There are plenty of things that we can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The world’s population will inevitably hit the 7 billion mark by the end of the year, and is likely to peter out at 9 billion by 2050.
This year the developing world, spearheaded by China, India and Brazil, will grow four times as fast as the rich world, and China is on track to become the worlds largest economy by 2050.
2050 will also see global temperatures to have already risen by about 2 degrees, an amount that may seem negligible until you consider that the current global temperature is only 5 degrees warmer than the last ice age.
And yet, as I leafed through the Economist’s predictions for the “world in 2011” with the aim of getting clued up on the art of crystal gazing, I found no mention of the most significant event of the year so far – that being the political upheaval that is continuing to sweep across the Middle East and North Africa with tremendous consequences.
It would seem that humans are more than capable of defying expectations.
In spite of this, many presume that the world of the future will be entirely, almost automatically, shaped by material forces. They would have you believe that the rise of China, and relative decline of America will undoubtedly make for a more hostile, less cooperative world.
I for one don’t like the sound of that.
Such a world would be utterly incapable of dealing with the critical issues we are presented with.
How could we feed the 9 billion souls who will inhabit our world in 2050?
How could we continue to wrench people’s lives from the the thralls of poverty?
How could we possibly deal with climate change? An issue which necessarily will be determined by the ability of nations to act in unison, in putting the fate of the world ahead of their own individual pursuits.
Fortunately, I believe that the pessimists are only half right. One cannot dispute the scale of challenges that we face, but our response to them, regardless of what progress we have seen so far, is by no measure pre-determined.
Let us look to a historical example. For pessimists, the Second World War seemed to confirm their conception of international politics – they believed that states would forever act purely with regard to their own interests, and as a result war would recur time and time again.
But the last time I looked at Europe I didn’t see leaders squaring up to each other, boasting their military might.
Whatever financial troubles the EU is currently going through, the plain fact is that war is off the cards – this is a feat which should not be underplayed given the continent’s battle scarred past.
How did this happen? It was the result of a collective, conscious change of perception. We ceased to regard our closest neighbours as threats, rather we sought to cooperate and share the benefits of growth.
This is the sort of attitude that states need to uphold and expand across the globe.
We have choices.
If the West chooses to treat China and the developing world as a political and economic threat, it will reinforce the cynical notion that it is only for international trade because it is currently in its own interest.
If this aspect of cooperation fails, all other areas of cooperation, such as climate change, will also be jeopardised.
Alternatively, we could resist our natural paranoia and maintain our liberal sentiments. We could celebrate the achievements of the developing world in improving the lives of countless individuals.
We may still fall short of the mark in our efforts to counter global dilemmas, but nonetheless our prospects for success will be infinitely better than if we view the world as an inherently hostile environment.
Therefore, the world of the future is not already decided. Like the protesters in the Middle East and North Africa, humanity could yet defy the expectations of pessimists. The West need only make sure that it strives for cooperation and avoids viewing the developing world as a competitor and threat.
Put succinctly, however we perceive the world, is likely how the world will become.