4 ms·
Is there convincing evidence that resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization? Much of what I've seen shows the opposite: for example, China i
by intelliot 13y ago
Is there convincing evidence that resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization? Much of what I've seen shows the opposite: for example, China is a rising superpower largely because of their huge population. Having more people means more potential productivity, and that could lead to more prosperity.
On the other hand, small countries with few people are usually able to accomplish little. Places with few inhabitants are considered rural and have a lower standard of living than places with high extremely high population density, like cities.
- emiliobumachar 13y agoI'm counting war over the increasingly scarce resources as part of the risk, so the current influence of mildly scarce resources over politics is evidence. I agree with your point that, from a nationalist perspective, population size is basically nation size.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoWars aren't generally fought over resources these days.
- willvarfar 13y agoAs an armchair student, I'd judge most wars to be about resources. We must differ in definition of resources. Which recent wars are not about resources, do you think?
- 7952 13y agoI think this fact will become much more apparent as drones and droids become more common. The desire to control resources will become stronger when people can project that control "more cleanly". Battle robots and drones will be treated like a barbed wired fence used to keep people out.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoNo, it's not our definition of resources which differ. It's our understandings of human motivation which differs. You see the US as invading Iraq to control it's oil. I see the US invading Iraq out of frustration and the wish to "send a message" a-la mafiosos. Most wars are fought over honor and respect.
- ohyes 13y agoWars aren't overtly fought over resources these days, but the US has spent a lot of money in Iraq and 'stabilizing' the middle east (lot of good it's done). There happens to be oil in that area.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoAnd the US has spent a lot of money 'stabilizing' Afghanistan - quite possibly the most resource-less locale on the planet.
- CamperBob2 13y agoThere happens to be oil in that area. Which we could have simply purchased at a tiny fraction of the cost of going to war for it. I'm still waiting for all of that free oil we "won" to start making its way over here. It's almost as if the war wasn't fought for oil, but for oil companies. Gee.
- kzrdude 13y agoObama directly mentioned resources ("energy") as a reason to possibly use military power in Syria. http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the-un-the-truth-behind-core-interests-and-american-exceptionalism/5352500 http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the...
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoThat's just rationalization.