Scarcity

At the end of our last lecture, we were left to think again as to if we personally believe scarcity causes conflict. While taking a glance around the room, I realized the class was still split about half and half. It is hard for me to understand the half of the room that does not think scarcity causes conflict. Whether the conflict is non-violent or violent, whenever a group of people are competing for a scarce resource, conflict is bound to occur. Sometimes it is the simplest arguments that end up being the truest, and in this case I think the equation is clear: scarcity=conflict.

Homer Dixon's argument is the most compelling argument, and although his equation is not as simple as just scarcity leading to conflict it still lends the most logical perspective. Dixon believes that climate change leads to scarcity, and depending on the type of climate change can dictate different types of scarcity. Nonetheless, there are still arguments that go against Dixon. For example, Thiesen's reading came up with data that showed conflict such as civil war is not likely to be caused by scarcity. Nonetheless, I do not find his data to be compelling. I think by just using common sense it is easy to see that scarcity is going to cause conflict. For example, if there is one well filled with enough water to support 15 people and their are 20 people in a community it is doubtful that the people in the community are going to create a rotating schedule with who will be entitled to the water during what days. People tend to look out for themselves, and even if it means physically fighting for your share of water, there is no doubt in my mind that this would be the more plausible reaction to scarce water.

The other argument that could be made against scarcity is that abundance could actually pose a greater threat.This was seen in the Hendrix reading. When there was higher levels of rainfall there was a greater chance for violent conflict, but low levels of rainfall are more likely to cause nonviolent conflict. Nonetheless, Hendrix looked at a very specific variable and it is not a convincing argument to me because it doesn't look at the scarcity of a resource like oil or even the effects of deforestation. In order for Hendrix argument to be more compelling, he needs to look at how scarcity and abundance cause conflict on a larger scale than just rainfall.

Finally, another argument against Dixon would come from cornucopians. Cornucopians do not believe scarcity really leads to conflict because they have the opinion that humans will be able to keep up with the times and create technologies that make scarcity a non issue. I have the hardest time understanding this view. It is rare that I ever watch the news and see a report that says there is plenty on this earth and that we will learn to adjust to our situations. The largest criticism I have for this view is that even if technologies are created, that does not mean they will be equally distributed around the world. The United States may come up with techniques and ways to support a growing population therefore avoiding scarcity completely, but that does not mean that developing countries with rising populations will also be able to handle scarcity in the same way.  Although it would be nice to think that countries would share modern farming techniques or technologies for free, we live in a give and take world. Even if the United States or another country went in and gave another country help, just interfering with their farming practices to avoid scarcity or help alleviate scarcity could cause conflict. Not everyone likes international intervention, and it would undoubtedly cause local conflict.