and Inter-group
Conflict
Swarthmore
College
Email:
mvahlsi1@swarthmore.edu
At present, there are 6.5 billion people in the world and the
number continues to multiply. In contrast, there are only a limited number of
natural resources. Any person capable of reading a line graph can observe the
inherent problem with such statistics. On a global basis, the human population
has shown a J-shaped pattern of growth over the past two thousand years, while the
availability of natural resources mandatory for human survival is in slow
decline. The implications of this are not limited to mass starvation, poverty
and overcrowding of poorly sanitized cities. In fact, the current stress
created by the imbalance between a burgeoning population and a finite number of
resources are also one of the main factors contributing to the rise of violent
inter-group conflict. Clearly,
something must change in order to insure our own survival and the survival of
our planet. The question may be then, are humans flexible enough to alter our
consumption patterns, or must we invent our way out of this problem by
synthesizing more resources?
Unfortunately, human nature adopted its current manufacture and
consumption habits during a time when the balance between the number of humans
and their available resources was not nearly as stressed. The worldÕs
population early in the agricultural revolution (about 8,000 BC) was probably
no more than 10 million. (Southwick 159) In addition, the number of natural
resources available for human use was much greater. Thus, humans are continuing
to live as though there were an unlimited amount of natural resources, setting
themselves up for dire consequences in the future. According to a contemporary anthropologist
and writer, ÒMost ecologists consider human population growth to be one of the
greatest problems in global ecology and a major driving force of environmental
degradation. They see excessive consumption as an equally important cause of
pollution and environmental deterioration. Most agree that the two factors work
hand in hand to threaten the worldÕs ecological integrity.Ó (Southwick 159).
Southwick also reminds us that although the situation we have
set up for ourselves in the future might be highly regrettable, we are already
reaping the bad seed that we sowed in some parts of the world. We often forget
that a greater part of the developing world is suffering at the hand of this
incredible discrepancy between burgeoning population and environmental
scarcity. As of 1992,
-One out of every five people in the world, including one out of
three children under the age of five is hungry or malnourished.
-17 million are refugees, stateless, landless and often
homeless.
-One out of three people have poor health care and not enough
fuel to cook food or keep warm.
-Over a billion people are seriously ill with preventable
diseases, including malaria, tuberculosis, schistosomiasis, trypanosomiasis,
and filariasis.
(Miller, GT.
1992. Living in the Environment: An introduction to Environmental Science.
Belmont, CA: Wordsworth.)
According to Southwick, scientists estimate that the optimum
global population is no more than 2 billion people. They believe that somewhere
between 1 and 2 billion people could be supported in relative prosperity. (161)
Compare this with the current gl0bal human population of 6.5 Billion. Clearly,
a problem is at hand. Some pessimistic although perhaps realistic scientists
even view the current human population growth as a carcinogenic or cancer-like
growth with the potential of destroying the global ecosystem. (Southwick161)
In simple terms, the problem of the rapid growth in human
population stems from the fact that at present, three births are occurring in
the world for every death. (Southwick 163) One explanation for this is that
human reproductive mentality evolved at a time when mortality was high and
longevity was low. This can be observed in the current birth and death rates in
a large part of the developing world. At present, the average number of
children per household in countries like the US is around 2. In contrast, in
many less-developed nations where the women are acclimated to high mortality
rates in children, the average number of children per woman is somewhere between
4 and 10. (Southwick, 164) .
However, due to the current improvements in medicine and sanitation
technologies, the mortality rate in many of these countries has drastically
lowered. The problem arises then when the women in these countries reproduce as
though the situation was still one in which a fair number of the children never
lived past the age of five. This may be what Paul Erlich refers to as a
cultural evolutionary hangover; where a society has not evolved culturally to
respond to the current macroevolutionary factors, such as resource depletion.
Thus, regrettably, the fastest population growth and the greatest increases in
total numbers are occurring in countries least able to support the impact of
such growth.
According to Southwick, scientists view the connection between
poverty and high population growth
with two different interpretations. Some scientist view poverty as the
result of population growth. This is the traditional Malthusian view, which
upholds that rapid population increase strains resource bases, so there are
inevitable shortages of both material and economic resources. IN simple terms,
there are too many people and a finite amount of resources. In contrast, other
scientists see poverty as the cause of high population growth. They blame lack
of education, lack of healthcare and lack of a reasonable standard of living as
the root causes of unrestrained population growth. These scientists maintain
that families in the poorer nations view children even at the age of 4 or 5 as
assets in Òthe menial chores of village lifeÓ.( Southwick167) Furthermore, such families who are
primarily without social security, view their children as an insurance that
will support them in their old age. In fact, the World Health Organization
recently supported this theory with a projection that population growth will
only be supported by the reduction in infant mortality rates. One reason for
this may be because a reduction in infant mortality is oven codependent upon
better heath and sanitation policy in general. If the poorer nations were to be
provided with adequate housing, food, education and healthcare, then they may
reach an equilibrium where both infant mortality and rapid population growth
fizzle out.
Thus, does a bigger population mean a worse environment? Another expert, Edwin G. Dolan, says
not necessarily. He maintains that if we are able to minimize a personÕs
ecological footprint, then the earth and itÕs resources could support such a
rapidly growing population. (Dolan 61)
However, other scientists have a different take of the
situation. Anthropologist, Thomas Homer-Dixon, maintains that not only does
this rapid population problem cause stress on people and their environments,
but also it sets the stage for some of the most violent inter-group conflict
and warfare present today. He predicts that by the year 2025, the planetÕs
human population will reach just over eight billion. Consequentially, the total
production of goods and services traded in markets around the planet will
triple in dollars. As a result of these two trends, vital renewable resources
such as soil, water, forests and fish will be exhausted. Homer-Dixon goes on to
assert that such environmental scarcity is a significant contributor to many of
the very violent conflicts erupting in the developing world. ÒMoreover, these
conflicts may be the early signs of an upsurge of violence in the coming
decades- especially in poor countries- that is caused or aggravated by
environmental change.Ó (Dixon, 342)
Most
of the hypothesized connections between inter-group conflict and environmental
scarcity as a result of population growth posed by experts have focused mainly
on the demographic pressure that results when there are too many people and too
few resources. Not only does global environmental damage increase the gap
between rich and poor within a geographical area, but it strains the
connections between rich and poor countries over disparities in international
trade agreements. Namely, frustration arises when the poorer countries do not
agree on the global environmental standards put forward by the richer countries
because they feel they are being penalized for the pollution caused by the
richer countries in the past.
Homer-Dixon asserts, ÒEnvironmental change could in time cause a
slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions
between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions and spawn
revolutions and insurgenciesÓ (Dixon, 343)
The research conducted by Homer-Dixon and his team suggests that
violence arising from environmental scarcity doesnÕt generally follow the
age-old trend of conflicts over scarce resources; where one country or group
attempts to seize the resources of another. Rather, the global problem more
from the disregard by certain groups for global resources held in common by all
that inhabit the planet, such as the ozone layer, further asserts that Òthe
social effects of environmental scarcity are often insidious, such as slow
population displacement and economic disruption , that can in turn lead to
clashes between ethnic groups and social rebellion. But while these types of
conflict may not be as conspicuous or dramatic as wars between countries over
scarce resources, they may have critical implications for the security interests
of rich and poor nations alike.Ó (343)
Often, the type of conflict that breeds from environmental scarcity is one that results from large-scale migration of populations in search of better work or food. Often, migration resulting from a drop in food output into the cities may further reduce food production by causing a shortage in agricultural labor. Furthermore, a similar mechanism is in effect when the economic decline that results from such a migration leads to the further migration of people of wealth and education, which in turn leads to a general weakening in institutions of health and economic management. In addition, environmental decline often weakens the very fabric of social institutions, organizations, rules customs and habitual behavior. This in turn corrodes the confidence of the people in a greater national purpose. Consequentially, Òmass migrations of people into a new region will drive down wages, shift relations between workers, peasants, and land owners, and upset the long standing balance of economic and political power among ethnic groupsÓ (350, Dixon). Additionally, the tension caused between groups in a situation of environmental scarcity often escalates as a result of the naturally weakened state of health among the people in such areas. Often, such poverty drives people to radical measures.
Of course, scarcity conflicts such as we assume might take,
often still do. These stem primarily from the fact that the resources available
to humanity are fixed, while our desires arenÕt. Such conflicts will probably
arise over three types of resources in particular: river water, prime
fisheries, and good cropland. Some examples where problems such as these have
arisen were: the disagreement between Turkey and Syria over the Aswan High Damn
in 1989, the conflicts precipitating from the situation in India where massive
migrations to fertile Bangladesh exist, or the dispute over the Senegal river
basin between Mauritania and Senegal.
We cannot forget, however, that human endeavors have been somewhat
successful in synthesizing resources for ourselves. Dolan reminds us that,ÒNo
less significantly, advances in agricultural and industrial technology have
effectively increased the size of the globe over the last two centuries, in
terms of the maximum population which it will support.Ó (Dolan 58) We must, however, be
skeptical of a quick tech-fix. Although humans are undoubtedly clever enough to
devise a plan that may maximize the number of resources available for certain
people, we must be careful because such innovative planning may only increase
the amount of resources available to the rich in the world and in turn, consign
the poor. Homer-Dixon points out, Òthe property rights that affect resource
distribution often change as a result of large scale development projects or
the introduction of new technologies that alter the relative value of
resourcesÓ. (Dixon, 346)
As it stands now, it is clear that nothing but a heightened
awareness of the delicate balance between population growth and environmental
resources, technology and global environmental efforts. In addition, what
developmental efforts or initiatives that we do enact must take into careful
consideration how sustainable they will be for both the people and the natural
environment. Namely, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank must
take care to make decisions that best reflect the long-term interests of the
people and the ecosystems. Furthermore, it should be suggested that any policy
decisions that affect the surrounding environment, should be made on a regional
or ecosystem basis, rather than along national lines. If we want to insure our
human population and our natural environment against the fate that we have
currently instituted for them, then we must do nothing short of creating more
sustainable and carefully meditated policies. At present, the global community
is connected like never before. If we can maximize this connection by adopting
policy compatible with those ecological and demographic areas it might affect,
than we might work together to solve the greatest crisis that we will ever
encounter.
References:
Southwick,
Charles H., Ch. 15 from "Global Ecology in Human Perspective" Oxford
Univ. Press, 1996, pp. 159-182.
Dolan,
Edwin G., Ch. 5 from "TANSTAAFL: The Economic Strategy for Environmental
Crisis" 1974, pp. 55-72.
Klare,
Michael T. and Ghandrani, Yogesh; chapter 17 from World Security: Challenges
for a New Century. Bedford/ St. MartinÕs. NY.1998. Article by Thomas
Homer-Dixon.