Demographically and economically, our era is a unique period in human history. The way we behave in the coming decades will determine whether we succeed in establishing a sustainable environment or collapse
George Masser
The 21st century begins with a sense of disappointment. We were promised flying cars, colonies in space and a 15 hour work week. Robots were supposed to perform the day-to-day tasks, unless they were busy organizing a rebellion; Children were supposed to learn about diseases only from history books; Portable nuclear fusion reactors were to be sold at Office Depot branches. Even the gloomiest predictions foretold leaps in technology and social organization that were to leave our age far behind.
But if we look ahead, beyond the sensational promises, we will see that the new century is shaping up to be one of the most amazing periods in human history. Three major change processes, which began with the industrial revolution, are approaching their climax. After several hundred years of rapid population growth, growth whose rate is even higher than an exponential (exponential) growth rate, the world's population is stabilizing. According to the current trends, the curve will straighten towards the middle of the century and stabilize at a value of about nine billion people. Simultaneously with this stabilization, the rates of extreme poverty are reduced, both relative to the population and in absolute numbers.
If the economies of China and India continue to advance following Japan and South Korea, then by 2050 the average Chinese person will be as wealthy as the Swiss living today, and the average Indian will reach the current wealth of an Israeli. Humanity is getting big and full, but the pressure it is putting on our planet is nearing its limit. Already today we are emitting carbon dioxide at a rate three times greater than the ability of the oceans and continents to absorb it back; Climate experts believe that the middle of the century is the time when we will start to be really affected by global warming. As things stand now, the world's forests and fisheries will be wiped out even before then. These three processes of change - demographic, economic and environmental - occurring at once and intertwined, are the things that the historians of the future will remember when they look back at our time. These are processes that change everything: from geopolitics to family structure. The magnitudes of the problems they pose are greater than any past attempts by humans. The biologist A. A. Wilson from Harvard University defines the period we are about to go through as the "bottleneck", a period of maximum pressure on natural resources and human resourcefulness. These trends are already evident in everyday life.
Many of us sometimes get lost in our hometowns because they have grown so big. But the growth rate is smaller as the families get smaller. More children than ever grow up not only without brothers and sisters, but also without uncles, aunts or cousins. (Some are heartened by this, but the only other way to maintain a stable population is to increase death rates.) Chinese goods are displayed for sale on our supermarket shelves and Indian workers answer our calls on customer service lines, but at the same time, Asians are buying more and more Western products. The spring flowers are a week earlier than when they bloomed 50 years ago because of global warming, and restaurants are serving new types of fish because formerly common species have been overfished. Looking at the present in a historical context helps broaden the view of the world's many problems. Many of these problems arise directly or indirectly from the growth of humanity. When the increase is stopped, we will have the opportunity to close the gap. It might be hard to push through the bottleneck, but once we get through it, the worst of it will be left behind. The changes we are going through today determine the scope of the expected challenges. Scientists can estimate, at least roughly, how many people will populate the earth, what their needs and wants will be, what resources will be available to them, and when all this will happen. The thing that drives economic growth today is a combination of an increase in labor productivity with population growth and with the increase in resources. But in the second half of the century, humanity may reach a state of equilibrium where economic growth will be driven only by the increase in labor productivity. Such a situation will take the brunt of the sting resulting from the contradiction between the economy and the environment. Old challenges will give way to new ones. This process is already evident in the countries leading the change. The debate raging in the US on the issue of national insurance and concerns about pensions in Europe and Japan are signs of a society preparing for life after population growth.
The public has mixed feelings about demographics. Thirty years ago overpopulation was the big concern. Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" was a bestseller at the time. The movie "Soylent Green" starring Charleston Heston dramatically depicted a future where humans will be crammed together like sardines and eat small squares that look like tofu - but are made of something completely different. But recently the new focus of concern is actually a subpopulation - a concept coined by neoconservatives like Nicholas Eberstadt. Here, too, their concern was illustrated in another Heston film, "The Omega Man", which describes a humanity that is almost completely depleted. So how many people will there be in the world? too much or too little?
In reality, the opinions of ordinary demographers do not swing so sharply. Although the size of families in developing countries has decreased at a faster rate than expected, the forecast presented in the special population issue of Scientific American in 1974 stood the test of time. In fact, there is a grain of truth in both the script of "Green Sun" and that of "The Omega Man". In absolute terms humanity is still growing enormously and past successes in preventing population explosion disasters are no guarantee of the future. But a decrease in the growth rate is also a source of concern. From the experience of history, most companies that have reached numerical stability or downsizing have become extinct. The enthusiastic supporters of each of these scenarios dismiss with a wave of their hands the challenges posed by the other scenario, and they express "confidence" that they will be able to deal with them without trying to verify that this is indeed the case. But if we dispel the mists of ideology, we will begin to see the outlines of a comprehensive plan of action. This is not the only plan, but it may serve as a starting point for discussion. One of the recurring claims in this program is that business and nature are not necessarily enemies of each other. Traditionally the concepts used to describe the economy and the environment are not even similar to each other. The statistical economic indicators that are usually followed, such as the gross domestic product (GDP), do not measure the depletion of a resource. Basically these are cash flow indicators and not profit and loss balance sheets. If you cut down a forest, the GDP will jump even though you eliminated an asset that could have brought in a steady income. And more broadly, the prices we pay for goods and services rarely include the environmental costs associated with them. Someone else pays the bill - and that someone else is usually ourselves in other clothes. One estimate claims that the American taxpayer spends $2,000 per year to subsidize agriculture, driving cars, mining and other activities that leave a heavy footprint on the environment. The distorted economy hardly encourages consumers and producers to maintain a clean environment. Advocates of environmental quality further unwittingly reinforce this trend by focusing their attention on the valuable natural treasures, treasures that have a deep meaning but are difficult to consider in the face of more pressing problems. The US Endangered Species Act provides exemplary examples of blame-shifting. When the spotted owls became endangered, the greens blamed the loggers for bringing trouble on these night raptors, while the loggers claimed that the over-spoiled birds brought them unemployment [following the reduction of logging rights in some areas of the USA - the editors]. In fact, both sides are victims of unsustainable forestry. In recent years, economists and scientists have joined together to set a price tag for the profits we derive from nature. This exercise is not meant to devalue nature, but rather to reveal how dependent we are on it. The "Millennium Report for the Assessment of the Ecosystem" that was published in early 2005, identified services that we receive from nature - from pollination to water filtration - that if they are not available to us, we will have to provide them ourselves, and at a high price. The team that compiled the report divided the services into 24 groups and found that 15 of them are being used at a rate faster than the rate of their renewal. If you also take the environment into account, and do it right, it turns out that what is good for nature is often good for the economy and even the private sector. Fishermen, for example, make maximum profits if they fish at a sustainable level. If more are fished than that, both productivity and profits will decrease, because more fishermen will compete for fewer fish. There is no doubt that life is not always so comfortable. Society sometimes has to make real compromises, but only now are we beginning to find out for ourselves in what ways of action everyone might end up being hired. If the policy makers can formulate a correct framework, it will be possible to secure the future of humanity through thousands of daily decisions: how many children people can have, where they can take their cattle out to graze, how they will insulate their homes. Day-to-day affairs are the area where most of the really profound changes usually occur. The wealth of a community is not determined by the number of computers and DVD players in the possession of its residents, because these can be found even in the poorest villages, but by the sewer pipes, the soft beds and the sense of physical and financial security of its members.
Action plan for the 21st century
1. Understand the changes. This is a first step that seems obvious, but often tends to be forgotten. It may be difficult to look beyond the daily headlines and understand what are the main trends in the change we are going through. Demographer Joel A. Cohen broadens the view and describes a large, slowly growing, urban and older population. Detailed forecasts are indeed affected by uncertainty, but the general issues arising from the forecasts are the important thing.
2. To achieve the development goals of the Millennium Project. The United Nations General Assembly examined in September 2005 the results involved in achieving the quantitative goals of the United Nations Millennium Project, a project whose stated goal is to reduce poverty and inequality. The head of the project, economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, supports a coordinated aid effort. Apart from improving the well-being of life, this will reduce environmental problems related to poverty, such as air pollution and deforestation.
3. Preserve necessary habitats. Extinction of a species is not an irreversible act, therefore top priority should be given to its prevention. Exotic animals are not the only victims. Species of economic value, such as the sturgeon and wild varieties of cereals, are also in crisis. Ecologists Stuart L. Pym and Clinton Jenkins argue that preserving nature reserves will cost money but will bring great benefits. It is often beneficial for the country to preserve its natural forest and not turn its territory into farms and agricultural farms, even from a narrow economic point of view.
4. Wean off mineral fuels. The atmosphere cannot contain much more carbon dioxide before the climate "goes crazy". Reducing the emission of this gas requires comprehensive changes in the way we produce and use energy. Emory B. Levins, one of the most creative American thinkers on the subject, believes that the task is not as scary or expensive as we tend to think. The proper course of action may simply be to accelerate current trends to improve efficiency.
5. Provide cheap means of irrigation to poor farmers. How can we feed all the extra mouths without exhausting the soil, drying up the aquifers and damming the last of the rivers? Development expert Paul Polk argues that crops can be boosted with appropriate small-scale technologies, such as hand pumps and drip irrigation, which are able to make better use of limited water supplies and put farmers on a path to prosperity.
6. Strengthen the health systems. In the rich and rapidly developing countries, such as China and India, many suffer from chronic diseases, such as heart and mental diseases, more than infectious diseases. In poorer countries, malaria, tuberculosis and other bacterial diseases still bear the brunt of the health burden. Disease expert Barry R. Blum claims that the top priority should be given in both cases to better prevention, from vaccinations and mosquito nets to awareness campaigns against smoking.
7. Prepare for slower economic growth. Political and economic institutions will have to reorganize as the economy approaches global barriers. Economist Herman A. Daly favors new ways of collecting taxes, setting interest rates and regulating environmental pollution and resource utilization. Economist Partha Dasgupota agrees with most of Daly's claims but adds that the economies of rich countries have already achieved more sustainable stability than most people assume.
8. Set priorities more rationally. Today priorities are determined by who shouts the loudest or plays golf with the right people. Scientific American reporter W. Wyatt Gibbs reviews the efforts of economists and environmental scientists to develop better approaches. If the cost and benefit are weighed in the right way, the economic markets can act as a huge system of distributed computers and sort out between alternatives. But sometimes markets may also fail, for example in cases where expenses are concentrated but profits are dispersed
