Objectively speaking, what should concern us most is the risk of ecological collapse and preserving our living conditions and natural resources. However, we must not confuse one collapse with another, as this only encourages confusion. It is not enough to engage in a contest of exaggerations on the pretext that a collapse is inevitable! Prophecies of the end of the world at noon next year are old news.
We must admit that it is not so easy to assess the real risks and prioritize them. Only the scientific method can help us do this, even if it does not guarantee any truth, as it constantly contradicts itself. In any case, it is not a matter of personal beliefs. We need serious work and scientific debate, modeled on the IPCC for climate risks. The Rome report on the limits to growth was a step in this direction, but our situation has changed a lot since 1972, with the main risks no longer being resource depletion but global warming and the collapse of biodiversity. This collapse has been neglected until now, but “The Scientists' Appeal for Climate,” launched by ecologists and signed by more than 15,000 scientists, warns of the catastrophic state of the planet, highlighting biodiversity loss and deforestation in addition to pollution and global warming.
Awareness of these imminent risks is all the more important as we are in one of the most dangerous phases of humanity, which continues to grow at an accelerated pace (especially in Africa at present) before reaching, in a few decades no doubt, the peak of everything (population, consumption). Demographics do indeed carry a lot of weight, as they insist, but even more so does the development of the most populous countries.
Undoubtedly, a collapse in population, which is far from being the most likely scenario, although it cannot be ruled out, would drastically reduce our ecological footprint (where we see that disasters do not add up). Such a demographic collapse could be caused by “natural” factors, such as ecological collapse or a pandemic facilitated by overpopulation and transportation, as well as by bioterrorism or genetic manipulation that gets out of control. It is impossible to assess the probability of such a scenario, although it seems higher than the nuclear threat, which we have not yet eliminated either. What we have undoubtedly rid ourselves of (though this is not yet certain) is the threat of an asteroid, but not that of a catastrophic supervolcano eruption. There are no certainties in these matters, but in the long term the risks still appear to be greater than a period of continuous progress, spent simply adapting to new technologies.
A population collapse could therefore change the situation, but for now, the opposite is true, even if we can see the end in sight, with the global population peak predicted between 2050 and 2100. The real “peak of everything” will only occur when the entire global population has had access to development. It is not certain that we will reach this point without a major ecological disaster. This is what makes it criminal to mislead people with imaginary disasters, as if there were not enough real ones, or worse, to dream of a “salvific collapse” that would bring about our utopias. The collapse of capitalism is one of those imaginary catastrophes supposed to deliver us from evil. However, crises of capitalism are anything but rare. By dint of predicting a crash, it always ends up happening (long after), but what may be the collapse of our old way of life has never stopped capitalism, instead exacerbating competition between everyone and starting a new cycle. This does not depend on us but on material powers, so we should not count on the collapse of capitalism to prevent ecological collapse—which could only be achieved by the widespread adoption of a localized economy.
Another catastrophe that energy environmentalists believe will save us is the supposed lack of energy and oil, when in fact there is far too much oil and that is our problem: continuing to emit greenhouse gases for a long time to come. We have not yet reached peak consumption, which was announced a little too hastily as it only concerns developed countries for the moment, and production should indeed fall below demand in the coming years (as early as 2020) due to a lack of investment since 2015 (unless Iran returns to the game). Prices will therefore rise, which is very good news for alternative energies, even if it may cause an economic crisis. It is deplorable to use the forecasts of the International Energy Agency to make them say something completely different, as they do not mention oil depletion at all, but only insufficient extraction capacity in the short term. Nor should we count on the end of oil to stop our production system, or more generally on a lack of energy when the sun gives us more than we need. The energy transition is well underway, albeit late, and has become competitive, even if, at the current rate, it will take 400 years to complete. However, we are only at the beginning and it is difficult to move faster in such a large-scale conversion.
The depletion of other resources has been regularly overestimated based on known deposits (or the rate at which they are discovered) and the state of the art at the time. The exploitation of the planet remains very superficial, and we need to sort out what can be found deeper down (admittedly at a higher cost) and what is likely to run out, such as phosphorus (if we cannot find a way to recycle it). Physical resources are not as worrying as the destruction of our ecosystems, thanks in particular to technological progress, which will be a valuable ally that we cannot do without, despite the convictions of environmentalists that technology itself is the disaster. And of course, there would be no industrial production without techno-science, but there is no going back. Attacking technology is pointless; it has never changed anything. It is a waste of time.
We must tackle the real problems, which are 1) global warming, which could spiral out of control and makes it urgent to accelerate the energy transition and CO2 capture, 2) deforestation, which is exacerbating global warming and destroying ecosystems, and which must be reversed at all costs, 3) finally, the loss of biodiversity, which is becoming visible and alarming, and undoubtedly represents the greatest danger in the short term, having been greatly underestimated until now, with the disappearance, especially since 2008, of insects, bees, birds, etc. “There are almost no insects left, that's the number one problem,” insists Vincent Bretagnolle. It is difficult to grasp the full extent of the consequences. This is not about announcing the end of the world or exaggerating the situation, but in order to have a chance of reducing the impact, we really need the work of the “Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services,” the equivalent of the IPCC for biodiversity, which must also be brought to the forefront of public debate, along with the more local issues of water and soil depletion.
The translation of these warnings into effective policies remains to be resolved. We must not overestimate our means, but nothing will be resolved on its own, nor will an economic, political, or energy crisis save us from ecological collapse. Instead, effective strategies are needed on all fronts, from the global to the local (for example, soil regeneration and more ecological farming methods could restore productivity, save insects, and capture large amounts of CO2). Local action and the relocation of the economy must be reevaluated in light of the global change that is long overdue. This is why it is so important not to misdiagnose the situation, so that we do not wait until disaster strikes before deciding to take action commensurate with the challenges we face.
In any case, the future is not a long, quiet river. The threat of collapse remains very real, at least until the population peak, requiring our constant vigilance, intelligence, and mobilization for effective measures during this period, rather than continuing to dream or believe in a catastrophe that will save us from ourselves!
