“We have no choice but to believe that we can do what is necessary for humanity to survive”

Since their appearance, humans, more than any other known species, have transformed their ecosystems.

The relationship between the arrival of

in different regions of the planet, thousands of years ago, and the disappearance of some large mammals, and the invention of agriculture multiplied our impact, has been investigated for many years.

However, until less than two centuries ago, the world remained too big to make a dent in it.

That changed with the industrial revolution, and now, what we do in any lost town is added to a process of global transformation with consequences that are difficult to foresee and probably catastrophic.

Simon Levin (Baltimore, 81 years old) is one of the researchers who has made it possible to understand the interactions between human and natural systems at different scales.

This professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and director of the Center for Biocomplexity at Princeton University (USA) is a pioneer in the development of mathematical models used to design protected natural areas or sustainable cities, and his work has offered tools that can help preserve Earth's dwindling biodiversity.

For this reason, he has received the Frontiers of Knowledge award from the BBVA Foundation in the Ecology and Conservation Biology category.

Ask.

The pandemic or climate change are processes in which the problem grows, slowly at first, and then experiences an exponential explosion.

We realize that it exists, we think we have time to react, but suddenly we see that it has escaped our control.

Do you think that with mathematical models like the ones you have created, it is possible to understand these complex problems and act in advance to prevent them or mitigate their impact?

Response.

Yes, sure.

But we have to be explicit about what we can predict.

For example, we've known for a long time that another pandemic was coming.

And I can tell you now that there is another pandemic coming, but I don't know when.

There is a very old joke about a man with a hole in the roof of his house who is told to fix it, and he replies: I can't, because it's raining.

So, when it stops raining, they tell him to fix it again, and he replies that he doesn't need to fix it anymore.

This is the kind of attitude we take whenever we detect a threat.

First something bad happens and then we take some steps and apply measures.

But later, when we see that nothing else happens for a while, we relax.

Insurance companies are worried [about future risks of climate change] and want to do something

We knew a pandemic was in the offing.

We should have stocked things like face masks.

We couldn't stockpile vaccines, because we didn't know what disease would cause the pandemic, but we should have had a system in place to develop them quickly.

Evolution has dealt with this problem because our bodies are constantly attacked by pathogens, so we have developed an immune system.

A very complicated system that starts with our skin and our mucous membranes, which block the assault of pathogens, and then when you get infected, you have a fever.

All of these are ways to buy time while the body prepares the specific antibodies for the infection.

We need a similar system to deal with new pandemics or climate change.

Masks would have been an example of something that would have bought us time while other solutions were developed.

So yes, our models tell us that there will be problems, that there will be pandemics, that climate change is a problem.

They are not completely accurate, but we have to learn to make decisions in the midst of uncertainty, and take precautionary measures to protect ourselves.

Q.

What do the models say about climate change?

Are we in time to do something to avoid disaster?

A.

We have no choice.

There are things in which we are already too late, some species or habitat losses.

We are going to lose that, but we have no choice but to believe that we can survive, that we can take the necessary steps for humanity to survive.

In order to survive, we have to identify what we call ecosystem services [resources or processes that benefit humans, such as drinking water or plant pollination], the ones that are most crucial to our sustainability, and we have to assume that there are time to prevent total collapse.

Q.

Do you think that people's behavior can be changed by offering them information?

We have known for decades that tobacco causes cancer, and, although fewer people smoke, many still do, although it is a direct risk for the individual.

How is it possible for people to change individual habits to avoid social risks, which are shared and can be suffered regardless of what one does about them?

R.

I am not completely optimistic, of course.

I think we can convince between 60 and 80%.

In the case of vaccines, 80 or 85% of the US population has been vaccinated, but there is a closed group that is not going to do so.

There is a cost to society and to individuals in counties who have these attitudes.

Mortality rates double those of other places, but there are people you will never convince.

What I think we can do is convince enough people to preserve public goods.

This is something that depends on social norms and social norms can change.

We have seen how it has happened with tobacco, with equality between genders or between races, but, of course, it is not enough, so we have to continue working.

The fundamental thing is to convince the people that we have a problem so that they put pressure on governments and companies

P.

Despite the concern with climate change, after the invasion of Ukraine and the energy crisis, we have seen how there is talk again of exploiting new sources of fossil fuels to gain independence.

R.

In the polls during the first years of this millennium, you saw that there was a growing recognition that climate change was a problem and that we had to do something about it.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008 and support for doing something about climate change dropped, because people thought there were more immediate problems.

Now, at least until before the Russian invasion, the numbers were going up again.

So what we're seeing is the importance of discount rates.

You have a number of factors that concern people and logically they are going to worry more about what is most immediate.

That doesn't mean they're not worried about climate change, but they assume they'll have time to manage it and are focused on surviving next year.

P. The people who lead society have good information, but the politicians or the heads of large companies do not seem to act accordingly or do not value the dimension of the problem or value it, but they think that it is better to continue getting rich despite the cost to the majority.

A. Changing companies or governments is also related to discount rates.

Young people are worried about what will happen in 20 or 30 years, older people too, because they have children or grandchildren, and we take a longer-term discount rate.

But the CEO of a company has a much shorter discount rate, because he wants to keep his job.

The entire company has to show profit.

Politicians probably have an even steeper discount rate because they may lose their jobs tomorrow.

Politicians are likely to be the most difficult to convince to act.

Companies are beginning to realize it, but there are also differences between them.

For example, insurance companies see the potential for floods or fires 20 years from now.

They see what inequity will mean.

I talk to people from insurance companies and they are worried and want to do something.

Companies have to think about their bottom line, and I think that should be reason enough for them to change.

But they also have to reflect on the sustainability of their businesses and the sustainability of the ecosystems of which they are a part.

And they also have to think about their responsibility to society.

I think that even energy companies are trying to redirect their investments towards more sustainable technologies, but this will not happen fast enough unless there is pressure from governments and people.

And governments are not going to change unless they feel pressure from the people.

So it seems to me that the fundamental thing is to convince the people that we have a problem so that they pressure governments and companies to act.

You can follow MATERIA on

50% off

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber