GLOBAL CHANGE AND THE HUMAN PROSPECT: PART I

Our global environment is now undergoing its most profound changes since the human species emerged. Human activity is the major agent of these changes; science and technology have produced the driving forces of change. Three dominant forces have been identified:

(1) the exponential expansion in world population

(2) the explosive increase in energy-consumptive technologies that convert natural resources into goods and services

(3) disparities in the quality of life.

The scientific community framed a response to these issues at an international forum entitled Global Change and the Human Prospect: Issues in Population, Science, Technology and Equity, held in Washington, D.C., during November, 1991. More than 650 people attended, including academic, business, industry, and government leaders from around the world. Six organizations co-sponsored the Forum: The Scientific Research Society (Sigma Xi), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP), and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC). I represented the UH Hilo Sigma Xi Club at this meeting.

The immediate focus of the conference was twofold: (1) the preparation of a set of conclusions and recommendations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or ``Earth Summit'') to be held in Rio de Janeiro during June, 1992, and (2) the development of a network of interested scientists and technologists who will affect in a positive way the progress of the planet.

The conference explored three questions: What kind of world do we have? What kind of world do we want? What must we do to get there? The following is a summary of important conclusions from this conference, to be discussed in Brazil this month.

What Kind of World Do We Have?

• Population: By the end of the 21st century, global population is expected to be 12.5 billion (World Bank estimate). In the 1990s alone, the world's population will increase by 960 million. By the year 2010, six out of every seven people will be born in developing (Third World) countries. Within the next 50 years we must somehow learn to feed, clothe, house, educate and meaningfully employ an extra 5 billion persons, the current population of the world.

• Resources: 77% of the world's population (with only 6% of the world's scientists and engineers) live in developing countries that have 80% of the world's biological diversity. The remaining 23% of the world's population earns 85% of the global income and uses 80% of the world's industrial energy.

• Poverty: Each day, 2 out of 10 people on Earth go hungry and 40,000 babies die of starvation; each year, 24 million children die of preventable causes; 1.2 billion people now live below the poverty line (less than $370 annual income, or $1 per day).

• Cash Flow: Developing countries have incurred a combined debt of $103 trillion dollars; the net resource flow from developing to industrialized countries is getting larger each year (like a transfusion from the sick to the healthy). In 1987, developing countries received $34 billion in foreign assistance (most of this is spent on employing foreign expertise), yet also spent $34 billion on military arms from the West. Americans spend $40 per capita a year in foreign development assistance, the least of all industrialized nations.

• Environmental Damage: Each year, 20 million hectares of tropical rain forest are lost (equivalent to the U.S. losing the state of Washington). 20% of the world's topsoil has been lost since 1950 during which time the world's population has doubled. The 20 largest-selling prescription drugs in the world all come from or are patterned after natural sources; one derived from the Madagascar periwinkle, where rain forests could disappear within 30 years, has improved survival rate for childhood leukemia from 10% to 95% .

• Urbanization: About 50% (3 billion) of the world's population now live in mega-cities; 2/3 of these will be in developing countries by the year 2000. For comparison, 200 years ago, only 3% of the world's population lived in large cities, less than the present population of Mexico City.

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: By the year 2050, the global temperature is expected to increase by 1.5-4.5 C due to emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (equivalent to the temperature change since the last glacial age). The U.S.A., with a mere 4.5% of the world's population, contributes 25% of the world's carbon dioxide, the emission of which has increased by a factor of 3 since 1957.

• Life Expectancy and Fertility: Since 1960, mean life expectancy has increased (from 70 to 76 in North America, from 67 to 74 in Europe, from 55 to 66 in Latin America, and from 40 to 52 in Africa). The global fertility rate (average number of children per female) has dropped from 5 in 1960 to 3.5 in 1990. In Africa, however, the average has remained above 6 for 30 years!; for comparison, the 1990 rate in North America is about 2.

• Health and Disease: Nearly 2/3 of the world's people have access to some form of health care thanks to increased per capita income; as a result, infant mortality in developing countries has been reduced from 20% to 8% since 1950. However, an older population puts a greater burden on health care systems due to the rising incidence of chronic diseases (cardiovascular, pulmonary, cancers, diabetes, AIDS). The ratio of circulatory to infectious diseases is also increasing steadily; in industrialized countries, it is now 8 and should increase to 12 by 2015. By contrast, in Asia and Africa, there are still more cases of infectious diseases.

• Equity: The status of women is still a major problem; men in many countries deny their wives the use of contraceptives for religious reasons. Incredibly, 46% of American industries responding to a survey carried out by USA Today said child care is strictly a female issue. The salaries of women continue to be 10% less than the salaries of men performing the same job, regardless of professional experience.

Conclusion (1):

The global population is doubling every few decades; the world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate by an energy-driven and technology-driven world economy to provide goods and services. Our current path is very clearly unsustainable.

Conclusion (2):

The population in developing countries is 5 times that in the industrial countries, yet per capita income in industrial countries is over 20 times greater than in developing countries. Our current path is highly inequitable.

Conclusion (3):

The developing countries are plagued by environmental degradation, resource depletion and extreme poverty; for more than 1 billion people, cashing in natural resources is the only way to eke out a living (they cut down trees or starve); poverty is also the driving force behind migration from cities to the rain forests; when soil depletion takes its toll, the next generation moves back to the cities, repeating the cycle.

Conclusion (4):

Overconsumption in the industrial countries is now posing a threat to the global environment. We erroneously do not think of our natural resources as assets comparable to man-made capital; currently, we are living off natural capital assets (often in developing countries!) by consuming rather than investing or replenishing them. To make matters worse, affluent people in developing countries aspire to the self-centered overconsumptive lifestyle of those in industrial countries!

Conclusion (5):

Runaway population growth, maldistribution of resources, injustice, and continued application of inappropriate economic growth theories will soon pass the point at which science and technology will be able to save the planet. To alter our present unsustainable course, we must balance population growth with resource depletion, and raise the global standard of living while preserving the ecosystem. We do have the knowledge and technology to improve the human condition and change global trajectory, but we cannot delay it for another decade. The cost of failure is too great.

In preparation for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or ``Earth Summit'') to be held in Rio de Janeiro this June, the scientific community framed a response to global change issues at an international forum entitled Global Change and the Human Prospect: Issues in Population, Science, Technology and Equity, held in Washington, D.C., during November, 1991. I summarize here from the Forum Proceedings the major recommendations:

What Kind of World Do We Want?

(1)

We want an equitable world. Every member of the human race should at least have the chance to fulfill his or her potential. Global equity implies a contract between the present and future generations. All 10 billion people on Earth in 2050 must have the same right to natural resources as we do now! Each of us must become less self-centered and meet our obligations to society as a whole. We want a world in which absolute poverty is eliminated, and in which human rights and freedoms are assured. We must place more emphasis on family planning and shared parental responsibility. We must empower underrepresented groups, particularly women.

(2)

We want a sustainable world. We want a world in which productive technological development is balanced with environmental quality. To achieve this, the industrialized nations must change their pattern of energy use, because the unsustainability is not usually felt by nations that cause the most environmental damage. Public policy can be changed if the need arises: clean air legislation was driven by popular opinion; action to protect the ozone layer was data driven. Can we really afford to delay action on global warming until conclusive evidence is forthcoming?; only a few researchers now challenge the view that the threat of global warming is real. If global trajectory is to be altered, decisions will have to be made in the face of some uncertainty. The cost of failure is simply too great.

What Must We Do To Get There?

Recommendation (1):

Each individual should assess his/her own role and goals in daily life with regard to consumer priorities, civic responsibility, procreation, and personal behavior; everyone must become globally aware! Researchers should set aside some fraction of their time (tithing) to address global change issues.

Recommendation (2):

We must transform the energy- and technology-driven economy into one that is compatible with the capacity of the biosphere. This requires the development of alternate energy sources to fossil fuels and the proper accounting of environmental impact in the total cost of production. Natural capital must be replenished by investment. The environment can no longer be considered as something to look after only when it gets bad and only when it is affordable. Manager incentive pay should be tied to environmental stewardship; there should be strong financial incentives to reduce population growth and to decouple economic activity from harmful environmental effects. Such incentives cannot be left entirely to market sources. Heavy taxes on carbon-based fuels (as in Europe), mandatory recycling laws (as in Japan), or limitations on the number of autos per family or per region are economic policies which contribute to sustainability.

Recommendation (3):

Population growth must be reconciled with local, regional and global resource limits. In addition to determining what these limits are, this requires responsible parenthood, gender equality, availability of family planning, and decreased infant and child mortality rates. We must strive to reduce growing disparities in the quality of life, and eliminate absolute poverty. This requires equality and opportunity for women, reduction of fertility rates in developing countries, and the curbing of overconsumption in the industrialized countries.

Recommendation (4):

We must stop the flight of capital from the developing countries; to do this, it may be necessary to write off Third World debts in exchange for conservation projects. Reduce spending on Western military arms, and allocate foreign aid for specific purposes such as developing local expertise to solve domestic problems. Encourage with financial incentives the development of alternative energy sources in countries that do not now have centralized energy systems. All the industrialized countries must provide strong scientific and technical support by means of the rapid transfer of environmentally-friendly technology to the developing countries, who have only 6% of the world's scientists and engineers.

Recommendation (5):

A long-range science and technology policy is required; science and technology, frequently viewed by our political leaders as a mechanism to increase materialistic consumption and promote unilateral economic growth, must be used in ``smarter ways'' to improve the quality of human life. The scientific community will have to become more involved with policy making, instead of leaving value judgments to politicians, who are apt to use data any way they choose. Science education must be revitalized to expand scientific literacy to all areas of society. Natural scientists will have to extend their interests beyond narrow research areas into the humanities and social sciences; in other words, they should become more interdisciplinary and worldly.

Recommendation (6):

New partnerships should be forged between governments, business/industry, and research institutions. Issues of economic development are linked in non-linear ways with issues of environmental conservation and military security. The world is moving away from bilateral relations between superpowers; negotiation rather than threat has built bridges and broken down national and regional barriers. There is now a plethora of actors on the international stage; cooperation is essential to preserving the human family and the ecosystem. Linking research centers around the world in networks is fundamental to attacking the issues of global change. We have the data and the computing power; now we need to use our combined knowledge base to problem-solve.

A common theme to these recommendations is that there must be a fundamental change in human attitudes and thinking concerning progress, growth, and development. We need a revolution of values, or as U.S. Representative George Brown expressed it, a ``paradigm shift in our cerebral software.'' We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations will have a sustainable and equitable world. Policy decisions will have to be made under conditions of scientific uncertainty. The ``Earth Summit'' (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro this June is an outlet for the nations of the world to address the two priorities of (a) changing human attitudes, and (b) forging partnerships that will bring our knowledge to bear on global change issues. UNCED delegates in Rio will consider 125 draft action programs as an agenda to be adopted for the 21st century. It is no longer sufficient just to acknowledge that problems exist. It is time to do something about them! After all, if we don't change our direction, we're likely to end up where we're headed: toward an unsustainable future.

Americans in particular need to recognize that it is in their best interests to eliminate isolationist economic policies that are no longer appropriate and that are harmful on a global scale. Even though many have recognized this, U.S. policies still have not changed significantly over the last decade. The world already perceives that the U.S. is not doing its share to solve the problems of global change. I believe that by not adopting a leadership role with regard to the UNCED agenda, and by refusing to support the requirement of limits on greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. President George Bush and his administration (like their immediate predecessors) have indicated a serious lack of concern for unsustainable global trajectory. The Bush administration does not seem to be aware that Gross National Product is no longer an adequate measure of human progress; in fact, according to the Human Development Index (a combined measure of income per capita, literacy, and life expectancy, and which is now widely used by global researchers), the U.S. ranks 7th behind Japan, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway. It seems to me that a political administration with (a) such little understanding of the forces driving global change, (b) such lack of initiative regarding what may be the most important issue of the 21st century, and (c) such overall scientific naiveté (which has also been demonstrated previously) is a liability to the global community. The possibility that this same administration may be re-elected to lead America into the 21st century is sobering and disturbing.

• About this document ...