View - ResearchGate

Article 18163trate on cigarette smoking and obesity rather than terrorists. A person killed by cigarettes is just asdead as one killed by terrorists. The risks in many other countries are more severe; 2 million werekilled in the ongoing civil war in Sudan and 103 000 by two atomic bombs dropped by the UnitedStates on Japan in 1945, a one time event. Yet the latter has received far more attention. Even the20 000 deaths in India caused by the Bhopal chemical spill of 1985 and its aftermath received moreattention than the civil war in Sudan. The deaths of all humans killed before their normal life spanends are horrific, but our efforts to protect humans should bear some relationship to the actualdamage and risks. Reducing these risks and the consequent strain on natural systems and societycan be accomplished by changes in human behaviour, although they will be most effective if doneby large numbers of people. Preventing human deaths by war and other activities should be a partof the social contract. War is most destructive when waged by nation-states, but guerrilla activitycan be very destructive as well. One common deleterious effect is the production of refugees whocause significant ecological damage to the areas in which they seek refuge. Refugees can alsostrain the societal infrastructure of the area in which they take refuge, even taking it past its maximumlong-term carrying capacity.THE DANGEROUS CONCEPT OF ZERO RISKIn the early days of the environmental movement, especially after the first Earth Day about threedecades ago, discussion flourished on the idea of reducing to zero the risk from potentially toxicchemical substances. The concept of zero risk was eventually discarded, although some politiciansand world leaders still believe it a reasonable goal. Ironically, this concept was even touted as anachievable goal in space flight. For example, before the American spaceship Challenger exploded,officials estimated the probability of malfunction to as few as 1 in 100 000 flights. This estimationwas, in fact, just a euphemism for the idea of zero risk, i.e. the risk is so small it is essentially zero.However, few activities in daily life are entirely without risk. The passengers on the three aircrafthighjacked in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center buildings in New York or the Pentagonin Washington, DC, did not anticipate the actual risk to which they were exposed. Actual risk is alsonot anticipated by a person driving an automobile who has the misfortune to encounter another driverfilled with ‘road rage’. Absolute security is as elusive as zero risk. The irrational quest for zerorisk and absolute security are major obstacles to achieving sustainable use of the planet, whichshould be humankind’s primary goal.PREVENTATIVE WARThe outmoded concepts of zero risk and absolute security are being used to justify preemptivemilitary strikes to ‘prevent’ a serious threat (e.g. the war in Afghanistan to depose the Taliban andheighten the war on terrorism). The idea of preventative war replaces the concepts of containmentand deterrence, which were the strategies used during the ‘Cold War’ and with Iraq following theGulf War. The doctrine of preventative war was used by both Germany and Japan in World War II, butnot by the nation-states that were attacked. Unilateral action (i.e. preventative war) and, to a lesserextent, measures associated with the war on terrorism represent a rejection of multilateralism, whichis essential to the quest for sustainable use of the planet. Furthermore, the uncertainties involved inunilateral action will almost certainly result in larger expenditures for military purposes and more environmentaldamage, including societal infrastructure, when force is actually used.Reaction to this new orientation (from multilateral to unilateral) will induce countervailing trendsin the international system, which became evident in the actions of the United Nations when the