LAST week I wet my bed, but it only dampened one area of the sheets, so I didn't do anything about it. Two nights ago it happened again, but I just crowded over onto the other side of the bed and everything was OK. Then last night I moistened the pillow, but I just flipped it over and went back to sleep.

Actually, I don't have bladder control problems, but this hypothetical scenario aptly illustrates how Americans in particular and humans in general foolishly ignore pressing environmental questions. We are unwilling to suffer minor inconvenience now for the sake of a habitable planet later.

The Harvard community now has an opportunity to counter this apathy and stagnation by supporting campus efforts to recycle paper.

Recycling is an efficient means to aid one of the worthiest causes of our time--preserving dwindling natural resources for ourselves and for posterity. In addition to saving 17 trees, each ton of paper recycled conserves oil and thousands of gallons of freshwater that would otherwise be used in making new paper.

BUT impressive statistics and lofty idealism do not a feasible policy make. So why should Harvard seize this moment to recycle instead of saving whales or alleviating third-world hunger? The answer is money--something the University administration understands very well.

The existing student-volunteer recycling program in Harvard's dorms does not turn a profit. The bulk of the paper collected in bins in dorm entryways, baled by student volunteers and driven to recyclers, is newspaper, which is difficult to de-ink and produces low quality recycled paper.

Nevertheless, students should still support the current effort. Not only does it save trees and reduce waste, but it is being closely watched as a pilot program for a profitable, comprehensive, University-wide recycling program.

The economic linchpin of the proposed plan is the renegotiation of the University's waste disposal contract scheduled for next summer. Currently, Harvard pays a flat fee for waste disposal that at present levels of waste production averages out to $100 per ton. Thus, there is no incentive to hold down the amount of garbage that Harvard produces.

In August, Vice President for Administrative Affairs Tom Vautin will seek pay on a per ton basis. This means that the newspaper recycling, which actually costs the University about $30 per ton, would turn a profit of $70 perton--$100 saved on disposal costs minus $30 expenses.

If the plan were adopted at Harvard's graduate schools, which produce more office paper than newspaper waste, the potential for savings would be even greater. White office paper, which also costs the University about $70 per ton in disposal costs, fetches $30 per ton from recycling brokers who can use it to create high quality recycled paper.

Savings in disposal costs plus profit from selling waste paper to recyclers would quickly recoup the small initial start up costs of a recycling program.

A sustained push for recycling now could have additional benefits in the future. As Massachusetts' landfills approach full capacity, the state seems likely to enact some kind of mandatory recycling legislation in the next few years. If Harvard acts now, it can avoid the rush. The University should initiate a recycling progam on its own terms, instead of waiting until recycling systems are a seller's market.

To help turn this environmentally-conscious, financially-sound vision into reality, students must commit now to show the administration that large-scale recycling can work. The most obvious means to show support for the current college-level recycling is to take the time to drop your waste paper in the recycling bin instead of the trash can. Additionally, students can volunteer to help sort and bale the paper.

To build a profitable recycling plan, we need to jump-start the market. On the supply side, Harvard Student Agencies, the Office of Information Technology and the Coop should begin offering recycled paper for sale. On the demand side, University offices and students should make a concerted effort to use it.

For its part, the University should press for an earlier renegotiation of the garbage contract, and be prepared to act as a broker between recycling companies and the 12 financially independent graduate schools who will have to make up their own minds about implementing a recycling system.

After the garbage contract is renegotiated, recycling will offer a rare opportunity to marry social consciousness to financial self-interest. And if the prospect of financial gain and the satisfaction of being environmentally sensitive do not galvanize Harvard behind a long-term committment to recycling, then the University's role as educator should.

Harvard is neither a mere profit-seeking business nor a lonely, environmentally-conscious citizen. It is a torch-bearing institution with enormous power of example. By committing to recycling, it not only trains people to build a better world, but takes active part in the process. Besides, what good are educated men and women without a decent planet to live on?