Ability Expectation and Ableism Peace: A Prerequisite for a Culture of Peace
Gregor Wolbring and Jacqueline Noga
University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Community Health Sciences
gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca
for INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION(IPRA) Conference, Japan Nov
29th , 2012
Introduction
Various fields have been linked to peace study from sociology to gender studies and ecology.
Ability studies, the cultural investigation of ability expectations and preferences and ableism is
an under used and underappreciated lens through which to analyse peace dynamics. The
academic field of disability studies and disabled activists were the first to look at “cultural
dynamics and the cultural impact of ability preferences, coining the term ableism as a cultural
concept in the process”[1]. However, the favoritism for abilities (want stage) and ableism (need
stage) is a much broader cultural reality. Ableism can be used in a positive and negative way.
Every individual, household, community, group, sector, region, and country cherishes and
promotes different abilities[2]; some promote the ability to consume or to compete, some the
ability of free speech, some the ability to act as an individual or conversely, as a community.
Some have the desire to have the ability to live in peace while others thrive on the ability to
generate violence. Often these ability expectations (want stage) morph into forms of ableism
where one not only desires or expects certain abilities but one perceives a given ability as
essential (need stage)[3]. What abilities one favours and what ableisms one exhibits often is part
of one’s self-identity which leads to an ability-based and ability-justified understanding of
oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship with others of one’s species, other species[2]. It also
impacts human-nature relationships[4] and the ability to have a culture of peace.
Value theory of peace studies is about designing peace studies so it changes attitudes as well as
imparts knowledge [5]. Value theory records what people do value and attempts to understand
why they value certain things. Ableism is about valuing certain abilities and expectancy-value
theory of achievement motivation (the ability desired) could be used to analyze dynamics of
peace. Conflict theory emphasizes possible conflict between social groups. Conflict resolution is
part of peace studies [6-8]. Various ability expectations are in direct conflict with each other.
The concept of a ‘culture of peace’ was formulated at the 1989 International Congress on Peace
in the Minds of Men, held in Côte d’Ivoire [9] and is central to UNESCO and the United
Nations. The 1998 UN resolution (A/Res/52/13, 15 January 1998, paragraph 2)[10] calls
“for the promotion of a culture of peace based on the principles established in the Charter
of the United Nations and on respect for human rights, democracy and tolerance, the
promotion of development, education for peace, the free flow of information and the
wider participation of women as an integral approach to preventing violence and
conflicts, and efforts aimed at the creation of conditions for peace and its consolidation.”
A culture of peace according to article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the culture of
peace is a set of values, attitudes, traditions and modes of behaviour and ways of life based on
among others:
(i) Adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity,
cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue and understanding at all levels of society
and among nations; and fostered by an enabling national and international environment
conducive to peace. “[11]
However, what abilities and what forms of ableism have to be tolerated? Which abilities have to
be evident for a democracy to work ([12]? What forms of development? How does this play
itself out among different forms of ability expectations and ableism?
Culture of peace is linked to as diverse topics as water [13-17], public health[18], sport[19-24],
education[25-27] and gender [28;29],
What is glaring is the absence of disabled people within the culture of peace discourse and it may
be that this explains why an ability studies lens is also absent.
Various indicators, templates, and determinants exist to evaluate progress in achieving a culture
of peace [30-43] However which ability expectations are conducive to culture of peace? Is there
a hierarchy? Are some of the expectations outlined in article 1 and 2 contra indicative? Which
existing ability expectations can fulfill the present and future needs and which can’t?
Cultural Diversity, Disabled People and Ableism
The concepts of cultural and biological diversity are often intertwined [44-48]. However,
interestingly the biological diversity is non-human based, which means that disabled people and
their fight for being seen as a biological diversity is not part of the biological diversity discourse.
Indeed the Convention on Biological Diversity explicitly does not cover human biological
diversity. The acceptance or rejection of the biological diversity of disabled people is directly
linked to the acceptance or rejection of disabled people as a social group(s) with cultural
identities. To give one example: if one talks about the possible birth of a child with Down
Syndrome one mostly hears and reads the term “at risk of having a child with Down Syndrome”.
The table below reflect the results of some key word searches in Google. It shows that the term
risk has an at least 10-1000 times higher association with Down Syndrome than the term
probability. The same is true for other so called ‘impairments’. Within the discourse of Down
Syndrome the term risk is used to justify the availability of pre-birth tests which was first
promoted for women over a certain age as they would have an ‘increased risk’ of a child with
Down Syndrome. Of course, factual the term to use would be ‘probability’. Risk is a biased term
with an attached negative judgement.
Keyword
Google Scholar
Google
“Genetic risk” “Down
Syndrome”
1,490
46,300
“Genetic probability”
“Down Syndrome”
2
28
“Genetic likelihood”
“Down Syndrome”
2
11
risk “Down Syndrome”
22,600
1,790,000
Probability “Down
Syndrome”
5210
162,000
Likelihood “Down
Syndrome”
5440
183,000
Neutral language such as the following is rejected by most:
“Down syndrome is a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always
been a part of the human condition. The occurrence of Down syndrome is universal
across racial and gender lines, and it is present in approximately one in 800 births in
Canada. Down syndrome is not a disease, disorder, defect or medical condition. It is
inappropriate and offensive to refer to people with Down syndrome as "afflicted with" or
"suffering from" it. Down syndrome itself does not require either treatment or prevention.
(Position Statement on Redefining Down Syndrome Approved November 2003 Canadian
Down Syndrome Society)”[49]
The negative form of ableism and the linked disablism experienced by disabled people is a
serious problem for a culture of peace. Human security is seen as essential for a culture of peace
[32;50]. The human security discourse covers economic security, food security, health security,
environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. However
they miss two essential securities namely ability security and self-identity security [51].
“Ability security means that one is able to live a decent life with whatever set of abilities one
has, and that one will not be forced to have a prescribed set of abilities to live a secure life (e.g.
even if one doesn’t have the ability to walk, he or she should be able to secure employment)”
[51;52]. “Self-identity security could be seen as a subset of personal security and means that one
is accepted with one’s set of abilities and that one should not be forced (physically or by
circumstance) to accept a perception of oneself one does not agree with (e.g. one is not expected
to have the ability to walk or is seen as a ‘deficient product’ if one cannot walk)” [51;52].
Ability and self-identity security are not getting much currency as ability expectations is so far
an underused lens and what is debated within disability studies field is often not used in other
discourses[53]. However without dealing with negative forms of ableism we see new barriers to
various forms of peace. We see a decrease in intergenerational peace partly linked to a rise in
ageism and youthism, two negative ‘isms’ supported by ability expectations. Ability
expectations which are intrinsic to an anthropocentric view of dealing with nature [4] might
make a peace between humans in existence today and humans to come problematic. Selfidentity security is of importance to women and ethnic and cultural oppressed groups who are
punished simply for who they are[51]. However we do not apply this mind frame to ability
related self-identity.
Culture of Peace and Science and Technology Advancements
In April 2007 the UNESCO executive was given a report titled "A Strategic Framework for the
Future of the Sciences in UNESCO” (1) which talks about reorienting UNESCO science
programs to contribute more to: poverty reduction; peace; better living standards (especially for
traditionally excluded segments of the population); empowerment of people; dialogue and
integration of mainstream science with traditional, local and indigenous sciences of diverse
cultures; diversity; sustainability; and distributive justice. How will the language in the culture of
peace documents and the report be interpreted with the interventions made possible by new and
emerging technologies? How will the language be used with respect to:




the enhancement of animals (2) (which will redefine the relationship between humans and
animals);
immortality and longevity research (which could lead to intergenerational strife);
molecular manufacturing (which will lead to a total collapse of the trade system as we know
it today); and
new products that can modify the appearance and functioning of the human body beyond
existing norms and species-typical boundaries which will lead to self-identity and ability
security problems?
So far, policies around new and emerging technologies have failed to establish a culture of peace
Ability Peace: An elusive concept so far
Peace in relation to ability expectations does not exist between so called disabled and nondisabled people. One can think of this notion of peace in relation to abilities as ‘ability peace’.
Ability peace is also elusive in other aspects. One could say that judging ones culture based on
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers assumes certain abilities in the given culture and
certain ways of organizing the culture. This pits groups with different ability expectations based
social organizations against the GDP base ones.
The ability conflict based on divergent ability expectations between so called disabled and nondisabled people will become more prevalent and severe with the anticipated ability of new and
emerging sciences and technologies:




to generate human bodily enhancements in many shapes and forms[54] with an
accompanying ability divide and the appearance of the external and internal techno poor
disabled; [55]
to generate, modify and enhance non-human life forms;
to separate cognitive functioning from the human body; and
to modify humans to deal with the aftermath of anti-environmentalism[56].
We can already observe a changing perception of ourselves, our body, and our relationships with
others of our species, other species and our environment. New forms of ableism are appearing
where body related ability expectation and ableism focus on beyond the species-typical [57-70]
(transhumanization of ability expectations and ableism). It was predicted in 2008 that we will
see a “climate change-driven appeal for a transhuman version of ableism, where the
transhumanisation of humans is seen as a solution for coping with climate change”[71]. Indeed
we see the first academic papers of authors with transhumanist backgrounds putting forward this
angle [72].
Conclusion:
As we are able to further enhance the abilities of the body through science and technology,
ability and self-identity security will increasingly be of importance to every person, individual,
household, community, group, sector, region, and country who does not want to modify their
body according to the wishes of others or who cannot afford these modifications. People who
currently see themselves as the norm, as non-impaired or ‘species-typical,’ will be seen by others
as impaired or deficient if they do not enhance themselves according to ‘new norms,’ or the
wishes of powerful others.
We have seen for decades, if not centuries, that when science and technology develops new tools
that are external to the body, people often have to learn how to use these devices so that they can
capitalize on the new abilities if they want to keep their job or get a new job. Although these
non-impaired species-typical labeled people might not see it as such, they also have no ability
security. They are forced to adopt the latest advances or they will be unemployable. For instance
as the typewriter diffused across the United States, secretaries with perfect penmanship (a long
valued ability) were replaced by secretaries who could type at high speeds. If predictions of new
and emerging nanoscale S&T products and processes come true and if we focus a lot on the
ability of competitiveness and consumerism we will see this dynamic not only speed up we
might see a move towards the transhumanization of ableism. Those people now considered nonimpaired, species-typical, will no longer have a competitive set of abilities to be considered fit
workers. They will have to decide whether they want a job badly enough to modify their body
so they meet the new expected types of abilities.
Without dealing with the culture of ableism one cannot deal with the transhumanized version of
ableism.
How disabled people are treated in public policy discourse pertaining to science and technology
will have an impact on a group of people we can expect to grow – the techno poor disabled
people; people who do not have, who cannot afford, or who do not want certain cellular,
genomic or bodily enhancements[55]. This new ‘social group’ will be as badly treated and will
be seen as deficient as the ‘traditional disabled people’ of today.
Eliminating the negative forms of ableism is essential if we want to diminish, reverse, or prevent
the conflict that may result from the disruptive potential of many abilities to come.
The field of Ability Studies was proposed[56]. It was described as follows: “Ability Studies
investigates: (a) the social, cultural, legal, political, ethical and other considerations by which
any given ability may be judged, and which leads to favouring one ability over another; (b) the
impact and consequence of favouring certain abilities and rejecting others; (c) the consequences
of ableism in its different forms, and its relationship with and impact on other isms; (d) the
impact of new and emerging technologies on ableism and consequent favouritism towards
certain abilities and rejection of others; and (e) identification of the abilities that would lead to
the most beneficial scenario for the maximum number of people in the world” [56]. Ability
Studies might be essential to investigate ability peace which is essential to peace studies.
Reference List
1. Wolbring, G. Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability Studies
Scholars. Societies 2012, 2 (3), 75-83.
2. Wolbring, G. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation; The European
Journal of Social Science Research 2008, 21 (1), 25-40.
3. Wolbring, G. Eco-ableism. Anthropology News 2012, Sept. 14.
4. Wolbring, G. Ableism and energy security and insecurity. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology
2011, 5 (1), Article 3.
5. Eckhardt, W. Peace studies and attitude change: A value theory of peace studies. Peace & Change
1984, 10 (2), 79-85.
6. Jacoby, T. Understanding Conflict & Violence; Routledge: 2012.
7. Kehoe, A. B. Legitimating Peace Studies. Expanding American Anthropology, 1945-1980: A
Generation Reflects 2012, 193.
8. Danesh, H. B. Human Needs Theory, Conflict, and Peace. The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology
2012.
9. UNESCO UNESCO -Mainstreaming the culture of peace. UNESCO 2012.Available online:
http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
10. UNESCO Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee
(A/52/L.4/Rev.1 and Add.1)] 52/13. Culture of peaceCulture of Peace. UNESCO
1998.Available online: http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/kits/res52-13_en.htm (accessed on
23rd September 2012).
11. United Nations Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main
Committee (A/53/L.79] 53/243. Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of
Peace. United Nations 1999.Available online: http://cpnn-world.org/resolutions/resA-53243B.html (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
12. Wolbring, G. Nanotechnology for Democracy versus Democratization of Nanotechnology. In Little
by Little: Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Harro van Lente,
Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Kornelia Konrad, Lotte Krabbenborg, Colin
Milburn, François Thoreau, Eds.; AKA-Verlag/IOS Press: Dordrecht, 2012.
13. Broner, I. Water and peace in the Middle East : J. Isaac and H. Shuval (Editors), Proceedings of the
First Israeli-Palestinian International Academic Conference on Water, 10-13 December
1992, Zurich, Switzerland, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, New York, 552 pp., US$
222.75/Dfl. 390.00, ISBN 0-444-81464-7. Agricultural Water Management 1996, 29 (3),
339-340.
14. Ruff, J. F. Rivers of Eden : Rivers of Eden: The Struggle for Water and the Quest for Peace in the
Middle East, by Daniel Hillel, Oxford University Press, 1994, 355 pp. $30.00 (cloth), ISBN 019-58068-8. Agricultural Water Management 1997, 32 (2), 211-212.
15. Heinzen, B. 4.7 Water for peace in the Middle East: Rapporteur: Barbara Heinzen. Participants:
200. Water Policy 2001, 3 (Supplement 1), S153-S154.
16. Turton, A. 4.8 Water for peace in Southern Africa: Rapporteur: Anthony Turton. Participants: 150.
Water Policy 2001, 3 (Supplement 1), S155-S157.
17. Eckstein, Y.; Eckstein, G. E. Groundwater Resources and International Law in the Middle East
Peace Process. Water International 2003, 28 (2), 154-161.
18. Laaser, U.; Donev, D.; Bjegovic, V.; Sarolli, Y. Public health and peace. Croatian Medical Journal
2002, 43 (2), 107-113.
19. United Nations Sport for Development and Peace: the way forward Report of the SecretaryGeneral. United Nation Webpage 2006.
20. Commissioned by Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group (SDP IWG)
Secretariat Literature reviews on sport for development and peace. righttoplay. org
2007.Available online: http://www.righttoplay.com/norway/news-andmedia/Documents/Policy%20Reports%20docs/Literature%20Reviews%20SDP.pdf#page=1
24 (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
21. Kidd, B. A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society 2008, 11 (4),
370-380.
22. Right to Play Harnessing the power of sport for development and peace: Recommendations for
governments; Chapter 5 Sport and persons with disabilities: Fostering inclusion and wellbeing; Sport for development and peace, International working group: 08. Available
online: http://www.righttoplay.com/International/news-andmedia/Documents/Policy%20Reports%20docs/Harnessing%20the%20Power%20%20FULL/Chapter5_SportandDisability.pdf (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
23. United Nations Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace. Sixty-fifth
sessionAgenda item 11 United Nations 2010.Available online:
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sport/shared/sport/pdfs/A%2065%20L.4%20%20%
20%20N1058367.pdf (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
24. Tiessen, R. Global Subjects or Objects of Globalisation? The promotion of global citizenship in
organisations offering sport for development and/or peace programmes. Third World
Quarterly 2011, 32 (3), 571-587.
25. Duffy, T. Peace education in a divided society: creating a culture of peace in Northern Ireland.
Prospects 2000, 30 (1), 15-29.
26. Danesh, H. B. Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education 2006,
3 (1), 55-78.
27. Carter, C. C. Conflict Resolution and Peace Education: Transformations across Disciplines; ERIC:
2012.
28. Breines, I. A gender perspective on a culture of peace. Work 1999, 12, 13.
29. Reardon, B. A. Education for a culture of peace in a gender perspective; ERIC: 2001.
30. De Rivera, J. Assessing the basis for a culture of peace in contemporary societies. Journal of Peace
Research 2004, 41 (5), 531-548.
31. De Rivera, J. A template for assessing cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology; Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 2004, 10 (2), 125.
32. De Rivera, J.; Kurrien, R.; Olsen, N. The emotional climate of nations and their culture of peace.
Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63 (2), 255-271.
33. De Rivera, J.; P+íez, D. Emotional climate, human security, and cultures of peace. Journal of Social
Issues 2007, 63 (2), 233-253.
34. De Rivera, J. Emotional Climate for Peace. 2012.
35. Morales, J.; Leal, J. A. Indicators for a culture of peace in Spain. Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology; Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 2004, 10 (2), 147.
36. Ginty, R. M. Indicators+: A proposal for everyday peace indicators. Evaluation and Program
Planning 2012.
37. Bush, K. A measure of peace: Peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA) of development
projects in conflict zones. The Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative.
Dostupn+® z:< http://www. idrc. org/uploads/user-S/10533919790A_ Measure_of_Peace.
pdf 1998.
38. Wenden, A. Educating for a culture of social and ecological peace; SUNY Press: 2004.
39. Milani, F. M.; Branco, A. U. Assessing Brazil's culture of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology; Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 2004, 10 (2), 161.
40. Justice, P. a. C. T. W. C. o. C. Alternative Globalization Addressing Peoples and Earth (AGAPE).
World Council of Churches 2005.Available online:
http://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/3preparatory-and-background-documents/alternative-globalization-addressing-peopleand-earth-agape.html (accessed on 23rd September 2012).
41. Coleman, P. T. Conclusion: The Essence of Peace? Toward a Comprehensive and Parsimonious
Model of Sustainable Peace. Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace 2012, 353369.
42. Tasiran, A. C.; Quao-Yuan, L. Factors to theorise the Global Peace Index. 2012.
43. Kodila-Tedika, O. Determinants of Peace: A Cross-Country Analysis. 2012.
44. Breckenridge, L. P. Protection of Biological Cultural Diversity: Emerging Recognition of Local
Community Rights in Ecosystems under International Environmental Law. Tenn. L. Rev.
1991, 59, 735.
45. Redclift, M. Sustainable Development - Needs, Values, Rights. Environmental Values 1993, 2 (1), 320.
46. UNESCO . UNESCO UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY. 2001.
47. Rapport, D.; Maffi, L. The Dual Erosion of Biological and Cultural Diversity: Implications for the
Health of Ecocultural Systems. Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections 2012, 103.
48. Harmon, D.; Woodley, E.; Loh, J. Measuring Status and Trends in Biological and Cultural Diversity.
Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections 2012, 41.
49. Canadian Down Syndrome Society Down Syndrome Redefined. Canadian Down Syndrome Society
webpage 2007.Available online:
http://www.cdss.ca/site/about_us/policies_and_statements/down_syndrome.php
(accessed on 23rd September 2012).
50. Cockell, J. G. Conceptualising peacebuilding: human security and sustainable peace. Regeneration
of War-Torn Societies 2000, 21.
51. Wolbring, G. Ableism and Favoritism for Abilities Governance, Ethics and Studies: New Tools for
Nanoscale and Nanoscale enabled Science and Technology Governance. In The Yearbook
of Nanotechnology in Society, vol. II: The Challenges of Equity and Equality, Susan Cozzens,
Jameson M.Wetmore, Eds.; Springer: New York, 2010.
52. Wolbring, G. Human Security and NBICS. Innovationwatch. com webpage 2006.Available online:
http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours.2006.12.30.htm (accessed
on 23rd September 2012).
53. Wolbring, G. Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability
Studies Scholar. Societies 2012, 2 (3), 75-83.
54. Coenen, C.; Schuijff, M.; Smits, M.; Klaassen, P.; Hennen, L.; Rader, M.; Wolbring, G. Human
Enhancement Study;(IP/A/STOA/FWC/2005-28/SC35, 41 & 45) PE 417.483;
European Parliament: 09. Available online:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa2007-13_en.pdf (accessed
on 23rd September 2012).
55. Wolbring, G. The unenhanced underclass. In Better Humans? The politics of human enhancement,
Wilsdon, J. M. P., Ed.; Demos Institute: 2006.
56. Wolbring, G. Why NBIC? Why Human Performance Enhancement? Innovation; The European
Journal of Social Science Research 2008, 21 (1), 25-40.
57. Wolbring, G. Nanotechnology and the Transhumanization of Health, Medicine, and Rehabilitation.
Lee Kleinmann, D., Delborne, J., Cloud-Hansen, K., Handelsman, J., Eds.; Mary Ann Liebert:
New Rochelle, NY, 2010; pp 290-303.
58. Wolbring, G. Obsolescence and body technologies Obsolescencia y tecnologías del cuerpo.
Dilemata International Journal of Applied Ethics 2010, 2 (4), 67-83.
59. Alfred Nordmann Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno-Socio-Anthro-Philo- HLEG Foresighting the New
Technology Wave Converging Technologies " Shaping the Future of European Societies; 04.
Available online:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/ntw/index_en.html (accessed on
23rd September 2012).
60. Baylis, F.; Robert, J. S. The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies. Bioethics 2004, 18
(1), 1-26.
61. C.CHRISTOPHER HOOK . TRANSHUMANISM AND POSTHUMANISM . 2003.
62. International Centre for Bioethics, C. a. D. section on transhumanism. 2005.
63. International Centre for Bioethics, C. a. D. section on cybernetics. 2005.
64. Krishna Guha Lunch with the FT: Meaty arguments Peter Singer interviewed by Krishna Guha .
Financial Times, 2005.
65. M.Roco, W. B. e. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology,
Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. 2003. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht Hardbound.
66. McMillan Reference . ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS 3rd Edition . 2003.
67. Rick Weiss Cosmetic Gene Therapy's Thorny Traits . Washington Post, 1997, p A01.
68. Transtopia . Transhumanism. 2005.
69. Word Transhumanist Association. What is Transhumanism? 2005.
70. World Transhumanist Association . Transhumanist declaration . 2002.
71. Wolbring, G. "Is there an end to out-able? Is there an end to the rat race for abilities?". Journal:
Media and Culture 2008, 11 (3).
72. Liao, S. M.; Sandberg, A.; Roache, R. Human engineering and climate change. Ethics, Policy &
Environment 2012, 15 (2), 206-221.