In a message dated 00-06-08 13:06:04 EDT, you write: << Infoterra, I emphatically agree with the recently posted statement that "War has always been perhaps the single most destructive activity our species indulges itself in" though I would probably remove the 'perhaps'. I also agree that "one of the pervasive and systematic obstacles to environmental protection and restoration is war, in all its forms" and that the environmental community and all people of this planet should be doing more to prevent and arrest warfare. Several comments in a recent letter, however, stirred me to action. The first comment that I feel compelled to react to is that none of the effects of war are positive. This is a very understandable attitude, as war clearly has enormous negative effects both socially and environmentally. Nonetheless, there may be a very few potentially positive impacts of war, though they are obviously outweighed by the negative. One such possibly positive aspect of war is its effect as a method of population control. Overpopulation, coupled, of course, with inappropriate consumption patterns, is a serious environmental threat. By reducing the human population, war may thus offer a very limited environmental benefit. There are, of course, far better ways of controlling population. Nonetheless, the critique of any activity should, I feel, be based on both cost and benefit so as to determine net cost or benefit of that activity. Population control is one possible limited benefit of war, though I'm sure that we all agree that war ultimately leads to a net cost. There are also a few other less significant though arguably positive impacts of war for society and the environment. In some cases military research may (often accidentally) lead to the discovery or development of technologies which have a positive impact on society/environment. For example, the internet, which has (arguably) had a positive impact on civil society and proved relatively useful for environmental organizations, would likely never have developed to its current state were it not for initial military interest and investment. A more complicated and less sure-footed argument is that in a few limited cases the destruction caused by war could change certain ecosystems in an environmentally desirable way. For example, if a battle were to kill of a disproportionately large number of exotic predators in a region it could potentially lead to greater biodiversity and protection of indigenous species in that region. I have never seen any documented examples of this occurring, however, and realize that it is a dubious argument at best. I should also reiterate that I am not trying to make the argument that war offers any net environmental benefit. A second comment posted on this list that deserves a response is the suggestion that land mines are 'equal opportunity killers'. Again, this is an understandable comment, with which I agree for the most part. However, it is important to note that land mines actually target certain populations disproportionately. Generally, impoverished and rural communities suffer most severely from land mine attacks. The impoverished have less access to land mine detection equipment, and thus cannot clear their land. A common response by the poor is to let livestock run through the fields to set off mines. However, this is cruel to the livestock, costly for the farmers, and largely ineffective. Furthermore, the impoverished have a more desperate need to farm their fields and are more likely to risk farming a potentially mine laden area. It is also more difficult for them to move to another area that might be mine free. In many countries women are also particularly susceptible to mine attacks. Women often carry out tasks of subsistence agriculture, and collecting water or firewood. All of these tasks can be very dangerous in land mine ridden areas. Wildlife is also at particular risk. Unlike humans, animals are unsuspecting of land mines. They do not know to watch their step and often inhabit remote areas unlikely to be demined. The trend to drop huge numbers of mines from aircraft is particularly dangerous for wildlife, as these tend to infest unpopulated areas that animals inhabit. Thus, while land mines kill with impunity, certain people and creatures are undoubtedly at a greater risk. It is perhaps also worth noting, though not relevant to my argument, that left over land mines leach chemicals into the ground, polluting the soil and poisoning plants, animals, and even humans. DCM message sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________ earthradioTV.com - Alternative News Forum for ecology, politics & consciousness. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] USA http://www.earthradioTV.com/ CZECH http://mujweb.cz/www/ecologynews/ UK http://members.tripod.co.uk/ecologynews/ Canada http://www.ecologynews.com/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
