By Peter Ndiang’ui
with David J. Quinn (Ed.)
Reflection on “The Great Transition”
In 1798, in his essay on the principle of population, Thomas Malthus stated that human population, if unchecked, grows at a geometric progression or exponential rate whereas food production only increases at an arithmetic rate. He suggested that the population growth can be slowed down by man exercising moral restraint but he did not see any hope in human being’s ability to control their growth in numbers. He therefore felt that population growth would be controlled by the regular occurrence of preventive (or negative) checks that reduce the new numbers in a population due to such incidents like abstinence and late marriages and the positive checks that reduce the existing population like diseases, famine, wars and many more.
Although the predictions of Malthus might not have come true during the nineteenth century, two hundred years later, his theory seems to have come to fruition. Since the 1950s, most countries have experienced population explosions with some populations growing at a faster rate than what Malthus had predicted. On a global scale, food production has increased but this is not evenly distributed. Countries with rapidly growing populations are actually the ones experiencing shortages in food production. Several developing countries have experienced serious famine. The case of the famine in Ethiopia in 1984/85 that killed over one million people is one we can use to support that the Malthusian predictions have “come home to roost.” Positive checks like HIV/AIDS and other terminal diseases seem to be on the increase. Genocides like the holocaust and the one in Rwanda, and seemingly unnecessary wars like the one going on in Iraq all make Malthus turn in his grave, and say “I told you so.” The world is in constant threat from terrorist and nuclear attacks. If the current trends continue, it would be logical to conclude that the earth would come to end sooner than one would imagine.
The Earth Charter seems to address this last concern. If we are not careful, we are going to destroy not only the resources of the earth but ourselves too. In the opening statements in the preamble, it is stated that we are at a critical point when humanity must choose its future. We can continue the wanton use of the finite earth resources or we can slow down and conserve them for the sake of our children and the children of our children. International trade has made the world increasingly interdependent. We are living in a time of a symbiotic relationship with all humans. The international division of labor has ensured that we specialize in the production of what we have comparative advantages in. Outsourcing seems to ensure that we can operate from every corner of the globe. Migration has increased diversity. During my teenage years in Mathakwa-ini village, it was very difficult to see anybody from a different region in our village. The village was our world. Today, there are people from all nationalities everywhere even in my village. The world has now become our village. We all have a responsibility not only to one another but also to our future generations.
In the essay on “The Transition to Sustainability”, Steven C. Rockefeller (2005) has made important suggestions to explain how we can go about making a real change. At the forefront is communication. It is important to talk with each other. After all, we are joined together in a common destiny. The UN summits are an important starting point. The three summits (Stockholm in 1972, Rio in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002) are a good starting point. They brought together people from all walks of life and from all corners of the globe. The ethos of the earth charter which had been written after the first two summits led to a declaration in Johannesburg which re-emphasized the fact that we all have a responsibility to one another.
There have been several other forums in which our mutual interdependence has been re-iterated again and again. The UN has brought member states together to address most of the serious issues facing the member states. Several political and socio-economic blocks, business communities, NGOs and other agencies have brought several independent groups together. Everybody acknowledges the fact that we have a problem and we need to address it now. Everybody has a niche in this social responsibility.
Communication, treaties and declarations are of no use if we are not ready to implement what we said in these meetings. Rockefeller (2005) suggested that the achievement of sustainability of the earth requires a change of mind and heart (p. 165). There is now a need for global ethics. Through these values, people can determine what right or wrong, good or bad. It is only through this social transformation that we can bring a meaningful change to the use of resources. We need to reverse the direction in which we are going. Rockefeller (2005) cited Raskin (2000) who described this shift as “The Great Transition” (p. 165).
Different communities have different problems. The economically less developed countries (ELDCs) are constantly working to address such problems as poverty, inequity, economic instability, health concerns and such basic necessities. The economically more developed countries (EMDCs) have a moral responsibility to help the ELDCs in their endeavors to solve these problems. After all, several EMDCs are partly to blame for most of the problems in the ELDCs. This has a historical perspective due to such inhuman acts as slavery, political colonization and more recently “economic colonization”. The economic structures in some former colonies are “umbilically” tied to their former masters and this creates a form of colonization. It is interesting to note that even though UK does not produce any coffee, the prices of the commodity are still determined in London largely because most of the major producers are former British colonies.
On the other hand, EMDCs are struggling with the problems of environmental pollution, nuclear proliferation, an ageing population, shortage of skilled labor and many more. The ELDCs have a moral responsibility to support them too. This mutual support will create a shared vision that will cover the entire globe. We need to and respect our cultural diversity. We need to appreciate the fact that we cannot all have the same cultural values. It is this diversity that makes the world beautiful and a pleasant place to live in.
All nations are faced with some common problems. Such problems as terrorism and spread of killer viruses are a threat to all mankind regardless of the level of economic development. Some of the most serious terrorist attacks in the last decade took place in USA, Middle East and East Africa. We all have a moral responsibility to combat terrorism. Similarly, the spread of epidemic diseases and viruses need our concerted effort. It is amazing to see how much we can achieve when we work together. It is now evident that we are capable of controlling the Avian flu only if we report any incident wherever it occurs to the entire world. On the same token, we are able to control Ebola and some other epidemic outbreaks when our scientists and people in medical field work together. It is also clear that we were unable to act on the spread of HIV/AIDS largely because we did not get together early enough.
In order to succeed in our efforts to combat our common problems and save the earth, we need a unifying factor. Currently this role is being held by the UN. Unfortunately, member states have given this important world body limited powers. Some countries have even ignored the recommendations of the world body and done things their way, often to their detriment. The case of USA attacking Iraq on its own is a good example of this. The way the UN, which was developed in the late 1940s after World War II, is structured is not in a position to cater to the diverse needs of all the global nations. It is in dire need of reforms. We have been talking about this for over two decades now but there has not been one structure that is accepted by all member states. After all, the P5 countries which hold privileged positions are not ready to let go of their veto powers. Again, a change of mind and heart are called upon as Rockefeller had stated. We need to minimize greed and focus more on what is good for the society.
In the process of implementation of what we recommend in our various meeting and what we pass in the treaties, we need to have a workable plan. An example of this today is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which are consistent with the recommendations of the earth’s charter. One of the recommendations of the MDGs is the reduction by half the number living in absolute poverty by 2015. If this goal is achieved, it will go a long way in reducing the wanton destruction of basic resources like soils. Although they are not solely responsible for destroying their own resources, most ELDCs have accelerated the rate of desertification largely due to poverty.
The future might not be as bleak as Malthus had stated. We are increasingly coming together. As I write this the president of France is meeting with that of USA to find solutions to the current economic problems the world is experiencing. They agreed in principle that there is need for a meeting of all the EMDCs affected.
Recently, I travelled to Europe. I was amazed to see that I could cross the various boundaries without anybody asking me. I had only one visa and I was able to travel to France, Italy and Greece. The formation of the European Union by countries which have historically been fierce enemies is a move in the right direction. We hope that other nations will follow suit and that one day, in the very near future, we can claim to be citizens of one world and not a single corner of it.
References
Rockefeller, S.C. (2005). The transition to sustainability. In Corcoran, P.B., Vilela, M., & Roerink, A. (Eds.), The Earth Charter in action: Toward a sustainable world (pp. 165-170). Amsterdam: KIT Publishers BV.
Rubenstein, J (2003) The cultural landscape: An introduction to Human Geography. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall
Waugh, D. (1995) Geography: An integrated approach. Walton-on-Thames Surrey. Thomas Nelson.