Bridging the GAPS between ecology and human security - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 129

Bridging the GAPS between
ecology and human security
Dawn R. Bazely, Julia Christensen, Andrew J.
Tanentzap and Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv
Introduction
When we began thinking about the relevance of the human security concept
for ecology and ecologists, two topics were riding high on the non-fiction best-
seller lists: Collapse by Jared Diamond (2005) and A Short History of Progress by
Ronald Wright (2004). Both topics are informed by the most basic, widely
accepted ecological theory: namely that there are limits to both the availabil-
ity of resources and to population growth (Krebs 1988; Begon et al . 2006).
Both topics describe what happens when human societies come up against
these limits.
Despite the broad appeal of these topics, and their stories of how some
human societies have experienced, or will likely experience, catastrophes
arising directly from resource depletion, overall global trends in resource con-
sumption by humans continue to escalate (Begon et al . 2006; Harte 2007).
Since 1998 the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Reports have described
this consumption and its impacts, using a variety of metrics for a wide range
of resources, including cement, wood, fertilizer, water, natural habitat cover,
and freshwater, marine and terrestrial species (WWF International 1998,
2012). The simplest assessment is that we need at least two and a half more
planet Earths to sustain current rates of resource consumption by humans
(McGlade 2004).
Many ecologists based in academic institutions continue to be flum-
moxed and frustrated by the apparent ongoing lack of awareness in our
broader society of both the fundamental lessons about resource limitations
that have been learned in the field of ecology and their implications for
humanity and the planet (e.g. Dovers et al . 1996; Hollings 2000; Mason
2003; AFP 2006). Frustration about how little these lessons appear to inform
both wider social and economic policy, as well as the individual consumption
choices made by members of the public, has prompted ecologists to undertake
critical analyses of the field of ecology that explore its (perceived) weakness as
a science (e.g. Peters 1991; Weiner 1995) and provide prescriptions for how
both the field and its broader impact could be improved (e.g. Belovsky et al .