Recently, concern has arisen about the effects of pollution by micro-plastics, which have been discovered worldwide. A few months later, the Guardian published an article (“Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals”), reporting on research undertaken in China showing that air pollution has a significant effect on human cognitive capacity. “It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person’s education.” As 95% of the global population breathes unsafe air, this affects most people, but apparently, the effect is worse on the elderly, especially older men!
These revelations are just two instalments of the many “unpleasant surprises” resulting from the virtually unbridled development and introduction of technologies and products without giving adequate consideration to their potential effects on humans and the environment, a practice that began with the industrial revolution and that continues today.
In Silent Spring, published in 1962, Rachel Carson warned humanity about the harmful effects of pesticides on ecosystems and humans. She cautioned against scientific arrogance and the idea that we can foresee what the consequences of the introduction of new technologies and materials will be, let alone control. Yet, there is no indication that societies have taken on board these warnings. If anything the introduction of new technologies and materials without a rigorous assessment of their potential adverse effects has not just continued unabated but turned into a flood. In 2017, by one estimate, 10 million new chemical compounds are produced every year, the overwhelming majority of which without any proper assessment of their consequences.
The term “pollution” is a catchword for many of the undesirable “side-effects” of technologies, practices, and products. These are, in fact, a huge cocktail of substances that are emitted, released, or dumped in the environment. Although pollution is often separated into air pollution, water pollution, and soil pollution, among others, ecological processes do not respect the borders between these forms, mixing this cocktail further to produce more unknown and unpredictable effects. We have reached a stage where it has become impossible to assess the combined (synergistic) effects of all forms of pollution that have been thrust upon the environment (including humans) over the last few hundred years, especially since the huge expansion of the chemical industry after WWII. Moreover, biochemistry, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics have added a level of immeasurable complexity to this cocktail, considerably raising the likelihood of irreversible threats and forms of pollution on an enormous scale and/or of a deadly nature.
Yet, this risk, which arguably is at least as serious and potentially fatal to humanity as climate change hardly draws any attention (although the related threat of “killer viruses” does, and has become a popular topic in science fiction). The fact that it is not even on the radar of “environment watchers” suggests that, as yet, it is indeed a threat that belongs to the realm of science fiction. Consequently, nothing is done to mitigate the risks of this ongoing bombardment with ever more pollutants. Arguably, it is already too late given the extent to which the environment has already become so contaminated and altered that we simply do not and cannot know what other “unpleasant surprises” are already in the pipeline. From this point of view, we just have to wait and see what happens and then (try to) deal with problems as well as we can. This, indeed, seems to be the default position that prevails globally.
But while it is true that we do not know what new forms of pollution and health threats will be coming our way, it may be wise, and not too late, to adopt a precautionary approach. At least it would reduce if not stop adding to the cocktail and making it even more complex and dangerous. We probably cannot return the environment to a pristine state, but we might be able to prevent things from getting (much) worse and potentially fatal.
How can this be done? In the course of more than 50 years of environmental management, several tools and approaches have been invented and applied, be it to little effect. Among these are Environmental Impact Assessment, (Comprehensive) Risk Assessment, and Environmental Technology Assessment. The main weakness of these approaches is that they assess technologies, projects, and products one by one and do not consider the cumulative and synergistic effects that stem from their interaction with (many, numerous) other sources. Doing so is considered unrealistic given the complexities involved, the time and research capacity required, and the associated costs. Such tools have seldom led to not allowing things to go ahead. The relatively few bans on hazardous substances that have been introduced have been adopted long after the harm they did was exposed and under considerable political pressure. This approach fails to stem the continuous flow of new substances, materials, and technologies.
What is needed to bring this genie back into the bottle is nothing less than a complete overhaul of the systems of production and those that guide the development of science and technology. Production (and consumption) must be put on a truly ecologically sustainable basis, from inputs (resources) to production systems and processes, to consumption, and back to inputs. Key imperatives are the protection of ecosystems and processes, the recognition of planetary boundaries, the minimisation of material “throughput”, and the use and materials and design of products and technologies that are compatible with natural processes. Although efforts have been undertaken on this front, and governments have their mouths full of the “circular economy”, such a process of fundamental transformation has not even begun.
This is not surprising as a fundamental transformation of the industrialist systems of production and consumption, and of the role of science and technology, requires also transformative economic and socio-cultural changes that pose a threat to the vested interests. Governments are trapped by these systems and interests and have neither the will nor the capability to bring about truly transformative change. To make that possible, first of all, fundamental political-institutional change is required.
Humanity on Trial 