Beyond the city, the wildlands, the countryside, and the toxic environment loomed even larger environmental affairs involving the balance between population and resources. Limited resources, so the argument went, could not long sustain the ever-growing population and consumption of material goods. The problem was worsened by the new burden of pollution, of which air, land, and water could absorb only limited amounts. The assimilative capacity of natural systems had been reached and often exceeded, producing ecological disruption. Such issues gave many a sense of global limits, of the finite character of Spaceship Earth.

The Limited Personal Encounter with Limits

Although the idea of limits as a general notion seemed to have considerable appeal, only in selected circumstances did it involve people intimately. They could agree that the “earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources,” but they could also agree, though a bit less firmly, that “my community ought to continue to grow.” Personal involvement in strategies to limit growth was far less than personal concern for quality of life. The more intimate context in the city, the wildlands, the countryside, and the toxic environment provided the setting for most human environmental response. But personal links with population-resource questions were more tenuous. People experienced few direct connections between their lives and global problems.

Initiative in these issues was taken by leaders more often than by the public at large. The impetus lay with professionals, scientists, technical experts, and those “thought leaders” who observed universal problems and studied and wrote about them.