View - ResearchGate

166Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability EthicsHeniberg (2003) stresses that a high growth rate in oil thirsty nation-states, such as China or India,increases the probability of calamity by increasing competition among nations for oil. Such a situationalso increases the need for a decisive shift to alternatives.An era of dwindling oil energy supplies, resource wars, economic collapse, and fragmentation ofglobalization is shocking. The global human population is expected to double in 50 years, and thepopulation of the largest energy consumer, the United States, is expected to double in 70 years. Allsocietal activities require energy, so a combination of conservation plus development of sustainableenergy sources is essential. The societal consequences of lower energy availability could bedevastating — food shortages, reduced and more expensive transportation, and less heating, cooling,and lighting. Energy efficiency should help on a short-term basis, but improving efficiencyyields ever diminishing returns (i.e. vigorous and perpetual growth). Efficiency will not prevent longtermshortages. Unless alternative sustainable energy sources are developed, future resource warsare quite likely, which will further reduce energy available for civilian use.The wars of the twentieth century occurred during a period of expanding resource extraction,and, thus, more resources were available for civilian use than will probably be true for the twentyfirstcentury, which will be an era of declining resource availability and extraction. Replacing unsustainablepractices with sustainable practices, if carried out with sufficient rapidity, should reducethe number and intensity of resource wars, but is unlikely to eliminate them. Dramatic energyconservation, giving high priority to developing alternative sustainable energy sources, populationstabilization, and protection of natural capital and ecosystem services, will lessen the impact ofdownturns due to resource depletion. A planet with fewer people might make sustainability possibleand improve the quality of life if resources are not diverted to war.SUSTAINABILITY AND SECURITYThe ultimate security problem is sustainable use of the planet. Without ecological and technologicallife-support systems and the services they provide, human society as presently known isdoomed, even possibly threatened with extinction. The beginning of the twenty-first century hasprovided persuasive evidence that neither war nor terrorism brings security, but diminishes bothecological and societal stability and integrity.Chief security officers (CSOs) and senior security executives are concerned that the UnitedStates could be on its way to becoming a police state (according to a poll released May 12, 2003,by CSO magazine [www.cio.com]). Thirty six percent of the American public does not believe thatchanging Hussein’s regime in Iraq will ultimately improve American national security, and 40% ofCSOs do not believe the terror threat information provided by the U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity is timely and accurate (information provided by P. Ehrlich, personal communication, May18, 2003). Only 3% believe another major physical attack on American soil by a terrorist organizationor nation-state will ever happen.The United States fought five major wars during the twentieth century: World Wars I and II, theKorean and Vietnam wars, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Four of these five wars gave the politicalparty in the American White House victories and rejoicing when armistice peace was declared.However, situations deteriorated in the 1–5 years following these because of unwise peace terms,post-war stresses, broken promises, diplomatic disappointments, and war-related scandals(Phillips, 2003). Much uncertainty still exists in the world, despite the cost of these wars in moneyand lives. A popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expectinga different result.