Forging new connections

In a well-timed post on WorldChanging, Alex Steffen notes that security and sustainability are related.

Steffen claims, as many have, that the War on Terrorism abounds with misdirected energy.

We, especially those of us in the U.S., have been kept in a panic state for the last five years, told constantly that not only is terrorism an immediate threat to ourselves and the ones we love, but that it is a danger to our very civilization. The result has been both that terrorists have been more successful in spreading terror and that authoritarian politicians have taken the opportunity to reduce government transparency and citizen oversight and erode protections for human rights and democratic process.

It also hasn't made us one lick safer, since, while we've been freaking out, fighting an unjustified war and pouring money into the terrorism porkbarrel, we've essentially ignored very big, well-documented threats, from the climate crisis to the weakening of the global public health system and the rise of epidemic disease to the destruction of New Orleans.

Then it gets interesting:

[M]uch of what is insecure in our societies is also what is unsustainable about them.

Let me be even more blunt: sustainability is a national security priority. Perhaps the national security priority. If scientists are correct, far more people have already lost their lives from the direct and indirect effects of climate change than terrorism. The health effects of sprawl, car accidents, chemical spills, environmentally-influenced cancers: all of these things are probably bigger threats to the lives of average Americans than terrorism. Certainly preventable disease, unneccessary hunger, solvable poverty and environmental degredation already cause far more death and suffering in the world than any terrorists ever could.

I hope as we work to respond to the problems of the world that we will avoid too much bickering about what is really the worst threat, what is really causing the most damage, etc. Groups of people have fallen into this trap also: Arguing about who is the "most oppressed" (women? gays? blacks? Jews?). It's a waste of time.

But still, bringing to light connections that people might not have seen between the challenges we face-- such as climate change and terrorism-- can be valuable. For instance, it can allow the formation of new coalitions. One interesting thing about environmental stewardship is that it can unite political liberals (who may be nonreligious) with religious groups (who may be politically conservative).

Let's forge creative responses to terrorism. Instead of building higher walls and bigger guns-- truly dull-witted responses that have a proven track record of failure-- how about getting greener, refusing to be cowed, and daring to do something different? For instance, consider passive survivability: green buildings are actually safer.

Do we have the courage to change? It will be harder than hunkering down, but so much more rewarding, like all truly difficult things are.