Perhaps the most important cause
for concern, fuelling most of the prophecies of doom, is the
perceived deterioration of the environment. It cannot be denied that
the natural world is affected by developments such as ozone
depletion, deforestations, species extinction and the greenhouse
effect. Since most of these development are side-effects of economic
growth, many people tend to think that material progress
necessarily goes together with ecological deterioration, so that we
can no longer speak about global progress. Although some of these
ecological problems are quite serious, we must make several
qualifications to this pessimistic evaluation.
First, although industrial pollution negatively affects our
health, these effects are much smaller than the positive effects
brought about by medical advances and a higher standard of living.
The on-going increase in life expectancy is incontrovertible proof
of this assertion. The fear for different chemical products released
in the environment by human activities is often out of proportion
with the objective risks. One reason for this is that people tend to
overestimate the dangers of artificial toxins in comparison with
natural toxins. The fact that something is natural does not mean
that it is safe: the traditional tests for carcinogenicity find a
similar proportion of potentially cancer-producing chemicals among
natural as among artificial products (Ames & Gold, 1997). The
best way to reduce mortality from cancer and other "modern" diseases
is to promote a more healthy life-style: regular exercise, no
smoking, plenty of fruit and vegetables, and reduced consumption of
red meat, saturated fats and refined sugars. These simple measures
are likely to add several years to our life-expectancy, much more
than any reduction in pollution or pesticide use could (Ames &
Gold, 1997).
Second, although pollution on the world scale is still
increasing, there is a clear trend towards decrease in the developed
countries. Statistics for air and water pollution in major cities
and regions in Europe and North America show a consistent
improvement over the last decades (Simon, 1995). The London smog,
which was a notorious killer in the beginning of the 20th century,
has all but disappeared. At the same time, the Thames river is
teeming with fish again. As economy and technology advance, more
money and better techniques become available for minimizing
pollution. As the general quality of life increases, people are less
willing to undergo the effects of pollution, and more motivated to
enjoy a pleasant, natural environment. This leads to more stringent
laws on emission of pollutants, and to more encompassing disposal
and recycling schemes. There is no reason why the same development
would not take place in the poorer countries once they reach a
higher level of development.
Third, the problems of global change, although serious, should be
considered in the right perspective. The tackling of ozone depletion
is an unexpected success story, where the scientific discovery of
the destructive effects of CFCs on ozone was followed shortly by the
observation of a growing "ozone hole" in the atmosphere, and by an
international treaty for the phasing out of CFC production. The
release of CFCs has been significantly reduced since, and is
expected to stop completely in the next two decades. The ozone hole
is predicted to reach its maximum size a few years from now, and
start diminishing from then on.
The tackling of global warming by reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases is much less forceful, though. International
agreements have as yet hardly managed to slow down the increasing
production of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels. However, the
dangers of global warming need to be put into perspective. Recent
scientific developments have made it clear that the temperature of
the Earth has undergone many large fluctuations during the past
thousands of years, and has at times been both significantly colder
(the Ice Ages) and significantly warmer than it is now (Stock,
1993). The hypothesized increase of the average temperature with 1
to 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century would therefore
not be unprecedented. Moreover, there is some reason to believe that
life and civilisation were in fact thriving better during the warm
periods (Moore, 1998), as higher temperatures and rainfall increased
crop yields. Though global warming would create a number of
problems, its overall effect may be positive rather than negative.
If there are "losers" and "winners", then international solidarity
can be organized to help the losers. Moreover, there are still
plenty of alternative methods to tackle the increase in carbon
dioxide, from "fertilizing" the oceans with minerals to boost the
growth of algae, to the management of forests so that they absorb a
larger amount of carbon-dioxide (Moffat, 1997). In any case there
are still so many uncertainties concerning its intensity, effects,
or possible ways to avoid it, that concern, further research, and
vigorous precautionary action are in order, but pessimism seems
inappropriate.
Perhaps the most serious environmental problem is the fast
reduction in tropical rain forests, and the concurring loss of
biodiversity. Although such losses seem largely irreversible, some
qualifications are needed. First, loss of tropical forests is to
some degree compensated by increase in temperate forests (Simon,
1995). As countries in the tropical regions get more economically
developed, and curtail their demographic expansion, it is likely
that they too will start to invest more in forest management, while
reducing their need for farmland by increasing agricultural
productivity. Second, the history of life shows that here too the
Earth has witnessed very large fluctuations, both in forest cover
and in species diversity (Stock, 1993). There have been periods
where over 96% of known species have been extinguished, yet life
always managed to recover and rediversify. With the growing number
of natural reserves, increased protection of wildlife, and
development of biotechnological means to maintain or increase
biodiversity, it is unlikely that we will ever come near to such
drastic levels of extinction. The key novelty is that for the first
time mankind not only has the power to destroy the natural
environment, but also the means to save it.