In the Book of Revelation, conquest, war, famine and death are depicted as the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. But neither of those, by themselves, pose a systemic threat to humanity. All four have been causing havoc since the beginning of times, yet world population is now projected to reach 10.9 billion by the end of the century. It is extremely important that we continue to tackle these issues as indeed far too many people unnecessarily die because of them, yet our species continues to run on a surplus.
Ever since the WHO declared the Covid-19 pandemic, political leaders, businessmen and news reporters have too hastily touted the virus as a systemic threat to humankind. The argument goes this way: what began as a major health crisis has turned into the worst economic depression since World War II, rocking the world’s foundations and posing a threat to our very own world.
But calling the Covid-19 pandemic a systemic risk is extremely problematic because by overplaying the systemic aspect of this menace, we are simultaneously inadvertently diverting attention from the two most pressing man-made systemic threats: nuclear war and climate change.
To be clear, the Covid-19 pandemic is disastrous. It is claiming far too many lives, it is indirectly destroying millions of jobs and it is pushing many more into starvation. But in and of itself, Covid-19 is not a systemic threat in the sense that the virus does not pose a risk to the survival of our and other species. Future, more deadly pandemics may pose such a threat, but Covid-19 does not. It is also the case that bad economic policies and poor political choices are making Covid-19 worse than what it is.
By contrast, nuclear war and climate change do pose an existential threat. One of the fathers of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, is credited with quoting the following Sanskrit saying as he witnessed the detonation of the first atomic device: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”. We do not know the precise meaning that he personally ascribed to it, but the reference to ‘worlds’ rather than ‘species’ or ‘humans’ is very telling (even as he was borrowing the quote).
The nuclear threat is very much alive, despite humans having grown used to it, or perhaps we have grown tired of anticipating a nuclear apocalypse that never happens. To date, one may argue that nuclear deterrence has worked. But an accident – not to mention a potential intentional nuclear offensive or a defensive miscalculated move – could bury this world forever, echoing REM’s classic ‘it’s the end of the world as we know it’. It may be too much for most people to comprehend, but acting as if the threat did not exist is a dangerous strategy.
The Climate threat is also very much here, but unlike the immediacy which would follow a potential nuclear exchange, the climate debate is guided by a calendar of cascading ‘tipping points’ between now and the end of the century. So much so that as we approach and cross those tipping points, we are forced to shift from mitigation to adaptation. Until such a day where the temperature rises so much that there is no more world left to adapt to.
Five years ago, the global arms control and climate change movements suffered major blows as leading countries voted for populist leaders with narrowly-constructed ideas of national interest. Today, a change in US leadership and renewed relations between the UK and the European Union should reignite these movements. China’s growing appetite to become a provider of global solutions should also help. The world cannot afford to sleep walk into a nuclear abyss or a climate decimation and this is the time to follow pledges and good words with real, tangible deeds.
