I am not saying that politicians shouldn't be talking about this other stuff. That is part of their job. But who is looking out for the long-term sustainability of our planet?
The United Nations has just released a report warning that, if changes are not made soon, the world will face severe shortages of food, clean water and energy by 2040. If current growth trends continue, the report predicts that by 2040, world population will reach 9 billion people, with a third living in endemic poverty.
This warning is nothing new. Over 200 years ago, when world population was just passing one billion, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population where he noted that populations tend to grow exponentially until checked by disease or scarcity (or other unpleasant outcomes like war). Malthus argued that to advance towards a utopian society, we should enact voluntary checks on population.
In 1966 Harry Harrison (one of my favorite authors) wrote Make Room! Make Room! about then-future 1999 when world population was seven billion, and scarcity and eroding standard of living was the norm. As you can see from the graph below, Harrison was off by 13 years ( as we just reached seven billion this year), but our standard of living is still increasing.
Why haven't the Doom and Gloom scenarios come to pass? The reason is science and technology. The world is in a race between the ecological demands of an ever increasing population and the ability of scientists and engineers to come up with new ways of providing plentiful food, water and energy while mitigating the ecological damage. If this race continues , it will almost certainly soon involve direct intervention in managing our atmosphere (carbon sequestering, ocean fertilization, mirrors in space, etc.) and genetic manipulation of our food supply, and other controversial actions.
It is a bit ironic that the forces that are the most resistant to getting off this race track, by beginning to do as Malthus suggested and manage world population level, (mainly religious groups like the Catholic Church) have historically been the most anti-science and anti-technology. You could say that Science is enabling Religion.
What actions could be taken? Obviously, universally obtainable contraception and sex education should be a start. Also, just Education in general (especially of females) is a good idea, as the higher the education level of a society, the lower its birth rate. Also, perhaps we should specify a target population for the Earth. My opinion is that we are at the point now where zero population growth is necessary, with perhaps even planning a gradual decline in population until we reach 6 billion again. If we wait too long, even more severe actions might be necessary.
No politician wants to tackle these issues because they see no political or personal upside. Any benefits accrued from taking action on these issues would be long-term and felt long after the politician has left office, while all the negatives from enacting rules and regulations to move towards sustainability would be short-term.
Our current political system is just not configured to tackle long-term problems. It mainly is reactive and responds when a problem becomes a crisis. Ikanocracy is designed to take a more long-term view.
If we wait until this problem becomes a crisis, we have waited too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment