.
When was the last time the United Nations issued a major report that was upbeat? They exist but are hard to find. Well, this
week’s release of the 2010 Human Development Report, on the 20th anniversary of this effort to track human progress, was summarized this way:
People are healthier, wealthier and better educated
Looking back at 40 years of human progress in 135 countries – 92% of the world’s population – -the report shows that average life expectancy rose from 59 to 70 years, primary school enrolment grew from 55 to 70 percent, and per capita income doubled to more than $10,000.
There’s much, much more. The online version provides tools for gauging progress and problems using a variety of measures in specific regions and countries.
The analysts express some concerns, for sure, warning that human-driven climate change could undermine progress in nearly all areas. In the long run, and in the world’s poorest places, that’s indeed correct. But until mid-century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the world’s largely wealthy temperate regions are likely, for example, to see boosted agricultural productivity before things, even there, go sour.
And the “Climate Divide” series in The Times in 2007 showed another reality — that as countries get wealthier and gain technological capacity, they grow more resilient to climate-related hazards. The bottom line, of course, is the uncomfortable reality that adapting to climate change is and will be a prime priority while mitigating emissions remains, for most countries, a generations-spanning long-term goal — unless and until some epic environmental disruption forces it to the front of the line. I’m not saying this kind of prioritization is good; I’m just saying it’s hard to envision a different path given the way the world works.
Over all, this report provides a good moment to acknowledge substantial progress on an increasingly humanized planet. But it’s also a moment to remember that millions of children and adults still die needlessly annually from exposure to mosquitoes, fetid water or palls of indoor air pollution from smoldering cooking fires; some governments and companies still trample human rights and pristine ecosystems to extract timber and minerals in remote places, and some among us plot atrocities or torture and subjugate those who are different or, too often, simply female.
There’s, of course, another issue worth revisiting. It’s a question that I asked Vaclav Smil, perhaps the world’s most devoted analyst of virtually all issues involving risk and resources, on a stage at the Perimeter Institute in Canada just over a year ago:
Q.There are two durable camps out there, those who warn that humanity has overshot and is destined to crash, like Wile E. Coyote over the cliff, and those who insist that the human traits of innovation and adaptation will get us through. Who’s right?
A.People want to have it not so messy, but both are true…. We keep redefining resources all the time…. On the other hand, we have news like GM is unloading Hummer onto who, the Chinese…. [Watch the rest.]
One contribution in my recent roundup of views on “What Matters Most” got at the hopeful trends, and underlying causes:
Indur Goklany, assistant program director on technology and science policy at the Department of Interior and author of The Improving State of the World:
Until the start of the Industrial Revolution, mankind was poor, hungry, illiterate, constantly at the mercy of disease and the elements, and short-lived; child labor was the norm; and one’s life opportunities were predetermined by sex and parentage. Today, despite an octupling of the world’s population, mankind has never been wealthier, better fed, less hungry, better educated, longer-lived and healthier; less constrained by caste, class, and sex; and 75 percent of global population is no longer mired in absolute poverty. This progress was enabled by economic development and technological change driven by cheap energy — all made possible by institutions underlying individual economic freedom. To extend this progress to a larger share of humanity and those not yet born, even as the world’s population increases, what matters most is to continue to nourish or, if necessary, develop these institutions.
Still, the debate continues. Matt Ridley, author of “The Rational Optimist,” sees our continued salvation in the human habit of coming up with and disseminating game-changing innovations (because, as he says, ideas have sex). Such leaps have, in fact, led to to sustained faith in technology and innovation (a faith I hold, as well) as a source of more pleasant surprises than unpleasant ones.
But Paul Collier, the economist and author of “The Bottom Billion” and, most recently, “ The Plundered Planet,” has said in the new book that an ethical shift is required along with reliance on ingenuity and investment. He casts traditional environmentalists as “romantics” and libertarians as “ostriches” in this important passage from the book:
Bot the romantics and the ostriches will take us to oblivion, albeit by different routes. Run by the romantics, the world would starve; run by the ostriches, it would burn. The romantics are a serious menace to global agriculture. the ostriches are complicit in the plunder of natural assets. Decisions must be founded on a proper sense of responsibility toward both the global poor and the future, not blinkered self-interest.
Of course, our mix of “divine and felonious” traits (a nod to Bill Bryson) is unlikely to end up tipping to one side, so the path forward, to my mind, will always have something of a Pushmi-Pullyu dynamic.
And, as with Wile E. Coyote, it’s well worth glancing down occasionally to test the firmness of the ground beneath your feet — or the ideas in your head. That’s the main reason I keep doing this blog.
To help, here’s a useful primer on the Wile E. Coyote Effect.
Postscript: I’m at a environmental conference today at my new home, Pace University, that’s highly relevant. It’s called, “The ‘Good Life’ – Imagining Alternative Futures.”
As you may recall I’ve explored varied definitions of that phrase here – from the Vegas variant to the one articulated by Plato.
I’ll pull together a post about the discussions and also weigh in on Twitter.com/revkin.