INDEED, LET US BUILD: A REPLY TO ARTHUR WASKOW Julian L. Simon Arthur Waskow is quite right that Jews need a bold and romantic vision of what we can accomplish as Jews and as members of the human community. The need for exciting new challenges grows as humanity comes ever closer to our old goals: Preventing early death; three square meals a day, plus shelter with the basic amenities and some privacy; and enough education for all the world's children so that their talents can come to fruition. The human enterprise has made amazing progress toward these ends during the past two centuries. And within the next century or two we will almost achieve them. We will thereby eliminate the most important challenges that have given much meaning to life through the millennia. Mr. Waskow also is quite right that the needed new challenge is a work of great creation. "Building the land" for long served as a dream for Jews. Now we need another. But Mr. Waskow strays when he suggests that we should "understand our task as not to build the earth, but to heal the earth". That suggestion is founded on false suppositions of fact. And it would lead to perverse consequences that would be especially costly to Jews and Judaism. Before getting down to brass tacks, let us note that as of 1992, Mr. Waskow's suggestion is not radical. Rather, a commit- ment to environmentalist ideals has become a commonplace, an article of faith for just about every community and organization. First we had the "official" Global 2000 Report to President Carter in the U. S. in 1980, which pitched the country into a fever of environmental activism and became the basic document for the environmental movement. Then other countries undertook parallel reports such as Britain 2010, China 21st Century, Ja- pan's The Year 2000, and others for Portugal, Mexico, Taiwan, Norway, Canada, Indonesia, Mauritius, Iceland, Thailand, and Iceland. In 1987 the Brundlandt Commission, a group of household names chaired by the Prime Minister of Norway, published Our Common Future on these same environmental issues. In the summer of 1992, the United Nations will spend forty million dollars for a conference in Sao Paulo to mobilize the forces with respect to environment and population growth. And the Smithsonian Institution, together with the United Nations University - the latter a research and graduate training entity of the U. N. with centers in Finland, The Netherlands, Macau, Ghana, and Venezuela, with activities in dozens of countries - are tooling up for "The Millennium Project". (The term "millennial fears" makes sense.) As an issue, the environment is about as distinctively Jewish as white bread. In November of 1991, the nation's Roman Catholic Bishops "acknowledged that overpopulation drains world resources". They asked Catholics "to examine our lifestyles, behaviors and policies, to see how we contribute to the destruction or neglect of the environment". Even the Pope issued a 1988 encyclical "In Sollicitude Rei Socialisis" and a 1990 New Year's message on this theme of environmental "crisis" and "plundering of natural resources," and "the reality of an innumerable multitude of people." Luckily, the Pope apparently has "gotten religion" and turned back since then. Furthermore, the environmentalist ideal has already suffused the Jewish community. The week that I write this, March 9 and 10, 1992, there is taking place in Washington a "Consultation on the Environment and Jewish Life", intended as "a Jewish communal response to the world environmental crisis". The italicized second paragraph of that invitation letter says: "We appreciate the many important issues on the Jewish communal agenda. But the threat of ecological catastrophe is so frightening and universal that we believe we must mobilize our community's considerable intellectual and organizational resources as soon as possible". The signers of the invitation include just about every big gun in the organized Jewish community - Rabbi Marc D. Angel, President, Rabbinical Council of America; Shoshana S. Cardin, Chairperson, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Rabbi Jerome K. Davidson, President, Synagogue Council of America; Dr. Alfred Gottschalk, President, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Dr. Arthur Green, President, The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Irwin Groner, President, The Rabbinical Assembly; Walter Jacob, Presi- dent, Central Conference of American Rabbis; Marvin Lender, President, United Jewish Appeal; Sheldon Rudoff, President, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; Rabbi Alexan- der M. Schindler, President, Union of American Hebrew Congrega- tions; Dr. Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Arden Shenker, Chairman, National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council; and Alan J. Tichnor, President, United Synagogue of America. Plus three Jewish sena- tors - Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, and Arlen Specter. Can anything get more "establishment"? And Arthur Waskow is a speaker on their program. So he is hardly a voice in the wilder- ness. Some ask whether it is appropriate for religious figures to get involved in politics - and let there be no misunderstanding, the environmental movement is heavy politics. When this question arose about the Catholic bishops' statements on international relations and defense some years ago, Philip Lawler answered as follows: It is entirely appropriate for religious leaders, like all citizens, to participate in public debates, political and otherwise. But because of the nature of their power and influ- ence, they have a special responsibility to know what they are talking about. For them to proceed ignorantly is immoral. Here our Jewish religious figures may tread the primrose path. Odds are that none has studied the basic facts about the environment, natural resources, and population economics. It is almost a sure thing that all of them are proceeding simply be- cause "everyone knows" that the environment is "in crisis", that our air and our water are becoming more polluted, that we are in danger of "depleting the earth". This "general knowledge" is buttressed for them by the reputations of the "thirty four promi- nent scientists" who issued an Open Letter to the Religious Community on these matters in January, 1990. That's enough for most people -- and probably for these Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders surely will be startled to hear that these scary propositions about the environment are not accepted scientific verities. It will surely surprise them even more that the consensus of agricultural economists has for decades been optimistic about the world's capacity to increase food produc- tion, and improve average nutrition, no matter how much popula- tion grows in the foreseeable future; and that the consensus of natural resource economists views the trend of natural resources as becoming less scarce rather than more scarce, bewildering as that may be to non-economists. Surely most amazing of all is that as of 1986, the consensus of scholars of population econom- ics - as revealed in an "official" publication of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences - is quite neutral and reassuring about population growth, saying that "at most" it has a "minor" effect upon economic development. This utterly contradicts the calls of the "thirty-four prominent scientists" for a "voluntary halt to world population growth." (None of the 34 are economists or demographers whose subject is population growth.) Ozone and global warming are particularly prominent issues now. On these, as on the other matters that the "thirty four prominent scientists" touched upon, there are reputable - and in some cases, the most respected in the world - experts who de- nounce the scary alarms. For example, the very first scientist named in the letter was "Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute/NASA, who sparked public awareness regarding global warming". In contrast, the religious signers might consult (say) the work of the late Helmut Lansberg, as respected a climatolo- gist as there was in the world, who a few years ago offered an entirely calm assessment based on the evidence of centuries of temperature and other climate data. Lansberg denounced phony scares which - as short a time ago as the late 1970s - were about global cooling, by some of the same climatologists who are now warning of global warming. Would the 34 doomsaying "prominents" prefer that the world had followed the advice of their colleagues only fifteen years ago - especially that of Stephen Schneider, one of the 34 "promi- nents" - to take immediate steps to head off the supposed cooling threat? Are the religious leaders aware of these flip-flops among the persons they allow to guide them? Are they not glad that they did not listen to the anti-cooling advice they were given back then? Is there any reason to trust the forecasts of those very scientists who have been systematically wrong in every doomsaying prediction that they have made - as is true of the environmental spokesmen of the past two decades? (See my books The Ultimate Resource and Population Matters for documentation of this dismaying record of misforecasts, all of the trends having turned out to be benign.) Arthur Waskow thinks his program will "heal the earth". The fact is that our earth is already being healed at a rapid rate. In the U. S. and most of the other countries for which there are data - the glaring exceptions are the countries that have had communist governments - the air and the water that people consume have been getting cleaner rather than dirtier. (These data come straight from the Environmental Protection Agency.) When considering the state of the environment, we should think first of the terrible pollutions that were banished in the past century or so - the typhoid that polluted even the Hudson river, the smallpox that humanity has finally pursued to the ends of the earth and just about eradicated, the dysentery that dis- tressed and killed people all over the world as it still does in India, the plagues and other epidemics that trouble us much less than in generations past, or not at all. Not only are we in the rich countries free of malaria (largely due to our intensive occupation of the land), but even the mosquitoes that do no more than cause itches with their bites are now so absent from many urban areas that people no longer need screens for their homes, and can have garden parties at dusk. It is a mark of our ex- traordinary success in healing the earth that the horrors of the past which were transmitted by filthy air and water are no longer even thought of as pollutions. Mr. Waskow says that we are in "tzuris". But every indica- tor shows that humanity is in a better state than ever before with regard to tachlis - health, wealth, freedom, and opportuni- ty. It is true that by shifting the discussion away from Mr. Waskow's avowed topic - the environment, and resources such as energy - one can find trends that one can look at with regret: the rate of intermarriage, the terrible things that affluence can do to us, our supposed spiritual bankruptcy, having too many things we want to do in the hours allotted to us. But such matters which have nothing to do with physical resources, and which are subject to contrasting interpretations, distract our attention from the key facts: By any agreed-upon objective measure of human welfare - and those are the only matters we can discuss meaningfully - the people of the world as a whole, the citizens of the U. S., and Jews at large are better off than ever in history. Have Mr. Waskow and our Jewish religious leaders reflected on whether the prescription to put pressure upon people to have fewer children in order to "save the environment" - a "voluntary halt to world population growth", which as a hundred million Chinese couples know is about as voluntary as taxes - is pro- foundly un-Jewish? Have they asked how that injunction squares with Genesis? And remember, the scientific consensus is that there is no economic basis for public efforts to halt population growth worldwide. The reader may dismiss the environmental helter-skelter as unimportant. "So it's exaggerated, so what?" But there are perverse and costly consequences from policies adopted in the belief that things are getting worse when they are really getting better. The most immediate ill is diversion of money and effort from true works of building to mere political hurly-burly and the lining of environmentalist pockets. If this sounds overheated, I suggest that the next time someone comes to your door to ask for donations - often in the guise of asking for your signature to a petition - you ask some close questions. We can assume that the solicitor will be for an environmental organization, because every stranger who has come to our door for the past eight years has been from an environmental organization. (This excludes the Girl Scouts and the cancer and heart groups, who are neighbors.) Ask if the solicitor is getting paid, and you will learn that he/she gets a commission of thirty percent or more "off the top", with other chunks going to the persons up the line. Then ask what the organization will use the residual money for, and the answer always is: political activity, and consciousness raising (which often means soliciting more money). Never will the money be used to clean up a playground or to plant trees, and certainly not to build a hospital or a religious building. The aim is not to build and create, but only to "protect" - which usually means stopping the progress of others who want to build factories, stores, waste disposal facilities, homes, and resorts. With Mr. Waskow's program we'd get more of progress-preventing activities. Better that our money should go (just one example) to loans to Soviet emigrants in Israel and the U. S. - to dentists so they can buy the equipment they need, to talented kids for violin lessons, and to help computer programmers open their own shops. And if we put our money to such purposes we can stop shnorring from the U. S. government, which is bad for everyone in the long run. And there are plenty of worthwhile uses of Jewish money and strength for non-Jewish causes, too. I cite as a single example the Latin American refugee doctors who cannot practice in the U. S. because they lack certificates, and lack the money to support themselves while studying for the certificates. A small revolv- ing fund could make a much bigger difference here than in financ- ing more lobbying efforts to "save" this or that swamp. If we have time and energy to contribute, those of us who have special talents can even go to Israel and teach those den- tists how to work in a free country; pass on business know-how to the computer programmers; and perhaps repair the kids' violins. That will be creation, rather than just stirring the pot of domestic political conflict with more environmental lobbying and protest. Perhaps the worst consequence of the unfounded environmen- talist claims is the damage they do to the truth. Being willing to exaggerate and lie because the cause is too important to tarry for the usual scientific proof does great damage to public discourse, and to the quality of our thinking. And it opens the door to demagogues who exploit the big lie technique to ultimate disaster. No one has ever presented evidence that exaggerated warnings of impending disaster on balance lead to increased rather than decreased protection and safety for humanity. Mr. Waskow also thinks that the environmental program will "heal our own confusion". What confusion? What data would he present that our confusion is worse than at any time in the past? True, we may now be less convinced of religious verities than in the past, but is that undesirable confusion? Indeed, one of the worst consequences of the environmental movement is that it increases confusion by misleading people about the facts - by bringing them to think that things are getting worse when they are really getting better, and thereby making them gloomy rather than optimistic about the future. Is that an appropriate func- tion for a religious movement? Better that our Jewish contribu- tion should be clear independent thinking and a break with knee- jerk environmentalism. At this point you may be getting fidgety that I have not shown evidence for all the positive statements made above about the basic trends in human welfare. In this short space I cannot do so. But here is one quick way to test for yourself the asser- tion that the conditions of humanity have been getting better rather than worse. Stop at the nearest library and inspect the two basic reference books - the Bureau of the Census's Statisti- cal Abstract of the United States and Historical Statistics of the United States. Look in the index under "Pollution: Air," and "Pollution: Water," and examine the data for various years. Then do the same for world food production per person. Then world- wide availability of natural resources as measured by their prices. While you're at it, check the amount of space per person in our homes, and the presence of such amenities as inside toi- lets and telephones, year by year. Most important, inspect life expectancy and the incidence of death. You will find that just about every single measure of the quality of life shows improve- ment rather than the deterioration that the doomsayers claim has occurred. And things have gotten better for the poor as well as the rich, even through the 1980's. Another crude test is whether people will put their money where their mouths are. So here is my standard offer: I'll bet a week's or a month's pay that just about any broad aggregate trend pertaining to human welfare will improve rather than get worse - health, standard of living, cleanliness of our air and water, natural resource availability - you name it, and you pick any year in the future. First come, first served. It is reveal- ing that I have never had a taker on any such offer except for a group comprised of Paul Ehrlich and two associates in 1980, who bet on the scarcity of five metals. In 1990 they paid off, because every one of the five resources they chose had become more available rather than more scarce. (See box) If the environment will not be our dream and our challenge, if washing the bottles before separating them for recycling lacks the necessary grandeur, what can serve to inspire us? This is a very tough question. But here are a few suggestions. Jews can truly "build the land" by pioneering in the con- struction of living habitats on Mars. The pioneers can lay the foundation for the next expansion of human population to (say) 20 billion by creating a demonstration area on that planet - technological, political, social - that will serve as home for (say) ten thousand or ten million Jews, where the Jewish settlement can serve as a true light to the nations. Or we can colonize the bottom of the ocean. Such activities would be a true challenge and a distinctively Jewish contribution to the Jewish and human communities. These pioneering efforts are feasible - a lot more feasible than Arthur Waskow's suggestion that we "create week-long nation- al festivals in which highways and airports as well as factories and offices shut down". And it does much more for the human spirit to build up rather than shut down - besides which, shut- ting things down always means forcing some people's will on others. Shutting down is a profoundly illiberal and undemocratic rejection of a free society containing free individuals and free markets. Then there is another challenge - helping the world do business well. Goodness knows Eastern Europe needs this help. Israel can use a bit of it too. Some will laugh at this sugges- tion because to them doing business is low-life and contemptible - a function of "greed". But who among us is against farming? Yet modern farming is pure business -- ask any corn-and-soybeans farmer in Illinois. So is producing lifesaving new drugs. With commerce, too, Jews could make a distinctively Jewish contribu- tion by showing people how to do business well, how to build productive enterprise, and do so while operating with the best of Jewish business ethics. This, too, would be a building of the land. So, yes, Mr. Waskow, Anu Banu Artza - exactly that. page 1/article2 waskow/May 20, 1992