SQSwans: Apartheid preferred small population of self sufficient personally responsible K-Africans; Mine Owners prefer large population of desperate poverty stricken r-Africans

Letter to Anglo American CEO: Cynthia Carroll: RE: M&G: Carroll: Mine violence caused by legacy of apartheid, MineWeb: The four truths SA Mining cannot avoid, and Grist: Cyanide Cynthia, worlds biggest Scrooge

In a Post Peak NNR World; is (A) Bullshit-the-Public Relations ‘Mining is the Heart of SA’s Economy’; or (B) Brutal Honesty: ‘Ecological Reality is the foundation of Economic Reality: Unsustainable Mining has caused Global NNR Scarcity, which will cause Crisis of Conflict Civilisation Collapse by 2050’, a company’s most valuable asset?

Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 05 December 2012

Question 1: Is it not true that Apartheid preferred a small population of self sufficient personally responsible K-Africans; whereas it was (and is) International Mine Owners who prefer a large population of desperate poverty stricken r-Africans?

Question 2: Is Carroll/Anglo-American reference to ‘Law and Order’ referring to (a) ‘We the Humpty Dumpty Corporations Law and Order’; or (b) Laws of Nature: Pay the Eco-Footprint Price for Law and Order?

Question 3: If Carroll/AA is referring to Eco-footprint Law and Order: Do Carroll and Anglo American have -- Consumption and procreation footprint – Eco-footprint Law and Order Credibility?

Question 4: In a Post Peak NNR World; is (A) Bullshit-the-Public Relations ‘Mining is the Heart of SA’s Economy’; or (B) Brutal Honesty: ‘Ecological Reality is the foundation of Economic Reality: Unsustainable Mining has caused Global NNR Scarcity, which will cause Crisis of Conflict Civilisation Collapse by 2050’, a company’s most valuable asset?

Question 5: Should Corporate CEO’s who Refuse to Confront the Ecological Scarcity Foundation for Economic Reality, be labelled as Resource Terrorists threats to National Security?

Letter to Anglo American CEO: Cynthia Carroll: RE: M&G: Carroll: Mine violence caused by legacy of apartheid, MineWeb: The four truths SA Mining cannot avoid, and Grist: Cyanide Cynthia, worlds biggest Scrooge

05 December 2012

TO: Cynthia Carroll, CEO Anglo American

CC: Simon Scott, CEO Lonmin Plc
CC: Police Comm.: Riah Phiyega c/o: Minister of Police: N Mthwethwa
CC: Hon. Judge Ian Gordon Farlam, Marikana Commission of Enquiry


RE: M&G: Carroll: Mine violence caused by legacy of apartheid, MineWeb: The four truths SA Mining cannot avoid, and Grist: Cyanide Cynthia, worlds biggest Scrooge.

I am very confused: What does a North American geologist who appears to know very little about – mining finite resources is not sustainable -- geology, know about the Legacy of Apartheid; or does the answer lie in your eco-illiterate addiction to Bullshit-the-Public Relations?

Question 1: Is it not true that Apartheid preferred a small population of self sufficient personally responsible K-Africans; whereas it was (and is) International Mine Owners who prefer a large population of desperate poverty stricken r-Africans?

Question 2: Is Carroll/Anglo-American reference to ‘Law and Order’ referring to (a) ‘We the Humpty Dumpty Corporations Law and Order’; or (b) Laws of Nature: Pay the Eco-Footprint Price for Law and Order?

Question 3: If Carroll/AA is referring to Eco-footprint Law and Order: Do Carroll and Anglo American have -- Consumption and procreation footprint – Eco-footprint Law and Order Credibility?

Question 4: In a Post Peak NNR World; is (A) Bullshit-the-Public Relations ‘Mining is the Heart of SA’s Economy’; or (B) Brutal Honesty: ‘Ecological Reality is the foundation of Economic Reality: Unsustainable Mining has caused Global NNR Scarcity, which will cause Crisis of Conflict Civilisation Collapse by 2050’, a company’s most valuable asset?

Question 5: Should Corporate CEO’s who Refuse to Confront the Ecological Scarcity Foundation for Economic Reality, be labelled as Resource Terrorists threats to National Security?


[1] LEGACY OF APARTHEID OR CYANIDE SCROOGES?

Question: Is it not true that Apartheid preferred a small population of self sufficient personally responsible K-Africans; whereas it was (and is) International Mine Owners who prefer a large population of desperate poverty stricken r-Africans?
Apartheid Perspective to r-Africans and K-Africans:

[1] Imagine an African named Nelson Mandela, or Steve Biko, or Sipho Shabalala decided in 1810, or 1920, or 1938, or 1945, or 1972, or any date in between, before or subsequent thereto:

1. Noticed that Boers ‘breeding’ cultural values are: K-selected reproductive strategy: a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each; whereas African ‘breeding’ cultural values are: r-selected reproductive strategy: large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring.

2. Noticed that a K-selected reproductive strategy provides children with far greater opportunities in life, whereas cultures with an r-selected reproductive strategy perpetuate and aggravate that cultures poverty and misery.

3. Concluded that the major fundamental motive for perpetuating Apartheid was the Boers fear of the ‘swart gevaar’, i.e. the political consequences of Africans breeding war: r-selected reproductive cultural behaviour.

4. Believed that he -- and African men -- were capable of amending their procreation behaviour from an r-selected reproductive strategy (large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring); to the Boers K-selected reproductive strategy (a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each;

5. Decided to challenge himself, for the benefit of himself, his family, and his children, to adopt a K-selected reproductive strategy (a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each).

6. Decided to test the Boers and himself, by drawing up an Written Oath to the Court and the Bureau of State Security (BOSS), wherein he stated that:

A. I hereby declare that I am an African man who hereby commits to raising my child in accordance to a K-selected reproductive strategy (a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each).

B. I declare that I am willing to pay the one child, or less, per family price of peace (law and order).

C. I furthermore hereby declare that I understand that if I violate this One Child Oath, I thereby authorize the Bureau of State Security (BOSS) to remove me and my children from the African genepool, by assassination.

D. Should I have violated this One Child Oath, and thereby require BOSS to remove my dishonourable genes from the African genepool, I hereby further inform the local Prosecutor’s Office, that if BOSS confirms that my assassination occurred in accordance with my violation of this oath, no further Prosecutorial or Police Investigation resources are required to be wasted on the matter, of my assassination.

E. In exchange, I request that I be given the opportunity to be granted a ‘K-African’ (African practicing a K-selected reproductive strategy) legal status, to be excluded from all Apartheid legislation focussed on containing the social conflict consequences of r-Africans (Africans practicing r-selected reproductive strategy: large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring) behaviours, whose disregard for their children, and their families result in communities of violence and self hatred.

[2] What do you think would have been the Apartheid Government’s honourable response to such an Opportunity for Problem Solving of the negative consequences of cultures and communities who practice r-selected reproductive strategies?

[3] Do you think, Apartheid politicians would have welcomed the opportunity with both arms; and enabled legislation that would grant honourable Africans who are willing to take responsibility for their procreation behaviours and responsibility for the care and investment into their children; or not? If not, why not?

Anglo American Mining Corporations Perspective to r-Africans and K-Africans:

[4] Imagine, Sipho, or Nelson or Steve, had made their One Child Oath submission to BOSS, and it was enthusiastically received by the Apartheid government, who set about implementing legislation that would grant ‘K-African’s (African practicing a K-selected reproductive strategy) legal status, to be excluded from all Apartheid legislation focussed on containing the r-Africans.

[5] Do you agree that an African man who has avoided procreation until he is married; who has signed the One Child Oath to get himself K-African legal status, which therefore widens his opportunities, is capable of saving money, prior to procreating his one child, and who has only one child to sustain, is not forced to leave home to seek work on a mine?

[6] Do you think Anglo American Cyanide Scrooge Mine Owners, prefer:

1. a country of minimal unemployment in the African community, where most African men have taken the One Child oath, and are not mired in poverty and desperate for a job, away from their family, on a mine?

2. a country with massive unemployment in the African community, where most African men are r-Africans (Africans practicing r-selected reproductive strategy: large number of offspring with minimal investments in offspring), whose disregard for their children, and their families result thousands of poverty stricken African’s desperate for any job, including, in a mine?.

[2] CYNTHIA SCROOGES HUMPTY DUMPTY LAW & ORDER:

Question 2: Is Carroll/Anglo-American refers to ‘Law and Order’ are they referring to (a) ‘We the Humpty Dumpty Corporations Law and Order’; or (b) Laws of Nature: Pay the Eco-Footprint Price for Law and Order?

In my experience when Cynthia Scrooges start talking about Law and Order, they are talking about Law (police and courts) that allow Corporations to rape the environment, and rob and steal resources from future generations.

They are talking about a Laws of Nature definition of Law and Order; but a ‘Humpty Dumpty’ definition of ‘Law and Order”:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."
-- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass (1872)

[3] PAY ECOFOOTPRINT PRICE 4 PEACE (LAW & ORDER)

Question 3: If Carroll/AA is referring to Eco-footprint Law and Order: Do Carroll and Anglo American have -- Consumption and procreation footprint – Eco-footprint Law and Order Credibility?

If Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group.

System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of South Africa’s conflict is the sum of 50 million sets of intrusions.

Using this definition of conflict, we are able to establish whether South Africa’s socio-economic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; by answering the following two questions:

1. How many children per family leads to peace (law and order) [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert, the answer is one child per family]; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals’ ‘breeding war combatant’ status?

2. How much consumption relative to the nation’s footprint carrying capacity leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption relative to the nations bio-capacity per person, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals ‘consumption combatant status’?

Cynthia Carroll & Anglo American Footprint:

Consumption and Procreation Combatant or Pay EcoFootprint Price for Peace (Law and Order):

What is Anglo American’s Global Footprint?

What is Anglo American: CEO: Cynthia Carroll’s Consumption Footprint?

Total Carroll Footprint: Consumption Footprint x 80:

Ms. Carroll has four children. As comedienne Doug Stanhope describes in Overpopulation – Abortion is Green, Try Sodomy, an Oregon University study research found that a woman that already recycles at her optimum increases her carbon footprint by a factor of 20, for every child she procreates.

It is highly unlikely that Ms. Carrolls’ consumption footprint is below carrying capacity; but even if it was way below carrying capacity; Ms. Carroll’s decision to procreate four children, and thereby to multiply her carbon footprint by a factor of 80, results in her being a Procreation and Consumption Combatant.

Anglo American CEO: Cynthia Carroll’s lifestyle as a Procreation and Consumption Combatant, means that daily she is making lifestyle decisions that effectively contribute to her banging her consumption and procreation drums for war, her support for the destruction of law and order; but in her speeches, she wants to lecture everyone else about the ‘importance of law and order’?

Ever heard of: ‘Put your money where your mouth is’??


[4] PEAK NNR SCARCITY: GLOBAL COLLAPSE & CRISIS OF CONFLICT:

Question 4: In a Post Peak NNR World; is (A) Bullshit-the-Public Relations ‘Mining is the Heart of SA’s Economy’; or (B) Brutal Honesty: ‘Ecological Reality is the foundation of Economic Reality: Unsustainable Mining has caused Global NNR Scarcity, which will cause Crisis of Conflict Civilisation Collapse by 2050’, a company’s most valuable asset?

Sustainability: Foundation of Bill of Rights:

Adding "sustainable" to our legal vocabulary, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable, unless the definition of sustainable is sufficiently precise to enable sustainable living. Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non foundation for all other rights .

Sustainability Defined:

A sustainable human society utilizes renewable natural resources exclusively, at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour: Sustainable natural resource utilization behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable.

Sustainable Mining / Sustainable Development are oxymoron’s:

The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable.

Repeat: The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable.


Peak Global NNR Scarcity: Global Collapse by 2050:

Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Chris Clugston‘s analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that “absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‘s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.”

Scarcity Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-49) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered “scarce” globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are “almost certain” to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will “likely” remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered “at risk”.

At risk are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs to Global Reserves exhaustion (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries) ; (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).


Scarcity’s Ecological Reality Foundation for Economic Reality:

Scarcity concludes “Our Next Normal is Catastrophe”: Our Anthropocentric worldview does not recognize that “from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,” to “paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‘thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.’”

“Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political “fixes” – fiscal and monetary “stimulus” – is misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.

“Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward.

“Global humanity‘s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in self-inflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

“Ownership of the means of production—from private ownership to state ownership; the methods by which scarce resources are allocated—from free markets to central planning; and our forms of government—from democracy to autocracy—have no bearing on humanity‘s ultimate destiny.

“All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the not-too-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs.

We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.


Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict and Matter of National Security[01]:

“There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.” - Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 1990

***

“According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”[PDF

***

“The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict. The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power. When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further. The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world." It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security. Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.” [PDF]

***

“Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow. It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.” [PDF]

***

1974: NSSM 200: National Security Study Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)(PDF):

Rapid population growth adversely affects every aspect of economic and social progress in developing countries. It absorbs large amounts of resources needed for more productive investment in development. It requires greater expenditures for health, education and other social services, particularly in urban areas. It increases the dependency load per worker so that a high fraction of the output of the productive age group is needed to support dependents. It reduces family savings and domestic investment. It increases existing severe pressures on limited agricultural land in countries where the world's "poverty problem" is concentrated. It creates a need for use of large amounts of scarce foreign exchange for food imports (or the loss of food surpluses for export). Finally, it intensifies the already severe unemployment and underemployment problems of many developing countries where not enough productive jobs are created to absorb the annual increments to the labor force.

Even in countries with good resource/population ratios, rapid population growth causes problems for several reasons: First, large capital investments generally are required to exploit unused resources. Second, some countries already have high and growing unemployment and lack the means to train new entrants to their labor force. Third, there are long delays between starting effective family planning programs and reducing fertility, and even longer delays between reductions in fertility and population stabilization. Hence there is substantial danger of vastly overshooting population targets if population growth is not moderated in the near future.

[..] Moderation of population growth offers benefits in terms of resources saved for investment and/or higher per capita consumption. If resource requirements to support fewer children are reduced and the funds now allocated for construction of schools, houses, hospitals and other essential facilities are invested in productive activities, the impact on the growth of GNP and per capita income may be significant. In addition, economic and social progress resulting from population control will further contribute to the decline in fertility rates. The relationship is reciprocal, and can take the form of either a vicious or a virtuous circle.

Implications of Population Pressures for National Security

It seems well understood that the impact of population factors on the subjects already considered -- development, food requirements, resources, environment -- adversely affects the welfare and progress of countries in which we have a friendly interest and thus indirectly adversely affects broad U.S. interests as well.

[..] A recent study* of forty-five local conflicts involving Third World countries examined the ways in which population factors affect the initiation and course of a conflict in different situations. The study reached two major conclusions:

1. ". . . population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the special location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence...

2. Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots: Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities."

[..] Professor Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago has suggested the concept of "population complosion" to describe the situation in many developing countries when (a) more and more people are born into or move into and are compressed in the same living space under (b) conditions and irritations of different races, colours, religions, languages, or cultural backgrounds, often with differential rates of population growth among these groups, and (c) with the frustrations of failure to achieve their aspirations for better standards of living for themselves or their children. To these may be added pressures for and actual international migration. These population factors appear to have a multiplying effect on other factors involved in situations of incipient violence.

These adverse conditions appear to contribute frequently to harmful developments of a political nature: Juvenile delinquency, thievery and other crimes, organized brigandry, kidnapping and terrorism, food riots, other outbreaks of violence; guerrilla warfare, communal violence, separatist movements, revolutionary movements and counter-revolutionary coupe. All of these bear upon the weakening or collapse of local, state, or national government functions.

Beyond national boundaries, population factors appear to have had operative roles in some past politically disturbing legal or illegal mass migrations, border incidents, and wars. If current increased population pressures continue they may have greater potential for future disruption in foreign relations.

Perhaps most important, in the last decade population factors have impacted more severely than before on availabilities of agricultural land and resources, industrialization, pollution and the environment. All this is occurring at a time when international communications have created rising expectations which are being frustrated by slow development and inequalities of distribution.

Population growth and inadequate resources. Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be. A sense of increasing crowding, real or perceived, seems to generate such tendencies, especially if it seems to thwart obtaining desired personal or national goals.

2. Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the "establishment," "imperialists," multinational corporations, or other ── often foreign ── influences blamed for their troubles.

3. Population factors with social cleavages. When adverse population factors of growth, movement, density, excess, or pressure coincide with racial, religious, color, linguistic, cultural, or other social cleavages, there will develop the most potentially explosive situations for internal disorder, perhaps with external effects. When such factors exist together with the reality or sense of relative deprivation among different groups within the same country or in relation to other countries or peoples, the probability of violence increases significantly.

1995: White House: National Security Strategy (PDF):

“Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered 'free' goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to large-scale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification, oceanic pollution and ultimately climate change.

2010: White House: National Security Strategy (PDF):

Challenges like climate change, pandemic disease, and resource scarcity demand new innovation. Meanwhile, the nation that leads the world in building a clean energy economy will enjoy a substantial economic and security advantage. That is why the Administration is investing heavily in research, improving education in science and math, promoting developments in energy, and expanding international cooperation. Transform our Energy Economy: As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.

Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense (PDF):

In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a “Smart Defense” approach to pool, share, and specialize capabilities as needed to meet 21st century challenges. [..] Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities. [..] A reduction in resources will require innovative and creative solutions to maintain our support for allied and partner interoperability and building partner capacity. However, with reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations. [..] The balance between available resources and our security needs has never been more delicate.

Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations (PDF). Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28.

The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict says: “Contextualization: Effective humanitarian action should encompass a comprehensive view of overall needs and of the impact of interventions. Encouraging respect for human rights and addressing the underlying causes of conflicts are essential elements. (own emphasis)

Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace (PDF); US Army War College:

[Report on the Dept of Defense effort to create a Proactive Environmental Security Peace Strategy as part of the Fifth Senior Environmental Leadership Conference.]

“Environmental degradation imperils nations' most fundamental aspect of security by undermining the natural support systems on which all of human activity depends.” - Michael Renner, 1989

The DOD environmental security mission has its roots in the fact that environmental problems that lead to instability and contention are being ignored, and U.S. combat forces are becoming involved in the resulting conflict. In addition, DOD's environmental security mission supports the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States and must be understood in that context.

As stated by the National Security Strategy, "The stress from environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict." Recognizing the importance of environmental issues to U.S. national security interests, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security defined DOD's role in environmental security to include "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability."

Instability and conflict often result from the poverty created by the economic regression of resource depletion or scarcity. The abuse of power by the leaders of many developing countries has frequently manifested itself in exploitive resource management practices, a wasting away of the economic infrastructure, human suffering and ethnic-based competition for increasingly scarce resources, and, ultimately, to conflict.

[..] The global population has grown geometrically and will double over the period from 1950 to 2000, bringing environmental issues to the fore. Rates of global population continue to increase, particularly in the vulnerable developing world, accelerating demand for food and a broad range of other natural resources. The global rates of consumption of natural resources are far greater than the ecosystem has previously endured.10 The world is rapidly moving beyond local shortages, which historically have created local conflict, to regional or transboundary resource shortages with the potential to escalate into far reaching hostilities involving U.S. forces. In numerous regions the ability of the earth to replenish its renewable resources, even with the human intervention of irrigation and fertilizer, has already been exceeded. Indeed, these very interventions often create unforeseen, adverse environmental consequences. Thus, the frequently ignored, long-lead-time environmental factors have reached their thresholds and are causing instability that security policy analysts cannot ignore.

[5] ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC REALITY: CEO RESOURCE TERRORISTS: '

Question 5: Should Corporate CEO’s who Refuse to Confront the Ecological Scarcity Foundation for Economic Reality, be labelled as Resource Terrorists threats to National Security?

USSC: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

In a Post Peak NNR/Oil World, where nature’s resources have been plundered by corporations, it is time to restore balance to ask: Does a river have a right to flow? Does a species have a right to survival? Does a mountain have a right not to be guillotined? Can an oil well demand her precious black gold not be used to produce shitty products, or only be used by carpools or individuals who live below their regions carrying capacity? Can nature demand that any world leader calling for ‘economic growth’ or ‘population growth’ is the equivalent of appointing consumption and breeding war combatants to declare war on nature’s depleted finite resources? Can CEO’s who commit financial and corporate ecological terrorism of nature’s resources, be put on kill lists and assassinated by General Petraeus’ new drones or Seal Team Six? Can Nature have Anton Piller court orders and Mareva injunctions served upon Monsanto and all corporations employing individuals who stole her ideas, laws and claimed them as their own patents, trademarks and copyrights?

It is in the sustainable security interest of countries and their citizens that drunk sailor politicians, bankers and CEO’S in Bangkok, who abuse natures finite resources, for short term political status or profits, are sobered up with freezing – Seal Team Six or Petraeus Drones - doses of resource scarcity consequences reality!

Encl:
[I] Scarcity: (i) Austerity: our New Normal & (ii) Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (PDF) [II] Alien on Pale Blue Dot PP4PP Credibility (PDF)


» » » » [SQSwans (PDF)]