How Can You Tell?

“If things go on as they are, by the year 2000 the world will be . . .”

PREDICTIONS of this sort have now become commonplace. Books, magazines, newspaper articles and broadcasts on the subject saturate the market. Professional “futurologists,” not unlike ancient court seers, get paid for forecasting the future. And the bewildering amount of often conflicting facts and figures they generate leave most people wondering just what to believe.

Overwhelmingly, such predictions paint a picture of gloom and doom for the future. They tell of population explosion, food shortage, pollution, energy crisis, nuclear war, and so forth. For example, the 800-page Global 2000 Report, published by the United States government, warned that time is fast running out, and “unless nations collectively and individually take bold and imaginative steps . . . the world must expect a troubled entry into the 21st century.”

The UN Environment Program presented a similar picture in a 637-page report. It spoke of “a diseased, crowded world whose neurotic inhabitants continue to foul the air and sully the water while devising more efficient methods to kill one another,” according to Toronto’s Globe and Mail.

On the other hand, there are equally qualified experts who regard such reports as nothing but calamity howling. They feel that such are gross exaggerations by officials of international agencies for the purpose of increasing their funding. Technology, they say, will find the ways and means to make up for the shortages, and things will work themselves out.

It is interesting to note, though, that very often the experts on both sides will seize upon the same data and come to completely opposite conclusions. For example, in the book The Ultimate Resource, economist Julian Simon argues that even though “there will always be shortage crises because of weather, war, politics and population movements,” these are only in the short term. “An increased need for resources,” he claims, “usually leaves us with a permanently greater capacity to get them, because we gain knowledge in the process.” And as the population increases, he adds, “there will be more people to solve these problems and leave us with the bonus of lower costs and less scarcity in the long run.”

Taking a completely opposite view is environmentalist Garrett Hardin, well known for his ‘lifeboat ethics.’ He claims that what we have is a “veneer civilization​—a layer of something good on top and trash below.” His reaction to the argument that more people means more problem solvers is classic: “England now has 11 times as large a population as it had in Shakespeare’s day​—but does it have 11 times as many Shakespeares? Does it have even one Shakespeare?”

As we follow the pros and cons, we note a common denominator that stands out among all of this: the acknowledgment that mankind today is facing overwhelming threats and problems as never before, and something urgently needs to be done. While the experts are debating what to do, millions of people are suffering and dying from malnutrition and disease, more plants and animals are becoming extinct, air and water are being polluted, and the nuclear arsenals of the nations are expanding.

It gives little comfort to know that the percentage of people dying for one reason or another is smaller today when that percentage represents millions of lives. Or that the material standard of living in some areas is going up when the majority of mankind still live in dire poverty and deprivation, with no real hope for improvement.

Even in those few areas where there is relative abundance, it is difficult to say if the quality of life is getting any better. People there may not be struggling for food and fuel, but they live in constant fear of annihilation by nuclear war. Their lives and property are threatened daily by crime, violence and vandalism. Their wealth is eaten away by inflation. Their families are wrecked by divorce and juvenile delinquency. And the list goes on and on.

In our quest to know the future, it is essential that we see the difference between what really is happening and what some people think or promise will happen. We should go only on facts, not on someone’s speculation. Nobel prize winning physicist Niels Bohr once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” The phrase, “If present trends continue” or, “Unless something is done,” so frequently seen in futuristic forecasts, tells us that a better future depends not only on finding the ways and means to solve today’s problems but also on whether we are willing to act on them.

Have all the doomsayings moved peoples and nations to act? Will they?

What the Past Tells About the Future

THE future has long been a popular subject. Visit any library and you will probably find a shelfful of books about it. A closer look will reveal that many of these books were written 20, or even 30, years ago. For example, George Orwell’s satirical novel 1984, published in 1949, painted the picture of a dehumanized society under totalitarian rule. And in 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring drew worldwide attention to the dangers of environmental pollution due to indiscriminate use of chemicals. Since then, the best-seller list has been crowded with books on the subject.

But what have all the predictions and warnings accomplished? Have they aroused the public and the authorities to take action to curb the problems and to safeguard the future? The author of the best-seller The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, who has been writing and broadcasting on environmental issues since the 1960’s, had this to say: “In some senses, we’ve come a long way. We have the National Environmental Policy Act, we have environmental impact statements, and so on. But it’s nowhere near enough progress to keep up with the rate at which we’re tearing things apart . . . I’ve wasted a lot of breath, I guess.” He summarized his hopes for the future this way: “If completely optimistic is 10, and completely pessimistic is one, I would put it at about one point two.” Thus, all the books, reports, studies and conferences in the last several decades have done little to change most people’s thinking and attitude as to the future.

Why Warnings Go Unheeded

Why have world conditions continued to deteriorate in spite of all that the experts are telling us? Could it be that most people today are unconcerned about their future? Strange as it may seem, that is just what researchers have found​—most people’s real concern is about today rather than the future.

For example, an article in Psychology Today, entitled “The Future Can Fend for Itself,” gives the results of a nationwide survey and reports: “To an unhealthy degree perhaps, [people’s] thoughts were dominated by the present. Economic issues crowded out all other concerns​—even crime, religion, peace in the world.” The survey found, for instance, that when people were asked what they wanted most in life, by a ratio of five to one they tended to mention a better living standard for themselves more often than a better future for their children.

Not to be overlooked is the effect of the widespread practice of information manipulation, or even distortion, by governments, businesses, industries, and so forth. It is not uncommon, for example, for the harmful effects of a product such as asbestos, or a project such as nuclear power plants, to be suppressed. Or, clever advertising campaigns, even scare tactics, may be employed to delude the public into believing untruths or ignoring well-founded warnings. Even if the truth comes out in the end, the net effect is that the public turns skeptical and cynical about the experts, and becomes ever more unwilling to make any changes or sacrifices in the name of the future.

Thus, by and large, people’s interests and concerns appear to be focused on the here and now, and on themselves. Of course, they think about the future, but most people feel that there is little that they can do about it. What matters to them is the day-to-day affair of living and what they can get out of it now. The future will have to take care of itself, they feel.

Results of Inaction

This state of mind played an important role in shaping the course of events leading up to the critical world conditions we see today. Many of the serious threats to a better future​—nuclear war, pollution, crime and violence, to name just a few—​are the results of decades of warnings ignored or facts concealed. Consider, briefly, a few examples.

The threat of nuclear war and the dangers of the international arms race have long been recognized. Protests and warnings have been sounding forth for many years. In 1964, nearly 20 years ago, two eminent American scientists who served as presidential advisers pointed out the folly of the arms race this way: “Both sides in the arms race are thus confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. . . . The clearly predictable course of the arms race is a steady open spiral downward into oblivion.” In other words, the more the nations arm themselves, the less secure they will feel, and the end result is catastrophe.

But has such advice been taken seriously? In a recent speech to the British Parliament, United States President Ronald Reagan emphatically stated: “Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace.” Apparently this is also the viewpoint of most governments today, for, in the name of national security, nations have taken to arming themselves with more and more deadly weapons of war​—nuclear, chemical, biological and others. Following the lead of the superpowers, a number of the developing nations are not far from joining the nuclear club. The result is that no nation feels secure any longer, and all of this is bringing man and his home, the earth as we know it, to the brink of total destruction.

For years environmentalists have been decrying the devastating effects of technological development on air, water, soil, and plant and animal life. But the lure of profit and higher living standards proved to be far more appealing. People rationalize that if a project creates jobs and profits, then whatever environmental damage or health hazard it may produce can be overlooked. A clear case in point is what took place in Minamata, Japan. Early in the 1950’s it was discovered that the high methyl mercury level in the fish eaten by the people of the fishing villages near that city led to serious impairment of their hearing, sight and speech, and to deformed bodies and limbs in infants and older people. The mercury came from industrial discharges of the factories in the area. Action was not taken until a second outbreak at Niigata, Japan, provoked the government to establish a pollution-control agency.

Such incidents can be multiplied many times the world over. And many of them involve far more serious problems, such as acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and disposal of toxic wastes. The net result is not just physical damage to the people of Japanese fishing villages but the potential breakdown of the entire life-supporting system of the earth. Yet, “there is around the world today still a complacency about the state of the environment,” says James A. Lee, director of environmental affairs for the World Bank. “Despite the heightened awareness over the past decade,” he adds, “environmental concerns somehow are not regarded as serious enough or the consequences seem too far removed in time.” People and nations are too entangled with the present economic and political issues to be bothered with the future.

Other examples can be cited, including the ailing world economy and rampant crime and violence, which greatly affect the quality of life. Simply stated, much of this is the result of people’s insatiable pursuit of pleasure and wealth​—now. Wanting to “do their own thing,” they abandon all standards and restraints, leading to utter disregard for other people’s property and life. And, wanting to have everything now, people​—and governments—​plunge heavily into credit buying, leading to runaway inflation, which can render worthless what they have. As long as the “me first” and “now” mentality remains it is unlikely that the future will be any better.

Lessons to Be Learned

What can we learn from all of this? What does the past tell us about the future?

First of all, in spite of the fact that a great deal more information about trends and dangers is readily available today, it is highly unlikely that people will act any differently from the way they did in the past. Much of the information will continue to be ignored, just as it has been previously. If a better future depends on people’s willingness to make sacrifices and change their way of life (which many authorities recognize to be the case), then we have very little reason to be optimistic. The proviso “unless something is done” in the futurists’ forecasts is resting on very shaky ground.

More serious than this, however, is the fact that many of the difficulties that we are facing today are a direct result of the evident shortsightedness on the part of governments, agencies and private individuals. Many of the studies, conferences and special commissions often work at cross purposes in their vying for fundings and recognition. And, at best, they are merely tinkering with the symptoms. There is no government, agency or individual on earth wise, powerful and influential enough to plot the course and bring about the changes needed for a better future.

Where does all of this leave us? What hope is there for a better future?

[Blurb on page 7]

Profits and higher living standards prove more appealing

[Picture on page 5]

When big business and government agencies delayed in solving pollution problems in Japan, people paid the price

[Picture on page 8]

Japanese girl struggles to dress; she was poisoned while in her mother’s womb

Hope for a Better Future

SURVEYING the earth from 150 miles up, the commander of space shuttle Columbia’s third flight, Jack Lousma, proclaimed: “It’s clear that we were looking at a world that was just the way that God made it without those boundaries that we see on the globes and maps that we have in our homes and schools.” Then, comparing the earth to a spacecraft, he added, “We’re going to have to get along better as a crew or it’s not going to be a successful flight for any of us.”

By now, it is clear to most observers that the scope of the problems facing us today is far beyond what any one nation, or even a group of nations, can handle. Many authorities and agencies have recognized that the only way mankind’s pressing problems can be solved is for the nations to surrender, or at least to subordinate, their individual sovereignty to a central, or world, government.

Arnold Toynbee, the noted British historian, in his 12-volume A Study of History and in other writings, repeatedly advocated the idea that the future of mankind lies in the creation of “a World united under the control of a single political authority” and a “confederation of peoples with a central government claiming and receiving the direct personal allegiance of every individual citizen of the union.” He also saw such an arrangement as the only way by which war can be eliminated. “War can be waged only by states, and it takes at least two states to wage it.” “No state, no war,” as he put it.

Though Toynbee’s views of a quarter of a century ago have been criticized as being idealistic, many other similar voices have been heard since. For example, Aurelio Peccei, founder of the Club of Rome, asserts that today’s political order of individual, competing sovereign states not only is “unstable, irrational, obsolete” but also fails to “correspond to modern realities.” Though not advocating an absolute world government, he feels that a new kind of world society is needed to save mankind out of its present predicament. “If you are aboard a sinking ocean-liner,” he adds, “there must be solidarity between crew and passengers, otherwise a riot would develop and all would perish.”

The logic and insight of such observations are very evident. But they also raise the question: How is such a world order, or government, to come about? Indeed, who is qualified to be the ruler to save mankind from destroying itself?

Source of Hope

About 3,000 years ago a wise and capable king, near the end of a successful reign of 40 years, said:

“Yours, O Jehovah, are the greatness and the mightiness and the beauty and the excellency and the dignity; for everything in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Jehovah, the One also lifting yourself up as head over all. The riches and the glory are on account of you, and you are dominating everything; and in your hand there are power and mightiness, and in your hand is ability to make great and to give strength to all.”​—1 Chronicles 29:11, 12.

In expressing the above, King David of ancient Israel recognized what political thinkers are searching for​—a powerful, unifying, central rulership with greatness, excellence and dignity, yet at the same time with the “ability to make great and to give strength to all” its subjects. But the important question for us is whether the Almighty God Jehovah himself is interested enough in the affairs of mankind to want to rule over us. Here is his answer through the prophet Daniel:

“And in the days of those kings [the individual, competing sovereign states on earth in this time of the end] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”​—Daniel 2:44.

Yes, God’s Kingdom and Sovereignty will come to man’s rescue. A better future for mankind lies just ahead.

This is not a Utopian dream or something imagined by men who are in a desperate situation. For in his Word, the Bible, God has clearly set out how he will bring about the solution to mankind’s problems.

Peace and security will be realized, not by an arms race, but by total disarmament. “He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth,” says the Bible. How? “The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.” (Psalm 46:9) What the United Nations organization claims to do, namely, “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” will be realized only under the righteous and peaceful rule of God’s Kingdom.​—Isaiah 2:4, Authorized Version.

A clean and safe environment, free from pollution and its ill effects, will be the result of God’s Kingdom administration on earth. Mankind will not have to abandon the earth and go off to outer space to look for such an environment in which to live. God will stop the destruction and pollution of the environment by ‘bringing to ruin those ruining the earth.’ (Revelation 11:18) Then the subjects of the Kingdom will be given the opportunity to carry out God’s original mandate to subdue the earth and take care of its plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:28) Earth will be mankind’s permanent home​—a Paradise.

Happiness and freedom will be the lot of every inhabitant of that cleansed Paradise earth. This will not be achieved by abandoning all standards or by following the “do your own thing” philosophy. The well-known golden rule​—“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them”—​will become the everyday rule of conduct. Everyone will come to appreciate that, indeed, ‘there is more happiness in giving than in receiving.’​—Matthew 7:12; Acts 20:35.

In our brief examination of the subject of the future, we have seen that for many years environmentalists, scientists, historians and others have been warning that urgent action is needed to avert a catastrophic end to civilization as we know it today. We have also seen that, by and large, such warnings have been ignored, resulting in serious threats to mankind’s continued existence, not to speak of a better future.

Act Now to Secure a Better Future

On the other hand, a new kind of world society is seen as the only alternative to extinction. While the experts are hard pressed to come up with a workable scheme, Jehovah God, long before mankind even became aware of the problems, clearly outlined a detailed, step-by-step arrangement for restoring the earth to a Paradise under one righteous government, his Kingdom.

For over 100 years Jehovah’s Witnesses have been pointing to God’s Kingdom as mankind’s only hope for a better future. It is our earnest desire to assist you, our reader, to find out what you must do now to secure that happier future for yourself and your loved ones.

[Pictures on page 10, 11]

Will THIS be the future or . . .

. . . will it be THIS?