13-04-07: NK: Kim Jong-Un: MILINT Sustainable Security Options by Andrea Muhrrteyn

06 April 2013 Supreme Leader: Kim Jong-un c/o: H E Mr Yong Man JO Amb: North Korea Embassy 958 Waterpoort Street Pretoria, South Africa T: +27-12-9918661 | F: +27-12-9918662 Email: dprkembassy@lantic.net

President Xi Jinping c/o: H E Dr B W J Langa Amb: People’s Rep of China Embassy 5 Dongzhimenwai Dajie, Beijing, 100600 T: 86 10 8532 0000 | F: 10 6532 7231 (Def) E-mail: dha@163bj.com, homeaffairs@saembassy.org.cn

President Putin c/o: H E Mr M I Petrakov Amb: Russian Federation Embassy 316 Brooks Street, Menlo Park, 0081 Tel: 012 362 1338 | Fax: 012 362 0116 Email: ruspospr@mweb.co.za

President Park Geun-hye c/o: H E Mr Y Lee Amb: South Korea Embassy 27 George Storrar Drive, Groenkloof, 0081 Tel: 012 460 2508 | Fax: 012 460 1158 E-mail: korrsa@smartnet.co.za

President Barak Obama c/o: Ms. Virginia Palmer Charge D'Affaires USA Embassy c/o: Dir Nat. Intel: James Clapper 877 Pretorius Street, Arcadia, 0083 Tel: 012 431 4000 | Fax: 012 342 2245 Email: embassypretoria@state.gov

General Martin Dempsey Chairman: Joint Chiefs of Staff c/o: Colonel Mark Lee USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Command 2450 Connell Road, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-7664 Tel: (210) 466-1678 E: USARMY.JBSA.AEC.MBX@mail.mil

Dear Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, MILINT Sustainable Security Options for resolution of (i) N Korea loads missiles onto launchers, tells Russia, Britain to evacuate embassies; (ii) Multinational Corporation’s Industrial Civilization Suicide March. Supreme Leader, apologies for my brutal honesty speak, in my culture (Radical Honoursty) we don’t do ‘diplomacy’, only 100% honesty. I hope you shall accept my honest as my respect to be totally transparently honest towards you. Bill Richardson says you are on a suicide mission1. 1

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/04/04/north-korea-attack-on-united-states-would-be-suicidal-billrichardson-says/

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

My thoughts were ‘On what fucking planet does Bill Richardson live? Is he fucking insane, deaf, dumb and moronically stupid? If North Korea actions are ‘suicidal’, how the fuck is he not aware that Industrial Civilization’s actions are SUICIDE ON STEROIDS? It is a death cult, marching the planet, and all its species, to planetary extinction! Industrial Civilization and its masculine insecurity addiction to breeding wars and consumption wars is a FUCKING SUICIDE CULT, Moron Imbecile Bill Richardson!! Supreme Leader, I don’t know if you are on a suicide march. If you are, then at least we can say that you are consciously marching to your suicide mission. Industrial Civilization, driven by Multinational Capitalism are however on an unconscious Suicide Mission on Steroids. It is clear to anyone who is not a member of Industrial Civilization’s Breeding and Consumption Wars’ and Human Factory Farming War Economy; that the purpose of the Parasitic United Nations has no commitment to solving the worlds Scarcity (due to Overpopulation and Overconsumption) induced Resource War conflicts. In my personal CommonSism Primitivist opinion, if you have the courage to challenge Industrial Civilization, and its primary driver: the United States, to embark on an international course of Sustainable Security; you shall have made one of the most fundamental contributions to the lives of this planet, and all of its species, by stepping infront of the Industrial Civilization suicide train. You shall be Industrial Civilization Titanic’s iceberg. You may also find a significant number of US Military personnel who will appreciate your courage to do what they have not yet had the guts or the courage to do, demand, as a matter of National Security, that America’s politicians implement a Sustainable Security plan. Needless to say your courageous actions on behalf of Indigenous tribes, and all citizens across the globe, seriously concerned with Industrial Civilizations suicide march, shall be much appreciated. MILINT Sustainable Security Options for your consideration: [1] Industrial Civilization is on a Tragedy of the Commons planetary suicide march. [2] Only the international adoption of Sustainable Security2 policies can stop Industrial Civilization’s Suicide March. [3]

National Sustainable Security policies:

Sustainability is Security: “There is no security without sustainability”: In the absence of an international new moral order where Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence confront the Military Doctrine reality of Environmental Resource Scarcity induced conflict and resource wars, and implements Guerrylla laws to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour; towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation” and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace, and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy” by 2050.

[3.1] Every Nation must draw up a Sustainable Security Plan, by 09 September 2014. Each nation’s Sustainable Security plans must clarify: A.

Detailed analysis of what their nation’s ecological carrying capacity is.

How they intend to require every citizen, corporation and organisation to reduce/maintain their consumption and procreation practices to remaining below carrying capacity.

Their planned De-Industrialization and/or Primitivization Policies

[3.2]

International Sustainable Security Peace Treaties:

All ‘Peace treaties’ which do not require both parties to maintain their nation citizens’ procreation and consumption practices below carrying capacity, as a fundamental requirement for the credibility of the peace treaty should be considered ‘War is Peace’ Whore treaties, and null and void, and renegotiated.

Any credible ‘Sustainable Security’ Peace Treaty, must require all parties to the Peace Treaty to maintain their nation’s citizens and corporations procreation, consumption and production practices below carrying capacity. Any nation which allows their citizens or corporations to engage in a breeding, consumption or production war, shall be considered to have declared war with all other Sustainable Security nations.

Dated at George, South Africa: 05 April 2013

Lara Johnstone Member: Radical Honesty and Radical Honoursty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party, CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons, Æquilibriæx: Equal & Balanced Eco/Anthropocentric Law Encl.

Evidentiary Information Related to Sustainable Security Suggestions

Table of Contents: • Industrial Civilization’s Tragedy of the Commons Suicide March.

05-38

Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles.

05-07

US Military Doctrine: Scarcity Induced Resource War Conflict.

07-20

Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences.

20-32

32-34

34-36

Industrial Civilization’s Suicide March

36-38

• Radical Honoursty Culture & TYGÆ Æx-Party Positions

38-41

Industrial Civilization’s Tragedy of the Commons Suicide March: Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles: [1] The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in “The Tragedy of the Commons”.3 [2] Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group. [3] Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. In the absence of such a moral solution, Hardin predicted nuclear war. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed. [4] Hardin’s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices. [5]

Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions: [5.1]

The world is biophysically finite.

The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.

Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.

Hardin, G (1968/12/13)

We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.

Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.

Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.

Over-population and overconsumption are exampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC).

[5.2] Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets. A.

Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, selfinterested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.

Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.

The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.

When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.

A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.

[5.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources). A.

In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.

but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).

It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."

Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.

"Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.

The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.

This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.

[5.4]

The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion. 6

People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.

Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.

Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.

Military Doctrine: Scarcity and Conflict: “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.”4 *** “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.5 The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.6 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.7 The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to 4

LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin, US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 5 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1991. 6 National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC, US Gov Printing Office, 1993 7 A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, February 1996.

regional stability around the world."8 It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.9 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.â&#x20AC;? 10

*** â&#x20AC;&#x153;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 8

Ibid., at 26. Ibid., at 30. 10 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 9

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.11 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.â&#x20AC;?12

[6] 1974: NSSM 200: National Security Study Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)13: 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 11

Environmental Quality. 1978 Annual Report on the Environment Washington: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1978. 12 Colonel Brian X. Bush (13 March 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations; US Army War College http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 13 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

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.

[7] Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace14; 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, 198915 14

Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf 15 Michael Renner, National Security: The Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May 1989. Another early and important effort to broaden the definition of national security to include environmental challenges was Jessica Tuchman Matthews, "Redefining Security," Foreign Affairs, Spring 1989, pp. 162-178.

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."16 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. [..] The most notable environmental threats to U.S. security are: â&#x20AC;˘ Global: competition for or threatened denial of strategic resources; ozone depletion; global warming; loss of biodiversity; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effects of demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons; space debris; and inability or unwillingness of countries to comply with international environmental agreements and standards. â&#x20AC;˘ Regional: environmental terrorism, accident or disaster; vector-borne communicable diseases; regional conflicts caused by scarcity/denial of resources; cross border and global common 16

Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before the Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, May 13, 1993.

contamination; and environmental access to land, air, and water.

factors

affecting

military

• State: environmental degradation of the resource base on which governmental legitimacy depends; risks to public health and the environment from DOD activities; increasing restrictions on military operations and access to air, land, and water; inefficient use of military resources; reduced weapons systems performance; demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, and conventional weapons systems; and erosion of public trust. Recommendations: • Appoint a special assistant to the National Security Advisor for International Environmental Security Affairs and create an interagency working group, chaired by the Special Assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document establishing U.S. environmental security policy. • Establish environmental security as a principal objective of the National Security Strategy and include environmental issues in National Security Council threat assessments and foreign policy planning. • Emphasize the linkage between environmental security objectives and the achievement of current, primary congressional and administration interests of democratic reform, economic development, and conflict resolution. • In conjunction with the United Nations, use DOD capabilities to enforce international treaties and agreements. • Create a DOD Environmental Crisis Monitoring Center to warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental issues before political positions have hardened and policy options have narrowed.

[8] Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations17. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28. The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict18 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)

[9]

1995: White House: National Security Strategy19: “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

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf Humanitarian Actions in Times of War, by Larry Minear & Thomas Weiss 19 February 1995: A National Security Study of Engagement and Enlargement http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss-95.pdf 18

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.20

[10] April 1996: MAJ William E David, USA Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict21, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College This monograph argues that the Army is unprepared for the implications of environmental scarcity as a cause of violent conflict. The proof follows in the next three chapters. Chapter Tow provides a conceptual model for examining the causal relationship between environmental scarcity and violent conflict. It shows causation by answering two questions. First, does scarcity cause specific social effects, such as population migration and poverty? Second, so the social effects that result from scarcity cause violent conflict? [..] [This chapter concludes that conflicts arising from environmental scarcity will occur more frequently in the future and threaten U.S. national security interests. Third, does doctrine address conflicts caused by environmental scarcities? The doctrinal review reveals that the Army does not recognize environmental scarcity as a cause of conflict. Chapter Four synthesizes the findings from the preceding chapters, showing that the Army is 20

National Security Strategy of the United States. February 1995, Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1995, p. 18 21 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878

intellectually unprepared for conflicts caused by environmental scarcity. The monograph ends with two recommendations. First, the Army should recognize environmental causes of war in its doctrine. Second, the Army should adopt the Modified Conflict Causality Model as a doctrinal tool for predicting and evaluating future conflicts. [..] Humans adversely affect the environment. Contaminated water, deforestation, soil erosion, and the depletion of fisheries are but some of the outcomes. Although few people would disagree with the causation between human activities and environmental degradation, their reactions place them in one of two categories: cornucopians or neo-Malthusians. Cornucopians do not worry about protecting any single natural resource. They believe that human ingenuity will always allow the substitution of more abundant resources to produce the same products and services. Neo-Malthusians put less faith in ingenuity, arguing that "renewable resources' is a misleading term. [..] The divergence between cornucopians and neo-Malthusians enters into the debate corcerning the causes of conflict. Corncopians remain prisoners of the industrial revolution. They assume that there are only social cuases for social and political changes, neglecting the role of nature. However, Robert Kaplan noted: "nature is coming back with a vengeance, tied to population growth. It will have incredible security implications"[1] Neo-Malthusians realize that humans cannot seperate themselves from nature. The following causality analysis adheres to the neo-Malthusian perspective. therefore, it takes a holistic approahc toward causality, combining conflict studies and the study of the physical environment. After providing a conflict causality model, this chapter uses six case studies to prove that violent conflicts can arise from environmental scarcities.

[11] 13 Mar 1997: Col BX Bush: Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations22; US Army War College â&#x20AC;&#x153;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.[1] The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.[2] 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.[3] The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world."[4] It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.[5] Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military 22

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869

also should security.”

concerned

with

all

aspects

environmental

“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.[6] 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.”

[12] Spring 1997: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Archived: Commentary No. 71: Environmental Scarcity and Conflict23, by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto The past decade has witnessed growing recognition of the importance of environmental factors for national and international security. In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development pointed to environmental stress as "a possible cause as well as a result of conflict". In 1992, the UN Security Council warned that sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields included military and political "threats to peace and stability". Two years later, the Clinton Administration observed that "terrorism, narcotics trafficking, environmental degradation, rapid population growth and refugee flows ...have security implications for present and long-term American policy". A wealth of popular commentary in the past few years has asserted the existence of general links between environmental stress and violence and security concerns. But proponents of such linkages tend to sensationalise the issue, ignoring empirical research and exaggerating the importance of environmental pressures as a conflict-generating force. In fact, until recently, scholars and policy makers functioned with relatively limited understanding of the causal mechanisms by which environmental scarcity can lead to conflict. Recent work has yielded results Employing a series of detailed exhibits a prima facie link to studies carefully trace a causal 23

which partially fill this gap. examples in which environment social instability, such case connection between scarcity and

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm71-eng.asp

conflict, and advance a set of key propositions which describe these links and the conditions under which they apply. General Insights: Current work on linkages between environment and conflict emphasizes the conflict-generating potential of renewable resource scarcities (i.e. cropland, fresh water, fuel wood and fish). While the strategic significance of non-renewable resources (e.g. petroleum, minerals) has long been recognized, market forces which reduce their demand and stimulate substitution and technical innovation have served increasingly to mitigate their scarcity and conflict-generating potential. Such forces have been less effective in preventing scarcities of renewables-scarcities which, growing evidence shows, threaten the internal stability of a number of developing countries. According to the University of Toronto's Thomas Homer-Dixon, scarcities of agricultural land, forests, fresh water and fish are those which contribute the most to violence. These deficiencies can be demand-induced, a function of population growth within a region; supply-induced, resulting from the degradation of resources within the region; or structural, the result of an unequal distribution of resources throughout the society. The three processes are not mutually exclusive and mayand often do-occur simultaneously, acting in tandem. The degradation and depletion of renewable resources can generate a range of social effects. It can work to encourage powerful groups within society to shift resource distribution in their favour. This process, known as "resource capture" generates profits for elites while intensifying the effects of scarcity among the poor or weak. A process of "ecological marginalization" often follows with poorer groups forced to seek the means of survival in more ecologically fragile regions such as steep upland slopes, areas at risk of desertification, tropical rain forests, and low quality public lands within urban areas. The high population densities in these regions, combined with a lack of capital to protect the local ecosystem, breeds severe environmental scarcity and chronic poverty. Other social effects can include decreased agricultural potential, regional economic decline, population displacement and a disruption of legitimized institutions and social relations. Most significantly, these scarcities can, either individually or in combination, generate forces and processes which contribute to violent conflict among groups within society. Such scarcities may act to strengthen group identities based on ethnic, class or religious differences, most notably by intensifying competition among groups for ever dwindling resources. At the same time, they can work to undermine the legitimacy of the state and its capacity to meet challenges. As the balance of power gradually shifts from the state to the challenging groups, the prospects for violence increase. Such violence tends to be subnational, diffuse and persistent. States may prove capable of avoiding suffering and social stress by adapting to scarcities. They can pursue programs and policies which encourage more sustainable resource use. Alternatively, a

state may disengage itself from reliance on scarce resources by producing goods and services less dependent on such resources. The resulting products could then be traded for items which local scarcities preclude the state from producing. More often, however, countries lack the social and technical ingenuity needed to adapt successfully to the shortages they face.

[13] 10 Apr 2000: LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde: Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin24, US Army War College “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.”

[14] Sep 2010: Bundeswehr: Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources25 Effects of Peak Oil on Armed Forces Severe impediments to mobility as a consequence of peak oil would have a considerable effect on all German security bodies, including the Bundeswehr. In the long run, not only all societies and economies worldwide but armed forces as well will be faced with the various and difficult challenges of transformation towards a “post-fossil” age. Implications for Germany: A markedly reduced mobility of the German Armed Forces would have various consequences – not only for the available equipment and training, but also for their (global) power projection and intervention capabilities. Given the size and complexity of many transport and weapon systems as well as the high standards set for qualities like robustness in operation, alternative energy and drive propulsion systems would hardly be available to the necessary extent in the short term. One of the consequences to be initially expected would be further cutbacks in the use of large weapon systems for training purposes in all services, thus raising the need for more “virtualised” training. However, effects on current and planned missions would most likely be even more severe. Deployment to the theatre of operations, the operation of bases and the mission itself are considerably more energy- and above all fuel-intensive than the mere upkeep of armed forces. [..] Peak oil, however, is unavoidable. This study shows the existence of a very serious risk that a global transformation of economic and social structures, triggered by a long-term shortage of important raw materials, will not take place without 24 25

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 English: http://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf

frictions regarding security policy. The disintegration of complex economic systems and their interdependent infrastructures has immediate and in some cases profound effects on many areas of life, particularly in industrialised countries.

[15]

2010: White House: National Security Strategy26: 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.

[16] 2012: January: Department of Defense: Sustaining Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense27:

U.S.

Global

In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Smart Defenseâ&#x20AC;? 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.

[17] Dec 2012: U.S. Forest Service: Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth28. U.S. Forest Service report outlines how a growing population and increased urbanization in the next 50 years will drain the nation's natural resources including water supplies, open space, and forests. Agriculture Under Secretary Harris Sherman had this to say about the report: "We should all be concerned by the projected decline in our nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forests and the corresponding loss of the many critical services they provide such as clean drinking water, 26

May 2010: National Security Strategy http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 27 http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf 28 http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/12/report.shtml

wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, wood products and outdoor recreation."

[18]

More Military Doctrine: Scarcity and Conflict studies/statements29.

Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences: [19]

Overview:

[19.1] Mr. Chris Clugston’s30 Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon his 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.”31 [19.2] Scarcity’s Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4932) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR’s: (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”. [19.3] NNR’s at risk – i.e. years to global exhaustion of reserves – are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs (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 29

http://sqswans.weebly.com/military-gospel.html Clugston, Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‘s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012). Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with everincreasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. 31 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 32 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 30

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).

[19.4] Scarcity concludes “Our Next Normal is Catastrophe”: Our AnthroCorpocentric 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.’”33 [19.5] “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” are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. [19.6] “Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.34 [19.7] “Global humanity‘s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in selfinflicted 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. [19.8] “All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the nottoo-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [19.9] We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm. [20]

33 34

Natural Resources and Human Evolution:

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104

[20.1] During the past 2+ million years, humanity—Homo sapiens and our hominid predecessors—evolved through three major lifestyle paradigms: huntergatherer, agrarian, and industrial. [20.2] Each of the three paradigms is readily distinguishable from the other two in terms of its worldview, natural resource utilization behavior, and resulting level of societal wellbeing—i.e., attainable population levels and material living standards.

[21]

The Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Paradigm:

[21.1] The hunter-gatherer (HG) lifestyle paradigm spanned over 2 million years, from the time that our hominid ancestors first stood erect on the continent of Africa to approximately 8,000 BC. HG societies consisted of small nomadic clans, typically numbering between 50 and 100 individuals, who subsisted primarily on naturally occurring vegetation and wildlife. [21.2] The HG lifestyle can best be described as subsistence living for a relatively constant population that probably never exceeded 5 million globally. Huntergatherers produced few manmade goods beyond the necessities required for their immediate survival, and they generated no appreciable wealth surplus. [21.3] The HG worldview revered Nature as the provider of life and subsistence, a perspective that fostered a passive lifestyle orientation through which huntergatherers sought to live—albeit somewhat exploitatively—within the

environmental context defined by Nature. The HG resource mix consisted almost entirely of renewable natural resources such as water and naturally occurring edible plant life and wildlife. [22]

The Agrarian Lifestyle Paradigm:

[22.1] The agrarian lifestyle paradigm commenced in approximately 8,000 BC and lasted until approximately 1700 AD, when England initiated what was to become the industrial revolution. [22.2] Agrarian societies existed primarily by raising cultivated crops and domesticated livestock. [22.3] The agrarian worldview perceived Nature as something to be augmented through human effort, by domesticating naturally occurring plant and animal species. The agrarian lifestyle orientation was proactive in the sense that it sought to improve upon what Nature provided. [22.4] While modest wealth surpluses were sometimes generated by agrarian populations, agrarian existence typically offered little more in the way of material living standards for the vast majority of agrarian populations than did the HG lifestyle—although the global agrarian population did increase significantly, reaching nearly 800 million by 1750 AD. [22.5] The agrarian resource mix consisted primarily of RNRs, which were increasingly overexploited by ever-expanding, permanently-settled agrarian populations. As agrarian cultivation and grazing practices became increasingly intensive, renewable natural resource reserves were increasingly depleted and natural habitats were increasingly degraded as well. [23]

The Industrial Lifestyle Paradigm:

[23.1] The inception of the industrial lifestyle paradigm occurred with England’s industrial revolution in the early 18th century, less than 300 years ago. [23.2] Today, over 1.5 billion people—approximately 22% of the world’s 6.9 billion total population—is considered “industrialized”; and nearly three times that many people actively aspire to an industrialized way of life. [23.3] Our industrialized world is characterized by an incomprehensibly complex mosaic of interdependent yet independently operating human and non-human entities and infrastructure. [23.4] These entities must function continuously, efficiently, and collectively at the local, regional, national, and global levels in order to convert natural resource inputs into the myriad goods and services that enable our modern industrial way of life.

[23.5] [Note that failures within the industrial mosaic can disrupt, temporarily or permanently, the flow of societal essentials—water, food, energy, shelter, and clothing—to broad segments of our global population.] [23.6] Tremendous wealth surpluses are typically generated by industrialized societies; such wealth surpluses are actually required to enable the historically unprecedented material living standards enjoyed by increasingly large segments of ever-expanding industrialized populations. [23.7] The industrialized worldview perceives Nature as something to be harnessed through industrial processes and infrastructure, in order to enhance the human condition. It is an exploitive worldview that seeks to use natural resources and habitats as the means to continuously improve human societal wellbeing—that is, to provide continuously improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of ever-expanding human populations. [23.8] The resource mix associated with today’s industrialized societies is heavily skewed toward nonrenewable natural resources, which, in addition to renewable natural resources and natural habitats, have been increasingly overexploited since the dawn of the industrial revolution. [23.9] It is precisely this persistent overexploitation of natural resources and natural habitats—especially NNRs—that has enabled the “success” associated with the industrial lifestyle paradigm—success being defined here as continuous increases in both human population levels and human material living standards. [24]

Nonrenewable Natural Resources—the Enablers of Industrialization:

[24.1] Our industrial lifestyle paradigm is enabled by nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)—energy resources, metals, and minerals. Both the support infrastructure within industrialized nations and the raw material inputs into industrialized economies consist almost entirely of NNRs; NNRs are the primary sources of the tremendous wealth surpluses required to perpetuate industrialized societies. [24.2] As a case in point, the percentage of NNR inputs into the US economy increased from less than 10% in the year 1800, which corresponds roughly with the inception of the American industrial revolution, to approximately 95% today. Between 1800 and today, America’s total annual NNR utilization level increased from approximately 4 million tons to nearly 7 billion tons—an increase of over 1700 times! [24.3] In the absence of enormous and ever-increasing NNR supplies, the 1.2 billion people who currently enjoy an industrialized way of life will cease to do so; and the billions of people aspiring to an industrialized way of life will fail to realize their goal. 24

[25]

NNR Scarcity:

[26] As their name implies, NNRs are finite—they are not replenished by Nature; and they are scarce—economically viable NNR deposits are rare. Persistent extraction (production) will therefore deplete recoverable NNR reserves to exhaustion. [Note: the terms NNR “production” and NNR “extraction” are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Although “extraction” is the proper term— humans do not produce NNRs—the term “production” has gained wide acceptance within the NNR extraction industries.] [26.1] The typical NNR depletion cycle is characterized by: a period of “continuously more and more”, as the easily accessible, high quality, low cost resources are extracted; followed by a “supply peak”,8 or maximum attainable extraction level; followed by a period of “continuously less and less”, as the less accessible, lower quality, higher cost resources are extracted. [26.2] Since the inception of our industrial revolution, humanity has been the beneficiary of “continuously more and more” with respect to available NNR supplies. [26.3] Unfortunately, in the process of reaping the benefits associated with “continuously more and more”, we have been eliminating—persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life depends. [26.4] Increasingly, global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, as they peak and go into terminal decline. As a result, NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce—ever-tightening global NNR supplies are struggling to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand. [27]

The Analysis:

[27.1] The following Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the magnitude associated with increasing global NNR scarcity and the probabilities associated with imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls. The assessment consists of two analyses, both of which are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. [27.2] The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with each of 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (2000-2008) prior to the Great Recession. [27.3] The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of a permanent global supply shortfall associated with each of 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030. 25

[28]

Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Findings:

[28.1] Fifty (50) of the 57 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Scarcity Analysis experienced global scarcity—and therefore experienced temporary (at least) global supply shortfalls—during the 2000-2008 period. Twenty three (23) of the 26 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis are likely to experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030. Each permanent NNR supply shortfall represents another crack in the foundation of our globalizing industrial lifestyle paradigm; at issue is which crack or combination of cracks will cause the structure to collapse? [28.2] Permanent global supply shortfalls associated with a single critical NNR or with a very few secondary NNRs can be sufficient to cause significant lifestyle disruptions—population level reductions and/or material living standard degradation. [28.3] A permanent shortfall in the global supply of oil, for example, would be sufficient to cause significant local, national, and/or global lifestyle disruptions, or outright global societal collapse; as would permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 2-3 critical NNRs such as potassium, phosphate rock, and (fixed)

nitrogen; as would concurrent permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 4-5 secondary NNRs such as the alloys, catalysts, and reagents that enable the effective use of critical NNRs. [28.4] Given our vulnerability to an ever-increasing number of imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls, the likelihood that the mix and volume of shortfalls will reach their “critical mass” is a question of “when”, not “if”. [29]

Implications of Increasing Global NNR Scarcity:

[30]

Increasing NNR Scarcity:

[30.1] Available supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of NNRs— including bauxite, copper, iron ore, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphate rock, potash, rare earth metals, tin, and zinc—have reached their domestic US peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline.16 Based on the evidence presented above, available supplies associated with a vast majority of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce globally as well. [30.2] Because global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, our global societal wellbeing levels— our economic activity levels, population levels, and material living standards—are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less” as well. [31]

Sustainability is Inevitable:

[31.1] “Business as usual” (industrialism), “stasis” (no growth), “downscaling” (reducing NNR utilization), and “moving toward sustainability” (feel good initiatives) are not options; we will be sustainable… [32]

Unintended Consequences:

[32.1] It is difficult to argue that our incessant quest for global industrialization and the natural resource utilization behavior that enables our quest are inherently evil. We have simply applied our everexpanding knowledge and technology over the past several centuries toward dramatically improving our level of societal wellbeing, through our ever-increasing utilization of NNRs. [32.2] However, despite our possibly justifiable naïveté during our meteoric rise to “exceptionalism”, and despite the fact that our predicament was undoubtedly an unintended consequence of our efforts to continuously improve the material living standards enjoyed by our ever-expanding global population; globally available, economically viable supplies associated with the NNRs required to perpetuate our industrial lifestyle paradigm will not be sufficient going forward.

[33]

Our Transition to Sustainability:

[33.1] Humanity’s transition to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, within which a drastically reduced human population will rely exclusively on renewable natural resources (RNRs)—water, soil (farmland), forests, and other naturally occurring biota—is therefore inevitable. Our choice is not whether we “wish to be sustainable”; our choice involves the process by which we “will become sustainable”. [33.2] We can choose to alter fundamentally our existing unsustainable natural resource utilization behavior and transition voluntarily to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm over the next several decades. In the process, we would cooperate globally in utilizing remaining accessible NNRs to orchestrate a relatively gradual—but horrifically painful nonetheless—transition, thereby optimizing our population level and material living standards both during our transition and at sustainability. Or, we can refrain from taking preemptive action and allow Nature to orchestrate our transition to sustainability through societal collapse, thereby experiencing catastrophic reductions in our population level and material living standards. [34]

The Squeeze is On:

[34.1] It would be convenient if our unraveling were to occur in 1,000 years, or 500 years, or even 50 years. We could then dismiss it as a concern for future generations and go busily about improving our national and global societal wellbeing levels in the meantime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Great 28

Recession was a tangible manifestation of our predicament—NNR scarcity was epidemic in 2008, both domestically (US) and globally. Our unraveling is in process. At present, however, only an extremely small minority of the global populace understands that NNR scarcity is the fundamental cause underlying our predicament and its derivative economic and political problems. When the general public becomes aware of this fact and of the fact that NNR scarcity is a permanent, ever-increasing, and unsolvable phenomenon, collapse will ensue in short order. [35]

Public Ignorance:

[35.1] Historically, globally available, economically viable supplies associated with most NNRs were generally sufficient; NNR scarcity, when it occurred, was a temporary phenomenon. Incremental economically viable NNR supplies were available to be brought online, thereby restoring economic output (GDP) and growth to “expected” levels. Because episodes of NNR scarcity have occurred periodically since the dawn of our industrial revolution, they are considered temporary “inconveniences” associated with the boom phases of “normal” commodity boom/bust cycles. [35.2] Today, despite the fact that NNR scarcity is becoming increasingly prevalent—as clearly demonstrated by the NNR Scarcity Analysis—and despite the fact that the impact associated with NNR scarcity has certainly been felt—as an underlying cause of the Great Recession—the general public remains almost completely unaware. This is understandable, as it is obviously in nobody’s interest to see humanity fail. [35.3] Our opinion leaders—i.e., the political, economic, and other societal elites who have the greatest vested interest in preserving the status quo—continue to preach that historically robust levels of economic growth can be sustained forever. Some of our opinion leaders may still believe this to be true, although it is difficult to believe that many or most do. [35.4] [There currently exists considerable speculation regarding the extent to which our opinion leaders actually understand our predicament and its consequences, and are merely conducting a charade in order to perpetuate “business as usual”, from which most of them benefit disproportionately, for as long as possible. At the end of the day, the awareness levels and motives associated with our opinion leaders are irrelevant; the outcome—societal collapse—remains unchanged.] [35.5] The general public—given their cornucopian worldview and their almost complete lack of understanding regarding the enablers of their industrialized lifestyles—adheres steadfastly to the notion that “every generation will have it better than the last”. The vast majority of the general public undoubtedly still believes this to be true, despite stagnant or declining material living standards in 29

much of the industrialized world. So long as myth supersedes reality and the general public remains ignorant regarding the nature of our predicament and of the fact that our predicament cannot be solved, complete societal collapse is unlikely. It is likely, however, that as our situation devolves, the general public will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and scared. [35.6] “We” will blame “them”—the government, corporations, foreigners, capitalists, communists, Christians, Muslims, the rich, the poor, anybody who is not “us”—for our continuously deteriorating circumstances. And we will become increasingly susceptible to the empty rhetoric of Hitleresque demagogues who promise—and fail—to restore “normalcy”, at the expense of our remaining freedoms. Through their ignorance, the general public will exacerbate our already deteriorating situation. [36]

Public Awareness: [36.1]

Within the next few years, however, NNR scarcity will become:

“Noticeable”—NNR supplies will become increasingly constrained and prices will rise continuously; then

“Inconvenient”—periodic and temporary shortages and rationing associated with NNRs and derived goods and services will occur with increasing frequency; then

“Disruptive”—shortages and rationing associated with ever-increasing numbers of NNRs and derived goods and services will become permanent; and finally,

“Debilitating”—supplies associated with ever-increasing numbers of NNRs and derived goods and services will become permanently unavailable.

[36.2] As this scenario unfolds, increasingly large segments of humanity will become aware of the fact that NNRs enable our industrialized way of life, and that ever-increasing NNR scarcity is the fundamental cause underlying our continuously declining economic output (GDP) and societal wellbeing levels, both domestically (US) and, by that time, globally as well. Historically prevalent public attitudes of generosity and forbearance, which were made possible by abundant and cheap NNRs during our epoch of “continuously more and more”, will be displaced by public intolerance: A.

Childbirth will be condemned rather than celebrated;

All immigration will be outlawed;

Traditionally unquestioned resource uses—from “social entitlements” and universally accessible healthcare, to professional sports and cosmetics— will be considered “unfair” or “wasteful”, and ultimately eliminated; and 30

“Excessive wealth” will be appropriated for “the public good”.

[36.3] Ultimately, the general public will become aware of the fact that our predicament has no solution; and the following “trigger” conditions for societal collapse will be met: NNR scarcity will become “disruptive”—the available mix and levels associated with economically viable NNRs and derived goods and services will become insufficient to enable “tolerable” day-to-day existence; and sufficiently large segments of society will: A.

Become aware of the fact that ever-increasing NNR scarcity is a permanent phenomenon; &

Acknowledge the fact that our predicament cannot be “fixed”; “continuously less and less”—continuously declining societal wellbeing—is our new reality.

[36.4] Previously sporadic social unrest and resource wars will degenerate— seemingly instantaneously—into full fledged conflicts among nations, classes, and ultimately individuals for remaining natural resources and real wealth. It will become universally understood that the only way to “stay even” within a continuously contracting operating environment—much less to improve one’s lot— is to take from somebody else. Life will become a “negative sum game” within the “shrinking pie” of “continuously less and less”. [36.5] Social institutions will dissolve; law and order will cease to exist; and chaos will fill the void— nations will collapse. [36.6] Given that half of the 89 analyzed NNRs are either likely or almost certain to remain scarce permanently at the global level; that no extraterrestrial source NNR imports exists for the world as a whole, and that the global industrialized / industrializing population has increased nearly 5 fold since 1975… …it is highly likely that the interval between global societal wellbeing “divergence” in 2008 and global societal collapse will be 35 years or less. [37]

Humanity's Predicament:

[37.1] During the course of our unrelenting pursuit of global industrialization, and our consequent ever-increasing utilization of the earth’s increasingly scarce NNRs, we have been eliminating— persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life and our very existence depend. [37.2] Ironically, the natural resource utilization behavior that has enabled our historically unprecedented “success”—our industrial lifestyle paradigm—and that is essential to our continued success, is also pushing us toward our imminent demise. This is humanity’s predicament.

[38]

Humanity's Limited Perspective:

[38.1] To date, our distorted cornucopian worldview and limited anthropocentric perspective have rendered us incapable of understanding our predicament and its fundamental cause, which is ecological—ever-increasing NNR scarcity—not economic or political. The economic and political problems with which we concern ourselves are merely manifestations of our predicament—they are symptoms, not the disease. Because none of the economic and political expedients that we employ to solve these problems can create additional NNRs, our attempted economic and political “solutions” are irrelevant. [38.2] Metaphorically, the well is running dry, yet we insist on tinkering with the pump.

Industrial Civilization’s Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to apply laws of Nature/Ecology to legally differentiate between Sustainable and Unsustainable Procreation and Consumption behaviour. What is Sustainable Consumption and Procreation Behaviour?: [39] In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace35, Dr. Jack Alpert argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured “peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals” which “cause people to relinquish freedoms” but, “do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction”36: “result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.” [40] Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict – according to Dr. Alpert -- is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the police, military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace. [41] In Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required: The Future of Social Conflict37, Dr. Jack Alpert challenges us to answer two questions 35

www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 37 youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk 36

AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Jurists sincerely concerned with the violent consequences of scarcity, have so far failed to ask themselves: [41.1] 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. [41.2] 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 byproduct 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. [41.3] 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. [41.4] Using this definition of conflict, any AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence legislator or Jurist sincerely concerned about whether and how South Africa’s socioeconomic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; by determining the answers to the following questions: A.

How many children per family leads to peace; 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? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert38, the answer is one child per family]

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’?

What are the Consequences of Unsustainable Consumption and Procreation Behaviour?: [42] In the absence of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence determining the answers to the aforementioned questions, and implementing Jurisprudence in accordance thereto; Dr. Alpert provides proof how AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Suicide Freight Train has as much chance of muddling through the coming ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ (‘I’ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has 38

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html

happened yet” | “In 200 years, our endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed and consume has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet...”) Crisis of Conflict, as an individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. (Non-Linearity and Social Conflict39)

Reducing Human Impact on the Environment, requires population and consumption reduction. [43] The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology. [44] The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that: [44.1] the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and [44.2] Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to legislate credible International Peace Treaties which confront Scarcity induced Conflict by legally differentiating between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour. Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Scarcity: 0 Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overpopulation: 0 Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overconsumption: 0 900 Vietnam40, 40 Iraq and Afghanistan41 Veterans returned their ‘bullshit’ medals to U.S. Congress and NATO. Nobel Peace Laureates returned their ‘War is Peace’ Whore Medals to Nobel Committee: 0 In Valour of Ignorance, Homer Lea‘s perspective of a nations 39

youtu.be/W5capqGod9A Vietnam Veterans Throw their Medals at Washington www.youtu.be/j7jhs-bGyFQ 41 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return medals at NATO Summit www.youtu.be/YX9PVC0phhI 40

traitor enemies, are (I) those “high or low” who only regard [the Nation] in a parasitical sense, as a land to batten on and grow big in, whose resources are not to be developed and conserved for the furtherance of the Republic‘s greatness, but only to satisfy the larval greed of those who subsist upon it‘s fatness; and (II) International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists who advocate on behalf of disarmament and arbitration without understanding the true origins of war: “Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.”

[45]

What is a Credible Peace Treaty?:

[46] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence considers a credible peace treaty to be one which (a) recognizes Scarcity induced conflict; and (b) consequently includes legal requirements which define peaceful vs. non-peaceful (scarcity combatant) type of procreation and consumption behaviour. There can only be a credible sustainable peace, if both parties abide by the treaty to avoid contributing towards the creation of scarcity, by overpopulation or overconsumption of their nation’s resources. [46.1] Consequently a credible peace treaty must include a clear definition of what is and is not peaceful vs. non peaceful behaviour, and consequently whether each country is moving towards sustainable peace or towards conflict, by clarifying:

[47]

The Nobel Peace Prize:

[48] The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed in a number of categories by Scandinavian committees in recognition of cultural and/or scientific advances. The will of the Swedish philanthropist inventor Alfred Nobel established the prizes in 1895. The prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace were first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prize is widely

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html

regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace, and economics. [49]

Sustainable Security or ‘War is Peace’ Whore Prize?:

[49.1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s Nobel Peace Prize is a ‘War is Peace’ Whore Prize. Its mandate is to award ‘Peace Prizes’ to individuals who "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." [49.2] Not one of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prizes has ever been awarded to any individual who addresses the root causes of war, by educating and advocating on behalf of Sustainable Security: living in harmony with nature’s carrying capacity, by reducing overpopulation and overconsumption, which are the primary causes of resource scarcity. [49.3] If the Nobel Peace Prize was committed to supporting Peace based upon Sustainable Security, the recipients of its Peace Prize would be individuals and organizations focussed on promoting Sustainable Security Peace Congresses which address the Scarcity induced causes of conflict, who are committed to eliminating the AnthroCorpocentric ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm. [49.4] The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee continues to refuse to address the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war, where surplus populations are used as standing armies, and how those profiteering from overconsumption use their profits to promote pretend peace congresses and pretend Nobel Peace Prizes, awarding War is Peace Whore Prizes to perpetuate the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm. [50] International Law: Sustainable Security, or ‘War is Peace’ Whore Treaties?: [51] Every International Peace Treaty which has failed to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, recognizing Scarcity induced Conflict by legally differentiating between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour; is not a ‘credible’ Sustainable Security Peace Treaty, but is a credible ‘War is Peace’ Whore Treaty, effectively endorsing the perpetuation of the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming Poverty Pimping War Economy Racket.

Industrial Civilization’s Suicide March:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJeUAx0y-g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdO2Xh51Q-U 45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvH5KFS8kfA http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/end-civ-resist-or-die/ 46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V325y7QCg3c 47 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzJhlvtDms 48 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IipwQryubIE 49 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug 50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUe7w1gDZo 51 http://vimeo.com/33552646 52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUWces5TkCA 53 http://youtu.be/VwzqlVZJ410 54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMJwIedrWU 55 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/green-death-forests/ 56 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dirtiest-place-planet/ 57 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/acid-test-global-challenge-ocean-acidification/ 58 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/changing-climate-global-warming/ 59 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/garbage-island/ 60 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/can-the-gulf-survive/ 61 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/unearthed-fracking-facade/ 62 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fight-amazonia/ 63 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/plastic-cow/ 64 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/consequences-suburbanization/ 65 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/river-waste/ 66 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/climate-change/ 67 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-a-way-to-go-life-at-the-end-of-empire/ 68 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/deepwater-disaster-the-untold-story/ 69 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/prophets-of-doom/ 70 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/blind-spot/ 71 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/end-of-line-world-without-fish/ 72 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/no-impact-man/ 73 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/blue-gold-world-water-wars/ 74 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/ 75 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/gasland/ 76 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-to-save-the-world/ 77 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/addicted-plastic/ 78 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/11th-hour/ 79 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/life-after-people/ 44

Radical Honoursty Culture & TYGÆ Æx-Party Positions: [53] The Radical Honoursty culture is a gender balanced culture which practices Æquilibriæx jurisprudence and authentic Multiculturalism; as opposed to all of South Africa’s other cultures, which are patriarchal, and practice AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence91 and fake Multiculturalism92: the Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism. The Yshmael Guerrylla law Party is an unregistered Æx party, currently drawing up its Constitution and related documents for registration. [54] I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security practicing paralegal EcoFeminist, member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honourty culture93; resident in George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business. [55] I am married to African American prisoner Demian Emile Johnson, who has been incarcerated in the California Dept. of Corrections, on a sentence of 15-to-life for felony murder, since 1982. We met while I was working on providing educational information on rehabilitation issues to prisoners. (Sacramento County: Licence & Certificate of Marriage: Demian Emile Johnson and Lara Johnstone (PDF94); 31 May 1998: Sunday Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town (PDF95); 24 Sep 1998: YOU: Volksrust Farmgirl Doomed for Love of Black Convict) (PDF96). [56] Radical Honoursty Culture: I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, based upon Radical Honesty97 dispute resolution principles, which is (a) a 80

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-coconut-revolution/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/poison-on-the-platter/ 82 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-without-water/ 83 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-slow-poisoning-of-india/ 84 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/flow-for-love-of-water/ 85 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/farm-for-the-future/ 86 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/waste-food/ 87 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/patent-for-a-pig/ 88 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-story-of-stuff/ 89 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/earthlings/ 90 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ 91 http://sqswans.weebly.com/anthrocorpocentric-jurisprudence.html 92 http://sqswans.weebly.com/multicorpcultural-colonialism.html 93 SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae” 94 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090922_hc-ifp 95 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980513_stimes 96 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980924_you 97 www.radicalhonesty.com 81

minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism (Zizek: 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'98) endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational Globalization of cultures (Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism - Zizek99). [57] I am neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, nor an endorser of AnthroCorpocentric Legislative or Juristic Jurisprudence which only grants Humans and Corporations legal personhood, while denying legal personhood to all other animal and plant species and ecological rights to nature. I identify as a CommonSism Primitivist. [58] CommonSism: I am the founder of CommonSism100 -- Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons – which is inspired by among others: the Taker vs. Leaver ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War. [59] I am also the founder of the concept of Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence, which is Equal & balanced -- Eco/Anthropocentric – law, based upon: æquus (equal), lībra/æ (balance), libri (books), and lex (law). Equilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, which manifests as all species living in carry capacity harmony with another. Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature, which manifests as fully informed consent harmony between all human members of society. Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence is equal and balanced Anthropocentric and Ecocentric Jurisprudence. [60] TYGÆ: Tsedaqah Yshmael Guerrylla Æquilibriæx101: TYGÆ’s Political Party’s platform is based upon Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence, Guerrylla Law and CommonSism. [61] CommonSism’s Guerrylla Laws – based upon Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence – regulate human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, by means of legally defining the procreation and consumption difference, and consequent related Sustainable Rights/Penalties, between a Leaver and a Taker, to ensure sustainability. [62] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological 98

www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C4.htm Slavoj Žižek: Multiculturalism or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism, in: Razpol 10 - glasilo Freudovskega polja, Ljubljana 1997 http://www.soc.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kbm/VoF/ Kurser/2011/Multiculturalism/slavoj_zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinationalcapitalism.pdf 100 http://sqswans.weebly.com/guerrylla-law.html 101 http://tygae.weebly.com 99

Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence. [63] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations. [64] Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. [65] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint102 procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)103 (60 % of 1.8 gha)104 in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan105; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20106)] [65.1] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. 102

EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot. 103 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species. 104 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. If for example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive that year, that would have provided everyone with 3.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, their would be 12gha biocapacity for each persons needs. 105 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. 106 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://sqswans.weebly.com/child--ecofootprint-x-20.html

[65.2] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha. [65.3] For example: My Consumption Footprint107 using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. I have no children, consequently my procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like me, we would need 0.81 earths.108 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths109. [66] TYGÆ’s Purpose: (A) Tsedaqah: ecological, political, gender, cultural and religious balance; (B) Yshmael creation of a Leaver society, by means of practice and legislation of CommonSism’s Guerrylla Laws which regulate human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, by means of legally defining the procreation and consumption difference, and consequent related Sustainable Rights/Penalties, between a Leaver and a Taker, to ensure sustainability; (C) Guerryllæ warriors engage in Guerrylla Law practice and socio-political support for Leaver Ecological, Animal Rights, Indigenous Rights, Separatist Multiculturalism, Decentralization, Relocalization, De-Industrialization, Primitivization, Radical Honesty and Transparency Activism; against Taker Individuals and Corporations, working for a low/no tech relocalized and decentralized Agrarian or Primitivist separatist ethno/cultural homogenous tribal society; (D) Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: recognizes all animal, plant and human species rights to legal personhood, and the importance of all decisions and actions being evaluated in terms of their contribution to Æquilibriæx balance; (E) Sustainable Security: There is no security without Sustainability. Sustainability is impossible without a return to a Leaver society. [67] I am the only South African who – for the past 20 years – has exposed South Africa’s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud, and advocated on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid’s Political violence.

107

http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 109 President Zuma’s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma’s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20)]. President Zuma’s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 108