Appendices

Appendices


(1) Theory.

Basic theory has been provided in relation democracy. There is not much research out there pertaining to this topic. Additionally, with word limit requirements, other concepts had to take priority.
Theory in relation to resources and population effects was minimal, although did provide a basic and sufficient understanding regarding the topic statement provided by Asimov.
Theory in relation to the psychological effects of population was adequate, although linking this to research was slightly difficult, due to insufficient research, and direct correlations between population and psychological well-being.



(2) Research.

Research was adequate although not brilliant; some search engines don’t provide full-text material. However, research was sufficient to provide the conceptual aim of the topic requirement.
Relevant researchers were used, and up to date studies were provided. Material used journals, books, and internet sources.



(3) Written expression.

Written expression was clear and concise. Gramma was good, and logical arguments flowed. And in some cases was creative and on the verged of passionate, as was expressed in the conclusion.



(4) Online engagement.

Online engagement was minimal, although better than last time. I contributed in a couple surveys conducted by other students, and visited a couple other blogs.

To live is to die

Isaac Asimov, (1920-1992), the Russian born American author, was a prominent face not just in science fiction fantasy circles, but also as a voice for science awareness, the preservation of the environment and future world trends. Isaac Asimov, as a noted activist for the protection and longevity of the planet, during an interview stated his view of the neglected concept of overpopulation, and how it could threaten the planet and its inhabitants as:

"Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters."


This statement, apart from being a bleak prediction of our possible future, implies three threatening outcomes from overpopulation: (1), population increase negates democracy’s effectiveness; (2), population increase decreases supply of resources, and in doing so decreases living standards; and (3), population increase decreases psychological well being.


The first point made by Asimov was that overpopulation diminishes the effectiveness of democracy. Democracy, as a system of government, comprises four main elements: (1), a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (2), the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (3), protection of the human rights of all citizens; and (4), a rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens (http://www.stanford.edu). However, as a population increases, democracy loses its effectiveness in providing for the interests of its people (Bartlett, A.A. 2000). This is done through the under-representation of the public by its elected government representatives. For example, in the US, the original standard of population representation was 1 government representative for every 30,000 people. This has crept up to 1 government representative for every 600,000 people. This illustrates a dilution of democracy; thus the rate of change of effectiveness of democracy is inversely proportional to the growth of its population.


The second point made by Asimov was that overpopulation would create too much demand upon our planet to produce the required resources, and in doing so would decrease living standards. The relationship between a population and its resources was first provided by Mathlus in 1798 (www.wikipedia.com), who stated that population growth was limited by the incremental supply of food; although this statement has partially been negated by technology and trade. Population and its effects on the environment is best understood in Hardin’s (1993) equation of I = PAT; where environmental impact is controlled by population, affluence, and technology.


The Earth has finite resources including those which it can replenish. This is commonly known as its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity refers to the feasible amount of resources that an environment can provide for its population now and into the future (Ehrlich, Ehrlich, & Daily, 1995). If we exceed the carrying capacity of the planet, problems begin to arise. These include a lack of essential goods and services, famine and health issues (Butler, 1997). Now more than ever, since the advent of the industrial revolution, humans have become increasingly efficient in extracting these resources. This is partly due to advancements in technology increasing the rate of production and use of goods and services, and more effective national and international institutions (http://www.millenniumassessment.org). Additionally, as developing countries such as India and China attempt to increase their living standards, their demand for more food, luxury goods, fuel and electrical power (with their attendant pollution costs), will put increased strain on global resources (Livernash, 1995).


Overall, increased incomes have led to material improvements in living standards, and greater life expectancy. However, global wealth is still not evenly distributed, and approximately 1.1 billion people live on $1 a day each, and in appalling environmental conditions where life hangs in the balance (http://www.millenniumassessment.org). This mismanagement of resources and distribution difficulties is, according to social psychology, known as the commons dilemma. The commons dilemma is characterised by the tendency for people to squander resources when in groups, either due to selfishness or poor allocation and planning (Baumeister & Bushman, 2007). An example of resource mismanagement is that of fishermen, who when asked to limit their catch to preserve the longevity of the resource, are reluctant to do so; as it will reduce their individual payout. Additionally, if nations continue to squabble over resources for their own benefit, and show no intention to cooperate internationally to manage the Earth’s resources, these finite resources will be depleted quicker (Elizabeth, 2004). Examples of exploitation and overuse of the environmental resources includes damage to top soil, extinction of animal and plant species, soil salinity increase, ozone layer depletion, and environmentally neglected building developments (Mc, Namara, 1992).


Another contributing factor that negatively affects us and the environment is our tendency to think of the present rather than the future, also known as temporal discounting. If we are to preserve our planet action must be taken now so as to slow possible damaging long-terms effects. However, as was found by Highhouse and colleagues (2002), people tend to discount future threats more than future opportunities, and perceive immediate threats just as likely to occur as immediate opportunities. The research implies that changing our current behaviour of resource consumption is not going to be as easy as flicking a switch off, especially when those who are able to control the switch are not prepared to lower their standards of living. Similarly, this problem can be compounded by the planning fallacy – this describes the tendency for people to be overly optimistic is making their plans and not taking into account unexpected problems (Baumesiter & Bushman, 2007). An example of this is the completion of the tunnel connecting Britain and France. The original cost was supposed to be 4.9 billion pounds, and the project ended up costing over 10 billion pounds, and commenced operating a year late (Buehler et al, 1994).


The third and final point by Asimov is that as population increases, psychological well being decreases. This idea is best understood in social psychological terms and current behavioural trends in our society. Now more than ever, people are living on their own in Australian society. According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in 2001, 1.8 million people were living in lone-household arrangements, and this is predicted to increase to 2.8-3.7 million by 2026. Additionally as the population size has increased, the number of primary relationship contacts has diminished (Hartley, 1972). The larger the group the more formalised the relationships and norms of interactions. For example, we don’t care who drives the bus, or serves us lunch, they are just another function of our daily routine. However it is the primary relationship that people care about and which makes life satisfying.


Comparatively, if there are more people in the world than ever before (Mc Namara, 1992), how could we possibly be alone? It is well known in group psychology that as an individual enters a group he or she loses a sense of identity - this idea is known as deindividuation (Postmes & Spears, 1998). When this happens there is a greater likelihood of aggression, due to less accountability (Baumeister & Bushman, 2007). An example of this was a study conducted by Silke (2004), who examined 500 violent attacks in Northern Ireland and found that attackers who wore masks (206) - and so remained anonymous - displayed more vandalism, aggression and punitive behaviour during and after the crime. However, it has also been found that deindividuation and its anti-normative affects are also dependent upon other variables, including group membership and group beliefs, in conjunction within large crowds (Reicher, 1984, Reicher & Levin, 1994a, 1994b, Reicher, 1998 et al, cited in Guerin, 2003).


Due to an increase in population, violence will arise due to the scarcity of resources (Gleditsch & Urdal, 2002). This supports realistic conflict theory, the belief that scarcity of resources can lead to inter-group hostility, and conflict (Baumeister & Bushman, 2007). This has already been seen in acts of war, in which countries have invaded other countries for oil, precious metals, and other perceived needs (Nann Winter, & Cava, 2006). More recently, there has been interest in the idea that climate change and its environmentally degrading effect upon the production of basic foodstuffs, could promote violence through the increasing stress on states to supply resources to an ever increasing population (Barnett & Adger, 2007).


In summation, population increase has been a neglected casual factor in both environmental degradation and its relation towards a global initiative to find a balance between environmental supply and human demand. As well a population increase contributing towards environmental degradation, population increase destroys democracy’s effectiveness, and human psychological well being. These are in part due to technological advancements, more efficient cultural institutions, and trade. These factors are further encouragement to mismanagement by our tendency towards the commons dilemma, temporal discounting, and planning fallacy. Through the mismanagement of resources and possible lack of resources in the future, tension could build into aggression and outright violence. Conflict over what resources are left could result in war, all of which could be prevented if we could only get over our selfish immediate impulses, and co-operate towards a less prosperous but unavoidable future.


References


Barnett, J., & Adger, A.N. (2007). Climate change, human security, and violent conflict. Political Geography. 26, 6.


Bartlett, A.A. (2000). Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Population and Environment, 22, 1.


Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2007). Social psychology & human nature. NY. Thomson Wadsworth.


Buehler, R., Griffin, D., Dale, R. (1994). Exploring the ‘planning fallacy’: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 67, 3.


Butler, C.D. (1997). The consumption bomb. Medicine, Conflict, & Survival. 13.


Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., Daily, G.C. (1995). The stork and the plow: The equity answer to the human dilemma. NY. Putnam’s Sons.


Elizabeth, E. (2004). Environmental security: securing what for whom? Social Alternatives. 23, 4.


Gleditsch, N.P., & Urdal, H. (2002). Ecoviolence? Links between population growth, environemental scarcity, and violent conflict in Thomas Homer-Dixon’s work. Journal of International Affairs. 56, 1.


Guerin, B. (2003). Social behaviours as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Diffusion of Responsibility Effects with Competition. Journal of Social Psychology. 143, 3.


Hardin, G. (1993). Living within limits. NY. Oxford University Press.



Hartley, S. F. (1972). Population quantity vs quality: A sociological examination of the causes and consequences of the population explosion. New Jersey. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.


Highhouse, S., Mohammed, S., Hoffman, J.R. (2002). Temporal discounting of strategic issues. Bold forecast for opportunities and threats. Basic & Applied Social Psychology. 24, 1.
Livernash, R. (1995). The future of populous economies: China and India shape their destinies. Environment, 37, 6.


Mc Namara, R.S. (1992). The population explosion. Futurist. 26, 6.


Nann Winter, D.D., & Cava, M.M. (2006). The psycho-ecology of armed conflict. Journal of Social Sciences. 62, 1.


Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behaviour: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 123, 3.


Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psychology. 143, 4.


Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). Short communication: A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership, and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology. 35,


Retrived November 26th , 2007, from World Wide Web
http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm


Retrived November 27th , 2007, from World Wide Web. http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article92006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2006&num=&view=


Retrived November 27th , 2007, from World Wide Web. http://www.millenniumassessment.org


Click for appendices

Genocide

It is both intriguing and disheartening that in what is supposed to be an age of enlightenment, some societies and their citizens are willing to wage war upon their fellow man (and woman). This doesn't solely include conventional warfare, but also terrorism, and genocide. Genocide is defined by the deliberate and systematic act of terminating an ethic, religious, or national population. Unfortunately this immoral conduct was not uncommon in the last century. In WWII, NAZI soldiers killed 6, 000, 000 Jewish people throughout Europe in the Holocaust (http://www.ddaymuseum.org) Cambodia, under the Pol Pot regime suffered on estimate 2,200,000 to 2,500,000 fatalities (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm). Rwanda lost 800, 000 Tutsi lives at the hands of Hutu extremists (http://www.whitehouse.gov). And more recently in Darfour, it is believed that already 400,000 Africans are dead and millions have lost their homes (http://www.genocideintervention.net). So what factors leads people to commit such murderous acts and mass violence?


In the context of genocide, it is important to note that there are social psychological factors acting on person as an individual in relation to other individuals, and as a member of a group (race, national, religious). These factors include group cultural history, situational factors, social psychological factors and context, and interpersonal factors: Stigmatisation, dehumanisation, moral disengagement, exclusion; impunity and bystander effects also play a role in the process of genocide (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005)


There is no doubt that aggression plays a role in genocide, through its manifestation of mass violence. A cultures attitude towards aggression dictates it use within society (Takehiro, et al 1999), and with regards to problem-solving (Bond, 2004), culture and aggression can contribute towards its use in genocide (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005). Additionally, the controlling variables for aggression when committing aggressive behaviour at an individual level is accountability (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Aggressive behaviour becomes in a war situation will not punished by society since it has become acceptable to do so, when used against the enemy. The unfullfilment of basic human needs (economic) can also foster feelings of hostility and aggression (Staub E, 2003). This was seen in the situation of Germany after WWI through to WWII when the country was in a state of economic depression.


Genocide occurs through the use of group effective power, and is best understood in group terms. Group behaviour includes the phenomenon of in-groups and out-groups. From a first person vantage, an in-group is the group that one is in, and an out-group is a group that one is not in (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In-groups commonly provide a sense of affiliation, belongingness, security, and empowerment. On the other hand, an out-group is commonly seen as un-trust worthy, distinctively different from ones own group, inferior, and possibly to be feared. This group bias can often lead to prejudice of other groups, and is often seen in times of stress, when groups vent aggression upon smaller minority groups within their society (Allport, 1979, cited in Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005).



When an individual becomes part of an in-group, it is known that as well as losing a sense of self, an individual acquires in-group biases (Brown, 2000). This is the belief that ones group is better than another’s - usually for the purpose of maintaining and raising self-esteem. Individuals also adopt the group’s cognitive habits; this can include group-think, which is the tendency for group members to think alike - believed to facilitate group cohesion. However, as well as facilitating group cohesion, group think can also inhibit ones self expression, in the advent of going against the groups plans and views, therefore being excluded. Groups also have a tendency to become polarised on issues. This entails the extreme position of ideas, facilitated by common characteristics and beliefs of members. The comfort of being in a group also facilitates ‘risky shift’. Risky shift is the behaviour of a group to take more risk than would an individual in the same situation.


A group needs its leader. Although leadership is not well understood, the role of a leader is to make group decisions and improve the performance of the group (Jacobs, Masson, Harvill, 2002). Ways that political leaders and their government gain compliance of their people to commit genocide are by manipulation and coercion. To begin with, many societies value and encourage conformity and obedience (Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M, 2005). Through this predisposition the use of propaganda exposes vulnerabilities between in-groups and out-groups through stigmatisation – negatively assigned attributions of a group. This creates a dehumanising perception within the in-group, leading to easier acts of aggressive displacements by creating moral disengagement between the two groups.


The final characteristic that facilitates genocide are bystanders. Bystanders are a people who are involved in the event by proximity; however, have no immediate desire to help victims due to the presence of others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Bystanders as a group have the potential power to aid in stopping genocide; however, by doing nothing they assist the genocide; as was demonstrated with the genocide of Rwanda by the United Nations.


In conclusion what prompts an individual to commit genocide begins with each individual, his or her culture, and the approach towards the expression of aggression within that culture. The individual is then influenced by situational factors at a group level, which includes economical, social psychological, and political variables. At a group level an individual loses old psychological behaviours and cognitions and gains new psychological behaviours and cognitions. At the group level, a group experiences a unison of thinking, extreme shifts in its stance on ideas, and a tendency to take risks. At this point an in-group is vulnerable to extreme perceptions of out-groups under stressful situations, which may be heavily influenced or exaggerated by their leader. By the use of propaganda in such stressful times a leader might influence all-ready present in-group out group biases to his or her favour which can result in genocide.





References


Baum, S.K. (2004). A bell curve of hate? Journal of Genocide research. 6, 4.

Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social psychology & human nature. Thompson Wadsworth. NY.

Bond. M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression, from context to coercion. Personality and Social Psychology review. 8, 1.

Brown, R. (2000). Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). NY. Blackwell Publishing.

Bush, G.W. (2005). The White House News & Policies. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050407-2.html

Genocide Intervention Network, Washington DC, United States of America. (2007). Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.genocideintervention.net.

Jacobs, E.E., Masson, R.L., Harvill. R.L. (2002). Group counselling: Strategies and skills. UK. Brooks/Cole. Thomson Learning.

Sharp, B. (2007). Counting hell. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm.

Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfilment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24, 1.

Takehiro F., Takaya, K., Manuel A. J., Martin, R.J. (1999). Justification of interpersonal aggression in Japanese, American, and Spanish students. Aggressive Behaviour, 25, 3.

The National World War 2 Museum. New Orleans, United States of America. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html.

Woolf, L., & Hulsizer, M. (2005). Psychosocial roots or genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide research, 7,1.


Click on to view Appendices.