The war for resources wages on day to day in every country across the world. People fight for food, water, arms, land, or any other items of value. Some people fight out of sheer need, others out of greed. These resources may be scarce or they may be something just out of reach. The problem is that some people will do anything to attain these resources, including murder.
Resources are so valued by human kind that we are willing to do anything to get them, including the death of others. These resources cause war, because for that country or group, the resource is so valuable that the death of some is needed. An example of this is Darfur. The resources there, especially oil, were wanted by others, so the militia group, the Janjaweed, took the resources in whatever way they could, specifically through armed conflicts. The people of Darfur were slaughtered over the resources they had. Murder, rape, genocide, all words we attribute to what happened in Darfur, but we only see that side of the story. The other side is the oil and other resources that the people of Darfur lived on and around. Yet, what do we do to prevent this from happening again?
Some would say this comes down to need. According to the realistic conflict theory developed by Muzafer Sherif, when there are limited resources, conflict ensues. (McLeod, 1) However, we often think we need things, even though we just want them. If everyone could be more open with resources, the loss of life wouldn’t be necessary. By opening up for more trade, we could avoid this war over resources. According to Klare’s article on the resource wars, “As Reid’s speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources.”(Klare, 1) Could the environment be blamed for this fighting? Or because of this, should countries ban together to pool resources and search for a better outcome? The answer to these questions lies in both science and every human being on this planet. To save the lives of others, we should be willing to seek out alternatives to our current way of life.
The loss of life is not worth the winnings of a war for resources, especially if there is an easier way. This conflict to attain what we feel we may need will only end up harming mankind. Sooner or later, something needs to change.
Bibliography
Klare, Michael T. "The Coming Resource Wars." TomPaine.com, 7 Mar. 2006. Web. 7 Sept. 2009. <http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php>.
Grice, Andrew. "Darfur: the evidence of war crimes." The Independent, 7 Aug. 2007. Web. 7 Sept. 2009. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/darfur-the-evidence-of-war-crimes-459922.html>.
"Genocide in Darfur, Sudan." DarfurScores.org. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.
McLeod, S.A. (2007) Simply Psychology [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Accessed:October 6, 2009
Nicole here!
ReplyDeletewell i have to agree. people are getting out of control when it comes to obtaining resources. And even though i may agree i think that people wont be inclined to just open trade; people dont see the benefits of getting other resources when they have to lose some of their own to get them. its a craxy cycle and that is exactly why it is so controvercial. other then trade what do you think that people/groups/countries can do to change this?