“If things go on as they are, by the year 2000 the world will be . . .”

PREDICTIONS of this sort have now become commonplace. Books, magazines, newspaper articles and broadcasts on the subject saturate the market. Professional “futurologists,” not unlike ancient court seers, get paid for forecasting the future. And the bewildering amount of often conflicting facts and figures they generate leave most people wondering just what to believe.

Overwhelmingly, such predictions paint a picture of gloom and doom for the future. They tell of population explosion, food shortage, pollution, energy crisis, nuclear war, and so forth. For example, the 800-page Global 2000 Report, published by the United States government, warned that time is fast running out, and “unless nations collectively and individually take bold and imaginative steps . . . the world must expect a troubled entry into the 21st century.”

The UN Environment Program presented a similar picture in a 637-page report. It spoke of “a diseased, crowded world whose neurotic inhabitants continue to foul the air and sully the water while devising more efficient methods to kill one another,” according to Toronto’s Globe and Mail.

On the other hand, there are equally qualified experts who regard such reports as nothing but calamity howling. They feel that such are gross exaggerations by officials of international agencies for the purpose of increasing their funding. Technology, they say, will find the ways and means to make up for the shortages, and things will work themselves out.

It is interesting to note, though, that very often the experts on both sides will seize upon the same data and come to completely opposite conclusions. For example, in the book The Ultimate Resource, economist Julian Simon argues that even though “there will always be shortage crises because of weather, war, politics and population movements,” these are only in the short term. “An increased need for resources,” he claims, “usually leaves us with a permanently greater capacity to get them, because we gain knowledge in the process.” And as the population increases, he adds, “there will be more people to solve these problems and leave us with the bonus of lower costs and less scarcity in the long run.”

Taking a completely opposite view is environmentalist Garrett Hardin, well known for his ‘lifeboat ethics.’ He claims that what we have is a “veneer civilization​—a layer of something good on top and trash below.” His reaction to the argument that more people means more problem solvers is classic: “England now has 11 times as large a population as it had in Shakespeare’s day​—but does it have 11 times as many Shakespeares? Does it have even one Shakespeare?”

As we follow the pros and cons, we note a common denominator that stands out among all of this: the acknowledgment that mankind today is facing overwhelming threats and problems as never before, and something urgently needs to be done. While the experts are debating what to do, millions of people are suffering and dying from malnutrition and disease, more plants and animals are becoming extinct, air and water are being polluted, and the nuclear arsenals of the nations are expanding.

It gives little comfort to know that the percentage of people dying for one reason or another is smaller today when that percentage represents millions of lives. Or that the material standard of living in some areas is going up when the majority of mankind still live in dire poverty and deprivation, with no real hope for improvement.

Even in those few areas where there is relative abundance, it is difficult to say if the quality of life is getting any better. People there may not be struggling for food and fuel, but they live in constant fear of annihilation by nuclear war. Their lives and property are threatened daily by crime, violence and vandalism. Their wealth is eaten away by inflation. Their families are wrecked by divorce and juvenile delinquency. And the list goes on and on.

In our quest to know the future, it is essential that we see the difference between what really is happening and what some people think or promise will happen. We should go only on facts, not on someone’s speculation. Nobel prize winning physicist Niels Bohr once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” The phrase, “If present trends continue” or, “Unless something is done,” so frequently seen in futuristic forecasts, tells us that a better future depends not only on finding the ways and means to solve today’s problems but also on whether we are willing to act on them.

What the Past Tells About the Future

THE future has long been a popular subject. Visit any library and you will probably find a shelfful of books about it. A closer look will reveal that many of these books were written 20, or even 30, years ago. For example, George Orwell’s satirical novel 1984, published in 1949, painted the picture of a dehumanized society under totalitarian rule. And in 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring drew worldwide attention to the dangers of environmental pollution due to indiscriminate use of chemicals. Since then, the best-seller list has been crowded with books on the subject.

But what have all the predictions and warnings accomplished? Have they aroused the public and the authorities to take action to curb the problems and to safeguard the future? The author of the best-seller The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, who has been writing and broadcasting on environmental issues since the 1960’s, had this to say: “In some senses, we’ve come a long way. We have the National Environmental Policy Act, we have environmental impact statements, and so on. But it’s nowhere near enough progress to keep up with the rate at which we’re tearing things apart . . . I’ve wasted a lot of breath, I guess.” He summarized his hopes for the future this way: “If completely optimistic is 10, and completely pessimistic is one, I would put it at about one point two.” Thus, all the books, reports, studies and conferences in the last several decades have done little to change most people’s thinking and attitude as to the future.

Why Warnings Go Unheeded

Why have world conditions continued to deteriorate in spite of all that the experts are telling us? Could it be that most people today are unconcerned about their future? Strange as it may seem, that is just what researchers have found​—most people’s real concern is about today rather than the future.

For example, an article in Psychology Today, entitled “The Future Can Fend for Itself,” gives the results of a nationwide survey and reports: “To an unhealthy degree perhaps, [people’s] thoughts were dominated by the present. Economic issues crowded out all other concerns​—even crime, religion, peace in the world.” The survey found, for instance, that when people were asked what they wanted most in life, by a ratio of five to one they tended to mention a better living standard for themselves more often than a better future for their children.

Not to be overlooked is the effect of the widespread practice of information manipulation, or even distortion, by governments, businesses, industries, and so forth. It is not uncommon, for example, for the harmful effects of a product such as asbestos, or a project such as nuclear power plants, to be suppressed. Or, clever advertising campaigns, even scare tactics, may be employed to delude the public into believing untruths or ignoring well-founded warnings. Even if the truth comes out in the end, the net effect is that the public turns skeptical and cynical about the experts, and becomes ever more unwilling to make any changes or sacrifices in the name of the future.

Thus, by and large, people’s interests and concerns appear to be focused on the here and now, and on themselves. Of course, they think about the future, but most people feel that there is little that they can do about it. What matters to them is the day-to-day affair of living and what they can get out of it now. The future will have to take care of itself, they feel.

Results of Inaction

This state of mind played an important role in shaping the course of events leading up to the critical world conditions we see today. Many of the serious threats to a better future​—nuclear war, pollution, crime and violence, to name just a few—​are the results of decades of warnings ignored or facts concealed. Consider, briefly, a few examples.

The threat of nuclear war and the dangers of the international arms race have long been recognized. Protests and warnings have been sounding forth for many years. In 1964, nearly 20 years ago, two eminent American scientists who served as presidential advisers pointed out the folly of the arms race this way: “Both sides in the arms race are thus confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. . . . The clearly predictable course of the arms race is a steady open spiral downward into oblivion.” In other words, the more the nations arm themselves, the less secure they will feel, and the end result is catastrophe.

But has such advice been taken seriously? In a recent speech to the British Parliament, United States President Ronald Reagan emphatically stated: “Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace.” Apparently this is also the viewpoint of most governments today, for, in the name of national security, nations have taken to arming themselves with more and more deadly weapons of war​—nuclear, chemical, biological and others. Following the lead of the superpowers, a number of the developing nations are not far from joining the nuclear club. The result is that no nation feels secure any longer, and all of this is bringing man and his home, the earth as we know it, to the brink of total destruction.

For years environmentalists have been decrying the devastating effects of technological development on air, water, soil, and plant and animal life. But the lure of profit and higher living standards proved to be far more appealing. People rationalize that if a project creates jobs and profits, then whatever environmental damage or health hazard it may produce can be overlooked. A clear case in point is what took place in Minamata, Japan. Early in the 1950’s it was discovered that the high methyl mercury level in the fish eaten by the people of the fishing villages near that city led to serious impairment of their hearing, sight and speech, and to deformed bodies and limbs in infants and older people. The mercury came from industrial discharges of the factories in the area. Action was not taken until a second outbreak at Niigata, Japan, provoked the government to establish a pollution-control agency.

Such incidents can be multiplied many times the world over. And many of them involve far more serious problems, such as acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and disposal of toxic wastes. The net result is not just physical damage to the people of Japanese fishing villages but the potential breakdown of the entire life-supporting system of the earth. Yet, “there is around the world today still a complacency about the state of the environment,” says James A. Lee, director of environmental affairs for the World Bank. “Despite the heightened awareness over the past decade,” he adds, “environmental concerns somehow are not regarded as serious enough or the consequences seem too far removed in time.” People and nations are too entangled with the present economic and political issues to be bothered with the future.

Other examples can be cited, including the ailing world economy and rampant crime and violence, which greatly affect the quality of life. Simply stated, much of this is the result of people’s insatiable pursuit of pleasure and wealth​—now. Wanting to “do their own thing,” they abandon all standards and restraints, leading to utter disregard for other people’s property and life. And, wanting to have everything now, people​—and governments—​plunge heavily into credit buying, leading to runaway inflation, which can render worthless what they have. As long as the “me first” and “now” mentality remains it is unlikely that the future will be any better.

Lessons to Be Learned

What can we learn from all of this? What does the past tell us about the future?

First of all, in spite of the fact that a great deal more information about trends and dangers is readily available today, it is highly unlikely that people will act any differently from the way they did in the past. Much of the information will continue to be ignored, just as it has been previously. If a better future depends on people’s willingness to make sacrifices and change their way of life (which many authorities recognize to be the case), then we have very little reason to be optimistic. The proviso “unless something is done” in the futurists’ forecasts is resting on very shaky ground.

More serious than this, however, is the fact that many of the difficulties that we are facing today are a direct result of the evident shortsightedness on the part of governments, agencies and private individuals. Many of the studies, conferences and special commissions often work at cross purposes in their vying for fundings and recognition. And, at best, they are merely tinkering with the symptoms. There is no government, agency or individual on earth wise, powerful and influential enough to plot the course and bring about the changes needed for a better future.