SMALL REPLACES LARGE. WHY? 

What is happening out there? Why, when growing ever larger has been a sign of health and prosperity, is small becoming beautiful? Is there a limit to growth? Of countries, cities, companies, people, trees or animals in a changed environment? Will quality replace quantity. Will the fracturing consolidate again with time? Is all this another quantum evolutionary step?

The trend is becoming more apparent daily. The largest country in area in the world, the U.S.S.R. went first. Is Canada, now the world's largest country the next to fracture? Will China, India, the U.S.A. and Brazil soon follow? I say "yes". What size is optimum in a constantly changing world? Since the formation of the United Nations 50 new countries have been created. A map of Africa now looks like a patchwork quilt. With the internal split in the now-vanished U.S.S.R., cartographers now have a dozen new countries to deal with. Healthy cities too, may have an ultimate size limit. The largest often seem the worst in terms of liveability, pollution, safety and affluence. Companies and people are saying bye, bye to New York. Bombay isn't for everyone. Cairo, Los Angeles, Rio de Janerio and San Paulo all have horrendous problems. Even Tokyo, while low in crime, is high on inconvenience. Will rural areas again develop irresistible allure?

In the business world the same implications seem to occur. General Motors, the largest car manufacturer (1990 revenues: $127 billion) on the planet, loses TWO BILLION dollars and announces it will close 25 plants, lay off 74,000 workers (almost 20 percent of staff) and shrink to half its present size. This after it already cut 130,000 jobs since 1986. Did Japanese car manufacturers see this coming? Toyota, soon to take over the now questionably-envied position of world's top car manufacturer, has been operating with about the same number of employees as GM had in the U.S. Only with that number Toyota operates around the world. Today Toyota has cash reserves -for research and development into new products and design, stronger marketing penetration and advertising -- of $12.7 billion. GM has but $3.5 billion. In deep-pocket poker, as in war, the player with the largest reserve wins.

Why do most people not grow past the six foot "barrier"? What programmed that gene? Basketball players do so well. Are there genetically programmed limits to optimum size? Do some things continue to grow in size and population, like locusts, lemmings, rabbits, bacterial cultures until they collapse from lack of food? If so, wouldn't it be wise to stop multiplying now? We may be doing just that. Birth rates in industrialized countries have dropped dramatically. Quebec, which once held the highest birth rating, now approaches the lowest. A slight recent increase may be due to the $3,500 offered by the provincial government for baby production -an added incentive on top of the federal government baby bonus. Will this shortly end? You don't have to lean far outside your window to learn that the number of trees around the globe aren't there in previous numbers. Wild animals too are diminishing, while the number of domesticated animals have surged into billions. Only the volume of insects appear to be immune to the sway of change.

Will some government, some day, use genetic-engineering to make people half our existing size? That would instantly double natural resources and half physical requirements. Small people need less space, less food, less air, less wood for housing and smaller cars. Money might go twice as far.

Strange suggestions? In times of panic, chaos or rapid change, the bizarre rapidly becomes acceptable.

* * *

< previous | chapter index | next >
back to Main Chapter Listing
back to Home Page