The “current” issue of Scientific American has a terrific series of articles on the future of our planet and the challenges our population faces.
(I anticipate that most of it will be available free online here during September. Despite the reversal of a nutty price hike, unfiltered electronic access to the magazine remains more expensive than print susbcriptions.)
The editors, following the lead of their friends at the National Geographic Society, and no doubt acquiesing to the repeated pleas for “less speculative cosmology” that I scrawl on my subscription renewal cards, have put together some very interesting and at times surprisingly upbeat analyses. Many of the pieces question the conventional wisdom that the interests of business and ecology inherently conflict.
1.1 billion people get by (or fail to get by) on less than one dollar a day. In an recap of his recent book, Jeffrey Sachs asserts that an additional $80 billion annular investment could ultimately eliminate that level of extreme poverty. Certainly this is audacious, and has generated rancorous argument (if you like that sort of thing, see the Washington Post Book World’s nasty review, a review of that review in a blog I follow, and the author’s response.)
What’s clear to me is that we have to do more, because the magnitude of this human suffering is outrageous and unacceptable. I hope we can avoid globalizing the traditional Left/Right arguments. We need to find areas of consensus and act, quickly. As governments and as individuals.
Like any endeavor, some things we try won’t work. But others will. Asia has already begun to turn things around.