Awake!, February 22, 1960
Download: PDF — Awake!, February 22, 1960
Are You Reaching Out for Equality?
Overcoming the Problems of Insect Control
Which Way, UN?
Nature’s Rambling Pincushions
JANUARY 22, 1962
THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL
Newt sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital Issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. “Awake!" has no fetters. It Recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden on; it Is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.
“Awake!" uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent on them. Its own correspondents ore on all continents, in scores of nations. From the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on-the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal's viewpoint is not narrow, but is international. It is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.
"Awake!” pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners ond strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a righteous New World.
Get acquainted with "Awake!" Keep awake by reading “Awake!'*
Pububhbd Simultaneously in ths United States by THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. 117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, New York, U.S.A.
and nr Enoland nr WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY Watch Tower House. The Ridgeway N. H. Knobs, President
Printing this luua: 3300,000 4d
“Amtol” b PaklltM In tti» fol I win, M taninaia: Sra[monthly—Afrihaom. clnyanh. Punish, Patch, Eng-llsh^ Flanldi, German, Greek, Ililiin, Japaaate,
Norveglan, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog, Zulu. Monthly—Cebu-VUayaD, Chinese, n«anfl± Korean, Mali-yalUD, polish, Ukrainian.
Yearly rtbacrtotlOT) ret™
QfflMt for Mmlmcmthly editions
AMerlU, U.S.f 117 Adams St, Brooklyn 1, N.Y. $1 Autraffia 11 Bedford Bd., Btrathfleld, N,&*W. 8/-
Cfiflftda, 150 Bridgeland Ave., Toronto 19, Ont. |1 England, Watch Tower House,
The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7 7/-
Ntw Ztalaad, 621 New North Rd., Auckland, 8.W. 1 7/-frMth Africa, Private Bag, Elandrfonteln, Tvl. 70c Monthly editions cost half the above rates.
London N.W. 7, England Grant Suithb, Secretary
a copy (Australia, M; South Africa, 3/aC) Rtmlttlnm for subscriptions ahotild be sent to Lhe office in four country. Otherwise send ynur remittance to London. Not Im of expiration is sent at least two Imum before subscription expires.
CHANGES OF ADDRESS should reach nt thirty dayi before yoor moving date. Give as year old aid new address (If posalblo, yoir eld addreu label). Watch lover, Watch Tower Hom, The Rldpway, Louden N.Wa 7g England,
Entered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N.Y. Printed In England
The Bible translation lied In “AwaW” b the Unr World TramlrttM of the Holy Scriptures, 19(11 edition
When other tranilationi ire Afi - American Standard Version AT - An American Translation AV - Authorlied Verdon (1611) Da - J. N. Darby's version
■led the follswlnt tymbele will Dtf — Catholic Douay version - The Emphatic Diaglott JP - Jewish Publication See. Le - Iliac Leaser's version
appear behind the ertathmi Mo - James Moffatt's vendee 2?O - J. B. Rotherham's ver&lon P8 ~ Beriffd Standard Verdon Yg - Robert Young's versloQ
CONTENTS
Can You Acknowledge a Mistake?
Are You Reaching Out for Equality?
Nature Notes
Overcoming the Problems of
Insect Control
When Disaster Strikes
Teen-Agers Impressed by Witness Pals
Which Way, UN?
“Finance Counselors" Hastened Our Business Ruin
Witnessing by Christian Conduct
Nature’s Rambling Pincushions
“Your Word Is Truth”
Happiness for All in the New World
Watching the World
HAVE you never made a mistake? Have you always been correct with every decision you have made, every opinion given and every action taken? It is most unlikely that you would say Yes. Imperfect humans are certain to make mistakes, some more than others. The best they can do is to exercise great care so as to reduce the number they make. Edward J. Phelps, a United States jurist of the nineteenth century, observed: “The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.” '
You may readily admit that you are not infallible, but when it comes to acknowledging an error do you strive to make people think you are? When confronted with a mistake do you stoutly argue that it is not an error, when in your heart you know that it is? Do you strive to twist the facts in order to justify what you have done rather than to admit humbly that you were wrong? Some persons are so stubborn in this respect that they never change their story. They will never admit an error.
Regarding them the poet Alexander Pope wrote:
“Some positive persisting fops we know, Who, If once wrong, will needs be always so;
But you with pleasure own your errors past, And make each day a critique on the last.” This is good advice. It is better to acknowledge ownership of your errors so you can dispose of them than to let pride make you stubbornly hold on to them. Such stubbornness is not showing respect for the truth.
God’s Word requires people to “speak truthfully with one another.” (Zech. 8:16) This must be done at all times. If out of pride one tries to hide the fact that he made an error by untruthfully denying it, he makes himself a liar. That is no way to win the approval of the God of truth, who says in his Word: “There will dwell inside my house no worker of trickiness. As for anyone speaking falsehoods, he will not be firmly established.” (Ps. 101:7) Jehovah’s approval comes upon those who are truthful in everything they do, not upon those who by tricky argument try to squirm out of responsibility for a mistake. Look what happened to King Saul when he tried to do that.
When Samuel brought Saul to task for failing to destroy all the cursed Amalek-ites and their possessions, Saul tried to argue his way out of responsibility for the error, “But I have obeyed the voice of Jehovah -. . . And the people went taking from the spoil sheep and cattle, the choicest of them as something devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God in Gilgal.” (1 Sam. 15:20, 21) Not until Samuel told him bluntly that Jehovah had rejected him did he finally admit that he had sinned. His selfjustification is in marked contrast to what King David did when he was accused of a grave mistake.
ARTICLES IN THE NEXT ISSUE
f In What Do You Believe?
• ErTiergency Foods.
f Meat the General Practitioner.
The prophet Nathan rebuked David for committing adultery with Bath-sheba and having her husband, Uriah, killed. Instead of denying his error and taking the proud position that as king his integrity should not be questioned, David acknowledged his grave sin and showed true repentance. In remorse he said to Nathan: ‘T have sinned against Jehovah.” (2 Sam. 12:13) David did not pretend to be right and innocent when he knew that he was not.
It is foolish for one to try to build up in the minds of other people the illusion that he is such a great intellect and so careful with what he does that he is never wrong. Anyone who has such an inflated opinion of himself needs to take a lesson from David in manifestirig humility. He needs to realize that he is not flawless. What may seem impossible to him can happen. He can make mistakes. How much better it is to face up to them instead of trying to pin them on someone else or trying to argue around them!
No one can maintain the respect of others if he always insists that he is right, even when confronted with an obvious mistake. This continual self-justification becomes repugnant to them. How can anyone have confidence in a person who they know from past experience will sacrifice the truth to put on an appearance of being right?
If anyone talks to others about the necessity of living according to God’s righteous principles, should he not live by them himself? When anyone becomes untruthful to avoid admitting a mistake, is he not showing disrespect for those principles? Is he not being like the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus Christ rebuked for pretending to be righteous when they were not? He said: “You,are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts.” (Luke 16:15) Although a person may succeed ih deceiving others for a while by efforts at selfjustification, he does not deceive God. God knows the heart. It is best to be honest with oneself as well as with everyone else.
It is only proper to apologize for an error that inconveniences someone. It is adding insult to injury to deny one’s error. There are times when a person may honestly not recall giving misinformation to a person. Nevertheless, he can make acknowledgment that it is possible that he made a mistake and, if he did, he did not do it intentionally. An apology helps to preserve good relations with the other person.
As long as mankind is imperfect, mistakes will be part of the lives of all. It is important to recognize this fact and not pretend that we do not make them. The Bible writer James said: “We all stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, able to bridle also his whole body.” (Jas. 3:2) Since none of us are perfect and everyone knows it, we should all be big enough to acknowledge our errors. Never forsake truth and honesty to avoid admitting that you made a mistake.
HWAND VVHERB YOU CAN f/ND IT.
L&ARN
APE YOU
MORROWS world will not belong to the upper-class naticns or the upper classes/’ wrote Saville R. Davis, managing editor of TM Chrvrtian Science Monitor, January 30, 1958. “Tomorrow's world will belong to the many. Only the past now belongs to a privileged few. This is a democratic, not a Communist revolution,” he declared. “It is a product of freedom. But its name is not Freedom. Its name is Equality.”
Years ago Peter A. Kropotkin, Russian geographer and revolutionist, spoke of a similar revolution. He said that he saw a new form of society germinating in the civilized nations, a society that “must take the place of the old one; A society of equals.”
The concept of equality has been a part of man’s thinking from very early times. The Holy Scriptures furnish a meaningful framework for the idea of equality. Both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures steadfastly uphold the thought that all men have a common source in Adam and Eve, the parents of humankind. The common ancestry of man can be seen also in the Bible account of the Flood. Noah and his three sons were the only male suivivors. All men today are descendants cf them, hence related to one another' in the one man Noah. The words of Jesus Christ and their application to the conduct of life, his life given as a ransom and its availability to all men everywhere demonstrate man’s equality before God.
The proposition of equality, however, does not imply that all men are equal or ever will be equal to or.e another in every sense of the word, It is altogether too ob-vicus that they are not and never have been equEJ1 in every way. The doctrine of “universal equality” is foreign to the Scripture?- The Bible does not support theories that argue for the equality of all things. In fact, it does not even teach the equality of Christ with God, which doctrine trirdtarians uphold aS true. Jesus Christ hirnself stated: “The Father is greater than I am.” Since the Father is greater, then the Son is not equal to Him. Jesus’ apostle Paul wrote the following concerning Christ: “Although he was existing In God’s form [that is, spirit, he] gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to CJcd.” These inspired Scripture texts conclusively demolish all thoughts of there being an equality with God.--John 14:28; Phil. 2:6.
As for there being equality between men and angel?, the idea is as foreign as it is absurd. Tile psalmist pointedly states: God made man “a little less than godlike ones.” If less, then man is not equal to them. Therefore, the doctrine of “universal equality” is without basis in fact.—Fs. 8:4, 5.
But what about men? Are they not equal to one another? Does not the Bible say that God ‘'made cut of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth”? (Acts 17:26) Yes, this verse does say we a2i have a common origin, hut it does not say that we are equals in every way, and it is quite obvious that we are not. Men vary in strength, talents and abilities. If they were equals in the absolute sense of the word, it would be silly to have comjjetitive games, because they would all end up in tie scores. We would not have a good, better and best among men. All doctors, teachers and political candidates wbuld be considered of equal worth. But such is not the case. Even a cursory glance shows there to be a wide range of difference between men mentally, morally and physically. This is not objectionable, but pleasant. It is part of the beauty that we now enjoy in the grand variety we behold constantly before us.
The Equality Desired
Why, then, do men reach out for equality if variety is so desirable? What sort of equality do men seek? And is it attainable?
The idea of equality has its source in an Individual’s sense of his own worth. As a rule men feel confident that before God all men are equals, that there is no partiality with God, (Acts 10:34, 35) So the idea is born and persists that human relations should be nonpartial, that is, on an equal plane. When American journalist and humorist Finley P. Dunne declared: “One man is as good as another,” he was expressing this concept.
The premise upon which men argue for equality is reflected in the words of Rob Roy. “Before I go any further,” says Frank Osbaldistone in Rob Roy, “I must know who you are.” “I am a man,” is the answer, "and my purpose is friendly." “A man,” he replied; “that is a brief description.” “It will serve,” answered Rob Roy, “for one who has no other to give. He that is without name, without friends, without coin, without country, is still at least a man; and he that has all these is no more.” Yes, upon this basis man makes an appeal for equality with other men, the fact that man is man and no more, despite his status in life.
In his quest for equality, man desires, not equal physical strength and talents, but equal rights, freedoms and opportunities along with otners m ms community. He wants an equal opportunity to find employment, to work, to worship and to think. He desires an equal opportunity to speak without fear, hold opinions of his own, choose his own course, develop his talents, rear children, save and accumulate property honestly. He wants very much to be accepted by other men as an equal. But will this ever be on an earth-wide scale?
Demanding Equality
The question of race and equality is one of the biggest issues in Africa and Asia today. Managing editor Davis says: “The stigma attached by the West to these yellow and brown colored races of being inferior people has bumed deep into their thinking. They resent it with all their strength. They are determined to be treated with the respect due to human beings, and if this is not done willingly they will reach to any extremes to compel it.” That is precisely what is happening in the world today. These people are demanding equal rights with other people, and many of them are tasting the goodness of equality for the first time.
In the wake of the present drive for equality, dictators have fallen, old empires have been swept away, new governments have been born and the colonial yoke has been lifted off the necks of hundreds of millions of people. However, other hundreds of millions continue to live in abject slavery. But the fulfillment of the wish of those who won for themselves so-called equality has not been as joyful and rewarding as some had anticipated. In some cases it meant assuming greater responsibilities, the burden of which has led to controls, curtailment of freedom and deprivation.
Liberty and Equality
are words that go well together. Reformers in all ages have used them to arouse the enthusiasm of the enslaved masses However, equality and liberty do not come easily like a handout. If they did, it would not have been an unusual thing when, in 1776, a nation dedicated itself to liberty and equality. In fact, that dedication did not guarantee for ail Americans equality. That struggle is still being waged by some people. The truth is that the very signers of the United States Declaration of Independence, who declared so eloquently that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,’’ could hardly have meant what they said to be taken literally. Because most of those signers were aristocrats; many of them were slave holders; some of them defended human slavery. They, no doubt, were simply stating the theory of democratic government as it was understood in their time. They merely laid stress on the contrast between the natural status of man as God created him and the legal status, which other men had imposed upon him.
The fact remains that the desired equality of all mankind is something that has never been actually realized by men, either prior to or since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A limited equality has been won, yes; and limited freedoms, yes; but by far not an equality for all peoples everywhere. Equality is possible only where there is an equal distribution of the good things of life. And since that is quite impossible under the present system of things, the striving after a materialistic equality now is nothing more than a dream.
Equality Christianity Offers
In his book Liberty versus Equality W. F. Russell stated that even if there were peace and plenty among men, there still would not be liberty or equality; because, he says, the mind of man is burdened with the idea of fatality. He asserts, however, that “Christianity had solved the problem of liberty and equality. There was a world where all men would be free; there was a world where all men would be brothers, and have equality. But it was not this world,—it was the Future Life,” he says.
Actually Russell’s statement concerning Christianity is true only in part. While Christianity does proclaim a righteous new world to come where relative freedoms and equal rights and opportunities will be for all, it does not teach that men would have to wait for the full establishment of the new world before they could enjoy the benefits of Christianity. However, Jesus did say: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17: 16) Christian rights and freedoms are not in the old system of things, they never were there and they are not there now. So to seek them there is not only foolish, but a terrible waste of time. Those rights and privileges are to be found only in a Christian society that is not of this world.
To establish that point we direct your attention to the Jews of the first century who were in bondage to the Mosaic law. Before they were made free of the Law, they had to leave their traditional systems and embrace Christianity. The apostle Paul, who was himself a Jew once bound to the Law, wrote: “Christ is the end of the Law.” “For such freedom Christ set us free.” In fact, God through Christ put an end not only to the Law, but also to the division between Jew and Gentile. In the Christian congregation they were treated equally. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman,... for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus,” wrote Paul. What greater equality could there be?—Rom. 10:4; Gal. 5:1; 3: 26-28.
Christianity also has reached out to free those under sin's law. Peter declared: Christ “himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake.’* This he did "in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” While the privilege to believe on Christ is open to all men everywhere, yet they must come to Christ to receive of his benefits. They cannot remain part of the world and be saved, for Christ is no part of the world.—1 Pet. 2:24; John 3:16; Rom. 7:21-25; Rev. 18:4, 5.
In this twentieth century it is as futile to look for enduring rights and freedoms outside the Christian congregation as it was in the first century. The only place where these can be found is in the Christian society that is not of this world, namely, the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses. The New World society has declared itself neutral toward all worldly systems. Its members take no part in the social, political, religious or military functions of the old world. As a society not of this world they have vowed to do God’s will. Within this society there are no class distinctions, no racial barriers, no national divisions. Here today one can experience a foretaste of rights and liberties that someday will be earth-wide. This old world is destined to give way to God’s kingdom at Armageddon, after which war “the earth will be filled with the knowing of the glory of Jehovah.” Then all men will enjoy equal opportunities and equal rights. —Hab. 2:14; Dan. 2:44.
If you are one reaching out for equality, the kind of equality that God gives, then you owe it to yourself and your family to investigate what Christianity has to offer through its grand body of worshipers in the New World society. Why delay? Enjoy equality now along with the unspeakable hope of living eternally.
C A report fn the Natural History magazine for December, 1959, says: “In a school, all the fish seem to behave alike and each school—whether mackerel, herring, tuna, or small shiners—resembles other schools in shape and form. Of , the many features schools have in common, the most surprising, perhaps, is the absence of a continual leader. A school may swerve to the right or to the left, fan out from the center, or change direction entirely. Each time, a different group of Ash heads the school. As these movements of the school as a whole are made, there is also constant movement within the school—as each Ash maintains its distance from the other Ashes. The precision of orientation that is shown by Ash as they swim in a school is rarely found anywhere else in the animal kingdom.”
C “The docile part of a lion's nature," reports the volume The Animal Kingdom, “is not uppermost all the time. In the breeding season this carnivore will even turn on its own kind. A lion must fight for a mate and it will engage its competitors in a Fierce battle. Sometimes the beast has to defeat three or four rivals before it can claim its favorite lioness. Once victory is won, the pair go off together on their honeymoon. They may travel for miles until they And a place that offers them suitable privacy. During the honeymoon, which may last two weeks or more, they do little hunting or eating. At this time the lion is really dangerous, and any man or beast that trespasses on its privacy is quickly annihilated."
hibernates, however, sixteen out of its seventeen years.
No question about the need to control insects in view of such numbers. They are, without doubt, man’s greatest competitor for the fruits of the ground. Their total cost to farmers in the United States alone is estimated at $4,000 million annually.
The problems of controlling insects have increased by reason of the increase in insects themselves as well as by reason of the modem trend in insect control. Thus in 1956 the United States used 250,000 tons of chemicals at the cost of $260 million to control insects. At present there are at least 12,500 brand-name insecticides and 200 basic control compounds. The large-
T3E problem of controlling insects is not a new one. Written formulas on how to do so have been found on papyrus manuscripts that go back as far as 1500 B.C. Especially harmful must have been'the ancient locust plagues, for when Moses, in 1513 B.C., warned of a locust plague, the Egyptians begged Pharaoh to capitulate. That locusts were a great plague is also implied by the fact that they are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures under ten different names. The inspired Record also tells of other harmful pests in ancient times, such as the caterpillar, flea, gadfly, gnat and scorpion.—Ex. 10:7.
Insects are the most numerous of earth's sentient creatures or souls, both as to their total number, estimated at 12,000 to every human, and their varieties, more than 660,000 species having been catalogued by man. Fortunately for man, comparatively few insects live more than a year, many, in fact, only a few weeks or days. The seventeen-year “locust," actually the periodic cicada, is a striking exception. It scale spraying of millions of acres by thousands of airplanes has also brought with it its problem.
But most serious of all is the problem caused by the increased toxicity or deadliness of modern insecticides. For years those used were primarily white arsenic, arsenate of lead and Paris green. The harm these did to wildlife was negligible. In 1939 a Swiss scientist re-created DDT (it having first been produced sixty-five years before by a German scientist), and in 1942 it was pounced upon by the British and American governments to combat the disease-bearing insects afflicting their troops. Since World War II DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) has become as popular with agriculture as penicillin has with medicine.
While the commercial producers of DDT assured the public that DDT was harmless to man and beast, gradually the facts emerged to prove otherwise. In some localities robins have been wiped out and other songbirds greatly reduced in number because of their eating worms that had fed on leaves sprayed with DDT. Considerable has been the harm done to fish because of the rain washing DDT into ponds and rivers. In fact, the oily film of DDT on water in a trough is toxic enough to kill a horse. The residues that reach human consumption, while less lethal, do harm by gradually building up in the human body. Once having entered, DDT never leaves an organism.
DDT, however, is mild compared with its modem progeny. Such chemicals as dieldrin and heptachlor are at least fifteen times as toxic as DDT. Recently a committee in the British Parliament condemned the indiscriminate use of such insecticides on farms and pastures and accused the Ministry of Agriculture of gross negligence in permitting the use of these before ascertaining how deadly they were to wild animals. The committee, in fact, called for the immediate prohibition of such chemicals as aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor.
Destruction of Domestic and
Wild Animals
The modem large-scale use of such extremely toxic insecticides has caused many loud protests also to be heard in the United States. The newspapers, popular magazines and, in particular, such publications as Audubon, American Forests, Organic Gardening, Field and Stream and Outdoor Life have called attention to the harm being done. “The current widespread program poses the greatest threat that animal life in North America has ever faced—worse than illegal shooting, worse than drainage, drought, oil pollution; possibly worse than all these decimating factors combined,” is the way a leading zoologist expressed himself on the subject.
In particular was the fire-ant program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) condemned as “ill-conceived, unnecessary, poorly handled and extremely destructive to wildlife.” The imported fire ant had been around some twenty-five years when It suddenly was attacked as the greatest insect menace ip the land. Yet official investigators found the fire ant posing no threat to either plant or animal life, but only a nuisance because of its large mounds. In fact, fire ants were found to be doing much good by devouring the larvae of the cotton-boll weevil; and when scientists, in experiments, starved the fire ants they turned cannibals, devouring one another rather than other living creatures!
Still the USDA embarked on a multimillion-dollar program to wipe out the fire ant by means of dieldrin and heptachlor. As a result, countless numbers of both wild and domestic animals were destroyed, not to say anything of what harm man may eventually suffer from it. On one farm a hundred head of cattle died right after the spraying; on another, some hundred brood sows were made sterile. In one field fifty colonies of bees were destroyed—their value, $11,200. And in just one residential neighborhood hundreds of chickens, as well as many turkeys, cats and dogs, were killed.
Just how many wild animals were destroyed no one could accurately tell, if for no other reason than that it is the nature of wild animals to hide when dying. But checks showed that in many areas the bird population was decreased by 80 to 97 percent. Large numbers of poisoned carcasses of rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, opossums and even young foxes were found. And especially vulnerable to insecticides, let it be noted, are the young and the reproductive powers of the mature creatures; this harm is not apparent at once.
A USDA spokesman claimed that no harm resulted where instructions were implicitly followed. But what about a margin for error and oversight? And how could wild animals follow the instructions, which, in part, were: “Leafy vegetables... should be covered just prior to application of insecticides and then washed before eating . . . Keep milk cows off treated pastures thirty days, and beef cattle off fifteen days; cover hives or move them away; . . . don’t let pets or poultry drink from puddles.” Surely these very instructions testify to the deadliness of that spraying program!
Damage to the “Ecosystem”
Ecology is “the biology of the mutual relations between organisms and their environment,” we are told. Nature everywhere has a balance between its various living things and their environment. This balance modem scientists have termed an “ecosystem.” Widespread use of highly toxic insecticides throws this ecosystem out of balance. Thus when one insect is wiped out, unless it is an import, its natural enemies will increase to form a new menace. Further, it is not possible to kill all apparently harmful insects without at the same time destroying harmless or beneficial ones. Destroy insects that pollinate your fruit crop and you may be destroying it! Then again, poison the insect population and you may destroy other useful wildlife, because of its feeding on poisoned insects or because of its not having any insects upon which to feed.
The fact that strong insecticides remain in the ground for years and weak ones accumulate to become strong poisons poses another problem. Such poisons play havoc with the valuable earthworm population. An acre of healthy grassland may have as many as a million or more earthworms in it, the weight of the worms below the grass equaling the weight of the sheep feeding upon it. These worms throw up casts from as much as ten feet below the surface, casts that are richer than any fertilizer. Worms also aerate the soil, breaking it up and sb helping heavy soils to drain. After an orchard is sprayed the ground may be covered with dead earthworms.
Still another problem in insect control is the immunity to insecticides gradually achieved by insects. Even after thirty generations of not being exposed certain insects still breed immune. Says one scientist: “Control of insect pests cannot be assured simply by inventing new and more powerful insecticides . . . They have , . . created problems of their own; witness the phenomenal increase of destructive mites that followed the slaughter of their insect enemies with DDT and other new insecticides, and the rise of new insects resistant to the poisons. Chemical control is at best but temporary. If we are to escape this ever-tightening spiral of more complex problems and ever-increasing costs of control, then we must integrate chemical control with natural factors influencing populations.”
Before noting these natural factors in insect control it may not be amiss at least to take note of two other aspects of the large-scale use of highly toxic insecticides: the effect upon humans and its legality. Certain leading physicians attribute the increase in cancer and blood diseases to the use of these new insecticides. And some legal minds hold that only extremely urgent demands of public health and safety justify a government agency’s covering one’s land with poison without one’s permission.
Better Ways of Overcoming
the Problems
Those waging the all-out war against insects by means of highly toxic chemicals point to the harm insects do in justification of their methods. However, man has a God-given dominion over the lower anl-mals that he may not abuse. When his research on the harm done by his new insecticides is ten years behind their ube, as has well been observed, then he is abusing his dominion. The way the USDA went at the fire-ant problem is a case in point. First it recommended two pounds of powerful insecticides per acre, then one and one fourth pounds and finally one fourth pound per acre, to be followed in six months by another quarter pound. Why, simply spreading insecticides closer to the ground would help conserve wildlife.
And what about trying to develop more insecticides that will kill only a certain pest? "From hydrazine,” we are told, “has been made a chemical to kill mites—the first such agent that is not toxic to birds that feed on the poisoned mites.”
Among the better ways of controlling insects must be mentioned the natural factors such as the living insecticides, the parasites, bacteria and viruses. The Colias caterpillar, one of California’s most destructive insect pests, is being successfully attacked along three fronts: by means of a tiny parasitic wasp, by means of a virus and by means of a bacteria. Such living insecticides are also being successfully used in bringing the Japanese beetle and the European spruce sawfly under control. And these continue to be effective, since insects do not build up immunity against their natural enemies the way they do against their artificial ones!
Even atomic power is being used in insect control. The fact that radiation causes sterility served as the key for dealing with the deadly screwworm fly. Sexually potent males were bred by the millions and then sterilized by radiation and scattered among the screwworm population. All females mating with the sterile males became barren. And since the females breed only once, whereas the males breed as often as five times, in a comparatively short time this insect had bred itself out of existence in the southeastern United States, where it had been a plague.
But what may well be the definitive, the final and complete method of overcoming the problems of insect control is that based on the principle that truly healthy plants are immune to insects. Known as organic gardening, it is gaining more and more recognition all the time. Thus Dr. William Albrecht, chairman of the Department of Soils at the Missouri University College of Agriculture, found that plants grown in truly fertile soil had 100-percent immunity to insects, whereas plants grown on adjacent lots of depleted soil had 100-percent attack. According to him the soaring increase in pest infection is a direct result of declining soil fertility. It is nature’s way of eliminating sick plants that should be returned to the soil instead of eaten. Says he: “It is not enough that we eat unhealthy plants and the flesh of unhealthy animals . . . but we compound the injury by bathing them with poisons; then we consume these deficient, poisoned foods.” However, it must be admitted that large-scale organic farming is not without its problems also.
No question about it, man is making progress in overcoming the problems of insect control, and there appears to be ever less and less reason for him to continue to use highly toxic insecticides. Whether he can completely solve these problems now is questionable, but one thing is certain: Just as the garden of Eden was a perfect place, free from destructive insect plagues, so God’s paradise new earth will not be plagued but will be productive, and man will enjoy the produce of his land.
>#■
DEATH often strikes without waming,^^ in British Hondura^'^ and in At-UO||^ Greece. A killer^lUf-ricane named Hattie, packing winds up to 200 miles an hour, smashed into the Central American colony, killing over three hundred people. About a week later in another part of the world a freak storm struck the ancient city of Athens at night, leaving behind thirty-nine dead. In their wake, however, these killers left not only heaps of rubble and dead bodies, but room for sober, serious reflection on what the United States’ chief representative to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, has called the paramount issue of the hour, namely, survival.
People everywhere are interested in survival, not only from a threatening nuclear holocaust, but also from all disasters small and great. But altogether too frequently people behave as though disaster were far removed from them, even at a time when it may be at their very doorstep. Therefore, it would be wise for us to refresh our minds with the timely counsel of an ancient king, who said: "Better is it to go to the house of mourning than to go to the banquet house, because that is the end of all mankind; and the one alive should take it to his heart. Better is vexation than laughter, for by the crossness of the face the heart becomes better," (Eccl. 7:2, 3) In keeping with this wise counsel it would be wisdom on our part to view these disaster locations, these places of mourning, for the purpose of alerting ourselves to an
DlSA&TE'
By "AwaW" corr«ipond»nfw In British Honduras
Orooco
reate r gsHMMylljy pend-^EM«wgfore all that ^y^^^^ht be do some-survive it. sMBaiers usually Bak their prey at ight and strike
g? their deadly blow when their victims
least expect. So killer hurricane Hattie behaved. She struck her blow at 2 a.m. and was gone before 7 a.m. “But that was the longest five hours of my life," said an army sergeant stationed at Belize, the capital of British Honduras. “It was an eternity," he said. Hattie’s gusty winds sent fifteen-foot-high tides smashing into the sea-level city of Belize (population: 33,000) and pulverized 40 percent of its buildings. On two outlying islands, communities were all but wiped out.
This is the second time that Belize has been leveled by a hurricane. The first occasion was in 1931. Now it is hoped that the city will be moved to a new site on higher ground some forty-four miles inland.
No doubt, the casualty list (319 dead) would have been much higher were it not that hurricane Hattie moved along very swiftly, and, too, that many residents responded to warning signals. These were evacuated to higher ground, some to the airport seven miles outside of Belize, others to schools and the big Palotita convent; still others sought shelter in government buildings and in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s new branch office and other solid structures that stood up well to the force of the storm.
Warning Signals Ignored
But why is it that some people insist on ignoring vital warnings? Had many of the people of Belize and some of the others in surrounding towns and villages paid closer attention to the warnings given, they, no doubt, would have survived the storm. Rather than paying heed to genuine warnings, many inhabitants became intrigued with hurricane Hattie’s dance in the Caribbean Sea and with the speculations about her movements. Some said Hattie was headed for the southern part of Mexico. Others maintained that, if she would strike British Honduras at all, it would be far to the north. But few believed that Belize was in danger. Even when disaster threatened, the diehards, the skeptics and the unbelievers kept on saying, “It won’t happen here.” It did, much to their chagrin.
In Stann Creek, the second-largest city in the country, which lies south of Belize, many were so sure that the hurricane would pass them by that they settled down to endure what they thought would be just a windy night. But night brought with it terror. Howling winds brought with them crashing waves that picked up houses and dashed them' to pieces. “The wreckage isn't even in pieces. It is pulverized,” said an eyewitness. Houses appeared as if they had gone through a gigantic meat grinder. The noise of the wind, the frightful sounds of breaking waves, the shrill screams of helpless victims filled the night with unforgettable terror.
As the night passed and the day broke, calm was restored. But cities and villages lay in total ruin. The people slowly emerged from their hiding places bewildered and dazed. Some climbed over the debris and waded through mud a foot deep in search for lost loved ones or food. Others just stood in one place mumbling prayers, unable to believe the sight before their eyes. Where a few hours ago stood lovely houses, now Is nothing, in many instances, not even a’foundation.
Why such tragedies? What can be learned from them ?
One lesson to be learned is that not all disasters are the same, neither can they all be anticipated, nor do they all provide the same way of escape.
Athens Shaken
In Athens, Greece, for example, typhoons, windstorms and flood disasters are almost unheard of. But on the night of November 5,1961, a violent typhoon struck the city with all its destructive fury. It caught the Athenians completely by surprise. Why so?
Because autumn is usually the best season of the year for Athens. Generally speaking, the weather is mild, the sky is clear and blue, with plenty of pleasant sunshine. Just such weather prevailed on this day when, shortly after midnight, threatening clouds appeared. And just that suddenly there were flashes of lightning and frightful sounds of clashing thunder, rain and hail. This kept up for six hours.
At the break of day, the storm ceased. Searchers came out to comb the stricken areas in search of family and friends. It was a tragic sight to see thirty-nine dead, 800 homes demolished and 4,500 people without a place to stay.
Th|s was not the first time the country had seen a violent storm. In 1935 Greece was visited with a cyclone. But in the passing twenty-seven years many people had forgotten all about it. But the crumbled houses, the wind and torrential rain brought back hidden memories of that previous tragedy.
What Lesson for Us?
People have a habit of forgetting tragedies. Perhaps it is well that they do, especially if they cannot learn from them.
So many of the populace keep repeating the old familiar tune, “It will never happen again. It won’t happen here,” So they go on building and rebuilding in 1heir usual way, often on the same foundations and with the same materials. In British Honduras a man built himself a house near his grove of coconut trees. A year ago, hurricane Abby blew it down. He rebuilt his house on the very same spot with no noticeable changes to fortify it against similar storms. In July, 1961, hurricane Anna leveled it to the ground. Back to work he went rebuilding on those very same foundations and in the same way. Three months later hurricane Hattie struck. This time there is nothing left, for even the pieces of lumber floated out to sea. It would be ludicrous, if it were not so tragic. Our sympathies go out to these people, but what can be done to help them face an even greater disaster sure to come in this generation?
These happenings may appear pathetic and may even cause some to wag their heads, yet is this not the way of the whole world? For years Jehovah’s witnesses have been warning the people of the approach of God’s Armageddon, “the war of the great day of God the Almighty,” but how many have paid any heed? “Armageddon? It won’t come in my time,” the people say. “It won’t happen here,”
In the meantime nations build their hopes on the same flimsy, sandlike foundations that they always have, namely, on men, on military might and on treaties. There was the League of Nations, then the Kellogg Peace Pact; now it is the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and others. The people continue to put trust in their political and religious leaders who lead them in large processions through the streets begging “Our Lady of Guadeloupe” to protect them through hurricane seasons, as Boman Catholic leaders did in British Honduras just two months before the hurricane Hattie disaster. The people seem to be willing to do anything but what God requires of therp for survival.—Ps. 146:3-5.
Armageddon’s approach is sure, as sure as hurricane Hattie and the typhoon that ripped through Athens. Yet are nations prepared to survive it? Are you? The only way to survive God’s Armageddon is outlined for us at Zephaniah 2:3, which says: “Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.” The putting of trust in men, armaments, nations, peace pacts or the UN is just the sowing of so much wind. “It is wind that they keep sowing,” declared the prophet Hosea, “and a stormwind is what they will reap." There is no hope of survival in such makeshift plans.—Hos, 8:7; Rev. 16:14, 16.
In the stormwmd of Armageddon all who are in opposition to Jehovah’s reigning King and kingdom will be destroyed. There will be no escaping Jehovah by hiding out in reinforced-concrete bomb shelters or in orbiting satellites or in super atomic submarines. The prophet Amos says God will seek them out, because “all the wicked ones he will annihilate,”—Ps. 145:20; Amos 9:1-3; Dan, 2:44.
Therefore, let present disasters be a warning to you of the greatest of all disasters to come upon the earth—Armageddon—and it will come “as a thief in the night” upon this unsuspecting generation. Destruction will be sudden and complete. Only those who walk in Jehovah’s light of truth have the promise of survival. Will you survive when that disaster strikes? You know God’s requirements for survival. The choice now is yours to make.—1 Thess. 5:2-9; Matt.,24:14, 21, 34.
g^-ANY, In fact, most teen-agers, are i ashamed to manifest any interest in God \ and in the Bible. But not so the teen-. agers of the New World society of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In witnessing to their school acquaintances they at times elicit some striking as well as fruitful reactions, as the following experiences show.
Lucy found one of her chums appreciative of the things she told her. Just how much of an impression she made on this chum she learned one day when told of a school essay her chum had written about her. Entitled "Youth—A Time of Discovery,” it read as follows:
“Many young people, and esped ally those of my own age, have not clearly determined their goals or their philosophy. I feel I am too enthusiastic about living and gaining knowledge to think about death.
“The quote fay Robert Frost inspired me to contemplate the question: *Why does man exist?’ I am not able to answer this question, and therefore cannot honestly say that I am willing to die for any particular cause. I have ideals and convictions of my own—but I do not feel deeply enough to express willingness to die for them.
“I think my reaction is probably typical of most young people. However, I feel that I am fortunate to have acquired as a friend a person who does not fit the usual pattern.
“Lucy’s education and experience have given her a different viewpoint. She has very strong convictions and sentiments—which I would like to reflect on in this short essay.
“Lucy was brought up as a Jehovah’s witness, which is a religious sect. She has devoted her life to this religion and consequently passes almost all of her free time absorbed in. it She attends assemblies twice a week, reads booklets and supplements about her religion, solicits locally in placing Witness magazines, and has regular Bible studies with her minister;
“By being acquainted with Lucy I have come to realize that she possesses innate qualities by relating all incidents which occur in her life to her religion. Her social behavior is measured by her religious beliefs and therefore she conscientiously lives up to these beliefs.
“In this particular sect one must be completely orthodox and must adhere entirely to the regulations stated by Jehovah in the Bible. Lucy's acceptance of this has only made her convictions about her religion stronger.
“Lucy's ambition is to be a missionary. She therefore intends to go to the college of her religion, where she will accumulate the knowledge that is required for missionary work.
“Lucy has told me that she is willing to die for her religion if this is necessary. I cannot go into all the tenets of this religious sect. However, perhaps it is easier to accept this concept in view of the idea of a resurrection. Lucy is striving toward her goal because of the belief that all Jehovah’s chosen people will be resurrected in the New World for eternal life.
“Although I cannot share Lucy’s convictions, I respect her and admire the fact that she knows the goal which she hopes to achieve in life. I feel her faithful devotion and sincerity are a great comfort to her. I consider my life enriched because of her friendship.”
And then there is Nora, whose parents are special pioneer ministers, which requires them frequently to move from one city to another. As a result Nora, although still quite young, has attended five different schools. One of the advantages. of her parents’ profession has been, however, that Nora has engaged in preaching the good news since she was old enough to walk and talk.
In talking to her school chums about Jehovah she was able to atart a Bible study with one of them, with the result that her parents were able to start a study with her chum’s parents. When the entire family visited the Watchtower headquarters at Brooklyn not long ago, they were delighted with all they saw. One by one they began to attend the meetings of the Witnesses and to share in the field ministry, and now the whole family is doing so.
What blessings these two young girls would have missed had they been ashamed to acknowledge Jehovah God before their schoolmates!
You young men and also you virgins, you old men together with boys. Let them pivise the name of Jehovah__Ps. 11(8:12, 13.
K'.:. f
was the Suez Canal dispute of 1956. Then Premier Khrushchev’s withering verbal blast
ON June 24, 1950, when the Republic of Korea was invaded by the Communist armed forces of North Korea and the United Nations became involved in a “police action” there, some observers wondered if the UN would survive the crisis. It did. Other crises followed. There against the late UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold in 1960. Khrushchev with his shoe-banging exhibitions left the glass house on New York’s East River quaking. But the world organization survived these storms.
Then on September 18, 1961, the UN was struck with its most recent and “gravest crisis.” Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, while traveling on a peace mission to the Congo, was killed in a plane crash. Just that suddenly the UN found itself without a head at a time when its troops were being hard pressed in the Congo and when the Berlin issue threatened world peace.
It must be remembered that the Soviet Union opposed the office of the secretarygeneral and demanded a liquidation of the office and the substitution of a three-man directorate. Now was their chance to get their way or wreck the UN, if they so desired. Sensing the seriousness of the situation, J. F. Kennedy, president of the United States, scurried over to the UN to intervene personally in the constitutional crisis created by the death of Hammarskjold. Addressing the UN General Assembly on September 22, President Kennedy reassured the delegates of the UN and the Secretariat that the United States supports the UN and that it is determined to do everything possible to maintain the executive authority of the office of the secretary-general.
Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko, who flew in from Moscow to head the Soviet delegation at the UN, expressed a different view. He said: “The moment is right for a structural change of the United Nations. A radical change is absolutely necessary. The sooner it is made, the better.” The “radical change” that Gromyko desired, of course, was Khrushchev’s proposed troika—a triumvirate of Communist, Western and neutral secretaries-general, each with veto powers.
The Western powers have repeatedly stated that such a plan was undesirable, unworkable, in fact, unthinkable; that such a scheme would render the world organization useless and ineffective, and many smaller nations agreed. In any case, Article 100 of the UN Charter specifies that “the Secretary General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority.” The Russian proposal, therefore, would require an amendment to the Charter. The UN was not ready for that. The only remaining solution was to elect a new secretary-general.
"Unmitigated Crisis?’
Adlai Stevenson, the United States ambassador to the UN, described the problem of electing a temporary successor to the late Dag Hammarskjold as "the gravest crisis the institution has faced." If the wrong decision is made, h4 said, it may be "the first step on the slippery path downhill" to a UN without operational responsibilities and without effective meaning. Dr. G. P. Malalasekera of Ceylon called this period an “unmitigated crisis.”
Hammarskjold was an international servant, not a political, national one. He was frank in private conversations, but dignified and friendly to all. To find another Hammarskjold for the top post was most desirable and hoped for, but could one be found? Several names were suggested. Among them were Frederick Boland of Ireland and Mongi Slim of Tunisia. Three other favorites were B. K. Nehru, India’s able ambassador to Washington; Argentina’s Raul Prebisch, the UN’s economic chief for Latin America; and Burma’s UN delegate, U Thant
But could Mongi Slim of Tunisia, a mild and capable man, reflect an amiable spirit when his government will not speak to the Israelis? Could U Thant restore confidence when Burmese friendship with Israel displeases the Arab states? These were big questions in the minds of those who were ibout to select a new secretary-general.
After six weeks of bickering between East and West the UN emerged with a rare agreement indeed arid thereby sur-zived another crisis. It elected by a 103-0 vote, with none against and no abstentions, the 52-year-old high-school English teacher from Burma, U Thant, to the high office of Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations. He was chosen to fill out Ham-marskjbld’s term, which expires April 10, 1963.
Now the questions are: Is U Thant another HammarskjiJld? Is he pro-East or pro-West? What is Indicated by his appointment? Perhaps his background or his views may give us an inkling of what to expect.
The New Acting Secretary-General
U Thant was born near Rangoon, Burma, and educated at Rangoon University. He had hoped to become a journalist, but he took up teaching instead and in 1947 entered politics. Ten years later he became his country’s chief representative at the United Nations.
Thant is a Buddhist, with that religion's tradition of pacifism. He has a reputation for quiet firmness. Of him Dr. Malalasekera said: “In an age when strength is often equated with the booming voice and the bouncing fist, U Thant displays the strength of quiet dignity.”
Thant considers himself a neutralist rather than neutral Commenting on the distinction, the New York Times stated: “If neutral implies a middle-of-the-road position leaning politically westward, neutralist implies a middle-of-the-road position leaning politically eastward. Neither Burma nor Thant is ppo-Russian. But they are less inherently pro-American than Hammarskjold or Sweden.” On this point Thant himself said: “My belief is countries can be neutral, but it will be very difficult for an individual to be neutral on the burning questions of the day.” He said that he would be "impartial but not necessarily neutral.”
Since 1957, as Burma’s representative to the UN, Thant has denounced the Soviet Union for its outrages in Hungary, spoken out against the French policy in Algeria and criticized the United States for its conduct toward Cuba. Thant’s election is certainly not an American or a Russian victory. Still he comes to his high post with the backing of these two great powers and the neutral bloc. What does this indicate?
Meaning Behind the Appointment
Perhaps the most outstanding indication by the appointment of Thant is that the East and the West agree that the UN is still too important to be scrapped. How so ? Because any one of the three factions, Communist, Western or neutral blocs, could have prevented indefinitely the appointment of an acting secretary-general.
The selection of U Thant may also very well represent a shift in world thinking. This may be a notable moment of transition from the Western thinking to Eastern thinking. The first two UN secretaries-general were Scandinavians. Trygve Lie, a Norwegian, was politically pro-West Hammarskjold, a Swede, was a neutral, but at heart a democrat, as the word is understood in the West, He was also by culture and sympathy a man of the Western world. Thant, on the other hand, is not the West’s in any way. Thant is an Asian and a Buddhist. He is a neutralist. All this may be very significant. UN correspondent Moshe Rivlin says: “The election of U Thant is . . . nothing short of a revolution which may mark a very important turning point in history. For the first time in modern history world hegemony has been removed from the Western Hemisphere and shifted to Asia. This revolution is not only geographic and to a certain extent ethnic, but also religious. Whether planned or not, world leadership has always been in the hands of Christians. Now for the first time it has been entrusted to a Buddhist.” How significant this is in view of the belief by some that the UN might be a political expression of the kingdom of God that would bring about fulfillment of the Christian hope!
Thant’s appointment may have still other implications, especially to the West. It' is an indication that political power is shifting eastward. The West can no longer even pretend to have the same control in the UN’s democratic procedures that it once had. Western power has obviously been slipping, while Russian power seemingly has remained much the same. But it is the neutral nations that have gained perceptibly in strength in the last decade at the UN.
Fourteen years ago the Western bloc in the UN numbered about forty-five members on key Issues in a United Nations of fifty-seven members. Today the West would do well if it could count on the same number in a United Nations of 103 members. The neutralist nations now number about twenty-five, and the Soviets have some thirteen in their camp. These figures can mean only one thing—the neutralists are beginning to hold the balance of power. And if they are inclined to lean politically eastward, it may mean that the West might never again be able to rely on the UN, as it once did. In fact, the West may come to regret its effort to maintain a powerful UN executive. C. L. Sulzberger of the New York Times summed it up In these words: “The philosophy as well as the control of U.N, may not be slipping eastward; but it is drifting from the West. A decade hence it could be Washington, not Moscow, that demands a troika to protect its interests against a hostile majority in the world parliament.”
…