The Moral Dilemma of the 21st Century

In writing my most recent book, The State of the Earth: Environmental Challenges on the Road to 2100 (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2007), I kept returning over and over again to a profound moral dilemma. It was this dilemma that, in part, inspired me to write the book, a book in which I used the history of the past century to probe the future. I did not resolve the dilemma, but in this brief essay I want to suggest its dimensions.

The twentieth century, with all its horrors, was also a century of unprecedented growth in both human populations and in levels of consumption, with the growth accelerating in the second half century. The earth's population increased by four times, to over six billion in 2000. Consumption rose by around twelve times. Humans used more fossil fuels in this one century than for all past history. Many of the problems attendant on this growth are obvious--developing scarcities in energy and water, regional scarcities of food, a developing extinction crisis, rampant air and water pollution, a depleted ozone layer, the most rapid and unsettling climate change in the last ten thousand years, and grave threats to the health of our oceans. If anything is clear, the same pace of demographic and economic expansion cannot continue in this century. Extrapolations from the present, based on growth rates in the last century, are mind-boggling--twenty-four billion people and a twelve-times increase in levels of material consumption.

It is possible that the earth's population will level off at around nine billion in 2150. At present, most wealthy countries, save the United States, face a new demographic problem--birth rates below replacement levels, aging populations, and too few working age adults. Almost all the population growth in this century will be among the least developed countries. Most poor countries, with declining but still high birth rates, have the problem of too many dependent children and youth. This imbalance promises a century of migrations from the crowded and poor areas of the world into the labor-short industrialized countries, with all types of cultural conflict. But at least the earth may cope with its population problem, in the sense that the earth has enough resources to sustain nine billion people with something close to present levels of consumption for at least another century. Even this could be a close call, for it will require very expensive shifts in energy use, continued improvements in food production, and much tighter controls over all types of pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases. And whatever humans do, it is probably too late to do more in this century than slow the warming of our climate. A continued loss of biodiversity is all but inevitable.

Note the italicized qualification in the above paragraph--present level of consumption. Who will buy into that? Surely not the people in the low income countries of the world, who are desperately trying to raise incomes above subsistence levels. On the basis of usually higher and fairer Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) incomes, not currency exchange rates, the United States and two European counties have an annual per capita income of approximately $40,000. About 1.2 billion (or 18%) of the most fortunate people on earth have a PPP above $10,000. Since China has recently moved just above $5,000, 2.3 billion have a PPP between $5,000 and $10,000. I doubt that many of these people are happy to remain at a consumption level from only one-eighth to one fourth of that in the United States. Almost 3 billion people have incomes under a PPP of $5,000 (fifteen countries are below $1,000, or one fortieth that in the United States). To make matters worse, income inequality tends to be greatest in these poorest countries. Thus, one of the great goals of most international organizations, including the United Nations, is to narrow the large gap between the poor and the wealthy.

But note what such a goal, if achieved, would mean. Imagine a world in which over six billion people had, not the income of Americans, but one fourth as much, or $10,000 PPP. Note that Americans use almost one fourth of all petroleum, emit over one fifth of all greenhouse gases. One fourth of our level of consumption, spread worldwide, would at least triple the consumption of the earth's resources. It would more than triple the number of automobiles, the demand for energy, the claims on limited fresh water resources. The recent, very rapid, and perhaps unsustainable growth in China offers a hint at what it would mean to close the income gap between rich and poor. Its demand has already strained oil markets, and its greenhouse emissions will soon surpass those in the United States (not, of course, on a per capita basis). One of the moral dilemmas faced in wealthy countries is that rapid growth in emerging economies could jeopardize their own long-term economic security.

On the other side, will wealthy countries be willing to stabilize their levels of consumption? Again, not likely. To do so would require major structural changes in their economic system, and a profound shift in cultural values. Modern, free-market economies are predicated on productive growth, with an ever growing demand for goods and services. It might be more difficult to get Americans to buy into a no-growth economy than to get people in underdeveloped countries to accept their own poverty. So difficult would be the transition that I cannot even imagine any broadly acceptable policies that could achieve such a near miracle. Thus, the dilemma. It is clear that humans as a whole cannot maintain the fossil-fueled pace of growth that marked the twentieth century. A few people can, a few fortunate countries might, but only if a majority of humans remain close to a subsistence level. Thus, I ended my book with questions: "... can the affluent rest at ease, continue to enjoy high living standards, with the knowledge that there are not nearly enough resources for all humans to join in the feast? And in such a world, how long will the affluent be safe at their banquet?"