak, and I made a proposal of this design decade because they had an annual everytime they had a congress a problem had been given out to students at architectural schools around the world, and winners in various countries of the competition could would be sent to the International Union of Architects Congress, so there was a student exhibition of the competitions. And the this was done really on the old Bozar (?) basis, of competition, and I proposed that instead of competing one with the other, they were to do a cooperative study on how we might be solving world problems by design and developing the right artifacts and so forth, and so this was published by ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN MAGAZINE and then it got somebody put up the money for them to put it in all the different languages, and they sent it to all the different architectural societies that were members around the world. For instance the American Institute of Architecture is a member of the International Union of Architects. They take the different countries, and it is the only society I know that actually involves all the ideologies around the world, really quite completely the Chinese, Japan, and very thoroughly and so forth. The different countries around the world, then, responded regarding the proposition of putting this Design Decade which I proposed. That there would be cooperation for ten of the five-different International Union meetings, and I was amazed that the response from China and Russia were very favorable. I think the Russians were rather slow. The Chinese came in quite quickly in approving it. Russia thought it might be some kind of a Western world trick, and they began looking into it, and then they approved. The United States was the slowest to come in, but they finally did, and so it became, really, actually, a world round project, and then we were given it had great interference after Paris, we had Paris and then Prague. The Paris exhibition we were given a very large section of the Tuilleries Gardens for the Exhibit of the students very well done.

And then, as a consequence of the Congress taking me on, the next one after France was to be in Mexico to be in Cuba, and the, I received a letter from the Cuban architects saying that, as I knew, that my proposition had been taken on, and they were going to feature the student side of things at the Cuba Congress, and I was to be their guest of honor there in Cuba. So I, at that time, this was fairly early in the Kennedy Administration, and George Bundy who had been at Harvard the Dean at Harvard, and he had been Head of the Charles Elliot Norton Committee and he was the one who notified me that I had been chosen to be Charles Elliot Norton Professor at Harvard. I went to George Bundy, because of his being on the whatever Security Council, and said I was going to have to have official permission to go to Cuba, which I couldn't do on my passport. And he said, you can't do it, we can't let you do it. And would I not try, there were a number of American, the Central American, and so forth, and their American alliance business who would not be able to go to Cuba, and so they were going to have a hold-over meeting in Mexico. I said that I had a world initiative, and although that is really a credit to our economy, that I did, and I ought to be allowed to go, and I thought it was going to make a great deal of trouble if I didn't. He said they just couldn't let me go because the this was the Democrats, because the Republicans were always claiming that the Democrats are Communist and we can't make any move like this that would in any way be friendly acquiesce on Communism and so, I talked to Dean Acheson who had been the Secretary of State previously, and he was in the State Department. He said, the only thing you can do is to go to the Republicans, and if they because this being apparently, Cuba was some kind of a battleground between the two of them, so I did go to Henry Luce and others that I knew well, and they came back and said that they couldn't possibly do it because the Republicans were going to make Cuba an issue in the next Presidential campaign, and if they approved my going they would lose all their momentum. Nobody would let me go. I have had, I had also been invited to China for something else, and I was not allowed to go there to help on structures, by the Chinese Government through Canada. I never do do things, I use on what I call "front doors" I don't try to do any "back doors", I don't try to be subversive, I just really try to get things to work, and this didn't work, and when I did go to the hold over meeting in Mexico City, and Sir Robert Matthew of England was the President of the International Union of Architects at that time, and my wife Anne and I were sitting there in this big hall in Mexico City when they opened there, and Sir Robert Matthews said that he reported to the Congress on the success of the Cuban meeting, but he said there was one very important flaw, and that was that I was not there, and that the South American students the South American and Central American students had come there really in very great numbers because the Cubans were featuring it as a students phase emphasis for the World Congress, and they found that I wasn't there, so they said that this proved that the United States Citizen was not a free citizen at all, that this really proved that this kind of democracy didn't work. They turned it into an enormous hassle the whole Congress about this. And, I think they made a very, very great mistake not letting me go.

At any rate, this did upset the Design Decade quite a lot and so I lost, I really really couldn't carry on the way I wanted to before. I've had this initiative and I was doing everything in my own office, doing everything at my own expense, no money given to me by anybody. I took care of my own publication. John McHale did a lot of the writing for me, and he did a very good job.

Now, I think that's about all I can tell you about that. If you do look at the Decade documents you will see that I did have it in 5 phases and they are, in effect, that is all over, but it really did peter out I'm sorry to say. It started very, very strong.

Jeffrey Hoare. "It has been stated that the Universe can be completely described in terms of energy, associative and disassociative, and information. It would seem that synergetic geometry provides a means to do this all with angle and or frequency. Has there been an effort to explain all known generalized principles in terms of this form of mathematics? Also, do you feel that it has enabled you to discover any new generalized principles, or restate known generalized principles in this significantly different way?" I hope you will read my book SYNERGETICS, and I do find I've been amazed how much philosophy it has generated. I've been really quite astonished at how many times I've been able to understand social phenomena that I haven't understood before seems to be explained by the principles that are disclosed. That there have been a number really of mathematical discoveries that I am sure they go well over a hundred that are in there, and there is really no way to get them except to read that book. I think that is about the only I say really do read the book, and I hope you will, you sound as if you would be interested in it probably.

Let me see, this is from Timmy Timothy. "You have frequently spoken about the rate of industrialization taking place in the world. Wouldn't a fully industrialized world result in a crisis of over-production capacity and waste?" I talked a great deal about disassociating the word "industry" from money making. And I don't think this does, Timmy, as you talk about industry here. I talk about industrialization, remember I defined tools. I spoke about the many creatures producing extra-corporeal artifacts as part of the species, the birds having a nest, so that, and I said, when the energies given off by systems entropically are also part of apparently a species they perform a species function. And the species could not persist without the alterations of the environment, the discrete alterations of the environment that are associated with that particular species, then I called the a discrete modification of the environment into this complementation of a species life, I called it a tool. So I said the humans were not the only tool makers, but then I divided all tools of humans into two main classes, the craft tools, all the tools that could be made by one man starting nakedly in the world just out of his own discoveries, and then all the tools that could not be produced by one man, and I called the industrial tools the ones that could not be produced by one man. I said the first industrial tool then was the spoken word which could not be produced by one man, and this up to this time you have then one man in his own experience in his own lifetime, which is a very limited affair and I saw all he has to make his tools. But the minute we have the spoken word we began to integrate experiences, and this man could tell another he could tell his son, or he could tell another person and very rapidly the knowledge increased about other resources elsewhere and other ways of employing principles, and then with the written word a sort of comprehensive memory of all men began to be building into the production of the tools.

Then I pointed out, then, that the I gave you Synergy itself, or behavior of wholes unpredicted by behavior of parts. There are then the great complementations one of the other, and so coordinated intercomplementation can produce more effectively for the whole than all the people working separately for themselves. That one is quite easy to prove. So I call, this is all industrialization, and it is something absolutely separate from the idea of making money out of tools the risks where they just run the tools eight hours simply because they don't want to pay overtime, when the tools could produce for man 24 hours or whatever it is. This is not "industrialization" but is "money making." And it is money making because the money makers were assuming there was nowhere enough to go around therefore they go hard at it to really protect their position, and they hoard it and, I cannot get any good information about industrialization if I look at it in terms of the example of the people who have exploited it to make money. So that I must be sure to disassociate there.

Very frequently I have spoken about the rate of industrialization taking place in the world I have shown that as the advantages accrue, that, and the life expectancy increases, then the numbers of the baby-making go right down. And that this is absolutely incontrovertible. We have many of those curves, you have seen there at the office, that has been well plotted. So that I see that the population explosion which has been talked about is not going to ever get to the kind of figures that we have been hearing about, I am quite confident it will stabilize somewhere around, or under 5 billion people, and nothing like these kinds of pictures doubling and doubling on and on and keep on, all the nonsense like this. There would only be over-production if stupidity were operating. That is, if you were really using the tools competently to make humanity a success. That is our way to carry on to try to make some sense. First place, I've already introduced many thoughts for you on how we would cut down on the energies used very, very powerfully if I really just used principles I know about and go for savings of energy in structures and operations, propulsions everywhere, then I would say that we would be cutting down very much because we would be continually doing more with less. So you get to suddenly communicating across the ocean with a few hundred pounds of material. So I say, I don't see any reason for ever having over production outside of a certain amount of safety factor, allowing for storms and things this should always be in there. But I do not see any hazard. Somebody might be able to confront me with some figures, but I have looked at so many so much figures, I am so used to the pattern that it does not look that way to me Timmy, in any way that there would be any such risk if we just talk about using the industrial tools for humanity. That is exactly what Russia realized and Karl Marx saw, that we were probably going to have to use industrial tools. And China saw it the only possible way of getting out of the anarchy and exploitation of the human beings by the great military war lord utter anarchism that existed in China. And they said, there is just absolutely no way, except industrialization, and there is no way except Communism to really hold almost a billion people together to go through all the long deprivations of the five year plans in doing first things first and not greed. You've got to have certain amounts of people that are going to be able to work, but it was a very tough thing to undertake, and to hold a billion people together so that they can't be subverted by people from outside is an incredible matter. At any rate, the industrialization, or using the right tools wherever possible was of the essence. They went right after the water power in a very, very big way. And they went right after energy. They used the same five year planning that the Russians did, and so I I do not feel apprehensive about the industrialization in this way if it is used for humanity, and not for how to exploit. I do not assume an exhaustion of the world's fossil fuels. I am quite certain we are going to turn around before we get to, in other words I think we will be doing it very, very shortly but I think you have read the piece that I gave you last night, yet Timmy? Oh, I wish you would because I do talk about what I think seeing happening really quite rapidly in there. And I expect this turn around to be able to shut off nowhere near the end of the fossil fuels. That they really will be comprehensively comprehended by humanity, that this is the savings account of nature for an entirely different purpose. We are supposed to be living on our energy income.

Now, I think when you get to you bring about questions give questions about the income, I'm confident that we can operate at a very high standard of living with very much less energy, and just the kind of life we have on Bear Island is typical of how you really can simplify and come down to very small, very small energy in addition to what we have we have been able to get on Bear Island with nothing more than the wood and the wood grows very much faster than we really want, we get, the woods are swallowing us up you can't really cut it fast enough, and that will take care of all of the energy and that is energy income. And,

"Income energy sources must first be concentrated and stored in order to be of use in industrial society. This added energy " No, I don't think so because I say whether we are going in the grasses and so forth, yes we may process it, concentrate it, make the alcohols out of the grasses, but I think that there are small storages and whether I am doing something just by handling in the great systems of the earth, no I don't see any trouble there Timmy. The structural energies that are implicit in our planet are incredible because you do have to realize that the real magnitude of energy where the, I'm confident of this figure, this Navy figure that one minute of one hurricane releasing more energy than the joint stock piles of atomic bombs of Russia and the United States one minute of one hurricane. These magnitudes of energies being employed by Nature are incredibly high, and I do not I do not, because Nature is always moving things around her own way, I do not think that a dam holding water takes very much energy to make compared to the amount of energy it can conserve for you and make available. As a dam or anything else. We have done things in unusually expensive ways many times because of then again the industrial thing, enormous amounts of government money, fantastic waste in doing these jobs, but now we find we can make a very good dam just with the water sausage , just a rubber bag full of water and makes a dam, don't have to pile up a whole lot of earth. Many, many things can be done that I find with the expensive very powerfully big expensive ways of great utility companies wanting to have this thing just get the government to spend all the money possible, and then they are going to take off the cream with their meters.

If we free this thing from the very unhappy state of conditions that you have been confronted with as a consequence of exploitation, carelessness, start off and spoke to you about the collecting of the fumes coming out of the stacks, the concentrations of energies, that does cost energy, but when we then take the sulfur going out of the stack and found that the amount of the sulfur coming out of all the stacks around our earth annually exactly equally the amount of sulfur we are taking out of the ground to keep industry going, to keep making automobile tires and all, and we find then we're letting that go off in the sky, and once it is diffused you can't afford to collect it again. But you can catch it when it is already the process of concentration has occurred so that the thing is precipitation and precipitation I went through this with the combustion engineering company who make all these boilers who said that it is absolutely completely perfected. All it would do was increase the cost of the electrical generation 25% as far as the bill goes, but the cost is almost, that's nothing, because the actual value of the sulfur, then the incredible savings we'd have of not getting in people's lungs and all the things that go on the medicare the disrepair of society occasioned by the carelessness. When we begin to get down to the "stitch in time business," it is a very important way to look at things, and I find that the more I go into the extension of what I'm saying to you Timmy, about doing the logical thing, you have concentrated it, it is in need, sulfur Nature has no she has no unwanted chemicals. They are all needed to make the Universe regenerate. They are all part of each one of them is a pattern behavior and not a thing, and all those pattern behaviors are essential to all the intertransformabilities, so that I feel then as I said, some things, Nature is separating herself she is separating the liquids and solids, just in the human process for instance, something like that, and here we get the separating out of years of first thing I don't like burning the fossil fuel, that brought about the sulfur content, but I'm using this in principles.