by Jon Burnsky
Homer-Dixon
makes the Neo-Malthusian claim that climate change causes different kinds of
scarcity, which in turn causes conflict, and that combatting climate change
will work its way down the chain to avert conflict. While the evidence for this
link is not clearly established, it is worth thinking about. Criticisms of
Homer-Dixon are either from Cornucopians or Promethians that claim scarcity is
not worth worrying about because it doesn’t exist or will solve itself. A problem that comes along with these criticisms is that they can very easily lead to laziness and make people apathetic towards the real problem of actively solving climate change. Despite
these criticisms and the lack of empirical evidence, people in general agree
with Homer-Dixon because of the certain Western political culture, and this is
displayed in popular culture.
Many science fiction movies concern themselves with huge
conflicts arising from resource competition or an ecological apocalypse. For
instance, the more recent version of The
Day the Earth Stood Still was about an alien invasion and attempted human
extermination because of people’s lack of willingness to address their overuse
of the planet. Habitable planets are scarce, and so the aliens wanted to preserve
Earth. This is a greatly exaggerated and dramatized conflict, but in the end it
is resolved by nations agreeing to cooperate in combating climate change, thus
dealing with scarcity. Another movie, Elysium,
dealt with a similar outlook. Resources and land had become scarce due to
overpopulation, so a space station was constructed in which the wealthy could
live and enjoy a relatively post-scarcity standard of living. In doing so there
arose scarcity of people allowed to live in this space utopia, which created
violent conflict between the have and have-nots. This too supposed that
scarcity was a growing problem, and that even a Promethian response, building
an artificial environment, would create scarcity itself and more conflict.
Similarly, there was a TV show, Revolution, which I did not watch, but had to do with a sudden loss
of all electric power supply throwing the world into anarchy. Through
commercials, I gathered that one group had regained access to power and this
led to war between competing factions over electricity. Another post
apocalyptic TV show is The Walking Dead
about life after a zombie outbreak. Practically every conflict in the show is
rooted in the fact that there is a scarcity of secure locations, food, water,
and guns. Multiple different groups are constantly at odds to secure as many
resources as they can and in doing so entrench themselves in conflict.
It seems as though Homer-Dixon’s argument of scarcity
causing conflict holds in these theoretical future cases. The writers of these
shows and movies seem to think so, and the viewers generally buy into the
claims being made as well. Why then does it not hold consistently in real-world
past case studies? Perhaps it is that the regions being studied have been in
conflict anyway, and that his prediction would work in a developed democratic
country. Or maybe it is that the evidence is not necessary at all to make
Homer-Dixon’s claims right. Epictetus was a Roman Stoic philosopher who said
that the logic and evidence behind a value-judgment claim is not as important
as the judgment itself. So if Homer-Dixon’s claim that climate change causes
scarcity which causes conflict will lead to nations collaborating on solving
climate change, then it is a good claim regardless of its logical or empirical validity.
Perhaps
in doing so, Homer-Dixon plays on the universal fear among Westerners that
conflict will arise and pressures new technologies to be created. The same
could be said about Malthus himself. It could be that fear caused by his
predictions added the right amount of incentive to increase interest in
innovating new ways to deal with scarcity. The Promethians could be correct in
that the real causal chain is scarcity produces concern, which causes pressure
to innovate. However, Promethians that claim this is no reason to worry are
mistaken. The pessimism and concern of Neo-Malthusians is an integral part of
the solution process, therefore Homer-Dixon’s claim is necessary for them to be
correct.
There is
a cultural norm to be pessimistic about scarcity. Homer-Dixon and mass society
follow this norm, and only skeptic Cornucopians and Promethians do not. They
use data to show that the claim may be baseless or even illogical. However, Homer-Dixon’s
claim gives reason to fight for a good cause: combat climate change. In the end,
is this not a necessary goal regardless of whether or not it causes conflict?
Jon,
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to tell us that you haven't watched a show you referenced...
But this is interesting. Basically you are arguing that it is ok to argue positions that you know are wrong (or at least not substantiated) for a greater good. Are there situations where you don't think this is warranted?
This does run into the issue that the greater good is not always clearly known. For example, terrorism has been for the perceived greater good of Islam; for its survival in a globalizing world. For some this is rational because of their perception of the end being for the greater good. For others the means are abhorrently immoral. Most everybody will agree that global climate change is bad for humans and the planet inherently, so fighting climate change is believed to be a good end. However, by going through with this using Western cultural fear and possibly at the expense of others, some will argue that there are less-wrong ways to motivate action than tapping into unproven Neo-Malthusianism. The biggest issue is whether or not there is a more effective option.
DeletePerhaps scarcity is causing conflict and people are either not seeing its effects or are attributing them to other causes. One logical reason that we don't see conflicts over scarcity in the west is due to the incredible abundance we have compared to the rest of the world. Thus, our conflicts are rather minor because the scarcity we encounter is minor. However, if one views scarcity as simply the lack of availability of something then the picture becomes clearer but perhaps less useful. Let us consider that anything that is valuable can be scarce. Of these valuable things there will be a hierarchy. At the top are the things one must have to live and at the bottom are things that one could easily do without. If something that is at the top is scarce then people will do whatever is necessary to acquire it because to not acquire it is to die. The things at the bottom can be kept from most people without them caring overly much. Thus the top items will cause bloody conflict if they are scarce and the bottom things will not. In the west we have almost everything we could want and everything that we need so there is little cause for conflict. But it is still there. People fight over scarce resources even in the midst of plenty. So what happens if real scarcity occurs? You may recall a problem with some water main not long ago which was threatening to deprive many homes in the D.C area of water. The public response wasn't lets get together and pool resources while this blows over it was everyone for themselves scrambling to hoard water which is clearly a type of conflict as people sought to withhold resources from others to protect their own interests. It turned out that the whole issue got resolved very rapidly and not much came of it but people freaked out first and thought about it later. Clearly we are very prone to conflict when our security is threatened. Even when the threat is minor and temporary. This may be different than in poorer countries where people are already accustomed to having less and have stronger social networks to help them survive lean times. Perhaps scarcity doesn't cause conflict in the poorer parts of the world that suffer from precisely because they have always suffered from it and are thus accustomed to it. Thus it isn't that scarcity doesn't cause conflict it is that people have the capacity to avoid scarcity conflicts and we only see those conflicts if people fail to resist them.
ReplyDeleteI personally do agree with Homer-Dixon, but I feel like this analysis may be a little one sided. Couldn't it just be that playing out his theory makes for better television? It's easier to say there will be conflict over resources and have the plot line thicken, than a human to solve the problem at hand and fix scarcity. I also think its important to note that for many of these shows they actually do end up conquering over their tribulations. So one could say that is a very Promethian outlook.
ReplyDeleteScarcity causing conflict and then being resolved by innovative and sympathetic characters does make for a much more interesting story than a cornucopian argument. What I find interesting is that people believe the possibility of these scenarios to the point where it becomes an integral cultural belief that the Homer-Dixon's claim is right and logical.
Delete*the audience believes these claims
Delete