What Happened at Stockholm
| Published date | 01 March 1973 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207302800102 |
| Author | F. H. Knelman |
| Date | 01 March 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
F.
H.
KNELMAN
What
happened
at
Stockholm
June
1972
may
well
turn
out
to
be
a
prophetic
period
in
the
history
of
humankind.
Between
i
June
and
17
June,
three
separate
con-
ferences
on
the
human
environment
took
place
in
Stockholm,
Sweden.
From
i
to
6
June
the
Dai
Dong
Independent
Conference
met;
and
from
5
to
17
June
the
official
United
Nations
Conference
on
the
Human
Environment
(12oo
delegates
from
113
countries)
and
its
unofficial
parallel meeting,
the
Environment
Forum,
organized
by
various citizen
groups,
both
took
place.
Nothing
profound,
in the
sense
of
substantive
developments, occurred
at
any
of
these
events.
The
official
conference
was
largely
an
exercise
in
futility,
the
Dai
Dong
conference
had
its
own
frustrations,
and
the
Environment
Forum
was
a
kind
of
ecological
circus.
The
his-
torical
significance
of these
activities
arises
more
from
a
sense
that
they
represent
a
turning
point,
the
beginning
of
a
great
and
pro-
found
change, global
in extent
and
impact,
than
from
any
of
their
specific
achievements,
which
were
less
than
modest.
We
may
be
experiencing the
end
of
the
Scientific
Revolution
-
the
greatest
intellectual
and
social
upheaval
the
world
has
witnessed.
Unfortunately
science
was
born
with
a
tragic
flaw
and
quickly
became
adapted to
the
imperatives
of
power
of
nation-
states.
Its
dual traditions,
the Faustian and
the
Baconian,
still
contend
today.
At the
same
time
we
may
be
witnessing
the
begin-
ning
of
a
new
intellectual
and
social
revolution
dedicated
to
human
survival
and
fulfilment.
This
will
not
mean
the renuncia-
tion
of
science
and
technology
but
their
control
and
direction
for
human
fulfilment.
The
signs
are
present
and
profound.
The
Professor,
Humanities
of
Science
Department,
Sir
George
Williams
University,
Montreal;
author
of
numerous
publications
on
environmental
questions.
WHAT HAPPENED
AT STOCKHOLM 29
British
Blueprint
for
Survival,
the
Menton
Message
circulated
by
the
International
Fellowship
of
Reconciliation,
and
the
growth
around
the
world
of
concerned
scientist
and
citizen
groups were
all
indications
of
a
growing
identification
of
the
global
problem
and
a
convergence
of those
seeking
its
solution. And,
finally,
there
came
the
official
United
Nations Conference
on
the
Human
En-
vironment.
Some
years
ago,
before
the
environment
issue
had
become
fashionable,
I
proposed
the development
of
world
environmental
control
systems
as
a
functional
approach
to
peace.
Functionalism
as
a
method
of
achieving
higher
levels
of
international
organi-
zation
has
such
an
obvious
application
to
the world
environmental
crisis
that
I
had
considered
it
as
a
basis
for re-examining
the
theory
linking authority
to
a
specific
international
activity
and
thus
decreasing
the
historically
intimate
relationship
between
authority
and
territory.
The
Security
Council
of
the
United
Nations
was
to have
been
entrusted with
this
specific
function
of
becoming
the
common
government
of
world
law
and order.
So
far
it
has
failed
as
a
supra-sovereign
agency,
largely
because
of
the
constant
lag
in
its
function
of
keeping nations
peacefully
apart.
The
task
of
bringing
nations
peacefully
together
has
been
accom-
plished,
in
part,
through
some
of
the
United
Nations
agencies,
particularly
UNESCO,
but
their
powers
are
too
limited
for
successful
functioning.
History
and
technology
have
had
different
effects
on
national
sovereignty.
The
historical
process
has
accentuated
and perpet-
uated
the
autonomy
of sovereign
states.
When
a
state
surrenders
its
sovereignty,
through
conquest
or
revolution,
it
is
really
only
a
transfer.
Modern
technology, however,
has
rendered national
sovereignty obsolete.
In
particular
the
revolutions
in
communi-
cations
and
in
power
have
created
a
world
in
which
the
sharing
of
sovereignty
is
essential
for the survival
of
the
human
species.
As
long
as
the
level
of
operational
integration
remains
less
than
the
area
encompassing
the
problem,
we
cannot
find
ultimate
solutions.
We
may
be able
to defer
crises
but
we
can
never
avoid
them.
The
problem
involves
the
planet
as
a
system.
To continue reading
Request your trial