What new values should be adopted? is a very difiicult question to answer. However, it became clear in the 1970s that there was no longer an abundance of cheap energy and that shortages of other essential resources such as water were becoming more serious. These facts suggested to many Americans that a greater value be placed on the conservation of natural resources, that is，that Americans should save more of these resources by learning to use less and waste less.

Conservation has never been a strong American value. Because of the vast resources and space of North America, Americans came to believe that abundance was endless. In such an environment, there seemed to be little need for conservation of resources. After World War II Americans believed that their modem technology could work wonders and provide a never-ending increase in their standard of living. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the United States before the 1980s, conservation had little importance compared with such other values as freedom, equality of opportunity, hard work, and the accumulation of material wealth.

There is some evidence that the experience of greater shortages of energy during the 1970s caused Americans to place more emphasis on conservation. For example, a poll taken at the end of the decade showed that 66 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: “I，m not that unhappy about the possibility of shortages because I know it will encourage me to use everything efHciently and not wastcfuUy.'

Yankelovich and Lefkowitz, however, believe that poll results like these reveal only pait of the truth. Although Americans may agree with statements supporting the value of conservation, most of them are not yet applying these beliefs in their day-to-day actions.

Belief in conservation, therefore, is still weak compared with other American beliefs. It can becomc stronger only as Americans see the need for it more and more clearly. Conservation may well be a new value which needs to be added to the old basic values in order to help the United States deal with its future problems.

A second belief which has never been strong among the American people is a belief in the value of cooperation on a national scale to achieve some important national objectives. The American idea of the national good has never been based on national cooperation but rather on the freedom of the individual. Americans，therefore, tend to think of the national good in terms of maintaining those conditions that provide the greatest freedom for the individual. TTicy believe that a nation of free individuals will be naturally strong and prosperous. Planned efforts at national cooperation, therefore, are not needed. More important, planned efforts at national cooperation would mean increasing the powers of the national government, which would endanger the freedom of the individual.

The American value of competition also hinders the development of a spirit of national cooperation.

This ideal often encourages Americans to work against each other. Even though competitive activity is supposed to be conducted according to fair rules, it does not encourage a spirit of cooperation. Rather, it sometimes encourages a spirit of mutual suspicion of the motives of others. A certain degree of trust in the motives of others is nessary for the success of efforts in national cooperation.

In time of war Americans have temporarily put aside thcir dislike of planned national cooperation. They have been willing to cooperate and make personal sacrifices under the direction of the national government to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion. In peacetime, however, planned national cooperation is strongly resisted as a threat to individual freedom.

The almost unique American historical experience gives us a deeper understanding of this attitude: Almost every nation in the world has had, or still has the experience of being ruled by kings, emperors, dictators, or a hereditary class of aristocrats. Such rulers arc not elected by the free votes of the people and they have the power to say iat the national good is and to force their people to cooperate if they cannot persuade them to do so. Out of these experiences there have developed traditions and habits of cooperation, sometimes for good purposes and some- times for evil purposes.

Americans have never had the experience of being forced to cooperate on a national scale by non-elected rulers. For a dme, they were the colonists of Great Britain and were legally bound to obey rulers in En^and whom they did not elect, but the British government allowed the colonists a great deal of freedom and self-government by the standards of the day. Still the American colonists were not long in demanding more freedom and self-government, and finally declaring thcir independence in 1776. From the time of their independence, Americans have freely elected their rulers. The experience of being compelled to cooperate by unelected national leaders is completely foreign to their experience. They are fearful that any scheme of national cooperation in peacetime will weaken or destroy their freedoms.

Americans have always viewed cooperation as important in small groups such as the family, the neighborhood, or the church. But on the large national scale where government becomes involved, it is seen as cocrdvc and destructive rather than voluntary and constructive. Americans tend to associate the greatness of their nation far more with such values as individual freedom, equality of opportunity, hard work, and competition chan with national cooperation.

Yet the demands of the 1980s may compel Americans to place a greater value on national cooperation. It may well be that some of the problems facing them, such as scarcity of resources and the dangers of air and water polludon, cannot be solved without a greater degree of national cooperation. If Americans choose to give more emphasis to national cooperation, they will probably be very cautious about it. In order to protect their freedoms, they will move slowly in a step-by-step, problem - by - problem fashion, rather than accept a sweeping new plan involving dramatic change. Because of their tradition of self- government, they will probably insist on a good deal of public discussion before any sin^e step toward national cooperation is taken.

Some observers believe that this slow’ cautious approach may be too weak and too timid to meet the challenges of the future. Americans, however, believe that sudden revolutionary changes made in the name of the national good usually result in dictatorships in which freedom is lost and problems remain unsolved.

In the 1980s Americans may have arrived at a critical point in their nation’s history, where major dangers must be faced and major choices must be made. On the one hand, they will wish to avoid the risk of making too many changes in the basic values which have inspired them in the past. On the other hand, they must avoid what may be the greater risk of refusing to change their values at all, even though conditions arc changing rapidly all around them. The events of the past two decades have brought the American people and their basic values to a crossroads in their history. The last two decades of the twentieth century will determine where they will go from there.