Distribution of the World's Resources

The matter of distribution of the world’s resources is one of the most contentious topics in the nation-based world order. This is because in the world today the distribution of the planet’s resources is considered primarily in terms of groups—divided between nations, and often sub-nationally too. Hence it has also been seen as a thorny issue in world government debates as well, with thinkers trying to juggle competing group claims and dispute resolution. But world government also offers a straightforward way out of these problems: by simply excluding groups from consideration and taking a universal approach based on humanity’s needs. This paper addresses the distribution of natural resources and global commons in a united world.

The state of the world today shows that the nation and group-based method is not doing an acceptable job of distribution. We have been witnessing perpetual tussles over resources both within and among groups for as long as subset groups have been the principal organization of humanity. With a group-centric approach, distribution becomes a finite-sum game with each group’s gain perceived as being another’s loss; each group thus tries to maximise its share at the cost of others. More fundamentally, the actual need for resources is forgotten in the race to control as much as possible. The effects of these tussles are also evident: first, in the depletion and destruction of global commons because of nationalist selfishness, and second, in their being a justification to whip up identity tensions and stoke conflict.

National groups’ claims over resources are often predicated on an assumption of inherent ownership over these, such as with territory. But in the context of natural resources, ownership is an illusion. The word ownership implies a sort of total control by the human owner. But this control does not extend to nature; one may ‘own’ a piece of land according to the registry, only for it to be flooded by a river or infested by pests. Natural resources can never be truly ‘owned’—at most there can be a ‘right of exclusive use’, a limited version of ownership applicable only to humans and their interactions. For such a right to apply it must hold universal recognition amongst humanity and be backed up by a universal legal authority—which requires a universal government. Without a global regime, claiming a right to exclusive use amounts to little more than selling land on the moon: it may be recognized by some but is irrelevant to others. Hence the further distribution of these rights by nations is also tenuous—rather, only under a world government can individuals enjoy true property rights of exclusive use.

It is also important to point out a common fallacy in groups’ claims over natural resources: the fallacy of group continuity. Claims such as ‘we have been living on this land for thousands of years’ are often heard in group-based disputes, and society is too often happy to accept these assertions. But it is important to keep in mind that each of the individuals in that group has only been using that resource for a few decades at most. No one has actually been around for a thousand years to lay that sort of claim. In making such claims, individuals of the present are trying to gain an unfair advantage on the grounds that someone in the past who merely identified with the same group used the same resource. This is insufficient justification for them to be granted a superior claim over a resource. Ditching this fallacy has far-reaching implications, from overcoming resistance to infrastructure projects to undermining anti-immigration narratives. Even nationalism itself is highly reliant on asserting group continuity, and this fallacy poses a challenge to its claims.

Natural resources are extraneous to the divisions humanity has created amongst itself, and form part of a global commons shared by all humanity (and also all other life forms on earth). Hence no subset can have the right to extract resources from the global commons for its exclusive benefit. Natural resources can only be justifiably extracted and used if this is done for universal benefit, as the collective endowment of Homo sapiens. The national system, however, is an institutionalization of this injustice, where national groups either restrict resources by territoriality for exclusively their own members, or unsustainably abuse the non-excludable ones. It is highly unrealistic to expect that a  fragmented political regime will be able to agree on distributing the benefits of every resource to all humans. Only a universal government for all humanity can justifiably oversee the use of natural resources, and ensure that they are universally beneficial.

A just global distribution of the earth’s resources also means that particularist claims based on geographical proximity or localized identity shall not be entertained. Spatiality should be fundamentally disconnected from resource benefits. Suppose a deposit of ore is found ten kilometres from my house; why should I have any more claim over it than someone a thousand kilometres away? Yet political discourse is full of claims about ‘locals’ being left behind and not getting their benefits. Of course, the harm incurred to locals in extraction and use (for example in activities such as mining) should definitely be accounted for and compensated. But at the same time, mere geographical proximity should have no bearing upon claims to a resource.

By the same token, no identity group can have a superior claim to resources, such as by acquiring the label of ‘indigenous’ or ‘marginalized’, which present-day politics is often very sympathetic to in matters of resource allocation. The same goes for cultural arguments, with localized groups claiming all sorts of natural entities to be ‘sacred’ in their local culture and hence deserving of being under their exclusive management—these must be superseded in favour of justice. If every human is equal, then so be it with regards to resource benefits too. As argued above, there is no justification or basis to hand a subset exclusive use of a resource. In fact, there is no particularly pressing need to do so either, when we can just bypass group tussles with a world government.

There is a pressing need, however, to remove groups from consideration in matters of natural resources. They should not be stakeholders in the distribution calculus at all, since identity groups are hardly meaningful as a basis for distribution. Instead, all the world’s resources must be used for all of humanity, with the needs of individuals rather than the greed of groups being considered. This means the end of nationalist and identity group selfishness over resources, and a new era where justice is foremost in distribution.