Dear Rabbi Lamm, I want to thank you for the copy of your monograph on the Religious Implications of Extraterrestrial Life. I have read it with much interest and thoroughly agree with you. Yours very sincerely, Francis J. Heyden, S.J. Director.

It goes without saying that the current drive to restore the ecological balance to our environment is a good thing that has come none too soon. Surely there are few more worthy and urgent causes of the many that clamor for our limited attention in these tumultuous times. Human nature being what it is, unless some nasty, well-defined, and easily recognizable opposition materializes to hold attention and focus its activity, this energetic campaign may yet go the way of all fads. The ecology movement deserves all the support it can get. Hence this effort to show that the values and norms of a great religious tradition support and encourage a movement which affects the very survival of life on this planet. Unfortunately, we shall be somewhat deflected by a new pollution problem – a fall-out of silliness in the theological environment. The New York Times (May 1, 1970) reports an altogether as-pected theological conference on the subject. Most of the (Protestant) divines at the Claremont symposium were “with it,” from the crisp title (“Theology of Survival” – in an age when Portnoy's Complaint is elevated into a “Theology,” why not?) to the conventional self-flagellation. After all, having written the obituary for the Deity and debunked His best-seller, what is so terrible about theologians asserting that religion is responsible for our dirty planet, and that the solution requires another one of those “major modifications” of current religious values? Yet, some of the confessions were so extravagant that they deserve at least passing comment, particularly when they affect aspects of the Biblical tradition presumably shared by both Judaism and Christianity. The case for the ecological movement is obvious and beyond dispute. One point, of the many cogent ones made in the growing literature on the subject, is worth repeating here. Rene Dubos has reminded us that we still know precious little about pollution. Seventy percent of all the precipitate contaminants in urban air a…

To the Editor: Arnold Toynbee's broadside against the Bible (Op-Ed Sept. 16) is but the latest in a series of attempts to blame Scriptures for all our ecological woes. God must have broad shoulders. When science was fighting for recognition, it was fashionable to blame the Bible as the benighted bastion of the antiprogressive Neanderthals. Now that science and technology have gone too far, it is again the Bible that is stigmatized — this time for exactly the opposite reasons. Toynbee refers to Genesis 1:28 and 3:19 as the offending passages. He seems to be quite selective. Why skip Genesis 1:29, 30, which places restrictions on man’s exploitation of nature? I cannot speak for Christianity or Islam, but Judaism certainly does not qualify for the ecocidal monotheism Toynbee wants to abandon in favor of Oriental religions and pre-Christian classical literature. Adam was originally a vegetarian, and although Noah’s sons were allowed to eat meat, Jewish dietary laws preserve aspects of the original vegetarianism (and the respect for nature and for life) by circumscribing man’s unrestrained lust for the subdual of his environment. The Sabbath and the sabbatical year teach that “the earth is the Lord’s” and that man is not in absolute mastery of the world but is responsible for it to God. The symbiotic relationship of man and earth is throughout the Bible considered a blessing, and exile and alienation a curse. Jewish law interpreted Deuteronomy 20:19, 20 as prohibiting any vandalism against nature, whether in time of peace or war. Is it possible that Toynbee and others like him have simply misread the Biblical passage — and equated “dominion ... over the fowl of the air” with the right to foul the air? (Rabbi) Norman Lamm New York, Sept. 16, 1973

The unprecedented growth of science and technology which has become one of the chief characteristics of Western civilization, is today the subject of profound and trenchant criticism. The very success of technology threatens to become its undoing. Students of ecology now alarm us to the dangers that an unrestrained technology poses for the delicate balance of nature on which the survival of the biosphere depends. Ever since the publication of Rachel Carson’s "The Silent Spring," the public has become more and more concerned about the possible consequences of man’s unthinking interference in and disruption of the natural processes which make life possible on earth. Polluted air, dirty water, littered landscape, an environment contaminated with impurities from radioactive strontium to waste detergents—all of these place in jeopardy not only the quality of life, but the very survival of many or all species, including the human. Sheer necessity has caused ecology to emerge from its ivory tower of pure science to pronounce a great moral imperative incumbent upon all mankind—to curb its arrogant and mindless devastation of nature.The case for the ecological movement is obvious and beyond dispute. One point, of the many cogent ones made in the growing literature on the subject, is worth repeating here. Rene Dubos has reminded us that we still know precious little about pollution. Seventy percent of all the precipitate contaminants in urban air are still unidentified and, twenty to thirty years hence, those who are today below the age of three will undoubtedly show varying signs of chronic and permanent malfunction. Man is clever enough to conquer nature—and stupid enough to wreck it and thereby destroy himself.The Theologians’ MasochismUnfortunately, the ecology issue has itself inspired a new pollution problem—a fall-out of silliness in the theological environment. It has now become almost a dogma of the avant-garde cognoscenti, who only a short while ago were telling us…

התפתחות המדהימה של המדע והטכנולוגיה – שנעשתה לתכונתה העיקרית של הציביליזציה המערבית – היא כיום נושא של ביקורת חריפה ובוטה. בעצם הצלחתה של הטכנולוגיה יש משום איום על המשך התקדמותה. החוקרים את נושא האקולוגיה מזעיקים אותנו להתבונן בסכנות הנשקפות מטכנולוגיה בלתי מבוקרת למאזנו העדין של הטבע, שעליו נשען כל קיומנו בזה העולם. הציבור מודאג יותר ויותר מהתוצאות האפשריות של התערבותו הבלתי מחושבת של האדם בתהליכים המאפשרים את החיים עלי אדמות; ישנו חשש שמא יגרום מהלך זה לאחו התפוררות בתהליכים עצמם. אוויר מורעל, מים עכורים, נופים פגועים, אווירה פגומה לגמרי על ידי חומרים בלתי נקיים – רדיואקטיביים ופסולת מעיבודים תעשייתיים – כל אלה מסכנים לא רק את איכות החיים, כי אם את עצם הישרדותם של בעלי חיים, לרבות האדם עצמו. ההכרח הפשוט לגמרי גרם לאקולוגיה שתצא מהיכלי השן של המדע הצרוף ותתריע קבל העולם כולו כי הכרחי הוא לרסן את השחתת הטבע הנעשית בימינו בחוצפה רבה ובהיעדר מחשבה נבונה. אין חולקים על כך שלתנועת האקולוגיה ישנם טעמים ונימוקים מבוססים. ספרות ענפה נכתבה בעניין זה, וראוי הדבר שנחזור במקום זה על נקודה אחת סבירה למדי: זוהי הנקודה שבה מזכירים לנו שבעצם אנו יודעים מעט מאוד על בעיית השחתת הסביבה. שבעים אחוז מכלל הגורמים להרעלת האוויר העירוני עדיין לא זוהו, ויש להניח כי בעוד כמה עשורים יגלו זאטוטי ימינו שיתבגרו סימנים שונים של תפקודים לקויים וכרוניים. האדם הוא חכם דיו כדי לכבוש את הטבע, אולם הוא גם טיפש דיו כדי להרוס, חלילה, את הטבע ובכלל זה – את עצמו. ההתפתחות המדהימה של המדע והטכנולוגיה – שנעשתה לתכונתה העיקרית של הציביליזציה המערבית – היא כיום נושא של ביקורת חריפה ובוטה. בעצם הצלחתה של הטכנולוגיה יש משום איום על המשך התקדמותה. החוקרים את נושא האקולוגיה מזעיקים אותנו להתבונן בסכנות הנשקפות מטכנולוגיה בלתי מבוקרת למאזנו העדין של הטבע, שעליו נשען כל קיומנו בזה העולם. הציבור מודאג יותר ויותר מהתוצאות האפשריות של התערבותו הבלתי מחושבת של האדם בתהליכים המאפשרים את החיים עלי אדמות; ישנו חשש שמא יגרום מהלך זה לאחו התפוררות בתהליכים עצמם. אוויר מורעל, מים עכורים, נופים פגועים, אווירה פגומה לגמרי על ידי חומרים בלתי נקיים – רדיואקטיביים ופסולת מעיבודים תעשייתיים – כל אלה מסכנים לא רק את איכות החיים,…

The advance of science and technology has resulted in extensive harm to the environment. While there is considerable controversy as to the extent of this injury, and as to whether this artificial imbalance is significantly more than nature's own traumatic eruptions, it is widely accepted – ever since Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring – that there is indeed a very real problem that must be attended to. To take but one example – the elimination of species from the earth: In the next half century – less than one human lifetime – the Earth could lose blue whales, giant pandas, tigers, black rhinoceroses, and millions of lesser-known species. Entire ecosystem types could be damaged beyond repair. Humans are only one of the Earth's 10, 30, or even 100 million species. The world is always changing. We are now in a period of extraordinary biodiversity loss. In The Diversity of Life, Harvard University's Edward O. Wilson estimates that 5–20% of tropical forest species will be extinct in the next 30 years, or somewhere between a half million and 20 million species. A paper in the July 21, 1995 edition of Science estimated that current extinction rates are 100–1,000 times their pre-human levels. – from “Threats to Biological Diversity: A Scientific and Political Overview,” COK/L/Summer 1996As Jews we should be particularly sensitive to the disappearance of whole species, because one imperiled species of the family of Homo sapiens is – the Jewish people...The environmentalist movement, like all other high-minded and serious efforts to improve the lot of mankind or the world as such, tends to become overly fashionable, and falls into the hands of moralizers and cause-seekers who do not fear exaggeration or one-sidedness. As a result, there is developing a reaction against the alleged excesses of the movement – as, for instance, the advocacy of recycling garbage. In an article in the New York Times Magazine of June 30, 1996, John Tierney writes:Believing that there was no more r…