|
**************************************************************************
* *
* The Necessity Of Global Cooperation *
* *
**************************************************************************
* *
* Author: Cindy Painter *
* Course: English 401 *
* Instructor Rosborough *
* University Of New Hampshire *
* Nashua, NH, USA *
* Date: May 3, 1990 *
* *
**************************************************************************
* *
* Permission to copy and forward this essay is granted, *
* provided the entire work remains intact. *
* *
**************************************************************************
* *
* Dedication: This essay is dedicated to all who died in the *
* 1991 Persian Gulf War, including wildlife. *
* *
**************************************************************************
The Earth and its inhabitants are inextricably linked, and the health of
the Earth's inhabitants cannot be separated from that of the planet
itself (Brown, 7). Though many people act as if they were living in
separate places believing that what they do will have little or no
effect on the rest of the Earth and its inhabitants, this is simply not
true. If we engage in a nuclear war or if we continue exploit the
Earth's resources at the current rate, the human race itself will become
extinct. If we do not cooperate globally, we will die.
About 100 years ago there were approximately one and a half billion
people on the Earth (Grosvenor, 770), and nuclear weapons did not exist.
"Automobiles had just been invented," "airplanes were unknown," and
"tropical forests were a mysterious challenge" (Grosvenor, 770). It was
a time of global opportunism (Grosvenor, 770) with little or no thought
given to the possible future consequences.
Now, 100 years later, in addition to the threat of a worldwide nuclear
holocaust, we are wreaking global havoc on the very environment which
sustains us. These global problems are daunting and affect us all
without regard to political, religious or economic boundaries. The major
environmental problems facing us today are mass plant and animal
extinction, overpopulation, global warming and waste disposal (Sancton,
26).
While extinction is part of evolution itself, "the present rate is at
least 1,000 times the pace that has prevailed since prehistory" (Linden,
32). Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, predicts
we will drive an average of 100 species of plants and animals to
extinction each and every day over the next three decades (Linden, 32).
In 1989 alone this translated into 36,500 species obliterated forever.
On the current endangered species list are such familiar animals as the
Chinese panda, the Asian snow leopard, the humpback whale, the
Australian wallaby and the North American bison.
In addition to these high-profile animals (Linden, 33), there are
hundreds of thousands of other animals, plants and insects that do not
capture the public's attention but are nevertheless equally as important
because "humanity already benefits greatly from the genetic heritage of
little-known species. Some 25% of the pharmaceuticals in use in the
U.S. today contain ingredients originally derived from wild plants.
Hidden anonymously in clumps of vegetation about to be bulldozed or
burned might be plants with cures for still unconquered diseases"
(Linden, 33). University of Pennsylvania biologist Daniel Janzen states,
"I know of three plants with the potential to treat AIDS. One grows in
an Australian rain forest, one in Panama and one in Costa Rica."
(Linden, 33). By not slowing the mass destruction of the planetary flora
and fauna, "humanity is making a risky wager - that it does not need the
great variety of earth's species to survive" (Linden, 33). Once a
species becomes extinct, the genetic lessons of sometimes millions of
years are lost forever (Linden, 33). We will find out just what
critical role they played in the Earth's ecosystem only after it is too
late to do anything about it.
Another result of our interfering with nature is the problem of global
warming (Sancton, 26). Up until 200 years ago, the levels of CO2 in the
air were a result of natural processes (Lemonick, 37), but with the
onset of the Industrial Age, factories released more CO2 than the plants
and oceans were able to absorb (Lemonick, 37). By the late 1800's, CO2
levels in the atmosphere had risen to approximately 290 parts per
million (p.p.m.) (Lemonick, 38). Today the levels are at 350 p.p.m.,
and by 2050 it could reach 500 to 700 p.p.m. (Lemonick, 38).
Looking into fossil records and the ice at the poles, the recent
research shows there is a direct correlation between levels of CO2 in
the atmosphere and the overall global temperature (Lemonick, 37). CO2
acts as a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere, and without it the
surface temperature would be 0 degrees F as opposed to 59 degrees F
(Lemonick, 37). In 1989, deforestation, particularly in the third
world countries, coupled with the burning of fossil fuels by all
nations, sent 19 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (Sancton, 60).
It is important to note, however, that CO2 levels are only responsible
for half of the global warming problem (Lemonick, 38). Other gases such
as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), methane and nitrogen oxides also
contribute to the problem, and alternatives or solutions must be found
to curb the output levels of these gases as well (Lemonick, 38). If this
rate of CO2 output in conjunction with the output of the other gases
remains constant over the next 60 years, the average worldwide
temperature could rise as much as 8 degrees F (Lemonick, 36). "One
disastrous consequence, according to William A. Nierenberg of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, would be the melting of polar ice
and a resulting rise in sea levels. Disruption of rainfall and soil
moisture patterns could change the fortunes of nations, reported James
Gustave Speth of the World Resources Institute" (Grosvenor, 770).
In addition to curbing our output levels of CO2 and other such gases
into the atmosphere, we must work to curb our solid and liquid waste
output as well. Waste disposal is a problem faced by every nation on
Earth. Landfills, particularly in developed countries, are filling up
at alarming rates (Langone, 45). "In the U.S., 80% of solid waste is
now being dumped into 6,000 landfills. Their number is shrinking fast:
in the past five years, 3,000 dumps have been closed; by 1993 some 2,000
more will be filled to the brim and shut" (Langone, 45).
While the abundance of waste is the primary problem in the developed
countries, the main problem faced by developing countries is how to
dispose of hazardous chemical wastes safely because they lack the
appropriate technology (Langone, 45). Illegal dumping, a practice which
takes place worldwide, poses a great danger to those people living,
working or spending their holidays near the dump sites. Illegal dumping
is insidious because it is next to impossible to know just where it has
occurred. Beginning its voyage in September, 1986, the infamous garbage
barge, the Pelicano, sailed from Philadelphia around the world for more
than two years with 14,000 tons of toxic incinerator ash that no country
would accept (Langone, 44). In October 1989, the captain dumped 4,000
pounds of the ash just off a Haitian beach and then unloaded the
remainder in a country known only to the captain and crew (Langone, 44).
The illegal dumping problem, coupled with the overabundance of waste in
general, affects the health and well-being of every person on this
planet to some degree.
Every year there are more and more of us who are affected by these
environmental problems because the population of the Earth is expanding
at an explosive rate. Overpopulation is taxing the Earth's resources
severely. Around 1880, there were 1.5 billion people on the Earth
(Grosvenor, 770). At the beginning of 1989, just over 100 years later,
there were 5 billion people, and this figure increased to 5.2 billion in
just one year (Sancton, 60). Today over 1 billion people alone suffer
from extreme hunger (Vittachi, 6) and inhuman living conditions. Every
day 40,000 children die of hunger and related diseases (Grosvenor, 770).
"Nearly 2 billion people in the developing world lack safe drinking
water" (Grosvenor, 770). Compounding these most basic human problems
will be that "during the next century, world population will double,
with 90% of that growth occurring in poorer, developing countries"
(Toufexis, 48).
Even today this population increase in developing countries has led to
the need to cut down rainforests to make land available for food
production in order to feed the people (Linden, 34). This action, in
turn, contributes directly to the problems of extinction and global
warming. "Tropical forests house between 50% and 80% of the planet's
species" (Linden, 32), and when the forests are cut down, the plants and
animals die. The tropical forest plants themselves help to "absorb CO2
from the air" (Lemonick, 36), and when they are cut down or burned down,
this very act contributes directly to the increase in CO2 levels as well
(Sancton, 60). The decaying and burning trees emit CO2 as part of their
natural process (Sancton, 60).
The mounting environmental problems appear to be one large vicious
circle which feeds upon itself with no apparent beginning and no
apparent end. Compounding the difficulties are accidents such as the
nuclear powerplant explosion at Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker
spill and the poisonous gas cloud at Bhopal, all which serve to
emphasize that such problems do not respect national, economic or
religious borders. Since the problems are international in scope, this
means that the solutions must be worked on and implemented
internationally. National solutions to international problems are not
sufficient in this world today.
And yet with all of these problems facing us, we are still fighting one
another. Nations are pitted against other nations, religions against
other religions, religions are fighting within themselves and nations
are fighting within themselves.
War is a terrible thing. While there have been tales of the glories of
war throughout human history which have inspired young men to willingly
and gratefully enter into combat, there is the other side of war which
is often less told. A young soldier in WWI, Robert Leighton, described
what he had seen in a letter he sent home from the front (Mansfield,
133):
"The dug-outs have been nearly all blown in, the wire
entanglements are a wreck, and in among the chaos of
twisted iron and splintered timber and shapeless earth
are the fleshless, blackened bones of simple men who
poured out their red, sweet wine of youth unknowingly
for nothing...Let him who thinks War is a glorious,
golden thing, who loves to roll forth stirring words
of exhortation, involving Honour and Praise and Valor
and Love of Country...let him but take a look at a
little pile of sodden grey rags that cover half a skull
and a shin-bone and what might have been its ribs..."
(Mansfield, 133).
Perhaps a poignant question to add to this eyewitness account is, "What
might this man have become had his life not ended so abruptly and
shamefully on a battlefield?" There are statistics available which show
how much war costs from a monetary perspective, however the true cost
can never be measured because one cannot put a price tag on the human
suffering due to death, the permanent disability, the families split
apart and entire livelihoods destroyed in the process.
In WWI alone, more than 8.5 million men died on battlefields, and
millions more were permanently disabled (Mansfield, 135). It is
estimated that the victorious side alone incurred $186,333,637.00 in
direct costs and another $151,646,942,560.00 in indirect costs at a time
when the dollar was worth ten times its current value (Mansfield, 135).
The statistics for WWII and the Vietnam wars are equally as staggering.
Although 8.5 million men died on the battlefields in WWI, this figure
does not include the entire death count. In WWI the tactics and
strategies of war changed, and the distinctions between soldiers and
civilians disappeared (Mansfield, 135). No longer were battles fought
on battlefields between various armies (Mansfield, 135). Due to the
reliance on modern weaponry, it was necessary for the opposing sides to
attack large population centers to eliminate the manufacturing of
weapons at the sources, thus making whole cities viable targets
(Mansfield, 135). During the last year of WWI, the first aerial bombing
of civilians took place (Mansfield, 135). The face of war had changed
entirely.
During WWII the first atomic bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.
The description of the death of the young soldier by Robert Leighton
pales in comparison to the eyewitness accounts of the A-bomb aftermath
where people were seen walking while dragging their skin behind them.
Due to mass bombing capability, "more civilians than soldiers died in
WWII" (Mansfield, 139).
WWII ended in 1945. Since that time, the various factions have been
engaged in smaller wars and the superpowers have been engaged in the
Cold War. It is estimated that the US has spent $10 trillion on the
Cold War and other various wars since the end of WWII (Vittachi, 30),
with $3.8 trillion of that spent on armaments alone (Catherwood, 1). One
source states that $10 trillion is enough to purchase everything in the
US except the land (Vittachi, 30). Even with relations between the
superpowers easing considerably, the 1990 military defense budget is
$291 billion (Beatty, 74). A few of the high ticket items include the
mobile land-based Midgetman costing $30 billion plus, the Stealth bomber
at $600 million per plane, the submarine-based Trident II costing $18
billion over 10 years, and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
project costing $50 billion through the 1990's (Beatty, 75).
Every monetary unit spent on war or preparing for war, is one monetary
unit not spent on improving the condition of the Earth and the human
race, for there are no military solutions to the environmental and
humanitarian problems (Vittachi/Sagan, 35). Therefore, "military
expenditures are pure consumption and they detract from sustainable
development in the same way that eating seed corn reduces future
harvests" (Brown, 137). Like the corn seed that once eaten cannot be
planted, this money and the good it could do is lost forever.
"Smallpox has been eliminated from the planet: the cost was one hour of
the global military budget," proclaimed Carl Sagan at Earth Conference
One, a gathering of 200 political and spiritual world leaders in Oxford,
England in April 1988 (Vittachi, 30). He went on to suggest other ways
the superpowers might have spent the money, including "eliminating
hunger and homelessness, infectious disease, illiteracy, ignorance and
poverty" worldwide (Vittachi, 30). He concluded by saying, "We could
have helped to make the planet agriculturally self-sufficient, so each
nation could feed its own people, so that humans could be responsible
for their own lives and thereby removed many of the causes of violence
and war" (Vittachi, 31).
What else could be accomplished in the US alone with a small fraction of
the monies currently allocated to defense spending? We could insure the
30 to 37 million people who are medically uninsured (Beatty, 75). At the
present time, "approximately 15 million people every year are denied
medical care because they cannot pay for it" (Beatty ,75). With the
current emphasis on the importance of education, the US could return
federal aid to education to its 1980 level in percentage terms (Beatty,
76). "Currently only 451,000 of the country's 1.7 million poor children
are enrolled in Head Start. For about $1.2 billion more per year Head
Start could be expanded to cover all eligible children for at least one
year" (Beatty, 76). With a billion of the $2 billion freed up by
restraining SDI research, we could establish a national Police Corps, a
Police Corps that could add as many as 100,000 officers to the
overstretched police forces around the country (Beatty, 79). We could
also make a downpayment on rebuilding our infrastructure (Beatty, 80).
"Maintenance work [alone] on bridges and on the interstate highway
system will cost $300 billion over the next decade. Other vital
infrastructure spending includes $25 billion for the modernization of
the air-traffic-control system, $20 billion for the renovation of the
existing stock of public housing, $200 billion for the cleanup and
modernization of fouled nuclear-weapons-production facilities, and $15
billion for state-of-the-art computers and a new long-distance phone
system for the government" (Beatty, 80). With defense monies diverted
to just a few of the major environmental and humanitarian problems
facing us, we could do so very much to improve the standard of living,
both locally and globally.
We have the ability to choose and carry out the kind of future we would
like to live in. We could continue on as we are, in a
'business-as-usual' fashion where we would be a world of divided nation
states, operating in semi-isolated political, religious, social and
economic spheres (Robertson, 16). Even with the seemingly miraculous
changes taking place in Eastern Europe, the boundaries will still
continue to exist. The future would not be held in high regard, but
would be created on a day-to-day basis with no real active thought or
planning going into tackling the world problems from an all-encompassing
global perspective.
Another possible future might be one of large-scale disaster (Robertson,
17). Our nations and economic structures would experience a complete
collapse and chaos would reign. Mistrust would lead to violence and we
would accelerate the devastation to the Earth and the human race either
by starvation, disease or by accidentally or purposefully using
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in any ensuing wars as a result
of the chaos. The world and its peoples would cease to exist as we know
it today.
Or we could decide to put into place a totalitarian conservationist
future, one which is favored by those who believe that the only way to
avoid chaos and hence collapse and total disaster is to put in place a
government which will regulate and allocate resources worldwide
(Robertson, 17). This would create two classes of people, those
governing and those being governed (Robertson, 17). Unless the balance
of power were worked out for such a scenario, examples in our current
world show that this kind of a structure can lead to widespread abuses
and undercut completely the very purpose for implementing such a
solution in the first place.
Yet another alternative is one where we could enter into a
hyper-expansionist future (Robertson, 18). This scenario would call for
a massive investment in science and technology, and would focus
primarily on making more effective use of resources at hand in order to
solve problems and overcome limits which exist today in fields such as
energy and food production, to name a few. The emphasis would shift
away from focusing on social interactions and spiritual aspects and
focus in on the technological solutions to the problems of the world.
The final alternative is the sane, humane and ecological future
(Robertson, 18). This is by far the most difficult of all the futures
because it involves rethinking and changing the way the semi-isolated
political, religious and economic structures view their counterparts. It
will involve all parties agreeing to disagree about whether their
particular way of doing things is the only correct way, and setting
aside their differences in order to view the world as one place where
all people agree to coexist in peace, recognizing each other as equals.
With this community-oriented partnership structure in place, we could
work together to identify the global problems in totality and begin to
put in place the mechanisms to be used in finding solutions to the
problems at hand and use this structure for future planning on a global
scale. While this is the most difficult future to put into place, it is
the most desirable because it transcends the "us vs. them" thinking.
Instead, it focuses on the true representation of the Earth and its
inhabitants as being a globally interconnected family striving toward
creating the best possible future for all.
The potential future scenarios are not necessarily exclusive of one
another (Robertson, 19). Except for the complete disaster scenario,
parts from all of them should be taken into account and implemented on a
short-term basis when necessary. If a nation is experiencing chaos and
heading toward disaster, then a totalitarian government approach might
be the best alternative to counter the chaos at that moment, with the
intention of implementing a democratic process once the crisis is over
with. If a nation is technologically lagging behind then a
hyper-expansionist approach might fulfill their needs for the
short-term. It is quite possible, then, that the future we choose to
live in will be a complete composite of all of them, with the overall
picture resembling the sane, humane and ecological future scenario
(Robertson, 17).
"The dangers confronting human survival wars were not mysterious acts of
God or Nature but processes set in motion by human choices", wrote Sri
Lankan writer and psychotherapist Anuradha Vittachi, in his book
entitled "Earth Conference One - Sharing A Vision For Our Planet". He
continues, "Those choices, therefore, could be changed, and the time has
come to change them. But should we change them according to our values?
The moment of choice is crucial, for it is the moment where our values
come into play. For example, if we continue to hold protection from the
enemy as our guiding value, we will presumably choose to continue on the
path of arms dealing. If we decide hold reverence for life on Earth as
our guiding value, then we will choose an opposite route."
Given that humankind now has the power to obliterate the Earth, we must
face our responsibilities as stewards of this planet and make the
decision whether or not to work to preserve it. Will we choose to work
together to preserve life? And if we choose life, will we succeed? The
answers to these questions lies with each one of us - with you and with
me - for we are living together on one Earth as one race, the human
race.
Once the choice is made, it cannot be carried out by simply hoping. It
requires serious changes, both in our way of thinking, and in our way of
doing. It requires the world religions to work together to provide
assistance to the millions of people who have no faith, no hope and no
reason for living (Fisher, 172). It requires cooperation between the
world governments in an unprecedented manner. And, most important of
all, it requires that every person on Earth become a global citizen.
The choice is mine. The choice is yours. The choice is ours.
Appendix A
What Nations Should Do
----------------------
Global Warming:
1. Impose special taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions, which would
encourage energy conservation.
2. Increase funding for research on alternative energy sources,
including solar power, and safer designs for nuclear reactors.
3. Provide financial aid to enable developing nations to build
high-efficiency power plants rather than conventional facilities.
4. Launch a mammoth international tree-planting program.
5. Develop techniques for recovering part of the methane that is
given off by landfills and cattle feedlots.
Extinction:
1. Develop local organizations and educational programs to
impress upon people the value of genetic diversity and the
irreversible damage that occurs when a species are wiped out.
2. Establish comprehensive national zoning plans so that
preservation goes hand in hand with development.
3. Set up projects to demonstrate that tropical forests and other
endangered habitats can be developed - and yield economic returns
- without being destroyed.
4. Make environmental review an integral part of lending
procedures within nations so that local banks are prevented from
providing funds for projects that destroy habitats.
5. Increase funding to develop zoos and other "gene banks" as
places where species can be perpetuated.
Waste:
1. Raise the price of garbage collection and toxic-waste removal
and the penalties for improper disposal as incentives for
companies and households to curb the problem at the source.
Households should be charged according to the amount of garbage
they produce.
2. To encourage recycling, sharply increase the variety of
containers that can be returned to stores or other collection
points for cash. Raise the reward for returned items. Require
households to sort garbage into recyclable and nonrecyclable
items.
3. Increase funding for the testing of chemicals to determine
their toxicity and cancer-causing potential.
4. Ban ocean dumping.
5. Ban the export of waste.
Overpopulation:
1. Make birth control information and devices available to every
man and woman.
2. Expand educational and employment opportunities for women,
which will stimulate their interest in family planning.
3. Where religious preferences inhibit the use of artificial
contraception, provide education in natural birth-control
techniques.
4. Increase funding for research and development of new methods
of birth control that are easier to use or more acceptable in
some cultures than current techniques.
(Source: Time, January 2, 1989)
Appendix B
What Can Be Done
----------------
1. Cut energy consumption by insulating homes, buying efficient
appliances and switching to fluorescent lighting.
2. Conserve gasoline by picking fuel-efficient autos, joining car
pools and using mass transit.
3. Make every drop of water count.
4. Recycle and repair, rather than dispose and replace.
5. Invest in companies that follow the Valdez Principles (a set
of guidelines for environmentally sound practices.)
6. Conserve energy by modernizing equipment and lighting systems.
7. Reduce waste at the source by changing manufacturing
techniques and recycling materials now discarded.
8. Cut back on excessive packaging.
9. Adopt the same antipollution and safety measures in foreign
operations at home.
10. Push for worldwide family planning.
11. Aid the transfer of nonpolluting technologies to poor nations.
12. Follow through on pledges to support the United Nations
effort to forge an international accord on climate change.
13. Create tax incentives to encourage efficiency and discourage
pollution.
14. Promote "resource accounting," so that economic yardsticks
include the costs of pollution and the depletion of resources.
(Source: Time, December 18, 1989)
List of Works Cited
-------------------
Beatty, Jack. "A Post-Cold War Budget." The Atlantic 265 (February
1990): 74-82.
Brown, Lester, et.al.. State Of The World. First Edition.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1988.
Catherwood, Hugh. "Peace, Prosperity and Economic Conversion."
Active For Justice X (January, 1990): 1,4.
Fisher, John O.. Truth Is Stranger Than Dogma. New York:
Vantage Press, 1988.
Grosvenor, Gilbert M.. "Will We Mend Our Earth?" National
Geographic 174 (December 1988): 766-771.
Langone, John. "A Stinking Mess." Time 133 (January 2, 1989): 44-47.
Lemonick, Michael D. "Feeling the Heat." Time 133 (January 2,
1989): 36-39.
Linden, Eugene. "The Death Of Birth." Time 133 (January 2, 1989):
32-35.
Mansfield, Sue, and Mary Bowen Hall. Some Reasons For War.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1988.
Robertson, James. The Sane Alternative - A Choice Of Futures.
St. Paul, Minnesota: River Basin Publishing Company, 1980.
Sanction, Thomas A. "What On Earth Are We Doing?" Time 133 (January
2, 1989): 26-30.
Sanction, Thomas A. "The Fight To Save The Planet." Time 133
(January 2, 1989): 60-61.
Toufexis, Anastasia. "Too Many Mouths." Time 133 (January 2,
1989): 48-50.
Vittachi, Anuradha. Earth Conference One. Boston & Shaftesbury:
Shambhala Press/New Science Library, 1989.
|