This post is due by Tuesday, October 23 @ midnight. No credit given for late posts.
Read the assigned chapters above, and then:
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about Ethics and the Environment, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of ethics and the environment after completing our reading.
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about Ethics and the Environment, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of ethics and the environment after completing our reading.
Chapter Three
ReplyDelete1. Both preservation and conservation seek to protect the land, but maintains a different way to go about doing so. Preservation seeks to protect the land wholly because the land is viewed as life that deserves respect and protection. Conservationists seek to avoid doing damage to land outside of the necessary purposes, allowing for people to benefit from the land for a longer period of time.
2. As a conversationist, Gifford Pinchot, fought to keep the rich from monopolizing natural resources. Since natural resources are considered to have instrumental value, he cared to impact policy as a way of defending social Darwinism, in that he believed it to be unfair that the people who have economic advantages would reap more benefits than those deemed “economically unfit.”
3. Environmental policy must reflect concern for future generations. It is unacceptable for us to think that younger generations will be able to solve the problems that we struggle with; it is our responsibility to help make youth aware of the ethical dilemmas we currently face and will continue to face in the future. The sooner these ideas and issues are addressed, the more likely the younger generations are to be able to head into a better direction, where hopefully it is not a matter of having to choose one of the lesser evils.
Chapter Four
1. The Brundtland Comission played a large role in what we have viewed as sustainability for the past thirty years. Sustainability is broken down into three dimensions: economic, environmental, and ethical. Economically we seek to make and provide enough goods for human needs and both the environmental and ethical dimensions strive to keep providing for human needs (which is too largely associated with desires, rather than a basic necessity) with consideration to the biosphere and future.
2. The concept of sustainability is corrupt; it is evident in the example of the ways in which large companies greenwash. Companies label their products in ways that are led to make consumers believe that it is eco-friendly when it truly is not. Another way in which companies greenwash is via the wording of their slogans; they allow and actually endeavor for people to believe they are operating their companies in a more environmentally favorable manner. With consumers wising up to such deceptive techniques, it makes it difficult to believe in true “green” businesses and practices, which in turn can impact the likeliness of more companies choosing to go green.
3. We know that the environment is impacted via population size, demands on natural resources and the role that wealth plays in that aspect, as well as technology. In regards to future generations and today's citizens, it is a struggle to maintain our ethical responsibilities. It is impractical for highly industrialized, all consuming countries to expect developing countries to moderately use natural resources when they are simply trying to live up to the standards that we takers have embedded into our society.
Is it fair to expect developing countries to be less industrialized and consuming when they are just trying to maintain the standards we have set for a comfortable and desirable lifestyle? How do we best advocate the importance of less environmental damage via our actions when the majority has yet to accept that it is our responsibility to do so?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Desjardins brings up a very interesting argument early in the chapter regarding conservationism and preservationism. He talks about Pinchot’s conservationist ideas about our national forests and Desjardins pits him up against Muir’s ideas of preservation. Desjardins goes on to argue that the U.S. Forest Service under Pinchot incorrectly managed the forests and that it should have been more of an open-market approach, focusing on a profit. He continues to argue that if the Forest Service focused on conserving the forests as if it were private property where debt and loss would economic problems, then it would be better off.
2. Desjardins begins talking about the correlation between pollution and economics. He claims that it is very easy for us to want to think of pollution as an economic problem instead of an environmental problem. He uses water and air as primary examples as they are easy for us to understand. One of the significant points he brings up and emphasizes is the idea of “optimal pollution” which was derived by Baxter.
3. This is probably the most important point of this entire chapter. Desjardins continues talking about Baxter’s concept of optimal pollution and begins to break it down to what Baxter means when he says optimal. It is the concept of continuing to reduce pollution until it is no longer a benefit, cost wise, to continue doing so. This idea seems to be applicable in many aspects of Taker culture and it is arguable to say that it will continue to stay like this as pollution gets worse.
Chapter 4
1. At the beginning of this chapter, Desjardins brings up an interesting concept called disappearing beneficiaries. The idea is that we don’t have any responsibility to future generations because the decisions we may or may not make may or may not cause people to be born which means that they may or may not be better off if we had made a different choice; therefore “disappearing”. This makes the idea of having responsibility for the future generations almost nonexistent which is a problem. It seems very similar to Taker culture as it is today and as it was explained in previous chapters and even previous readings.
2. After talking a bit about disappearing beneficiaries, he brings up the topic of what we owe future generations. While this topic is also fairly controversial and full of dispute, the vibe I was getting from him is that we owe the future generations the same things we have and if we can’t give it to them, then to compensate them with something else. For example, we should be developing alternative fuel sources because not many future generations will be able to depend on fossil fuels as we have. This might finally mean that Takers are starting to learn from Leavers and learning what is good for people instead of what is good for things.
3. The final important point brought up was the distinction between sustainable growth and sustainable development. I believe that this distinction is just as important as the author tries to make it. First he starts by explaining that sustainable growth is sustaining the current population, pollution, and technological growth we have today. This is impossible and stupid. Then he explains sustainable development which does not grow at all, but changes or evolves. For example, changing to alternative fuel sources can be seen as sustainable development whereas trying to drill for more oil would be seen as sustainable growth. Needless to say, it is obvious which one is better for our future and future generations.
Question: We constantly hear about our responsibility as citizens of the Earth to ensure the survival of our species by providing a better world for our children and future generations to live in. If this is the case, then why in the world do we continually choose to go by sustainable growth instead of sustainable development? Are we really so selfish that we are unwilling to change because the times might become bad for a few years?
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete1. Pinchot’s U.S. Forest Service has been managing more than 150 national forests by 2010. There most likely will always be controversy over what should happen with these national forests. People in the timber industry say that there are not enough high-quality forests open to be used for timber. Then the environmentalists say that there are too many trees being cut down ruining the wilderness.
2. Water and air pollution are two huge environmental problems that we face. Again there will most likely always be an argument about these issues as well. Everyone is going to have a different definition of what clean air means and what clean water means. One way to go about trying to find out what is clean is to determine the safety, need to identify, describe and assess the risks within.
3. A lot of people look at the economic market to solve ethical and philosophical questions. The economic market cannot answer those questions. Sagoff believes that in order to come closer to a solution is that we as people need to sit down and ask ourselves why we value clean air, clean water and why we value the wilderness.
Chapter 4:
1. A lot of people wonder what the world is going to be like for future generations. Some people think that we have responsibilities for the future generations and others do not think we do. “Many environmentalists argued that we ought to accept these short-term consequences in order to protect the interests of future generations”(79).
2. If people think we do owe future generations the next question is what do we owe future generations? Philosopher Brian Barry says there are three responsibilities that we owe to the future generations; make a sincere and serious effort to develop alternative energy sources, conserve resources and happiness.
3. These past few chapters have talked about our responsibilities as humans and what the people on Earth right now owe to the future generations but what about other species on the Earth now and future generations?
Question:
There are a lot of people out there that are trying to be more and more environmentally friendly and taking into consideration of sustainability but if we owe future generations shouldn’t we be worried about the development around the world?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. There are two different types of environmentalism. The first, conservation, involves protecting the natural environment from exploitation and abuse so that humans can receive greater long term benefits from it. In order for conservation to work it requires scientific experts to assess the implications of any decision made which would affect the conserved land. These experts are responsible for determining “the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time” for what is being conserved. Preservation, on the other hand, seeks to protect the natural environment from any human activity that would degrade and spoil it. To accomplish this, preservationists attempt to preserve the environment in its current form.
2. The notation that something is “clean” or “unpolluted” is subjective. Pure water does not exist in nature so there will always be some uncleanliness to it. Our air and water are only clean to us if they are safe for humanity to breath and drink. They do not have to be pure in order for this to occur. The safety of air and water needs to be balanced between risks and benefits. Refining the air and water to be “pure” would be so expensive and so unnecessary that it isn’t worth doing so. Humans do not need perfect air or water to survive. This means that there is an optimal level of pollution, an equilibrium, at which any further reduction of pollution is will result in a decrease of overall satisfaction. Once this equilibrium has been reached there is no point in trying to reduce pollution any more so the resources can be directed elsewhere.
3. Attempting to quantify solutions to environmental issues as problems that can be solved with the application of economics does not work. The market and economy only looks at what is better for people by providing more money. It has no concern with the values and beliefs held by people so long as money can be made. This causes major issues when it is applied to environmental situations because, under economics, beliefs are classified as wants. This greatly distorts the economic view in favor of doing things which many would consider unethical because the benefits will always outweigh the costs. When cutting down a forest, the profit made greatly outweighs the destruction of many species’ environments. This is what our extreme capitalistic focus has shifted to; if a profit can be made without too much of a cost to humanity then it shall be done. Contrary to the economic classification of them, wants are irrefutable personal preferences and not given things. Beliefs can be either true or false, relying on reasoning for support. They cannot be classified in a way that can be judged by a person’s willingness to pay for the belief.
Chapter 4
ReplyDelete1. The utilitarian view of sustainability believes that ignoring the future values of resources fits into utilitarianism provided that the resources remain to as production sources in the future. This means that any increase to the present value of the resource will increase its value in the future. However, should the resource be depleted then the greatest good for the greatest number will not be achieved. This means that instead of living off capital, we should be living off of interest. For a farm this would mean using the land in such a manner which generates maximum production for the indefinite future. Without factoring in the future like this, current generations will spend both the capital as well as the interest thus leaving future generations with less or no resources.
2. Sustainable development and sustainable growth are two separate concepts with entirely different meanings. Development involves expanding gradually to a more advanced state. Growth, however, involves increasing naturally by obtaining material through absorption or accretion. These are two very different things, when something grows it gets bigger. When something develops it evolves into something better than it previously was. Unlike the Earth’s ecosystem and environment, the human economy grows. The ecosystem will not grow, however it will develop. The economy will grow until it hits the limits imposed upon it by the ecosystem, while developing the entire time. After the economy is maxed, it will not grow and more and will only develop.
3. There are three concerns against accepting the sustainability paradigm without analyzing it. The first of these concerns is raised by the question “What is being sustained?” To us it would seem that the answer to this would simply be maintaining the status quo. The problem is, the status quo cannot be sustained at the rate resources are consumed. It is exactly what we need to change, not preserve. The second concern is that there is an over reliance on economic and self-motivated arguments used in support of environmentalism. Using these as pieces of evidence to argue environmentalism doesn’t exactly prove anything because they are subjective – there may or may not be problems with the status quo. The last concern with environmentalism is the argument against over reliance on scarce resources. These arguments suggest that nature’s primary value is as a resource for humanity.
Question: In what ways has our reliance on capitalism affected our environment? Is capitalism an economic system that is unethical for the environment? In what ways can we change our capitalistic beliefs to better align with a sustainable future?
Chp. 3
ReplyDelete1. A pivotal moment in the history of American environmentalism occurred during the first decade of the twentieth century. This was due to a growing population and consumer demand that put environmental protection at odds with economic need for natural resources.
2. Natural resources have instrumental value and should be managed in whatever way best serves the greater overall good. Pinchot argued that these resources were being wasted when they were left underdeveloped.
3. The U.S. Forest Service manages assets estimated by some to be worth in excess of 42 billion. However the agency is not only unprofitable, but it costs tax payers more than 1 billion per year in subsidies.
Chp. 4
1. Several arguments have been offered against the view that we do have responsibilities to future generations. The two major arguments are called the arguments from ignorance, and the disappearing beneficiaries argument.
2. A utilitarian and intuitively plausible view would suggest that we minimally have an obligation to reduce suffering of future generations. We also optimally have an obligation to maximize their happiness.
3. Against the empirical evidence, lies a strong philosophical tradition that holds that humans are motivated solely by self-interest. This view is called psychological egoism.
Question: We seem to be doing a lot of great things for the environment today more than we have done in the past. However are we doing all that we can for future generations or should we reconsider our idea of what it means to be going green?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. The way we interact with the environment (taker methodology) might have something to do with “life in the wilderness was difficult, and it humans were to survive, they needed to fight and defeat the forces of nature. Nature was seen as the enemy to be subdued and exploited” (page 53). This is an interesting take on how and why we changed every inch of our country.
2. The idea of “costs” is very utilitarianism like. To measure the cost of something one needs to see what has to be given up to achieve whatever you’re trying to do. This is very similar to making the overall population happy because you’re seeing if the positives outweigh the negatives.
3. Market solutions is said to promote individual freedom, places value on private property rights, and are consistent with certain philosophical assumptions about nature.
Chapter 4
1. There are two main ideas around the ethical question of whether or not we’re responsible for future generations. The first being “argument of ignorance” which basically means we don’t know who ‘they’ will be therefore we should sacrifice ‘our’ current needs for ‘their’ assumed needs. The second idea is called “disappearing beneficiaries”. This idea means that we shouldn’t have to worry about the future generation and it is stupid to even talk about it. This idea is actually more ignorant than the “argument of ignorance”.
2. The author has three conclusions that we can do now to help future generations. We have to develop alternate energy sources, conserve our current resources, and “we owe future people a reasonable chance for happiness”. If we continue to live the way we’re living, future generations have no chance of achieving our happiness levels because standards of living, overpopulation, and the environment will be drastically different in a negative way.
3. When something grows it gets bigger and when something develops it becomes different. The world’s ecosystems are developing (evolving) but it cannot grow. If we continue to destroy the environment our ecosystems will continue to die out.
How can we put a limit on consumerism?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. There are many uses for public land, but there are a few that come to mind: water treatment, government, parks, etc. We understand the importance of the proper use of lands, and the societal authority (the government) should embody this idea of sustainable use of land. This is not always the case, and sadly the private sector and big corporations are usually worse offenders. The public sector controls much land, and has the power to enforce rules on the private sector to ensure proper land use, but again- this is not always or rather rarely the case.
2. John Muir in particular thought the conservationist mindset was a huge mistake- as do I. Conservation in-and-of-itself is not a terrible practice if done correctly and with the needs of the environment placed above the demand of resources. The conservationist mindset is a mistake, because it presents an idea in which the natural world is seen in context to its resources, and how much we can exploit it, while ensuring future resources for future exploitation.
3. "The cost of something is equivalent to what must be given up to attain it." This idea of an equal give and take is something that most people are grappling with now. The needs of our environment are so great at this time, and we are so far gone that fixing environmental issues is going to require a lot of give, and most societal beings are not willing to sacrifice the comfort and convenience of their lives for it.
Q: How can we demonstrate to people the importance of sacrifice in the name of the environment and sustainability, considering the "common man" and the spectrum of socioeconomic diversity?
Chapter 4-
1. The idea of intragenerational vs. intergenerational is very interesting. It is a heavily human centric comparison, which highlights the needs of those living vs. those to come. We must expand this idea to be intergenerational, interspecies, as well as multidimensional. Being self-serving can expand to serving those alive at the cost of those to come. We must view all organisms, living and to live later, when considering choices concerning sustainability, and all others for that matter. Anything else is unethical.
2. I do not like the utilitarian philosophy- minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness? That is cheap and shallow. This is my personal opinion, but I think that we should propagate a full and well-lived life, over one that is easy and comfortable. Life's nature is not to be easy, but rather have challenges and rewards. Some people think that a life of principle is a luxury only the wealthy can afford, but I think it is more based on how much you're willing to sacrifice to stay true to yourself, your values and your environment.
3. There are a few things highlighted that the author thinks we need to do for future generations: develop alternative energy sources; conserve resources; owe future people a reasonable chance at happiness. So in less words, preserving the natural world, and all of its wonders is the key to ensuring the good life for future generations.
Q: If it is so clear that the continued health of our natural world is the solution to ensuring the future happiness of the societal world, why can we as a species and global community not make environmental sustainability our biggest concern?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Due to the belief that nature was the enemy, a viewpoint carried throughout much of the course of European settlement in North America, by the late nineteenth century most of the landscape had been cleared for human use. As industrial growth and urbanization began to take root, the natural environment was less seen as an enemy and more of as a resource for the American economy. No longer seen as a beast needing to be tamed, the environment became a bank of natural resources, which in turn contributed to the wealth of those who figured out how to exploit said resources, and who would go on to monopolize much of American industry.
2. As a large government bureaucracy, the U.S. Forest Service has little incentive to balance revenues and expenses, leading to economic and environmental problems. Without having to operate according to the economic laws that would guide a private, for-profit business working in a free market, the Forest Service provides incentives only to maximize its budget, and neglects incentives to care for the forest. As put by Desjardins, the decisions being made by the Forest Service will only change if the incentives change.
3. By structuring the economy to follow the principles of the free market, a society is likely to meet environmental challenges. Allowing people to engage in whatever exchange of resources they would like should in theory allow for every resource in society to be used in a way that creates the greatest possible human satisfaction. In turn, this should allow for fewer resources to be wasted.
Question: If Desjardin’s point about operating in a free market were true, would it make more sense for the Forest Service to be a for-profit agency?
Chapter 4:
1. While we do not know the exact standings of people who will exist in the future, we have good reason to believe their well-being will have similar requirements to ours in the present moment. Understanding that our actions will influence the lives of future people, and knowing that these people will have needs comparable to our own needs, we are obliged to give ethical consideration to future people.
2. Desjardins makes the argument that a dollar held today is worth more than a dollar held at some point in the future, since a person could invest that dollar presently, earn interest and have more than one dollar in the future. With this point in mind, it makes sense to say that by getting the most we can out of our resources in the present day, we are helping to fulfill our responsibility to future people. Just as a dollar can be seen as worth more today, resources are similarly worth more in the present moment.
3. Not only do we have the responsibility to use resources only to the extent we need them in order to give future generations a chance, we have the responsibility to help shape what future people will value and want. Monitoring how we utilize resources is only part of how we will impact people, as they will also be affected by the moral developments of our current world. With this in mind, it is important for us to be apprehensive of what type of life future generations might live and what kinds of people they are likely to become.
Question: If more and more species continue to go extinct, will lack of diversity start to become the norm for future generations? Will people born years from now be unaware that so many different types of life used to exist in the past, and if so, what consequences will this hold?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. The two main theories of conservation are Conservation and preservation. Conservation is the idea of a managed forest, run to extend the life and maximize human benefit from the natural resources. Nature has value only through its use and enjoyment by takers. Preservation is the belief that nature and natural resources have value outside of taker needs or wants. Nature has value of its own. The current status quo in America is conservation, and conservation is practiced by the forest service.
2. The United States Forest Service currently functions as a failing business, and several economists believe that reorganizing the Forest service into a for profit organization. The Privatization of the Forest service would allow the free market, and by extension the citizens, to determine what is important. The choice between recreation or resources, would be decide by what people are willing to pay for.
3. People will only support conservation or preservation as long as it doesn’t begin to negatively affect them. For example pollution in water can be decreased, but the expenses for the decontamination of the water must come from somewhere. People will be willing to sacrifice to a point, but eventually their need for clean water will equalize with here other needs.
Chapter Four
1. Many of the arguments for sustainability, renewable energy and involve future generations that we need to sustain the earth for them. Do people who aren’t yet born, who do not exist have a claim on natural resources? Absolutely, but the argument loses steam quickly because it is so far removed from our everyday thinking, we are discussing effects on generation we will never meet.
2. Many developing countries look at First-world attempts to limit greenhouse gasses, pollution and population as an economic attack. Can we really expect a country such a Brazil, who followed our path toward industrialization to embrace environmental controls we never even heard about, to limit its growth? Do we really have the right to say you can’t strive for the ideal we set, without following rules we didn’t have to follow?
3. Sustainability is a buzzword. The original idea of living on surplus, allowing the original to thrive is more than just packaging and organics. True sustainability would require a complete overhaul of the economic and governmental system.
Question
Is the free market system the best way to decide the fate of natural resources? Would recreational user be able to compete with Corporations?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. “But some of the most vocal contemporary critics argue that public policy should not be set by government bureaucrats at all” (55). This quote really encompasses my view of most policies, although I tend to not voice them. It is such a controversial area of the government and it is true that there are certain things that truly need regulation, but there are others like hunting, forestry, and many others that I wish did not have to have such heavy regulation on them. It is sad to think that takers abuse the earth we live so much that the government must interfere and stop us.
2. “The optimal level of pollution is that point of equilibrium, at which the next trade-off made to reduce pollution results in a decrease in overall satisfaction” (61). Pollution has become an increasingly important topic and we have discussed it multiple times in class. It was very scary to here that the 360 ppm level of carbon dioxide that is supposed to be the maximum is being exceeded. Despite the fact that more and more people are becoming aware of the problem and trying to prevent it, it continues to grow as a global issue. Business and factories are getting bigger and more automated causing more and more pollution to be expensed into an overpopulated world.
3. “When individuals express a want or personal preference, they are stating something that is purely personal and subjective. Another person has no grounds to challenge, rebut, or support my wants” (67). After reading this, I felt that it was a very interesting way to word the second sentence. There is a huge difference between what a person wants, and what is right for the world. Every person has the right to their own opinion and wants, but they cannot take that and think that everyone has that exact same feeling. This is one of the biggest problems in politics. Obviously everyone will never be satisfied, but people will use not so truthful information to persuade anyone they can to believe their opinion, instead of the truth.
Chapter 4
1. “A single dollar possessed by my great-great-grandchild may be worth less (in purchasing power) than a single dollar that I process, but it would be peculiar to claim that my great-great-grandchild’s life (assuming that my children and their children’s children have children) will be worth less than my life” (82). Money is such a strange commodity in my opinion. The way it changes from generation to generation blows my mind and I have never been able to truly understand why the economy acts the way it does. If this statement is true then the cost of living is going to be unaffordable for the majority of the population in the near future.
2. “To the degree that present consumption patterns, particularly those found in consumer-driven industrial economies, are causing environmental deterioration, the status quo is exactly what we need to change” (91). I think this mindset should be voiced much louder than it is currently. Obviously, the way that things are being done right now are not working. Therefore we must research the mistakes that are being made and change our actions immediately. More regulations are not going to help, only make matters worse.
3. “Certain human mental capacities might cause humans to suffer more from certain actions and in different ways than other animals” (111). The capacity of the human mind varies from person to person, as it does from species to species. Humans take advantage of their mental capacities, as well as don’t fully understand it. We are able to become superior to other species, but we do not know how those actions truly affect the environment around us.
Question: Will money take over the world?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 3:
ReplyDelete1.) The first decade of the twentieth century was a turning point in American environmentalism history. The economic need for natural resources out weighed the necessity for environmental protection due to the growing population and consumer demand.
2.) Out of all of the harm we have brought to Earth, water and air pollution are probably the most destructive and harmful problems we face. Whether they realize it or not, every single person has effected and been affected by these types of pollution and the means to find and agree on a solution is apparently beyond human capability.
3.) Reflecting utilitarian ethics is environmental problems to the degree of the contemporary economic analyses of it. Utilitarians face several problems when they attempt to contemplate, calculate, and measure the consequences.
Chapter 4:
1.) Though we may carry the responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, there have been several arguments offered against the view that we do have responsibilities to future generations. "Argument from ignorance" says that we know almost nothing about the people of the future, and since we know so little about them, it would be foolish to specify their needs and act upon that. "Disappearing beneficiaries" not only says what "argument from ignorance" says, but it also says it's meaningless to even talk about providing for the future.
2.) Justice demands the denials of equality to be compensated. We can't compensate future generations for the loss of resources by returning those things to them because we have almost used them all up and they are non-renewable. However we can compensate them for the loss of those opportunities and choices that require those resources.
3.) Many environmentalists promote the idea of sustainable development. As a descriptive and normative framework for understanding an appropriate lifestyle for present generations, sustainable development could change the course of human demise.
EATE Question:
Why must we even think about future generations? Life goes on and then it ends eventually anyway so isn't everyone kinda screwed anyway?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. The conservation versus preservation conversation is a difficult and timeless argument. Preservation is beneficial in that the environment remains totally unscathed with no ecological risk. However, preservation allows for no extraction of resources, and thereby harms the economy and possibly the well being of surrounding human communities. Therefore, conservation may be a better system, if only for its basis in reality.
2.The idea that the U.S forest service should be transformed into a for profit initiative is a tantalizing idea economics wise, and also utilizes the concept of the free market. This is where it begins to scare me. Trusting our forests, an excruciatingly important and equally delicate system, in the hands of the free market, essentially in the hands of lustful corporate thugs, is no something I can back.
3. This leads me on to the next idea of a free market society being at odds with the environment in general. Capitalism is, ingeniously, based on greed and the resulting exploitation. Of people, of time, and of course of resources, both natural and otherwise. A free market society will perhaps never be able to coexist with the natural world because of this basis in greed.
Chapter 4
1. A popular problem of environmentalism addressed in the chapter is the idea that, because environmental laws almost never have strong, immediate, effects they are not popular with the everyday voter who wants to address problems that can be solved immediately
2.What do we owe future generations? In my opinion we owe them only one thing, the ability to live prosperous,healthy lives. We can not assume as to the needs they will have but we can assume with genuine certainty that one of those needs will be to live, and have a healthy planet to do so on.
3.One of the scariest thoughts addressed in the chapter is other nations have started to and are going to continue developing industrially, where as previously we were among a group of a few select industrialized country. Although the possibility of better living situations for he people within those countries is something I would never wish against, the whole planet being industrialized will only speed up environmental disasters such as climate change. However, it is unfair to tell these countries they cannot develop into "advanced" industrialized nations just because we used up all the resources. It is a difficult problem.
Question: Will we develop sustainable fuel resources before terrible environmental harm occurs?
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete1. One of the most influential and widely used frameworks in public policy is based upon looking at the ethical and philosophical of economic analysis. Policy makers are challenged to make unbiased policies that are fair to all parties and that are reasonable. Economics offers a way to take all interested parties into account, as well as offers and unbiased way to look at it.
2. The first decade of the 20th century proved as a pivotal movement in the history of American Environmentalism. The growing population and consumer demand out environmental protection against the economic need for natural resources. This led to many environmental political debates about certain things to build in the US.
3. The largest agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service manages more than 150 different national forests, which contain about 190 million acres of land. The U.S. Forest Service employs more than 34,000 people.
Chapter 4:
1. There are many people that say that we have a responsibility to future generations. The two major arguments are the “argument of ignorance” and the “disappearing beneficiaries” argument.
2. Many argue also that even though we do have responsibilities to people of the future, they are overridden by personal interests of those currently alive. They say that our current interests shouldn’t jeopardize those interests of people of the future.
3. When thinking about future generations, we have to think about do present preservation, consumption patterns, and technologies create problems for the future generation. We can also think about how the increasing world population will more than likely think the same as us, and some things may not change.
Question: Did the government shut down have any effect on the U.S. Forest Service? If yes, how badly
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. It certain ways I can see why the early Europeans saw nature as the enemy since they were in unfamiliar territory. Seeing as we would later know it wasn’t, we still went about nearly depleting all of the known resources and driving native animals out of their habitat. I found this part particular interesting.
2. The utilitarian’s faced several problems with their way of quantifying qualitative goods. This makes me think back to Ishmael and how even Taker measures to sustain/preserve the environment can still bring about more destruction and instability.
3. The idea that the economic approach of satisfying ones preference to encourage people to buy and spend as opposed to encouraging people to focus on what one really needs for goods.
Chapter 4
1. The whole idea that people are actually arguing over whether we have to focus on preserving the environment for the future is ridiculous to me. Have we as a race become so obsessed with our own well-being and greed that we are going to deny the possible survivability of our race as well as all that live on the planet? It may be taking the point to the extreme but one can see how much of a risk we’re taking if we can’t address these problems.
2. The whole idea of selling the idea of water being clean makes me question certain bottled water brands. Seeing as water in nature in entirely pure it seem like the clip of The Lorax with all the artificial air and plants.
3. The final concluding statements of the chapter kind of left me confused as to why we have these two ideas of sustainable growth and sustainable development. The idea that the Takers are trying to “sustain” their growth is ridiculous because Taker society is not sustainable period.
Question: Will it take an entirely new generation of leaders, politicians, scientists, etc. to actually begin to aggressively approach these environmental problems?
Chapter 3
ReplyDeleteGifford Pinchot, head of the U.S. Forest Service said “the object of our forest is not because they are beautiful… or because they are refuges for wild creatures of the wilderness… but… the primary object is to make prosperous homes”. This is a perfect example of meeting the short term goal and not looking at the long term effects.
Baxter brings up the point of every decision involving trade off. I had never applied the economic meaning of costs to our impacts. For example, Baxter says that in creating dams we cannot then use those materials to make other things. Therefore the cost of the dam is equivalent to the alternative use of those resources.
Baxter also says that “every person should be free to do whatever he wishers in context there his action does not interfere with the interests of other human beings”. I disagree with this statement, too often we over look the environment and the species within it. Through not helping he environment, we are hurting ourselves.
Chapter 4
When asked about the environment and our responsibility to take care of it some say that they won’t be alive to see its repercussions, so they have nothing to worry about... I have two problems with that statement 1) We are already seeing see repercussions from out mistreatment of the environment 2) We have a moral duty to take care of it for the next generations.
The traditional model of sustainable economics addresses two fundamental questions: How are resources to be allocated? How are goods and services produced to be distributed? Many people do not care about this process, but some are willing to pay more to support it.
Sustainable development and sustainable living are often criticized. However when we look past that, we find that taking present population and consumption patterns into consideration along with our personal ethical responsibility to future generations, it should provide a plausible model of where our present lifestyle should be heading.
How can we raise awareness to our responsibility to future generations? And then motivate others to act upon it?
chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. There is a split between what people think is better. The timber industry thinks there aren't enough high quality forests open for their use while at the same time ranchers would like more forestland open for grazing. It's a really tough decision for the government because their decision to either leave the forests be or let timber industries have more access to the forests effects so many aspects of our nation. That's why people are often so vocal about the decisions the government makes.
2.There is a big dispute about what is to be considered clean air and clean water. There is no perfectly clean water in nature and the issue with air is what is considered clean. Air is a mix of many different gasses so what constitutes clean air? Many people argue that clean air is anything that humans can breath without risk.There is no exact definition of clean air or pure water. If we want to be able to keep our water and air clean humans will have to sacrifice.
3. Creating a market is an idea that many people think makes sense for figuring out what to do with major environmental decisions. It is a way to show what the general public wants rather than a single person. This is an important thing for people to realize because its gives them the opportunity to voice their opinions about the issues at hand.
Chapter 4
1.A good question that was brought up in the beginning of the chapter is: should developing countries be held to the same CO2 emission standards as industrialized countries? It's not fair to the people of those countries to not give them the chance to industrialize but would it be worth the cost to the earth? This is a really important question I have never considered before.
2.It is important to consider the future generations of our world and what they will have to deal with in their time. There is no telling what our future generations may have to face but we constantly think about how the new industries we create will effect the world and the future. It's important to keep doing this in my mind because we don't have the right to choose what future generations have to deal with. It doesn't only effect our species but every species on the planet and that directly relates to the decisions we are making about industries now.
3.We have the duty to to conserve resources. at current rates we will use up the known resources of fossil fuels and uranium within 200 years. We have technology that are more efficient and we can use them without sacrificing convince. We have a responsibility to make an effort to develop alternate energy
question: Generations past did not think about their effects on our generation so what makes us feel like we need to think about the generations after us?
Good reflections here, EATE'rs!
ReplyDeleteWe'll surf in class before our student presentations.
Dr. Rob
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Preservationists and conservationists both seek to protect the environment, but for different reasons. Muir`s group of preservationists by the name of Sierra Club sought to preserve the wilderness simply for the forests sake and its aesthetic value. On the other hand Pinchots Forest service aimed to conserve wildlife so that it could serve man. Both were very progressive even though pinchot may seem like the bad guy.
2. Despite their slightly skewed views, the United States forest service does a lot of good, managing 156 national forests and employing more than 30000 people.
3.Baxter believes that there is an optimal pollution level for our environment, and denies the existence of naturally clean air. Stating that air free of contaminants "could" be desirable but the cost would be to high, therefore humans control pollution levels to suit our needs?
Chapter 4
A problem that i never really thought about is environmental laws are usually looking to the future and have little immediate effects. Most voters want the laws they vote on to be immediately enacted, but that shortsightedness wont be good in the long run. Future generations have a right to to the natural resources that inhabit this world do they not? An interesting point made in 4.6 is that our future generations are helpless to enjoy the world that they inherit from us, so we ave a duty to preserve the environment. Sustainable development is a widely accepted path for society to follow if we wish to leave future generations with a stable ecosystem and even economy
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Conservationists seem to believe that humans should get as much benefit from the environment as possible by using it without abuse. It's not as much about aesthetics, as its value to human consumption.
2. Preservationists want to protect the environment from any use or consumption. The aesthetics of the environment is what is given to us.
3. Environmentalism has these two parties fighting constantly over policy. Preservationists argue that leaving the environment alone is appealing intrinsically. Conservationists want what is good for humans overall.
Chapter 4
1. Humans naturally think selfishly, thus the "argument from ignorance" and the "disappearing beneficiaries" argument occur.
2. In utilitarian views they question whether or not responsibilities to future generation should over ride the needs of the present generation. Some arguments say that since we don't specifically know the future needs we shouldn't worry about it.
3. Overall quality of the environment in the world hasn't improved despite being improved in some local areas. The pattern humans use of the environment doesn't look hopeful for future generations.
If we all believe we have responsibilities to future generations will we still try to reduce our environmental impact?
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete1. Conservation vs. Preservation is an argument that will always have its pros and cons. Both preservation and conservation look to protect land, however conservation argues that not all of the land needs to be protected.
2. Water and air pollution are huge issues that we as humans face. The truth to the pollution though, is that “clean” water and air are hard to define and in order to make water and air “clean” a huge toll on economics comes with it.
3. When making an environmental decision the costs of the decision need to be compared with the benefits of the decision. Ideally when making these decisions the benefits should outweigh the costs.
Chapter 4:
1. Sustainability of the Earth is important to consider when thinking about the future generation. However there are two sides to this argument, the first argument argues that sustaining the planet for the future is futile because we do not know anything about what people of the future will be like and what their needs will be. The second argument states that we should sustain our planet for the future by reducing our consumption of natural resources.
2. The question of “Do we owe future generations anything?” is asked in this chapter. Many say that we do not owe them anything, however I disagree, I believe that we do owe them a planet in which they can enjoy the privileges that we all have thus far.
3. The question of sustaining the plant for future generations is not only a moral one, but it is also a scientific one. The I=PAT formula offers some insight on the issue by evaluating our population and consumption patterns.
Question: If we wanted to sustain the Earth for future generations, could we even do it?