View - ResearchGate

168Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethicslow-entropy form (raw materials) and returns it to the environment in high-entropy form (wastes). Aclosed system is one whose only energy flows through. A steady-state economy is one whosethroughput (whatever enters a system as input and leaves as output) remains constant at a level thatneither depletes the environment beyond its regenerative capacity nor pollutes it beyond its absorptive(i.e. assimilative) capacity (Daly, 2003). War requires man-made services and sacrifices naturalcapital services, and it ignores ecosystem service efficiency, which, together with the naturalcapital, comprises the planet’s ecological life-support system. Damage to the ecological life-supportsystem is irrational, yet, at present, all too much of humankind’s resources (including natural resources)are devoted to war and the preparation for war (often termed defense), and comparativelytrivial amounts are devoted to replacement of unsustainable practices with sustainable practices.The most probable cause of this curious position is humankind’s obsession with growth. On afinite planet with finite resources, continued growth induces scarcity. Then, scarcity leads toresource wars, mass migration, political instability and, arguably most importantly, competition forincreasingly scarce resources (e.g. oil). Equitable and fair sharing of resources, including thoseneeded to maintain the planet’s ecological life-support system, will require both sharing and populationcontrol. Humankind is rapidly approaching the time when it will be attempting to managethe entire planet for sustainability.Half the world’s human population is living marginally or worse, and yet Renner (2003a) reportsthat military expenditures are on the rise. In 2001, a conservative estimate of world military expenditureswas US$839 billion, of which the United States spends 36% and those states consideredhostile to the United States spend 3% (Renner, 2003a). Even so, expenditures for the military areexpected to continue rising (Stevenson and Bumiller, 2002; Dao, 2002). Even 25% of these fundswould provide a much needed programme to develop alternative energy sources, which would alsodiminish the perceived need for resource wars.Renner and Sheehan (2003) state that approximately 25% of the 50 wars and armed conflicts ofrecent years were triggered or exacerbated by resource exploitation. Hussein persisted as a politicalleader by using resource money (in this case, oil) to maintain power by a variety of methods,including murder. The use of resource funds to maintain power is all too common (e.g. Le Billon,2001). Ending such misuse of power and the resultant conflicts has proven impossible because itis difficult to displace the power elite (e.g. United Nations Security Council, 2002).THE ULTIMATE SECURITYThe recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified on the grounds of reducing terrorism andeliminating weapons of mass destruction. However, in the first half of the twenty-first century,humankind will probably find it essential to choose between war and a transition from unsustainableto sustainable practices. The pivotal issue is how to provide the 2 billion or more people whoare living marginally with an opportunity to improve their quality of life without destroying theplanet’s ecological life-support system. Wars (particularly in Third World countries) exacerbatepoverty, economic collapse, and damage to public health systems.On the positive side, the number of armed conflicts declined slightly in 2002 because the numberof conflicts ending surpassed those newly erupting. Additionally, there were 17 armed conflictsnot sufficiently severe to qualify as war (Renner, 2003b). It seems likely that many wars and conflictsover resources are attributed to other causes, such as terrorism, ethnicity, weapons of massdestruction, and the like. As the population and material affluence increase per capita butresources do not, resource wars, however labeled, are likely to increase.