|
Nevertheless, in spite of all of these considerations, landscape is constantly being planned, taking into account existing laws.
To be able to do so, it gets more and more common to use a variety of methods that are thought to enhance our abilities to plan. What does this mean?
As planning deals with future events, a process can be planned if it can be forecasted.
To make it possible to plan events which are difficult to forecast, the forecasting has to be improved. This has been attempted/achieved so far with several different methods, for example:
by extension of past experiences into the future (extrapolation of time series) and/or
by strict targeting and/or
by confining the scope of application in planning, as planners consciously neglect parameters that are thought not to be of importance (most well-known example: "ceteris-paribus"-statement in economics) and/or
by standardization and organization of actions and/or
by restraining possibilities in planning.
All these ways of improving the possibility of planning lead to certain consequences:
for example, time series are strictly only related to past observations and processes do not necessarily have to take place in the same way under different circumstances in the future. Extension of time series means extending past experiences, meaning past events are deemed more important than future possibilities, which are constrained in this way.
Strict targeting - especially if heavily based on certain values - also commits to the past.
Targets and sub-ordinate targets have - as we already said - at a certain point of realization to be defined very strictly. But every present-day realization of targets confines future possibilities. This rather constrains than improves future possibilities.
Standardization and organization of possibilities for action can only be guaranteed by a power of control that confines the free choice of action.
The constraints placed on certain actions or possibilities for actions is going to restrict the individual choice of lifestyle, especially involving human relations, psychology and the arts.
If we try to define the impact of planning itself, this can most easily be done by discussing its limits. Planning tries to "optimize future actions", i.e. planning should make processes more effective.
Limiting or surrendering planning would also limit the effects of actions, as sub-ordinate actions could interfere or void each other. So at a certain point, we have to expect our actions to be less effective, if we limit planning.
But extending planning to areas which in fact can not be planned means that it will be necessary to limit the free choice of future actions.
This means, we have to decide from case to case whether planning leads to more effective results in the future or not.
But to decide this question, we have to rely on overriding values. So you have to bear in mind:
The tendency to limit planning is most probable if the belief prevails that man determines his own fate, e.g. as "man in the image of god".
The tendency to extend planning (even to situations that cannot be planned successfully) is most likely wherever the belief becomes dominant, that mankind has to fulfill a predetermined mission (leading to a "final goal") (4).
Nevertheless: we have to go into the future and we should place our trust merely in chance.
(4) Marquardt, K., Planung, in: Gutjahr-Löser, P./Hornung, K. (Hrsg.), Politisch-Pädagogisches Handwörterbuch, München 1980
