Grounds for Optimism

Back in 2003, I wrote a book and entitled it Our Final Century? My theme was that the twenty-first century would confront us with a diverse range of threats, and that we might have no more than a 50-50 chance of avoiding a catastrophic setback to civilization. My British publisher removed the question mark from the book's title, and the U.S. publisher changed it to Our Final Hour. Pessimism, it seems, makes for better marketing.

The balance sheet of future catastrophes is complex. With the Cold War over, there is far less chance of a global nuclear war unleashing tens of thousands of bombs to devastate our civilization. But this cataclysmic threat could be merely in temporary abeyance. During the last century, the Soviet Union rose and fell; there were two world wars. In the next 100 years, geopolitical realignments could be just as drastic, leading to a nuclear standoff between new superpowers that might be handled less well (or less luckily) than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Yet, there is now more chance then ever of a localized nuclear conflict as these weapons continue to proliferate worldwide. And Al Qaeda-style terrorists might some day acquire a nuclear weapon. If they did, they would willingly detonate it in a city center, killing tens of thousands along with themselves, and millions around the world would acclaim them as heroes.

The nuclear threat will always be with us. But it's based on basic science that dates from the 1930s. What are the promises and threats from twenty-first-century science? Science offers immense hope and exciting prospects. Yet it may have a downside. It may not threaten a sudden worldwide catastrophe as embodied by the Cold War fears of global nuclear war, but the threats are, in aggregate, as worrisome and challenging.

Still, one should not be despondent. There's a real upside, too. Indeed there are grounds for being a technooptimist. The technologies that fuel economic growth today–information technology, miniaturization, and biotechnology–are, at present, environmentally and socially benign. They're sparing of energy and of raw materials. They boost the quality of life in the developing as well as the developed world and have much further to go.

That's the good news. But we can also plausibly predict some disquieting trends. Some are environmental: rising populations (especially in the megacities of the developing world), increasing energy consumption, and so forth. Indeed, collective human actions are transforming, even ravaging, the entire biosphere–perhaps irreversibly–through global warming and loss of biodiversity. We've entered a new geological era: the Anthropocene, where the impact of human behavior rivals that of nature. We don't fully understand the consequences of our many-faceted assault on the interwoven fabric of atmosphere, water, land, and life. We are collectively endangering our planet, and remedial action may not come soon enough to prevent “runaway” climatic or environmental devastation.

Beyond the collective actions of humanity, there's also a growing danger from individuals. We are increasingly vulnerable to weirdos with the mind-set of an arsonist and access to sophisticated technology. Biotechnology will become ever more empowering; cybertechnology interconnects us ever more closely. So even a single, technically capable person will have the capability to cause massive disruption through error or terror. We're kidding ourselves if we think that technical education leads to balanced rationality. It can be combined with fanaticism. This is not just traditional fundamentalism–Christian in the West, Muslim in the East–but new-age cults that claim to be “scientific” yet have a precarious foothold in reality. The Raelians and the Heaven's Gate cult are disquieting portents; extreme ecofreaks might prefer a world rid of most humans. There will always be disaffected loners in every country, and the “leverage” each can exert is ever growing. The global village will have its global village idiots.

The techniques and expertise for bio- or cyber-attacks will be accessible to millions. They do not require large special-purpose facilities, as nuclear weapons do. It would be hard to eliminate the risk, even with very intrusive surveillance. Can civilization be safeguarded, without humanity having to sacrifice its diversity and individualism? This is a stark question, but a serious one.

Twenty-first-century technology, if optimally applied, will offer immense opportunities for the developing and the developed world. But it will present new threats more diverse and more intractable than nuclear weapons ever did. There surely will be more and more “doors that we could open but which are best left closed” for ethical or prudential reasons. To confront these threats successfully, and to avoid foreclosing humanity's long-term potential, scientists need to channel their efforts wisely and engage with the political process, both nationally and internationally. We shall need, in all fields of expertise, individuals with the wisdom and commitment of the original atomic scientists, who sought to safeguard humanity from the very threat they helped create.