procedure. It might be wiser in some cases to waste a certain amount of raw material because of the saving of time and effort. It might be better for posterity to have the product of our energy multiplied into raw material than to have the raw material itself. The valuation of these two major elements of conservation is again almost impossible of quantitative solution. We do not know what is the best result to be aimed for. We cannot foresee the requirements of the future nor the end toward which civilization is moving—or should move. The extravagance of the United States is often contrasted unfavorably with the thriftiness of Europe. When considered in relation to raw materials alone, there seems to be basis for this charge. When considered in relation to the product of human energy into raw materials, the conclusion may be far different; for the output per man in the industries related to mineral resources is far greater in the United States than in Europe. In the case of iron, it has been estimated that the output per man in the United States is two and one-half times as great as in the rest of the world. Which is best in the true interests of conservation, we are not yet able to see.
Our view of what is desirable in the way of conservation depends somewhat on the limitations imposed by self-interest or location. By devoting ourselves exclusively to one mineral resource, we might work out a conservation program very disadvantageous to the best use of some other mineral commodity. We might take steps to conserve chromite in the United States which would have a disastrous effect on the iron and steel industry. We might conserve coal by the substitution of oil, when the procedure is hardly warranted by the supplies of oil available. We might work out a program for the United States which would not be the best conservational plan for the world as a whole, and which would ultimately react to the disadvantage of the United States. The wisest and most intelligent use of mineral resources seems to call unquestionably for their consideration in their world relations, rather than for a narrow interpretation of local requirements.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EFFORTS IN CONSERVATION
It appears that a wide range of effective conservational practices has resulted solely from the effort to make more money through more efficient operations, and this is likely to be true in the future. Many improvements in mining, grading, sorting, concentration, and metallurgy of minerals, to yield larger financial returns, are coming naturally through private initiative, under the driving power of self-interest.
Another considerable group of conservational practices is possible only to governments or other public agencies. This group of practices on the whole requires some sacrifice of the immediate financial interest of the individual, in the interests of the community as a whole, or in the interests of posterity. In this group may be mentioned the compulsory use of methods of mining, sorting, and metallurgy which tend to conserve supplies but result in higher prices; the control of prices; the elimination or lowering of the so-called resource or royalty value (p. 375); and the removal of restrictions on private combination or coöperation, leading to more efficient methods, lessening of cost, and better distribution of the product; or, what might amount to the same thing, the acquirement by the government of the resources to be operated on this larger scale.
The most effective conservation measures yet in effect are the ones dictated by self-interest and instituted by private initiative. Governmental measures are not yet in effective operation. Illustrations of these two types of conservational effort are cited in relation to coal on later pages.