I am a “realist” but being labelled as “pessimist”. Given the human nature’s history, we are heading speedily towards disaster of planet Earth. Calling it a crime against humanity in itself is sinful as it is a crime against Planet Earth. About 90% of living species on the planet are absolutely passive. They have no voice in the decisions made by human beings, leading us to disaster. Even if there were ways to know suffering, pain and death of these species, human being are so cruel, apathetic, possessive and greedy that they would continue their exploitation. I wish if there was a mechanism or technology that would have led the demise of all human being, while leaving all other species unharmed so that they could live on earth intact to survive and thrive.
In extreme cases, disaster of planet earth could not be limited to pedagogical discussions. History provides us with many examples such as described by Jared Diamond in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2011). How environmental degradation, climate change, overpopulation and societal pitiful responses to these challenges led Mayans, the Vikings and the Easter Islanders towards a collapse. Diamond’s book serves us a warning and calls for an action by contemporary societies to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to secure a sustainable future, provided we are willing to pay any heed.
Unfortunately, we are addicted to our obsession for more, bigger, newer and latest models with no limit in sight. Further, two-third of world population in global south has the same aspiration i.e., continuous pursuit for more material goods and to live like people in the West. Such aspirations can only be met if human specie would have multiple planets. Cost of climate disasters, material and non-material, is already overwhelming and increasing exponentially with each passing year. Only for USA, cost to the economy due to fires, floods, storms etc. in last 43 years is estimated to be $2.5 trillions on top of deaths of 16,000 people. These figures did not include intangible costs associated with health effects, lives lost, psychological factors such as stress and anxiety.
I strongly believe as quoted in the Economist magazine from experiments in Indonesia and a few East Asian countries that the highest (may be multiple times) benefits would be accrued if rich countries divert more of their resources towards environmental improvements in third world countries instead of focusing primarily within their own borders. We all know that there are no boundaries when it comes to environmental impacts like green house gases and extreme weathers.
One dollar invested in third world to subsidize new and existing projects in emissions reduction, energy efficiency and green transportation infrastructure would yield far higher returns than in the developed world. Developing countries have the potential to leapfrog when it comes to adopting cleaner technologies in a cost-effective way as they don’t need to move away and dismantle old environmentally costly and inefficient structures and technologies like the West. They can just adopt and install the modern technologies if adequately subsidized by the West.
Bottom line: If we could survive and sustain by the end of this century in a normal living environment, it would be a big bonus. With the speed and depth with which we are digging our own graves, I am not too hopeful. We are extremely near-sighted, selfish and greedy. We look only for short term material comfort, pleasure and gratification. As great economist, Maynard Keynes once said, “In the long run we are all dead.” I guess, given our myopic nature, a century seems pretty long.
Known Unknowns 