**Future Challenges to Human Survival in the 21^st^ Century**

**Rick Bissell**

**University of Maryland, Baltimore County**

I am going to move us a little bit away from discussion from present
organizational higher hierarchal issues and onto some issues that will
face us in the next 50 to 100 year timeframe. This thinking comes out of
a book that I am putting together and it might take 20 hours to go
through the content of the book, I am given 15 minutes here. I have been
listening to some books on tape recently and I find I really like the
unabridged versions a lot better, but I am giving you the 15 minute
abridged version of the executive summary.

I would like you to keep in mind as we go through this, the following
four questions and if I had been smart, enough brains engaged this
morning, or over the last few days, I would have had a second screen put
up on the side here to hold those questions available, but see if you
can keep these in mind. These are questions of basic values and
perspectives.

1.  Do we have responsibility to warn and prepare society only for
    hazards and challenges that will appear in the next 5 to 10 year
    timeframe?

2.  Are we restricted to 3 to 5 year timeframe of most politicians, or
    do we as emergency managers have responsibility to reach beyond that
    to perhaps provide some guidance to decision makers, particularly
    for issues that may require a 15 to 20 year spool up time in order
    to be prepared?

3.  Do we restrict our view to only that is directly applicable to our
    own country or is it now necessary to have a global perspective?

4.  To what extent is it necessary to put the resources and
    organizational capabilities of emergency management at the behest of
    other disciplines? For example, let's say public health in the
    future.

So let's look at some of what we are likely to be facing as emergency
managers and human beings over the next 50 to 100 years, the timeframe
of my kids and certainly any grandkids that any of us in the audience
may have.

Global climate change: We have all read about it, some of us have seen
some movies about it. It has been a lot of discussion about it, globally
the scientific community is in very strong agreement that global climate
change is happening. The only disagreement is about to what extent
specific causal factors are responsible. So what does that mean for us?
It means a lot of different things including some of the following:

Heat emergencies: we found in Chicago in 95 and in Europe last summer
that heat emergencies can affect a lot of people with more than just
temporary suffering. We had in Chicago in excess of 500 deaths related
to a week long heat emergency. Now if we had 500 deaths from a tornado
that would have made major news. In Europe, there were thousands and
there is still not total agreement on how many thousands died in the
heat wave. Increasing heat can and will lead to crop losses, we are
finding it already, it is documented. In a world of growing population,
in a world in which now we are already using down the global grain
surplus that we've had over the last few decades, can we afford to have
crop losses? What alternatives are there? In parts of the world that are
already hungry, this kind of climate change can be catastrophic. What
kind of emergency management preparedness and response strategy can we
develop for this?

Wildfires: Lots of ground fires, which than becomes a self perpetuating
to a certain extent in which, as you lose ground cover, it effects the
rainfall patterns and climate change, but it effects a lot more than
that. Losing ground cover leads to increased probability of flooding. We
are aware that flooding is the most common natural disaster across the
world, in terms of damage that occurs. Are we prepared for increases in
this? Global warming also leads to melting of glaciers and ice caps
which ultimately leads to increased levels of the oceans.

In January of this year, the country of Tuvalu in the South Pacific put
out an urgent warning relating to the upcoming discussions on the Kioto
Treaty and which they said the oceans have risen enough in the South
Pacific already to threaten the existence of Tuvalu in the next 25
years. That is just an harbinger of what's to come, as this process
continues.

We know from climatologists that global warming will lead, and we have
already seen it, to more storms and increased strength of storms. How
many of you saw the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? Kind of silly, all
that stuff that happened in two and half days. Unfortunately, it is
based on pretty solid science except that the science tells us that this
kind of extreme climate change probably would take 10 years. Now that is
a very short period of time. Ten years ago we didn't hardly have a
concept of this at all, but recent readings of ice cores from Greenland
demonstrate that massive climate shifts have happened in the past and in
as short a timeframe as 10 years. This is caused by increased flow of
fresh water from the polar ice cap melting into the North Atlantic which
shuts down the thermohaline conveyor. I have given you a website up
there that has a document that was prepared for the Department of
Defense. The Department of Defense of the United States is thinking
about this and they are thinking seriously. Shouldn't emergency
managers?

New and emerging infectious diseases, actually we have two problems
here. There is the generation of new diseases, that is, diseases that
were unknown to humans and for which we have no, in our bodies, specific
immune response, and for which we have no immediate response within the
health care system. We also have new variants of existing diseases,
influenza for example, Avian Flu being one that we are currently
concerned with, WHO has put out recent warnings about the spread of
Avian Flu outside of East Asia as a significant threat to world health.
We know well enough about some of the other new diseases, SARS, HIV,
AIDS, etc. I am sure you heard Kofi Anan recently mention that the world
is losing its battle at the current time against AIDS and the population
that is threatened by this, particularly outside the United States, and
in the continent of Africa, is of such large proportions that it
overwhelms the imagination. Do we need to think of this kind of threat
as a hazard in our definition of emergency management?

Bioterrorism has helped us move toward overcoming the barrier between
public health and emergency management. Microbes can be weaponized and
easily distributed and we have found particularly through research on
Russian work, Soviet work on bioterrorism weapons that some of these
weaponized microbes can be genetically altered so that they can bypass
any of the vaccines that we currently have.

Microbes are adept at adapting to the pharmacopia we have, so even known
microbes present significant challenge to us in the future. In the 1960s
and the 1970s we very naively thought we had done away with infectious
diseases as a major threat to human survival, now we know better.
Microbes are a lot smarter than we had thought they were.

Population Growth, we see here in the United States and the United
States is not an example of a rapidly expanding population on a world
basis. What importance does population growth have in the terms of
emergency management concerns? Population disperses out to parts of the
environment which were not previously habited, often because those
uninhabited areas are hazards zones. So we now have more people living
in hazardous zones, flood zones, earthquake zones, zones of toxic
releases, etc. Population dispersion also leads to increased
environmental degradation that has its own issues.

Population density increase leads to more vulnerability for a variety of
different hazards so that we are dealing with more people, more densely
packed where something does happen and for some kind hazards like
infectious disease, population density fuels the effect of the hazard
much faster than what otherwise would be the case. Obviously in a more
dense population it becomes more difficult to respond effectively.
Perhaps more importantly from the 50 to 100 year perspective is the
probability that we will overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth
(that is, the ability of the earth and its resources to sustain human
population).

Population scientists tell us that we are probably at or slightly above
the carrying capacity of the earth if cheap fuel is remains available.
Why is cheap fuel important? It is cheap fuel that allows us to put out
large numbers of agricultural products and distribute them around the
world to where the people can use them. Without that cheap fuel the
carrying capacity of the earth is probably around 4 billion, the
sustainable carrying capacity of the earth. We are currently about 6.2
billion. The population scientists tell us that if cheap fuel continues
and we don't have some kind of mitigation program in effect we may
increase to a peak of around 9 billion and if the sustainable carrying
capacity is 4 billion and we have 9 billion what are we going to do with
5 billion people?

How do we manage the decline? Are we prepared to manage a decline like
this? Humanity has very little experience, particularly good experience
with massive resettlement of populations. How would we purposively
manage a decline in population size? We don't have any strategies for
this. Do we simply wait for nature to take its own pathway?

Environmental degradation: many of you are already familiar with these
issues, but they are increasing with some of the very things we have
just been talking about. We are not as familiar with the loss of
bio-diversity in terms of its effects on how we produce some of the
public health and medical pharmacopeia armamentarium that we currently
use to control infectious disease. Look at books by people like Edward
O. Wilson, for a good description of that which is coming down our
pathway.

Desertification is another environmental issue that is increasing with
rapidity in the world at large. Desertification at the very least
decreases capacity for the earth to support human life and other lives.
Do we have any strategies for dealing with this?

Collapse of petroleum based economies: This year, 2005, is probably the
peak year of production of petroleum by very many estimates and it comes
at a time that China and India are just coming on line as major
petroleum users. Can you think of anything in our economy that is not
touched by petroleum? Can you? I can a few, that was what Amish farmers
produce out where I live, but that is very little.

We talk about a hydrogen economy that is years away and right now, not
energy efficient, so how do we prepare to deal with all of the issues
that occur over the next twenty years to thirty years when petroleum
starts to go away. This is more than oil just being more expensive. A
massive economic downturn is likely at the very least.

Change in warfare: There are two issues here, and they both result in
warfare being brought to the civilian population. This first issue, of
course, is terrorism...and response to terrorist acts is clearly already
in the purview of emergency managers. The second issue is the fact that
warfare in general over the last 50 years has shifted its focus from
targeting warriors to targeting civilians. To the extent that this
continues, what are our responsibilities? What strategies do we need?

Hazards are becoming more global as the economy globalizes. So thinking
in terms of our own national borders is insufficient.

In summary, we have significant challenges coming our way as human
beings, not just as emergency managers and we have to decide what our
roles are in terms of protecting human beings, all human beings.
Politicians have a short-term view, which consistently one of our
challenges. The response spool-up time may be much longer for many of
these kinds of challenges than we can afford to let occur at a natural
rate, that is the rate at which politicians would allow us spool-up
time.

I think we need to change the definition of what we consider to be a
hazard and look more broadly in the future at what will challenge the
very survival of human beings and consider those things hazards and then
become more adept in our own sciences, and in our own teaching of
emergency management students and personnel, so that we can look at the
challenges more effectively and with a better knowledge base.

Finally, it is my conviction that emergency management needs to become
more thoroughly interdisciplinary. We are already an interdisciplinary
field, but we need to train our emergency management students to be more
conversant with earth sciences, with climate sciences, and even have a
little understanding of micro-biology because those are huge issues that
we will be facing. Thank you very much.