Summary Week 3 & 4
Through the introduction given in our textbook I recognize the importance in the application of philosophical analysis to ensure that our actions are supported by proper contemplation. There is a point, however, at which I feel that a particular topic can be over-analyzed by a zealous thinker or in favor of a particular outcome. The underlying theme that I picked up from reading through chapters 3 and 4 posed the rhetorical question of “how much over analysis does it take to justify our actions or inactions in the case of implementing change. The case for chapter three was the use of economics as an oversimplified way to analyze the value of environmental resources. But I found an interesting need to balance a moderate amount of economic influence into our environmental policies. Chapter four brought to light the shortcomings of the arguments against preservation for future generations. Because of lengthy analysis these arguments begin to make sense, but when looking at the overall message it just sounds silly.
As I mentioned, I found there is actually good argument for the use of economics in environmental policy. The beginning argument in chapter three covers this with the example of the mechanics and operations of the US Forest Service. First of all it is essential that we as individuals, in our efforts to mold our opinions and develop the foundation of our actions, seek out a better understanding of the history of that which we so readily publicize our criticisms and opinions. In the case of the Forest Service many, including myself, assumed that the purpose of this government entity was to preserve our forests for the health of our ecosystems and our recreational and aesthetic enjoyment. Now I have come to recognize that the Forest Service is a division of the USDA- The United States Department of Agriculture. So the Forest Service is an agricultural entity. The definition of agriculture as found in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products”. The key word there is products. So while all this time I was under the belief that the Forest Service was acting in the best interest of my recreational endeavors and the beautiful tranquility that I’ve enjoyed, this was an external benefit of the business being conducted in order for me to have the paper and wood products I desire.
Despite this unfortunate misunderstanding of the true purpose of this organization it does serve a good intentioned purpose for our benefit. Unfortunately this government division that is fundamentally designed to work as a business of crop production and marketing is not operating on the competitive and self equalizing open market. I am now aware of how the structure by which the Forest Service operates is under the effect of budgetary control. As I now understand it, additional annual funding is a needs based program. The more expenses that are shown in a year in turn pushes up the amount of financial funding that is provided the following year. How about that? The more I spend, the more money will be provided for me to operate a “business” with complete disregard for efficient operations and improving the bottom line. This is ridiculous, and supports the need for open market operation to curb frugal spending and inefficient operations. Since the Forest Service is structured under the presumption that it is a producer of a national product, it would only lead one to believe that the most effective way for it to operate would be under the structure of the open market where careful management of the forest “crop” and intelligent structure of operations would yield the greatest results. In my opinion it would be a wise decision to address the pitfalls of the current policies directing the operations within the Forest Service and possibly take on a more complete economic approach to operations.
While the influence of the open market and economic analysis can be seen to benefit the structure of conservationist efforts of entities like the US Forest Service, this approach is not all encompassing in regards to environmental policy and resulting positive effects. For there is a side to environmental ethics that argues that problems with environmental concerns can be resolved entirely by economic reason. This is expressed by the classical economist’s belief in the magic of the open market and its ability to provide the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people through their expression of desire in their willingness to pay for any particular want. My first point of disagreement with this is that there is a great deal of value in nature that cannot be put into tangible monetary terms. Natalie L. responded to a question in our textbook that addressed this issue. The question in our text posed “If a Disney-like resort opened in a wilderness area near you, would you be willing to pay money to visit it? If so, would that be evidence that you preferred development to wild preservation? Are those things that people are willing to pay for always the things that people most value?” Natalie intuitively responded by saying “People who value friends, family, religion, and so forth might not place as much meaning into money spent because true value does not cost them anything in life.”
In my opinion, in the case of wilderness preservation, I can use an example of my recent summer activities to show that money spent does not equate to a higher level of desire and enjoyment for myself. Part of what I enjoy about hiking in the wilderness is that it is free! I am free to enjoy the marvels that have been created (and not destroyed by us!). This summer I have had the opportunity to get out hiking nearly every weekend. This has been one of the greatest summers! And I haven't spent a lot of money doing it. Two weeks ago I forewent the hiking to drive up to Denver for the weekend. I haven't watched TV or gone to the movies in months, so my wife and I packed in a double header on Monday. This followed a fun day at the Scotfest in Estes Park, and finished with dinner at our favorite Mexican restaurant. So clearly, my weekend consisted of making the most of modern development (i.e. Movie Theater, restaurant, fairgrounds, etc.). And it cost me! We spent more money in 3 days than we had all month!! It almost took the fun right out of it. So to make my point, a great deal of what we value about something can be based on the fact that it is available for all to enjoy. If someone closed down my local movie theater, I wouldn't much care (as a matter of fact they did close the Buena Vista movie theater!). But close down, or destroy the wilderness outside my back door and I'll surely be chaining myself to some trees! Placing environmental policy solely in the hands of the open market is a dangerous way of simplifying our responsibilities to thoughtful policy making.
Another drawback to open market environmental policy is that it forces us to clamor over each other in order to obtain that which we strongly desire. This means working longer and harder to earn the money necessary to purchase land and the opportunities to enjoy nature before some other knucklehead with more money can grab it up and keep it from the rest of us, or from my sole enjoyment (maybe I’m then the knucklehead). Open market policy would say that the knucklehead with more money obviously wanted that item more than the rest of us and was willing to pay for it, therefore according to the economic environmental philosophy the greater amount of good was provided through this competitive market system. I would have to disagree. Victoria K. posted a youtube.com video that exemplifies a quote that summarizes this final thought on the drawbacks of the competitive open market. The quote is “What would it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul?” I’ve been fortunate enough to lose everything in my financial world recently, and it has blessed me with an opportunity to reevaluate what is worth pursuing and protecting.
One such thing that is worth protecting is our relationships with both friends and family and brings us to the topic covered in Chapter 4. The main topic, which posed the question of what our responsibility is to future generations, really confronted me with the use of over analysis. I can’t believe the extent to which some philosophers have micro analyzed this topic in order to justify inaction. The argument that I am talking about is the “disappearing beneficiaries”. I have heard this argument in person from one perspective, in which it was said that our world is so far gone that it would be unjust to bring a life into it in the first place. This life which has been chosen never to begin is the disappearing beneficiary as I see it. So now we are making decisions based on a person that may or may not ever exist, so what is our responsibility to that person? The argument then becomes one for complacency because, it is argued, that if we make a decision for the benefit of one intended descendent then that decision would in essence change the course of destiny and that descendent may never come into existence because of that. So now we are looking at a decision intended to benefit one person, but we have altered the future and are now presenting this decision to a wholly different individual. This is the stuff Hollywood movies are made of….like Back to the Future- “Marty! Don’t change anything!” And it encourages us to sit in a corner of a dark room and do nothing for fear of making the wrong decision for the wrong future people. While this argument is deep and intriguing, I think that it creates an opportunity to throw our hands up and continue enjoying ubiquitous consumption on a growing scale. We’re focusing on the wrong questions! What is the correct focus? How about to what extent should we make sacrifices in order to benefit ourselves and our future offspring most effectively and productively?
I’ll start by answering the question of whether or not future generations have rights, it’s an important starting point. My answer is yes. But now that we have established that future generations should be thought of in our decisions and that they do have such rights I have to really be careful in my consideration of what I am willing to give up. My initial response to this question was a quick and easy- “I am willing to sacrifice for future beneficiaries whatever is required of me.” But given further consideration this statement might be a bit hasty. For instance, in order to analyze my own true willingness to sacrifice for our future generations I posed the hypothetical scenario:
I'm starting a four year investment in my education so that I can have a degree in engineering. Financially I plan to make out really well when I start work, and am hoping to retire early like many of the engineers that I have met (most under the age of 35!). So now imagine, after I have worked my butt off for 4 years in school sacrificing my social life and time with family, and spent say another 10-15 years at work, I get to that day of early retirement. But on that day I find that I am forced to give all my savings to a trust fund for future generations and I have to go back to work as a clerk at a retail establishment for the rest of my life and never get to reap the benefits of my hard work. Would I make the same decisions today if I knew that this would be the results of my efforts? i.e. would I willingly pass on the fruits of my labor to an unknown beneficiary?
I posted this question on our class discussion board and got some encouraging feedback. Ryan B. made an important statement that I feel brings the discussion back into meaningful perspective. Ryan is a father of one child and has another on the way. He draws a more direct connection between future generations and who they are in his mind. For him they are his children and future grandchildren. He is able to put faces on his beneficiaries, even if he does not yet know his grandchildren. He states: “I definitely feel that I have an obligation to do my part in making sure that they have the necessary resources and wilderness areas for enjoyment that I have had.” Kelley V. also supported this idea by acknowledging that in spite of the disappointment felt by missing out on an opportunity she selflessly feels that “it would suck even more if I got to experience the chance to get some fruits, and I know that someone else didn't, and them not getting that chance was related to me not putting all my cash in the trust fund.” Kelley, Ryan and I seem to have come to the same conclusion that the right decision is typically the hardest to initiate, but I find that in the end a sacrifice is not as bad as we imagined.
If one thing is clear to me at this point in regards to environmental policy and the philosophies behind it, it is that much of this general area of study is not simple and one dimensional. Because our societal structure is so complex it would prove to be an overwhelming convenience to be able to summarize our roles and responsibilities into a general all-encompassing set of rules and applied ethics. Religion, legislature, and the media are the greatest examples of attempts to develop such structure. Unfortunately there seem to always be flaws with either or any side of ethical philosophy. It is admirable and fundamentally important that philosophers have attempted to summarize our intentions and responsibilities into neat little theories, and their studies have brought to light many important revelations. But as I have come to see in the examples of economically driven environmental conservation and the arguments concerning rights of future generations, balance of the good of all arguments is the most effective means to act upon our philosophical observations. Conservation, when implemented in harmony with preservation will yield the safest and most responsible outcome for our future generations who we will love and care for simply because they are our offspring by maternal and societal means.
No comments:
Post a Comment