Ultimately, however, we all agree that Michael Mann forces us to consider three imponderables: climate change, pandemics, and nuclear warfare. They are not imponderables in the dangers they pose for all of humanity. They are imponderables in terms of the timing of disasters. Our knowledge about each of these is extensive but there are enough uncertainties and differences of views among those who have studied these issues that we cannot be sure what exactly will happen. Climate change seems an unquestionable reality, except for those who reject this reality for political or ideological reasons. Furthermore, everything that has been causing climate change is actually accelerating rather than slowing down. The political differences between wealthier and poorer states as to what should be done about climate change make an accord that would mitigate the risks appear unattainable, at least for now.
However, the earth’s ecological complexity is so great, and these changes so extensive, that we do not know what kinds of readjustments will occur. It seems clear that water levels will rise and are already rising, and that this threatens the drowning of vast land areas. It also seems clear that the average temperatures in various parts of the world will change and are already changing. But this can result in shifting the location of agricultural production and energy sources to different zones in ways that might compensate for the acute damage to other zones.
The same thing seems to be true of pandemics. The enormous advances of world medicine in the last hundred or so years that have seemed to bring so many diseases under control have simultaneously created a situation in which humanity’s ancient enemy, the germ, has had to find new ways to be resistant. Once again, our knowledge seemed great but, when all is said and done, it turns out to be pitifully small. In this race against time, how fast will we learn? And how much must we unlearn in order to survive?
There remains the specter of extermination from nuclear weapons. Ever since the end of the Cold War and the hubristic attempt to impose an American unipolarity, nuclear proliferation has become virtually unavoidable. There might not be imminent danger in terms of interstate warfare. Indeed it is almost the contrary. Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive weapons and therefore reduce, not increase, the likelihood of interstate wars. Nevertheless, there remain several imponderables. The motivations of nonstate actors are not necessarily the same as those of responsible officials. No doubt there are some who would like to get their hands on nuclear weapons (as well as on chemical and biological weapons) and use them. The limited ability of many states to protect such weapons from seizure or purchase may facilitate their acquisition by nonstate actors. And the possibility of a rogue state agent, the Dr. Strangelove of fiction, is never to be ruled out.
It is quite possible that the world will weather the global transition without any of these catastrophes occurring. But it is also possible that it will not. A lot will depend on what will be the new political structures and how soon they can emerge. Conceivably such new structures will take the kinds of measures that can reduce, even eliminate, the likelihood of global disasters. Let us be clear, these are not just natural disasters. Famine, pestilence, nuclear terrorism are decidedly political challenges to humanity. That is why we call them imponderables. The search for effective counter-measures means making political choices. One major way in which many people react to these dangers is to pull inward in a heavily protectionist and xenophobic way. We see this tendency already almost everywhere. It means that those who seek a system that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian have to work harder at developing political strategies that will counter this trend.
TRANSITIONS
One big thing we all agree on is that in coming decades the familiar configurations of global political economy are bound to change in significant and not immediately evident ways. Politicians, social movements, and media commentators will be at a loss trying to steer through the coming years on the old conventional wisdom. Governments and once dominant business corporations are going to find their levers of power weakened, their well-practiced moves in the political and ideological repertoires useless or presenting ever new problems down the road. The protesters might feel as outraged as ever. But they will be much less sure against whom to protest, what to demand, how to organize, and with whom to ally themselves. Our theoretical knowledge of the past historical transitions will prove only an imperfect adviser. In the years ahead our theories will require considerable corrections and additions. (But isn’t this the nature of scientific knowledge?) In part, this is because many problems and prospects appear unprecedented in human history. In the main, however, we know that major historical transitions occur simultaneously at several different levels. Business as usual becomes impossible in times of transition. American imperial hegemony is visibly faltering, as geopolitical theory has long predicted. Its biggest reserves in the productivity, finances, and political compliance of China and the European Union are running out. A big question is how precipitous or gradual will be the coming decline of the West. Our best hope perhaps is a negotiated (i.e., nondestructive) equalization in the shares of power and wealth between the historical West and the rising rest of the world.
The key point of agreement, to stress it again, is that the future is not preordained in any great detail. Open-ended political struggles will play a crucial role in selecting the routes and collective destinations. Moreover, social science can make a difference in the coming years. Macrohistorical theories warn against disastrous future possibilities. A middle-ground possibility is fragmentation and involution (i.e., continuing along essentially the same lines only in a lessened, crippled, and worse off shape). Here the recent fate of the Soviet Union serves as the nearest example. Still another nasty possibility is a fascist-like dictatorship supported by social movements of aggrieved nationals and reliant on a militaristic and highly invasive police state. Unfortunately, the record of twentieth-century fascism shows that it could produce, at least for a few decades, viable political economies where large groups of people benefit from oppressing other large groups of people. The exceptionally vicious and megalomaniac Nazi regime in Germany perished from the external war, not from internal political transformation or revolution.
Yet the same theories point to a strong possibility of more hopeful pathways through the chaotic years ahead of us. Our hopes derive from the theoretically grounded observation that human responses to the big structural crises in the past tended to build up qualitatively new and more extensive collective powers. This trend developed through periodic collapses and bursts of human inventiveness (though far from always peaceful) that would eventually pave the way for new periods of stabilization and prosperity.