2005 John Phillips Award
Recipient
Remarks by Dr. Thayer Scudder
'48
October 11, 2005
I am a biologist and social anthropologist by training—in
other words, both a natural scientist and a social
scientist in regard to my research interests and efforts
to apply research results to global policy issues.
My current career as a research and development anthropologist
is not one that I intended to follow. At Exeter, my
primary goal was to be a naturalist working in the
Amazon while my college and immediate post graduation
goal was to be a professional mountaineer working
for the Arctic Institute of North America. Instead
I ended up in a low elevation, disease ridden, semi-arid
rift valley in Central Africa studying 57,000 people
about to be moved due to the construction of the first
mainstream dam on the Zambezi River. So beware and
take your time in deciding on a career that, in the
case of your generation, can last for 60 or more years
since quite a few of you can expect to live for 100
years in relatively good health. Perhaps even pursue
a double major in college, as some of my Caltech students
did, so as to give yourselves more career options.
That first year of my research in 1956-57 contributed
to what today may well be the most systematic long-term
study of a human society in the late industrializing
countries of the world. That research in turn led
to my studying how people and communities respond
to their forced relocation in connection with the
world’s largest dams, irrigation projects and
other major infrastructure projects throughout Africa
and Asia and, to a lesser extent, in the Americas
and the Middle East.
Dam resettlement over the years has involved over
50 million people; the large majority have been impoverished
and, through no fault of their own, have often had
to degrade their natural environments in order to
survive. Because such relocation accelerates rates
of change that are occurring at a slower rate elsewhere
in the world, I believe that what we are learning
provides a global warning system—like the canary
caged in a mine in which lethal gases are slowly accumulating.
Against this brief background I would like to share
some of my concerns about the future of the earth.
I hope we can explore them in more detail during the
day and this evening. Three linked global issues most
concern me. They are:
• increasing degradation of the world’s
natural resources
• institutional fundamentalism,
• and unequal income distribution—in other
words, the increasing gap between rich and poor.
I will concentrate on the first concern because time
is too limited to deal with all three. The first refers
to the deteriorating health of our global environment
due to the degradation of the nature resources on
which our lives are dependent. It has been the most
extensively discussed of the three issues. The Club
of Rome in Italy, an international think tank, addressed
it in a 1972 report on the limits of growth. In 1992,
104 men and women who had received the Nobel Prize
and over 1,500 scientists signed a Warning to Humanity.
In that warning they wrote, “Human beings and
the natural world are on a collision course. Human
activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage
on the environment and on critical resources. If not
checked, many of our current practices put at serious
risk the future that we wish for human society and
the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the
living world that it will be unable to sustain life
in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are
urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present
course will bring about.
And today? Check the website of the State Department
of the United States Government. Under Environment
and Conservation you will read that “An expanding
global population, rapid conversion of critical habitat
to other uses, and the spread of invasive species
to non-native habitats pose a serious threat to the
world's natural resources and to all of us who depend
on them for food, fuel, shelter and medicine.”
What have anthropologists, geographers and historians
said? They have documented lots of examples where
societies have collapsed because of mistreatment of
their environment. A recent best-selling book on the
topic is geographer and biologist Jared Diamond’s
Collapse. But what I am talking about now is the risk
of global collapse. A few years ago, I polled 53 of
my colleagues from different countries about environmental
issues of greatest concern to them. Over 75% replied
“misuse of natural resources,” some linking
their concerns with “increasing conflict”
and “poverty.” In regard to specific natural
resources, over 50% were concerned with water scarcity
and pollution. An Egyptian colleague, for example,
devoted all three of his environmental issues to water:
“1) Reduced water supply (water tables are falling;
underground aquifers are being depleted as in India
and China…); 2) Deteriorating water quality…;
and 3) Rousing water conflicts and aggression.”
And what are we doing about this concern? Very little—indeed,
the situation continues to worsen.
My second concern, institutional fundamentalism,
involves the belief of its adherents not only that
they alone know the “truth” and have the
correct answers, but that they are also obligated
either to convert or vanquish nonbelievers. I am most
concerned about religious fundamentalism, having had
the opportunity to observe Buddhist fundamentalism
in Sri Lanka, Hindu fundamentalism in the Indian state
of Gujarat, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Muslim
fundamentalism in Jordan and the Sudan, and Christian
fundamentalism in the United States. But fundamentalism
is not restricted to religion; it pertains also to
economic and political belief systems. My Exeter classmate
Paul Carrington explains in his 2005 book, Spreading
America’s Word, that one trend throughout the
history of the United States has been an effort by
what he calls lawyer missionaries to spread throughout
the world what I call U.S. economic, political and
cultural fundamentalism in a way that ignores the
existence and validity of the cultures of other people.
As for inequitable income distribution between rich
and poor, even in countries with the greatest equality,
the income of the richest 20% is still three to four
times that of the poorest 20%, rising to 12 times
as high in the Russian Federation, 16 times as high
in Mexico and 30 times as high in Brazil. Though incomes
are rising today among poor people in China and India,
globally, incomes of the rich are rising faster than
those of the poor, and in the process the shared knowledge
between the two categories becomes less and the danger
of fundamentalism and conflict become greater.
I’m not preaching doom. I am an optimistic
pessimist. Yes, my research, as well as reading in
relevant fields outside my expertise, has convinced
me that the global trend is downhill, as is the gap
between what is necessary for reversing that downward
trend and the willingness of our leaders to take necessary
actions. But I remain convinced, at least for the
present, that we the people have the intelligence,
ability and cultural resources to reverse the trend.
Unfortunately those who are now adults are not doing
the job. So increasingly I believe that yours is the
key generation, and that those of you who have had
the benefit of an exceptional education at Exeter
will have a special responsibility to do your utmost
to begin reversing the downward trends. Let’s
briefly examine what is necessary to reverse the trends.
First, develop an ability to learn from the past and
plan for the long term future. That may sound pretty
obvious to you but it is not happening. We the people
and our institutions, including our governments, business
communities and other institutions, tend to have short
term planning horizons and little institutional memory.
That applies even to international institutions within
the United Nations system. Take the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose more
familiar name is the World Bank. Its projects around
the world are seldom longer than five years.
I repeat the phrase “we the people” because
world-wide research has shown me that the active participation
of the rural and urban low-income majority is associated
with conservation and development outcomes that are
more sustainable environmentally and culturally. That
is the situation worldwide. It applies, for example,
to hurricane Katrina-hit areas in the United States.
There, participation of over a million affected people
is necessary if they are to raise their living standards,
and to ensure that essential wetlands and sand barriers
are restored to protect the shoreline and their communities.
Wetlands and sand barriers? You may well ask, “Do
poor people in New Orleans and others in the world
trying to survive on $1 a day have sufficient concern
about the environment?” What evidence is available
indicates that they do.
The Gallup International Institute undertook a global
poll in the mid 1990s among 24 nations including Brazil,
Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey, India and the Philippines.
The results were unexpected. “Strikingly, environmental
quality is widely seen as a serious problem throughout
the countries and as more serious among residents
of the developing nations than among those of the
industrialized countries… Environmental problems
are no longer viewed as just a threat to quality of
life…but are considered a fundamental threat
to human welfare.”
Turning to different layers of government, three
requirements are especially important but not sufficient
due to the complexities involved. All apply to hurricane
Katrina. One is political will to do what is necessary
over the long haul. A second is the necessary institutional
and staff capacity, and the third is the necessary
finance. The United States has the potential to plan
and implement sustainable development in the region
devastated by hurricane Katrina. It remains to be
seen if that potential is realized or if the U.S.
and other nations in the world can effectively address
still more difficult global issues such as global
warming, increasing degradation of our natural resource
base, increasing fundamentalism, and a widening gap
in income and understanding between rich and poor.
I will not be around to observe the outcome. You may
well be.
Read the citation
back to top
