Issue No. 600
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
22 - 28 August 2002 Issue No. 600 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Development as apartheid
Technology may still be harnessed to create a better future, write Mohsen Zahran* and Sherine Amin* -- but only if we address the divisions which it has caused
It is over 50 years since George Orwell predicted in 1984 that technological and political developments would create a new world -- one in which human beings would be designed, standardised and systematised, and only the healthy, the intelligent and the useful would be permitted to survive.
At the time, the proposition bordered on science fiction, and was easily dismissed as fantasy. Then, no one could have predicted that the rapid pace of scientific and technological breakthroughs during the last two decades of the twentieth century might lead to at least part of Orwell's prophecy being realised.
The present global situation is marked by huge disparities between the industrialised countries and the "developing" world. This gap represents a shocking injustice by any measure, whether it be in terms of the pace of progress, the quality of life, economic growth, access to education, knowledge and information, the standard of social services, employment opportunities or respect for human rights.
Not only do these gaps exist, but they are constantly widening along numerous lines of segregation: between the North and the South, the 'haves' and the 'have nots', the G8 and the G77/ G15, the black and the white, the developed and the less developed, the hopeful and the hopeless, the donors and their "beneficiaries". The world we live in is marked by a multi-dimensional apartheid, as people are separated from one another over and over again -- by colour, creed, race, social status, language, and economic condition.
Yet behind this technicolour display of rampant de facto, if not de jure, discrimination, the underlying cause is only too glaringly obvious.
It is the affluence and intense economic development of the rich which threaten both the survival of our global environment and the livelihoods of the poor. Despite the Rio Earth Summit, the Kyoto Protocol and countless UNEP conferences, global environmental conditions continue to deteriorate at an alarming rate. The greenhouse effect and global warming, caused by fossil fuel emissions from motor transport, electricity generation, factories and agriculture, have now reached a terrifying level. The effects are there today: a rising sea level and the gradual melting of the polar ice caps are already leading to the destruction of homes, the loss of investments and jobs, and the aggravation of poverty. Meanwhile, the developing countries suffer disproportionately from failing crops and natural disasters, while the industrialised nations continue to support systematic deforestation in the South and President Bush reneges on the US's support for the Kyoto Protocol.
Elsewhere, new breakthroughs in genetic engineering and biotechnological research have opened up a previously unimagined Pandora's box of promises and challenges. And again, it is the industrialised countries which have benefited most from such fantastic developments, while the majority of the world's 6.5 billion people continue to suffer under the combined burdens of poor health, poverty, debt, epidemic disease and moral desperation.
Consider the following disturbing indicators:
* Only one-sixth of the world's population have access to potable water.
* Nearly one billion people are hungry or malnourished.
* Almost 200 million children are underweight.
* 40 million people are infected with HIV, nearly 75 per cent of them in Africa alone. Three million die annually of HIV-related illnesses.
* One billion people live on less than one dollar a day, and two billion have to get by on less than two dollars a day.
* The wealth of the 250 richest individuals in the world is equal to that of the poorest three billion.
* 40 per cent of agricultural land in the developing world is already degraded, and that percentage is constantly rising.
* Serious health problems are reflected in rampant epidemics, high infant mortality rates, shorter life spans and malnutrition. Unless drastic steps are taken to increase access to treatment, it is expected that within one generation almost half of the world population will die.
* The developed countries spend 250 times as much on research as the less developed nations.
The last two decades have seen substantial funds poured into research in the industrialised nations, by governments, academic institutions and the private sector. For example, the Western biotechnology industry spent 11 billion US dollars on research in 2000 alone.
The list of pioneering achievements which this kind of money can buy is endless. Take the area of public health and medical research. We have seen new medication developed, tested, and marketed to treat a previously "untreatable" condition -- HIV/AIDS . Over 100 approved recombinant DNA products have been developed, along with new treatments for TB, malaria and cancer, to name but a few. There have been major breakthroughs in our knowledge of genomics and proteomics, including the recent triumph when the human genome code was cracked. Stem cell and bone morrow cell technologies have provided new ways of addressing the problem of organ replacement and transplants. Nanotechnology, once a science fantasy, is now increasingly widely used in biological research, as in medical practice. Human cloning, and designer babies, are both apparently within our reach.
Agriculture too has been a focus for heavy investment in research, and the results are everywhere to be seen. Globally, nearly 55 million hectares are now under genetically modified (GM) crops, which promise higher yields and pest resistance. Even now, GM strains of common crops are being developed which could be irrigated with salt water. This holds out the prospect that one day we will be able to harvest the sea and ocean floors, as we wage war on hunger and food shortages. Faced with the needs of the growing world population, we need a new agro- industrial revolution. This will not be achieved without a profound commitment to investment in research and development.
Yet these huge technological achievements are not 'free'; the moral and political problems they pose are as great as the benefits they promise. To date, these achievements have largely served the needs of the developed nations, who are the primary funders of massive research efforts. But the needs of the 'rich North' are fundamentally different from those of the 'poor South'. Northern consumers want variety and quality, whereas Southern consumers crave access to essentials they are currently denied. As a result, what the people of the South see is less a string of glorious triumphs, than the power of technology, and the power of those who control it, together with all the attendant risks and inevitable compromises. They believe, for example, that genetic research is primarily reserved for application in the North. And they know that when developing countries are allowed to benefit from new technology, it is often only available to them at a prohibitively high cost (e.g. HIV drugs).
For them, this radiant future can look uncannily similar to Orwell's dystopic vision or Huxley's "brave new world". DNA screening could easily lead to the invasion of privacy and infringement of human rights through discrimination. Human cloning and designer babies are felt by many to be morally repellent, whether on religious grounds or not, while the GM revolution is seen in many quarters not as abolishing hunger, but as opening up a new era of bio- colonialism. While lurking in the background we can discern the spectre of eugenics.
Meanwhile, the majority of the world's population continue to live in an environment characterised by injustice, inequality, deprivation, poverty and suffering. These conditions breed violence, crime, and terrorism. It is out of this instability that challenges will arise to the established system. Indeed, what we are seeing now may well be the beginning of the end for that triumphant liberalism which has denied so many their basic human rights.
Francis Fukuyama has pointed out that in biotechnology good and evil are intimately linked. The same technology that promises to cure children of cystic fibrosis, or their parents of Alzheimer's disease, also opens up possibilities which are the cause of grave moral doubts: human cloning, designer babies, drugs that enhance rather than heal, and the creation of human- animal hybrids.
In the face of this challenge, Fukuyama argues that countries must regulate and control the development and use of biotechnology by political means. He calls for national, regional, even global bodies to be set up, which can discriminate between those technological advances that could help humanity flourish, and those which threaten human dignity and well-being.
Arriving at any kind of consensus on such delicate issues is likely to be a long-term project. But even if regulation can be made to work, it will be meaningless, unless we also take steps to address the unequal distribution of the world's scientific and technological resources which is responsible for so much violence and despair.
We need a pro-active international policy to overcome the apartheid that lies at the heart of the "information society". We need to promote science and education in our societies, through the media, schools and other public fora. Centres of excellence for scientific research and technological development should be established in the developing regions, as is already the case in India and China, to encourage cooperation and share knowledge, resources and expertise.
We need to look at how we can restore public confidence in biotechnological advances. In particular, we need to ensure that the benefits of biotech are equally available and affordable to all countries and societies.
Then, if we do manage to eliminate the divisions that disfigure our world, we may be able to restore some sense of our common destiny, and there may even be a future for us to look forward to.
* Mohsen Zahran is professor emeritus of Urban and Environmental Planning at Alexandria University, and counselor to the director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Sherine Amin is a research specialist at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
