Election Leaders may be HAZARDOUS to Your HEALTH!

Let’s face it, “Election Year 1976” doesn’t hold much hope for those concerned about the state of the environment — to say nothing of that of the Union or the world.

Crazy Leaders? What?!!

At the presidential level Jerry Ford has unambiguously shown that not being a robber baron is not sufficient qualification for leading the most powerful nation on earth. And the few Democratic hopefuls with a grasp of the important issues seem to have made little progress. Perhaps voters are too much concerned about the immediate economic situation to focus clearly on long-range considerations. Or perhaps their lack of interest stems from a realization that no change at the top offered by establishment Republicans or Democrats is likely to improve things very much.

With national leadership nonexistent, and no leaders discernible on the horizon, what should those concerned about the human predicament do? Is this perhaps the year to lie low, the year when the Ford’s and Meany’s and Kissinger’s and Jackson’s should be allowed to pit blunder against blunder while we sit back and hope to pick up the pieces later? We think not. We think that 1976 could be the year to start “filling the vacuum from below.” The Bicentennial Year could be the year in which Americans begin to wrest the political system away from the business-as-usual establishment, whose fascination with short-term self-aggrandizement has blinded it to its own medium-term self-interest (to say nothing of the public interest now or in the future).

To a certain degree, this trend has already started. Look, for example, at the politics of nuclear power. For numerous reasons that need not concern us here, a powerful government-business combine is trying to shove an incompetent and extraordinarily dangerous technology down the throats of the American people. In spite of the enormous resources of the nuclear establishment — resources used for a massive and prolonged propaganda campaign in support of nuclear-power plants as the “solution” to our energy problems — many Americans have nonetheless refused to be taken in. Citizen pressure has led to ballot-initiative campaigns in sixteen states and other legislation, such as moratoriums, in ten more.

This is one excellent example of the way concerned citizens can still influence the functioning of government.

Other examples abound in our recent past: civil rights, environmental protection, population, the antiwar movement, even Watergate. All were popular movements that resulted in important legislation and/or court decisions; two of them directly caused the disappearance of presidents from office.

These successes underscore our belief that if there is a way satisfactorily to run a complex society like ours, it lies in every citizen’s spending perhaps one-tenth of his or her time on civic or political activity. Such “tithing to society” would not guarantee that the slide toward societal disintegration could be halted, but at least it would ensure that the attempt to stop it was a community effort!

There are, of course, many ways of tithing to one’s society, ranging from actually running for political office to becoming a well-informed voter or writer of letters-to-the-editor. But underlying all such tithing must be an appreciation of the issues facing this nation and the way they are inter-connected

We have a checklist (or test) that we use to score politicians who ask us for our vote. Even if we can’t ask the questions directly, we can usually find the answers in a candidate’s public statements and interviews. Our test, of course, is a personal one that has evolved from the world view of two environmentalists. We would not expect anyone else’s test to be identical. It does indicate what we think are the key political issues of 1976 — even though many politicians wouldn’t recognize them. If you are concerned about the future of our society, you should develop a test of your own. Perhaps reading ours will give you some ideas about making one of your own.

AN ELECTION TEST FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES

In each case the candidate should pick one or more lines to finish the sentence correctly.

(1) Population growth …

1. is not the problem; the problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth.
2. is not our only problem, but if it continues it will inevitably lead to disaster.
3. is good because it promotes economic growth.
   1. is a problem in poor countries but not in rich countries except among poor people.
   2. is a minor factor in environmental problems, most of which have been caused by faulty technologies.

Answer: Because population growth is one of the root causes or at least an intensifier of most of the serious problems now facing the world. we would find it impossible to support any candidate who doesn’t know that (b) is the answer to this question. He should also recognize that (b) is the answer for rich, slowly growing countries such as the United States as well as for poor, hungry, rapidly growing nations such as Bangladesh.

Politicians who select answer (a) are victims of left-wing propaganda; inequitable distribution of wealth is indeed a very serious problem, but so is population growth (which, among other things, tends to increase the inequities). Both problems must be attacked simultaneously, or neither will be solved.

Those who choose answer (d) are victims of right-wing propaganda. Rapid population growth among the poor is a serious problem because it proliferates poverty, whether in a family or across an entire society; but even slow population growth among the rich will sooner or later have catastrophic results. It is they who are depleting the nonrenewable resources of the planet and launching a lethal attack on its life-support systems; the poor are responsible for very little polluting. The United States is the world’s richest nation. We have about 5.4 percent of the world’s people, but we consume more than 30 percent of its annual production of meat, minerals, and energy resources. This consumption has a direct impact on the environment. The birth of an American baby is perhaps fifty times more disastrous for earth in terms of resource depletion and environmental impact than is the birth of a baby in Bangladesh.

Politicians who choose answer (c) are completely uninformed. They accept the “growth is the goal” fallacy of out-of-date economists and haven’t learned that population growth more often tends to slow economic growth than accelerate it. Population growth at even very moderate rates (1 percent per year or less) can hinder economic growth in such heavily industrialized, overdeveloped countries as the United States, northern Europe, and Japan. The rapid population growth rates (2 to 3 percent per year) typical of most Third World or less developed countries (LDCs) very clearly impede development and economic growth simply because most available capital must be plowed back for the purpose of supporting huge and growing numbers of nonproductive children (as much as 48 percent of the population). In essence, the rapidly growing poor nations must keep racing merely to stay in place.

Politicians who choose answer (e) do not understand that the damage perpetrated by faulty technologies is a function of the quantity of people who are using those technologies. The environmental damage resulting from a given technology — say, the use of automobiles — is a product of the impact of each person’s automobile use and the number of people who use automobiles. One automobile may cause very little damage, but when 220 million Americans are using 100 million cars, the result is extensive environmental pollution and the consumption of billions of gallons of gasoline every month.

(2) The solutions to such economic problems as inflation and unemployment …

1. must take precedence over the solution to our environmental problems.
2. are inextricably intertwined with solutions to our environmental and resource problems
3. are simply a matter of adopting an appropriate monetary policy.
4. require a proper interplay of fiscal, monetary, and foreign policies.
5. will be found in energy independence.

Answer: A candidate who chooses (c) thinks that our problems can be solved within the framework of standard economic thinking; one who chooses (d) shows a slightly more sophisticated version of the same thinking. If world events of the last five years have demonstrated nothing else, they have made glaringly obvious the inadequacies of standard economic ideas. The hidden costs of economic growth are now exacting their toll. (These are sometimes called externalities because they are external to the economic accounting system.) Among these hidden costs are environmental damage and the expense of trying to repair it afterward; the human-health costs of pollution; losses of valuable farmland to developments of various kinds (a loss we may one day deeply regret); unreplaced forests (a major cause of local floods and drought): destruction of soil to maximize crop yields: destruction of valuable fisheries; depletion of resources of both minerals and energy; and so forth.

Many economists depend on Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” to meet our needs. Indeed, laissez faire is so ingrained in economic thinking that it has been said that those in need of an economist should buy a parrot and teach it to say “supply and demand.” But no amount of demand can conjure up a resource that no longer exists, although it is true that remaining supplies can be stretched by recycling minerals, using substitutes when they are available, and employing conservation methods. We are caught in an energy crunch because oil reserves are declining and because the Arabs are aware that they are. But this is only one symptom of our troubles. Striving for energy independence, (e), for the United States may relieve our economic problems or intensify them, depending on the way it is earned out.

Answer (a) implies that if one is sick, he should take a pill which will make him feel better for a while before killing him rather than submit to a painful operation that would restore him to complete health. Too many leaders of our society, including politicians, think that environmental protection is advocated mainly for aesthetic reasons (the beauty of scenery) and occasionally because of dangers to public health (if the evidence is overwhelming). The truth is that our lives are all at stake. Natural ecological systems provide several vital services that human society can neither do without nor adequately do on its own: they maintain the quality of the atmosphere and fresh water, maintain soil fertility, recycle wastes, control most potential crop and other pests, provide food from the sea, and so on. If we continue to escalate our assaults on these systems, sooner or later they will break down. Environmental protection is thus much more than mere aesthetics.

Consider, for example, one argument in which environmental protection is presented as injurious to the economy—the jobs controversy. Those who maintain that environmental protection takes away jobs overlook the fact that many jobs are provided by environmentally beneficial activities, such as building mass-transit systems, installing solar heaters, pollution monitoring and evaluating, setting up pollution-control devices, treating waste water, and reclaiming land. Such activities indeed are often far more labor-intensive than many industries; the problem is that we aren’t doing enough of them.

Answer (b), of course, is the only one that is acceptable to us.

(3) By adjusting government policies, the price of energy in the United States over a period of time should be made to …

1. rise.
2. decline.
3. remain constant.

Answer: This question is related to the last — and to the enormous potential for energy conservation in our country. Answer (b) is obviously unrealistic. Cheap sources of energy have largely already been tapped and consumed; what remains of fossil fuels will be increasingly expensive to extract, process, and transport to the place where they will be used. Alternative energy sources — solar, nuclear fission and fusion, and others — might ultimately be cheaply supplied, but it will be very costly to develop them. Aside from outright seizure of the Arab oil fields, which would provide temporary relief, at best, the only way in which energy prices could be made to decline is through heavy government subsidy — an unattractive move from many points of view.

As a policy, reducing energy prices would be disastrous. First of all, it would encourage resumption of the pre-1973 patterns of energy use in the United States, which were characterized by rapid growth in consumption and increasing wastefulness. Continued rapid increases in energy consumption would make us more and more dependent on external supplies of energy resources (possibly with a destabilizing effect on international politics and economics). It would deplete those supplies even more rapidly than they are now being depleted, and low prices would provide no incentive for developing new sources of energy. Finally, continued growth in energy use would accelerate the rate of assault on those critical environmental systems that are essential to the survival of human society.

Many of the same arguments can be made for answer (c), although the rate of energy use might not rise quite so rapidly and wastefully.

The correct answer of course is (a). In order to protect lower-income citizens from energy costs that have soared beyond their means. an important proviso should be that the first few units of energy consumed each month (kilowatt hours of electricity, gallons of oil or gas) per household or business should be provided relatively cheaply. Beyond a level necessary for meeting living and transportation needs, costs per unit should escalate rapidly. Gradually, rising energy costs would provide an incentive for increasing our efficiency in energy use — to remove from the United States the stigma of being the world’s most prodigal energy waster. For instance, the United States, which has a standard of living about the same as Sweden’s, uses almost twice as much energy per person as Sweden does. The Swedes live very comfortably and are highly industrialized, too; they are simply much more clever about extracting more “good” from each unit of energy. There is no reason why the United States cannot become as clever as the Swedes in conserving energy, and there is every reason why it should do so as soon as possible. A knowledgeable politician would favor any reasonable measures that favored conservation, as long as the poor were not made to suffer in the process.

There have been several recent studies evaluating what U.S. energy needs will be for the next twenty-five years or so, including one by the Environmental Protection Agency and a massively detailed one by the Ford Foundation. These studies have found that short-term energy needs are likely to be much lower than is suggested by projected “demand curves” (based on growth of energy use in recent decades). They also demonstrate that the easiest, cheapest, and most reasonable way of obtaining additional energy is through conservation, and they recommend that substantial effort be put there, ahead of all-out development of some new and potentially dangerous (see the next question) or environmentally very destructive technologies, such as strip-mining, coal gasification, offshore drilling, or processing of shale oil or tar sands.

(4) Nuclear power is . . .

1. possibly dangerous but will be essential to the solution of energy problems in the short term.
2. proved safe and will be essential to the solution of energy problems in the short term.
3. proved safe but not necessary to the solution of energy problems in the short term.
4. probably quite dangerous and not essential to the solution of energy problems in the short term.

Answer: As indicated earlier, we think nuclear power will be a key issue in the 1976 election. Here only (d) is a satisfactory response from a candidate. The massive Ford study and other recent investigations of energy needs indicate that conservation is the key to the solution of short-term energy problems and that needs can be quite adequately met without nuclear power.

Moreover, there are several good reasons for looking long and hard before leaping into full-scale development of a nuclear-power system. No satisfactory solutions have yet been offered for the three central problems of nuc!ear-fission power: the disposal of the extremely toxic and long-lived wastes that are produced by fission plants; the possibility of a catastrophic release of radioactivity resulting from accident or sabotage; and the protection of enormous amounts of plutonium (the most lethal substance known) against diversion into bootleg atomic bombs or use in radioactive terrorism. Proponents of nuclear power are confident that technology will find an answer to waste disposal before long (but they don’t say how); they maintain that the chance of accident is diminishingly small (but they prefer not to discuss sabotage); and they are sure that tightened security will prevent theft of plutonium (but why has so much already been lost?).

We think that it would be insane to forge ahead with nuclear power unless satisfactory solutions to these problems are actually in hand.

(5) The key to the world food situation dur-ing the next few decades is …

1. the rate of fertilizer production.
2. the weather.
3. the extension of modern agricultural technologies to poor farmers in less developed countries.
4. the development of more and better high-yielding crop strains.
5. the stabilization of food prices — especially grains.
6. establishing of a food-reserve system.

Answer: This question differs from the others in that all the above answers are correct. Each of these factors will play a key role in determining future food supplies. Unfortunately, not all are within human control, but in no area is intelligent political decision-making more important for our future.

Insufficient fertilizer supplies, (a), was a significant factor in generating the food shortages of 1972 and especially of 1974. Not only was production capacity inadequate, but also prices, boosted by the 1973 “energy crisis,” put manufactured fertilizer imports beyond the means of many less-developed nations and of individual farmers. Production capacity has been expanding rapidly, and it is expected that it will be sufficient to meet demand for the rest of the decade, but high costs are likely to continue to be a serious problem. Greater use should be encouraged of potential organic-fertilizer sources (now often a source of pollution in developed countries or consumed for fuel, fodder, or other uses in LDCs), such as manure, sewage, and agricultural wastes. Organic fertilizers are beneficial to soil; use of these materials also prevents pollution problems; and as fossil fuel costs rise, they will become relatively economical. Further, they help to conserve, rather than waste, the valuable nutrients that are derived from the soil.

As humanity draws closer to the limits of agricultural production, the weather, (b), looms larger and larger in the food picture.

Contrary to myths promoted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, modern agricultural technology has not divorced food production from such mundane things as the need for enough (but not too much!) rainfall. On the contrary, contemporary grain varieties are far more dependent on reliable weather than are traditional ones. For most of the world, the period from 1930 to 1960 was one of extraordinarily consistent good weather and concomitant high food production (and rapid population growth). There is every reason to be concerned that the world may now be entering a period of more “normal” weather. We must therefore expect greater weather variability and realize that such variability may have catastrophic effects on the nutrition of a population that has doubled in size since 1930. The first half of the 1970’s, in which two out of five years produced disastrously poor crops in widely scattered parts of the globe, may be a far more accurate portent of future weather patterns than the previous forty years have been. Even if it isn’t, some bad years can be counted on to occur, and humanity will need to be prepared for them. Because the world population is currently expanding by almost 2 percent per year, food production must also expand at least that rapidly if mass starvation is to be avoided. Because hundreds of millions of human beings are living on the edge of starvation and because others are demanding (and can buy) more and better foods each year, food production should increase at an even faster rate.

It is not widely understood by the American public that significant expansion of food production in the United States and in most other developed countries has probably come to an end; we’ve had our Green Revolution. (We could, of course, feed a great many more people by feeding some of our grains and legumes to them rather than to farm animals. When grain is processed through livestock, 50 to 90 percent of the food energy is lost. But that’s another story.) Hence, most of the remaining potential for raising world food production lies in the poor countries, (c). Many LDCs in past years have neglected agricultural development in favor of all-out industrialization, secure in the knowledge that the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand had plenty of extra grain to sell cheaply or give away. But in 1972 the cheap grain suddenly tripled in price, and the giveaways (mainly American) dried up. One reason was that the Nixon administration had unilaterally decided to get out of the grain-reserve business (and Earl Butz has remained adamantly opposed to reestablishing it). Another reason was a series of crop failures around the world in 1972 and huge purchases of grain from the U.S. by the U.S.S.R. Although the blame for high and subsequently wildly fluctuating food prices has been pinned on the Soviets, the disappearance of adequate food reserves is probably the primary cause.

The sudden appearance of declines in world food production in 1972 and 1974 (for the first time in twenty years) naturally stimulated a renewed interest in rural and agricultural development in LDCs (even as it inspired a concern for self-sufficiency in several European countries, which are heavy food importers). Heretofore, the Green Revolution in LDCs has mainly been limited to a minority of relatively well-off farmers who could afford the necessary inputs: seed, fertilizer, irrigation water, pesticides, and so on. Further expansion of food production will require, among other things, the provision of know-how. inputs, and supporting facilities, such as roads, markets, transportation, capital, and credit to the poor majority of farmers. Whether the requisite effort will be put forth remains to be seen, although the U.S.A.I.D., the World Bank, and other assisting agencies have established rural development as a primary goal. In part, success will depend on political decisions in the United States concerning the amounts and types of agricultural assistance to be given.

Whether agricultural development in LDCs will be carried out with care to avoid severe environmental consequences in the long or short run through misuse of Green Revolution technology also remains to be seen.

If such development is not undertaken, the outcome may include: deforestation, causing aggravation of floods and droughts; soil depletion through use of insufficient fertilizer or too much artificial fertilizer without restoring humus; large-scale crop failures brought about by pest or plant-disease attacks, which vast monocultures and overuse of chemical pesticides in-vited (see next question); and serious human-health problems and ecocatastrophes that have resulted from abuse of farm chemicals.

Expansion of future food supplies will also depend in large part on results of agricultural research, (d). More crops with high yields must be developed. As for those crops of which high-yield varieties already exist, new varieties must be constantly developed in order to meet the challenge of pests, which are constantly evolving new ways to attack crops; last year’s pest-resistant strain may be vulnerable this year. New varieties must also be bred to meet new and changing weather conditions. It is vitally important that politicians be aware of this fact. A related problem is that in crops there is an unhappy trend toward a uniformity that is rapidly reducing the store of genetic variability essential to selecting new strains and thus maintaining high-yield agriculture. No other environmental problem is more critical, and no other has been so badly ignored by governments. Any politician showing an awareness of the evolutionary aspects of agriculture — and especially of the problem of the decay of genetic variability — should be given our most earnest support.

More research is also needed to perfect Green Revolution technology: to learn how to achieve the highest dependable yields with the least environmental damage under various conditions of soil, climate, and social organization. These are no small tasks, and we question whether current and planned efforts are commensurate with the dimensions of the problems to be solved.

Essential as agricultural development and research are to future food supplies, however, economic factors and governmental policies will continue to be important determinants as well — at least while food trade operates under “free market” rules. In particular, until a world system of reserves is established and stocked, (f), food prices can be expected to remain unstable and the food-supply situation will still be precarious.

Obviously, any well-informed candidate should be aware of this complex of factors in the food situation and, especially, the risks associated with it.

(6) The broadcast use of chlorinated hy-drocarbon pesticides (such as DOT and Dieldrin) on crops …

1. is undesirable primarily because of the direct threat posed to human health.
2. is the main reason why crop yields in the United States have increased so dramatically in the last forty years.
3. poses a threat to the critical life-support functions of ecological systems.
4. has been a great success in controlling insect pests.

Answer: Although chlorinated hydrocar-bons do pose a direct health threat, (a), and many are carcinogenic, most ecologists agree that the primary consequence of their broadcast use is indirect — by changing the functioning of ecological systems. Any candidate should be aware that (c) is the proper answer to this question. It would be ideal if he were able to describe some of the functions performed by those systems (mentioned earlier) and know, that these services are essential and that no technological substitutes for them exist today.

An answer of (b) or (d) might be given by someone who has been fooled by petrochemical corporation propaganda or by one of the petrochemical corporation’s employees who have been too-long-exposed to the nerve-poisoning pesticides they peddle. “Modern” pesticides have little or nothing to do with high crop yields, which are primarily the result of clever plant breeding (see Question 5). In general, pests are still consuming the same fractions of each harvest as they did at the turn of the century, long before chemical pesticides were invented.

Today’s pest-control practices are economic and ecological disasters. Farmers are trapped into a vicious circle of using more and more of the chemicals as the pests evolve resistance to them. Because the pesticides kill off many of the natural enemies of pests even more effectively, failure to use them spells disaster. Thus, the farmer is “hooked” on an increasingly expensive technology, and the environment is contaminated with almost indestructible compounds, which kill or injure many more beneficial organisms than harmful ones, which have unknown (but presumably not beneficial) effects on soil ecology (vital for food production), and which accumulate in food chains, including our foods, and thus in our systems.

(7) The use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol sprays …

1. should be continued because no one has proved that they have a harmful effect on the ozone layer.
2. should be curtailed even though no one has proved that they have a harmful effect on the ozone layer.
3. should be curtailed because it has been proved that they have a harmful effect on the ozone layer.
4. should be continued because it has been proved that they are harmless.

Answer: This question tests a candidate’s sophistication in dealing with technical issues. A clue is the term “proved”; it is useful to remember that proof, although important in a court of law, plays no role in science; science doesn’t deal with certainty but rather with probabilities. The best answer here, in our opinion, is (b). There is considerable evidence that these propellants may help degrade the ozone layer. And there is every reason to believe that such degradation would be extremely harmful to humanity — an increase in skin cancer being only one of the more predictable results. The increase in ultraviolet radiation (against which the ozone protects us) might provide a further destabilizing effect, unpredictable in detail, on ecosystems and agriculture alike, and raise the incidence of birth defects in the human population. Because of these effects, we would probably have to curtail outdoor activities considerably. Increased ultraviolet radiation can also be expected to speed up the rate of mutation in all terrestrial organisms, including people, crops, livestock, and wildlife. We could end up living like the bacteria that are found under the ultraviolet sterilizers on some public toilet seats.

What benefits can be balanced against this enormous potential cost? For most uses of aerosols (applying deodorants, paints, and so on), other forms of application are not only available but also superior from the standpoint of economy, ecology, as well as health. Indeed, several companies are already marketing products with mechanically operated sprayers. (If you haven’t switched, you should; nothing convinces manufacturers faster than a drop in demand.)

(8) Our political and economic system …

1. requires dramatic modification if it is to function satisfactorily in the coming age of scarcity.
2. requires some rather minor reforms if it is to function satisfactorily in the coming age of scarcity.
3. has served well for 200 years and will serve well for another 200.

Answer: Anyone who does not see the need for radical change, (a), should hardly be a candidate for office. The inability of our political-economic system to deal with the “energy crisis” (to take just one example) is, in itself, ample demonstration that great change is needed.

Perhaps even greater adjustment is required in the economic system. We can expect to continue being plagued by inflation as scarcities grow more and more common and as costs of mobilizing material resources rise. Food production, too, is likely to con tine to be a problem. Increasing demand abroad for American food will put pressure on domestic prices, even if we have no serious harvest shortfalls here.

Growth of the economy of the United States — at least in the material sense – will end in the foreseeable future; the only questions are when and how. Until now the main hope for improving the standard of living of the poor was through an expanding economy, through which benefits “trickled down” to them. (The rich have always benefited far more than the poor from economic growth in this country and in most others, but such an observation is beside the point.) Without growth, that hope is denied. Thus, the first adjustment to make is enough redistribution of wealth, to ensure the basics of life for the poor and opportunities to improve their lot.

Nor will the steady-state economy be limited to the United States or even to other developed countries. It could arrive suddenly everywhere, or it could start in the poorest less-developed countries and spread as a disastrous worldwide depression. It would be far wiser to plan for slowing economic growth first in developed countries and then in LDCs as their population growth is first slowed down and then halted. Although the LDCs needn’t be condemned to permanent abject poverty, as a group they probably will never reach a U.S. level of industrial development. The resources won’t be available, at least in the foreseeable future. Even if they were, the result of all-out industrialization would probably be a gigantic ecological collapse. Unfortunately, far too many people still don’t understand this fact and cling to the belief that economic growth can be perpetuated forever.

(9) In foreign aid the United States …

1. has always been too generous.
2. has always been selfish.
3. can be more generous and more selfish simultaneously.
4. should reduce expenditures.

Answer: We cannot agree with those who take either position (a) or (b). Statistically (as judged by the present fraction of GNP donated), the United States has tended to be relatively niggardly. At the same time, it is difficult not to conclude that generosity has played a substantial role in motivating Americans to support foreign aid. Now is certainly not the time to be less generous, (d). We think that the best answer is (c) — that in a world of simultaneously growing interdependence and hostility, we can help ourselves by helping others. We do not believe that the United States could remain an island of affluence while much of the rest of the world turns into a sea of misery and death, even if we wished to.

(10) A thermonuclear war …

1. can be avoided only if we remain stronger than Russia or China.
2. could be won, although the cost would be horrendous.
3. can be avoided in the long run only if we set an example by unilaterally disarming.
4. might be avoided if we are willing to take risks in moving toward disarmament.

Answer: Most politicians know that either humanity must avoid nuclear war, or all our other problems will disappear along with civilization itself. Unfortunately, there still are a few who think that such a war could be won, (b) — and such people are extraordinarily dangerous when they occupy positions of power, regardless of their nationality. Such an attitude may stem partly from stupidity and lack of imagination, but all too often it may be traced to a naive acceptance of “studies” that tend to minimize the projected effects of such a war. These studies invariably fail to deal effectively with either the ecological or the psychological aftereffects of a nuclear Armageddon. Most such studies assume little impact on industrial capacity outside areas of direct hits, minimal damage to food-production systems, and instant recovery among the population (which will have suffered enormous casualties and can expect a future high incidence of cancer and birth defects). Such expectations are, of course, totally unrealistic.

Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any risk-free way of avoiding nuclear war, especially because the nuclear nonproliferation treaty has failed and the spread of nuclear weapons is accelerating. The United States does have external enemies; so unilateral disarmament, (c). seems neither feasible nor desirable. Continuing the overkill race, (a), seems bound to bring on disaster sooner or later. The only possible solution that we can see is for the United States and other nations to accept more “risks” (that is, that the other side will successfully cheat), while moving toward stepwise disarmament. Such risks seem to us a bargain compared with the dangers implicit in continuing the arms race; after all, both sides can still destroy each other dozens of times over. We would like to see politicians in office who recognize this fact and who — just as a start — would move immediately to increase the funds and power of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Obviously, few of today’s politicians would score very high on our test. Yet these are the issues that will determine the future, not crime in the streets or next year’s unemployment rate. Decisions made in the next five years concerning such issues as energy development, environmental protection, agricultural policy, disarmament, foreign trade and aid, will in fact have a bearing on the rates of crime, inflation, and unemployment in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

It should also be recognized that not all of the important decisions will (or should) be made by the federal or even by state. governments. Individuals and families will decide when they choose their next cars, insulate their homes, install solar heaters, vote for all-out nuclear power, have a third child, plant vegetables in their backyards, move to the suburbs or back to a city apartment, purchase air conditioning or an attic fan, vote for or against public transportation, or ride a bicycle to work.

Businesses will decide whether to conserve energy or to be wasteful when they design their buildings and plan work procedures. They can plan for enormous future economic expansion in the United States (and be caught with their pants down when it fails to materialize) or expect a modest increase for a few decades and an overall steady state thereafter.

Employees as individuals or in labor unions can either help or hinder such changes, of course, and their decisions can make a big difference. If they are wise, they will push for labor-intensive (not energy-intensive) activities. One of today’s greatest mysteries is why big labor supports the development of nuclear power, which would provide some new jobs mainly for engineers and other highly technically skilled workers, instead of the alternatives, most of which (especially solar) would provide many times more jobs, mainly for skilled laborers, such as carpenters, plumbers, and so on.

Farmers, too, have choices to make — they can recognize the need to reestablish food reserves and can push for policies that support the family farm (which has been shown to be more efficient for many crops, despite agribusiness propaganda to the contrary). They can convert to less food-wasteful methods of livestock feeding. They can be willing to buy treated municipal and feedlot sewage to supplement their manufactured fertilizers, even if it costs a little more, because it is very good for their soil. They can minimize their use of dangerous pesticides and learn about alternative ecologically sound methods of pest and weed control.

Getting back to politics, decisions made even at the local level can have far-reaching effects, and the collective decisions of American cities and towns will do much to determine the appearance of the landscape and the nature of our society. Decisions affecting land use and industrial and/or residential development are especially crucial. The United States (far less the world) can ill afford to squander prime agricultural land as it has in the past; kinds and degrees of development also affect transportation and employment patterns and life styles, among other things.

Multinational corporations based in the United States often have as much influence in international affairs as do politicians. In particular, the corporations help shape the perceptions and attitudes of Third World people toward Americans much as they determine the flow of resources and goods in world trade. This power has often been unrecognized by the wielders; sometimes it has been abused. Partly in reaction, the Third World has demanded a “new international economic order.” If a reasonable adjustment cannot be made, war may be the alternative. Multinational executives who are aware of the situation can make sure their operations benefit and are appropriate to conditions in all the countries they deal with. And governments should be prepared to curb those corporations whose only goal appears to be making profits by means of resource extraction, exploitation of labor, and evasion of taxes.

Individuals making their decisions — whether they do so as private citizens; members of such organizations as labor unions; as corporate executives; or as officials in local, state, and national governments — are creating our future. If their decisions are made with an understanding of the underlying issues discussed above and in an effort to create a better future within existing constraints, these people are playing an active role in guiding the nation. But unless the knowledgeable ones succeed in enlisting support and cooperation from the rest of the nation and especially from the government, their efforts won’t amount to much.

Unfortunately, many of the best-in-formed Americans have withdrawn from politics because of disillusionment with politics-as-usual after a decade of turmoil. An electorate gets the government it deserves; neglected politics are likely to produce a neglectful government. A group that fails to make its case to the public and the government or to vote for the right candidate can expect to lose by default.

More than ever before, it is imperative today that voters study the issues carefully, sort out the important ones from the minor or temporary ones, and measure candidates against them. As a voter, you can and should ask questions, demand reasonably direct answers, and refuse to tolerate the present passion for waffling and ducking issues.

Don’t hesitate, on the other hand, to commend a candidate for forthrightness if he or she gives you an honest, well-justified opinion. even if it doesn’t agree with yours.

But express your views, too. Do what you can to encourage the press to ask the right questions, especially if you can’t question a candidate yourself.

In other words, if you want the government and our society to march in your direction, don’t fail to send in your marching orders.