COMMENTARY

Autumn 2008

by Frank Raes

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

The world didn’t end billions of years ago when oxygen-producing bacteria first appeared in the anaerobic world. Will it be obliterated now that mankind has acquired a similar power to destroy the environment and even itself? Man, unlike bacteria, developed consciousness and an ability to reflect on his own evolution. This confers on our species the capacity to change course – if we so chose. In this sense, consciousness has become one more feedback within the Earth-Man system. The trouble is we still don’t know whether it is a negative or a positive feedback; will it lead to explosion or restore control and stability?

Many indicators suggest the former. Global population growth, greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of natural resources all show the world is running out of control. But it is important to understand that this is because the world has not become more complex but less; simple systems are inherently less stable. Before, a myriad of slow and self-controlling processes steadied the world, but today a few fast-operating and often mutually-reinforcing processes dominate; there’s the global economy, the North-South divide, military and security relations, fossil fuel use, and technological development. Imagine evolution as a journey: until 200 years ago, the world was walking along the base of a broad valley, being nudged back onto the path by numerous feedbacks whenever it went astray. Today human ingenuity has pushed us onto a narrow mountain crest. We have spectacular views, to be sure, but each step must be carefully judged in order not to precipitate disaster. Such levels of control may be possible, but they are no longer automatic. Careful management based on continuous observation, understanding and adjustment is now required.

The fact that Martin Rees can list a number of threats facing mankind proves we have at least become good at observing our world. We also understand quite a bit about, say, the climate system and biodiversity. That should give us a degree of confidence that we can also discover the required adjustments.

However, echoing Lord Rees, we can ask whether scientific research is contributing enough to our understanding of the Earth-Man system to let us act with foresight, not just hindsight. These days we observe everything from the atomic scale to the planetary level; we accurately track the movement of viruses, people, money and weapons. But often we can only judge the associated threats and opportunities qualitatively, not quantitatively. Furthermore, what are the risks and uncertainties involved in managing and controlling these movements? In some cases, like climate change, we already know we need to intervene now. But we will have to keep monitoring the results of our interventions and adjust them over and over again as required.

Some profound questions are being raised at the interface between the natural sciences, technology and socio-politics. Whether we are looking at climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism or other big issues, the “observers” increasingly intrude into people’s private lives and the “managers” seek to curtail individual freedoms. How much further should this be allowed to go? What level of control of the Earth-Man system is compatible with what level of privacy and democracy? Is a trade-off acceptable or even necessary? These might well become the main questions facing mankind. Perhaps there are no final answers, but that’s fine. What is important is that we keep on looking, particular those of us in the broad scientific community. This will undoubtedly help humanity to move forward on that narrow mountain crest. And who knows, one day we may even find a way down to another valley - without accidents.