^{page 358 note 1} Cf. White, Lynn Jr., ‘The Historic Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, Science, 10th March 1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 359 note 1} ‘Suppose that France suddenly lost fifty of her best physicists, chemists, physiologists, mathematicians, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, writers; fifty of her best mechanical engineers, civil and military … These men are the Frenchmen who are the most essential producers, those who make the most important products, those who direct the enterprises most useful to the nation, those who contribute to its achievements in the sciences, fine arts and professions. They are in the most real sense the flower of French society. … The nation would become a lifeless corpse as soon as it lost them. …

‘Let us pass on to another assumption. Suppose that France preserves all the men of genius that she possesses in the sciences, fine arts and professions, but has the misfortune to lose in the same day Monsieur the King's brother, Monseigneur le due d'Angoulême, Monseigneur le due de Berry. … This mischance would certainly distress the French. … But this loss of thirty-thousand individuals, considered to be the most important in the State, would only grieve them for purely sentimental reasons and would result in no political evil for the State. …’ de Saint-Simon, Henri, ‘First Extract from the “Organizer” (1819)’, Social Organization, The Science of Man and other Writings, Markham, F., ed. (Harper Torchbooks, 1964), P. 72Google Scholar.

‘Let us now consider what would happen if we were to take all the industrial machinery away for all the industrial countries around the world. This means pulling down all the wires, taking up all the tracks, removing all the dynamos and every motor.… Within six months, two billion human beings will starve to death, having suffered greatly on the way.

‘Now I am going to give you another picture. I am going to leave all the industrial machinery.… Next we are going to take away from all the countries of the earth all the politicians, all the different political ideologies, and all the party workers of every kind.… As long as the politicians are absent, everybody on earth who has been eating is going to keep right on eating.…’ Fuller, Buckminster, ‘How to Maintain Man As a Success in the Universe’, Utopia or Oblivion (Bantam, 1969), pp. 246–247Google Scholar.

^{page 360 note 1} Saint-Simon, ‘New Christianity’, ibid., p. 100.

^{page 360 note 2} Drucker, Peter, The Age of Discontinuity (London: Heinemann, 1969)Google Scholar.

^{page 361 note 1} ‘Tuttavia, esiste una corrente di pensiero in America che fa un'analogia tra la situazione alimentare del mondo, in particolare nei Paesi in via di sviluppo, ed una scialuppa di salvataggio. Questi signori sostengono che il mondo è una scialuppa con una capacità; di 100 persone, mentre a bordo che ne sono 125; secondo loro, se ciò vuol dire che nessuno può salvarsi, i 25 in più devono essere sacrificati. Non sono per nulla d'accordo con questa tesi, essa è tecnicamente sbagliata e moralmente insostenibile.’ Intervista con McNamara, Robert, ‘Europa’, La Stampa, Torino, marzo 1975, p. 111Google Scholar.

^{page 361 note 2} Spender, Stephen, ‘The Multiple Sins of Human Nature’, The New Tork Times, 4th January 1975Google Scholar.

^{page 363 note 1} ‘They will suddenly turn around and revile the Church for not having prevented the War, which they themselves did not want to prevent; and which nobody had ever professed to be able to prevent, except some of that very school of progressive and cosmopolitan skeptics who are the chief enemies of the Church. It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it is that world that was, or should have been, abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war. As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War—they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do.’ Chesterton, G. K., The Everlasting Man (Doubleday Image, 1952), p. 10Google Scholar.

^{page 364 note 1} ‘A Britisher, Francis Crick, Nobel Prize Winner for Medicine in 1962, has already made the proposal: Legal birth should be officially defined as taking place two days after the natural birth, thus giving society the chance to test the humanity of infants and destroy those who do not meet the required standards.

‘Such developments raise a question which future historians of civilization will no doubt answer: Although he died in the process, did not Adolph Hitler really win the Second World War? The question is not academic. Nearly all the experiments made on human beings in the extermination camps of the Third Reich are now allowed (like fetus experimentation) or condoned (like euthanasia) in the countries that officially won the war. Healthy adults are not killed in gas chambers, but one wonders how long the Supreme Court can ban the death penalty for the guilty while widespread destruction of the innocent—young, old or sick—is allowed.’ Tavard, George, ‘Ethical Gettos in the Ecumenical Age’, Worldview (March 1974), p. 12Google Scholar.

Cf. also Robert Graham's findings on the relation between certain moral theologians and Hitler's extermination of the weak and deformed in Civiltd cattolica, aprile 1975.

^{page 364 note 2} This is, I think, on the Catholic side, the significance of such documents as Pacem in Terris of John XXIII, Populorum Progressio of Paul VI, and the Document, The Church in the Modern World of Vatican II.

^{page 365 note 1} cf., for example, Lorenz, Konrad, ‘Genetic Decay’, Intellectual Digest (April 1974). PP. 29–31Google Scholar.

^{page 365 note 2} Sauvy, Alfred, ‘La population du monde et les ressources de la planète’, Conférence, Centre d'Études Saint Louis de France, Rome, 23 janvier 1975Google Scholar.

^{page 366 note 1} Fairlie, Henry, ‘Light in the Tunnel: Against the Prevailing Wisdom of Doom’, Harper's (January 1975), p. 47Google Scholar.

^{page 367 note 1} Ehricke, Krafft, Interview with Maxwell, A., Intellectual Digest (June 1974), pp. 8, 10Google Scholar.

^{page 367 note 2} Drucker, op. cit., p. 289.

^{page 367 note 3} Cf. Girardi, Giulio, Cristianesimo, liberazione umana, lotta di class (Asaisi: Cittadella, 1972)Google Scholar.

^{page 368 note 1} Ainkin, T., ‘Indian Changes’, in India: Yesterday and Today, Moore, C., ed. (New York: Bantam Pathfinder, 1970), p. 247Google Scholar.

^{page 369 note 1} ‘In this century we have learned that the energies are not running down but are in fact reassociating themselves. We can now assume that man is getting onto the energy of the universe itself, which is eternal and inexhaustible. This brings about a completely new way of looking at economics. I would simply say that anything we need to do that we know how to do, we can afford to do. The concept of conservation that I was brought up with was that the universe is running down and that anybody who expends energy is to be looked on askance: we were going to be made bankrupt by that man. This is simply not so.’ Fuller, Buckminster, ‘Energy, Past and Future’, Dialogue, 4, 1973, pp. 74–75Google Scholar,

^{page 369 note 2} Moynihan, Daniel, ‘The Poor May Be Rich in People’, The New York Times, 27th January 1974Google Scholar.

^{page 371 note 1} Nesbit, Robert, ‘‘The Quest for Community’,’ Dialogue, 4, 1973, p. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 371 note 2} Stubbe, Heinrich, ‘Muss die Kirche im Abseits stehen?’ Christus und Welt, 21. Februar 1975, p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 371 note 3} “The various branches of the so-called humanities have one thing in common: They all base their studies on rebus sic stantibus and on recognizable trends. That is they begin with things as they are and assume that present tendencies permit conclusions as to the future behaviour of people.

‘Now while the starting point rebus sic stantibus, or presently recognizable trends, form the only realistic basis of such study, they at the same time constitute its weakest link. For the most minute change in the intellectual or material climate—scientifically hardly perceptible, and neither predictable nor explainable—can suffice to overthrow all calculation of the future. We have only recently had a small demonstration of this (oil).’ König, Franz Cardinal, ‘The Future of Religion’, Herald-Tribune, Paris, 10th January 1975Google Scholar.

^{page 372 note 1} Wilkes, Paul, ‘Prayers’, The New York Times Magazine, 22nd December 1974, P. 54Google Scholar.