May 28, 2005

PRIORITIZING PRESENT THREATS TO LIFE ON EARTH

THE ATROCITY THEORY OF EVIL

The Atrocity Theory of Evil was developed by Claudia Card in her book, The Atrocity Paradigm B A Theory of Evil (Oxford University, New York, N.Y.), 2002.

Characteristics: The Theory is characterized by being:

1. Secular: The Theory is secular and sees evil only as the antithesis of good, without intending to suggest that evil is a metaphysical force. It identifies evils (in the plural) and considers evil (in the singular) as a general term connoting evil in the abstract (p. 9).

2. Focused on Suffering: The Theory does not define evil by motive, and thereby encourages a focus first on suffering (p. 9).

EVIL

Evil is a higher order moral concept in that it presupposes culpable wrongdoing in a moral agent as the source of the harm (p. 12).

Characteristics: The Atrocity Theory of Evil describes evil as having two components:

3. A Foreseeable Intolerable Harm: Evils tend to ruin lives, or at least significant parts of lives. Victims may never recover or be able to move on. The nature and severity of the harm rather than the psychological state of the perpetrator(s), distinguish evils from ordinary wrongs (pp. 3-4).

Death itself is not an evil, although the manner of death can be, and it can be to suffer an evil to be robbed of the opportunity to live out a meaningful life (p. 5).

4. A Culpable Moral Agent: The perpetrator is the one who brings about a culpable wrongdoing. Such evildoers are not necessarily malicious. More often, they are inexcusably reckless, callously indifferent or amazingly unscrupulous. They may become evil people over time. Only very serious wrongdoing is evil. Much that is bad in the sense of disappointing, undesirable, inferior, unjust or unfair, is not evil. Many wrongdoings are trivial. Evils never are, even if their perpetrators are ordinary people and their motives not unusual (pp. 3-4 and 7).

ATROCITIES

An atrocity is a deed which is extremely wicked, brutal, cruel or barbaric. It is appalling, horrifying, utterly revolting, shocking, abominable, outrageous.

Characteristics: Atrocities are:

1. Evil on a Large Scale: Atrocities are uncontroversially evil. They contain the core features of evils writ large and thus make these features relatively easy to identify and appreciate. They are recognizable without knowing the state of mind of the perpetrator(s). Atrocities deserve priority of attention (p. 9).

2. Perpetrated by Humans: The perception that human agents either engineered an atrocity or failed to intervene to prevent it when they could and should have, gives rise to a significant part of the shock produced by an atrocity. Human failure to respond can turn a natural catastrophe into an atrocity. Much of the involvement of human agency in atrocities is a matter of aggravating the suffering brought about by non-human causes or tolerating it unnecessarily (p. 5).

3. Not Natural Catastrophes: Natural events, such as earthquakes, fires and floods, not brought about by or preventable by moral agency, are not evils. Catastrophes are not the same as atrocities. When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither goods nor evils. They just are (p. 5).

EXAMPLES OF ATROCITIES

The Holocaust.

The bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden.

The internment of Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians during World War II.

The My Lai massacre.

The Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

The genocides in Rwanda, Burundi and East Timor.

The killing fields of Cambodia.

The rape/death camps of the former Yugoslavia.

The threat to life on our planet posed by environmental poisoning, global warming and the destruction of natural habitats, such as rain forests (p. 8).

KINDS OF ATROCITIES

Genocide.

Slavery.

Torture.

Rape as a weapon of war.

The saturation bombing of cities.

Biological and chemical warfare, with their unleashing of viruses and gases.

The domestic terrorism of prolonged battery, stalking and child abuse.

To some, the list would include the raising of animals in factory farms and the butchering of them in mass-production slaughterhouses (pp. 8-9).

THE AMAGNITUDE GAP@:

The importance of what takes place is almost always greater for the victim. Victims are apt to exaggerate the reprehensibility of the perpetrators= motives. Perpetrators are apt to under-estimate the magnitude and seriousness of the harm they do (Baumeister, pp. 18-19 and 46; cited pp. 9 and 121).

HISTORICAL CONCEPTS OF EVIL

Historically, important conceptions of evil have focused on either the harm or the culpable wrongdoing, to the relative neglect of the other component. Sometimes they have collapsed the two into one. Two extreme views of evil influential in the history of moral philosophy, are those of utilitarianism and stoicism:

Untiliarianism: Utilitarians regard all harm as evil, regardless of its source, and maintain that some evils are justified.

Stoicism: Stoics focus on the human will and find all wrongful uses of the will evil. For stoics, what exceeds the control of the will, is neither good nor evil. Therefore, suffering, insofar as it is beyond one=s control, is not an evil (p. 4).

THE ATROCITY THEORY OF EVIL IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Both harm and wrongful willing are essential to evils. However, neither all harms nor all wrongful uses of the will are evil (p. 4).

Comparison with Utilitarianism:

Disagreement: In contrast to the utilitarian view, the atrocity paradigm presupposes that wrongdoing is not defined simply by the harm which results or could have resulted.

Agreement: In agreement with the utilitarian tradition, the paradigm treats suffering (real or risked) or harm as a necessary, even the most outstanding element of evil. Victims are not accidental to the harm (p. 4).

Comparison with Stoicism:

Disagreement: In contrast to stoic theories (such as that of Immanuel Kant), the paradigm proposes that the harm which the wrongdoing does is not accidental.

Agreement: In agreement with Kant, the theory treats evil as an ethical concept, presupposing culpability (p. 4).

The Aim of the Atrocity Theory of Evil

The aim of the Atrocity Theory of Evil is to capture the ethically most significant and most serious publicly known evils of the latter half of the 20^th century (p. 5).

The ultimate aim of the Theory is to identify from the evils which have occurred, those properly called atrocities, and then prioritize these (p. 106).

DEGREES OF EVIL

The atrocity paradigm is compatible with the idea that some evils are worse than others without obliging a commitment to the idea that practically or even in principle, large-scale atrocities can be ranked. An atrocity is already so evil that it is disrespectful of victims to point out that another was even worse. For the individual, intolerable is intolerable (p. 15).

However, degrees of evil can be distinguished by grading the severity of the harm. Such an approach has the advantage that it focuses attention on the various particular aspects of some atrocities which are less or more evil than similar aspect of other atrocities. This is useful while at the same time it avoids a broad ranking of atrocities with its implication that on the whole atrocities can be ranked (pp. 15-16).

Severity of Harm: The severity of the harm is a function of such factors as:

Non-quantifiable Factors:

1. The intensity of suffering.

2. The effects on one=s ability to function, for example to work.

3. The effects on the quality of one=s relationships with others (p. 14).

4. The effects on the children of the survivors (p. 20).

Quantifiable Factors:

1. The number of victims.

2. The duration of the harm.

3. How containable the harm is.

4. How reversible the harm is.

5. The possibilities of compensation (p. 14).

THE MISHNAH DECLARATION

Prioritizing attention to atrocities does not negate the declaration of the Babylonian Talmud that to save a single life, is to preserve a world entire. The world that is preserved is that of the person saved. The declaration encourages potential rescuers to save whomever they can B even if others are equally in need and the choice of who is to be saved arbitrary. It can be good to save even one, perhaps any one, when one cannot save all (Babylonian Talmud; cited p. 116).

THE AIM OF THE PRESENT WORK

I am in agreement with Card=s point that morally and politically, movements for social justice and liberation should prioritize addressing evils over correcting unjust inequalities (pp. 24 and 96-117). The present work uses the Atrocity Theory of Evil as a basis to prioritize present impending worldwide, large-scale atrocities.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE SEVERITY OF MODERN THREATS

I have used the following criteria to evaluate the severity of modern nuclear and ecological threats:

1. The number of victims

2. The intensity of suffering

3. The duration of the harm

4. The containability of the harm

5. The reversibility of the harm

6. The effect on the children of survivors.

Modern threats put in jeopardy the very sustainability of life on earth as we know it. Hence, the two criteria regarding the effect on one=s ability to function and the effect on the quality of one=s relationship with others, were too qualitative to be used. The threat to life overwhelms qualitative threats. Also, modern threats are on such a large scale that they negate any possibility of compensation, and therefore, this criterion was also omitted.

Table 1 summarizes contemporary threats to life on the Planet.

For purposes of comparison, Table 2 summarizes contemporary evils, which, however, do not (at least directly) threaten life on the Planet.

TABLE 1: MODERN THREATS TO LIFE ON THE PLANET

Threat	Number of Human Victims	Intensity of Suffering	Duration of the Harm (years) ^(a)	Containability of the Harm	Reversibility of the Harm	Trans-generational Nature of the Harm
Radioactivity Depleted Uranium (U-238) Enriched Uranium (U-235) Plutonium	? ? ?	Cancer Cancer Cancer	45,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 240,000	Not containable Not containable Not containable	Not reversible Not reversible Not reversible	Congenital abnormalities Congenital abnormalities Congenital abnormalities
Global Warming Extreme Weather Events A Threatening Ice Age Rising Ocean Levels	2003: 160,000 North America, Europe Small islands, coastal cities worldwide	Death ? Threatened existence	Indeterminate Indeterminate Indeterminate	Not containable Not containable Not containable	? ? Not reversible	B A more hostile climate for future generations Extinction of cultures
Threat	Number of Human Victims	Intensity of Suffering	Duration of the Harm (years)	Containability of the Harm	Reversibility of the Harm	Trans-generational Nature of the Harm
Extinction of Species Loss of Domestic Livestock and Crop Species Loss of Wild Species (Land and Marine)	? ?	Threatened food supply Threatened existence	Indeterminate Indeterminate	Containable Containable	Not reversible Not reversible	Restricted choice of food Lowered world population
Genetic Engineering Domestic Animal and Crop Species	?	Diseases Death	Indeterminate	Not containable	Not reversible	? B short-term animal studies only
Unsustainable Use of Resources Water: Number facing Water Scarcity Desertification: Number threatened by Desertification	2003: 434,000,000 2004 135,000,000	Threatened existence Threatened existence	Indeterminate Indeterminate	Containable Containable	Not reversible Essentially not reversible	Lowered world population Decreased ability of the Planet to sustain life
Threat	Number of Human Victims	Intensity of Suffering	Duration of the Harm (years)	Containability of the Harm	Reversibility of the Harm	Trans-generational Nature of the Harm
Poverty Number living on less than $2 per day Number Hungry Number of Deaths from Communicable Diseases Number of Deaths from Contaminated Water/ Lack of Adequate Sanitation	1999: 2,800,000,000 2004: 800,000,000 2002: 11,500,000 2000: 3,600,000	Diseases Death Diseases Death Diseases Death Diseases Death	Indeterminate Indeterminate Indeterminate Indeterminate	Containable Containable Mostly containable Containable	Reversible Not reversible Not reversible Reversible	Character deformation Lowered IQ Character deformation Orphaned children Painful, shortened life Painful, shortened life

TABLE 2: MODERN SITUATIONS NOT THREATENING LIFE ON THE PLANET

Situation	Number of Human Victims	Intensity of Suffering	Duration of the Harm (years)	Containability of the Harm	Reversibility of the Harm	Trans-generational Nature of the Harm
The Sudan Civil War (1993- 2003) and the Darfur Genocide (2003-2005)	2005: 2,340,000	Injuries Starvation Death	12 years	Containable	Reversible	Traumatized children Children with low IQ Orphaned children
The Iraq War (2003 - ) Number of Deaths	2005: 102,000	Injuries Diseases Death	2 years	Containable	Reversible	Traumatized children Congenital abnormalities Orphaned children
Discrimination against Women	2005: 3,223,065,700	Helpless- ness Oppression	Since ancient times	Containable	Reversible	Character deformation

CONCLUSIONS

CONTEMPORARY THREATS TO LIFE ON THE PLANET

If, in addition to Card=s ethical criteria for prioritizing threats to life on the Planet, one also considers von Wyck=s description of the qualities of the threats which make them particularly difficult to embrace and hence act on them, the picture becomes ominous indeed.

Table 3 summarizes the qualitative aspects of the threats not already included in Card=s ethical criteria.

As a whole, taken together, present-day threats to life on the Planet have the following characteristics. They are likely to:

1. Have a high number of victims, perhaps in the millions.

2. Inflict an intense degree of suffering.

3. Be of long-term, mostly indeterminate duration.

4. Be mostly non-containable or very hard to contain.

5. Be mostly non-reversible.

6. Be trans-generational.

7. Be trans-national.

8. Be artificial, in the sense of human-made, not Anatural.@

9. Be invisible to ordinary people (non-experts, non-scientists).

10. Involve two deaths B the individual death and the death of the ecological world as we know it today.

11. Be non-localizable within a victim/perpetrator model because of the difficulty they present in the ability to prove the cause of the harm beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Be non-calculable B that is, lacking the necessary circumscription which makes calculations of risk and possible compensation meaningful.

13. Be insufficiently traumatic to move the powerful into action.

14. Be synergistic with one another.

15. Converge toward a point of chaos and extreme suffering.

TABLE 3: THE UNIQUENESS OF THREATS TO LIFE ON THE PLANET ^(a)

Threat	Artificial (not ANatural@)	Invisible to Ordinary People	Death of Ecology as we know it	Trans- national	Non- localizable	Non- calculable	Insufficiently Traumatic to move the Powerful into Action
Radioactivity	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Global Warming	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Extinction of Species	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Genetic Engineering	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Unsustainable Use of Resources	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Poverty Major Communicable Diseases ^(b)	?	?	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

^(a) Sources: Hall, AA Psychoanalytic Approach...@; van Wyck (See references under Conclusions).

^(b) Respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, diarrhea, tuberculosis and malaria.

WORLD PEAK OIL PRODUCTION

World peak oil production is probably at its peak as this is written. I have not mentioned the end of the age of oil in this work because it is not a threat to life on the Planet. However, one must put it in the mix of world threats, if only for two reasons:

It will affect the Rich: Peak oil may force the rich and powerful Western nations to come to terms with the limits of the earth=s resources and help convince the public that virtual, unseen threats, can indeed turn into concrete ones within a generation. This could dissipate the prevalent sense of distance and invulnerability. The end of oil will also, of course, decrease the rich=s ecological footprint.

It will leave the Poor in a Lurch: As a counterbalance to the above, however, the frustration of the Adeveloping@ nations will increase as they realize that the bonanza of cheap, flexible, versatile and easily transportable energy which boosted the industrialization of the now Adeveloped@ nations, will forever be out of their reach. The prize will have been used up.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

In one sense, discrimination against women does not directly threaten life on the Planet. I have not included it among life=s major present threats.

However, it is probable that discrimination against women has an enormous influence on how the next generation will embrace, adapt and survive the planetary threats they will face. Oppressed, angry and resentful women negatively affect their children=s psychological development. Respected, ethically-brought up children are more apt to find common humanity with those who suffer.

The work of Lloyd deMause demonstrates the critical influence of women on the later need of their children to have enemies. It behooves us to place a very high priority on releasing women worldwide from their age-old oppression with its attendant feelings of resentment, helplessness and diminishment.

In radical feminism fashion, this means much more that redressing the unjust inequalities encountered by white women in developed countries (such as a lower salary than men for the same work, and the Aglass ceiling@ preventing advancement). It means focusing, publicizing and preventing major atrocities such as domestic violence; childhood incest; genital mutilation (clitoridectomy and infibulation); rape as terrorism, as an instrument of war, and as torture; sexual slavery; and Aforced prostitution@ (pp. 23 and 96-165).

NOTE FOR TABLE 1

^(a) For the duration of harm of the radioactive metals listed, I have used the commonly used rule of thumb B 10 times their half-life.

See:

Card, Claudia, p. 14.

van Wyck, p. 24. (See reference under Conclusions).

REFERENCES

Unless otherwise specified, all page numbers refer to:

Card, Claudia, The Atrocity Paradigm B A Theory of Evil (Oxford University, New York, N.Y.), 2002.

Other references are as follows:

The AMagnitude Gap@:

Baumeister, Roy, Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence (Freeman, New York, N.Y.), 1997.

The Mishnah Declaration:

Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin, Chapter 4, 37a.

Radioactivity:

Hall, Francoise

ANuclear Power B An Infallible Technology for Infallible Humans?@ May 6, 2004, 16 pages.

ASilent Omnicide B The Destruction of the Human Gene Pool,@ April 16, 2005, 13 pages.

ADepleted Uranium (DU),@ April 30, 2005, 10 pages.

AWorld Trends B A Sample of the Witch=s Brew driving Politics,@ May 7, 2005, 18 pages.

The three radioactive metals listed (depleted uranium, enriched uranium and plutonium) symbolically stand also for Anatural@ uranium, uranium-234, transuranic wastes [TRU, defense-related nuclear waste made up of all radioactive isotopes that have an atomic number greater than that of uranium (and, therefore, are heavier than uranium), and a decay rate of greater than 100 nanocuries per gram], high-level waste (HLW, exceedingly dangerous material made up principally of spent radioactive fuel rods from commercial and military reactors), and low level waste (LLW, any waste that does not fall into either of the two preceding categories). All of these are used for or derived from military reactors producing nuclear weapons or civilian reactors producing energy.

In addition, other radioactive substances are produced. One of these, for instance, is iodine-129 which has a half-life of 16,000,000 years, and is, therefore, dangerous for 160,000,000 years.

All technology involving radioactive substances is subject to accidents. The design of a nuclear weapon or a nuclear reactor specifies the probability of malfunction with proper use over a certain span of years. The Aaccident@ is, therefore, built into the technology. The practice contains the accident.

All radioactive substances are, of course, also subject to human error and terrorist acts.

Global Warming:

Hall, Francoise

AGlobal Warming B The Real, Implacable but Unmentionable Enemy of the United States?@ February 26, 2005, 23 pages.

AThe World our Children will die in,@ March 12, 2005, 11 pages.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, in 2003, 160,000 people died of the ancillary effects of global warming.

AWorld Trends B A Sample of the Witch=s Brew driving Politics,@ May 7, 2005, 18 pages.

Extinction of Species:

Hall, Francoise

AThe World our Children will die in,@ March 12, 2005, 11 pages.

AAsk the Mosquitoes,@ Poem, March 19, 2005, 13 pages.

AWorld Trends B A Sample of the Witch=s Brew driving Politics,@ May 7, 2005, 18 pages.

Genetic Engineering:

Fitzsimons, Jeanette, M.P., Green Party Co-leader, AMON863 and Shortcomings in FSANZ=s GE Approval Process,@ Green B Green Party of Aotearoa, New Zealand, September 2, 2004. Reprinted at

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other7823.html.

Hall, Francoise

AWorld Trends B A Sample of the Witch=s Brew driving Politics,@ May 7, 2005, 18 pages.

James, Clive, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, compiler of data. Data interpreted in the New Scientist Magazine, No, 2483, January 22, 2005, p. 5; and reprinted as, ABiotech Companies enjoy Global Growth in GM Crops,@ at http://www.newscientist.com.

Kleiner, Kurt, AUnapproved GM Corn found in US Food Chain,@ NewScientist.com news service, March 23, 2005. Reprinted at

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/dn7188.

Lean, Geoffrey, ARevealed: Health Fears over Secret Study into GM Food B Rats fed GM Corn due for Sale in Britain developed Abnormalities in Kidneys and Blood,@ The Independent, May 29, 2005. Reprinted at

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=7964.

Pickerell, John, AGM Organisms: Instant Expert,@ Special Reports on Key Topics in Science and Technology, NewScientist.com, December 13, 2004. Reprinted at

http://www,newscientist.com/populararticle.ns?id=in35.

Acreage cultivated with Genetically-modified (GM) Crops:

Year Acreage

1996 4,200,000

2003 167,200,000

2004 200,000,000 (a 20 percent increase in one year)

Continued Health Concerns: In May 2005, the results of a previously confidential report by Monsanto were made available to the public. These results show that rats fed on a diet rich in genetically-modified corn (MON-863) for three months, developed a decreased number of white blood cells, reduced, immature red blood cells, an increase in blood sugar, and frequent physical irregularities in internal organs, such as kidney inflammation. Monsanto refuses to release the full report on the grounds that Ait contains confidential business information which could be of commercial use to our competitors.@

Since 2003, nine governments have approved MON-863 for use in human food. Among these were the governments of Australia and New Zealand [Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)] which approved the corn in October 2003, without having considered the Monsanto study. That same month, the government of France [Commission du Genie Biomoleculaire (CGB)] turned down approval after seeing the Monsanto study. [In April 2004, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) overrode France=s concern and approved MON-863 for use within the European Union].

In the United States, GM produce does not have to be labeled. MON-863 could be used in:

Starch

Modified starch ingredients

Refined oil

High fructose and glucose syrups

Cereals

Baking products

Corn chips

Dessert mixes

Canned foods

Semolina

Flour

Human Error: In 2000, the environmental group, Friends of the Earth (FoE) discovered that the GM corn variety Starlink, approved only for use in animal feed, was in the United States human food chain. The discovery prompted a massive recall.

On March 23, 2005, the Swiss company Syngenta admitted that by error, from 2001 to 2004, it had sold in the United States the unapproved GM seed corn variety Bt-10 instead of the approved one, Bt-11.

Unsustainable Use of Resources:

Water:

Hall, Francoise

ASurvival of the Richest,@ Poem, March 26, 2005.

AThe Third World War B Initial States: The Free-fall of Resources and the Poor,@ April 8, 2005, 11 pages.

AWorld Trends B A Sample of the Witch=s Brew driving Politics,@ May 7, 2005, 18 pages.

Nierenberg, Danielle and Brian Halweil, ACultivating Food Security,@ in Michael Renner, et al, Project Directors, State of the World, 2005 B A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress toward a Sustainable Society (W.W. Norton, New York, N.Y.), 2005, pp. 62-77.

In 2002, about 10 percent of the global harvest was being produced using water supplies that were not being replenished.

In 2003, 434,000,000 people faced water scarcity. In that year, half of the world=s population (3,149,882,000 people) lived in countries where the water tables were falling and wells were going dry.

Desertification:

Hall, Francoise

AThe World our Children will die in,@ March 12, 2005, 11 pages.

AThe Third World War B Initial States: The Free-fall of Resources and the Poor,@ April 8, 2005, 11 pages.

In 2004, 135,000,000 people were threatened by desertification.

Poverty:

Hall, Francoise

ADisposable People B Population Reduction without War,@ December 4, 2004, 9 pages.

AThe World our Children will die in,@ March 12, 2005, 11 pages.

In 1999, 2,800,000,000 people were living on less than $2 per day.

In 2004, 800,000,000 people were hungry on any given day.

In 2002, 11,500,000 died of the major communicable diseases B respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, diarrhea, tuberculosis and malaria.

In 2000, 3,600,000 people died of contaminated water and/or lack of adequate sanitation.

The Sudan Civil War (1993-2003) and Darfur Genocide (2003-2005):

Farah, Joseph, AU.S. to forgive Sudan for 2,000,000 deaths? B Washington to overlook Genocide, Atrocities for New Strategic Relationship,@ G2Bulletin, June 2, 2003. Reprinted at

http://www.wordnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32869.

From 1993 to 2003, the Sudanese civil war killed more than 2,000,000 people.

Smith, Russell, ANobody knows how many People have died during the two-year Conflict in Sudan=s Western Darfur Region,@ BBC News, February 16, 2005.

At the beginning of 2005, experts estimated that the two-year conflict in Sudan=s Darfur region (2003-2005), probably killed between 300,000 and 340,000 people.

Taking the 12 years, 1993-2005, together, a total number of 2,340,000 deaths occurred, including the civil war and the Darfur genocide. Thus, the average number of deaths was (2,340,000 / 12) = 195,000 per year.

The Iraq War (2003 - ):

Hall, Francoise, AThe World our Children will die in,@ March 12, 2005, 11 pages

As of March 10, 2005, the number of deaths among Coalition troops was 1,685. A study published in The Lancet on November 20, 2004, put the number of excess Iraqi civilian deaths to Amore than 100,000.@ The number of Iraqi military deaths is, to my knowledge, not available. One can only assume that the total number of deaths due to the Iraq war is probably in the range of 102,000. The average number of deaths has been, therefore, in the range of 51,000 per year.

Discrimination against Women:

United States Bureau of the Census, Total Mid-year Population for the world, 1950-2050. Reprinted at

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worlpop.html.

In 2005, the world population was estimated at 6,446,131,400.

Conclusions:

deMause, Lloyd

Foundations of Psychohistory (Creative Roots, Inc., P.O. Box 401, Planetarium Station, New York, N.Y. 10024), 1982.

The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac/Other Press, New York. N.Y.), 2002.

Hall, Francoise

AEnergy Today,@ July 10, 2004, 20 pages.

AA Psychoanalytic Approach to Contemporary Ecological Threat,@ May 21, 2005 (16 pages)

van Wyck, Peter, Signs of Danger B Waste, Trauma and Nuclear Threat (Theory out of Bounds, Volume 26) (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN), 2005.

***