Review: The Wizard and the Prophet

For all those who like to write and talk about the environment, this is a great perspective to think about. Nearly all scientists acknowledge that we cannot meet the food, energy, water issues of our growing population, and that our growth has adverse effects on the environment. We are also more affluent as a people than at any other moment in history–there are fewer people living in absolute poverty than ever before.

There are two paths in front of us to solve this problem.

One is to respect the limits, reduce (or at least stall) our growth, reduce usage, cut back, find more sustainable ways to use what we have, and acknowledge the rules of nature.

The other is to expand the rules and continue to grow. Change the game. Find new sources of energy, new ways to exponentially expand food production, new technology to give water to many, and rely on technology to reverse bad effects on the environment.

The author calls scientists in the first group prophets, and the second wizards. For nearly all of human history, especially recently, wizards have been the ones we follow. The green revolution is a big example of this. The wizards keep finding ways for us to bend the rules and continue growing.

I’m naturally more drawn to the prophet model, but this book at least gave me cause to step back and question that. On one side there is the question of if wizards can keep up the pace of new revolutions that keep making live for 8–10 billion people possible. I would be tempted to say “no”, but the same thing was said when there were only 1–2 billion people on the earth, and we seem to keep moving forward. Had the prophets won out 100 years ago, we would likely not have made the progress that we have (or damage).

Then there is the other question of if it is even possible for us to make these changes. Individuals can make changes, but as an entire species? Can we actually hold back, or are we destined, like every other species on earth, to keep growing without constraints until we overwhelm our environment. If we did, we would be the first species in history to do so.

The author, Charles Mann says the trick is that we can’t follow both paths. We are on the wizard path right now and as long as we don’t make drastic changes, we will be for a long time. Do we continue to trust that our wizards will keep finding new ways to solve our most challenging problems without restricting our growth? Or do we drastically cut back our growth and change everything?

Can we keep trusting the wizard path? It’s track record has been good so far, but the challenges that await it will continue to get bigger and bigger. Are we just building on top of a house of cards that will eventually come crashing down? Or is our affluence and intelligence what is going to keep us one step ahead from catastrophe? What if wizards find a cheap way to harness endless power from the sun and desalinate all the water in the oceans?

How do we know when we’ve gone too far and the next solution is too big for us?

It reminds me of the financial system. As a country, and often on an individual level, we continually borrow more money, assuming and hoping that we’ll be able to grow our way out of our debt. We’ve been doing this for as long as we are a country. In some ways, we wouldn’t be able to exist without the growing debt. But can it continue to go on forever and keep growing without end? Is there a breaking point? How do you know when you’ve gone too far?

But even finances are a creation of man. We could conceivably cancel all the debts in the world and adopt a different system and start over. The same thing can’t happen with the environment. There’s not a quick reset button. There’s either full speed ahead, or drastically slow down and hope any crash isn’t as deadly as it could be.

One final thought is a part of the book that talks about the argument that we need to save the environment for future generations. The author finds this argument a bit paradoxical. We rarely make decisions that our good for ourselves, yet we find it compelling to make decisions that are good for people we will never interact with far into the future. He talks about although we have a phobia of death, we also live with it. There has never been a headline in the newspaper that says, “7 billion people to die over the next few decades”. We we talk about future generations, we are talking about all people groups, ethnicities, races. If we could look forward 200–500 years, we might not like the people who are alive at that time (assuming they are), yet we are willing to make big changes to help them out.

I don’t disagree with the motivation to leave this world in a better place than we found it, but I like how the author brings about some perspective on that which supports the wizard perspective.

There is something deep within us that we need to look out for our species. Is it altruism that is calling the shots, or is it our DNA?