Human Dominated Ecosystems

Warfare Fitness Enhancement or Losing Strategy
  • Irina Pollard


It is increasingly obvious that the aggressive way we are multiplying, consuming natural resources, using energy, and producing waste, is adversely changing the balance of our global environment. Therefore, one effective survival strategy maybe to expand the framework governing bioethics beyond the traditional strictly delineated guidelines of human and animal bioethics, and include responsibilities for sustaining the life-support structures existing within ecological systems. In other words, transcend the anthropocentric in favor for the biocentric. By acknowledging that humankind is not at the center of our shared universe, but stands there as an integral part of Nature’s biodiversity consisting of other animals, plants and microorganisms, we will already have expanded the framework governing bioethics and, serendipitously, increased our chances for survival. Acceptance of ecological systems beyond ourselves facilitates maturation and guides us toward questions of responsible development and ecosystem stewardship. Environmental stewardship is a commonly shared characteristic among people’s basic belief systems, but the rapid changes in society brought about by science and technology, have unfavorably impacted on human relationships and practices. In turn, fundamental life-style change has affected, often in unpredictable ways, the continued maintenance of a healthy human society in harmony with the environment.


Terrorist Attack Military Spending Biological Weapon Biological Warfare Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selected Bibliography

  1. Burkholder, B. & Toole, M. Evolution of complex disasters. The Lancet 346:1995;1012–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Danzig, R. & Berkowsky, P. Why should we be concerned about biological warfare? Journal of the American Medical Association 278:1997;431–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De-Shalit, A. Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations. London/New York, Routledge 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Dudley, M., Cantor, C. & de Moore G. Jumping the gun: firearms and the mental health of Australians. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 30:1996;370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher, F. & Black, M. (Ed). Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future. London, Paul Chapman 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Geller, S. & Singer, D. Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Macer, D. Bioethics is Love of Life: An Alternative Textbook. Tsukuba (Japan), Eubios Ethics Institute 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Hinde, R. (Ed). The Institution of War. London, Macmillan 1991.Google Scholar
  9. Patten, J. Reciprocal Altruism and Warfare: A Case from the Ecuadorian Amazon. In Cronk, L, Chagnon, N & Irons, W (Eds) Adaptation of Human Behavior. New York, Aldine de Gruyter, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. Rheingold, H. Virtual Reality. London, Mandarin Paperbacks 1991.Google Scholar
  11. Richardson, M. The Effects of War On the Environment: Croatia. London, E & FN Spon 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Robins, N. & Pye-Smith, C. The ecology of violence. New Scientist 153:1997;12–13.Google Scholar
  13. Toole, M. Mass population displacement: a global public health challenge. Infectious Disease Clinics North America 9:1995;353–365.Google Scholar
  14. Wertz, D. Genetics and “germ warfare”. Gene Letter 2:1998;26–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Pollard
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations