Teman-teman milis lingkungan,
Setelah absen agak lama, berikut ini saya kirimkan artikel yang mungkin
menarik untuk bahan pemikiran kita menjelang abad 21 tahun depan (katanya
abad 21 dimulai tahun 2001). Artikel tersebut ditulis oleh Martin Khor dari
Third world Network dan bebas dikutip asal menyebutkan sumbernya.
> Salam
hira
>
>
>
> FIGHTING FOR OUR SURVIVAL IN THE NEXT CENTURY
>
> Blurb: The new year has landed on us without the Millennium Bug crisis,
> but with stock market instability caused by Wall Street jitters. But in
the
> new century, the big battles may not be all about finance, economics or
> politics. The biggest issue could be survival of humanity and Earth. As
> people continue to plunder Nature, there might not be a next Millennium
> either for us or for the Earth.
>
> By Martin Khor
>
> ---------------------
>
>
> The world has survived the first ten of the Millenium. A relief for many
> people. The first test---the so-called Millenium Bug---was passed with
> flying colours, so much so that there was a sense of anti-climax that
> nothing dramatic happened.
>
> Then, of course, there was the fall in Wall Street share values, that has
> reverberated all over the world, including at the Kuala Lumpur Stock
> Exchange.
>
> No one knows if that will be just another temporary blip on the way to
new
> record highs for the Wall Street indices. Or whether the Big One, the
> long-anticipated puncturing of the US stock market balloon, has finally
> arrived.
>
> The most unexpected big-news event at the turn of the year was Boris
> Yeltsin's resignation as Russian President. Long after it was clear he
> could no longer hold the reins of power, due to his health, Yeltsin
finally
> bowed out before his term expired.
>
> The pulverising of Chechnya and Gozny continues, as the most horrifying
> event of the New Year season. It isn't nice, thinking that Yeltsin's
chosen
> successor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, will probably win the
Presdential
> elections by a landslide on account of the levelling of Grozny.
>
> Computer technology, the financial markets, big-power politics are
> dominating the news headlines at the start of the century.
>
> But in the longer run, even these large issues may fade compared to the
> environmental crisis that is likely to plague the next many years and
> decades.
>
> An English professor has even predicted that there will be no humanity
left
> in the next millennium, and maybe no Earth as well.
>
> "There isn't going to be a human race in 1,000 years," said London School
of
> Economics professor Ian Angell. There are too many people and they ae
using
> up the seed corn.
>
> A Reuters New Year article (Star, 1 Jan) also quotes the Hadley Centre
(that
> specialises in climate research) that Earth may be uninhabitable in the
year
> 3,000 since global warming will make the planet twice as hot by then.
> The Antarctic ice sheet would disintegrate, the sea would rise up to five
> metres and swallow up whole counties.
>
> These warnings are an antidote to the kind of theorising going on about
what
> life will be like a thousand years hence. In various parts of the world,
> even in a village in Miri, Sarawak, people are putting their favourite
> things in "time capsules" to inform future generations of what we were
like
> at the turn of the millennium.
>
> But what if there is no one left a few hundred years from now to care
about
> how we live now?
>
> Or if some people are still alive, and are struggling for survival in an
> ecologically-damaged world, will they look back at our generation and
blame
> us for carrying out the great destruction of Nature that led to the end
of
> their world?
>
> As the new century begins, we are witnessing battles for sharing the
world's
> limited resources. The failure of the WTO's Seattle Conference was a
> reflection of that fight.
>
> The rich nations wanted more liberalisation, to open further the
developing
> world's economies so that their companies can sell more products and
extract
> more raw materials more easily in the poorer countries.
>
> The developing countries meanwhile wanted to protect what is left of
their
> economic sovereignty and their right to decide how much and when to open
up
> their markets, so that their local firms and farms can still survive.
>
> That battle between North and South, rich and poor, will certainly go on.
>
> But parallel to that social and economic drama is the fight of Nature to
> survive against the behaviour of Man.
>
> There is a long list of environmental ills that grow by the day in
intensity
> and number of issues.
>
> They include: climate change caused by emission of carbon dioxide and
other
> "Greenhouse gasses"; deforestation that is wiping out soils and trees,
> causing river silting, and affecting rainfall patterns; water depletion
and
> shortages that spell thirst, drought and even war among nations in the
near
> future; toxic substances and wastes that are poisoning rivers and soils
and
> harming our health; the threat of nuclear accidents, spewing deadly
> radiation.
>
> These are only some of the major problems that are already so well known.
> Then there's the raging debate on the promises of genetic engineering
versus
> its perils.
>
> The same genetic engineering that is supposed to develop new hardy crops
and
> new methods of curing diseases, is now accused of also being able to
> contaminate and harm traditional crop varieties and other plants, to
cause
> our food supplies to be harmful to health, and to create new strains of
> deadly viruses, bacteria and diseases.
>
> Although ecological problems are seen as scientific issues, in reality
they
> are economic and social in nature as well and at source.
>
> The main causes of environmental stress are "unsustainable patterns of
> production and consumption." This is a phrase made famous by the Earth
> Summit of 1992 where for the first time the world's political leaders
> admitted there was a global ecological crisis and that it was linked to
our
> economic system and social behaviour.
>
> Technologies we use are harmful to natural resources, either depleting or
> polluting them. Too much resources are being used, far above the level
at
> which they can be replenished. There is too much pollution and
> contamination of air, water and land---far beyond the capacity the world
has
> to absorb them.
>
> And the irony is that a large part of what the huge production machinery
> produces are things which are not needed. They comprise the luxury
products
> and services that the well-to-do splurge on because their incomes are far
> above the level they require to satisfy their basic needs.
>
> The very wide income gap between the rich and poor has resulted in this
> ironic and irrational phenomenon---where the poor majority of the world
have
> too few resources under their control and thus they cannot satisfy their
> simple needs, whilst a rich minority have so much wealth that they must
> spend most of it on luxuries they don't really need.
>
> The economy however requires that the rich and the not-so-rich spend
more
> and more, so that the wheels of demand and supply can churn on.
Advertising
> and the "consumer culture" are used to create the wants that persuade us
to
> part with the money we have or even with the money we don't have (but
which
> we can borrow through credit cards or bank loans).
>
> But the more that luxuries are consumed, the faster is the rate of
economic
> activity that depletes and pollutes the Earth's limited resources. And
the
> greater the ecological problems, the nearer the day of reckoning when
Nature
> is unable to absorb any more of humanity's irrational and uncaring
> behaviour.
>
> What may seem logical for each family or nation to do (to compete for
higher
> growth, more cash and cars, hard-wood furniture, TV sets and computers)
is
> illogical from the overall point of view of the need to conserve
resources
> so that the economic system is "sustainable" through time and for
> generations to come.
>
> For our survival, and Earth's, change must come, very soon and in basic
> ways, in our system of production and consumption, and in through fairer
> distribution of income and resources between and within countries.
>
> But social and economic change is most difficult because of vested
interests
> that strive to protect their privileges, and because old habits die hard.
>
> That is why those who observe global and social trends are pessimistic
that
> humanity will voluntarily change to save itself and the world. Only when
> the environment (or significant parts of it) obviously collapse will
people
> be forced to consider and to implement change.
>
> So there we have that big choice---either we change our ways and thus
> prevent an ecological collapse, or the ecological collapse will come and
> then
> force us to change our ways.
>
> The problem with the second choice is that by then it may be much too
late
> to avoid great and grievous harm. The first choice is therefore much
> preferable. But as mentioned earlier, voluntary change is most difficult
> (even impossible) when there are so many vested interests trying to
protect
> a system which benefits them.
>
> Not an optimistic thought with which to begin a new millennium. But
maybe
> the right frame with which to appreciate the odds against us, and thus to
> begin to change mindsets everywhere.
>
> Humanity must protect Nature, for only in doing so can we protect
ourselves
> and ensure life for future generations.
>
>
> ends
>
> Martin Khor
Director
Third World Network
Penang, Malaysia
>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
