Letters.

Economic Enlightenment

The Humanist is to be commended for publishing the article "A New Economy for a New Century" by Lester R. Brown and Christopher Flavin (May/June 1999).

Far too much of thinking about the next century is concerned with predictions of the benefits that we will get from new technologies. This is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees or, more precisely, of ignoring long-run problems while thinking only of short-term gains.

If we continue on our present course, it is certain that before the end of the next century humankind will suffer from fundamental disturbances such as overpopulation, global warming, and shortages of food and water. The sooner we take remedial actions, the easier it will be to make adjustments.

The article concludes by saying that the challenge is to mobilize public support for the economic transformation. Unfortunately, it says nothing of the opposition to any change. In the case of global warming, the fossil-fuel industries are spending millions of dollars to convince the public that we should do nothing about it. And our automotive industry is certain to resist any threat to its profits from gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles. We recognize that we cannot depend on truth in advertising; we need to recognize that there is well-funded propaganda aimed at preserving short-term corporate profits while ignoring long-term disasters.

Humanists represent a portion of the public least susceptible to false propaganda. We should take the lead in understanding the prospects for the next century and in enlightening the public on needed actions.

John Burton Washington, NJ

Science Is the Way

I really disagree with Professor Mark Gibney's article "Missing the Forest for the Trees" (May/June 1999). This whole, very pervasive view that ethics is some sort of "balance" or "compromise" or "happy middle" between personal needs and social needs just has got to go. Society and social needs are nothing unless they arise directly from individuals. A way must be found that makes the individual's pursuit of his or her own beliefs and dreams lead to a society--not the other way around, where the individual is made to accept the importance of society and thus compromise her or his own fulfillment. And that way has been found--it's called science.

Timothy Sandefur Rialto, CA

Competition Is No Choice

In "The Myth of Competition and the Case Against School `Choice'" in your March/April 1999 issue, Gregory Shafer discusses school choice and the idiocy of competition as a useful instrument in the conduct of social policy. The growth of competition as a major religious tenet of the newest simplistic approach to solutions to the human condition deserves additional comment.

Our addiction to quick-fix solutions makes us the perfect consumers for today's so-called panacea: competition. It should tell us something about its validity as a solution that few, if any, of its practitioners know how and why it actually works ... when it works. What aspect of the human psyche is triggered and functions under the banner of competition?

Any business person or corporate manager who introduces competition among members of her or his workforce to increase production soon learns that such competition doesn't automatically lead to success. Without careful and informed establishment of goals and limits on expression of competitive spirit, the participants will go in nonproductive directions in search of victory over their opposition. Allowed to make up their own rules, they will develop those rules to support their own strengths and offset the strengths of their opponents. In other words, unbridled competition guarantees only strength of motivation, not wisdom of choice.

If we expect that school "choice" will result in better schools because it introduces the alchemy of competition, we're building to disaster.

Earl Gates Appleton, WI