having won his Nobel Prize, is such a person. I think he is obviously concerned.
I think Linus Pauling is, too. I think Luna Leopold would move down the
stairs a little. Alexander Leaden, the great anthropologist, chairman of public
health at Harvard and author of the Midtown Manhattan Studies, is another.
I think George Bergstrom probably knows more about world nutrition than anyone
else. I think Paul Ehrlich, Pierre Ganseler, Paul Sears, should also be
included in this list.

 There is a list, and I think the criteria for the selection should be
 (1) they have impeccable positions within the orthodoxy of science, scientific
 discipline; and (2) that they are distinguished by the fact that they have
 really concerned themselves with the human condition and either have written
 or spoken or represent themselves as being so concerned. So I would suggest
 the first and most important matter of business is not to determine objectives.

 The first and most important objective is to obtain allies of such
 distinction as to really cause the National Science Foundation to give this
 matter serious consideration.

 The second thing I want to talk about is what I do. I don't have to
 spend much time telling you about it because Jon Berger did it yesterday.
 I think perhaps of all the things we went into the most important is
 phenomenology.

 What we do, as you know, is we study natural regions and we use
 chronology to reveal causality, to explain phenomenology and its dynamics.
 So we do geology, geomorphology, ground water hydrology, physiography,
 surface water hydrology, soils, plants, animals, and we get the appropriate
 scientists to produce all this stuff and we ask them to put it together in
 a single interactive biophysical system with as much predictive capability
 as science can get. It's not enough, but it's the best we have and so we use
 it. That's the first thing we do, and then for the last 10 years, helped by
 the National Institute of Mental Health, of all the unlikely allies a program
 in landscape architecture and regional planning could find in the United
 States, we decided we'd put human beings in this system with the rest of
 natural science.

 For me, it is the most breathtaking part of our investigation because
I think natural science is more or less in agreement that you can understand
natural systems through the operation of laws and time and that we generally
believe that randomness exists in natural systems, but randomness doesn't
explain natural systems if you respond according to law. However, most
social scientists understand learning about a systematic relation of natural
systems, and generally do not believe that people behave systematically
except with a reference to money. None of them assumed that nature was
systematic at all and they did not really believe that man was systematic
because they were all engaged in description, but it was actually beyond
their imagination that there would be any systematic relationship between
people, work, and place. This is absolutely breathtaking. So out of this
has come a little model which Jon Berger, Dan Rose, and others have
developed which I paraphrase. I paraphrase everything. I am a poor man's
paraphraser.