Sciubba et al. concentrate on the effects of population driven by fertility, mortality and migration on national security, which signifies “the ability of states to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity.” Separating the types of threats imposing on national security into the five groups, such as military, political, environmental, societal, and economic sectors, they examine and analyze each field. Among these five topics, environmental security as human security was the most interesting area because I believe that environment is the most foundational and fundamental element necessary for achieving human security. Through environment, people gain the basic necessities for life, such as food, water and shelter. If these core needs are not met due to environmental insecurity affected by population, their security will be challenged and threatened. Furthermore, this issue will transform into another problem and broaden the scope of threats causing human insecurity. In their text, they state that environment and population are closely interconnected and mutually affect each other. In other word, while environment alters population trends people also change environment. But one thing that people should keep in mind is that humanity cannot live without nature, but nature can live without humanity.
Through his text, Upreti emphasizes the importance of social education and of developing capacity to adapt to change in order to accomplish environmental security and human security in “holistic and transdisciplinary” manner. Unlike other authors, Upreti provides detailed and realistic solutions to achieve these goals by dealing with governmental and societal roles. Like Harmann’s statement in chapter 11 arguing that “focusing on any one aspect of a state risks missing the bigger picture”, Upreti also highlights a comprehensive approach that involves the various actors related to environment and development. Throughout his research, he mainly covers the cases of global south. He claims that the poor and marginalized people in the global south are more vulnerable to environmental insecurity in macro and micro level. However, I don’t completely agree with his idea of comparing hardships and suffering. No matter what country they live in, poor and less advantaged people in everywhere suffer and have limited access to environmental security. In their psychology, they are the most vulnerable figures undergoing the most terrible and difficult situations.