Note To the Reader

NOTE TO THE READER Interplan House

London Road, Croydon

January 1973

About a year ago a concept call Conservation was launched on the global market. I wasn’t quite sure what it involved, or what it cost, and there seemed to be many different bodies trying to sell it. But I bought some from the most of them, to add to a growing conviction the Conservation was a good idea - or, an anti-idea? - to sell the world.

It happened to be a good idea to sell to me, as an individual consumer, because I could easily find use for it. And I started to practice the principles of Conservation, and traveled by bike, ate the right things, and thought twice about self indulgences which were obviously anti-Conservation.

And it didn’t do me any harm. In fact, it did me a power of good, and for time, I could not see why more people did not buy this sensible and practical concept.

Now there are many reasons why good and apparently necessary ideas fail. Perhaps there were too many people trying to sell Conservation? Perhaps the competition, raw apathy and anti-conservation, was too strong?

But perhaps consumers were not being told the true nature of the concept, in terms they could understand? Sometimes Conservation was sold as a set of graphs ending in avoidable doom. Sometimes it was a non-non-returnable bottle, or a catalyst on a car-exhaust. Sometimes it offered the hardy loaner a self-sufficient igloo, or a new Agrarian Revolution.

None of these brands appealed particularly to me, as an individual consumer. The conservation package I had bought was simply Conservation of Earth’s limited physical resources. As a physicist by training, I had a fair understanding of what the resources are, how they are limited, and how I personally, could consume in a manner which ensured I did not take more than my fair share.

But other physicists disputed parts of the case for Conservation, and therefore felt themselves able to question the package as a whole. So I decided to question my own understanding and acceptance, and to do so from a first principles treating Earth as a business enterprise, with a Board responsible for managing its energy income and limited material resources. That was the start of the project that evolved into Earth Enterprise.

Earth Enterprise began as a figment of my imagination, but the more I analysed its finer structure, the more real it became. It is the intercontinental, omni national, integrated business which manages the Earth, and which has the Earth as its monopoly market. We are all shareholders and trustees, workers, consumers and members of the Board.

In 1972, Earth Enterprise launches a campaign to sell Conservation. The response is not as good as expected. Thus the Board commissioned a consultant, myself, to advise them. Is Conservation necessary? What is it? If it is necessary, and if it is possible to define precisely although what it is, how should it be modified and repackaged before it is launched onto the market again?

JMP/jmp

26 Oct 2016