Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. Improvement in quality of the human species is not necessarily alternative to a growth in quantity. A larger population may mean greater possibilities in the division of labour and economies of scale. These possibilities may contribute to the growth of per capita income, to better levels of living, and to better education. But beyond certain points, quantity and quality may well become competitive. The question whether the allocation of available resources between quantity and quality has been on the whole well done in the history of mankind, is impossible to answer. Among other things it implies the objectively impossible assessment of all kinds of ethical and cultural values and standards. Some facts, though, may perhaps help to give at least a general idea about what the general tendency has been. When the Neolithic Revolution occurred about ten thousand years ago, there were – as we have seen – fewer than 20 million people on the earth. In 1950 A.D. there were almost 2,500 million. Now, of the adult portion of this population, about 50 percent were totally illiterate. A mere glance at these figures immediately suggests that far too much of the available resources was used up by the quantitative increase of mankind at the expense of its qualitative improvement. We must invest more of our resources in the qualitative improvement of man. As Julian Huxley once said, we must place meaningful quality above meaningless quantity. There must be a combined effort in both the public and the private sectors toward such a goal. In this regard it should be remembered that what is needed is not merely more technical knowledge. What man today desperately needs is the kinds of education that allows him to make wise use of the techniques he possesses. ‘We live at a time when man, lord of all things, is not Lord of himself. He feels lost amid his own abundance…… To modern man is happening what was said of the Regent during the minority of Louis XV: he had all the talents except the talent to make use of them.’

A well-known and reputable economist recently wrote that ‘we do not know what the purpose of life is, but if it were happiness, then evolution could just as well have stopped a long time ago, since there is no reason to believe that men are happier than pigs or than fishes. What distinguishes men from pigs is that men have greater control over their environment, not that they are more happy. And on this test, economic growth is greatly to be desired’. The basic criticism of such a piece of logic was written centuries ago by Plato (Eutidemos, XI): ‘ Wealth is not a blessing in itself; if directed by ignorance wealth is a greater evil than poverty because it can push things more strongly than poverty in the wrong direction; if directed by wisdom and knowledge, wealth is a blessing’. ‘Control over environment’ may be used as it was used at Coventry and Hiroshima. If this is the purpose of human life, then I, for myself, would rather be a pig. We do not know what human happiness is. But we know what it is not. We know that human happiness cannot thrive where intolerance and brutality prevail. There is nothing more dangerous than technical knowledge when unaccompanied by respect for human life and human values. The introduction of modern techniques in environments that are still dominated by intolerance and aggressiveness is a most alarming development. Ethical progress has to accompany technical and economical development. While teaching techniques, we have to teach also respect for the dignity and worth and indeed the sanctity of human personality. Urgent action is needed lest the last state turn out to be worse than the first.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. Improvement in quality of the human species is not necessarily alternative to a growth in quantity. A larger population may mean greater possibilities in the division of labour and economies of scale. These possibilities may contribute to the growth of per capita income, to better levels of living, and to better education. But beyond certain points, quantity and quality may well become competitive. The question whether the allocation of available resources between quantity and quality has been on the whole well done in the history of mankind, is impossible to answer. Among other things it implies the objectively impossible assessment of all kinds of ethical and cultural values and standards. Some facts, though, may perhaps help to give at least a general idea about what the general tendency has been. When the Neolithic Revolution occurred about ten thousand years ago, there were – as we have seen – fewer than 20 million people on the earth. In 1950 A.D. there were almost 2,500 million. Now, of the adult portion of this population, about 50 percent were totally illiterate. A mere glance at these figures immediately suggests that far too much of the available resources was used up by the quantitative increase of mankind at the expense of its qualitative improvement. We must invest more of our resources in the qualitative improvement of man. As Julian Huxley once said, we must place meaningful quality above meaningless quantity. There must be a combined effort in both the public and the private sectors toward such a goal. In this regard it should be remembered that what is needed is not merely more technical knowledge. What man today desperately needs is the kinds of education that allows him to make wise use of the techniques he possesses. ‘We live at a time when man, lord of all things, is not Lord of himself. He feels lost amid his own abundance…… To modern man is happening what was said of the Regent during the minority of Louis XV: he had all the talents except the talent to make use of them.’

A well-known and reputable economist recently wrote that ‘we do not know what the purpose of life is, but if it were happiness, then evolution could just as well have stopped a long time ago, since there is no reason to believe that men are happier than pigs or than fishes. What distinguishes men from pigs is that men have greater control over their environment, not that they are more happy. And on this test, economic growth is greatly to be desired’. The basic criticism of such a piece of logic was written centuries ago by Plato (Eutidemos, XI): ‘ Wealth is not a blessing in itself; if directed by ignorance wealth is a greater evil than poverty because it can push things more strongly than poverty in the wrong direction; if directed by wisdom and knowledge, wealth is a blessing’. ‘Control over environment’ may be used as it was used at Coventry and Hiroshima. If this is the purpose of human life, then I, for myself, would rather be a pig. We do not know what human happiness is. But we know what it is not. We know that human happiness cannot thrive where intolerance and brutality prevail. There is nothing more dangerous than technical knowledge when unaccompanied by respect for human life and human values. The introduction of modern techniques in environments that are still dominated by intolerance and aggressiveness is a most alarming development. Ethical progress has to accompany technical and economical development. While teaching techniques, we have to teach also respect for the dignity and worth and indeed the sanctity of human personality. Urgent action is needed lest the last state turn out to be worse than the first.