Friday, April 4, 2014

Post-Environmental Collapse: What would it look like?

Post-Environmental Collapse: What would it look like?

            In “The Windup Girl” a science fiction novel by description, but possible real life scenario, is when the world has faced environmental destruction beyond repair. The government has become a combination of deceit and confusion, while the general public is faced with starvation and plague. The city lies below sea-level, which has risen due to Global Warming. One of the main themes of the novel was the reliance on government for support as well as the idea of human nature not changing, regardless of how bad times get. It seems as if even though the “feared” environmental collapse took place in the book, there was no saving technology to help alleviate the stresses brought with this type of global issue.
            A similar instance might occur in the event that water becomes scare and unavailable to humans. Technically water is considered a renewable resource, but when faced with over exploitation, pollution, and a consistently growing human population it will soon become unavailable. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “Water covers 70% of our planet, and it is easy to think that it will always be plentiful. However, freshwater—the stuff we drink, bathe in, irrigate our farm fields with—is incredibly rare. Only 3% of the world’s water is fresh water, and two-thirds of that is tucked away in frozen glaciers or otherwise unavailable for our use.” This small amount of freshwater, which humans can use, is soon to become quite limited. Humans cannot survive without water, simply due to the fact that it is essential to vital organs functioning and also proper sanitation. The way that the human race consumes water is unsustainable. Studies show that, “by 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages, and ecosystems around the world will suffer even more” (WWF). Not only will a water scarcity cause stress all on it’s own, agriculture uses “70% of the world’s accessible freshwater” (WWF). This means that not only will people not have water, but then not have food. This type of resource collapse would be detrimental to the human race and ecosystems. I believe this would cause a similar situation to that of “The Windup Girl”.
            In the event that water does become such a scarce resource, I believe that the developed countries would take control of all of the remaining water left. I think a Global Water Organization would need to be created and the resource would need to be divided accordingly. This would then cause countries to disagree, begin wars, cause economic turmoil and lead to disagreement on a global scale. People would be inclined to listen to their governments and trust that they will do things in their favor, however as in the book, the government may not always have the people’s best interest. A water shortage, would be the start of the next World War, simply because this would be such a global issue. Human nature would once again shine through and prove to be a horrible trait in bad times. People would lose sense of what was morally right and wrong. It would be a survival of the fittest type society. I think that eventually the problem would become so severe, that government would lose control over how people reacted. I think technology would come into play as well. I believe corporations would develop a way to create water using chemistry or simply coming up with more efficient ways to desalinize ocean water. These corporations would, as the book portrayed, become the leaders in society. Desperate times would call for desperate measures, and I think people would be willing to do whatever possible to remain alive. These corporations, knowing that people need them would abuse their power and become a hegemon amongst society. I believe as governments became corrupt, they would also be controlled by the corporations. It all dwindles down to who can supply what people need. The government would need to supply things to their own peoples, but would need to do this through the corporations.

            Although the way that “The Windup Girl” demonstrated global distress is a very good possibility. I think in reality, things might actually be much more violent in terms of war. I think governmental disagreement and distress over survival would drive everyone to be violent in some way. This once again points back to the idea that human nature will never change. Human nature, as well as for other organisms, is to survive no matter what.



"Water Scarcity." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014

4 comments:

  1. I too wrote about freshwater supplies in my post. You mention that wars over water are possible, and that water would turn us to a "survival of the fittest" type of lifestyle. While I can see the possibility of armed conflict over water, I'm not sure we'll see a scenario that it's the sole or even primary motivator of war. I feel historic partnerships would continue, but states that have faced conflict in the past are the ones likely to take up arms for water. I'm just not sure if I can believe that in the future, freshwater conflict will be a primary reason for conflict outside of political justification.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Renee,

    I would love to see what you think about the chances of water conflict. We will be talking about it briefly in future classes with some people thinking that it could become a major geopolitical issues while others are, like Alex, more skeptical.

    Also, I wonder if you think that water rationing work without a centralized authority?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I could see your point about a war breaking out due to water scarcity, especially among developed countries, because water is so valuable to us. However, I do agree more with Alex's point. I do not think resource scarcity is enough of a sole reason/motivation for states to go to war. Unless national security is breached, I think it is highly unlikely for countries to go to war. Of course, water scarcity could amplify tensions and give a stronger "push" for countries to go to war with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After discussion in class over conflict, I too am learning that although water scarcity would cause a lot of tension, water scarcity would only be a single factor causing war. I believe that water scarcity is something countries are certainly fearful of, hopefully with knowledge, technology and cooperation countries would never need to resort to war. I read an article a few months back about countries, such as China buying land in other countries, for fear that there will be large water shortages. I also think about how certain countries build dams to deviate water to their larger cities. I believe something like that would increase tensions because it would be lessening the amounts of freshwater reaching areas down stream. I think after doing many of the readings in class, I need to also understand that it takes a lot of different conflicts before war is actually broken out. In regards to Prof Shirk's comment, I think that a central authority would be the best bet, because when it comes to a resource that everyone needs I feel like their needs to be a central place of discussion. Countries could continue to collaborate amongst themselves, but I believe that then some of the smaller less fortunate countries. I'm interested to see in the coming years any future treaties or plans to protect freshwater.

    ReplyDelete