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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------