Log in to Scripto | Recent changes | View item | View file | Transcribe page | View history
Moore, U.G., January 4, 1948
6.1.8a.1.jpg
| Revision as of Jun 22, 2015 11:06:45 AM created by 128.193.164.143 |
Revision as of Sep 20, 2016 10:10:36 AM edited by 128.193.164.143 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Dear Sir: | Dear Sir: | ||
| − | In response to your statement I enclose my check for $10. | + | In response to your statement I enclose my check for $10.00 to assist in the work of your committee. |
However, I am doubtful somewhat of the efficacy of your approach. It seems to be based too much on the fear angle. It does not seem to me that fear has been a deterrent in the past, i.e. the fear of the consequences of war. Men seem to have been more fearful of the consequences to their own material possessions and power and this has blinded them to the other consequence, especially since in the main they were obsessed by their own evaluation of their cunning and their capacity to beat the other fellow to the draw. | However, I am doubtful somewhat of the efficacy of your approach. It seems to be based too much on the fear angle. It does not seem to me that fear has been a deterrent in the past, i.e. the fear of the consequences of war. Men seem to have been more fearful of the consequences to their own material possessions and power and this has blinded them to the other consequence, especially since in the main they were obsessed by their own evaluation of their cunning and their capacity to beat the other fellow to the draw. | ||
Revision as of Sep 20, 2016 10:10:36 AM
Seattle 5, January 4, 1948
Mr.Albert Einstein, Chairman, Emergency Com. of Atomic Scientists, 90 Nassau St., Princeton, N.J.
Dear Sir:
In response to your statement I enclose my check for $10.00 to assist in the work of your committee.
However, I am doubtful somewhat of the efficacy of your approach. It seems to be based too much on the fear angle. It does not seem to me that fear has been a deterrent in the past, i.e. the fear of the consequences of war. Men seem to have been more fearful of the consequences to their own material possessions and power and this has blinded them to the other consequence, especially since in the main they were obsessed by their own evaluation of their cunning and their capacity to beat the other fellow to the draw.
Your statement, presented by Gram Swing in the Atlantic Monthly is a very fine one. I could wish, however, that you had not overlooked one proposal made to the United Nations that points the way. That is the proposal of the International Cooperative League that all oil resources of the world be placed in a cooperative organization and distributed according to need and not so much for profit. The way in which this proposal is treated by the United Nations will indicate whether they want peace or not. My own guess is that in large part the men and women who are active in the U.N. and those who dictate their acts are not sufficiently desirous of peace to give up the power and possessions which are theirs, to a point where the frictions of a society based on profits will be lessened to an extent that will make peace possible; and what we have to say along the lines of danger from bombs and the benefits from abstaining from war will not weigh very heavily in the scales. The church has a tremendous responsibility, as you say, but again underlying it all is the actual materializing of our religious faith, the carrying of its theories into the field of action. We have been much too long on the former and too short on the latter for so long that I am wondering if it is not too late to prevent the catastrophe which is looming. However, I shall keep trying.
Yours sincerely,
U.G.MOORE
7723 14th NE
(sticker): NO MORE WAR Train for Peace not For War
U.G. MOORE, SEATTLE