I wanted to take an analytical look at the Homer-Dixon research and his views on the role of environment and violence. I think that Homer-Dixon takes a really interesting approach in one of his first conclusions: that scarcities of renewable resources can produce civil violence, but that environmental scarcity mainly act by creating social effects- that are often misinterpreted as a conflict’s “immediate cause.”

I think that his statement here is extremely valid, but I’m also not sure if the two can be separated so easily. Scarcity naturally is going to cause social issues-I don’t think it’s possible for it to not cause social issues. While I agree, the social issues lead to violence, I’m not sure if it is fair to separate the social from environmental in this case. The environmental issues are social issues because they strain everyday life. The social issues wouldn’t arise without scarcity issues and together, they cause civil violence. However, I do agree that the social aspects of scarcity are highly linked to the environment. People don’t realize the scarcity until something being gone affects their everyday life, and once everyday life and social norms are changed, violence often ensues to attempt to gain social status back.

I think that Homer-Dixon’s idea about resource capture is very relevant and one of the few of his conclusions that the global-North can essentially relate to. Dwindling resources puts power distribution in the favor to those with a grip on the resource. Often, the North can look at the south and see food scarcity and water scarcity, but can in no way relate seeing as we have faucets with clean running water 24/7. But what happens when the resource is something that affects the global north, my thoughts lying on oil and diamonds. All of a sudden, the U.S., for instance, has a stance in the power distribution of those in charge of the oil distribution. Granted, as we discussed in class, much of our imports of oil come from Canada who remains peaceful, however, the US has a high stake in the industry itself. Our economy is so dependent on oil in everything we do, that if prices rise to an abnormal amount, we are looking at an economic tragedy. I think that Homer-Dixon only looks at this in terms of the poorest groups and how this affects them. I believe that this idea affects some of the world’s largest economies and should really be the driving force behind positive global development

I think a lot of Homer-Dixon’s conclusions are however, not monumental. He makes a lot of conclusions about social factors and I think that so much of his analysis is on social norms that we already understand as a part of society.  While yes, he places it in the environmental context, he isn’t unique in how he applies them and how they are specifically different from other social pressures. For instance, I think his separate conclusion that environmental scarcity is connected to weak state in poor countries. I think it’s just a bit trite- just about every poor country is corrupt to some extent (even the richer countries can be included) that a weak state has much more to do with other factors and not just the environment. Clearly environmental distinction will separate social groups- just as just about any other aspect of society. Everything contributes to one group being more powerful than another. I think that is a fact about everyday life, not a distinct conclusion about the environment.