Is not this formula too easy to accomplish anything worthwhile? It defines no right or wrong, assigns no obligation, calls for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values. In respect of land-use, it urges only enlightened self-interest. Just how far will such education take us?

My special concern is with Mr. Leopold's reference to a "change in the current philosophy of values." The following are my reasons. Man is probably locked in a life or death struggle for survival. He is combatting a monumental environmental backlash of pollution and contamination which may well be overwhelming. However, man's attempts at combatting these problems based upon technological solutions and the old assumptions that caused the problems in the first place, although necessary for immediate health and safety, can only be a temporary delaying action. To secure long-term solution, man must deal with the cause of his problems. This cause is the lack of a broadly accepted environmental ethic dealing with how man perceives his role within the natural scheme of life.

How man perceives his role in the environment is then the root of our problems or the cause.

As man becomes aware of a perplexing question or problem in regards to his niche in the environment, either by revelation or education, he will seek an answer and, thus, make an evaluation. After an evaluation is reached, some course of action or response to the problem will ensue. It is these responses and actions that have caused our present environmental problems. If the revelation or education that I mentioned is changed, then man's actions also will hopefully change.

We cannot simply deal with the problems but must stimulate another evaluation based on sounder facts or a new ethic, free from technological myths, from theological prejudice and anthropocentric ideals. Biologist Garret Hardin, in "The Tragedy of the Commons," states that the "problem has no technical solution. It requires a fundamental extension in morality." Changes in morality connect the problems and causes with theology and philosophy.

Also, Leopold eloquently explains ecological philosophy by bringing together ethics and ecology. "This extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolution. Its sequences may be described in ecological as well as in philosophical

terms."

What are these ecological terms and what is ecology? Ecology as the core of environmental education, is more than a system of nature. It is also one of human relationships. The ecology movement and environmental education must seek to do more than clean up rivers and the air or stop the use of pesticides. They must seek to stop all practices that degrade or destroy life and environments on the planet.

But what are the terms of ecologically relevant education? Paul Shepard, in his introduction to the book, "The Subversive Science, Essays Toward the Ecology of Man," states:

Ecology deals with organisms in an environment and with the processes that link organism and place. But ecology as such cannot be studied. Only organisms. earth, air and sea can be studied. It is not a discipline. There is no body of thought and technique which frame an ecology of man. It must be, therefore, a scope or a way of seeing. Such a perspective on the human situation is very old and has been part of philosophy and art for thousands of years. It badly needs attention and revival.

In our colleges, we must get away from specialized education when dealing with environmental problems. Biology shows us that all life is interdependent. Therefore, the perspective or outlook that Shepard speaks of can best be achieved by interdisciplinary studies. This would be a synthesis of the biological and environmental sciences with the social and cultural sciences.

So what I am advocating is an environmental education that is more than solution oriented, more than an education that will solve our short-term problems, more than an education of requirements to meet professional qualifications, but rather an education that has us ask, So why do we do it? What good is it? Does it teach you anything, like determination, invention, or improvisation, foresight, hindsight, love, art, music, religion, strength or patience or accuracy or quickness or tolerance or how long is a day and how far is a mile, and how to rely on yourself?" So what is the philosophy that Shepard feels needs revival? What is the perspective that environmental education must have as its goal, its purposes and as its core concept?

Stephanie Mills puts it this way:

To aspire to survival and to aspire to humanity are the paths. They are one and the same. All the logic, precision and practicality in the world can't save us if we lose our own soul. There can be no survival without passion. Passion for humanity, love of the earth, joy of existence and hope for the future..

It is these concepts that environmental education must embrace. This kind of education will enable man, us, to perceive a sense of time and place within the context of all life.

To teach, in the classical sense of the term, this kind of education is impossible. It will take not just a qualified, degreed teacher, but a leader, one who understands the sense of the awe and wonder of life, not to teach it but to inspire, to help us experience the joy of existence and, thus, a will to survive.

The preamble of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Charter begins, "That since wars being in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed," and I would add that it is within the minds of men that the principles for his survival must be created. However, it will take more than facts or concepts within our minds. It will require that deep feeling within us, that "Passion for humanity, love of the earth and hope for the future."

Paul Shepard, once again, explains that ecological sense:

Truly, ecological thinking need not be incompatible without place and time. It does have an element of humility which is foreign to our thought, which moves us to silent wonder and glad affirmation. But it offers an essential factor, like a necessary vitamin, to all our engineering and social planning, to our poetry and our understanding. There is only one ecology, not a human ecology on one hand and another for the subhuman, no one school or theory or project or agency controls it. For us, it means seeing the world mosaic from the human vantage without being man-fanatic. We must use it to confront the great philosophical problems of man-transcience, meaning and limitation-without fear. Affirmation of its own organic essence will be the ultimate test of the human mind. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

Mr. EBER. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. In my judgment, that is a first-class statement. We will not put questions to you right now but invite your colleagues to speak.

Mr. Brestoff.

Mr. BRESTOFF. It seems, with that introduction, appropriate that the order is as it is. I will be talking mostly about college level and university action, education, and I think Ora then will be talking about secondary education and Kim, on some things that have happened in high school.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Could you hold up a minute.

Can everyone in the back hear?

FROM THE FLOOR. NO.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Do not be shy of that mike. Speak right into it. Mr. BRESTOFF. I would like to offer also for the record, if you have not seen this, it is a report to the President's Council.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes, we have seen that. It is in the record. Thank you.

For the benefit of the record, the report to which reference is being made is the report of Dr. Steinhart.

Mr. BRESTOFF. Stacey-Turner Act.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Stacey-Turner Act, to the President's Environmental Quality Council.

Mr. BRESTOFF. Well, let me begin.

Environmental problems are global in scope: instances of reduced fish catches have been detailed in this country, the Soviet Union, Europe, and Latin America; air pollution and solid waste problems affect the major urban centers of Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York, London, Calcutta, and so forth; the world's population, according to United Nations estimates, is likely to reach 7 billion in the next 30 years; such resources as silver, mercury, tin, and cobalt are already in short supply; the food resources of the world are both inadequate and inadequately distributed to the tune of malnutrition in over twothirds of the world's populace; adventurers find the waste products of civilization in ocean waters outside the sight of land.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am sorry. We have a hard time up here hearing you so those in the back must have a horrible time.

Mr. BRESTOFF. Contrast the above brief list with a statement by a senior at the University of California:

It gets pretty depressing to watch what is going on in the world and realize that your education is not equipping you to do anything about it.

Add the fact that knowledge is doubling every 7 to 10 years and we have some idea of a world racing forward with much too little planning and a great many serious problems, including the specters of wars all over the world and racism, to boot.

The student of today has grown up in a very different world from that surrounding the student 20 years ago. We cannot escape the fact that we face both instantaneous destruction through ever-expanding military systems and also slow, agonizing death from environmental pollution, overpopulation, and resource mismanagement.

Because of these forces, presented daily on television and front page newspaper stories, "in confronting the future, students of today are less concerned with rejecting the past than with the meaningful relationship of the present to that past and to the future." (John McHale, The Future of the Future, 1969.)

No male student thinks about graduate school or a job after graduation without thinking of the prospects of instantaneous destruction

via the draft or slow death via repeated health insults by the environment in which his school or home is located.

And let me provide myself as an example of the latter's influence. Though I intended, at one time, to attend graduate school at UCLA, I will not do so because I believe the city to be a respiratory health hazard due to air pollution. I am supported in this judgment by 60 medical faculty at UCLA who suggested by petition 2 years ago that those people without pressing need to stay in Los Angeles should move elsewhere. If you were athletes, gentlemen, I should think you would

not have come here.

I have suggested that more, much more, happens to our planet and our lives in some given period of time now than at the turn of the century. This phenomenon, I believe, is known as time compression. How are we dealing with this rapid change? Not at all well, at least for the student at the university level.

And yet, if colleges and universities embarked upon action educational programs for social change, they would be acting in terms of national biological security.

These programs would provide excellent education through experience in the planning function and at the same time, promote better understanding between community leaders, investors and developers, and local government. The structure could be schools of the human environment, as suggested for Federal support by the Office of Science and Technology's "Report on the Universities and Environmental Quality"; or an umbrella, interdisciplinary institute combining relevant parts of already existing institutes. Off-campus research centers would provide real urban environmental problems for students, faculty, and the community to solve.

Let me say here, that in order to find solutions, much more research and development is needed. Problems exist, we all recognize that; but understanding does not exist, and only from research will we understand sufficiently, the chemistry and ecology of the air, land, and ocean systems, to suggest solutions through education.

"With all thy getting," it is said, "get understanding." If the Environmental Quality Education Act does not provide for research efforts to support educational endeavor, in-depth understanding will not be available, and the bill will be hollow.

To illustrate, in Los Angeles, there is but one measurement of the vertical air profile. That is at Los Angeles International Airport, by radiosonde weather balloon. In the State of California, there are only two such measurements. We do not know what is happening starting from ground level and going up. Also, according to UCLA chemistry and geophysics professor Willard F. Libby, a Nobel prize winner, we do not know where the productive areas of our ocean resources are. We do not know, according to testimony before the Senate subcommittee air and water pollution, how to build municipal incinerators and sewage systems. According to Dr. Libby, again, in a conversation just a couple days ago, Detroit believes it can purchase a catalyst for oxides of nitrogen emissions from its automobiles. None exists, in fact, because insufficient research has been carried out.

This goal of problem solving, especially with regard to environmental problems, is a new role for most universities, however. Indeed, it has been missed. Robert Heilbroner, in the January 3d issue of

Saturday Review, specifically delineates applied research for social change as his educational priority for the seventies:

We live in a time, during which social experimentation-in the factory, in the office, in the city, in economic policy, in political institutions, in life stylesis essential if a technologically dominated future is not simply to mold us willy-nilly to its requirements.

But students seem to lack a comprehensive view of the world, through education, because at present it does not agglomerate the pieces (social science, life science, physical science and the humanities) in a cohesive, relevant whole. It has been said, for instance, that America is the only country where youngsters are required to "fritter away their precious years in meaningless peregrination from subject to subject ***" There is no unifying theme. I suggest, Survival. (Garrett de Bell, ed., The Environmental Handbook, 1970.)

To do this, interdisciplinary work would be necessary, and it would seem that university breadth requirements are a valid precedent. To do this, research and action toward social change would also be necessary. The example here would be work on programs connected with the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Research, and the Atomic Energy Commission, who control approximately 88 percent of all Federal research and development funds. (McCain and Segal, “The Game of Science, 1969".

True, examples of environmental interdisciplinary work can be found: The Argonne Universities Association, the University of Georgia, Antioch with an Environmental Studies Center, and Stanford, for instance. But if the Environmental Quality Education Act does not provide for two recommendations made in the Universities and Environmental Quality report, they will be exceptions. The two recommendations are: (1) Substantial or complete control of the faculty reward structure, and, (2) freedom to be innovative in introducing course material, educational programs, work-study programs, and curriculum requirements for degrees.

At UCLA, the two problems exist openly, except for one instance, the Institute of Geophysics' doctor of environment graduate program. Let me recall for you my experience. I thought that through proper channels and by sufficient homework that the university might establish an interdiscipliary framework for environmental study.

I had been contacted by representatives of the newly formed R. J. Beaumont Foundation for Environmental Preservation. They mentioned to me their willingness to support as well as raise funds for a new structure on campus to house an interdisciplinary environmental program. I then contacted Dr. Stanley Greenfield, head of the department of environmental sciences at the Rand Corp., in Santa Monica. He indicated that his department would be interested in associating with such a university program. I also related the idea to Mrs. Ellen Stern Harris, the citizen member of the Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles region, and executive secretary to the Council for Planning and Conservation, a collection of over 60 community affiliates. She, too, was enthusiastic about the notion.

In a letter to selected faculty members, the deans of related schools and directors of appropriate institutes on campus, I outlined the suggestion and asked for letters of support, in return. With these in hand,