This article outlines a dozen big and overlapping uncertainties that deserve to be addressed as serious concerns by anyone engaged in long-range planning. Authoritative reference works relating to each of these often overlooked or underrated concerns are noted.
Many observers of current global trends and prospects increasingly write of growing uncertainty and complexity. A forecast or single scenario of what life may be like in 2050 or 2100 has some value (e.g., the recent Jorgen Randers report to the Club of Rome, 2052). But it can also be an easy escape from addressing the many huge and interconnected uncertainties of the early twenty-first century and the unfolding Global MegaCrisis/MegaMess of climate change, population growth, scarce resources, inadequate governance, shaky economies, disruptive technologies, and more. Even several scenarios can easily be way off the mark, because there are hundreds of possibilities, depending on when and if the MegaMess is largely resolved, and how. As clearly stated by Braden Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz, we must face The Techno-Human Condition we have created.
Addressing major uncertainties—key issues where little is known, forecasts are impossible or implausible, and a wide range of disconnected and/or disputed facts and opinions prevail—shifts the focus from what is known (and forecasting what is probable) to learning more about fuzzy realms so as to enable tentative scenarios of what might happen, and shed light on wild cards and emerging “not-so-wild” cards.
Facing these uncertainties and complexities sooner, rather than later, will likely make life in the early twenty-first century better for most or all people, and improve the chances that we will even make it to the twenty-second century. In the “Michaelian” spirit of searching for elephants and beyond (see In Search of the Missing Elephant by the late Donald N. Michael), consider a dozen big and overlapping questions—surely not the only ones to ponder, but good candidates for a short list that should be widely circulated, deeply pondered singly and together, and continuously updated.
How Much Global Warming, by When?
The world has already warmed by 1°C over pre-industrial levels, and there is near-zero chance of stopping warming at 2°C, where trouble begins. Many climate scientists now think that a worrisome 4°C warming is most likely in the 2050–2100 period, and a disastrous 6°C or more is possible. (See Requiem for a Species, by Clive Hamilton.) Some scientists, such as James Hansen of NASA, warn of possible tipping points leading to runaway global warming “out of humanity’s control.”
Will Methane Eclipse Carbon Dioxide?
CO2 currently gets the most attention as the major greenhouse gas. But it may soon be eclipsed. Methane in the atmosphere is only about one-fifth of CO2 in volume, but is twenty to twenty-three times more potent as a greenhouse gas, although not as long-lasting. In addition to other sources such as livestock, it is now being released in large quantities by melting Arctic ice and permafrost—a process nearly certain to accelerate as positive feedback from the “albedo effect” kicks in. If large amounts of methane are also released from abundant clathrates on the ocean floor, catastrophe is likely. But this uncertainty is huge, so even rough estimates are impossible as to what could trigger how much release, or when. Adding to the methane threat is nitrous oxide, about one-tenth of CO2 in volume, which is three hundred times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat. (See The Atlas of Climate Change.)
How High Will Sea Levels Rise?
The conventional projection of sea-level rise by 2050 is currently about one to two feet. But check out The Fate of Greenland: Lessons from Abrupt Climate Change (MIT Press, April 2011), where the authors warn that “in the fate of Greenland lies clues to the fate of the world” and that “uncertainties dominate on the bad side.” Based on past ice-core records, it is possible that the Greenland ice sheet could melt in a few decades, raising sea levels by some twenty-four feet worldwide. Melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels by another sixteen feet. How likely in the decades ahead? A very wild “Black Swan” event? A classic wild card of 2 percent probability? Or a “not-so-wild card” of 10 to 30 percent probability?
Will We Run Out of Essential Resources?
Renewable resources (notably water) and many nonrenewable resources (oil, arable land, minerals, rare earth elements) are becoming more difficult to acquire, especially as demand increases. This leads to what Michael T. Klare calls “the end of easy everything,” and a global contest for what’s left. (See The Race for the Last World Resources.) Prices are rising and will surely continue to do so, as companies and nations scramble to adapt through conservation, substitution, and new technologies (these three strategies—even together—may still be inadequate). One writer estimates that supply shortfall by 2030 is “nearly certain” for cadmium, gold, mercury, tellurium, and tungsten. (Also, see the World Economic Forum report on Water Security.)
How Many People in 2050?
Global population projections are pretty much settled on 9 to 10 billion people by 2100, or roughly 50 percent growth from today’s 7.1 billion—which is a substantial addition, even as the rate of growth slows. The mid-2012 annual projection from the Population Reference Bureau, however, is a worrisome 9.6 billion people by 2050. It may now be more appropriate to think in terms of four scenarios: Sharp Decline due to a global pandemic (quite thinkable by public health experts) or a world war (unthinkable?); Slow Decline where modernization leads to smaller families (see 2052 by Jorgen Randers, who forecasts a peak of 8.1 billion in the 2040s); Slow Increase due to general improvements in medicine and health outpacing smaller families; and Rapid Increase due to success in anti-aging and life-extending technologies, made accessible to many people. Demographers and those already concerned with overpopulation never consider this not-so-wild-card possibility, but experts on William Halal’s TechCast.org panel forecast life extension to 100 years as probable before 2040, with .67 confidence (see The Futurist special report, September-October 2012, p. 36). However, it will be difficult to prove that this has happened or is happening, for better and worse, leading to more uncertainty, controversy, and complexity.
What Quality of People in 2050?
Genetic and robotic enhancements may create “better” or at least different human beings, but will these options be popular? Even if widely available at low cost, could these improvements be more than offset by endocrine disruptors and other pernicious chemicals in the environment, people ingesting overdoses of drugs or inappropriate drugs (both illegal and legal), and the continued overeating of food, which contributes to obesity and diabetes? Above all, will we develop and appreciate an adequate number of “persons of tomorrow” who can deal with the complex and messy problems of the twenty-first century? (See Dancing at the Edge by Maureen O’Hara and Graham Leicester.)
Will Decent Employment Be Available to All?
Assuming that basic goods and services will not be free to all, will everyone have jobs or self-employment that enable them to provide for their basic needs? At present, this is a serious long-term problem, especially for younger generations, aggravated by digital technology and robotics. See Race against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT’s Center for Digital Business (Digital Frontier Press, October 2011, 76 pp.). The authors’ views on robots now quietly taking over many jobs were featured on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes segment on robotics, January 13, 2013. The quantity of jobs is a major issue, but so is the quality of jobs that pay at least a living wage and provide decent working conditions, as urged by the International Labour Organization.
Will Inequality and Plutocracy Continue to Increase?
Global trends to more inequality within and between nations are unmistakable in recent decades and seem likely to continue, as well as the parallel trend to governance by the very rich “1 percent.” There is no clear boundary defining when a “democracy” becomes overtaken by “plutocracy,” but, arguably, this is happening or has happened, with no substantial reversal in sight. See The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz (W. W. Norton, 2012, 414 pp.), on the “inefficient” U.S. economic system, and twenty other books on rising inequality (listed in the GFB Update newsletter, November 2011).
Will the Energy Transition Be a Clear and Rapid Success?
A major transition away from fossil fuels has begun, toward energy that is cheap, safe, nonpolluting, renewable, and available to all. But this transition will likely take decades at best, and the ultimate mix is highly uncertain and will vary by nation. Solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, and hydro- and geothermal are the known competitors to oil, gas, and coal, but these could soon be joined by ocean algae, ultradeep geothermal, methane hydrate, solar power beamed from space, widely distributed small modular reactors (SMRs) or low-energy nuclear reactor (LENR) generators, or other technologies not yet on the horizon. The competition is fierce, and a level playing field with public comparison of all costs and benefits will surely help facilitate this crucial transition, which, in turn, would mitigate global warming. Unfortunately for sustainable energy, the transition is being delayed due to a new and controversial hydrofracking technology that enables easier access to unconventional oil and especially natural gas. Opinions vary widely as to whether “peak oil” and “peak gas” are imminent (but “peakists” seem to have a weak argument). For overviews, see the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2012 and Daniel Yergin’s The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. Also see The Atlantic cover feature by Charles C. Mann (May 2013, pp. 48-63) on hugely abundant methane hydrate (or clathrates) beneath the sea floor as the quite possible next big thing in energy–bigger even than fracking.
Will Nuclear Weapons or Bioweapons Be Our Undoing?
The global stockpile of nuclear weapons is slowly declining (although the number of nations with such weapons may soon expand), while bioweapons—much easier to make—are probably increasing. The Cold War megathreat of nuclear holocaust and/or the follow-on global environmental disaster of nuclear winter has lessened, but remains a not-so-wild card—or a wild card at the least. And widespread global use of bioweapons could be disastrous for many people. Much depends on the future of religious and ideological fanaticism, leading to use of these destructive technologies and/or others. See Over the Horizon Proliferation Threats edited by Wirtz and Lavoy (Stanford UP, April 2012, 328 pp.) and Preventing a Biochemical Arms Race by Alexander Kelle et al. (Stanford UP, October 2012, 256 pp.).
Can Effective Global Governance and Law Emerge?
We have created a global economy and global problems such as climate change, but this is not at all matched by effective institutions of global governance and global law in our emerging multipolar world (see No One’s World: The West, The Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn by Charles A. Kupchan, and other books on emerging multipolarity in GFB Update, April 2012), as well as extensive biblioessays on “Law in Transition” (covering some 100 items; GFB Update newsletter, February 2012) and “Global Governance” (covering some 150 items; GFB Update, September 2011). Adding to the chorus of calls for global governance, however, are growing concerns about national governance capacities in many nations, notably in the United States.
Does the Exploding World of Information Abundance Help or Hinder Us?
Clearly the answer is both, but, arguably, the hindrance is greater than the help. We increasingly have ready access to huge amounts of information, but this infoglut can also be a burden, especially with huge amounts of entertainment, commercial messages, and trivial exchanges competing for eyeballs in the burgeoning infosphere. See Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think? and The Shallows, as well as GFB Update newsletters for February 2011 and March 2011 describing some thirty books on impacts of new information technologies, mostly negative.
This brief survey of a dozen mega-uncertainties is by no means all that might be considered. A briefer list is more manageable, but overlooks many key questions, while a longer list of fifteen, twenty, or more is more daunting and adds further complexity. And there are many ways to phrase the questions and combine them (e.g., the Millennium Project’s annual State of the Future report posits fifteen Global Challenges). There are no easy answers to how much to include or how little, and how to present them. But some arrays are better than others. And all can be improved.
Other leading candidates for the uncertainties list might very well include how to stem ever-rising costs and demand for both health care and education (see GFB Update for July 2011 on higher education problems), whether we are exceeding planetary boundaries (see Bankrupting Nature, a new report to the Club of Rome), coping with the growth of transnational organized crime (one of the fifteen Global Challenges in the Millennium Project’s State of the Future reports), the possibility of economic collapse (see Future Global Shocks by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] futures unit), and the transition to new and appropriate economic thinking for the twenty-first century (see biblioessay of some 120 books, GFB Update newsletter, September 2012).
In 2003, the renowned British scientist, Sir Martin Rees, wrote that “the odds are no better than 50-50” that our present civilization will survive to 2100. It is still a pretty good bet.
A decade later, Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich ask, “Can a Collapse of Global Civilization Be Avoided?” (invited Perspective to the Royal Society, rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org, January 14, 2013), concluding that
Humanity has the assets to get the job done, but the odds of avoiding collapse seem small because the risks are clearly not obvious to most people and the classic signs of impending collapse, especially diminishing returns to complexity, are everywhere.
Is this overly pessimistic? Can we somehow muddle through? The arguments for optimism are generally—perhaps universally—narrow, shallow, and/or poorly documented, for example, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis of Silicon Valley’s techno-ecstatic Singularity University, Acceleration: The Forces Driving Human Progress by Ronald G. Havelock (Prometheus Books, January 2011), and no less than President Bill Clinton, “The Case for Optimism: 5 Ways the World Is Getting Better All the Time” (Time Cover Feature, October 1, 2012, pp. 38–44), describing cell phones fostering equality; healthy communities, and winning the fight against HIV/AIDS; growth of the clean energy sector and green economies; women gaining social and economic power; and “former antagonists now working together to solve problems.” Many of these social trends and new technologies should certainly be applauded.
But the top ten or top twenty mega-uncertainties must also be identified and respected, lest we blindly succumb to the paradox of many relatively minor improvements in the midst of growing inadequacy in human well-being, if not outright global catastrophe or collapse.
[NOTE: Most books cited above were reviewed as recent Book of the Month selections at GlobalForesightBooks.org.]
