Cultures grow or die. Some people - too many - believe that they can prosper by seeking an equilibrium with nature, free of any obligation to pioneer, to colonize, to expand the human range. That is a false hope. The first law of frontier theory is: Grow or die, and it applies to territory. Like the second law of thermodynamics, to which it is related, frontier theory's first law relies for proof on inductive reasoning supported by example. One form of proof is to make predictions based on the theory to see if they work out.
Here, as in "
Sure Things", the preamble to this discussion, we assume that human beings will not break out of their enclosed state any time soon. (See "
First Principles" for a definition of enclosure.) Certain events could mitigate enclosure's effects, which is what makes prediction tricky. A good pandemic could provide temporary relief, as one did in 1350, when the
Black Death wiped out a quarter of the population of Europe. War works, as long as you don't lose. We make the assumption that any epidemiological influences are slow-moving enough to allow economic factors to drive near-term events. We also assume that global war is universally understood to be unwinnable because of the advent of nuclear weapons. As in past episodes of enclosure (see "
A Christmas Carol"), we should look for concentration of wealth in the hands of a few with an accompanying decrease in the standard of living of most people.
This article seeks to identify the types of businesses most likely to succeed in an enclosed environment, where there are no physical frontiers. These will be the engines for concentrating wealth, engines of affluence.
With a couple of exceptions, the predicted engines of affluence can be characterized as services. That is because the production of goods for local consumption is a characteristic of a frontier economy. The test of whether manufactured goods are for local consumption is the question: can the majority of people who work in the factory afford them? If the answer is "no", the business probably fits our definition of an engine of affluence.
Medicine is already an engine of affluence in the U.S., and it will become more so. Even in the event of complete socialization, medical practice should remain a secure route to wealth. Taking full advantage of the life-or-death nature of this business for maximum profit will require the practitioner to ignore medicine's ethical dimensions ... risky if government is the chief customer. However, protecting wealth and power against death and disease will remain, as always, highly profitable and relatively risk-free.
