PHILIP M.HAUSER 105 



believe, become elements in the armory of any logical, that is, con- 

 sistent conservationist. 



It is now apparent that I have little to say in my critique beyond 

 restating, not necessarily with improvement, Galbraith's presentation. 

 Accepting, as I do, the premise that it is necessary and desirable to 

 conserve our resources, I find that Galbraith has put the proper ques- 

 tions and provided the rational answers. That the questions will be 

 embarrassing to many, and that the answers will be provocative, and 

 considered even dangerous by some, does not make them less appo- 

 site. I rather suspect that Galbraith has enjoyed this opportunity to 

 force conservationists to face the implications of their position. In 

 doing so he has performed a service, in my judgment, not only for 

 conservationists but, also, for the nation at large. For with increased 

 maturity we cannot for very much longer play the role of the fun- 

 loving heir who avoids facing the hard reality of the finite limits of the 

 heritage he has dissipated and the need to go to work. 



For his part, Galbraith once again has demonstrated his willing- 

 ness and ability to rise above principles when confronted with con- 

 flicting facts. More specifically, Galbraith has, in putting his questions 

 and suggesting the answers, pointed to additional places in our eco- 

 nomic and political order where departure from neo-classical eco- 

 nomic postures may be indicated. In suggesting additional areas of 

 federal interventionism. Professor Galbraith is, even in this present 

 post-Senator McCarthy climate, indulging in possibly dangerous forms 

 of economic and political heresy. He may, therefore, be endowed 

 with a combination of prescience and courage, or of intellectual my- 

 opia and foolhardiness. Which of these designations turns out to be 

 correct will require, of course, the 20-20 vision which will come with 

 hindsight. 



