Thanos: the last laugh

Tickets for ‘Avengers: Endgame’ are reportedly in black trade in Karachi these days. As superhero movies go, the plot revolves around a supervillain; he is called Thanos who could be construed as a demented climate change activist. Thanos believes the universe is finite; so are its resources. If human life is unchecked, he argues, it will cease to exist, and therefore half of human life, selected at random, needs to be eliminated swiftly and dispassionately, instead of dying a slow, painful, choking death.

In late 18th century, the English economist Malthus reached a similar understanding. Like Thanos, Malthus reasoned the world’s food resources to be finite. And that growth in food supplies would be eventually outstripped by faster growth in human population. But unlike Thanos, Malthus did not believe in random culling of the human species. Instead, he thought human population was self-balancing since difficulties in nature’s provision of subsistence will routinely check population growth, courtesy war, famine and so forth.

Both Malthus and Thanos are right, and wrong. They are right in their understanding of the problem: resources being finite. But they are wrong in the solution. The former, for instance, did not foresee the Green Revolution that despite its unintended bad consequences provided ample food supplies. The latter? Well, surely there is something morally repugnant in killing half the human race, even if they are randomly selected. Besides, if technology can lift humanity out of Malthusian fears, it can hopefully lift it out Thanosian world too.

For instance, the UN-FAO says that farmed animals account for about 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions attributed directly to human action. Transport accounts for equal percentage. Technological developments and alternate policy choices on both these fronts – such as lab grown meat, vertical farming of high protein vegetables, electric busses, localisation, etc - could be the solution to make efficient use of finite resources available on this planet.

But there is a problem with placing a blind bet on technology. Just making these two aspects of life (animal farming and transport) sustainable would require huge sacrifices and a restructuring of socio-economic order. Habitual and cultural change, always difficult to come by, is one problem. The politics of change is another. Those benefitting from the existing unsustainable system will not let go of it without putting up a fight that will leave no winners.

Then there is the rebound-effect of technology. Because ethanol is clean fuel, let’s burn down Amazon forests to plant sugar. Because we invented efficient air conditioners with less carbon footprint, everyone in the world should have affordable ACs. And so on and so forth.

Recycling, tree plantation, green technology, carbon trade – these are false hopes. Betting on these without a reimagination of economic, political and social thought is akin to a diabetic or heart patient who wants to rely solely on medicines without changing his lifestyle. Quite understandably, the sacrifices the situation demands are huge and difficult – much like dieting: the losses are immediate and appear greater than possible benefits in the future.

But is it not strange that public protests and demonstrations against respective governments’ failure and the collective human failure at large is increasingly coming from the countries that have contributed far more to the problem than poor countries, and have better monetary and non-monetary resources to address or mitigate the problem? The biggest victims who should be the ones protesting, such as the people of poor, developing, climate-change vulnerable countries like Pakistan, are either unaware of it or could not care. At their best, they would share Greta Thunberg’s videos before getting in line to assault Mother Earth.

Mention the words ‘degrowth’ and ‘de-development’ to kickstart a discussion towards a solution for climate change, and everyone in Pakistan’s business and economic circles will attack you with all guns blazing before you even complete your thought. “Don’t be unpractical; why should we change when the world is not; the road to growth and clean fuel lies through coal, should we go back to stone ages”. These are the kind of caricature arguments the educated and the elite provide when you appeal to common sense that radical changes in thought are required to fix such problems.

The tragedy is not that Pakistanis are not doing anything; the tragedy is that victims do not realise that they are being had while the elite at large refuse to even listen to consider the options of lifestyle changes. The poor may be excused for being uneducated and burdened by the demands of basic sustenance. The elite cannot. But alas Nero fiddles while Rome burns! Horrific, therefore, as it may sound, if the current thought and inaction towards climate change continues, both Thanos and Malthus may have the last laugh.