Watch yo self, we need some physical security up in here

Survival as a Means of Security: Self-Preservation as a Priority

            Revisiting security, I have learned much more about security and the implications of giving it a set definition. Originally, I had defined security as being self-preservation at its most basic form; human beings would always act in order to preserve their own life first when placed in situations where it could potentially be put in danger, rather than worry about other factors. After taking this course, I have learned about the levels of security and have analyzed examples of each type. However, rather than changing my opinion of what security is in its most basic form, this course has reaffirmed my initial opinion that security in its purest form should be defined as individual self-preservation with other layers in addition. I believe that security should be, in its purest form, the actions taken or the desire to preserve life through basic survival, which is evident through the actions taken by individuals in cases we have seen in this class.

            Survival is instinct for humans, avoiding conflict which puts our frail mortality at risk is only natural. This instinct is what makes survival the most basic form of security, because to be able to reach any other form of security you must first have the security of life. In the documentary Frontline: Outbreak, the Ebola epidemic began to spread through Africa at an unprecedented rate. However, it was not the disease which took my attention, it was the immediate and hostile reaction the villagers took against the man who posed a threat to their village and their lives. Rather than acting as an immediate support system for the man they deemed to be extremely unwell, they listened to their instincts and created a large ring around him with no one daring to go close. Once properly equipped CDC personnel arrived, the situation was more under control. However, the survival instincts told them to avoid the infected individual for their own personal safety. Similar to arguments made in my first essay, when presented with the emergency of a potential epidemic, people were not considering the safety of their possessions or protection of their viewpoints and beliefs because they were worried for the sake of their survival.

A similar argument can be made analyzing the debate of nuclear weaponry by the average American citizen. When we discussed nuclear policies concerning the United States and North Korea, and how we could deal with them, we never really discussed why people were worried about nuclear weapons. We debated in class on how to prevent North Korea from using its nuclear weapons, and we could not decide on a solution that both followed international law and was effective, so our decisions in regard to nuclear politics will be very important in order to the outcome of relations with North Korea. However, we did not discuss the possible outcomes of nuclear war with North Korea, or any other nation for that matter. Everyone knows nuclear capabilities after Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over fifty years ago, and the numerous nuclear tests and new nuclear states that have been birthed since then. However, the debate on why we fear them is an important one as well because their detonation has many implications. When debating the consequences of nuclear war, the primary statistic brought up in arguments is how many people died in their use. The structural integrity of cities or the environmental implications are never the first statistic used in why preventing nuclear war is important; the staggering loss of human life is the predominant statistic. We value human life above structure of any establishment, be it religion, government, or any corporation.

Arguments for physical security as a primary definition of security go against the opinions of many who believe that national security or ontological security hold more importance than the security of one individual. These beliefs are flawed in the fact that they assume an individual to be a part of these systems or beliefs, therefore invalidating any importance they have as an individual by only identifying them as a member of a group. Concerning security, the base group for definition should not be these large-scale groups such as national identities, states, or religions. Though the protection of other forms of security are very important, the most basic definition of security must lie within individual human survival. A religion cannot survive without it’s followers, and there can be no state without its citizens. Considering material from the semester, I have not changed my opinion on the basic definition of security because I consider the protection of human life and ability for basic survival to be the most important and relevant definition for security.