Black Scenario
No collective responsibility
In 2040, no collective responsibility is taken for societal issues, global commons, nutrition of people or other issues. Individual responsibility for others is very limited. The most important criteria for purchasing food are price and availability, with quality taking a backseat. Health or nutrition safety are not the priorities – people eat what is available and affordable. We live in an erratic and permanently changing world – without any trust in science or ourselves. Europe as a plaything for global (economic) interests tries to defend itself in a world of heatwaves, cold and hot spots, drought or floods and erratic weather phenomena.
In the year 2040, the status quo of the growth paradigm continues to dominate economic thinking. International corporations, particularly digital and food companies, hold a strong presence in value chains, prioritizing profit above everything else. Global collaboration is pursued for own profit only, and trade has ups and downs depending on conflicts, competition and self interests – sometimes European companies find solutions for collaboration if they are dependent on them or if they need them: I collaborate when I profit from the collaboration.
Market-based instruments are used for ‘climate protection’, but collective responsibility is lacking. Organisations are not interested in taking responsibility for good nutrition, the health of end consumers, or sustainability, and many individuals do not care about others. This thinking resembles the sentence: ‘the others shall do it’. Companies exploit their available tools, such as marketing and market power, to heavily influence consumer choices. They increase their revenues by creating new markets in Europe and elsewhere. Despite occasional counter movements and protests, these efforts have been unsuccessful in bringing about real changes – neither for the companies nor the behaviour of citizens. This leads to a lot of unrest among citizens and polarised discussions.
The most important criteria for purchasing food are price and availability, with quality taking a backseat. Not all consumers want or can act according to their values and concerns and most of them (must) neglect quality. As a result, we see a pandemic of obesity, mental health problems, and cardiovascular diseases. We have seen the emergence of food deserts already in the 2020s, nowadays, it is difficult in some European regions to find fresh food in supermarkets. Food safety is provided according to existing laws and regulations but has not been improved or adapted to new developments in the last decades.
The availability of resources is heavily influenced by capital, leading to a game dominated by big players and land grabbing. While land is still available, the price becomes a determining factor. The old trend towards large, economically efficient farms continues driven by pressure from regions like Asia, which contributes to global competition in food markets. In Asia, efficient huge farms dominate the local markets and export to the world. With many more regions without frost, more land is used and doubled harvests are the norm. There, nobody cares about pesticides or the health of soils – quantity is key.
These dynamics have led to increased inequalities and a decrease in urban social security. Inequalities in adaptation to climate change also became more pronounced over the years. The European Union focuses on deregulation and innovation but falls behind in many areas of digitalisation. Data protection and ethical concerns have become less important compared to convenience. Foreign technologies offer many advantages – in spite of the potential security risks involved – and are therefore used extensively.
Climate change impacts become evident as symptoms in different regions of the world with soil erosion, loss of land and in Europe, with some areas already being lost for human food production or settlement because of extreme weather conditions. However, people adapt to the situation, albeit with varying intensities, often one step forward and two steps back. Global population growth and increased mobility, including rural-urban migration and international seasonal migration, put pressure on Europe, as also the European population is not decreasing as much as projected in the 2020s. More children are born in Europe and the population is living longer than expected in more or less good health. Immigration is limited, the still growing populations in African and some Asian countries are as much as possible kept out of the EU.
The society of 2040 is very individualistic and focuses on personal interests, lacking social empathy without any apparent reason. Many years ago, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher doubted that there is such a thing as society: ‘I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.’ Hard-core Homo Economicus thinking dominates and people are forced to first secure their basic needs. As they are trying to survive, they have less capacity and willingness to think about the needs of others or future generations.
There is a lot of frustration – a growing number of people are losing out. During the last years, there has been extensive privatisation and a stark decrease in the availability and quality of public infrastructures; infrastructures do not keep up with the needs of the people anymore. This leads to significant differences between urban areas, characterised by pockets of highly insecure neighbourhoods, and rural regions, which lack public transport and other services. Inequalities result in poor health and limited education for the have-nots who, in addition, are dependent on the almost-non-existent public transportation. Only the haves can afford health or good education, and roam easily. For example, rural areas are struggling to cope with school closures, forcing children to travel long distances for education and further hindering education for the have-nots, who try to develop informal carpool networks to reach schools at all.
Counter-movements emerged in the 2030s, such as the widespread use of food banks, but these attempts remained a niche. Local charities stepped in to address some of the gaps in food provision or health, but many were largely dependent on a few individuals and had to stop operations when the individuals ran out of funds, died, or just lost interest. Public funders intervene now and make some favourable decisions or try to help, but this is often seen as greenwashing and image polishing. Nobody believes that it will remain or will change the situation.
Governance is debated as being critical for further developments, because many people notice that accountability for the actions of big corporations and NGOs is unclear. Making them accountable needs EU-wide or worldwide governance, but who should start the initiatives? We see a huge impact of crude behaviour on the environment, on water quality and a severe decline in biodiversity. Nature is neglected, and problems are denied by the governments in the EU.