The
pursuit of scientific knowledge has benefited mankind in many ways. Science and
its applications have helped us combat the multitude of problems facing our
world, and many believe that science is the solution to any future challenges
we may face. Our longer lifespans, ever-expanding knowledge of diseases and how
to treat them, and a growing convenience in our lives all lends credence to
such a belief. Thus, it should only stand to reason that environmental problems
– which are illnesses plaguing nature – are simply impermanent challenges
facing man, which would soon submit to the successes of the scientific world. Yet,
such reason fails upon closer examination of the issue at hand; we should not
be as optimistic as scientists and technocrats would like us to be. Instead, it
is perversely more likely that environmental problems are here to stay. Science
cannot be depended upon as the solution to these problems – at best, science
and technology can only offer short-term methods to alleviate their symptoms.
Science
has removed many of mankind’s stumbling blocks in the past, and it may seem
likely that science will pull off such miracles again vis-à-vis the environment.
After all, environmental problems do not seem to be radically different in
nature from previous problems. Furthermore, the fact that scientific
discoveries rely on empirical evidence and reliable results also lends credence
to the belief that science and its application, technology, is a dependable
source of solutions to the difficulties we encounter. Vaccines, derived from
medical science, have conquered smallpox and the German measles; the Green
Revolution, stemming from soil science, allowed Mankind to escape the Malthusian
theories of global famine. There seems to be no reason, then, not to believe
that in time, science will offer us solutions to the problems of global
warming, pollution, and a loss of biodiversity. Already, scientists have been
able to make some progress on recovering the genetic makeup of certain extinct
species, opening up possibilities of bringing them back from the abyss of
extinction.
In
addition, science appears to be the most viable solution Man currently has to
combat the overwhelming burdens of environmental degradation. Science has saved
us where all else has failed, precisely because understanding the laws of
nature and manipulating them allows us to replicate previous successes. The
atomic bomb, created out of theories of nuclear fission, brought Japan to its
knees and World War II to a close. This saved thousands of lives from a
prolonged war, where all diplomatic attempts had failed. This situation is not
unlike that of environmental degradation. In a time when we are warring against
the forces of nature, and all attempts to reach peaceful understandings at
Copenhagen and Rio de Janeiro have failed, the world waits with bated breath
for scientists to make a breathtaking entry and save the world.
As
much as we wish that the above arguments hold true, the reality is that science
is merely an option to alleviate particular symptoms of environmental problems,
and cannot be treated as a panacea. The precedents of disease and famine were
localised, having singular or few root causes. In comparison, the magnitude and
intensity with which environmental problems plague us are incomparably large. Global
warming, as its name suggests, involves a global phenomenon by which entire
regions experience rising temperatures, accompanied by rising sea levels. Pollution,
as seen in the Pacific Garbage Patch, is the result of excessive consumption
and insufficient responsibility taken for waste disposal. As such, the root of
environmental problems can be distilled into excessive human consumption, with
a disregard for the consequences. This differentiates such environmental issues
from the Malthusian famines, which are naturally occuring phenomenon. However,
human beings’ unique thirst for consumer goods, and the attendant ability to
supply these goods, leads us to conclude that science will be ineffectual in
addressing the root cause of the problem. At best, even if scientific
discoveries could aid the creation of a piece of technology capable of
nullifying the effects of human overconsumption on the environment, it would
not convince people to understand the error in their ways. In fact, it is
likely to spur further consumption and leave people dependent on the existing
technology to prevent the devastation of nature. Hence, science is unable to
address the root cause of environmental degradation, and cannot be considered
to be its solution.
Even
when considering the possible merits of science in alleviating the symptoms of
environmental problems, it is worthwhile to note that protecting the
environment is a time-sensitive issue that requires quick, if not immediate,
responses. While the technology developed off scientific theories may be
dependable and reliable, another drawback is that much time is needed for the technology
to be designed, built and then tested for possible side-effects. At the same
time, we are in a race to preserve the environment as it is. We have lost 17%
of the Amazon Forest, the world’s last pharmacopoeia, in the last fifty years,
and this number will grow to a shocking 65% by 2030. Hundreds of trees are
felled in forests all around the world as minutes tick, representing the loss
of habitats for wild species. Subsequently, entire ecosystems will be thrown
off balance, as the world waits for a way to scientific breakthrough. Meanwhile,
the continuation of manufacturing plants spewing toxic chemicals into the air,
slash and burn techniques employed on the forests of Indonesia, and practices
encouraging overfishing continue apace with scientific efforts to pull together
a response. In this situation, it is difficult to forsee science as the answer
to a problem as pressing as those of the environment.
As
a corollary, it is important to acknowledge that the possibility of science
making a globally applicable breakthrough is predicated on a best case scenario
in which people worldwide will be amenable to introducing the new, critical
technologies into their lives. More often than not, other possible conflicting
interests, be they political or economic in nature, may hinder our
decision-making. For instance, Germany recently announced new energy plans,
with the end goal of powering 60% of the country’s needs with renewable energy.
The burden of such high energy prices fell on the companies in heavy industry,
leading to companies pulling out of Germany to set up shop elsewhere in search
for other countries with comparatively lax energy pricing which allow for lower
costs of operations. RAND Corporation also released a report, saying that the
cost of China replacing half its coal-fired generations would be US$184
billion. Most countries, if not all, would shy away from taking up such heavy
responsibilities. Therefore, even when the benefit of the doubt has been given,
there is no confirmation that the answers which science provides will be ones
which politicians and the common man would like to hear. Hypothetically
speaking, even if scientific discoveries had the potential to radically affect
the quandary described the environment, there is no guarantee that they will be
used in a world which prioritises economic growth and political strength over
all else.
Unfortunately,
it seems that science has run into a wall which it cannot break through. The
sheer commitment required to develop a scientific response to environmental
degradation, and then implement it worldwide, seems daunting. It seems that the
best mankind can do is to hope that scientific discovery can help stall for
time by alleviating the symptoms of environmental problems, while the world’s
leaders wrangle out an agreement which could potentially deal with the issue at
hand.
