Originally published 2 April 2002
The Earth’s biosphere has no more ardent champion than Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson. He has written and spoken widely on biodiversity and conservation. Now, in a little book called The Future of Life, he offers a compelling analysis of the problems that face us, and a reassurance that solutions are possible.
The central problem of our century, he writes, is “how to raise the poor to a decent standard of living worldwide while preserving as much of the rest of life as possible.”
At the root of the problem is the present tendency of the developed nations to maximize economic development by drawing in an unsustainable way on the planet’s natural capital. With population and consumption continuing to grow, the per-capita natural resources remaining to be harvested are shrinking. The result is a growing disparity between rich and poor. The rich are awash in consumer goods and grain, while the poor struggle to survive in increasingly impoverished environments.
“The race is on,” writes Wilson, “between the technoscientific forces that are destroying the living environment and those that can be harnessed to save it. We are inside a bottleneck of overpopulation and wasteful consumption. If the race is won, humanity can emerge in far better condition than when it entered, and with most of the diversity of life still intact.”
A hopeful prospect. Is it possible?
A prerequisite to success is bringing population growth under control. When given the means and freedom to choose, women worldwide opt for fewer children raised with better health care and education over larger families. The present trend toward smaller families, if it continues, will eventually halt population growth and afterward reverse it. This is Wilson’s “bottleneck.” If the population peak occurs, as predicted, sometime late in this century, we might just emerge on the other side with a bright future.
In the meantime, what are we to do?
First, Wilson writes, tone down the acrimony of the environmental debate: “The problems of the environment have become too complicated to be solved by piety and an unyielding clash of good intentions.”
Yes, most people want a growing measure of material prosperity, but they also want a healthy and pleasant environment. Wilson does not believe these two goals are in opposition. “Corporate CEOs are people too, with families and the same desire for a healthy, biodiverse world,” he writes. The juggernaut of technology-based capitalism will not be stopped, he states, but its direction can be changed by mandate of a shared long-term environmental ethic.
The human species is the only species that can practice immediate restraint in favor of long-term goals. Wilson offers many hopeful examples of useful actions on behalf of the environment. Never before in history have more individuals and institutions, including corporations, been committed to preserving the biosphere. It is becoming increasingly clear, even to CEOs, that our best economic interests as a species are enhanced by living in a sustainable way off the planet’s natural resources.
The great majority of ecosystems and species still surviving can be protected. “For global conservation, only one-thousandth of the current world annual domestic product, or $30 billion out of approximately $30 trillion, would accomplish most of the task,” Wilson states. The protection and management of the world’s existing natural reserves could be financed by a 1‑cent-per-cup tax on coffee.
Would most of us pay a penny more for a cup of coffee so that our great-grandchildren will inherit a world with great blue whales, lions, and tigers, tropical forests and wild rivers? I think so, and so does Wilson. Once we focus on common human aspirations — economic and environmental — the basis exists for a global consensus on what the future should be like.
The key to solving the environmental crisis is less name-calling (“despoilers,” “tree-huggers”) and more cooperation. Let’s make conservation pay, for local communities and for multinational corporations. Let’s apply science and technology to solve problems that have been largely caused by science and technology. Let’s develop forms of economic analysis that take natural capital into account. Let’s enlist the persuasive power of religion on behalf of the biosphere.
We need a hopeful vision of the future, especially one so concisely and convincingly stated as Wilson’s The Future of Life. It is to be greatly hoped that this little book will find the wide readership it deserves. It is authoritative without being dogmatic, idealistic without being impractical, humanistic and solidly scientific.
Among Wilson’s voluminous writings is another book called On Human Nature (1978). He has always been interested in human nature, which he believes is grounded in the evolutionary history of our species. He finds enough in his appraisal of human nature to give him hope that our species will make the collective decisions necessary to secure the future of the biosphere.
He writes: “In the end, success or failure will come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be defined and judged for all generations to come.”
