?

Nothing could be more ambiguous than the ending of Poul Anderson's "Progress." On the concluding half page, at the end of the third last paragraph, the Merican astrophysicist says:

"'If your society can't handle something big and new like the tamed atom, why, by Oktai, you've proved your society isn't worth preserving.'" (p. 137)

So is that what we are supposed to think? Poul Anderson's characters usually do welcome newness. However, Anderson does not tell us what to think and certainly not in this case. The story ends with a question:

"'Our society can't handle something new?' she murmured. 'Oh, my dear Lorn, what do you think we were doing that day?'" (ibid.)

Handling the new by destroying it? I don't think so. But nor do I think that the reader is expected to give my answer. The question is left open.

Next, I will try to suggest what else might have been done.