Is This the Way Out of the Pressures?

UNDER painful pressure people often act hastily. They may turn to something that soothes for the moment but does not really solve the problem. They may even try to convince themselves that the pressure-bringing problem does not exist.

Thousands today claim to have found the secret to relief from stress and tension. How? By philosophies, both Oriental and Western. Through intense meditation some claim they can ‘tune out’ today’s troubles and find inner peace. Others believe in strong optimism through the ‘power of positive thinking.’ “Be confident!” they say. “Believe in yourself and your own ability to succeed!”

Is this the answer to today’s pressures?

Obviously, such philosophy will not get you through a traffic jam if you are surrounded by long lines of cars. And though a person might try to ‘tune out’ the danger signals of a malignant tumor, would this stop the tumor from growing in his body?

Of course, confidence and optimism are fine. But they need a solid basis. To illustrate: The New York Times Magazine recently published an article on J. I. Rodale, a successful publisher and a leader in the field of organic farming and health foods. He was quoted as saying: “I’m going to live to be 100, unless I’m run down by a sugar-crazed taxi driver.” The day after the article appeared, he died of a heart attack at the age of seventy-two.

To live in a dream world and build air castles out of our own ambitions or imagined abilities may be soothing. But if the only foundation is our own imperfect ability and thinking, or the shifting philosophies of dying men, we are due for a rude awakening someday.

Turning to the Occult for Help

What could be more helpful than foreknowledge of the future to free us from anxious uncertainty?

Occult sciences attract many adherents in numerous countries. People in growing numbers seek insight into the future through astrology and spiritistic séances.

As far back as 1946, the Associate Curator of Education at the American Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., said that “10,000 customers weekly consult the capital’s astrologers.” Prominent legislators were mentioned as among those using the fortune-telling services, one congressman having “his horoscope cast weekly at his office.”

If you find yourself inclined to seek relief in this way, first ask yourself: What about those parts of the earth where such occult practices are the order of the day? What relief has resulted?

In some Southeast Asian lands practically entire populations rely on astrology to guide them in every affair of life. Spiritism and voodooism abound in many African and Latin-American countries. Would you say this has brought peace, stability and security to these regions? Or have these practices been just like an addictive drug, dulling the people’s minds to their true situation?

Relax by Putting Your Trust in Science?

In so-called “advanced” countries, large numbers pin their hopes on science and technology to come up with the solution for alleviating world tensions. This, they feel, is being “practical.”

Who can deny that many fields of human science have seen tremendous advancement in the past half century? We read of amazing surgical techniques, “wonder” drugs, astronauts walking on the moon, a space laboratory circling the earth. And then there is the “green revolution.” Agricultural scientists claim they have started this by their development of new high-yield types of wheat, corn and rice. These are to feed earth’s burgeoning population.

So, is it not practical to trust in scientists to bring us the relief from the pressure-causing problems by their technological “know-how”? No. Why not?

Because honest scientists admit ‘they don’t know how.’

Discussing the danger of worldwide poisoning of man’s environment, Pollution, a publication of the State University College (New York), says:

“Generally speaking, the layman refuses even to consider the possibility of disaster. His standard reply is, ‘Science and technology will resolve our problems, they always have.’ . . . increasingly more scientists do not share this view.”

In the field of human health, for example, Columbia University Professor of Surgeons Harry Grundfest said on May 15, 1971: “There are only vague clues as yet as to the nature of the cancer problem—let alone its solution.” Despite all the medical research and effort, studies indicate that fully 25 percent of the people in the United States will contract cancer sometime in their life. Today surgeons perform the amazing feat of transplanting human hearts. Yet, according to the New York Times of July 16, 1971, heart disease continues to be the No. 1 killer in the United States. Other “killer” diseases similarly defy medical conquest.

While dramatically increasing grain production in some lands, the “green revolution” has also shown serious weaknesses. An Associated Press article said: “The new hybrids are not as blight-resistant as the older types. There is the possibility that a country’s entire crop—perhaps a world crop—could be wiped out by a new plant disease. It almost happened last year with the corn crop in the United States.”

For this and other reasons, William C. Paddock, food authority, last year expressed doubt that this is the way to offset the pressure of the world’s ‘exploding’ population. He said: “The revolution is green only because it is being viewed through green-colored glasses. Take off the glasses, and the revolution proves to be an illusion . . . it does not work.”

An added factor that he and others point out is this: Man continues to turn far more land into desert than he reclaims through irrigation. To cite one example: According to Lord Richie Calder, the population of the Indus Valley in West Pakistan has been growing at the rate of 10 more mouths to be fed every 5 minutes. Yet, “in that same 5 minutes in that same place, an acre of land is being lost through water-logging and salinity.”

Really, has not technological science thus far been the very source of so many of the things contributing to today’s pressures—from traffic jams and LSD to worldwide pollution and the threat of nuclear warfare? It is easy to say that “since science created these problems it can also find the way out of them.” But because a man is strong enough to swim far out into a rough sea, does that necessarily mean he will be able to swim back without drowning?

Despite their claims, men of science are as subject to pressures of nationalistic ambition or of personal selfishness as are other men. Time and again they have ‘sold’ or ‘prostituted’ themselves to serve political aims or commercial greed. They can do wonders with mechanics, physics and chemistry. But solving difficulties where human relationships are involved is another thing. The sad truth is that the more “human” the problem the less science has to offer.

So, dazzling as their achievements may appear, in the final analysis the scientists’ near-magical feats give no more real promise of true relief-than does the bone-rattling, fetish-waving spectacle put on by a gyrating African witch doctor.

Will ‘Common Sense’ and ‘Human Decency’ Win Out?

Still others seek comfort in the conviction that mankind finally is waking up to the dangers and will do what is necessary to correct matters. They believe that governmental leaders are showing a growing awareness of the seriousness of today’s problems.

So, relief, they say, can be found by showing faith in “the essential decency of mankind.” They call for faith in the “desire and capacity of human beings to work out problems cooperatively.”

Are they right? Can we properly find relief in such conviction?

Many people live in peace. So others could. Some people remain honest, do not steal or cheat. Others could do the same. In some places people do not pollute the air, water and land with chemicals or machine exhaust. Others could imitate them, be willing to sacrifice some things, change their way of life, so that all could be protected from harm. Yes, they could do these things. The question is, will they? Have they in the past? Are they moving in that direction now?

Has man’s ‘essential decency’ kept wars from breaking out? History lists thousands of peace treaties and nonaggression pacts. But as the former president of France, Charles de Gaulle, put it: “Treaties are like roses and young-girls. They last while they last.”

Consider just one example: the historic Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Hailed as a monumental achievement, the pact outlawed war “as an instrument of national policy.” Representatives for sixty-two nations solemnly affixed their signatures to it. But within about a dozen years most of these nations were enmeshed in the bloody slaughter of World War II.

Doubtless most people prefer peace. But when selfish interests are at stake, they show they are willing for peace to be sacrificed. Material wealth, power and national pride mean more to them than human lives. So, too, with other major problems creating stress and tension.

To speak of ‘faith in the essential decency of mankind’ sounds noble. But is this realistic?

Is it realistic, for example, to think that crime is confined to the muggers, the rapists, the racketeers? Or that criminals all come from poverty-stricken slum areas?

A Canadian detective agency in its investigations found that, as an average, “one out of every three employees is basically dishonest,” seeking ways to steal, while ‘another third will steal if the opportunity arises.’ The New York Times (June 10, 1971) quotes Assistant District Attorney Murray J. Gross as saying that theft in the Wall Street financial district is like a “free-for-all.” “Everybody is stealing—the messengers, the clerks, even the supervisory personnel.”

Shockingly, crime researchers in the United States estimate that the total value of things stolen by outwardly “decent” employees (some $4,000,000,000 annually) is seventy times more than that stolen by outright criminals.

Then, too, the evidence mounts daily that, today as in the past, men in high governmental places are just as subject to the temptation to falsify the facts and engage in double-dealing as is the ordinary citizen—perhaps more so. Surely we do ourselves no genuine good by pretending that the case is otherwise.

What then? Have we exhausted the hopes for finding relief? By no means.

Despite the inability of the remedies considered to bring true relief, there is a genuine source on which we may draw.



Of modern science, Albert Einstein said: “In war it serves that we may poison and mutilate each other. In peace it has made our lives hurried and uncertain. Instead of freeing us in great measure from spiritually exhausting labor, it has made men into slaves of machinery who for the most part complete their monotonous long day’s work with disgust.”



Can the philosophy of believing in yourself get you through a traffic jam?



Millions of persons turn to occult practices for a way out of the pressures, but what real relief has resulted?



The feats of science give no more real promise of true relief from pressures than do the antics of a witch doctor