It’s hard to determine whether scarcity comes from conflict,
which lead certain resources to be exploited, or if they naturally become
scarce just from human activity. The debate is an interesting one, and many
scholars consider their side to be correct. I think that both sides hold merit
and that each one holds some kind of responsibility when it comes to the
scarcity of resources, however, it is the lack of resources that lead to
conflict.
It’s well known that conflict has led to resource wars.
Nations are constantly gathering resources in hope that they can hold some
value in an internationally anarchic world. In this race for resources, we are
exhausting natural supplies. This can be seen in major conflicts like World
Wars, where resources are used to provide for soldiers or to restore places
that conflict has destroyed. Without these conflicts, the resources may not
have been used up as quickly.
Thomas Malthus believed that scarcity would come from the
exponential growth of the human population. I agree with this sentiment to a
degree. Because of the large global population resources like oil, food, and
water have become harder and harder to come by in countries with a lack of
infrastructure. The struggle to obtain resources this century and the greed of
authoritarian leaders has led the masses to remain impoverished. Despite these
countries being rich in resources, most citizens continue to remain in poverty
because of the privatization of the resources. This forces citizens to work for
private companies, most of whom are corrupted by governmental leaders, leading
to almost no economic mobility among the masses. This has led to conflict in
resource rich nations like Nigeria and Central African Republic.
Klare’s argument directly disagrees with this school of
Malthusian thought. While both agree that resources are finite, Klare believes
that these sources would eventually run out regardless of population. I agree,
as we will constantly use sources no matter what the population is; it’s just a
question of when they will run out. Klare also acknowledged that the scarcity
of resources will lead to an increase in their price and value. This is exemplified
with oil, especially in the Middle East. While there are many debates about why
countries hold a stake in the area, it goes without a doubt that oil plays some
role. This has obviously led to mass conflict in the area. America, who already
has a wealth of oil supply from its own land still valued the potential gains
of that source. This shows that even though countries may be rich in a
resource, gathering all of it can increase its worth. This is why many
resources that have become scarce in areas are constantly becoming privatized.
What can we do to stop this conflict and slow down, and
maybe eventually stop, the exploitation of these resources? Environmental
groups, states, and investors have been working hard at this for some time. The
United States has begun to use GMO’s to steadily increase the supply of crops
and help alleviate potential food shortages. The rest of the world has been
investing more money into renewable sources of energy. With transmission grids
being updated, there may reach a point that these renewables can be beneficial
not only to the country that they are being built in, but reach across to other
nations as well. This promotes electricity trade between regions. All of these
potential solutions to resource scarcity can help bring an end to conflict and
even promote cooperation between states.
I'm currently in SOCY410 which explores scarcity in modern society, so these arguments are very relevant to what we learn in that class. As you discussed, Malthus believed that scarcity would come from the exponential (or geometric) growth of humans, while our resources would only grow arithmetically, ultimately leading to scarcity. However, obviously, Malthus wasn't around to experience the growth and changes in technology such as GMO's, or I'm sure he would have tweaked his argument. Ultimately though, there are some resources that cannot be renewed on the time-scale we need them to be, such as fresh water, so conflict is inevitable. I think you closed your argument very nicely by explaining the different options countries are investing in to avoid conflict/promote cooperation in the future.
ReplyDeleteI like how you distinguished between the two perspectives of Klare and Malthus, both believing we will run out of resources but for different reasons. I find both to be believable. In a class for my minor, we discussed how as wealth around the world is increasing, consumption patterns will change. People want a certain quality of life, which can include demand for electricity, cars, and a more carnivorous diet. Essentially, the growing middle classes in developing nations want the options allotted to Americans. Of course, as we know, it would take many earths to sustain the consumption level of average Americans. Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to assume that uncontrolled population growth is not the only way we will run out of resources.
ReplyDeleteWhile you explore the scarcity leading to conflict link, why do you think this is the way causation flows as opposed to conflict leading to scarcity? Or even a spiral where one creates another and so on?
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that causation flows this way because as far as we can trace back, most conflicts have been started due to wanting to gain a resource, be it physical or not. If society had enough of these sources we would be less likely to clash with one another.
DeleteThomas Malthus argument about human population growth making scarcity more prevalent makes sense in our current understanding of science. However, I think it is safe to say that we underestimate the scope of our scientific abilities. In only 200 years we have drastically improved the average income and life expectancy this all comes from advances on science building on each other. I truly believe there is a solution to oil scarcity and food shortages that we have not yet discovered or at least implemented. I tend to take a cornucopian approach that argues the human race will always find a way.
ReplyDelete