July 22

Page Two

Iguaçú Falls, one of the natural wonders of the world. Varying between 200 and 270 feet high, 2 1/2 miles wide, with 450,000 cubic feet of water per second plunging over some 275 separate waterfalls or cataracts, Iguaçú (ē-gwä-sōōʹ) lives up to the meaning of its name, “great water.”

The Falls forms a boundary between Brazil and Argentina. Both countries have created national parks to preserve its beauty. Exotic plants grow lush in the mists. Jaguars, ocelots, tapir, and deer roam the surrounding forest. Birds of many varieties delight the eye. Clouds of butterflies flutter about and often settle to rest on visitors. Rainbows glisten in the mists that billow upward from the crashing waters.

How long will Iguaçú’s breathtaking beauty be allowed to enthrall its 3,000,000 yearly visitors? Already there has been talk of harnessing the Falls to provide electric power. Will man destroy Iguaçú’s beauty, as he has done to so much of planet Earth? Or will he preserve this “great water” spectacular to thrill and awe his children and their children?

[Picture on page 2]

Our Beautiful Earth​—How Much of It Will We Leave Our Children?

ACCORDING to published reports, 1.7 billion children have been born into the world since the year 1970. If they constituted a nation, it would be the world’s largest. Is it not fair to ask, What kind of world are we leaving them?

Over 25 years ago a prominent doctor of the U.S. Public Health Service observed: “We all live under the haunting fear that something may corrupt the environment to the point where man joins the dinosaurs as an obsolete form of life.”

In the intervening years, that fear has intensified. Last year a national forum, addressed by nearly a hundred biologists, warned that coming was a wave of mass extinctions such as wiped out the dinosaurs, only this time it would not be by a natural development but “by human activities.”

This year Worldwatch Institute released its report State of the World 1987. It said: “A sustainable society satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of the next generation. By many measures, contemporary society fails to meet this criterion. Questions of ecological sustainability are arising on every continent. The scale of human activities has begun to threaten the habitability of the earth itself.”

The Institute’s report said that the demands of over 5 billion people​—and their numbers are increasing by 83 million a year—​are overwhelming the regenerative capacities of earth’s biological systems.

Chemical pollution is thinning the atmospheric ozone and may lead to “causing more skin cancers, impairing human immune systems, and retarding crop growth.”

If acid rain continues, not only will more lakes and forests die but soils will acidify further and “may take decades, if not centuries, to recover.”

Intensified farming practices “have pushed the rate of topsoil loss beyond that of new soil formation.”

Deforestation reduces the amount of carbon dioxide used from the atmosphere, and the burning of fossil fuels releases more carbon dioxide than the remaining plants and the oceans can take in. The result is an increase in the warming greenhouse effect that may ultimately melt glaciers and flood coastal cities.

The loss of tropical forests means less recycling of water for rainfall and may lead to the creation of deserts.

Toxic chemicals, raw sewage, crude oil, nuclear accidents, radon, microwaves, asbestos​—on and on could go the listing of man’s sins against the environment.

State of the World 1987 warns: “Never have so many systems vital to the earth’s habitability been out of equilibrium simultaneously. New environmental problems also span time periods and geographic areas that stretch beyond the authority of existing political and social institutions. No single nation can stabilize the earth’s climate, protect the ozone layer, preserve the planet’s mantle of forests and soils, or reverse the acidification of lakes and streams. Only a sustained international commitment will suffice.”

This commitment is dragging its feet, and time is running out. Hundreds of billions are spent in the arms race; a mere pittance is spent on preserving the environment that sustains us and the neglect of which can kill us. Since 1983 the United States alone has committed $9 billion to the Strategic Defense Initiative research and wants $33 billion more for it from 1986 to 1991​—but turns stingy on the environment. The other industrialized nations do likewise. The State of the World 1987 puts the crisis in a nutshell: “The time has come to make peace with each other so that we can make peace with the earth.”

“A sustainable future,” this report states, “calls upon us simultaneously to arrest the carbon dioxide buildup, protect the ozone layer, restore forests and soils, stop population growth, boost energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy sources. No generation has ever faced such a complex set of issues requiring immediate attention. Preceding generations have always been concerned about the future, but we are the first to be faced with decisions that will determine whether the earth our children inherit will be habitable.”

The following article shows the crisis developing over toxic chemicals.

The Ugly Side of Industrial Chemicals

IT WAS just after midnight on a cool December evening in 1984 that the worst industrial accident in history happened. A world away from the Republic of India, few people were familiar with the name Bhopal, an industrial city with a population of more than 800,000, located almost at the center of the country. Its sleeping residents were unaware of the death-dealing events developing a stone’s throw away.

At the U.S. Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, a storage tank holding 45 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC), a deadly chemical used in making pesticides, began building up dangerously high pressure. Suddenly, from a malfunctioning valve, a cloud of poisonous gas began spreading death and agony over the quiet city. It snuffed out the lives of more than 2,500 men, women, and children. It maimed more than a hundred thousand others.

The death of thousands of animals​—water buffalo, cattle, and dogs—​caused the countryside to be littered with dead bodies that clogged the roads and city streets. Bhopal became a giant makeshift crematory, burning the dead around the clock. Seventy funeral pyres, with bodies stacked 25 high, consumed the dead in their flames. Others were buried in hurriedly dug mass graves​—scores of bodies at a time.

Later another catastrophe hit Europe and was called “Bhopal on the Rhine.” A chemical spill from an industrial plant above Basel, Switzerland, dumped 40 tons of poisonous waste into the Rhine. It killed hundreds of thousands of fish and eels as it “drifted downstream along the German-French border, into the Rhineland and then through the Netherlands to the North Sea.” One newspaper editorialized: “The Swiss used to be considered clean, their industry safe, and that included the chemical industry. That is all past now.”

The residents of Bhopal and communities along the Rhine River had become the victims of a technological age that boasts the compounding of more than 66,000 chemical concoctions. Many are formulated to make life easier for man, yet, ironically, a vast number are highly toxic and can cause fatal and devastating side effects, both to humans and to the entire biological system. One expert classified these chemicals as “biocides.”

Many are the chemicals with long names that few people can pronounce and that for convenience bear letters such as PCB, DDT, PCDD, PCDF, TCDD. This alphabet soup of toxic chemicals is a deadly hazard both to humans and to earth’s resources on which man must rely to live. “Thousands upon thousands of releases of toxic substances into the environment” occur each year, said a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such releases pose a threat to the quality of air, surface water, and underground drinking supplies, and poison the soil for decades to come.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in the United States alone, 1.5 trillion gallons of hazardous chemical wastes find their way into the underground water systems each year.a Knowing that just one gallon of solvent will contaminate 20 million gallons of groundwater to exceed safe levels, it is staggering to compute what catastrophic damage 1.5 trillion gallons of poisonous chemicals are doing.

Because of hazardous chemicals and wastes and the careless dumping of them, rivers and streams are being polluted. Fish are dying. As the rivers and streams enter the oceans, the death-dealing chemicals pour with them, and in some places where ocean life was once plentiful, today, according to famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, fish can no longer be found.

Bird and animal life is also threatened by the contamination. Even wildlife sanctuaries prove to be no haven. “Ten national wildlife refuges are contaminated by toxic chemicals and another 74 may be in danger. . . . Agricultural runoff containing selenium and other chemicals has killed large numbers of waterfowl in the refuge,” reported The New York Times of February 4, 1986.

World experts do not paint a promising picture for the future. The rapid diminishment of earth’s resources does not end with the loss of soil and the pollution of air and water. What about earth’s great tropical rain forests that for millenniums have raised their leafy arms hundreds of feet into the air? Are these too in danger of going the way of other resources that are diminishing before our eyes? Whether we realize it or not, our lives are affected by these luxuriant handiworks of Jehovah, as the next article will show.

[Footnotes]

An Earth Without Forests​—Is That What the Future Holds?

VAST areas that for millenniums were covered with luxuriant tropical rain forests are today becoming barren. Once the habitat of exotic birds and animal life that took refuge under the prolific umbrella of millions of species of plants and trees, some towering 200 feet into the sky, these beautiful, green, pulsating places of the earth are rapidly becoming wastelands.a

With destructive efficiency man is ravaging the mountains with the ax, the saw, the bulldozer, and the match. He is reducing them to denuded, scarred, scorched lands of abandoned wildernesses. This inexorable destruction of earth’s tropical forests is being waged at the shocking rate of 50 acres per minute, or over 100,000 square kilometers a year​—an area equal the size of Austria.b

By the year 2000, according to some experts, about 12 percent of the tropical rain forest that remained in 1980 will be gone​—no small accomplishment for man, even with his reputation for destruction. Gone, too, will be the exotic birds, the animal wildlife, and the varieties of plant life that cannot be found in any other climatic areas of the earth. Man is destroying a part of the very intricate ecosystem so vital to his life and which provides him with incalculable benefits.

More than half the medicines man uses come from plants, a great many from tropical plants. What would industry do without the source of rubber, turpentine, rattan, bamboo​—all indigenous to the tropical forest—​plus a galaxy of fibers, resins, dyes, and spices? Blindly and indiscriminately, man is destroying a treasure of immense value.

From these great forests, vast amounts of life-giving oxygen are produced. Some scientists warn that this massive reduction of oxygen-producing forests may well intensify the feared greenhouse effect, causing sea levels to rise to catastrophic heights.

Deforestation has already had a severe and immediate impact on much of the world. Nations such as Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines have seen the rapid conversion of their lands from dense jungle to virtually barren wastelands. “In Southeast Asia as many as 25 million acres of once-forested land now bear only tenacious and useless sawgrasses that provide neither food, fuel, nor forage,” reports the World Resources Institute.

The felling and selling of tremendous tracts of trees guarantees the deforestation of Fiji within 20 years, of Thailand by the turn of the century, and of the lowland rain forest of the Philippines by 1990, Science Digest reports. In Australia the devastation of its forests is widespread​—two thirds of its rain forests entirely gone! India is losing 3.2 million acres of forests yearly to the ax.

“As of the mid-1980s,” reports the magazine Natural History of April 1986, “every country in Africa is losing tree cover. Indeed, forest deficits are now the rule throughout the Third World.” In 63 countries 1.5 billion people are cutting wood faster than it can grow back, creating a deficit that can only lead to forest and fuelwood bankruptcy. Experts expect the deficit to double by the year 2000.

Forest destruction touches at the very heart of man’s ability to exist​—agriculture. To begin with, when man fells the trees on mountains and hills to plant his seed, without vegetation to hold the soil in place, the soil is quickly washed away. Also, in countries where fuelwood is scarce, “an estimated 400 million tons of dung are burned annually . . . This burning of a potential fertilizer is estimated to depress grain harvests by over 14 million tons.”

Are the great forests of the earth really doomed by irreversible forces? Or will this generation leave much of earth’s resources and beauty for its children? It talks lots, writes reams, but does little. So, what future will it leave its children? Time will tell, and little time is left.

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 7]

In 63 countries 1.5 billion people are cutting wood faster than it can grow back

[Picture on page 7]

Nations are changing dense jungles into barren wastelands

What Future for Us and Our Children?

A FAMILY cannot spend more than it makes and remain solvent. A nation cannot pay out more than it takes in and still prosper; nor can we continue our deficit spending of the environment. We cannot squander more soil than is formed, create more carbon dioxide than plants can use, cut down more trees than we replace, pollute more air and water than earth can recycle. Environmental deficits, like national deficits, will demand an accounting. They will be paid, either in money and international cooperation or in lives​—ours and our children’s.

Modern technology has made the ruining of the earth possible. It could be used to prevent it. Why isn’t it? Love of money. It would cost billions. This world cannot see​—or in its selfishness will not see—​beyond its own shortsighted materialistic desires. Since it refuses to pay in money, it will pay in loss of topsoil, loss of forests, loss of aquifers, hothouse atmosphere, poisoned water, mounting sickness, human lives. And to hold onto its money, this world is selling off its children’s future.

Will it wake up in time? History’s answer is not reassuring, but God’s answer is. Jehovah God himself says that he will step in and “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) He will remove from earth those ruining its environment and destroying its beauty, for he created it to be life-sustaining and beautiful. “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool,” he says, and: “I shall glorify the very place of my feet.”​—Isaiah 66:1; 60:13.

He created it to be inhabited by people who love righteousness​—and it will be, by millions who once lived in the past, by millions who are living now, and by millions of children yet to be born. This he has recorded in his Word, the Bible, and you can read it for yourself at Isaiah 45:18 and John 5:28, 29.

Then, cared for by those who love it, the earth will regenerate itself into the beauty with which our Creator originally endowed it. Then righteously disposed persons and their children will have a future, a glorious one: “Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; and you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”​—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29.

And never die? And never die! “God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3, 4) Too good to be true? No, this present wicked world is too bad to remain.​—Daniel 2:44.

But you and your children can remain. Jehovah God makes it possible through the sacrifice of his Son. To learn of Jehovah and of his Son will mean everlasting life for you and your children​—life in a new world wherein righteousness is to dwell. (John 3:16; 17:3; 2 Peter 3:13) This can be the happy future for you and your children. Whether it is or not is up to you.

When a Fact Is Not a Fact

A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.

A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.

The theory of organic evolution falls into this category.

ON September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isn’t, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”

“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

The article touched a raw nerve in Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, not just a theory. His rebuttal of Kristol’s article was published in a popularized science magazine, Discover, January 1987 issue. It revealed the very dogmatism Kristol deplored.

In his protesting essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. A few examples: Darwin established “the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).” By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact (I shall give the reasons in a moment).” “The fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes.”

For the first of these “three great classes” of “copious data,” Gould cites as “direct evidence” for evolution the small-scale changes within species of moths, fruit flies, and bacteria. But such variations within species are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution’s problem is to change one species into another species. Gould extols Theodosius Dobzhansky as “the greatest evolutionist of our century,” but it is Dobzhansky himself who dismisses Gould’s argument above as irrelevant.

Concerning the fruit flies of Gould’s argument, Dobzhansky says mutations “usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

For the second of his three classes, Gould offers big mutations: “We have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record.” By saying the changes were large scale, one species changing into another in a few big jumps, he escapes the need for the nonexistent intermediate fossils. But in going from small changes to big jumps, he goes from the frying pan into the fire.

Kristol comments on this: “We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual.” And Gould’s “greatest evolutionist of our century,” Theodosius Dobzhansky, agrees with Kristol. His statement about many mutations being lethal is especially true of large-scale, quantum-jump mutations; also significant are his words that ‘mutations that make big improvements are unknown.’ Lacking evidence for his large-scale changes, Gould falls back on the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

Gould does, however, offer as “direct evidence for large-scale changes” what he calls one of the “superb examples,” namely, “human evolution in Africa.” But evolutionists generally acknowledge that this field is far from superb. It is a hotbed of controversy, a battleground over teeth and bits of bone that evolutionists with vivid imaginations turn into hairy, stooped-over, beetle-browed ape-men. Once again, Dobzhansky is not supportive of Gould: “Even this relatively recent history [from ape to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details.”

The last of Gould’s “three great classes” that he says proves evolution to be a fact is resemblance between species. (The current trend, however, is to discount physical similarities as proof of relationship; genetic similarities are the new vogue for proving relationship, even in cases where physical characteristics differ greatly.) Gould offers two examples of relationship proved by resemblance. First: “Why does our body, from the bones of our back to the musculature of our belly, display the vestiges of an arrangement better suited for quadrupedal life if we aren’t the descendants of four-footed creatures?”

A strange assertion. We can walk and run upright on two feet, do it continuously for many miles, with backbone and belly muscles very comfortable. Unless, of course, we spend most of our waking hours slumped inert in a chair, never exercising muscles of back and belly. But those trained for it can run down four-footed wild animals, exhausting them, and in the vast majority of cases, outliving them. We thrive on two feet; quadrupeds seem comfortable on four.

Gould’s second example: “Why do the plants and animals of the Galapagos so closely resemble, but differ slightly from, the creatures of Ecuador, the nearest bit of land 600 miles to the east? . . . The similarities can only mean that Ecuadorian creatures colonized the Galapagos and then diverged by a natural process of evolution.” What the similarities can and only do mean is variation within the species. The finches, for example, are still finches.

Gould ridicules believers in creation who argue that “God permits limited modification within created types, but that you can never change a cat into a dog.” He then asks: “Who ever said that you could, or that nature did?” Nevertheless, he believes in a much harder change. Cat to dog would at least be mammal to mammal, whereas Gould says “dinosaurs evolve into birds.”

Irving Kristol in his article in The New York Times concludes: “The current teaching of evolution in our public schools does indeed have an ideological bias against religious belief​—teaching as ‘fact’ what is only hypothesis. . . . If believing Christians are persuaded that their children are not exposed to anti-religious instruction, one may reasonably hope that they will feel comfortable once again with this American tradition [separation of Church and State].”

Kristol shows the wisdom of this doctrine of separation when he says: “Theological issues can so easily become a focus of conflict.” That is exactly what the “scientific creationism” advanced by some creationists would become if it was taught in the classroom. Several of its contentions are not Scriptural. To name only one, that the creative days of Genesis are 24-hour days. The Hebrew word translated “day” can be and is used in the Bible to be 12 hours, 24 hours, a season, a year, a thousand years, or several thousand years, depending on its particular setting and usage.

The classroom is not the place to air religious differences. Neither is it the place, as Kristol says, for teaching hypothetical evolution as a fact, when in actuality it has itself become a modern-day religion supported only by dogmatism.

Gould appropriately says that “myths become beliefs through adulterated repetition without proper documentation.” True. That is how religious creeds were formed that say the Bible teaches that the soul is immortal, that wicked people are tormented in hellfire forever, that God is a Trinity of three persons in one, that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 are 24-hour days​—and all of this without proper documentation from the Bible.

And that is also how the evolutionary litany that ‘evolution is a fact’ becomes a belief: through “repetition without proper documentation” from scientific evidence.

[Blurb on page 11]

“We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’”

[Blurb on page 12]

“This relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties”

[Blurb on page 13]

Evolution​—a modern-day religion supported only by dogmatism

[Box/​Picture on page 12]

“Dinosaurs evolve into birds”?

Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. Cat to dog, which Gould ridicules, is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird, which Gould accepts!

[Pictures on page 10]

Mutant fruit flies, while malformed, are still fruit flies

Normal fruit fly

Mutant flies

The Price of Progress

“WITH the monstrous weapons man already has, humanity is in danger of being trapped in this world by its moral adolescents. Our knowledge of science has already outstripped our capacity to control it. We have many men of science, too few men of God,” stated General Omar N. Bradley in 1948. He continued: “Man is stumbling blindly through a spiritual darkness while toying with the precarious secrets of life and death. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience.”

Today, almost 40 years later, his words have even greater meaning. Consider this: If 20th-century progress were measured in dollars spent on arms, 1986 would be a record year. An estimated $900 billion was spent by the nations worldwide on military weapons. That equates to a “historic high of $1.7 million a minute . . . and represents about 6 percent of the world’s gross national product,” reports The Washington Post on an independent study compiled by Ruth Leger Sivard. The Worldwatch Institute noted that arms spending has put “guns ahead of bread in world commerce” and added that the estimated 500,000 scientists throughout the world committed to weapons research exceeded “the combined spending on developing new energy technologies, improving human health, raising agricultural productivity and controlling pollution.” Interestingly, military spending by the superpowers has produced sufficient weapons to kill their populations off perhaps ten times over.

Clearly, the stockpiling of arms has not removed the host of ills plaguing mankind, nor has it brought man any closer to peace. Instead, as General Bradley explained years ago: “We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. This is our 20th century’s claim to distinction and to progress.”

Hot Showers May Be Health Hazards

“TAKING a hot shower, doing the family laundry or washing the dinner dishes may be hazardous to your health, according to a study showing that significant levels of cancer-causing chemicals escape from household water during everyday use. Exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE), a common groundwater pollutant, and chloroform, a byproduct of chlorination, may be up to 50 times higher from inhaling water vapors than from drinking water, says chemist Julian Andelman of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. His studies show that hot showers, for example, liberate about 50 percent of dissolved chloroform and 80 percent of dissolved TCE into the air. For people who spend a lot of time at home, vapors from washing machines and dishwashers may be even greater sources of exposure, Andelman says. Some precautions: take shorter showers and baths, use cooler water and use exhaust fans where possible to draw vapors outside.”​—International Wildlife, January/​February 1987.

Family Life on the Serengeti

THE African lion is often called the king of beasts. It is understandable. His great mane is impressive. Big amber eyes gaze about with a serene aloofness. A majestic air surrounds him. And when he suddenly rises up and lets go with a deafening roar that can be heard five miles away, your spine tingles.a Surely this is the king of beasts!

But when you see him at home, well, his kingly image fades a bit. He sleeps a lot. He sits around a lot. He sometimes drapes himself over the limbs of a tree, away from the cubs that specialize in clambering over the adults. And he really loves to lie on his back a lot, with tummy turned up to bask in the warmth of the sun. This occupies about 20 hours of his day.

The other four hours? Well, when the females​—who do the hunting—​put meat on the table, he’s first in line. After all, he’s the king, isn’t he? He also fathers the children and fights other lions that trespass on his territory. So he’s a father, a fighter, a loafer, and a sleepyhead. And a king, for a while.

Actually, he’s not alone in performing these duties. Lions are the only species of cat that is social. The social unit of lions is the pride, usually consisting of two or three big males, five or ten females of breeding age, and numerous young cubs and subadults. Prides may be much larger, however​—40 or even more. Each pride has its territory, several miles in diameter, and the big males keep intruders out.

The females do most of the hunting​—usually at night. They are lighter (250-300 pounds) and therefore faster than the heavier males (400-500 pounds).b Even so, the females are after prey that runs faster than they can. Hence, it is advantageous for them to hunt cooperatively. Some hide while others circle the prey and chase it toward those lying in wait.

Lionesses are generally good mothers. A cub will live on milk for the first two or three months, then the mother leads it to an animal she has killed and introduces it to meat. But the cub will also continue to nurse until it is about eight months old, when the mother has no more milk. She hunts with her young for two years or more​—they learn by watching her.

The family atmosphere is usually gentle. Lionesses may group together and baby-sit one another’s cubs. Hungry cubs nurse on any lioness that has milk. Cubs spend much time chasing and wrestling with one another. Sometimes a lioness will join in the play, twitching her tail as the cub tries to catch it and chew on it. Even the big males will tolerate, up to a point, the youngsters that climb over them and tug on their hair. The pride stays in its territory but not always together. But when they come together again, they greet one another by rubbing cheeks.

The pride is a long-lasting unit. Most of its females were born and reared in the pride and hence are related. After a few decades, there will be sisters, mothers, grandmothers, half sisters, cousins, and so on. The young males, however, when they reach three years of age, are driven out by the big males.

But they stay together as a group. There may be two or three, or five or six, and after a couple of years when mature and powerful, they may come across another pride, oust the resident males, and take over the females. When this happens, the new males kill the cubs. This means the progeny thereafter will be from the new males. It also means that the females will come into heat soon thereafter. The larger the group of males in a pride, the less likely another group of males will be able to oust them and take over.

Thus, it is an advantage for a male to have other males with him in the pride. While females are usually in a pride for life​—about 18 years—​males are usually replaced by a younger, stronger group of males in two or three years. Such ousted males have a harsh existence. No longer being in their prime, they are often unable to catch enough food. That is why it was said at the end of paragraph 3 that he is king “for a while.”

Fights over females by the related males of the pride are rare. The females in a pride often come into heat at the same time. The first male that comes upon a receptive female possesses her. The other males stay away. But since all the females become receptive at about the same time, all the males usually have females available for mating activities.

All of which leads to more cubs, which leads to more family squabbles, which are very exhausting, as every mother and father knows. So we leave our visit to the family circle of the Serengeti lions, and let Mom and Pop recuperate after the hassle of getting the kids to take their nap. Of course, there’s always one that can’t sleep and has to have an afternoon snack.

On this delightful note, we bid you good-bye from the Serengeti.

While animals such as the lion today prey on others for their food, apparently it was not that way in the beginning. (Genesis 1:30) The prophet Isaiah indicates that in the coming new world, “the wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull.” Yes, even “a mere little boy will be leader over them.”​—Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25.

[Footnotes]

From Black Militants to Jehovah’s Witnesses

An Odyssey From Black Power to Disillusionment and On to Enlightenment

WHITE students in their orientation week at Tufts University in greater Boston were learning about classes and getting around the campus. Black students were meeting with people like Angela Davis, Dick Gregory, Black Muslims. And unbeknownst to the school authorities, criminals from the militant movement. They came with their bodyguards to tell us what was going on and what to do to foster the revolution. They opened our eyes to dark deeds and roused us to the urgent need for black power. At 17 you’re quickly stirred by injustices, and I saw the need to get blacker.

It was 1969 and my first year at Tufts. A cause to test my blackness was soon at hand. A dormitory was being constructed with too few black workers. At sunrise we were at the construction site. We had people from outside the community who came in with guns and other weapons. We designated captains. I was captain at one of the stations. Three women were with me. We had our walkie-talkies and barricaded ourselves inside.

But when those construction workers got to work, boy, were they mad! To them this was a matter of eating. It had nothing to do with color. This was affecting their family. They wanted to tear us to pieces! The police showed up just in time, in riot gear and with riot sticks a foot longer than normal. They became a wall between us and the workers, and the confrontation ended.

I was going to two campuses that year. I was registered at Tufts but participated in an exchange program Tufts had with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At MIT a black physicist in graduate school approached me. In the library at MIT, there are tons of information on bombs and military exploits. Well, this black physicist said to me: “Look, brother, if you want to take it down [the dormitory being constructed], why​—you’re an engineer, right?” I said, “Yeah.” He said, “I could make some nitro, and let’s just take it all the way down.” But I wasn’t ready for that.

My name is Larry Whitehead. I was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Arlington, Virginia. I experienced the many indignities, small and large, heaped on blacks. I went through the first year of integration in high school​—the process was not helped by the presence of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi party in Virginia. I always had strong feelings about whites, but it was Tufts that taught me to be militant.

Madeline Joins Me at Tufts

The next year Madeline arrived at Tufts​—big Afro hairdo, posters displaying the black fists, all the other Black Power trappings. She explains how it came about with her:

“It was different for me. When I came to Tufts, I was already militant. I grew up in a white neighborhood; the high school was predominately white; many of my friends were white. But in my 11th year, a riot started in the cafeteria​—Martin Luther King had been assassinated, and tempers were boiling over in many places. So in the cafeteria blacks and whites fought. They had to close the school down. I was appalled when my white friends that I had grown up with showed such hate and animosity. It turned me bitter. I went through a drastic change. I cut off all my hair, grew it into an Afro, and got hot for Black Power. When I arrived at Tufts, my hatred for whites was full-blown.”

Both Madeline and I became active in the black movement at Tufts. It was a period of great change. Major movements on the campuses were taking place. The Vietnam war was a hot issue. The Students for Democratic Society was active. The drug culture was just getting off to a strong run. Neither Madeline nor I was into drugs, but those we associated with not only used drugs but also sold them.

Tufts was a predominantly white school, but they allowed black students to segregate, and we also had an Afro Society Black Orientation. I became president of the Afro-American Society and a citywide fraternity. Martin Luther King’s assassination triggered much of this black activity, the death of Malcolm X added its impetus, and when both Jack and Bob Kennedy were assassinated (they were the outstanding “good white people”), it left blacks feeling hopeless.

We wanted an identity of our own. We started reading Marcus Garvey, Back to Africa, James Baldwin. Our movies showed terrorist methods, blacks in poverty and discriminated against. They showed Arab women and children who could get into places that other people couldn’t, so they went in with bombs strapped to their persons and blew up the place​—they gave their lives for the cause. So we were indoctrinated to do the same.

We Teach “Black Religion”

I had always believed in God, groping for him. (Acts 17:27) But I almost lost him completely in 1970. We taught a course at Tufts called Black Religion. It was actually an attack on the Bible. The Black Muslims were influential in it, and they said that white men that came to you with the Bible were devils. Especially those with blue eyes and blonde hair. Jesus, on the other hand, was a black man with hair like lamb’s wool.

We were just at this point in the course when I met Tim Sieradski. He was big, blond, blue-eyed, and came with a Bible in his hand​—a white, blue-eyed devil if I ever saw one! Or so I thought. He was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When he showed up at my door, I thought to myself: ‘Look at this big, blue-eyed devil trying to teach me the Bible.’ But I soon discovered that he did know the Bible, and I did want him to show me in the Bible where it said Jesus’ hair was like lamb’s wool.

Instead he talked about this world ending, with scriptures to prove it. Being an engineer, I had proved scientifically to myself that God existed. I wasn’t sure about the Bible​—never had studied it. Tim did read a scripture that intrigued me: “He made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Acts 17:26) So I listened to Tim.

But not Madeline! Let her tell why: “I had been totally turned off by church,” she explained. “By the time I was 16, I saw it was very hypocritical. I knew I wasn’t living right​—by this time Larry and I were living together—​but I wasn’t going to go the church route and be a hypocrite about it. So whenever Tim would come, with his blond hair and blue eyes and Bible in hand, I wouldn’t speak to him. When he came I left.”

We lost track of Tim. We were not ready to abandon the Black Power movement. The Afro-American Society arranged to go and see a group called The Last Poets. These were blacks that did poetry to music. All they talked about was revolution: ‘Black people get together, get strong, overthrow white society, and make life better.’ ‘Work together, pull together’ ran their refrain. So Madeline and I decided to deal only with blacks.

Misgivings Sprout and Grow

We put a deposit on an apartment belonging to blacks. After waiting three months and listening to many excuses, they told us they had rented it to someone else. Before that, I had an apartment in a black neighborhood, and blacks broke in and stole everything I had. One night I was in an ice-cream shop talking on the phone long distance to my mother. Three black men came in and robbed the place. I didn’t notice until I heard this black man behind me say, “Be cool, brother.” I looked around, and he had a .45 automatic jammed in my back. My black brother indeed!

We saw that blacks preyed on blacks just as whites did. It’s not color, not race; it’s just people. It’s sad and it’s disillusioning. We looked again at the blacks we were associating with at Tufts. In the fraternities and sororities, there was no true brotherhood; neither did we find it in the Afro-American Society. Some of my associates found no problem with demolishing black women. Black girls would come to school. Their parents had sacrificed for years to get money to send them there. Then black men would introduce them to drugs. Some ended up trying to commit suicide.

Then we looked at all these young people around us, black and white. Some were junkies, some were alcoholics, and so many of them were just very much into themselves. And this was the generation in whose hands the world’s future lay? Wherever we looked, we saw no answers, from blacks or whites.

Disillusionment Sets In

Misgivings were becoming disillusionment. Madeline defined her growing problem: “We had all these meetings, and in them they kept saying you didn’t have to have any rules. Anything you wanted to do was okay. That’s anarchy. You can’t accomplish anything that way.”

I agreed. My search had always been for guidelines by which mankind could live. Initially I had felt that if we were all black, all coming from the same place, united in a common cause, then it would work out. Then we saw that the blacks were no different from the whites​—no better, no worse, just the same mixture of good and bad. Unity must have a basis other than race.

Obviously, we had to make some changes. Things were turning sour for us. One evening I recalled: “There was a film at Tufts that showed the size of the universe, the order of it. It amazed me, and I remember thinking at the time that that couldn’t happen by accident. If there is that kind of order throughout the universe, there have to be guidelines that God set out for mankind.”

We left Tufts, got married, and started our search for the God that made this orderly universe, planet Earth, and mankind on it.

During our search, we attended a Bible study meeting at the African Methodist Episcopal church. We took with us the book Aid to Bible Understanding that Tim had left with me months earlier. The discussion was on the cities of refuge. No one knew what they were until I read about them from the Aid book. Everyone was delighted until they learned that the book was published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The room became very quiet. And this was supposed to be a Bible study class?

Enlightenment Transforms Our Lives

We left and never went back. It made us see that apparently the only ones who knew what they were talking about were Tim and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I remembered Tim’s last name, looked up his telephone number, and called him. He started a regular home Bible study with us. And now even Madeline was delighted to speak to Tim​—no more was he that “blond, blue-eyed devil.”

Interesting things began to happen. I was working at a large engineering firm in Boston. They called me into the office and told me that if I would give up being a Witness and go back to college and get my master’s degree, they would make me corporate vice president. I declined. Madeline and I were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1975, and Madeline started as a regular full-time pioneer.

I had one very gratifying experience at the engineering firm. I worked with Mike, a black engineer, there. He was quite a debater, and one of his pet subjects was evolution. On this particular day, with about five other engineers present, he was coming on strong about how you could prove evolution. Then he turned to me and said: “Isn’t that right, Larry?”

So I was forced to make a stand. I hadn’t really witnessed to a group before. I should have, but because I’m an engineer, I hid it. But Mike pulled me right out of the closet. So I told Mike: “Mike, I can’t agree with that.” He nearly went into orbit! Later I gave him the Watch Tower publication Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? Mike devoured that book! Today he is an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Richmond, Virginia.

Materialism Not Enough

When I quit the engineering firm in Boston in 1977, they called me in and told me that I was being foolish. They knew I was quitting because I wanted to do more as a Witness. I’ll never forget this man standing at the window looking out over the city, saying: “Whitehead, you can be rich, you can make money, you can buy cars.” He kept on and on. But I was 21 and had already bought two new cars and a home. I had achieved what at that time most people figured you would get by the time you were 40. There was nothing else for us to achieve here. The system had nothing else to offer materially.

It wasn’t enough. It didn’t satisfy, as the Bible warned many centuries ago: “A mere lover of silver will not be satisfied with silver, neither any lover of wealth with income. This too is vanity.”​—Ecclesiastes 5:10.

Later the Watchtower Society sent us to where the need for Witnesses was greater, Las Vegas. We stayed there for five and a half years. Both of us served as full-time ministers from time to time. There were periods when food was scarce, but we never neglected the basics: study, service, prayer. Like the apostle Paul, we knew how to be full and how to be empty.​—Philippians 4:12.

In Las Vegas I started out working as a carpenter, then as draftsman for the phone company, and finally was made the state coordinator for the computerized project of Central Telephone Company. I later returned to Alexandria, Virginia. I worked for Xerox as a computer systems analyst, being sent into large corporations. I now have my own consulting business as a computer systems analyst.

Madeline and I are now serving in a congregation of Witnesses in Alexandria. I’m an elder there and the congregation secretary. Both Madeline and I are grateful to Jehovah for enlightening us to understand that no human power, black or white, is the answer to mankind’s problems. (Psalm 146:2, 3) We are happy now to ‘let the light of His kingdom shine’ for the enlightenment of others who have eyes willing to see. (Matthew 5:14-16)​—As told by Larry Whitehead.

[Picture on page 21]

The Whiteheads with Tim, their onetime “blond, blue-eyed devil”

[Picture on page 22]

The Whiteheads find being active in the Christian ministry fulfilling

Young People Ask . . .

Why Is It So Hard to Get Along With My Brother and Sister?

SIBLING rivalry​—it’s as old as Cain and Abel and as common among young people as the cold. Not that you really hate your brother or sister. Why, you might even begrudgingly admit having some affection for your sibling, as the following youths did:

“At times my sisters and brothers have arguments and I say I hate their guts, but I don’t mean it. We really love each other.”

“I guess I do love my brother even though I don’t really show it.”

“Deep down in my heart, where I cannot feel it now, I guess I love my brother. Sort of, I do.”

Nevertheless, animosity obviously lurks beneath the surface of these sibling relationships. What may result? A 15-year-old girl confessed: “My sister and brother and I; we would get into so many fights​—about nothing usually! Those fights were distressing to everyone in the family, and we were all unhappy.” Some brothers and sisters are even openly hostile. (One teenage girl drew a picture of her brothers and sisters being lowered into a vat of hot tar.)

Why does sibling discord often exist?

In an article in Seventeen magazine, family therapist Claudia Schweitzer gives a basic reason why brothers and sisters are so often in conflict: “Each family has a certain amount of resources, some emotional and some material.” The article continued: “When sibs fight, they’re usually competing for these resources, which includes everything from parental love to money and clothes.”

Yes, having a brother or a sister usually means sharing. Eighteen-year-old Camille and her five brothers and sisters, for example, must share three bedrooms. “I want to be by myself sometimes,” Camille says, “and I’ll want to shut them out, but they’re always there.” Of course, even Jesus Christ had an occasional need for privacy. (Mark 6:31) So you may resent it when a brother or a sister barges into your room without knocking, or when you do not have the room to yourself.

This can be a particularly thorny problem in stepfamilies when youngsters must share with strangers. “No one asked my brother or me if we wanted to have two stepsisters and a stepbrother move into our house,” said one girl bitterly. “They just moved in one day and started acting as though they owned everything. . . . I wish they’d go back to where they came from.”

Then there is the sharing of privileges and household responsibilities. Older youngsters may resent being expected to do the lion’s share of the chores. Younger children may balk at being bossed by an older sibling or become jealous when older siblings receive coveted privileges. ‘My sister takes driving lessons and I can’t,’ laments a teenage girl from England. ‘I feel resentful and try to make things difficult for her.’

How can this cycle of resentment be broken? Begin by trying to overcome any tendencies toward selfishness. That means ‘seeking not your own advantage, but that of the other person.’ (1 Corinthians 10:24) Rather than quibbling over personal “rights,” be “ready to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18) This may be very difficult. But one researcher reminds us: “The advantages of having siblings [including stepbrothers and stepsisters!] outweigh the disadvantages. The presence of siblings affords a situation in which the child can learn to get along well with other children. He learns the lessons of give-and-take, to share his possessions.”

Too Close for Comfort

Seventeen-year-old Diane grew up with four brothers and three sisters. She says: “If you see one another every single day, day in and day out . . . And if you watch the same person every day do the same thing that annoys you​—that can get to you.” At times, though, our own flaws add fuel to the fire. Young Andre says of himself: “The way you act at home is how you really are. When you go outside and associate with other people, sometimes you put on a whole different attitude. But when you’re at home in an environment you’re used to, you act the way you really are.” Unfortunately, ‘acting the way you really are’ often means dispensing with politeness, kindness, and tact.

The book The Private Life of the American Teenager further observes: “It is often more difficult to get along with people who share some of our characteristics and who know all our shortcomings and pressure points.” True, if you share a good quality with a brother or a sister, you may be drawn to that one. But what if you share negative qualities? Proverbs 27:19 says: “As in water face corresponds with face, so the heart of a man with that of a man.” When we see our bad qualities reflected in a sibling, we often resent the reminder and become hostile.

How can you maintain peace? By following the Bible’s counsel to ‘put up with one another in love.’ (Ephesians 4:2) Rather than magnifying a sibling’s faults and flaws, apply Christian love, which “covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8) Instead of taking family members for granted and being abrasive or unkind, put away “wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech,” and “let your utterance be always with graciousness.”​—Colossians 3:8; 4:6.

‘Mom Likes You Best!’

Probably the greatest battle between siblings, though, is for the affection of their parents. Admits professor of psychology Lee Salk: “There’s no way a parent can love all her children exactly the same because they are different human beings and inevitably elicit different reactions from us [parents].”

This proved true in Bible times. The patriarch Jacob (Israel) “loved Joseph more than all his other sons.” His brothers became particularly resentful of this fact when Jacob “had a long, striped shirtlike garment made for” Joseph, evidently the type of garment worn by a person of rank. (Genesis 37:3) In time their jealousy erupted into murderous hatred. It may likewise hurt if your parents seem to favor one of your brothers or sisters. But some take out hurt feelings on their siblings!

Overcoming Jealousy

Sibling jealousy is often a result of the fact that “the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up.” (Genesis 8:21) And “out of the heart come wicked reasonings.” (Matthew 15:19) A young woman named Lynn recalls how she became so jealous of a younger sister that when she broke her arm, Lynn accused her of doing so on purpose! The supposed reason? So that she could get out of helping Lynn fold sheets. Obviously, Lynn’s hostile feelings were more a result of the deceptive reasonings of her heart than actual circumstances.

The same can be true when one is jealous because a sibling is favored by a parent. “Jealousy is rottenness to the bones.” (Proverbs 14:30) And often there is no real reason for resentment to begin with. In the case of Jacob, remember that Joseph was the son of his beloved dead wife Rachel. Of course he felt especially close to this son! Yet Jacob’s love for Joseph obviously did not exclude his other sons, for he expressed real concern for their welfare. (Genesis 37:13, 14) Your parents may similarly be drawn to one of your siblings, perhaps because of shared interests. This does not mean, though, that they do not love you. So if you feel resentment or jealousy, realize that your imperfect heart has simply got the better of you. Work to overcome such feelings.

Having a sibling does not necessarily mean sibling rivalry​—especially if you make a real effort to apply Bible principles.a True, having siblings has its problems. But ‘the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.’

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 24]

Sharing a room with a brother or a sister can create real frictions

When Memorizing Comes Easy

Mothers, Do You Realize How Easy It Is for Your Young Child to Memorize Scriptures?

“HUMPTY DUMPTY sat on a wall . . . ” Then what happened? You know​—everybody knows. We all learned about Humpty Dumpty when we were just little folk. The remarkable thing is that we still carry that nursery rhyme around with us to this day. Maybe now we are even teaching our own children who it was that “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” could not put back together.

You have remembered that nursery rhyme​—or others that may be used in your country—​down till today for two very simple reasons: They were easy to memorize and they were fun. But memorizing is more than that to children. It is also

Highly Recommended by Schoolteachers

One sixth-grade teacher of gifted children feels very strongly about memorizing. He insists: “Let’s face it, kids are memorizing a lot. Even very young ones pick up the words to dozens of songs, endless sports statistics, or the like. Such memorizing is often useless and sometimes harmful. Memorizing wholesome, ennobling things provides a sound pattern of thinking for youngsters. It is a wonderful discipline. It generates ideas, stimulates creativity. It makes a platform to build on later.”

Another high school English teacher adds: “I have noticed that students who are not stimulated and challenged when very young tend to be one-dimensional and physically oriented by the time they reach junior high school. They often do not communicate well and can become dullards.”

Your children, like you, will probably as long as they live retain some of the things they memorize. So why not teach them something they can use and that will help them as long as they live? Why not select a few Bible verses for them to memorize? Some Christian families are doing this with great joy and benefit.

They Can Do It and You Can Do It

Andrew’s mother had helped him to memorize over 80 Bible verses word for word by the time he was six years of age.

“It wasn’t a race,” she says. “Our pace was very relaxed and natural. In fact, when someone finally asked, ‘How many verses does he know?’ I had to stop and add them up. Andrew enjoyed mastering new verses very much, and the list grew quickly.”

But how did she do it? What books did she read first? Is there a trick to it?

“Oh, no, no,” she objects. “Nothing could be easier. I just read him a verse a couple of times, then he repeats the verse after me a couple of times​—like a wedding vow. Then we repeat this session a couple or three times a week until he has it down. I was amazed at how much he liked to learn them and how quickly he picked them up!”

“That’s all?”

“Yes, really, that’s all there is to it. When people try to give me credit for being such a good teacher, I have to admit that I have not done anything special. I just keep putting new verses in front of my son, and he scoops them up like cookies.”

“You mean your son really likes to memorize individual scriptures?”

“No, I do not mean he likes to​—he loves to! My husband and I are positive, enthusiastic, and encouraging to Andrew, and he is very proud of his achievements. Other children may learn quicker or slower than our boy, but I am certain that all children would enjoy spending this sort of time with Mom or Dad.”

Think About the Benefits to Your Child

As you teach your child what the Bible says, you will be “bringing [him] up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah.” (Ephesians 6:4) You are planting God’s thoughts in his young mind so that in time God’s pattern of thinking will become your child’s pattern of thinking. Let’s see how that might work:

Perhaps you will choose to help your child memorize Matthew 24:14 first. This passage has worked well for others because it is one that children may often have heard. The first few times, you can just read the verse and then help your child to recite it. Then you can begin to add to his fund of understanding about it.

For instance, after he recites Matthew 24:14, you may mention what the “good news” is in a sentence or two. At a later sitting you could briefly define God’s Kingdom. Another time you can describe a different area of the world where true Christians are also preaching and what the work is like there. Sessions can be brief, informal, and fun. There is no need to be a drill sergeant. Keep the atmosphere light and spontaneous. You may well invent a few family games along the way.

Patiently go over your child’s verses a few times a week until he is really comfortable with them. In time he may not want to repeat any of his earliest verses any more because he knows them so well. That’s fine​—add a couple of fresh ones to keep his interest. About this time he may feel so confident about a favorite verse that he will be eager to share it at a congregation meeting. He may even delight in speaking up to someone whom his parents have met in their house-to-house preaching.

But do not rush him or force him. Young folk all grow at different rates. Some may know their verses very well but be more shy about expressing themselves outside the home. The important thing is, after all, not that your child impresses others but that you and he have a warm, loving time learning what God’s Word says.

On other occasions, you may direct him to learn a verse that gives needed correction or discipline, perhaps one that highlights respect for parents or getting along peaceably with others. Scriptures on key Bible doctrines, such as Genesis 1:1 or Revelation 21:3, 4, also have their place.

In truth, of course, there are no verses you and your child will not enjoy and gain from because “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Since it will help your child so much, be so easy for you, and so enjoyable for both of you, why not start right away?

From Our Readers

The World Since 1914

I really must thank you for the series of articles entitled “The World Since 1914.” (March 8 through June 22, 1987) At school I had to write an essay on the way human relations have deteriorated because of modern civilization. In the first part, before describing modern civilization, I reviewed the situation after World War I. I took inspiration from these well-written articles. I obtained my best grade yet. I am 16 and in the 12th grade.

C.P.S., France

The World of Artificial Eyes

I always read my magazines from cover to cover. When I reached the article “Peering Into the World of Artificial Eyes” (August 8, 1986), I actually thought, ‘What a strange thing to talk about.’ Nevertheless, I read it. In January of this year I visited my optician for a routine eye check and found that I had a large, fast-growing malignant tumour in my right eye, and within a week I was in the hospital in Scotland for an operation. There were complications, and the eye had to be removed. I was so grateful for your article, which I immediately remembered. Although I received much loving care from the medical staff, I was not told a lot in detail about the nature of the operation. So your article has been of much help to me.

M. G., England

Salty Drink That Saves Lives

Thank you for all the marvelous articles you print on the many facets of everyday life. Recently, shortly after surgery and thinking I had a bladder infection, I drank so much water I caused a sodium depletion in my body. I didn’t even know this was possible. I became violently ill. About the same time a friend who is a registered nurse called me and told me to drink “the salty drink that saves lives.” (September 22, 1985) I began to get immediate relief. This kept me from having to be hospitalized again. I had remembered the article and had thought I would be using it on my grandchildren, not on myself.

G. S., United States

How Did Life on Earth Begin?

I am very grateful to you for the article “How Did Life on Earth Begin?” (January 22, 1987) This article strengthened my faith in Jehovah because it explained in simple terms how the universe came into existence by means of a Creator, and it clearly showed why evolution is not possible. This material will help me explain creation to others.

R. L., Italy

Just a Crush?

Your article “Who Says It’s Just a Crush?” was very helpful. (January 8, 1987) When I was in school, I thought I loved one of my teachers for three years. I was one of his outstanding students, so he gave me extra attention, especially since I was shy. He was very special, and I still like him as a person, but I never knew how wrong it was to think I loved him till now. He is married, and it was very easy to start imagining what would happen if his wife died. I really appreciated that article and the following one on “How Can I Get Over a Crush?” (January 22, 1987) I used to cry because I missed him, and I even wrote poetry about him, which I’ve destroyed.

I. L., United States

Watching the World

Electronic Church Scandal

Former television evangelist Jim Bakker and his wife Tammy received $4.8 million in salary, bonuses and other payments from their TV ministry between January 1984 and March 1987, reported The Charlotte Observer, a North Carolina newspaper in the United States. Bakker resigned as head of the PTL (Praise the Lord) television ministry in March after admitting to “a sexual encounter” in 1980 with a young church secretary. Just before his confession, his wife revealed that she had become addicted to prescription drugs. Another TV evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, commenting on the scandal surrounding the Bakkers said: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ has never sunk to such a low level as it has today.” What really though has sunk​—the gospel or the TV gospelers?

Aluminum Alert

“A leading group of British scientists is warning against using aluminium saucepans and aluminium-rich foods,” says The Sunday Times of London. ‘Scientists from the Medical Research Council’s neuroendocrinology unit in Newcastle upon Tyne believe aluminium contamination of food and water is a possible cause of Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of senile dementia.’ Although it was previously thought that the amount of aluminum absorbed from cooking pots was negligible, recent research showed a dramatic increase in aluminum release due to a chemical reaction when fluoride was present in cooking water or when cooking acidic foods such as tomatoes or cabbage. The discovery has raised questions over the policy in many areas of adding fluoride to water supplies to strengthen children’s teeth.

Midday Naps

The need to nap is normal, researchers say. Somewhere between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m., most people experience a lull in their alertness, and productivity decreases. The phenomenon is due, not to eating or culture, as had formerly been thought, but to a shift in the human biological clock. At that time, people can fall asleep within a few minutes. While alertness and work performance did not increase for those who stopped for a midday nap, it did put them in a better mood. Children also were better behaved after a rest period, even though they might not have actually slept.

Baby-Food Risk

Infants with kidney problems and babies born prematurely are particularly at risk from traces of aluminum found in some baby foods, concludes a survey by the Trading Standards Department, Warwickshire, England. But it is stressed that the levels found are not a risk to healthy infants. Recent research in England and the United States suggests that aluminum could be dangerous for infants with defective kidneys, or for premature babies with underdeveloped organs. This is because the child is unable to excrete the aluminum, allowing the metal to build up in excessive quantities in the brain.

Death-Dealing Blood

Actor Danny Kaye died this past March. Yet, “the most significant aspect of his death escaped general notice,” writes columnist Ray Kerrison. “The comedian died at the age of 74 in part because he once received transfusions of contaminated blood.” His doctor disclosed that Kaye contracted non-A and non-B hepatitis from transfusions he received four years previously when undergoing quadruple bypass surgery. “Thus the operation designed to save Danny Kaye’s life became instead a sentence of death,” says Kerrison. “Indeed, it is estimated that some 12 people (many of them hemophiliacs) die every day in the U.S. of diseases transmitted by tainted blood.” Why? Because although blood can harbor many ailments, it is tested for only two​—hepatitis B and the AIDS antibody—​as it is not cost effective to test for more.

At the same time, former porn star Linda Lovelace underwent a liver transplant operation. What damaged her liver? Doctors believe it was also hepatitis, contracted through a blood transfusion given her after an auto accident in 1970.

“Better Off Fat”?

An increasing number of obesity experts are concluding that “many, if not most, people with serious weight problems can be hardly blamed for their rotund shape,” reports The New York Times. “At least half of obese people​—those who are more than 30 percent overweight—​who try to diet down to ‘desirable’ weights listed in the height-weight tables suffer medically, physically and psychologically as a result, and would be better off fat,” said Dr. George Blackburn, an obesity specialist at Harvard Medical School, according to the article. Still, Dr. Theodore B. Van Itallie, of St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, said: “Body fatness responds to environmental conditions. As members of a sedentary and food-laden society, obesity-prone persons who wish to control their weight must learn to maintain a high level of physical activity and to eat defensively.”

Nonslip Footwear

Every year Britain’s hospitals treat half a million injuries caused by slipping on ice. Medical researchers plan to reduce this by learning a lesson from the polar bear. Its paws have remarkable nonslip properties. What is its secret? According to The Sunday Times of London, microscopic examination reveals a “pitted and pimpled” hard surface covering a “soft and springy inside.” Whereas stiff-soled leather and plastic shoes become harder in cold weather, and thick-soled inflexible boots tend to collect ice on their treads, scientists believe that a two-layer copy of the polar bear’s paws provides the best grip on a slippery surface. “I don’t believe there is any substance that will give total safety on a surface such as ice,” comments Ford Motor Company’s chief medical officer Dr. Derek Manning, “but our shoes can be much safer than they are now.”

Big Eaters

“Italians eat poorly,” notes La Repubblica, a Rome daily, “but it’s not their fault.” Why not? This and other questions pertaining to Italy’s big eaters were discussed at a convention held earlier this year in Rome by the National Institute of Nutrition. Tullio Seppilli, a director at the University of Perugia, claims that the notorious Italian big eater is an unhappy individual whose life is divided “by two hedonisms​—one that drives to eating and another that demands a fine physical form.” In support of this, recent statistics show that while 8 million Italian adults make an effort to resolve their weight problems, 22 million remain dissatisfied with their diet and hate themselves but continue to gorge on sausages and chocolates. Lamenting the Italians’ poor choice of diet, La Repubblica says that TV commercials are largely responsible because “they have succeeded in convincing children to devour first-rate rubbish.”

Japanese Labor Crisis

Japan is facing its most serious labor crisis since World War II. Among the causes are the increasing cost of Japanese products due to the rise of the yen, falling demand in the international market, and competition with countries such as South Korea. To cut labor costs and retain a competitive edge, there is a scramble by Japanese companies to shift production overseas​—leaving workers at home unemployed. “Japan’s jobless rate has been hovering at 2.8 to 2.9 percent in recent months,” says Mainichi Daily News, “the highest level since the government began compiling statistics in 1953.” While these figures are low compared to other nations, the Japanese method of calculating them is different. Layoffs and people who work more than one hour in any week, for instance, are not included. The rate “would double to over 5 percent if calculated under the U.S. formula,” states the paper.

The Clownfish and the Anemone

Symbiosis means “living together.” When both partners are benefited, the practice is also known as mutualism. That’s the way it is between Mr. Clownfish and Mr. Carpet Anemone.

How does the relationship work?

The tentacles of the anemone are covered with stinging cells. When predators are attracted to enter in pursuit of the fluttering clownfish, they are stung, killed, and eaten by the anemone. The clownfish, in turn, feeds on the scraps of food from the anemone​—often even taking it from the anemone’s mouth.

But why isn’t the clownfish stung and eaten by its host, especially when the fish steals food from the mouth of its host?

Scientists have discovered that the clownfish’s immunity is not because the carpet anemone recognizes the services rendered by its tenant. Rather, a change in the mucous covering of the fish inhibits the discharge of the anemone’s venomous stinging cells. Mr. Anemone reaps benefits from the relationship, but Mr. Clownfish is the one that is in control of the operation.

What Do You Know About the Bible?

Who wrote it? When did the writers live? How has the Bible been preserved down to our day? What are the general contents of each Bible book? The book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” answers these and hundreds of other questions about the Bible. It contains 78 chapters, including one on each of the 66 books of the Bible. Hardbound; 352 pages, the same size as this magazine. Only $2.

Please send, postpaid, “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial.” I enclose $2 (U.S.).