View - ResearchGate

Article 20183or corporation with sufficient money can extract resources, all too often in an unsustainable way.These activities have resulted in a biotic crisis that is likely, if these practices continue, to precipitatea sixth mass extinction of species. Extinction terminates lineages and removes genetic materialvaluable to the ecological life support system. Biodisparity (the biota’s morphological and physiologicalvariety) would be in serious decline (e.g., Russell et al. 1995).The fossil record provides substantial evidence about extinction events that have covered variousspatial scales and degrees of biotic impoverishment. It is quite clear that there is recovery fromeven major biotic impoverishment over geologic and evolutionary time. These are not time scalesthat human society has had experience planning for. Furthermore, disequilibrium conditions do notfavor sustainable use of the planet by one species. Sustainability is more probable if human societyhad a peaceful, mutualistic relationship with natural systems upon which it is dependent.Lessons from the past show that, when large numbers of individuals are weakened by famine,disease, emotional stress, and social disorder, the larger population of which they are a part is likelyto experience severe disequilibrium. If this adversely affected the technological/economic life supportsystem, recovery would be problematic since humankind has utilized much of the huge inventoryof natural capital from which the present social system was built.The most dramatic evolutionary effects of mass extinctions are that they remove successfulincumbents (Jablonski 2001). Surely, Homo sapiens fits this description very well indeed for largespecies. Biotic consequences are not likely to be of major concern to species that have goneextinct.THE PROSPECTS FOR PEACEResource wars will continue until humankind learns to live sustainably, which, in turn, requirespeace with both the human species and with other life forms. Since resource wars are primarilycaused by unsustainable resource consumption, much attention must be given to the ecologicalfootprint size of both individuals and nations. Excessive resource consumption generates enormousprofits for corporations and a few individuals on a short-term, unsustainable basis. Theseprofits divert attention from protection of the resource to short-term benefits to the exploiters ofthe resource. The result is the extraction of resources as rapidly as possible and then shiftingmonetary capital to other resources. The power elite uses this procedure as a dominant paradigm;however, there are alternatives. Hawken (1993) has shown that corporate profits are possibleeven in the present global economy and are compatible with long-term benefits. Weston(1995) has produced an excellent overview of the situation that focuses on both environmentaland corporate concerns. The US National Academy of Engineering (1996) addresses the pivotalissue of how to maximize the benefits of technological innovation with an emphasis on preventingenvironmental damage.Prospects for peace with natural systems will be enhanced by: (1) not discharging or producingwastes that cannot be beneficially assimilated by natural systems, (2) taking nothing from Earththat is not renewable in quantities that can be extracted indefinitely (i.e., efficient use of resources),(3) anything that benefits neither consumers nor natural systems is unacceptable waste,(4) embracing natural capitalism (Hawken et al. 1999), which espouses an economic system thatdoes not plunder Earth, (5) restoring damaged ecosystems at a higher rate than they are beingdamaged until there is sufficient natural capital for sustainable use of the planet, then, a balancebetween damage and repair should be adequate, (6) monitoring natural systems to confirm thatpreviously established quality control conditions are being met. Present unsustainable practices