Security: The Sequel

Security Revisiting Blog Post

            In my initial security essay, I wrote about ontological security and how it is the most important type of security to preserve and protect. As the semester has progressed and I have extensively learned of all of the other ones, I believe that ontological security is crucial, but human security is actually the most important. To recap, I argued that ontological security is the most important because “Ontological security is the protection of a way a person identifies and lives their life. Its protection is not one that is physical, but rather it is more identity based. This is the most important type of security to preserve because without one’s identity, they are incapable of living their life to the fullest.” I argued for by using political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, saying that humans were constantly in fear of dying a violent death and that in order to prevent cultural staples of human identity—arts, society, and safety—you must then protect the identity beforehand. I am changing my opinion to protecting human security instead because I now see the world from a much more broad and diverse scope. I wrote this paper from arguing many first-world problem points of view. Human security goes far beyond the privileged first world.

For as many people that are privileged, there are probably double or triple the amount of people who are less fortunate. These people face tasks every single day that I would never even think of. For example, I never need to worry about where my food or water comes from. In more impoverished areas such as Africa, this is a part of their daily life. People have to walk miles on end just to get food in the morning, and that is a dangerous feat. If someone is sick or disabled, they may not be able to eat or drink that day. This is terrible, and far more important than protecting the way I live my life. Preserving a privileged society is far inferior now to me than the priority of making sure those living in impoverished areas live without fear of disease or starvation. There are two immediate cases studied in class that come to mind in which human security is disastrously effected: the Ebola epidemic and the issue with Tuvalu’s rising sea levels.

As I talked about in my last blog post, the poorly handled epidemic of Ebola in West Africa was devastating to entire nations in 2013-2014. This was a human security issue, for it affected the health and well-being of large groups of people. Thousands of people died in short periods of time, and it was disgusting to watch helplessly from thousands of miles away. Protecting impoverished nations from disease should be a global issue, not just a West African one.

In Tuvalu, the sea levels are rising at alarming rates. In an island where the highest peak is approximately fifteen feet, the nation could be completely underwater within the next century. This affects the human security of the people of Tuvalu, for they will be displaced from their nation and their culture if forced to emigrate to the neighboring nations of Australia or New Zealand. They face the risk of losing an entire culture, only to be absorbed by the culture of those neighboring them. The human security aspect of this issue comes into play when thinking about those who cannot afford to move their entire families to a foreign place. This displacement could be a crisis to their human security, for if they are unable to move then they will literally have to wait it out until they have no more inland to live in. In the meantime, the rising sea levels due to climate change have caused their few native industries to suffer. Without these industries, it is likely in the coming years that their quality of life will diminish. Therefore, I believe human security is far more important than ontological.