ENEMY TO THE EARTH? by Jonatham T.l, Milton, NY In response to the article, "Enemy to the Earth" (March issue) by Cindy Preedom of Vermont, I believe that although her concerns are genuine, her methods are flawed. This article presented a sincere appraisal of an undeniable concern: the safety and longevity of our planet. However, the points she makes cannot possibly be expected from every human being since many laws and rights need to be considered.

For example, she makes the statement "Why shouldn't everyone just take their cars and drive whenever they please? Because one car gives off an enormous amount of exhaust, and with billions of people out just cruisin', there wouldn't be any air left that was clean enough to breathe." This is debatable. With the world population estimated at six billion, it is ludicrous to assume that everyone from Donald Trump to a lowly Bedouin nomad owns cars. Besides, one cannot expect hard-working taxpayers who rely on their automobiles to refrain from driving and be forced to walk.

New automobile technology creates cars that cause less pollution. Since the Kennedy administration, unleaded gasoline has replaced leaded for environmental reasons. During the Ford and Carter administrations, cars were designed to function on less gasoline, conserving fossil fuels. Even with all the pollution, the earth has the ability to repair itself. It is therefore doubtful that in the near future humanity will die as a result of BMWs or Pontiacs.

She alo makes the statement: "There has got to be a better, cleaner and safer way to make them (goods).Those demanding products may not understand the effects of the smog created as a result." Filters on factory smoke-stacks capture 70% of the harmful agents that would otherwise enter the air. Also it's impossible to keep people from buying products, and almost everything is made in factories.

To have environmental agencies shut down a factory would not only be detrimental to the surrounding community, it could also have a devastating impact on the parent company. If supply and demand are not met, whole corporations could shut down.

At our current stage of development, it seems that our only solution is to hope (and pray) we can come up with more efficient ways to make products, while at the same time save our world.

Unfortunately, there may be no cleaner and safer way to make products than we are currently doing. Our level of technology cannot save the environment and support a large and delicate world economy at the same time. The truth is that either the factories go, and we starve to death as a result of an economic depression brought on by the rampant purging of the world's factories, or the earth goes and we die quickly and biologically, not technologically or socially.

Although Ms. Preedom's viewpoint is both open and heartfelt, our current level of technology cannot support earth and humanity at the same time. It is impossible to force environmentalism down peoples' throats, while it is also impossible to live without the earth. Humanity is headed for a controversial crossroads where it may lose either way.