Confronting Economic and Social Realities, 1980–1999 151
particular environmental hazard is frequently based
on how the hazard or its elimination will affect their
lives: Is there a chance that it could affect them eco-
nomically, in a positive or a negative way? Is there a
chance that it could affect their health or the health
of their children? Is there a chance that it will impinge
on their freedom—to use their land, to drive, or to
smoke, for example? People’s attitudes about envi-
ronmental hazards and how to deal with them are
also colored by socio-economic status, political affili-
ation, and preconceived notions [see Document 146].
Some economists, including Julian Simon [see
Document 127], were convinced that there is no
need to panic about the effect of population growth
on resource use and degradation, and have asserted
that human technological innovation will enable us
to overcome, at least in the near future, expanding
demand for food and other resources. Simon’s vision
has been supported by “wise use” advocates, who
have long been committed to the continued exploita-
tion and development of America’s natural resources
for the benefit of its human inhabitants.
In contrast, environmentalists such as Lester
Brown [see Document 126] insist that we give greater
value to nature’s services; we must adjust our appe-
tites to fit in with the functioning of natural processes
and the limits of the natural world. Edward Wilson
has proposed the development of a new conserva-
tion ethic based on a biocentric approach to living on
earth, whereby people look at themselves as biologi-
cal as well as cultural beings [see Document 133].
Environmentalists like Mark Sagoff [see Docu-
ment 125], Arne Naess [see Document 129], and
Barry Lopez [see 143] hold that the country needs to
refocus its priorities away from a narrow emphasis on
economic efficiency and give greater consideration to
social values such as justice, equity, and spirituality
when making government policy.
The most radical ecologists and environmental-
ists have advocated a vast change in the American life-
style. They claim that the human race must quickly
take account of the needs of the natural world and
turn from being ignorant predators into thought-
ful custodians of other living things on this planet.
Whether because we are destroying the only environ-
ment suitable for human habitation or because the
environment we are creating is not one they woulddevelopers and small farms found it more and more
difficult to compete with giant agribusinesses. Slowly,
an increasing portion of the country’s food supply
was imported, and by 1996, 16.4 percent of the pro-
duce consumed by Americans was imported.^2
During the same period, however, the service
and high-tech sectors of the American economy were
expanding and creating new jobs. As computers found
their way into offices and then homes and as comput-
erized machines took over simple factory jobs, the
whole structure of the workplace began to change.
Despite the decrease in manufacturing and farm
jobs, the possibility of employment continued to
attract tens of thousands of foreign immigrants to
the United States every year. While the population
of most developed countries and much of eastern
Europe had stabilized or was even declining, the U.S.
population continued to increase as a result of immi-
gration pressures from Latin American and Asia,
where populations were still burgeoning. Although
the rate of U.S. population growth had begun to
decline, the actual numbers of people continued to
rise rapidly. In 1990 there were 249 million people in
the United States—70 million more than in 1960, and
nearly double the nation’s population in 1940. The
proportion of elderly people in the U.S. population
was also increasing as the nation’s already high life-
expectancy rate (71.8 years for men and 78.8 years for
women in 1990) continued to rise.
The Environmental Debate Heats Up
An expanding population required more water,
more energy, and more land for home construction
and also created more waste and more pollution. By
the 1980s, the negative impact of population growth
on environmental quality had become evident to most
Americans, although individual rights advocates and
business interests adversely affected by specific legis-
lative or judicial actions objected to the imposition of
environmental controls. While such arch opponents
of stringent environmental controls as Dixy Lee Ray
[see Document 138] comprehended that a profligate
use of natural resources could have unhealthy con-
sequences for the nation, they questioned whether
pollution from human activities such as automobile
emissions, nuclear energy use, and waste disposal
had as much negative impact as environmentalists
claimed. How individuals view the potential risk of a