Humberto Llavador, profesor with the Departament of Economics and Business at UPF

For perhaps the first time in history, human beings are capable of changing our planet at the global level. Indeed, this is true to such an extent that, in 2000, Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize in Chemistry) and Eugene F. Stoermer proposed calling the current geological age ‘the Anthropocene’, or the ‘era of human beings’.[1] Their proposal has been gaining traction ever since.

As a result of this ability to effect change at the global level we have become the main cause of our greatest problems. Human mistakes are behind climate change, hunger, and the scale and spread of many diseases that would not be serious problems were it not for our actions or omissions. For example, according to a recent study by Harvard Medical School, in 2015, some 8 million premature deaths could have been prevented through public health interventions.[2]

Fortunately, this greater ability to cause global problems comes with an unprecedented knowledge of their causes, consequences and, I dare say, solutions.

Take the case of the increasing average temperature of the Earth as a result of the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere, i.e. climate change. Its origin lies in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Its consequences are economic and social: researchers have found that increased average temperatures and extremely high temperatures are associated not only with greater mortality and decreased productivity in terms of crop yields and work (sick leaves, absenteeism, etc.), but also increases in social conflict, crime rates, the number of rapes and even, curiously, the use of obscenities in the media.[3] Finally, we know that the solution lies in reducing emissions. Therefore, we have solved the main technological and economic issues, making climate change a political and social problem.

However, the political and social problems related to climate change cannot be solved independently of the technological and economic aspects; they require an interdisciplinary perspective. Nor can the economic and technological problems be solved if the political and social dimensions go unaddressed. In fact, the most heated discussions amongst climate change economists have focused on issues with a strong ethical component: the comparison of intergenerational wellbeing (with special emphasis on the discount rate), the weight to be given to inequality or the measurement of wellbeing itself.

An interdisciplinary vision can also give rise to new approaches. For example, rather than seeking development in the deepening of democracy, from the political sphere, and reduction of economic inequalities, perhaps we should consider reducing political inequalities and deepening the democratization of economic processes.

The scientific community is thus facing the difficult challenge of guiding humankind towards the sustainable management of our planet. Therefore, the efforts of international scientists must be guided by shared goals and questions requiring collaboration between experts on various disciplines and subjects. That may be our main new challenge: in a world characterized by specialization, we are finding that our biggest problems are global and interdisciplinary.

Humberto Llavador

Department of Economics and Business

18 September 2018

[1] Crutzen, P. J. and E. F. Stoermer (2000). “The ‘Anthropocene’”. Global Change Newsletter. 41: 17-18.

[2] DOI: 10.1377 / hlthaff.2017.1233

[3] DOI: 10.1126 / science.aad9837