I think all of us have been interested, at one time or another, in the romantic mysteries of all those societies that collapsed, such as the classic Maya in the Yucatan, the Easter Islanders, the Anasazi, Fertile Crescent society, Angor Wat, Great Zimbabwe and so on. And within the last decade or two, archaeologists have shown us that there were environmental problems underlying many of these past collapses. But there were also plenty of places in the world where societies have been developing for thousands of years without any sign of a major collapse, such as Japan, Java, Tonga and Tikopea. So evidently, societies in some areas are more fragile than in other areas. How can we understand what makes some societies more fragile than other societies? The problem is obviously relevant to our situation today, because today as well, there are some societies that have already collapsed, such as Somalia and Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There are also societies today that may be close to collapse, such as Nepal, Indonesia and Columbia.
Mislim da smo svi u jednom trenutku bili zainteresirani za romantične misterije svih onih društava koja su propala, poput klasičnih Maya s Yucatána, stanovnika Uskršnjih otoka, Anasazija, civilizacija Plodnog polumjeseca, Angkor Wata Velikog Zimbabvea, itd. Tijekom posljednjih 10-20 godina, arheolozi su nam pokazali da su prirodni čimbenici uzrokovali mnoge od tih kolapsa u prošlosti. No, bilo je isto tako mnogo mjesta u svijetu gdje se društva razvijaju tisućama godina bez ikakvih naznaka većeg kolapsa, kao što su Japan, Java, Tonga i Tikopia. Društva su, dakle, u nekim područjima osjetljivija nego u drugima. Kako možemo razumjeti što neka društva čini osjetljivijima od drugih? Taj je problem očito važan za našu današnju situaciju jer i danas postoje društva koja su već propala, kao što su Somalija i Ruanda te nekadašnja Jugoslavija. Danas postoje i društva koja su možda blizu kolapsa, npr. Nepal, Indonezija i Kolumbija.
What about ourselves? What is there that we can learn from the past that would help us avoid declining or collapsing in the way that so many past societies have? Obviously the answer to this question is not going to be a single factor. If anyone tells you that there is a single-factor explanation for societal collapses, you know right away that they're an idiot. This is a complex subject. But how can we make sense out of the complexities of this subject? In analyzing societal collapses, I've arrived at a five-point framework -- a checklist of things that I go through to try and understand collapses. And I'll illustrate that five-point framework by the extinction of the Greenland Norse society. This is a European society with literate records, so we know a good deal about the people and their motivation. In AD 984 Vikings went out to Greenland, settled Greenland, and around 1450 they died out -- the society collapsed, and every one of them ended up dead.
A što je s nama (SAD)? Što možemo naučiti iz prošlosti kako bismo izbjegli opadanje ili propast na način na koji su to iskusila mnoga društva u prošlosti? Odgovor na ovo pitanje očito neće biti samo jedan čimbenik. Ako vam netko kaže da samo jedan čimbenik objašnjava društvene kolapse, odmah znate da je budala. To je složena tema. No, kako da razjasnimo složenosti ove teme? Analizom propadanja društava, naišao sam na shemu s pet točaka -- lista stvari kroz koje prođem kako bih razumio kolapse. Pokazat ću vam tu shemu s pet točaka na primjeru izumrlog grenlandskog nordijskog društva. To je evidentirano pismeno europsko društvo, tako da znamo dosta o njima i njihovoj motivaciji. 984. godine Vikinzi su otišli na Grenland i ondje se nastanili, a oko 1450. su izumrli – društvo je propalo te su svi pomrli.
Why did they all end up dead? Well, in my five-point framework, the first item on the framework is to look for human impacts on the environment: people inadvertently destroying the resource base on which they depend. And in the case of the Viking Norse, the Vikings inadvertently caused soil erosion and deforestation, which was a particular problem for them because they required forests to make charcoal, to make iron. So they ended up an Iron Age European society, virtually unable to make their own iron. A second item on my checklist is climate change. Climate can get warmer or colder or dryer or wetter. In the case of the Vikings -- in Greenland, the climate got colder in the late 1300s, and especially in the 1400s. But a cold climate isn't necessarily fatal, because the Inuit -- the Eskimos inhabiting Greenland at the same time -- did better, rather than worse, with cold climates. So why didn't the Greenland Norse as well?
Zašto su umrli? Prema mojoj shemi od pet točaka, prva točka je ljudski utjecaj na okoliš: ljudi nesvjesno uništavaju prirodne izvore o kojima ovise. A u slučaju vikinških Nordijaca, Vikinzi su nenamjerno uzrokovali eroziju tla i deforestaciju, što je za njih predstavljalo značajan problem jer im je šuma bila nužna za pravljenje drvenog ugljena i željeza. Tako su priveli kraju društvo europskog željeznog doba, praktički bez mogućnosti da proizvode željezo. Druga stvar na mojoj listi jest promjena klime. Ona može postati toplija ili hladnija, suša ili vlažnija. U slučaju Vikinga, na Grenlandu je klima postala hladnija krajem 14., a pogotovo u 15. stoljeću. No, hladna klima nije nužno smrtonosna; Inuiti – Eskimi koji su živjeli na Grenlandu u isto vrijeme – bili su uspješniji u hladnim klimama. Zašto onda nisu i grenlandski Nordijci?
The third thing on my checklist is relations with neighboring friendly societies that may prop up a society. And if that friendly support is pulled away, that may make a society more likely to collapse. In the case of the Greenland Norse, they had trade with the mother country -- Norway -- and that trade dwindled: partly because Norway got weaker, partly because of sea ice between Greenland and Norway.
Treća stvar na mojoj listi odnosi su sa susjedima, prijateljskim narodima koji mogu podržati društvo. A ako se ta prijateljska podrška povuče, društvo je sklonije kolapsu. Grenlandski Nordijci trgovali su s matičnom zemljom, Norveškom, što je propalo dijelom zbog toga što je Norveška oslabila, a dijelom zbog morskog leda između Grenlanda i Norveške.
The fourth item on my checklist is relations with hostile societies. In the case of Norse Greenland, the hostiles were the Inuit -- the Eskimos sharing Greenland -- with whom the Norse got off to bad relationships. And we know that the Inuit killed the Norse and, probably of greater importance, may have blocked access to the outer fjords, on which the Norse depended for seals at a critical time of the year.
Četvrta točka na mojoj listi odnosi su s neprijateljskim društvima. Neprijatelji grenlandskih Nordijaca bili su Inuiti, Eskimi koji su također živjeli na Grenlandu i s kojima su Nordijci imali loše odnose. Znamo da su Inuiti ubijali Nordijce i da su vjerojatno, što je još važnije, blokirali im pristup vanjskim fjordovima, u kojima su Nordijci lovili tuljane u kritičnim razdobljima godine.
And then finally, the fifth item on my checklist is the political, economic, social and cultural factors in the society that make it more or less likely that the society will perceive and solve its environmental problems. In the case of the Greenland Norse, cultural factors that made it difficult for them to solve their problems were: their commitments to a Christian society investing heavily in cathedrals; their being a competitive-ranked chiefly society; and their scorn for the Inuit, from whom they refused to learn. So that's how the five-part framework is relevant to the collapse and eventual extinction of the Greenland Norse.
I napokon, peta točka na mojoj listi jesu politički, ekonomski, socijalni i kulturološki čimbenici društva koji mu u manjoj ili većoj mjeri omogućavaju da shvati i riješi probleme u okolišu. Kulturološki faktori koji su grenlandskim Nordijcima otežali rješavanje problema bili su njihova predanost kršćanskom društvu koje je mnogo ulagalo u izgradnju katedrala. To je društvo bilo poglavarsko, kompetitivno rangirano, puno prezira prema Inuitima od kojih su odbijali išta naučiti. Dakle, tako shema od pet točaka prikazuje kolaps i konačno izumiranje grenlandskih Nordijaca.
What about a society today? For the past five years, I've been taking my wife and kids to Southwestern Montana, where I worked as a teenager on the hay harvest. And Montana, at first sight, seems like the most pristine environment in the United States. But scratch the surface, and Montana suffers from serious problems. Going through the same checklist: human environmental impacts? Yes, acute in Montana. Toxic problems from mine waste have caused damage of billions of dollars. Problems from weeds, weed control, cost Montana nearly 200 million dollars a year. Montana has lost agricultural areas from salinization, problems of forest management, problems of forest fires. Second item on my checklist: climate change. Yes -- the climate in Montana is getting warmer and drier, but Montana agriculture depends especially on irrigation from the snow pack, and as the snow is melting -- for example, as the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing -- that's bad news for Montana irrigation agriculture.
A što je s današnjim društvom? Posljednih pet godina vodim suprugu i djecu u jugozapadnu Montanu gdje sam kao mladić radio na žetvi. Montana na prvi pogled izgleda kao najčišća, netaknuta sredina u SAD-u. No, ispod površine, Montana ima ozbiljnih problema. Ako krenemo mojom listom: ljudski utjecaj na okoliš? Da, on je jak u Montani. Problemi toksičnosti iz rudarskog otpada izazvali su štetu vrijednu milijarde dolara. Problemi s korovom i njegovim uništavanjem koštaju Montanu gotovo 200 milijuna dolara godišnje. Montana je izgubila poljoprivredna područja zbog salinizacije, problema upravljanja šumama, i šumskih požara. Druga stvar na mojoj listi – promjena klime. Da, klima u Montani postaje toplija i suša, ali poljoprivreda u Montani posebno ovisi o navodnjavanju iz snježnog pokrivača, a kako se snijeg topi, primjerice, kako glečeri u Nacionalnom parku Glacier (SAD) nestaju. to je loše za navodnjavanje polja u Montani.
Third thing on my checklist: relations with friendlies that can sustain the society. In Montana today, more than half of the income of Montana is not earned within Montana, but is derived from out of state: transfer payments from social security, investments and so on -- which makes Montana vulnerable to the rest of the United States.
Treća stvar na mojoj listi: odnosi s prijateljima koji mogu održati društvo. Danas se više od polovine prihoda Montane ne zarađuje u samoj državi, već dolazi izvana: prijenos uplata iz socijalnog, iz raznih ulaganja i slično, zbog čega je Montana osjetljiva u odnosu na ostatak SAD-a.
Fourth: relations with hostiles. Montanans have the same problems as do all Americans, in being sensitive to problems created by hostiles overseas affecting our oil supplies, and terrorist attacks. And finally, last item on my checklist: question of how political, economic, social, cultural attitudes play into this. Montanans have long-held values, which today seem to be getting in the way of their solving their own problems. Long-held devotion to logging and to mines and to agriculture, and to no government regulation; values that worked well in the past, but they don't seem to be working well today.
Četvrto: odnosi s neprijateljima. Stanovnici Montane imaju iste probleme kao i svi Amerikanci, a to je da su osjetljivi na probleme koje uzrokuju neprijatelji iz drugih zemalja, što utječe na naše zalihe nafte, kao i na terorističke napade. I konačno, posljednja stavka na listi: utjecaj političkih, ekonomskih, društvenih i kulturoloških stavova. Stanovnici Montane imaju tradicionalne vrijednosti, koje im danas čini se, stoje na putu rješavanju problema. Dugogodišnja vjernost šumarstvu, rudarstvu i poljoprivredi bez ikakve državne regulacije; vrijednosti koje su dobro funkcionirale u prošlosti, ali danas baš i ne funkcioniraju.
So, I'm looking at these issues of collapses for a lot of past societies and for many present societies. Are there any general conclusions that arise? In a way, just like Tolstoy's statement about every unhappy marriage being different, every collapsed or endangered society is different -- they all have different details. But nevertheless, there are certain common threads that emerge from these comparisons of past societies that did or did not collapse and threatened societies today. One interesting common thread has to do with, in many cases, the rapidity of collapse after a society reaches its peak. There are many societies that don't wind down gradually, but they build up -- get richer and more powerful -- and then within a short time, within a few decades after their peak, they collapse. For example, the classic lowland Maya of the Yucatan began to collapse in the early 800s -- literally a few decades after the Maya were building their biggest monuments, and Maya population was greatest.
Dakle, ja promatram razloge propasti mnogih prošlih, ali i sadašnjih društava. Javljaju li se neki općeniti zaključci? Na neki način, kao Tolstojeva tvrdnja da je svaki nesretan brak drugačiji, tako je i svako propalo ili ugroženo društvo drugačije – svako ima drugačije detalje. Ipak, postoje određene zajedničke stavke koje proizlaze iz ovih usporedbi prošlih društava koja jesu ili nisu propala i današnjih ugroženih društava. Jedna zanimljiva zajednička stvar ima veze s, u mnogim slučajevima, brzinom propasti nakon što društvo dostigne vrhunac. Postoje mnoga društva koja ne propadaju postupno, već se izgrađuju, obogaćuju, postaju moćnija, a onda za kratko vrijeme - nekoliko desetljeća nakon vrhunca – kolabiraju. Na primjer, klasični nizinski Maye s Yucatána počeli su propadati početkom 9. st., doslovno nekoliko desetljeća nakon što su izgradili svoje najveće spomenike i kad im je populacija bila najveća.
Or again, the collapse of the Soviet Union took place within a couple of decades, maybe within a decade, of the time when the Soviet Union was at its greatest power. An analogue would be the growth of bacteria in a petri dish. These rapid collapses are especially likely where there's a mismatch between available resources and resource consumption, or a mismatch between economic outlays and economic potential. In a petri dish, bacteria grow. Say they double every generation, and five generations before the end the petri dish is 15/16ths empty, and then the next generation's 3/4ths empty, and the next generation half empty. Within one generation after the petri dish still being half empty, it is full. There's no more food and the bacteria have collapsed. So, this is a frequent theme: societies collapse very soon after reaching their peak in power.
Ili pak, kolaps Sovjetskog Saveza dogodio se samo nekoliko desetljeća, možda samo jedno desetljeće, nakon vremena kad je Sovjetski Savez bio na vrhuncu svoje snage. Analogija tome bilo bi uzgajanje bakterija u Petrijevoj zdjelici. Ove brze propasti posebno su vjerojatne ondje gdje postoji neusklađenost između dostupnih resursa i njihove potrošnje, ili neusklađenost između ekonomskih planova i ekonomskog potencijala. Bakterije rastu u Petrijevoj zdjelici. Udvostručuju se u svakoj generaciji i pet generacija prije kraja 15/16 Petrijeve zdjelice je prazno, a onda je u sljedećoj generaciji ¾ prazno, a u sljedećoj je poluprazna. Potrebna je jedna generacija da zdjelica nakon što je poluprazna bude puna. Nema više hrane i bakterije propadaju. Dakle, to je učestala pojava – društva propadaju ubrzo nakon dostignuća vrhunca moći.
What it means to put it mathematically is that, if you're concerned about a society today, you should be looking not at the value of the mathematical function -- the wealth itself -- but you should be looking at the first derivative and the second derivatives of the function. That's one general theme. A second general theme is that there are many, often subtle environmental factors that make some societies more fragile than others. Many of those factors are not well understood. For example, why is it that in the Pacific, of those hundreds of Pacific islands, why did Easter Island end up as the most devastating case of complete deforestation? It turns out that there were about nine different environmental factors -- some, rather subtle ones -- that were working against the Easter Islanders, and they involve fallout of volcanic tephra, latitude, rainfall. Perhaps the most subtle of them is that it turns out that a major input of nutrients which protects island environments in the Pacific is from the fallout of continental dust from central Asia. Easter, of all Pacific islands, has the least input of dust from Asia restoring the fertility of its soils. But that's a factor that we didn't even appreciate until 1999.
Ako to postavimo matematički, proizlazi da, ako ste zabrinuti za društvo danas, ne biste trebali gledati vrijednost matematičke funkcije, odnosno samo bogatstvo, već biste trebali gledati prve i druge derivacije te funkcije. To je opće pravilo. Drugo opće pravilo jest da postoji mnogo suptilnih faktora u okolišu koji neka društva čine osjetljivijima od drugih, a mnoge od tih faktora ne razumijemo u potpunosti. Na primjer, zašto su na Pacifiku, od stotina otoka, baš Uskršnji otoci postali slučajem najgoreg i potpunog raskrčenja šume? Ispostavilo se da je postojalo devet različitih faktora okoliša, nekih suptilnih, a nekih koji su radili protiv stanovnika otoka, kao što su na primjer posljedice vulkanske prašine, geografska širina, padaline. Možda je najsuptilnije među njima to što se ispostavilo da najveći doprinos hranjivih tvari koje štite okoliš na otocima u Pacifiku potječe iz slegnute kontinentalne prašine iz središnje Azije. Od svih pacifičkih otoka, Uskršnji ima najmanje slegnute azijske prašine koja obnavlja plodnost zemljišta. No, to je faktor koji nismo ni poznavali do 1999. godine.
So, some societies, for subtle environmental reasons, are more fragile than others. And then finally, another generalization. I'm now teaching a course at UCLA, to UCLA undergraduates, on these collapses of societies. What really bugs my UCLA undergraduate students is, how on earth did these societies not see what they were doing? How could the Easter Islanders have deforested their environment? What did they say when they were cutting down the last palm tree? Didn't they see what they were doing? How could societies not perceive their impacts on the environments and stop in time? And I would expect that, if our human civilization carries on, then maybe in the next century people will be asking, why on earth did these people today in the year 2003 not see the obvious things that they were doing and take corrective action? It seems incredible in the past. In the future, it'll seem incredible what we are doing today. And so I've been trying to develop a hierarchical set of considerations about why societies fail to solve their problems -- why they fail to perceive the problems or, if they perceive them, why they fail to tackle them. Or, if they tackle them, why do they fail to succeed in solving them?
Dakle, neka su društva zbog suptilnih prirodnih faktora osjetljivija od drugih. Konačno, još jedna generalizacija. Trenutno predajem predmet na Kalifornijskom sveučilištu u Los Angelesu, preddiplomcima, o propastima društava. Ono što moje studente stvarno muči jest kako to da ta društva nisu vidjela što rade? Kako su stanovnici Ukršnjih otoka mogli posjeći cijelu šumu? Što su rekli kad su sjekli posljednju palmu? Zar nisu vidjeli što rade? Kako to da društva nisu primjećivala svoj utjecaj na okoliš i zaustavila ga na vrijeme? Pretpostavljam da, ako naša ljudska civilizacija nastavi postojati, onda će se možda u sljedećem stoljeću ljudi pitati zašto zaboga ovi ljudi, 2003. godine, nisu vidjeli očite stvari koje su radili i zašto nisu nešto poduzeli? Izgleda nevjerojatno kad se radi o prošlosti. U budućnosti izgleda nevjerojatno to što danas radimo. Pokušavam razviti hijerarhijski skup razloga zbog kojih društva ne uspijevaju riješiti svoje probleme. Zašto ne uspiju uvidjeti probleme, ili ako ih uvide, zašto se ne uspiju suočiti s njima? Ili, ako uspiju sa suočavanjem, zašto ih ne uspiju riješiti?
I'll just mention two generalizations in this area. One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely, is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite doing things that would bring the society down in the long run. For example, among the Greenland Norse -- a competitive rank society -- what the chiefs really wanted is more followers and more sheep and more resources to outcompete the neighboring chiefs. And that led the chiefs to do what's called flogging the land: overstocking the land, forcing tenant farmers into dependency. And that made the chiefs powerful in the short run, but led to the society's collapse in the long run.
Spomenut ću dvije generalizacije u ovom području. Jedna shema nevolje koja svakako predviđa kolaps jest sukob kratkotrajnih interesa one manjine koja odlučuje i dugoročnih interesa društva kao cjeline, posebno ako je elita u mogućnosti izolirati se od posljedica svojih djela. Ono što je kratkoročno dobro za manjinu, dugoročno je loše za društvo u cjelini. Postoji rizik da elita radi ono što će dugoročno oštetiti društvo. Na primjer, u kompetitivnom društvu grenlandskih Nordijaca, ono što su poglavice stvarno htjeli jest da imaju više sljedbenika, kao i više ovaca i resursa da bi prestigli susjedne poglavice. To je navelo poglavice da rade ono što nazivamo šibanjem zemlje: njeno preopterećenje koje je primoralo zemljoradnike na ovisnost. To je poglavice kratkoročno učinilo moćnima, ali je dovelo do dugoročnog društvenog kolapsa.
Those same issues of conflicts of interest are acute in the United States today. Especially because the decision makers in the United States are frequently able to insulate themselves from consequences by living in gated compounds, by drinking bottled water and so on. And within the last couple of years, it's been obvious that the elite in the business world correctly perceive that they can advance their short-term interest by doing things that are good for them but bad for society as a whole, such as draining a few billion dollars out of Enron and other businesses. They are quite correct that these things are good for them in the short term, although bad for society in the long term. So, that's one general conclusion about why societies make bad decisions: conflicts of interest.
Isti ti sukobi interesa snažni su u SAD-u danas. Posebno zato što su oni koji u SAD-u donose odluke često u mogućnosti izolirati se od posljedica jer žive u dobro zaštićenim kućama i piju vodu iz boce, itd. U posljednih nekoliko godina, očito je da elita poslovnog svijeta ispravno shvaća da može poboljšati svoje kratkoročne interese čineći stvari koje su dobre za njih, ali loše za društvo kao cjelinu, kao što su, na primjer, iscrpili nekoliko milijardi dolara iz Enrona i ostalih tvrtki. Oni su u pravu da su te stvari kratkoročno dobre za njih, iako su dugoročno loše za društvo. Dakle, to je jedan općenit zaključak o tome zašto društva donose loše odluke: zbog sukoba interesa.
And the other generalization that I want to mention is that it's particularly hard for a society to make quote-unquote good decisions when there is a conflict involving strongly held values that are good in many circumstances but are poor in other circumstances. For example, the Greenland Norse, in this difficult environment, were held together for four-and-a-half centuries by their shared commitment to religion, and by their strong social cohesion. But those two things -- commitment to religion and strong social cohesion -- also made it difficult for them to change at the end and to learn from the Inuit. Or today -- Australia. One of the things that enabled Australia to survive in this remote outpost of European civilization for 250 years has been their British identity. But today, their commitment to a British identity is serving Australians poorly in their need to adapt to their situation in Asia. So it's particularly difficult to change course when the things that get you in trouble are the things that are also the source of your strength.
Druga generalizacija koju želim spomenuti jest da je za društvo posebno teško donositi, citiram, dobre odluke kad postoji sukob između ustaljenih vrijednosti koje su u mnogim okolnostima dobre, ali su u drugima ipak loše. Na primjer, grenlandski su Nordijci u tom surovom okolišu izdržali zajedno četiri i pol stoljeća, a držala ih je zajednička posvećenost religiji i snažna društvena povezanst. No, te dvije stvari – posvećenost religiji i jaka društvena povezanost – također su im otežale da se na kraju promijene i da nešto nauče od Inuita. Ili danas, u Australiji. Jedna od stvari koja je Australiji omogućila da preživi 250 godina u predziđu europske civilizacije bio je britanski identitet. Ali danas, njihova odanost britanskom identitetu Australcima slabo koristi kad se trebaju prilagoditi situaciji u Aziji. Dakle, posebno je teško promijeniti put kad su stvari zbog kojih ste u problemima istovremeno i izvor vaše snage.
What's going to be the outcome today? Well, all of us know the dozen sorts of ticking time bombs going on in the modern world, time bombs that have fuses of a few decades to -- all of them, not more than 50 years, and any one of which can do us in; the time bombs of water, of soil, of climate change, invasive species, the photosynthetic ceiling, population problems, toxics, etc., etc. -- listing about 12 of them. And while these time bombs -- none of them has a fuse beyond 50 years, and most of them have fuses of a few decades -- some of them, in some places, have much shorter fuses. At the rate at which we're going now, the Philippines will lose all its accessible loggable forest within five years. And the Solomon Islands are only one year away from losing their loggable forest, which is their major export. And that's going to be spectacular for the economy of the Solomons. People often ask me, Jared, what's the most important thing that we need to do about the world's environmental problems? And my answer is, the most important thing we need to do is to forget about there being any single thing that is the most important thing we need to do. Instead, there are a dozen things, any one of which could do us in. And we've got to get them all right, because if we solve 11, we fail to solve the 12th -- we're in trouble. For example, if we solve our problems of water and soil and population, but don't solve our problems of toxics, then we are in trouble.
Kakav će danas biti ishod? Svima nam je poznato da u suvremenom svijetu postoje deseci tempiranih bombi. One imaju fitilj dug nekoliko desetljeća, ne više od 50 godina, i svaka nas može uništiti. Tempirane vodene bombe, zemljane, klimatske, bombe agresivnih vrsta, fotosintetskih maksimuma, problema populacije, toksičnosti itd. itd., ima ih oko 12. I dok ove tempirane bombe – nijedna nema fitilj duži od 50 godina, a većina ima fitilj dug nekoliko desetljeća – neke od njih na nekim mjestima imaju mnogo kraće fitilje. Ako nastavimo ovim tempom, Filipini će izgubiti svu šumu pogodnu za sječu za pet godina. Solomonski otoci za godinu će dana izgubiti svoje šume, koje predstavlju njihov najveći izvoz. To će biti strahovito za gospodarstvo Solomonskih otoka. Ljudi me često pitaju: „Jarede, koja je najvažnija stvar koju moramo poduzeti u vezi sa svjetskim problemima okoliša?" Moj je odgovor da je najvažnija stvar koju moramo poduzeti to da zaboravimo da postoji bilo koja jedinstvena stvar koja je najvažnija i koju moramo napraviti. Umjesto toga, postoje deseci stvari, od kojih bi nas svaka mogla uništiti. Moramo ih sve riješiti kako treba – jer ako ih riješimo 11, a ne uspijemo riješiti dvanaestu, u problemima smo. Na primjer, ako riješimo probleme vode, zemljišta i populacije, ali ne riješimo probleme toksičnosti – u problemima smo.
The fact is that our present course is a non-sustainable course, which means, by definition, that it cannot be maintained. And the outcome is going to get resolved within a few decades. That means that those of us in this room who are less than 50 or 60 years old will see how these paradoxes are resolved, and those of us who are over the age of 60 may not see the resolution, but our children and grandchildren certainly will. The resolution is going to achieve either of two forms: either we will resolve these non-sustainable time-fuses in pleasant ways of our own choice by taking remedial action, or else these conflicts are going to get settled in unpleasant ways not of our choice -- namely, by war, disease or starvation. But what's for sure is that our non-sustainable course will get resolved in one way or another in a few decades. In other words, since the theme of this session is choices, we have a choice. Does that mean that we should get pessimistic and overwhelmed? I draw the reverse conclusion.
Činjenica jest da je naš trenutni put neodrživ, što po definiciji znači da ne može biti zadržan. A ishod će biti riješen za nekoliko desetljeća. To znači da će oni ovdje prisutni koji imaju manje od 50 ili 60 godina vidjeti kako će se ovi paradoksi razriješiti, a oni stariji od 60 godina možda neće vidjeti ishod, ali naša djeca i unuci sigurno hoće. Ishod će dostići jedan od dva oblika: ili ćemo riješiti neodržive vremenske fitilje na ugodne načine po vlastitom izboru i korektivnim mjerama, ili će se sukobi riješiti na neugodne načine koji neće biti po našem izboru – na primjer ratom, bolestima ili gladovanjem. No, ono što je sigurno jest da će naš neodrživi put biti riješen na ovaj ili onaj način za nekoliko desetljeća. Drugim riječima, kako je tema ovog bloka izbor – mi imamo izbora. Znači li to da trebamo biti pesimisti i uznemiravati se? Ja sam došao do suprotnog zaključka.
The big problems facing the world today are not at all things beyond our control. Our biggest threat is not an asteroid about to crash into us, something we can do nothing about. Instead, all the major threats facing us today are problems entirely of our own making. And since we made the problems, we can also solve the problems. That then means that it's entirely in our power to deal with these problems. In particular, what can all of us do? For those of you who are interested in these choices, there are lots of things you can do. There's a lot that we don't understand, and that we need to understand. And there's a lot that we already do understand, but aren't doing, and that we need to be doing. Thank you. (Applause)
Veliki problemi s kojima smo danas suočeni nisu uopće van naše kontrole. Naša najveća prijetnja nije asteroid koji će se zabiti u nas – nešto oko čega ne možemo ništa poduzeti. Umjesto toga, sve današnje velike prijetnje problemi su koje smo potpuno sami stvorili. A kako smo ih mi stvorili, sami ih možemo i riješiti. To onda znači da je rješavanje tih problema u potpunosti u našim rukama. Konkretno, što svi mi možemo učiniti? Za one od vas koji su zainteresirani za ove izbore – ima mnogo stvari koje možete napraviti. Ima dosta toga što ne razumijemo a što moramo razumjeti. A ima i dosta toga što već razumijemo, ali ne činimo, a što bismo, zapravo, trebali činiti. Hvala vam. (Pljesak)