A Planet and A Petri Dish
By S. Todd Stolp MD
©April 2008
The “Green Belt” movement led by Wangari Maathai previously gained credibility as a recipient of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize in response to the movement’s efforts to raise attention to phenomenon of global warming. Predictably, this inspired some degree of irritating self-righteous pride from some, and scoffing skepticism from others. There is, however, no research to indicate that either of these particular behaviors are likely to solve the environmental challenges that face us. Viewed from space, there are only two options that survive scrutiny: 1) self-serving interests must be minimized in the debate, and 2) the road to lessening our impact on this planet will take personal sacrifice.
“Living Green” has unfortunately become a cliché. For environmental awareness to suffer the fate of a passing fashionable trend belittles the deep roots of this dilemma. It is much too easy to recycle our plastic bottles (or even worse, create the illusion of doing so by separating our recyclables but having it end up in the same landfill as other rubbish because of limited local capabilities), purchase automobiles that achieve over 30 miles-per-gallon, and upgrade to water-saving appliances in order to feel that we are doing our parts. While these steps are worthwhile pursuits, every American will need to change the way we work, live and spend our money. We will need a different paradigm.
In 1981, Dr. Jonas Salk published a book entitled World Population and Human Values: A New Reality. Today, with 5% of the world population, the U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s resources. Today, with a population of 1.3 billion people, China is in the midst of an industrialization modeled after the American experience over the past century, but supercharged by a population more than ten times as large. Not only will our responsibilities require us to bring conservation principles into the forefront of our own lives, but we will also need to share the lessons of our previous success and indulgence with the rest of the world. We will need to model this behavior just as we previously modeled our industrial success.
From a public health perspective, a useful example of a successful campaign to modify public behavior has been the campaign against tobacco consumption. Very little progress was achieved against commercial tobacco sales by public service ads depicting lungs ravaged by cancer and older smokers tethered to oxygen tanks during the early nineteen-seventies. Success ultimately was attained when the cost of tobacco products was significantly increased through various tax disincentives. When use of tobacco required palpable sacrifice on the part of smokers, tobacco consumption in California decreased from nearly 40% in 1970 to 14% in 2005. Consequently, the incidence of lung cancer has fallen by 15%.
Dr. Salk describes the “S-shaped curve” which defines the growth of all living systems. Growth initially occurs at a slow rate, but eventually gathers momentum as population efficiencies come into play. During the most rapid increase in population, growth is almost vertical. Eventually, due to such factors as a limited supply of resources (food, water, energy etc…) and the accumulation of waste, the steep increase in population flattens out, creating an “S-shaped curve.” What factors will influence the flattening of the world population curve, and how will those factors be distributed among the world’s population? Will our limits be determined by the tolerance of nature, or will our limits be self-imposed?
How we answer that question will determine the type of world that we leave to subsequent generations. And whatever we do, we must be prepared to sacrifice convenience.