Robert Maguire's Library tagged warfare → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

26 Oct 09

Climate change and warfare: Cool heads or heated conflicts? | The Economist

www.economist.com/...displaystory.cfm - Preview

agriculture climatechange US politics conflict war warfare production history trade technology industrial revolution

The chart shows the correlation between the number of conflicts and the average temperature during most of the second half of the millennium, the period for which the data are best. Until the mid-18th century, this correlation is continuously and significantly negative (the line remains close to the 95% confidence level, suggesting there is only one chance in 20 that it is an accidental, random effect). In other words, lower temperatures mean more wars. Then, suddenly, the negative correlation vanishes. The line goes into positive territory, but not enough to be statistically meaningful. The inverted correlation between temperature and conflict has therefore disappeared.
3 more annotations...
- They argue that the reason the relationship between warfare and cold vanishes in the mid-18th century is that this is the moment when the industrial revolution began
- These developments meant farmers could often produce reasonable yields during colder weather—and even when they could not, long-distance trade provided a buffer against crop failure. Meanwhile, the growth of cities and non-agricultural occupations meant there was money to buy such traded crops.
- The lesson, rather, is that the way to minimise the likelihood of climate-induced conflict in the future is to continue the process of crop improvement (for example, by taking advantage of the potential of genetic engineering) so that heat- and drought-tolerant varieties are available; to make farmers aware of these new crops and encourage their use; and to promote free trade and non-agricultural economic development. That way people will have no cause to fight, and tyrants no excuse to stir them up.