Jacques-Yves Cousteau

UNESCO Courier, Nov, 1991 by Bahgat Elnadi, Adel Rifaat

* And yet we can increase productivity on land. Why can't we do the same with the sea?

-- The rates of return are not at all the same.

In the Antarctic, for example, it takes ten tons of microscopic algae to form a ton of krill--krill are tiny shrimps . . . and it takes one ton of krill to produce 20 kg of whale. This is a transformation factor of 40 to 1. To produce a cow on land, the transformation factor is ten to one.

* What about desertification? Isn't it true that whereas the desert has been invading agricultural land it may now be retreating.

-- The information on which this view is based is too recent and needs to be confirmed. All the same, I am willing to accept that the Sahara was created by human beings and that it may consequently be unmade by them. If the Sahara were to become cultivable, its output would be far higher than that of the sea.

* What about pollution?

-- Global warming and the increasing rarity of water are far more serious and urgent threats than the chemical pollution we hear so much about. There is less and less water because water is squandered, and this too goes hand in hand with overpopulation. Water is being wasted at a terrific rate. In the West, farmers water their crops in such a way that 90 per cent of the water evaporates. We draw on groundwater and then let it evaporate! This year, in spite of abundant rainfall, France will be facing drought problems. Why? Because in the last three years we have wasted much of the water we have drawn.

The damage caused to the planet is a function of demography but also of levels of development. One American tires the planet far more than twenty Bangladeshis. Damage is also linked to consumption. Our society is geared to increasingly useless consumption. It's a vicious circle which I compare to a cancer.

* Some snakes, mosquitoes and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like the viruses that cause certain diseases?

-- Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths.

I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million.

What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species.

It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.

* And yet solutions must exist. . . .

-- It's a question of cost. We need $400 billion a year for fifteen years. To provide people with safe drinking water. To provide schooling for girls and low pensions for the elderly. With $4 billion over fifteen years we can not only reduce demographic pressure but halt population growth.