21st century: A better world or a 'brave new world'?
By Federico Mayor and Jerome Binde
AS we enter the year 2000, our global future seems increasingly difficult to
decipher. Can humanity survive the 21st century? We can't predict the
future, but we can prepare for it. This is why we decided to provide the
international community with an instrument of observation: a future-oriented
world report entitled The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making. Our idea
was to make concrete proposals on a few simple issues. At the dawn of the
21st century, four unprecedented challenges await us. The first is peace.
The Cold War is over but the present peace remains "hot". Since the collapse
of the Berlin Wall, some 30 wars, mostly intra-state, have ravaged vast
areas of the globe. The illusions of perpetual peace and the end of history
have vanished. The second is fighting poverty: will this century witness the
development of unparalleled inequalities? Today, more than half of humanity
lives on less than $2 a day. The share of the income of the wealthiest 20%
compared to that of the poorest 20% of world population to reach North
American consumption levels. Will our development models not irremediably
compromise the development of future generations? Fourth challenge: avoiding
the "ship adrift" syndrome. As a result of globalization, most problems -
like radioactive clouds - no longer stop at border posts and call for
worldwide solutions. Do we have along-term plan? We may well ask. Many
states appear to have mislaid their maps, piloting equipment and even the
will to set themselves goals. Has history fallen into the hands of
"anonymous masters"?
As Einstein said, "in moments of crisis, only imagination is more valuable
than knowledge". That is why we must rebuild a global society for all if we
wish to humanize globalization and give it a real meaning. Four contracts
should form the pillars of a new international democracy. First of all, we
must conclude a new social contract. Priority must be given to rebuilding
a sharing society through the eradication of poverty, in line with the
commitment made by governments at the Copenhagen Summit on Social
Development. We must harness the third industrial revolution and share the
wealth created by new technologies.
The second contract is the natural contract, founded on an alliance between
science, development and environmental preservation. We must conclude a
contract of co-development with the Earth which allows us to resources like
solar energy, or to use biotechnologies to increase food production while
exercising caution as to their possible consequences on the environment.
The third contract: the cultural contract. Lifelong education for all should
be a top priority for governments and for society. The already rampant
school and university apartheid will have to be reversed and education
rebuilt as a citizen's project. The revolution in new technologies provides
us with a decisive tool for education, if we succeed in bringing them to
places where telephones are still a luxury and in using them to create a
real knowledge society. But the year 2020, will virtual education include
the excluded and reach the "untouchables" of knowledge? Will we be wise
enough to draw up a cultural contract encouraging comity and diversity
rather than promoting cultural conformity?
The fourth contract: the ethical contract. How can we encourage the growth
of a culture of peace and of smart development, which, instead of crushing
human beings, would be synonymous with growth based on the networking of
knowledge and of competence? Can we give democracy a firmer hold in time and
in space? We think we can, if we base future citizenship on foresight and
participation in decision-making, if we invent a democracy which, like the
market, has no borders in either space or time. This new ethical contract
cannot be concluded without sharing, for example by concluding debt-swap"
agreements.
The problems of the 21st century can be solved, provided that political will
is exercised. Will the cost be too high? We think not. Global military
spending amounts to $700 to $800 billion a year, and other considerable
savings could be made by improving the productivity of the public services,
by abolishing a number of ineffective subsidies and by fighting positively
against corruption. At the same time, the UN estimates at only $40 billion a
year the cost of achieving and maintaining universal access to basic
education, adequate nutrition, drinking water and elementary sanitary
infrastructures, as well as to gynaecological care for women. On the one
hand, $40 billion are denied to needy countries while, on the other hand,
$700 to $800 billion are spent each year on defence. Are there two sets of
rules? Is the price of peace, development and democracy too high? Expect
nothing from the 21st century, it is the 21st century which expects
everything from you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
