Toronto & GTA

In first motion as mayor, Chow gets unanimous support for refugee shelter response

Jordan Omstead
Published Jul 19, 2023 • 

Newly elected Mayor Olivia Chow waves to the crowd at council chambers during her Declaration of Office Ceremony, at Toronto City Hall on July 12, 2023. 

PHOTO BY TIJANA MARTIN /The Canadian Press

Olivia Chow placed Toronto’s asylum seeker shelter crisis at the top of the agenda on Wednesday, securing unanimous approval on a motion to tackle the issue during her first city council meeting as mayor.

Chow billed the motion as the first concrete steps taken under her leadership to open up shelter spaces for asylum seekers and move more people to permanent housing.

“This is a down payment. It’s a beginning,” Chow, who was elected in a byelection last month, said during Wednesday’s city council meeting.

The motion — Chow’s first as mayor — directs staff to immediately open up 150 shelter spaces for refugee claimants, primarily by renewing shelter hotel contracts, and to find 100 more spaces in the coming days.

Chow indicated support for those spaces would in part come from the $97 million in federal funding earmarked for Toronto on Tuesday to help shelter asylum claimants.

Chow and Ontario Premier Doug Ford welcomed Ottawa’s funding announcement but said it still fell short of the $157 million the city needed to help shelter the roughly 3,000 asylum claimants who make up about a third of Toronto’s shelter capacity.

“We are calling on the federal government to build on its stop-gap funding by fully funding the supports needed to shelter and care for these refugees and asylum seekers in the city,” Ford and Chow wrote in a joint statement Wednesday.


RECOMMENDED FROM EDITORIAL

'TAKE US TO A SAFE PLACE': Refugees want off streets amid shelter crisis

CALM BEFORE THE STORM: No end in sight for Toronto asylum seekers awaiting refuge

Ottawa has recognized the issue demands collaboration but has said housing and support for asylum claimants is a matter for the city and province.

Chow made the issue of sheltering refugee claimants and asylum seekers a focus of her first week in office, holding meetings with senior officials across levels of governments and lobbying for additional support.

The issue took on elevated urgency as some claimants were left to sleep on city sidewalks outside a homeless support centre in recent days as different levels of government wrangled over funding, while frontline advocates and community groups stepped in with support.

A controversial city policy, brought in under Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie before Chow was elected, has seen asylum claimants looking for a spot in non-refugee-specific Toronto shelters directed toward federal programs.

Chow’s motion, seconded by McKelvie, included a line that everyone, regardless of immigration status, would be able to access the city’s shelter system “as space becomes available.”

“This is just the first step of many to come,” McKelvie said Wednesday. “We want to be a home that welcomes refugees, we want to be a Toronto for everyone, but we need support to do that.”

Chow’s motion also saw council approve a one-time $6.67-million top up to a rental housing subsidy program, matched by the provincial government.

In the joint statement Wednesday, Ford and Chow said the combined funding would immediately provide permanent housing to upwards of 1,350 households.

They called on the federal government to step up with another $26.7 million for the program, saying historically the federal government funds two-thirds of the program.

“We must do more and do more quickly to fix this crisis. We urgently call on the federal government to join us in supporting these vulnerable newcomers,” the joint statement read.

The motion approved by council Wednesday includes a number of other measures, including a direction to city staff to develop an outreach strategy to pair refugee claimants eligible for the subsidy with property owners with suitable rental accommodations.

It also gives city staff the authority to enter into agreements to help establish a federally funded reception centre for refugee claimants arriving at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

Chow says agencies have pushed her to advocate for a centralized location where refugees can connect with service providers as soon as they reach Toronto.

Is Toronto about to get a makeover? Chow could set new tone with council appointments: experts

CBC
Wed, July 19, 2023 

Mayor Olivia Chow is seen during a ceremony at Toronto City Hall, officially taking office as mayor of Toronto, on July 12, 2023. (Alex Lupul/CBC - image credit)

Is Toronto City Hall on the cusp of a serious makeover?

Newly-elected Mayor Olivia Chow has signaled that change is coming to key committees and appointments, and it looks like she'll be applying more than just a fresh coat of paint.

A motion coming to council this week, which will be one of Chow's key items at her first meeting, kickstarts the work.

Chow said she's been busy talking with members of council about their priorities since she won the city's top job last month.

Among those priorities, she said, are a "deepening housing crisis, a sense of unease in our communities, and a transit system that is less reliable."

"It is through these conversations that I have been made even more hopeful for the future of our city because I can see clear common ground across city council."

If passed, Toronto's clerk will continue the discussions the new mayor started with councillors about where they'd like to be appointed to committees, local boards, city corporations and other agencies. That will be followed by a report recommending a new slate of appointments for council's consideration, potentially as early as September.

Appointments may reflect approach of past mayors

The appointments matter.

Council committees are key pinch-points that can speed up or slow down a mayor's policy agenda. So, understandably, mayors tend to wield the power they have to appoint the chairs and members of those committees to make their lives easier.

Former councillor John Filion said Chow's motion suggests she may being trying to strike a more conciliatory tone than just installing key allies. It might also mean that when she unveils her choices, they'll reflect councillors across the political spectrum, he added.

Filion said former mayors Mel Lastman and David Miller did to try to keep the peace at council. Chow herself was appointed by Lastman as the city's child advocate even though the two differed in their politics.

"I expect that she will be including everybody who's willing to work with her and move the city ahead together," he said.

Filion said the appointments process also has the potential to establish, or deepen, good working relationships among councillors themselves, he added. Chow will want to minimize dysfunction at city hall to pass her agenda, he said.

"When people are fighting, especially when they're fighting over nothing, it just uses up so much time and energy," he added.

Former councillor Joe Mihevc said Chow has two aims with the appointments: to strike a balance of power on council and to keep people happy. Neither is easy.

"She needs at least 15 or 16 people that are happy and that will support her in her agenda," he said.

There's a lot more on the council agenda, which you can find here, and CBC Toronto has taken a deeper dive into some of the topics. You can also watch the meeting live on the city's YouTube page or attend in person should your schedule allow.

Drinking in parks

Yes, once again, city council will debate the merits of cracking a cold beer (or whatever alcoholic beverage you prefer) in a local park.

In a proposed pilot project, some councillors have nominated several parks while others have not. It's also worth pointing out, based on the report, that the city hasn't issued a single ticket for this bylaw offence this year.

Snow-clearing concerns

Snow-clearing has been the subject of two auditor general reports and a variance report shows the city spent some $26 million more than anticipated on the service last winter.

Councillors have been critical of that service, so expect more at council.

A leaf-blower ban?

Perhaps more in season than snow-clearing, council will debate a proposed ban on leaf-blowers.

Stiffer rules for running for office

If you followed the hoopla around 102 candidates running for mayor in the last byelection, you might want to keep an eye on this motion, which aims to change some of the eligibility rules.

Alberta moves to decentralize health-care delivery, 15 years after centralizing it 

SAME CULPRITS INVOLVED

The Canadian Press
Tue, July 18, 2023 



EDMONTON — Alberta's new health minister has been given the green light to decentralize the entire health-care delivery system — 15 years after the province completed a multistage, multiyear process to centralize it.

In a mandate letter, Premier Danielle Smith directs Health Minister Adriana LaGrange to reform the management and structure of Alberta Health Services to spread out decision-making to improve front-line care.

The decision sets in motion a reversal of government policy that began almost 30 years ago when then-premier Ralph Klein collapsed more than 200 health boards and agencies into 17 regional health authorities.

Those 17 authorities were later rolled into nine boards and then, in 2008, into the current stand-alone Alberta Health Services, better known as AHS.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, former premier Jason Kenney said the unified management structure allowed Alberta to get faster access and better prices for scarce supplies.

But Smith has sharply criticized AHS as being too slow to respond to front-line needs, particularly during the pandemic, and last year fired its board and replaced it with a single administrator.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 18, 2023.

The Canadian Press

PM HARPER'S LEGACY

Opponents of telescope development in Hawaii urge UN to hold Canada accountable

The Canadian Press
Tue, July 18, 2023 


OTTAWA — Canada is under fire for its support of a controversial telescope slated for development on Hawai'i Island, the largest island in the state, over allegations the project violates Indigenous rights.

A group of academics and advocacy organizations asked the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination last Friday for early warning and urgent action on the Thirty Meter Telescope development.

"The government of Canada is a major partner and supporter of the TMT project, which for decades Native Hawaiians have challenged legally and opposed physically," said Uahikea Maile, the director of Indigenous-led research group Ziibiing Lab and a professor at the University of Toronto.

"We must not tolerate the status quo of Canadian human-rights violations against Indigenous Peoples, whether in or beyond its borders."

The telescope is slated to be built on Mauna Kea, a place researchers say has ideal observation conditions because it's located above 40 per cent of the Earth's atmosphere and has a climate favourable for capturing sharp images.

The summit of the volcano also holds cultural importance for the Kanaka Maoli, the Indigenous Peoples of Hawaii, some of whom have staunchly opposed its development.

The National Research Council, which provided some of the $30 million Canada contributed to construction costs, says it is reviewing the petition and notes the federal government stands by the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which came into force in Canada in 2021.

In 2015, the previous Conservative federal government pledged another $243 million to help fund the telescope project over 10 years.

Petitioners argue Canadian astronomical organizations wilfully misrepresented getting the consent of Indigenous Hawaiians, despite some having policies in place stating they would not proceed without it, and that Canada is violating Indigenous political self-determination as well as civil and political rights.

Dr. Robert P. Kirshner, the executive director of the TMT International Observatory, of which Canada is a member, said those opposed to the project "contribute to an important conversation" about its future on Mauna Kea. He said through discussions, the people of Hawai'i and Native Hawaiians will decide whether the project goes forward.

It isn't the first time the project has been the subject of criticism.

In 2019, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs penned an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Hawaii's governor calling for TMT's construction plans to be halted and for Canada to withdraw support for the project, which they said impacts Mauna Kea’s geology and endangered wildlife as well as cultural practices vital to the Kanaka Maoli.

Also in 2019, elders, known as kūpuna, who were protesting the telescope's development were met by police resistance and arrest. That led one University of Toronto professor and founding TMT project director in Canada to issue a letter saying their "institutional values are quite fundamentally opposed to the construction and operation of research facilities through police and military force."

Kirshner said TMT's approach to community engagement has changed since 2019 and, led by a Hilo-based team, it has held "genuine and in-depth conversations with hundreds of people who protested against TMT."

While Canada is the subject of this plea to the United Nations, other countries are also involved in the development of the telescope, including the U.S., Japan, China and India.

Still, those involved with the letter want the UN to hold Canada accountable for "violations of Indigenous rights" during its upcoming session.

Vincent Wong, a member of the Transnational Law and Racial Justice Network and a lawyer who helped in the letter's submission to the UN, said Canada has unique international human rights obligations to fulfil through its adoption of UNDRIP.

Wong pointed to Article 32 of the declaration, which is the right for Indigenous Peoples to "determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources."

The question Wong has now is whether Canada will take steps to ensure it's in compliance with UNDRIP and cease its participation in the "ongoing rights violations" of Kanaka Maoli by divesting from the project.

"That course correction needs to be made," said Wong.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 18, 2023.

Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian Press

Early humans used expert woodwork skills to make hunting weapons – study

Nina Massey, PA Science Correspondent
Wed, July 19, 2023 


A 300,000-year-old hunting weapon has shed new light on early humans as woodworking masters, researchers have said.

The double-pointed wooden stick was produced by Middle Pleistocene humans using sophisticated techniques and was likely used for throwing during hunts, experts suggest.

Analysis of the stick, found in Schoningen in Germany three decades ago, shows it was scraped, seasoned and sanded before being used to kill animals.

According to researchers, the findings indicate early humans’ woodworking techniques were more developed and sophisticated than previously understood.

The findings also suggest group hunts of medium and small animals may have been enabled by the creation of lightweight weapons.

The use of throwing sticks as hunting aids could have involved the entire community, including children, researchers say.

Dr Annemieke Milks, of the University of Reading’s Department of Archaeology, led the research.

She said: “Discoveries of wooden tools have revolutionised our understanding of early human behaviours.

“Amazingly, these early humans demonstrated an ability to plan well in advance, a strong knowledge of the properties of wood, and many sophisticated woodworking skills that we still use today.

“These lightweight throwing sticks may have been easier to launch than heavier spears, indicating the potential for the whole community to take part.

“Such tools could have been used by children while learning to throw and hunt.”

Co-author Dirk Leder said: “The Schoningen humans used a spruce branch to make this aerodynamic and ergonomic tool.

“The woodworking involved multiple steps including cutting and stripping off the bark, carving it into an aerodynamic shape, scraping away more of the surface, seasoning the wood to avoid cracking and warping, and sanding it for easier handling.”

The 77cm-long stick, which was found in 1994, is one of several different tools discovered in Schoningen, including throwing spears, thrusting spears and a second similarly sized throwing stick.

According to the study, published in the Plos One journal, the double-pointed throwing stick was most likely used by early humans to hunt medium-sized game like red and roe deer, and possibly fast-small prey including hares and birds that were otherwise difficult to catch.

Principal investigator Thomas Terberger, said: “The systematic analysis of the wooden finds of the Schoningen site financed by German Research Foundation provides valuable new insights, and further exciting information on these early wooden weapons can be expected soon.”

'The Anarchist' Series of Books

Lost Art Press

https://lostartpress.com › collections › the-anarchist-ser...

"The Anarchist" series of books by Christopher Schwarz represent a 10-year effort to make woodworking more accessible, affordable and ethical – and less ...

• 
  

  The Anarchist's Tool Chest

  https://lostartpress.com › the-anarchists-tool-chest

  
  

  

  This book, “The Anarchist's Tool Chest,” paints a world where woodworking tools are at the center of an ethical life filled with creating furniture that ...

  US$51.00 · ‎In stock

Climate and violence hobble Nigeria's push to rely on its own wheat after the hit from Russia's war


Wed, July 19, 2023 

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Abubakar Salisu was terrified when he discovered arid sand in the middle of his farmland, rendering a broad strip unfit for crops. Now, extreme heat is killing his wheat before it is ready for cultivation.

Wheat normally requires heat, but in the last three years, farmers in Nigeria’s far north, part of Africa's Sahel region that largely produces the country's homegrown food, have seen an “alarming” increase in heat — much more than required, said Salisu, a local leader of wheat farmers in Kaita, Katsina State. Plus, rain is irregular.

“The unpredictable rain pattern is affecting us because wheat is planted immediately after the rainy season, but sometimes we will plant it thinking the rain has stopped, only to have it start again, thereby spoiling the seeds,” said Salisu, 48.

The vicious heat and rain cycle, worsened by climate change, has contributed to his wheat yield dropping in half.

He is not alone — others in northern areas ripped apart by violence suffer even more. Conflict and climate change are driving a food security crisis in Nigeria, exacerbated by supply disruptions tied to Russia's war in Ukraine. It means people are spending more for food in Africa’s largest economy as it becomes more reliant on imported grain, which is priced in U.S. dollars, and its currency weakens.

Nigeria is trying to become self-sufficient: The government has launched programs to provide loans to farmers and boost domestic grain production. But extreme weather and violence from both gangs and farmers and cattle herders clashing over resources have hindered those efforts. It's left Nigeria unable to produce enough wheat to bridge a gap in supply of more than 5 million metric tons.

Russia's decision this week to back out of an accord allowing Ukraine to ship grain from the Black Sea could make things worse. Ukraine had announced a plan this year to send more wheat to the West African country at expected lower prices, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Now, that initiative in doubt.

The Nigerian program providing loans to growers “worked to a reasonable extent, but corruption played a part, as did the failure of farmers to repay the loans as climate change and insecurity undermined their production,” said Idayat Hassan, senior Africa program fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Wheat is one of Nigeria’s most consumed grains, and it imports largely from the U.S., South America and Europe, according to the Trade Data Monitor. Russia was a key source of affordable wheat, but its shipments have dwindled to almost nothing amid the war.

The loan program for growers failed to help increase local wheat yields, so the government has introduced new initiatives to boost how much land is harvested and distribute high-yielding seeds, pesticides and equipment to wheat farmers.

The flour milling industry, which struggles with Nigeria's weakening currency and high costs like diesel fuel, has also made a deal with farmers to source more wheat locally at competitive prices, potentially encouraging growers to increase production.

With the new efforts, the USDA projects Nigeria’s wheat production to increase 42% in the 2023-2024 trading year over the year before. But the agency warned that “the challenges outweigh the opportunities.”

Besides climate change creating irregular rainfall, extreme heat and dry land, “security challenges across the wheat-producing region restricts farmers’ access to fields," the USDA said in this year's Nigeria grain report.

The same problems will also decrease production of rice and corn, the department said.

“Of course, insecurity is affecting our activities because sometimes we can’t go to our farms even if we plant, and some of our colleagues have completely stopped farming, while some of us have reduced the number of our farmlands,” said Sama’ila Zubairu, a wheat farmer in Katsina’s Faskari area ravaged by violence.

Gangs control vast swaths of the north's rural areas, carrying out killings and abductions for ransom. There also are perennial clashes between farmers and cattle herders competing for land and water.

Zubairu has not seen his land degrade like Salisu, but he said “climate change affects me in two ways: excessive heat and rain patterns, which affect my turnout."

He harvested enough wheat to fill 20 bags last year and 18 most recently — down from 35 two years ago.

“And I am not alone,” Zubairu said.

Farmers being unable to reach their fields amid the violence triggers “both human security and food security crises,” said Hassan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Consumers are struggling with food inflation of 24%, with wheat-based staples like bread and pasta nearly doubling in price.

“The price surge has affected me because I have to double the costs of what I normally buy, and I would still not be able to buy enough,” said Chinedu Edeh, cooking gas retailer and installation technician in Nigeria's capital, Abuja. “Pasta has gone from 370 (naira) to 550 per unit."

He avoided the coarse wheat flour semolina in his last trip to the market and bought cheaper cassava flakes instead.

Last week, President Bola Tinubu released a policy statement on food and agriculture acknowledging rising food costs and declaring “a state of emergency,” with a commitment to include food and water availability in the government’s national security system.

Spokespeople for the president and the ministry of agriculture declined to comment or did not send answers to questions.

The government should “appreciate the full extent of how climate change fuels insecurity and food crisis and localize climate plans so that they affect real people who actually produce food for the country,” Hassan said.

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Taiwo Adebayo, The Associated Press

Why Einstein wasn't part of the Manhattan Project even though he convinced President Roosevelt to build an atomic bomb


Sonam Sheth
Wed, July 19, 2023

J. Robert Oppenheimer working with Albert Einstein.Corbis/Getty Images

Albert Einstein sent a letter in 1939 that helped convinced FDR to launch the Manhattan Project.

But Einstein was not part of the secretive program run by J. Robert Oppenheimer to develop a nuclear weapon.

US officials worried Einstein's left-leaning political views made him a security threat.

Albert Einstein played a key role in convincing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to launch the Manhattan Project and develop the world's first atomic bomb.

But the renowned theoretical physicist never took part in the secret project run by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer; US officials were worried his left-leaning political views posed a security threat.

Einstein sent a letter to Roosevelt in August 1939 warning that the Nazis could develop an atomic bomb and recommended "quick action on the part of the Admininstration" — namely, launching its own nuclear program.

The letter cited the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard's work, and Szilard helped draft the letter, which Einstein signed.

However, the US Army Intelligence office had concerns about Einstein's political ideology and in July 1940 denied him the security clearance to work on the project, according to the American Museum of Natural History.

Intelligence officials also barred the scientists who were part of the program, which was organized by Oppenheimer, from consulting with Einstein.

The Manhattan Project was officially created in August 1942, months after the US entered the war. The years-long program developed the world's first nuclear weapons, which were dropped on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

"Woe is me," Einstein said after learning of the attack, according to AMNH.

He later expressed remorse for recommending that the US start its own nuclear program, telling Newsweek, "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."

Szilard and his fellow Hungarian-born physicist Eugene Wigner both expressed their agreement with Einstein's statements, according to The New York Times.

The Manhattan Project is the center of a new biopic from director Christopher Nolan. "Oppenheimer," which chronicles the physicist's work developing the nukes and stars Cillian Murphy, releases this week.

Albert Einstein wrote to the US pleading with the government to build an atomic bomb 80 years ago. Here's what he said.

Sinéad Baker
Wed, July 19, 2023

A composite image showing Albert Einstein around 1939 and nuclear explosion in French Polynesia in October 1971.

MPI/Getty Images/Michel BARET/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

Albert Einstein was famously a pacifist, but he urged the US to develop the atomic bomb.


This helped pave the way for the Manhattan Project, which developed the bombs dropped on Japan.


He worried Nazi Germany was developing nuclear weapons, but later learned they were far behind the US.

On August 2, 1939, one month before the outbreak of World War II, Albert Einstein signed a two-page letter to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt that would help bring the US into the nuclear arms race and change the course of history.

Einstein, the famous German-born physicist, was already in the US, having fled Germany when the Nazis came to power. He learned that German scientists had discovered nuclear fission, the process of splitting an atom's nucleus to release energy.

The letter warned Roosevelt that "extremely powerful bombs of a new type" could be created in light of this discovery — and that these bombs would be capable of destroying entire ports and their surrounding areas.

The letter — which Einstein would later call his "one great mistake" — urged Roosevelt to speed up uranium research in the US.

You can read it here, or read a full transcript at the bottom of this article:

The letter from Albert Einstein to President Frankin D Roosevelt.Atomic Heritage Foundation

Einstein's warnings were read to Roosevelt by a man named Alexander Sachs, who also read out other warnings about such a bomb to the president, The New York Times reported at the time.

Roosevelt said, "Alex, what you are after is to see that the Nazis don't blow us up."

Sachs responded with a single word: "Precisely."

Roosevelt then called in his secretary and told him that "this requires action."

Einstein, who was Jewish, had been encouraged to write to Roosevelt by Leo Szilard, the Hungarian-born physicist who was convinced that Germany could use this newly discovered technology to create weapons.

Szilard and two other Hungarian physicists, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, who were both refugees, told Einstein of their grave concerns.

Szilard wrote the letter, but Einstein signed it, as they believed he had the most authority with the president.

Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard reenact the signing of their letter to President Roosevelt warning him that Germany may be building an atomic bomb in January 1946.

March Of Time/The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images

Cynthia Kelly, the president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, told National Geographic in 2017 that while Einstein's famous discovery that energy and mass were different forms of the same thing had set the stage for this kind of creation, "he certainly was not thinking about this theory as a weapon."

And Einstein never gave any details about how that energy could be harnessed, once saying: "I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy. My part in it was quite indirect."

Einstein's letter had a notable impact: Roosevelt created the Advisory Committee on Uranium in October 1939, the same month he received Einstein's letter.

By that point, World War II had broken out, though the US was not yet involved.

The committee later morphed into the Manhattan Project, the secret US committee that developed the atomic bombs that were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing an estimated 200,000 people.

Days after the bombings, Japan informally surrendered to the Allied forces, effectively ending World War II.

A huge expanse of ruins left the explosion of the atomic bomb on Aug. 6, 1945 in Hiroshima. 140,000 people died because of the disastrous explosion.

AP

Nazi Germany never succeeded in making nuclear weapons — and it seemed it never really tried.

Einstein was not involved in the bomb's creation. He was not allowed to work on the Manhattan Project — he was deemed too big a security risk, as he was both German and had been known as a left-leaning political activist.

But when he heard that the bomb had been used in Japan, he said, "Woe is me."

Einstein later said, "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing for the bomb."

He also warned that "we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."

UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, left, and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt meet in June 1942. During this meeting, the two world leaders finalized plans for an atomic bomb.

Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

In letter published in 2005, he wrote to a Japanese friend: "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan but I could not do anything at all to prevent that fateful decision."

And he wrote in a Japanese magazine in 1952 that he was "well aware of the dreadful danger for all mankind, if these experiments would succeed."

"I did not see any other way out," he wrote.

So crucial was Einstein's letter that the investing legend Warren Buffett told students at Columbia University in 2017 that "if you think about it, we are sitting here, in part, because of two Jewish immigrants who in 1939 in August signed the most important letter perhaps in the history of the United States."

Here's a full transcript of what Einstein sent Roosevelt:

Sir:

Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable — through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America — that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States;

b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,

Albert Einstein

REPRISE

Why Socialism?

by Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein (1959), charcoal and watercolor drawing by Alexander Dobkin. Dobkin (1908–1975) was an important painter of the mid-twentieth century American realist tradition along with other left-wing artists such as Jack Levine, Robert Gwathmey, Philip Evergood, and Raphael and Moses Soyer. A student and collaborator of the Mexican muralist Jose Clemente Orozco, his work is in the permanent collections of the Butler Art Institute, the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Museum, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution. (The preceding caption was written by John J. Simon, "Albert Einstein, Radical: A Political Profile," Monthly Review vol. 57, no. 1 [2005].)

Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.

—The Editors

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

2009, Volume 61, Issue 01 (May)