The UN recently issued a “big think” report about the ecology and the future of the world. This report is called the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and it sets out four different scenarios for the next 50 years, explaining what will happen to the environment and to the world economy given each particular set of assumptions.

Three of these scenarios are very nice. The first one is called Global Orchestration, and it assumes that all the nations of the world will agree to a socially-conscious globalization scheme that emphasizes equity, economic growth, and public goods, reacting to ecosystem problems when they reach critical stages (but before disaster ensues). Basically, that one would be “UN on steroids”, the George W. Bush nightmare. It would make the Kyoto protocol look like a Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Next is the Adapting Mosaic, a regionalized approach that emphasizes proactive management of ecosystems, local adaptation, and flexible governance. I guess that the anti-world trade “Seattle Movement” would like this one; it protects indigenous culture while implementing a lot of groovy things. Then there is the TechnoGarden, a globalized approach with an emphasis on green technology and a proactive approach to managing ecosystems. It’s high-tech with a social conscience and a world viewpoint; what could be nicer?

Bless the UN’s heart. After all these years, they still dream the one-world dream. But they aren’t completely blind to reality, either. The fourth scenario is called “Order from Strength”, and it represents a regionalized approach with primary emphasis on security and economic growth, reacting to ecosystem problems only as they arise. I took a quick look through the scenarios section, and guess what? The Order From Strength scenario is the only realistic one. It describes what’s happening now and what is going to keep on happening unless or until there’s some huge calamity. If Hobbes were still around, I think that he would agree (and perhaps the tiger from Calvin and Hobbes would also concur!).

Sad to say, but O.F.S. reflects the way that human beings really are. When I was young, I honestly believed that we could have a Global Orchestration world or at least an Adapting Mosaic. But in my old age, I realize that any Adapting Mosaics are going to be extremely local (village size) and secondary to the multinational business interests that will hold the real power. America will keep on electing presidents and congressmen to dismantle the federal government as a protector of the people; however, it will keep just enough (i.e., the military and the justice system) to serve the needs of the multinational corporations. To the degree that there is any Global Orchestration, it’s going to be on terms set by Exxon Mobil and General Electric and Samsung and Toyota. And the Techno world isn’t going to be a community garden, not if Microsoft and Sun and Oracle can help it.

Despite the stolid, scientific air to it, the Millennium report valiantly tries to point out the advantages of “anything but more free markets and U.S. dominance”. The Order From Strength scenario gives the worst overall economic growth results and the worst distribution of income. Obviously the US and maybe Europe will do OK under it, and China and India will muscle their way into the big time, but everyone else (Africa, Latin America, even the Arabs once their oil runs out) will be cast back into the Middle Ages. Everyone, including the USA, would experience more economic growth under the other scenarios. World population will grow fastest under O.F.S., but life will be brutish and short for the majority. There will be plenty of terrorism and plagues. And of course the environment is in for a much rougher ride than under the other three scenarios (a.k.a. pipe dreams). The authors don’t say that things are headed for disaster by 2050 under Order From Strength, but they hint that the 2051-2100 period will be up for grabs after the planet is treated so roughly for so long. The Millennium Assessment authors are doing their best to say that it doesn’t have to be this way. Regrettably, however, it does.

But then again, I don’t really know. If you’re young enough to plan on being around in 2050 and beyond, then check out the scenarios and see what you think. See what kind of world you want to live in. It would be awfully difficult, but if you were willing to live in a smaller house and drive a smaller car than your parents had — and didn’t slide back into bigness by the age of 40 — and you weren’t afraid to live amidst many different types of people speaking many different languages (immigration into the US would skyrocket under the “nice” scenarios), then maybe you could change things. My generation said that it would “change the world, rearrange the world” (I’m thinking of some old Crosby, Stills and Nash song; I never really did like their harmony). But in the end it went for big cars (SUVs), big houses, and Order From Strength. Will your generation do better?

If you care, then check it out: MILLENIUM ASSESSMENT