The papers are all compiled below. Click on any of the names in the
table below to jump to the selected student's paper, or just scroll through
them. Do Not Print Papers from this page. If you want to print one, copy
it into a Word document. Printing from this page will print all the papers
and waste many trees!
Ali Dozier Top
Sagoff’s discussion of the allocation and distribution
proved to be a challenging and interesting reading. Although the material
within is not something that could be labeled common sense, it does, with
a focused mind, make clear many things about basic human nature in regards
to what is wanted by defined groups.
One thing Sagoff succeeded in was blunt honesty.
He makes it clear that there is a difference between market and political
views, and explores the human input into this confliction. Humans want
more. Economics aside, humans want shiny cars and good food. These are
things that they go to great lengths to receive. Harvard degrees are earned,
at times, not with the intent of being smart and well able to do a specific
task, but instead they are sought out as a tool to make more money to get
bigger things.
There are certain consequences, however, that will
stall human interest in the new. As a basic and general principle, we want
to save the planet over the opportunity to experience new things.
It’s funny that a difficult Harvard degree has
less influence than the biggest, oldest redwood in the United States. Good
for America!
The discussion of allocation and distribution based
on the rights of future generations is Sagoff’s best point. It would be
nice to be able to base our decisions now on the potential consequences
of our actions to future generations, but it simply can’t be done and for
a really superb reason.
No matter what we do today, our children and their children
will be better off. Sagoff introduces, to a fresh mind, a sort of economic
adaptation of the human species. No matter what we do, short of nuclear
war, could make our children unhappy in a life-long sense. They will know
nothing but what they have come to accept as normal. Our life will seem
strange and unusual. Theirs will seem to be the only way it could be done.
Sagoff’s writing should be considered for appreciation
not only in economic terms, but also in issues of humanities.
Amy Robertson Top
Amy Robertson
Sagoff argues that our responsibility is not "to the future as much as it is responsibility for the future". In other words, he states that our responsibility is to an ideal rather than a generation to come or a profit margin.
I have often come up against this challenge in my activism. It seems clear to me that old growth forests have their own inherent value to humanity; they are a source of spiritual and creative growth. This is as important as the empirical scientific truth that we need oxygen -producing trees to survive. Unfortunately, spirituality is impossible to quantify and emotional judgments, such as mine, do little to sway those who feel differently. Therefore, I have found the only way to win a campaign is with logical truths. Since we live in a capitalistic society, this often leads to discussions of monetary worth.
Hence, I raise debate with a later theory of Sagoff’s. He proposes environmentalists chose neutral theories, such as alternative economic proposals, because they are intimidated by " thinking of problems on their own terms". The opposite is true. Environmentalists generally believe in the value of nature for its own sake, but understand we need to speak the language of our world to be heard. One of the basic tenants of psychology is effective communication requires rapport. Therefore, using economic analyzations is not a cop out, but rather a well-honed tool. I know I am more comfortable speaking of my passion than quantifying its worth into jobs and services. I also know I am not alone in this. Through trial and error, I discovered that a combination of heart-felt passion, and well-researched facts and proposals results in the most effective community organizing.
Therefore, I believe a balance between heart and mind,
society and self is the goal of activism. We need to apply "neutral"
theories to make headway in the system. Sagoff may be right that
this tactic undermines the "true" value of nature, but it works when used
to protect nature. As environmentalists we should be working to establish
the environmental ethic he speaks of, but we must also be working within
the established system. Just as tree-sits are a delay action used
to create time for legal processes, economic proposals get decision makers
to listen to us. This is the first step. If these precious
places aren’t protected now, what good will environmental ethics do us
later? We need to buy time.
Andrew Marr Top
No Paper Submitted
Anna Constance Top
Honestly I found this article really hard to read, and
after having read it a couple of times, I still don’t get the overall point
the author was trying to make, but my feeling is that overall what he had
to say is ridiculous. The main stream of thought running through
the article is that the "majority of Americans" have different preference
maps and are in conflict with themselves between their consumer wants and
citizen values. I think this is lame. As I see it a person’s
values should dictate what they consume, unless of course a person doesn’t
have the privilege to follow through with their beliefs because of dysfunctional
social structures i.e. lack of resources to purchase or grow organic foods.
After all, the person is political. Furthermore, it is utterly ridiculous
to make the argument that "any policy we adopt today will make people born
in the future better off than they would have been had we made some other
decision" (Sagoff 61). Or that it is reasonable to let future generations
"think that a gondola cruise along an artificial river is a wilderness
experience (Sagoff 61)". If the world continues to consume like the
West, there will be no clean air or clean water or forests, and without
these things life, if it can survive, will be miserable. Additionally,
the implications of the gondola remark are that humans can create artificial
wilderness, nature, and ecosystems and that humans are bigger than nature,
which is one of the most dangerous ideological fallacies present in human
society today.
Ben Shryock
Top
Economists: Ethics to Equations
I find this economist’s view of the future very
bizarre and fairly disheartening. Firstly, he comments on the effort
to take into account the future generation’s interests by converting possible
outcomes of present actions into a monetary sum. That means in a
meeting to discuss the efficiency of cutting down a forest to make a shopping
mall, perhaps an additional thirty thousand dollars must be added to the
total cost to account for the lack of open space for future generations.
How can we possibly rework the unhappiness of thousands of unborn people
into a monetary sum that can be paid of in the present. Secondly,
I worry about the theory that Mr. Sagoff and Derek Parfit subscribe to;
the idea that any decision made now will be better for the future simply
because we made that decision. This is the ultimate justification
for any unsavory action that a corporate rat would like to peddle onto
the world. It gives a reason to undertake any type of project be
it beneficial or destructive, and defends it with notion that our grandchildren
will have nothing on which to compare their scum pit or paradise.
This concept is ludicrous because unless we burn all books and pictures
that describe the past, the future will always have something to compare
their world to, even if it is not tangible. Similarly, a child born
in the city of Chicago, without ever leaving the city limits might desire
to take a camping trip on the Great Lakes. He might have gotten the
idea from reading a nature magazine or from talking to one of his schoolmates
that heard about the adventure to be had in a real forest. I fear
some conclusions drawn by the economic community, chiefly the attempts
to turn all situations to equations, and the opinion that money is the
driving force behind decisions of major consequence. The forest can
be a very spiritual, holy, or religious place for people, and to the best
of my knowledge no one has attempted to find an equation that represents
the cost and benefits of God, so leave the forest alone.
Beth Belanger Top
Forest Product Consumption and Production Habits
What value does a forest have to humans? Of
course, there are no absolute answers to this question. In the first
place, some believe it absurd to put a price on trees. However, these
same people find the forest to have a significant atheistic worth, one
that holds no monetary price (lets call these people consumers).
Contrary to that belief, we have others that extract numerous resources
for profitably purposes (producers). Accordingly, the manufacturers
of forest products are adhering to the supply and demand of public consumption
habits. The Allocation and Distribution of Resources article clearly
reflects the conflicts between individual, citizen and corporate ethics
of public forests in a capitalistic society.
For centuries, forests in the United States were so abundant
that all parties could remain happy. Now, as the forests dwindle
in the later years of the industrial revolution, we see ever increasing
conflict. The ADR article effectively demonstrates "divided preferences"
between consumer and citizen. For example, someone may expect forest
protection for the benefit of all society, but there personal actions may
directly contradict their citizenry beliefs. The consumer want the
forests to remain, but often demonstrates his/her "consumer preference"
by not supporting alternative products, such as recycled paper.
Meanwhile, producers continue to extract resources to
fulfill the supply and demand of public consumption habits. Most
certainly, the producers intentionally try to increase the demand for their
goods. The ADR piece claims "corporations typically ensure demand
for the goods and services they create so that the product and the market
for it are developed at the same time" (p.61). With advertising,
producers increase their market, which in turn, leads to an increase in
consumption patterns of non-necessity items. Advertising largely
influences our daily lives, therefore altering our "consumption preferences".
Although certain people or organizations do not believe
the forest has a monetary price, corporations are setting a value on the
forest for us, with our consent. They make us believe we ‘need’ their
product, rather than just ‘wanting’ it, therefore imposing a consumption
preference. Finally, even if you believe the forest is a priceless
entity, you regard it as a commodity when you purchase forest products.
Blake Kownacki
Top
The allocation and distribution of resources begins in the wallet of the consumer. It is his or her dollar that buys the trend and the trends in turn buy our politicians. What seems to be missing in this equation is awareness and knowledge.
It is the lack of knowledge, by our policy makers, concerning the environment that continues this efficiency vs. equality debate. The fusion of the two standards, if possible, can only come if we as consumers and policy makers are well educated. It appears that we as consumers need to step back and evaluate where are public values are, if we vote based on these values, and are these values truly generating our government.
The section on the rights of future generations only perpetuates my belief that quality education can lead us down a positive road. We must take responsibility to create future generations that are filled with the power of knowledge, not generations that are content in swimming in radioactive ponds. However, it seems nearly impossible to balance consumer interest with those of future generations. Current consumer interest carries an insatiable appetite whose rumbling belly silences the cries of future generations.
It infuriates me that a portion of current policy creators and decision makers believe that the tastes of future generations will depend on what we advertise to them, and what is available. However, if it holds true that what the future will want will be exactly what we leave them, then I hope we adorn them with the gift of progressive knowledge and the yearning to see a brighter day for the generations that succeed them.
Brian Mc Elfresh
Top
--------I don’t understand economics like I think
I should after reading all the texts this week. Seems maybe I should
have had an introductory course explaining it, or at least I should have
checked out the "optional" reading assignment during Week 1. At any
rate, I read the material and can say I really don’t know what it’s all
about. Given that, I’ll do my best to explain what I got from it.----------
Sagoff suggests that it’s the training to buy which
suggests our societies level of intelligence. Scary as it is I agree
with this…to a certain point. Too many people are left uninformed
of situations occurring right under their nose which makes perfect sense
from a free-market system such as we have. When I read the paragraph
on page 61 of the reading I realized just how true most of society is groomed
into thinking. Not particularly thinking for themselves, rather thinking
on the benefit of the consumer culture. Given the discussion of wilderness,
ethics, and the economy it makes perfect sense there are no logical solutions
to the existing problems we face as environmentalists, activists, and concerned
citizens of the world.
How is it we can sway the powers-that-be into listening
to our voice? We, the little people of the world constitute a huge
voice to be heard if we all continue to live the way we believe in.
I try to relate this to economics and more specifically to the reading
assignment but come up short of words to describe this relationship of
feeling versus graphs, diagrams, and statistics. Sagoff mentions
the things in life we love, we don’t necessarily pay for. True,
to a certain extent and it seems now more than ever, that the things we
do love require more and more consumption/allocation/distribution to achieve.
I don’t like this but I suspect that economists do! How is that we
help curb this relationship? Does it rest on us, as individuals to
stop this through our daily choices of monetary and ethical decisions?
Or does the situation require the help of public masses, politicians, and
government intervention?
Brooke Smith Top
"Allocation and Distribution"
Reaction Paper #1
After reading "Allocation and Distribution" I had a feeling
of connection toward the author maybe not a connection but more of an appreciation
for him. I really liked the way he made it understood that he was
human just like the rest of us and not some pretentious jerk off trying
to get his point across by writing a text. His writing made me become
personable with the reading. His examples triggered me to think of
all the selfish acts I do but yet want those things to be different.
I then remembered of a sequence in the movie Singles where the environmentalist
character exposes that she drives a car, which was a gas guzzling, oil-leaking
piece of junk. She then makes a statement that a "super train" system
wouldn’t work in Seattle because people LOVE their cars. It
is true that people love their cars. I think a lot of that is luxury
and much of the other places and things people do the same.
The opening paragraph
was terrific and smart. It made me chuckle. Using the example
of younger students to make the reader react to the "younger mentality"
and then coming back and showing that even adults think of themselves and
their interests too was wonderful. Then proceeding to prove that
people’s selfish interests change with an issue of environmental disruption
as in the Disney case discussed. A window of hope was established
and I was happy to know that when most people are challenged with moral
issues they react the best way. Sure, people "need" their ski resorts
and getaways but those already exist.
I was also relieved that the students made the
point that there are plenty of places "to party" and really not a reason
the area in dispute should be destroyed for the sake of recreation.
Personally, I can’t believe Disney thought about building more tourists
places. Well then how can I believe anybody builds anything?
"Money talks! That is just the same for us as consumers.
I guess a perfect world in sense of the environment in a whole existed
at one time and then man had to come and ruin it. You can’t have
your cake and eat it too. At least it seems times are changing
and more people are becoming concerned with the environment and realize
all this destruction and over consumption has to stop. A moral emotion
has been introduced and people are siding with those emotions.
An attempt to weigh value needs to be established and I think that is what
he is trying to say.
I felt good after reading this and also took the time
to associate with what I was reading. I took thought into what was
being writing and considered the quotes presented. In a nutshell,
I learned a few things and had a chance to reflect.
Bubba Rush Top
Sagoff Reading
Two things struck me about this reading. The first
one to catch my eye was an economist’s conclusion that any choice we make
will be good for future generations, they should be happy to simply be
alive. If one were to follow that line of logic, those who are oppressed
or hurt by the actions of others should be glad they have been given life.
Surely, a person ignorant of what wilderness looks like may be happy with
himself, but is that any reason to deprive him of that opportunity? It’s
the old idea of a bird in a cage. She may be perfectly happy living out
all her days looking through the bars, but she isn’t really getting the
most out of her life.
Sagoff’s other point that caught my eye was his
conclusion that environmentalists shouldn’t be afraid of arguing for the
environment for its own sake. I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, those
who make decisions regarding our natural resources (i.e. those with the
money and political clout) don’t tend to respond very well to arguments
of "we should save it because it’s so majestic." As little as I enjoy stooping
to the level of quantifying forests, living beings, and other things that
simply should not converted into numbers, it is the language of those who
may have the final say. I believe that natural resources should be conserved
for their own sake, but if I have to learn to speak "economese" to protect
them, I won’t hesitate to.
David Bell Top
No Paper Submitted
David Jacobson Top
No Paper Submitted
Dawn Curran Top
Like most Americans I guiltily pull up into the Wal-mart
parking lot with bumpers stickers on my car saying æsupport small
business, Æ and ædonÆt support slave labor.Æ
I am a typical American hypocrite. Sagoff states this nicely when
he writes; ôThe political causes I support seem to have little or
no basis in my interests as a consumer because I make different points
of view when I vote and when I shop.ö (53) I have grown up in a family
who has good intentions to care for the environment, but we all too often
find ourselves buying coffee at Starbucks instead of at local Java shops,
or not composting our left over food. I want to adopt an environmentally
conscious style of life, but our nation does not support the philosophy
around this lifestyle.
As a future mother, I feel compelled to create
an environment safe for my children to grow-up in. It is a struggle
to find my own happiness while trying to think of the impact I am making
on future generations. I am troubled by the question, ôTo what
extent should the possibility of one lifestyle be restricted to protect
the possibility of another?ö (64) America is in a regressive state
where we are continually developing more McDonalds and more Right Aids.
I worry about what the future will look like for my kids. ôIf
we leave an environment that is fit for pigs, they will be like pigs; their
tastes will adapt to their conditions as ours might when we move from the
country into townà. Now suppose we leave an environment dominated
by dumps, strip mines, and highways. Again, we will ensure that future
individuals will be illiterate, although in another way.ö (63) American
values stand with the idea that consuming more is better and power is won
by money. I want to maintain good environmental ethics, but I am
troubled on how to do so with the knowledge of the conflicting American
values. It is a conflict in myself, like pogo describes, ôWe
have met the enemy and he is us.ö (65) Hopefully looking at environmental
ethics through economics I will gain the knowledge of how I can realistically
control our natural resources and keep our world in a healthier state.
Debra Joie Top
No Paper Submitted
Elise Sanders Top
I’m just going to start off by saying that Sagoff
was right on when he discussed "The Rights of Future Generations."
He said "Surely, we should strive to make the human race better, not even
worse than it already is. Surely, it is morally bad for us to deteriorate
into a pack of yahoos who have lost both knowledge of and taste for the
things that give us value and meaning to life." (Sagoff, 63)
A healthy environment can not be calculated with quantitative figures because
it holds a completely different value; that which is intrinsic, like watching
and listening to the branches of a thick forests sway in the blustering
wind. Therefore, we can not presume that environmental policies can
be determined based on distribution. As Sagoff so eloquently put
it this is not a dilemma of allocation and distribution but rather one
of ethics.
However, there is a point that Derek Parfit made
that I still do not understand fully. He said that we can not adopt
an incorrect policy because whatever policy we chose will be good for the
future population. He justifies this with his example of High and
Low Consumption. If we are to chose High Consumption then we can
not go wrong because there will be a population that will exist that would
never have existed if we had adopted Low Consumption. Therefore,
since we gave them the opportunity to live they will be happy. This
is where I get confused. If we had chosen Low Consumption then another
population of people would live. Wouldn’t their lives be happier
then those of the population from High Consumption? Wouldn’t the
population from Low Consumption hold more value to the legacy we left because
there would be more for them to have? I mean since we didn’t consume
everything ourselves that population have more for them. Would they not
be happier than the people that we left nothing to? Or is this counter
balanced because future generations wouldn’t know what they were missing
out on, since all they knew was what we left them? However, isn’t
this also counterbalanced by what Sagoff was trying to get to in the chapter
on "The Rights of Future Generations" about our moral obligation to "make
decisions that affect the preferences or values future generations will
have, not just the degree to which they can act on their own values or
satisfy their preferences?" (Sagoff, 64) Thus, can’t we adopt
a policy that will negatively impact future generations? Therefore
we have a moral obligation to chose Low Consumption because that will allow
for the future generation to have a happier life where they can see the
value which makes life worth living. Or did I just interpret the
whole point wrong?
Elliott Ridgway
Top
The Allocation and Distribution of Resources
Throughout the article, instead of explaining the principles underlying
the distribution of resources, Sagoff merely exposes his own prejudices
and comforts, and assumes his perspective on life to be mainstream America,
which sadly, is quite accurate. On page 52 and 53, the author lays
down the hypocrisy of Americans wanting to protect our natural heritage
without compromising the creature comforts of modern living, the classic
"consumer vs. citizen" paradox. However, not all humans are Americans,
and not all Americans desire to exist in an unsustainable and wasteful
"consumer culture".
Another issue is the "distribution of consumption opportunities",
where the author mentions cases of environmental racism and classism, whereby
landfills or polluting factories have been constructed in poor urban neighborhoods
or rural areas. He claims that "one could speculate... that environmental
protection is often to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
When land is removed from development, housing becomes more expensive...".
I find this argument to be unsubstantiated, since the value of land is
speculative at best, depending on the boom and bust nature of industry-dependent
towns. Much of the vast expanse of public land 150 years ago was
"gifted" to railroad magnates by the federal government (after removing
the native population) in a checkerboard pattern in corridors along the
tracks. A minor percentage of high elevation land, mostly rock and
ice, has been set aside through the National Park system, monuments, and
wilderness areas, land originally thought to be commercially unprofitable.
With industrial subsidies taken into account (leasing of public lands for
mining, logging, cattle grazing, etc. at rock-bottom prices to private
enterprise), one would not make the assumption that wilderness protection
in remote areas is the main factor driving up the property values in urban
or settled areas.
Later on in the chapter, on pg. 61, Sagoff confuses "education" with
"advertising", and goes on to assume that "what corporations sell us is
a good indicator of what consumers will be trained to buy." Education
is supposedly to teach the student the ability of critical thinking, reason,
and logic. Advertising is designed to sell a product to a consumer
in two ways, making the product known to the audience, and manipulating
the fears and insecurities of the consumers into thinking that they need
the product for survival or happiness. Any projection of what people
100 years into the future want or know is fundamentally flawed. How
can we presume to know what is best for them based on what we think is
best for us now? Are the values we hold today the same as 100 years ago?
Sagoff goes on to say, "If future generations... have no exposure
to anything that we would consider... unspoiled, they will not acquire
a taste for such things. What they will want will be determined more
or less by what we leave them". This is rather a defeatist approach
to the problem, assuming future generations are blind consumers at the
mercy of advertising agencies and our present rate of consumption and environmental
degradation. Since they have no healthy reference points to consider,
that it won't matter what state of the world we leave to our descendents.
This seems more like a justification for the wholesale commodification
of the land than an in-depth inquiry into the relationship between present-day
levels of consumption and where the balance lies for sustainability for
future generations.
On page 67, Sagoff remarks that environmentalists using the principles
of economics as an argument for conservation is invalid, or at the least,
out of line. He discredits sound scientific research as "stories
of possible economic benefits", and instead would rather limit the influence
of "environmentalists" on public policy to that of moral or ethical dialogue.
So if an industrial project is ecologically destructive yet economically
profitable, the ethical concern for the ecosystem effected can be filed
away as an externality. However, after a cost-benefit analysis has
been done, if an environmentalist points out that the project is both ecologically
AND economically unsound, the economic argument is discounted for having
"to go to the ludicrous extreme of counting the interests of the trees".
If arguing for conservation on purely ethical grounds actually worked,
and were considered with equal weight to economic factors when policy is
drafted, then environmentalists would have no need to use the language
of commerce to protect habitat.
Geoff MacIntyre
Top
There is a reason that a vampire can’t see its’ reflection
in a mirror. If it could see the life-draining daemon it had become,
what remained of its’ twisted soul would surely perish in horror.
This would be very inconvenient for vampires as a race if they did exist.
What face would we Americans as a culture reflect in the mirror if we looked? Perhaps the happy faces we expect, or perhaps nothing, like the vampire.
We Americans are generally a happy, well-fed people, and are content with who we are; yet we are hated and terrorized by enemies. Why should our enemies hate us? The people who attacked our centers of commerce and military power may have been interested in Palestinian solidarity or our military actions in the Arab world. These are reasons that might have provoked an attack against us as a nation. However, there are more compelling reasons to hate us, and lo, to fear our very existence: We consume and pollute with reckless abandon.
If you study any population without a source of negative feedback like predation, you can watch it grow. Take a culture of yeast as an example. Place sugar and water in a jar with the yeast and seal it tight. The yeast population will ideally grow exponentially. Yeast’s metabolic processes create alcohol, a by-product of their metabolism. This accumulates within the solution as the yeast consume more of the sugar around them. Their population will explode with no bounds until one of two things happened. A) They exhaust their food supply, or B) They are poisoned by their own metabolic waste. They either starve or die within a solution of 4-8% alcohol. Good for us if we hope to distill rum; bad for the yeast.
Like yeast in a jar, America’s consumption of global resources has increased with the temporal and spatial influence of our culture. Right now, we consume most of the world’s natural resources. We create more pollution than any other nation on earth. Worse still, we intend to accelerate this process. We Americans don’t seem to have noticed yet. We certainly don’t, as a nation, lose sleep about it. Luckily, our enemies haven’t noticed either. The degree of our material success has blinded us to the horror of our actions. We wouldn’t know abject poverty in America if it slept in our dumpster, or dire starvation if it sat across from us in a booth at Denny’s. We don’t realize that the glut of our consumption and pollution will eventually destroy us. We will choke on the dust of our own material success one day. Humanity will die with us when the air is too dirty to breathe and our oceans no longer bear food.
We Americans even refuse to see the realities of our consumption when they loom in our own backyard. The world’s most productive fishery, the Atlantic Cod, has been fished to near extinction within our control and within many of our lifetimes. We choke our own water supplies, among the purest and most abundant of any nation on earth, with silt and heavy metals. We are the greatest contributors to Global Warming, even though Giant Sequoias, the largest living things on earth, may perish here in America from disease or climate change brought on by this crisis. We love nature, but would rather invest in sprawl. We want clean air, but burn cheap coal for electricity. Our way of life not only contradicts itself, it defies the means to our own existence threatens our survival as a species. We would crucify the means of our own salvation for a big gain on Wall Street. In the 90’s it was the economy, stupid. Quite soon, our concerns may focus on the wars that erupt when starving people fight over the scraps from our global smorgasbord.
According to legend, vampires feed upon human blood, and make more vampires with each new victim. Also, vampires are difficult to kill, but can undo themselves if they drink too deeply of the blood of a victim*. No beings, fictional or otherwise, might be more horrifying to us as humans than vampires. Vampires don’t exist. If they did, nation would join nation to eradicate their evil race.
What then, would we humans do with creatures that consumed clean air, rather than human blood? What would we do with creatures that consumed millions of acres of our earth’s forests every year? Or that lived by consuming and destroying the water we drink? We Americans would certainly fight against such a threat, except that it would be us that we would murder in the end.
A vampire may not be able to see it’s reflection in the mirror, but it cannot hide its’ face from sight. Sooner or later in every book or tale, someone recognizes it for what it really is. When this happens, the creature’s end is only a matter of time. It gets a wooden stake and a mouthful of garlic in the end, if it doesn’t perish first by it’s own glut.
*(See Anne Rice, Interview with a Vampire)
Glenn Burkhart Top
The author makes some very key points about dualism and the affects
that it has on us as consumers. It is very important to recognize when
you are being torn by the right decision or the easy/efficient
one. More often than not I myself will choose the easiest or most efficient
alternative even when I know I'm may be making deep scratch in my moral
or ethical character. I agree that any claim that is not based on a right
must
simply reveal a want. It is the wants that get us into trouble.
It is in human nature to sin, that is to miss the mark or fall short. We
cannot help not to unless we repent or turn away from the sin and strive
for a different path. But the question is how. In the case of making a
decision about the environment we first must be informed about what is
right and what is wrong. How can you turn away from something that you
don't even know is wrong. Now I understand that the authors point is a
bit more complex than this and I can see now why some environmental decisions
are so difficult to make. The crux of it all is this mess that we have
developed called a free market. Which as I understand it is not necessarily
free at all. If you stop to consider all of the regulations and restrictions
on business and growth then what have we got? Have we just altered the
definition of free for the sake of efficiency? Have we comprised our belief
in freedom in the name of conservation? I certainly hope not.
What will future generations want or expect to see when their time comes?
I believe that the author makes a very bold mistake when he predicts, "If
we leave and environment fit for pigs, then they will be like pigs." I
think that he is selling the human race a little short. I believe that
it is more about what we teach our future generations than it is about
what we leave them. This is not to say that we should forget about the
environment altogether, but work also as diligently in educating future
generations about this world and what it takes to live in harmony with
it. If we are successful in educating future generations, as well as present
ones, then we could predict that they would prefer to backpack into Sequoia
National Park, rather than drive a gas guzzling SUV.
Hannah Snyder Top
Citizen vs. Consumer Preferences
Sagoff has written a descriptive chapter entitled ‘The
allocation and distribution of resources.’ Part of this chapter stresses
that there is a huge difference between citizen and consumer preferences.
This means that what an individual wants or prefers as a person who makes
choices everyday about what to do and what to buy can be very different
from what they want or think should be done as a citizen of an entire community.
The chapter uses the example of a proposed ski resort in the middle of
Sequoia National Park. Many people would want to have this resort
for their own personal interests as a consumer but as a citizen of the
United States realize that building this resort would destroy some of our
precious wilderness that we should save for ourselves and for future generations.
This is a good example of a conflict between citizen and consumer preferences.
The author of this article wrote a few paragraphs
listing ways he has conflicting preferences everyday. One example
is that he votes for candidates who say they will tax gasoline to pay for
public transportation but he will probably never ride the bus himself because
he hates the bus. In my own life, I can think of several ways I seem
to be hypocritical as a consumer. I disagree with slave labor but
enjoy saving money, which usually means buying a cheaper product even if
it is made by an assembly line of people earning next to nothing.
I have heard negative things about the Starbucks corporation but I like
their coffee and still buy it once in a while. I support industries
that I do not agree with such as the red meat industry and I buy products
that have been tested on animals though I strongly believe in animal rights.
The unfortunate truth is it costs more money to be a socially conscious
consumer and at the moment I am a poor college student. I am part
of a group of people who make up the market for red meat, mascara and cheap
tennis shoes but I am also part of a group of people who support animal
and human rights along with protection of the environment.
Before I read this chapter, I was only vaguely
aware of these two different preferences each person has. I realize
now that each one of us has different roles that we play our lives as well
as in the economy. We are not static individuals and we change our
minds about what we want depending on each situation. When we vote,
we think as citizens, and when we shop we think as consumers. These
are two different roles and it is unpractical and illogical to attempt
to combine them to create one.
Ian Kirouac
Top
The fact that we can cut down
the forest, polute the oceans, foul the air, and have future generations
no worse off from the point of distributive justice and efficiency is a
terifing concept. This indicates to me that efficiency can not be
the sole scale for dictating our environmental policy. The world needs
to become more open and realize that by what is gained in narrowing down
the bigger picture, placing everyone and everything into a box- a school
of thought for analisis, they loose in holding true to the dynamic world
we truely live in. Just because people would spend their money on a burger
or large fancey house does not mean they would make a decision to cut down
forests for grasing lands or building materials.
Sagoff makes clear the distinction
between cosumer spending and citizen responsibity. How someone spends their
money has little to no bearing on what their preferences are outside the
consumer venue. Sagoff also says to will the end you must also will the
means. The fact that decisions are made for all catagories based upon consumer
spending should come as no supprise in a capitalist nation.
I put the responsibility not
on the businesses and analists but squarley back onto the consumers as
citizens. A corporation by definition is in business to make money. They
will continue to maximise profits at the expense of all else until they
can broaden that definition. I suggest insted that American and worldwide
consumers stop dead earing and turning a blind eye as to the effect of
their spending. Everyong must understand that it is not enought to
say, «Oh well, under diferent circomstances when I’m not a consumer
I believe something entirely different. » We tell business what
we want when we spend money ; If you want to create change in a world rulled
by the almighty dollar then you must give up some convienience to cast
a vote against a product, company, or service by not spending your money
on them.
You only have direct controll
over you. Finger pointing at businesses chopping down the rain forest as
we spend billions of dollars to give them the resources they need to continue
the same process is insane. Hopefully bussiness and the corporate world
will reprioritize and not make money the only goal. Until then it starts
with you and the next time you pull out your wallet. We must think of dollars
as votes and be vigilant in how and where we cast them.
Jacob Wilson Top
In chapter 3 of The Economy of the Earth, Sagoff illuminates
a few very interesting approaches
to answering questions of how our natural and our cultural
resources should be used. I have been appreciatively
opened up to a couple new ideas
and fairly convinced of their validity in my own process of decision making
for these and related subjects. I think one of the author’s core
points in this chapter is that to preserve the environment is a moral decision.
He argues that this decision should be based on the dignity of the environment
as an aesthetic cultural resource to society, not based on its
value as an economic resource for future generations.
Sagoff argues that the right place to put our resources
today is not determined by who should benefit the most from them tomorrow.
"Ethics in allocation, in other words, is not a consequence of ethics in
distribution"(65). He believes the right and most effective approach
is not to think about what’s good for future generations, but instead to
think about creating a world that will make them good. In other words,
"It is not a responsibility to the future as much as it is a responsibility
for the future"(63). Our policy today, determines what the world
will be like tomorrow, and effectively, who the future generations will
be.
The reason for this is described well by Sagoff, "A pack
of yahoos will like a junkyard environment"(63). We will not have
the burden of living with the fact that our actions made future generations
unhappy, because they will be happy in a junkyard environment if they know
no alternative. They will adapt, and learn to be happy in their world
like Sagoff described how he moved from the country to the city.
What we will have the burden of is the fact that we created an environment
that lacks the things that we see as giving value and meaning to life.
Sagoff expressed it, "We want them to have what is worthy of happiness"(64).
It is not appealing to restrict future generations by
letting their environmental and cultural heritage get pushed under the
bulldozer of consumer preference. Perhaps more important than a free
market striving for efficiency is a world in which we have the environmental
and cultural resources to live as fully as we can. I would like my
children to live in a world that counts their votes in what they think
and believe and value, not what they buy. Maybe a way to prompt this
world into existence would be to make policy today, based on value rooted
in the cultural appreciation of our natural areas.
Keegan Murphy Top
The social rate of discount states how should we take
the interests of future generations into account? I believe that
this is an important issue but how are we supposed to predict the future?
There is no way to exactly pinpoint what the specific interests of future
generations are going to be. This reading discusses possibly building
strip mines and hazardous waste dumps to strengthen the industrial base
left for future generations. It also discusses the possibility of
not doing these things for the benefit of future generations. Ethics
and morality must be the determining factors in deciding what is the best
possible world to leave our future generations. No matter what we
leave for future generations weather it be a Disney ski resort or a less
developed natural environment our future generations will use it, they
will benefit from either. We shouldn’t leave them a world that is
better of economically from an individual standpoint but rather a world
that is better off ethically from society’s standpoint. If we really
care for our future generations we will leave them the type of world that
we would want passed on to ourselves.
Sagoff says that what future generations will want
is more or less what we leave them. He puts differently by saying,
if future generations have no exposure to the environment that we are trying
to protect then they won’t develop a taste for it. People like what
they know, and don’t like things they haven’t experienced. I believe
that this is true to an extent. But future generations will have
very good concepts of good and bad in terms of how to treat the environment
(as we do today) weather we leave them an environment that is better off
or worse off. Yes, they will to an extent become desensitized if
we leave them strip mines and hazardous waste sties. But they will
understand that these things aren’t beneficial to our ecosystem.
As a society today we have a much greater understanding about our environment
than we did 50 years ago. Just as future generations will have a better
understanding of the global ecosystem than we do today. Our society
is trying to save our environment because we are beginning to understand
how important it really is. In the future this understanding of our
environment will only be heightened, as a society we will be advancing
not declining. Another point that I would like to make is that future
generations are not going to be a group of "yahoos" who like dumps
and junkyards. They, just like our generation will have concerns
for their own future generations and at some point be in our position,
trying to determine what type of world they want to leave to their children
and their children’s children. What we leave our future generations
must be morally and ethically justified. As Sagoff puts it " Our
obligation to provide future individuals with an environment consistent
with ideals we know to be good is an obligation not necessarily to those
individuals but to those ideals them selves. It is an obligation
to civilization to continue civilization: to pass on to future generations
a heritage, national and cultural, that can be valued and enjoyed without
absurdity.
Kelly Cannon Top
How, where, why and when we spend our money seems like it should be representative of our beliefs as a moral person within the community in which we live. However, the chapter titled "the allocation and distribution of resources makes it clear that there is large gray line between what we believe to be best for the world we live in and what we like to do.
-Bumper stickers on a car supporting environmental ideologies that leaks oil
-Driving a car with an environmental bumper sticker
-Bribing a judge to reduce a speeding ticket then voting the judge out of office
-Supporting organic food but shopping at Safeway to save money
-Eating healthy at a good restaurant but taking food to go in a non-recyclable container
Voting to preserve the Artic Wildlife refuge but
refusing to stop driving
These are just a few of the things the author notes or that I know from my own personal life and lifestyle. I believe that the communities we live in enhances and supports or beliefs and decisions about the world around us. When there is a dispute between beliefs of community members, a common ground of an answer for "us" arises. There is always the give and take in beliefs and what is truly moral. However in a community, there is a check and balance system that keeps a steady, if hazy view of what is acceptable.
Many people have a "paternal view" of what should be done with the natural world in the light of our future generations. The author quotes Derek Parfit in the statement "that any policy we adopt today will make people born in the future better off than they would have been had we made some other decision" The author goes on to support this by saying "If we leave and environment fit for pigs, they [future generations] will be like pigs…" This argument is frightening and enraging! When I read this, I needed to see how the author could support such a statement. Fortunately, he goes on to discuss the moral obligation and responsibility we have to future generations to protect and preserve what will perpetuate culture, literacy, arts and freedom.
This again brings me back to how we spend our money. I think it is a safe assumption that given a choice any human would choose clean air and water and food free of harmful chemicals. Conversely, given a choice between not driving and the freedom a car provides, most people would choose the freedom of a private vehicle. Given the choice of a beautiful, juicy, luscious, flavorful orange for only $.33 versus a dull- slightly green, that tastes as good inside but cost $1.33, many people would often choose the cheaper fruit. Communities play a roll here too-
There is a great ideology about spending money in favor of the environment, but when it comes to personal freedom and liberties, the ethical, and moral conflict arises. What kind of life should we live?
Lastly, the notion of dignity comes up. As the Author
puts it "the thing that have a dignity…are the things that help us define
our relationship with one anohter. *EX how we don’t want to pay for things
w/ dignity like love or the natural world. "These things have dignity rather
than a price" (69)
Kelly Stoddard Top
No Paper Submitted
Kevin Long Top
No Paper Submitted
Kevin Reis Top
Sagoff’s chapter on, Allocation and Distribution, left me thinking about how the rich would stand to get richer with the protection of land. There is a link between corporations having less raw material for products available, but how much richer could they get if the land were developed?
There seems to be a thin line between, which is more economic. Leaving our natural resources alone keeps the earth more balanced. Or, there is the option of stripping the earth to keep the economy going so our lives don’t change too drastically. Who ends up being affected by the choices made yesterday, today or tomorrow? I suppose everyone is affected for the better or for the worse, but when is it a moral decision? Will it be presently or in the future?
Aren’t there choices that would make things worse off for all generations in the world? Such as cutting all the rainforests, and there by causing catastrophic droughts.
Is that alright? In order to satisfy the economic state of a country who’s economy will eventually fall again and again? What should be questioned? Perhaps, it is the economic system of the country and essentially the world.
Why aren’t there more moral boundaries on economics? Is economy not supposed to be for the better of mankind? So why isn’t it responsible for the progression of man? If our job is to make a better human race, then why do "we" continue to back politics that conflict the best solutions? Why is it the poor countries are getting no beneficial treatment? What could be done to shift the gap between the rich and poor?
I suppose Derek Parfit has a good thought of the next generations being better off no matter what, simply because of their birth into the world. How much of that world is going to be left, and who pays for it from the beginning? How could it be better off if there is no world left?
Already we see the effects of what we were doing 30 years ago. Do "we"
not see what may and has become of our present life? Has money bought happiness
by shielding people’s eyes?
Kevin Smith Top
No Paper Submitted
Lara Boyd
Top
The Allocation and Distribution of Resources
Review by Lara Boyd
By beginning the reading with a real life application
relevant to me, I was interested. Overall, this reading in my opinion
was a fairly difficult one, where some theories were expressed in terms
that put my brain to work. I believe that’s a good thing, but combined
with the fact that some of the pages copied were without the last few letters
(which in some situations turned out to be more difficult than I expected)
made for a half understood explanation on my behalf. I am very much
looking forward to discussing these confusions in seminar and coming to
a resolve. One of these places is on page 57, bottom paragraph, where
he’s explaining economic theorists and their viewpoint on the natural resources.
In the middle of the paragraph a given allocation is brought up and analysts
ideas of wealth, somehow all this information jumbles in my head and I
seem to be missing the point. I’m disappointed because the point
is reiterated in later reading and I still can only grasp the concept halfway.
On the other hand, one theory I was really interested
in started on page 60 at the bottom, The Rights of Future Generations.
I think this point is very important to understand if we as individuals
want to modify our consumption habits for our future. I think it’s
very interesting to think about the future and how we ourselves are affecting
it every day and I often wonder what will still remain. Of course
the surroundings we find ourselves in has extreme influence on how our
lives will be lived and most times many things that may not necessarily
be desired on our part naturally, are discovered when it’s presented to
us. I may not be thinking about how I need a car if my surroundings
have never held a car, only bicycles. Then I’d surely have a bicycle
instead.
The thought of the educated consumer in this scenario
is tricky because the consumer is only educated in what the corporation
wants to project. The quote "Since what corporations want to sell
is usually a good indicator of what consumers will be trained to buy, perhaps
we should let the marketing departments of the top five hundred businesses
tell us how to prepare the earth for future generations…" Pg. 61
is quite an important one in considering how we do utilize the goods offered.
If we are only offered certain things for an extended period of time, I
do agree that that will be what we come to desire and even expect.
Next idea, pg. 62 "The idea is that whichever policy
we choose, future generations will have nothing to complain about, because
for that choice, different marriages would have been make and different
children conceived." This was really interesting to me because for
the most part, I agree. No one decision would be better for the future
because if that decision hadn’t been made, everything would fall out of
line and no future would exist in the first place. The only thing
that bothers me a bit is that this assumes there is a path we are led to
follow down in the first place and that’s just how it is. I
don’t know if I’m reading into this more than I should, but I do understand
what the concept is. Some choices, I believe hold weight more than
others, but a better or worse outcome isn’t better either way? Something
just doesn’t hold to me, but it still makes perfect sense to say that each
decision is meant to be, and for the future to exist, that decision was
made. Interesting and I once again look forward to discussion.
Laura Garber Top
A major point from Sagoff that I found interesting and valid was in his section titled "The Rights of Future Generations." Sagoff talks about preserving places for future generations to enjoy and use. I like his point that if we create garbage dumps and tract housing future generations that are born into these things will not know the difference.
"If individuals in the future have no exposure to anything
that we would consider natural or unspoiled, they will not acquire a taste
for such things. What they will want will be determined more or less by
what we leave to them, however dreary it may be" (Sagoff 61).
This ties in with sustainable development and sustainable forestry. Sustainable development is using resources in a way that future people can continue to use them.
"…the major decisions we make determine the identity of
the people who follow us; this, however, is not the only, or the most morally
significant, consequence. Our decisions concerning the environment will
also determine, to a large extent, what future people are like and what
their preferences and tastes will be" (Sagoff 63).
So what Sagoff is saying we should do or at least think about doing
is preserving our world for future generations to use and enjoy. In this
day and age we should be trying to create a better place to live, not just
better but to keep it how it is, to not destroy the beauty and goodness
that we so love and enjoy. I think Sagoff asks two very good questions
about trying to keep future generations happy and to be happy about the
place in which they live. Sagoff asks, "How may we do this except by identifying
what is best in our world and trying to preserve it?" (65). In my opinion
we should preserve things that will make us happy in the end, but you can
only speak for yourself. This is the problem that we run into. Just because
I think forests are wonderful and need to be preserved does not mean that
everyone shares my view and part of this is due to the fact that many people
are not educated to this fact and do not know how valuable forests are.
Without educating our children about these important issues, there will
be nothing important to save in the end.
Leif Wywadis Top
The thoughts and views of the author and his students whether what side your on
seem so true. Although at times I was confused by some of the jargon used the overall
idea of moral issues versus political issues are a present day dilemma. Personally, I have
voted against some initiatives in this state that have not passed, only to see the local state
legislature pass it on a Ryder bill. If this is the case does this mean that my vote is worth
a hill of beans. Also then does it matter what my personal or moral
beliefs are.
After living here in Washington over the past two decades the issues being faced
are social as much as they are environmental. Many personal interest groups have been
and are still being formed to support or preserve different subjects. Now with these
organizations some interests may conflict the views of the other. Many organizations are
for the mere going out and enjoying the resources we have before us. While others
believe we must preserve everything. Local communities have one way of looking at
things and communities of the larger cities have another . This is not an issue of what is
better for the overall outcome of the environment or the preservation
of it for the future.
In many of our communities the lack of communication or misunderstandings
however talked about on television or in classrooms has been dismal. Throughout the
Northwest the ignorance is spoken about who is to blame for this problem or who is to
blame for that problem. Somewhere along the line of time community communication
was thrown out the door . If we cannot solve the disagreements with our own personal
interests why shouldn’t we be told what to do.
Finally given the chance to have a choice in who we vote for or what we do is are
right and should not be neglected. I am not a politician and don’t believe the natural
environment should be based around the government system. But I do believe that some
things are out of my control and I can’t begin to fathom the reality of government policy.
So with that in mind I feel that I should definitely stand up for my beliefs but also know
my limitations..
Linda Gibson
Top
While reading the Sagoff paper on allocation and distribution
of resources, I couldn’t help wondering why he spent so many words on the
bottom-line question, found on page 69, "Should we base environmental policy
on the interests individuals may act upon as consumers or on the values
that they may agree upon as citizens?" The question, however, is quite
interesting and does merit much consideration.
I agree that consumers don’t use environmental forethought
when making purchases. There are times when I’m shopping that I compare
prices of the generic or sale brands with those that are produced in an
ecologically safe manner and because of the high price of latter, I choose
the cheaper brand. And I am supportive of the environment. But many consumers
do not have all of the information or the financial means that would allow
them to make environmentally conscience purchases.
And too, I believe that most do not bother with the concept
that demand can increase future supply. We look at ourselves at individual
shoppers and not as a collective whole. Sagoff’s example with the Mineral
King Park illustrates this. Most people would go to the park to ski and
have a great time after it was built. The developers know that while there
would be an initial uproar at the park’s creation, it would die down once
it was built and many of the people originally against it would eventually
go to enjoy it.
I thought that Sagoff made a valid point on page 68,
when he states that we are not always willing to pay for the things that
we value most. There are many "priceless" entities in this world and once
we give them a commercial value we risk losing them. That being said, I
still don’t know how to choose what is priceless and what is okay to commercialize.
The Wilderness area example, to me, would not be difficult, since it could
never be replaced it would be priceless. But there would definitely be
other scenarios that were more vague and would be arguable for either side.
This would be an issue to consider if environmental policy
was on the side of the citizen’s values. For the reasons outlined above,
I would side with this option rather than the tunnel-vision position of
the consumer. And I think most other consumers would agree.
Lisa Fredrickson Top
No Paper Submitted
Mary Warner Top
I would just like to start out by saying that I found
the reading a bit difficult at first but once I got used to the language
it actually became a quite interesting and readable piece. I enjoyed
how it gave background and simple explanations when necessary (ex. what
allocation and distribution really are). Rather than remarking a little
bit on many things found in this piece, I am going to explore a few in
further detail.
One very interesting point I found in all of this
is the idea of creating some kind of an all-inclusive "philosophy of right"(pg.58).
I think that this is a fairly ridiculous idea considering not only how
many different types, ages, and backgrounds we all have, but also just
the fact of all of our varying interests and educations. Who would
decide on this? As it says on page 59, it is more common to
see policies that "have fairly specific goals". Not only do I think
that this is easier, but I also think that it works better and faster in
trying to get something accomplished. On page 58 it talks of money
gained in one area, say environmental endeavors, can maybe be used in another
such as "to help the poor pay their heating bills", in order to even out
the distribution. Even though this sounds like a great idea, I’m
not so sure it would or even could be actualized in this society.
Not only would it be difficult to take money from one thing and put it
to another when so much work is still needed in the area it came from,
but it would also be very hard to get the money out of the hands that hold
it in order to give to those who have little.
Another area in this reading I would like to comment
on is the section on "the rights of future generations" that starts on
page 60. I think this chapter does make very valid points on the
fact that who knows what the future will want? I also thought it
quite interesting and appropriate that education was equated with advertising
on page 61 and the fact that this will determine in large part what the
future generations actually do want. With his said, I thought it
was a little disappointing that the author seems to thing that the future
will be happy and satisfied with what ever we dish out and decide to leave
to them because they should be happy to even "exist" (pg.62). Just
because as it says on page 61, that they will have "nothing to compare
it with", doesn’t mean that the average person now days doesn’t thing of
the cleanliness and simplicity of the past and long for its wilderness.
I do agree that the decisions we make now will help to determine the "character
of future individuals, their environment, and their values", but I believe
it is nearly impossible to define the author’s idea of what is "worthy
of happiness"(pg.64).
As poet Tim Russell says in his poem, In a Nutshell,
" If you had wanted apples
The mill would not be here.
This would still be orchard.
How can we decide if it is a mill and new suburban houses
that the future needs, or if it is apples and the nutrition, both physical
and aesthetic that comes with them?
Matt Crawford
Top
The section in Sagnoffs writing that interested me the most was the rights of future generations. Sagoff asks "what are future generations likely to want?" and answers this by saying what he feels will determine future interests: advertisements and availability. I have some disagreements on forming these interests. He makes it sound as if people are more or less interested in what they are told to be interested, so if the world was a never-ending maze of strip malls and televisions people would be all right with this as long as they are told to be all right with this. I just think that there would still be something inside everyone telling them to get back to nature, get back to simplicity and tune into earths pulse. I believe that if one lets popular society tell them what to do and chooses to ignore the voice in there head, and not listen to the elders Sagoff would be correct, but as long as people are willing to live as opposed to sleep there lives away there true selves will awaken.
The other major objection I have with Sagoff is in regards to his supporting argument by Parfit, in which he says "any policy we adopt today will make people born in the future better off than they would have been had we made some other decision." He goes on to explain this is because these people would not have existed, policy choices affect marriages and different people would have been conceived. As one who believes in reincarnation and that the body is just a vessel for ones time on earth every sole will be born again one way or another. So every policy would not make people better off, and people would have reasons to complain when the home they knew before has been altered. The idea that tastes will adapt to conditions is ridiculous. Going back to the voice inside, there is a longing there to live like animals, do away with comforts of modernized life and this will still be inside for all the years to come, people are just so caught up with physical and material growth that they don’t listen. When one does listen you can understand the oneness with nature all life has and see the problems with policies created making nature something more difficult to obtain and forcing it farther away from human population.
One last objection I must make with "the allocation and
distribution of resources" is the lack of thought given to life as a whole.
Sagoff never seems to look at things from a view other than humans.
All the decisions that are made are done so by humans, with no voice for
the ones still living in the "wild". Animals do not care about growth,
and making life more comfortable, they just worry about the simple things,
living. In the allocation process they are all but ignored, he talks
of people loosing the forests and the cost to them but not the suffering
incurred by other life forms.
Meagan Robison Top
No Paper Submitted
Patrick Coleman Top
Sagoff makes two very compelling points that I can relate
to in reflecting on my own life. First, the point he makes that a
person’s "consumer" and a "citizen" preferences can differ greatly.
I find myself facing this conflict quite often. My views on political
platforms and environmental issues I would consider to be fairly liberal,
but as far my lifestyle and hobbies I would probably be perceived by most
as very conservative. For instance, I am a gun owner and I do enjoy
hunting, I don’t recycle, and I don’t care about what’s in or on my food.
You might say that if it inconveniences me I’m not much interested, but
you can bet when election time rolls around I’m voting for the people that
are talking about recycling and gun control. Because, I guess I feel it’s
best for the whole rather than what’s best just for me. A difference
easily observed in my "consumer" and "citizen" preferences.
The second point Sagoff made that interested me
was; what will future generations want? In just my relatively short
lifetime I have seen the birth and "adolescence" of the computer age.
As a result of society becoming more and more dependent on computers I
have also observed a whole generation younger than me that are looking
for instant gratification in everything they do. This generation
and generations to follow are not going to want to have to spend the time
to hike into a wilderness or go to a forest and "feel" what it’s like to
be there. As whole I don’t believe that they will want to save these precious
natural resources. Why should they when they can see it or what it
once was via the Internet or TV from home?
This was a very good reading, although the copy
job wasn’t the best. It forced me to look into my own lifestyle to see
the differences in the ways and the reasons why I do what I do.
Ray Gleason
Top
The Allocation and Distribution of Resources
From a teacher’s prospective:
Case - Sierra Club vs. Morton; challenge by environmentalists
to stop a Walt Disney Enterprises plan to create a ski resort with in the
Sequoia National park in (M.K.V.) Mineral King valley. This project
would create 20 miles of highway and a high voltage power-line.
The class was questioned as to how many would visit
the M.K.V. while it was undeveloped few were interested. Many said
they would visit if it were developed, "this showed their interests". When
questioned wither environmental laws should be based on satisfying consumer
demand, or should the wilderness is preserved for its own sake for future
generations? The large majority on these ethical/cultural grounds despite
their consumer interests opposed the development by Disney.
"I will agree with this in a wilderness environment,
but in a current case in the Winlock area just off I-5 where human development
has already been established I believe that the greater good is in favor
of the theme park."
Another example is the White Pass ski area where
the recreation zone has been expanded south encompassing the next valley
where ski lifts will span and haul snow recreation users into another large
basin.
-Will the environmental impact outweigh the economic
profit and the human recreational experience?
-What will the impacts be?
A part of the area has no trees so the forest removal
should be somewhat limited.
-How can a person create a lifestyle with the fewest divided
preferences?
-Is it possible to use/display only "citizen preference
orderings, or are "consumer preferences unavoidable and a part of subconscious
decision making? This was answered on pages 53-54 that the economic
man and the citizen are in this case two different individuals.
"I definitely have conflicting preference maps" My economic (could) decision vs. citizen (should) decisions or so it seems.
Pg 58 paragraph 2 states; "any social transfer of wealth to the poor could increase the cost of labor" I don’t understand this statement.
Pg 62 Parfit is quoted to say, "If we choose high consumption our choice will be worse for no one." Meaning by the time the changes occur that people would know no difference from the "law of consumption" more ecologically sound approach.
Pogo is quoted "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US" I
like this statement.
Rebecca Leach
Top
‘We Have Met The Enemy And It Is Us’
While this chapter gave several views about environmental
conservation, the author never really seemed to take a stance of his own.
At first I tried to figure out what the author’s opinion was, then realized
that it was meant to be more informative rather than opinionated.
An idea I thought was interesting was that environmental
preservation issues center around the ‘rich.’ When I think of people
I know, from all different backgrounds, I realize that this theory holds
true for almost every example I can come up with. Of the people I
know who are into environmental activism or consciousness, most have pretty
cushy living situations or come from a cushy background. People I
know who fit the stereotype of ‘white trash’ (pardon the term) are not
one bit interested in anything to do with ‘the Environment’ (a word they
would say sarcastically). ‘The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.’
I had never thought about the way attempts at conservation make life nicer
for the ‘rich’ and dirtier for the ‘poor.’
The main idea that I brought away from reading this chapter
was that ‘money talks.’ I find that since reading it, I am haunted
by the thought of all the ‘preaching’ that I don’t ‘practice.’ And
even more haunted by’t ‘practice.’ And even more haunted by the thought
that most people I know think I am extreme in my ‘practices.’ If
I am so extremely non-consumer compared to so many people, and I feel like
I don’t do enough, I can barely bea
r to imagine what others arnterested consumer opposes
herself as a moral agent and concerned citizen.’ Buying the cheapest
goods, looking for the ‘best deal,’ instead of what we believe is ‘right’
totally contradicts our environmental ideology (which according to the
author is generally shared by all Americans). As for the Disney ski
resort example, the author states that, in the eyes of The Market, there
is ‘no question of what the skiers want.’ If they are willing to
spend their money to vacation there, ‘obviously’ they want the resort more
than the forest, right? This example shows the importance of backing
up our beliefs with our actions, and of course, our money.
Richard Dunn
Top
The Allocation of Future
I’m not sure if I fit in. I’m here aren’t
I? It could be a façade. I’m liberal to the core, but
skeptically conservative in the face of peers. Sagoff’s depiction
holds true, the consumer in me contradicts the citizen. Amidst this
confusion comes the pang of guilt, guilt from potential ignorance.
Morality is frequently limited to the scope of the sequestered present.
Selfish? It is extremely difficult and often counter-intuitive to
place the well being of external people, places, or time ahead of my fat
head. Although I am consistently awe-struck by such righteous acts
(like my mother sacrificing herself for her offspring), me, I left this
mentality at the altar of my first communion.
Subconsciously I have always grouped myself as
contributor to the problem; Sagoff’s article has kindled the notion that
this presumed ignorance might yield a productive vantagepoint in confronting
the disparities plaguing our natural resources. Since humanity can’t
agree on what is efficient to the present, if we let future considerations
dictate our current actions we risk stepping out of our jurisdiction and
digging deeper holes. I was struck by the article’s emphasis on the
plasticity of nature. We have studied the interdependent and regulatory
feedback capacities of the ecosystem; a broadened scope entails that is
evolution. Although an exemplar dependant variable, the future can
be efficiently engaged as a constant.
It is widely claimed that nothing is more constant in
nature than its fluctuation, likewise, human perception is constantly reshaping
itself. Whether it is the latest book or class, knowledge of a recent
tragedy, or the manipulation of one’s environment; the principles governing
aesthetics, appeal, and appreciation are continuously evolving. Sagoff
postulates that humanities’ preferences adjust according to conditioning,
future citizens will be acclimated to what we leave them, and the majority
will praise it. This standpoint may or may not be virtuous, but it
does place impetus in the now. We should strive towards our own optimal
environment. We should go full throttle enacting analytic and conscious
decisions to "Be here, now." What is most efficient for the present,
our generation and the status quo of the world in which we dwell, is our
most prudent guess at approaching the future. Sacrificing oneself
for greater considerations may be the ultimate righteous action, but eliminating
the self from the radar displays the same detrimental attitude that condones
the pillaging of our natural resources. The policies and ideologies
we embrace today render the potential of our successors. The most
efficient way to approach the future is to act consciously in the present,
acting towards future ends alone is not viable.
Sarah Lowry Top
No Paper Submitted
Si Bussmann Top
The most important point Sagoff makes in The Allocation
and Distribution of Resources " . . . the tastes of future individuals
will depend not only on what is advertised but on what is available.(Sagoff
61)" My experience with adapting to the environments in which I have
lived, New Mexico(nearest neighbor over two miles away) to Chicago(The
School of the Art Institute of Chicago dormitory on Michigan Avenue), have
taught me that availability does define the tastes of individuals.
And their happiness depends in large part on their ability to pursue those
"tastes". But he contradicts, "What they will want will be determined
more or less by what we leave to them, however dreary it may be.(Sagoff
61)" Future generations, not having anything to compare to what is
left to them, will not think of is as dreary. In fact, the happiness
they will get from their experiences will be equal or possibly greater
than our own, assuming such an experience will become less accessible and
technological aids will decrease the physical stresses of outdoor experiences.
"Future generations might not complain: a pack of yahoo’s
will like a junkyard environment. This is the problem. That
kind of future is efficient. It may well be equitable. But it is
tragic all the same.(Sagoff 63)" The writer sways dramatically toward
resorting to ethical issues to find a reason to care for wilderness environments.
Whereas much of the writing leading up to this point was directed at explaining
that every individual has a broad "preference map" and optimizing efficiency
(maximizing satisfaction) depends on satisfying the highest possible levels
of preference order assuming the preference order is a fixed set.
There is a major problem between the quote about future generations in
contrast to this point. If the pack of yahoo’s we are becoming(we
will never get there without a gradual change) has only available what
we create for ourselves and in that is a future of efficiency and equitability,
as Sagoff points out, then it has optimized efficiency(maximized
satisfaction) assuming the preference order is a fixed set. This
argument is useless in the face of his most important point- taste depends
on what is advertised and available! Based on the fact that our tastes
will change as a result of what is available and what is available is continually
changing, no altruistic ethical argument can be made that is based on certain
assumptions if they are ever changing.
"Yet a market in love- or anything we consider
"sacred"- is totally inappropriate. These things have a dignity rather
than a price." Make no mistake, dignity is something we pay for.
Dignity is earned and no person is impermeable to the influences of wealth.
American flags are bought and sold, you must pay for the garment you wear
to church, the respect we display for national holidays is found in the
aisles of every Wal-mart, and thousands of yahoo’s through the endless
junkyards of flea markets and return to their garages to tinker on Sundays.
Our environmental future doesn’t rest on what some feel is "sacred" or
"ethical" but in our collective ability to absorb the stresses our activities
create for us in the immediate future thereby resigning the resistance
to a rapidly changing environment without proof of permanent damage to
something arbitrary and circumstantial called ethics.
Stacey Godin
Top
When first reading Sagoff’s comments on ethical support
for commercialized versions of "nature’s amusement parks", such as the
one Disney was trying to establish in Mineral King, I was generally surprised
on how he portrayed the average American to feel. He stated that
most Americans would vote against such construction even though it may
have been a market they would have supported. Their nonsupport stemmed
from the fact that their choices now would have likely consequences on
cultural grounds for future generations. That Sagoff found this view in
our society today is very enlightening information for me. Based
on our commercialized world, I would have thought the exact opposite of
American viewpoints. A few years back I visited Yellowstone National
Forest, and found that 80% of the visitors enjoyed the parks beauty from
the comfort and space of their vehicles. To me, there is only a small
percentage of the extraordinary dynamics one can see of Yellowstone from
a car. And my view seemed to have been supported by only a minority
of visitors that summer.
Sagoff’s view on the rights for future generations,
and how the decisions we make today will mold the tastes of our kin, is
real. Education is the key communication instrument that will make
or brake for successful wildlife preservation. If seats held by politicians
had to have a prerequisite in even a minor form of forestry management,
our environmental concerns would be less of issues than they are today.
Absolute expertise is not necessarily mandatory, but an accurate knowledge
and understanding on how our land operates will definitely pave the way
for better choices.
How did our human race stray from the ethical value
of natural resources to the profit driven worthiness? Why can’t we
make choices based on individual freedom instead of profit driven ones?
T. J. Merrell Top
No Paper Submitted
Thomas Kolb
Top
The most interesting and troubling part of Sagoffs article The Allocation and Distribution of Resources, for me, is the division Sagoff creates between consumer interests and political ideals. I can obviously see the truth in such a division as it manifests itself in my own life. Personally, I have a great interest in alternative forms of agriculture and the health of the earth that can be nurtured through these practices. But this does not mean that I eat only organic food. I would love that to be true, but I cannot afford to make it a reality. And so my political and ideological beliefs lose out as I decide what to eat with my economic self interest. This truth from my own life does not, however, comfort me or help me to understand the existing gap between the two interests, that of the individual and that of the community.
On page 53, Gerhard Colm states that an individual governs his/her acts, in the political arena, by their ideal of a good society. What then is governing the decision making process when said individual is acting in the financial arena? The answer is clearly self interest; but one must wonder where the interest in the common good has gone. The answer seems to lie in the workings of capitalism. As was defined in class by Peter Dorman, capitalism fuels an unlimited incentive to accumulate possessions. It must be that this perceived need for possessions has been so completely absorbed by people that they are willing to spend their money in ways that are not necessarily good for the whole of society.
Sagoff also states, on page 61, that advertising will dictate the interests
of future generations. A powerful force in the development of societal
ideals; advertisement could be the culprit causing the divorce of the individual
interest with that of the community. Advertising can be very individualized,
making people see themselves as` individuals on their own in the world,
as opposed to members of a world community working together. Certainly
capitalism fuels a similar ideal. But as is made clear in the reading,
individuals opposes things like the destruction of the environment for
the good of the community. I fear, however, that this opposition
may not endure. With the continued inundation of capitalistic ideals
through advertising, society may move away from these currently held ideals.
Already it seems that the majority of the students in Sagoffs class, though
opposed to the Mineral King/Disney idea, where not going to do much to
oppose the plan. Furthermore, it seemed as though they would be very
happy using such a facility once it was built. How much longer before
we dont even know it is wrong to build such ridiculous resorts in our last
remaining bits of wilderness?
Travis Loucks Top
No Paper Submitted
Tyler Knapp Top
It seems like Sagoff is saying that there are two
sides to people, one which is their individual and/or consumer desires
and the other being their citizen or societal ideals, which contradict
each other. I find this analysis interesting, basically saying that
the average american is a hypocrite and lives their life differently than
they want society run. I think that people should live their lives in accordance
with the way they want society run.
I don’t understand his explanation of the difference
between allocation and distribution of resources. His wording in
some parts confused me, and it doesn’t seem clear what opinions from others
that he put forth he agrees or disagrees with, and his response seems almost
sarcastic at times.
I question his proclamation that compromise is
essential, and I think it depends on the parties involved and the situation.
This would be an interesting topic to discuss in seminar. On the
other hand I like h
V.J. Gomez
Top
I think that what Sagoff is trying to say is that it
is nearly impossible for anyone, including economists, to quantify exactly
what it is that consumers and citizens believe in ethically or materially.
It is even harder to draw conclusions based on this info and project future
outcomes of an economy. It’s like the chicken-or-egg dilemma: will
the economy go as projected because economists who deem themselves experts
in consumer markets say it will go a certain way, and consumers are just
trying to fit that mold? Or are consumers really the ones who "subconsciously"
plan spending patterns and create statistics as to how the market is going
or should go, and economists are just drawing conclusions from that?
Do the economists follow the consumers or do the consumers follow the economists?
Can an entire economy collapse simply because some prestigious economists
say it will? This cannot be quantified, and neither can consumer
preferences and citizen values. The fallacy is that consumers will
much of the time say one thing and do another. As Sagoff himself
admits doing, consumers will claim to be environmentally conscious but
will drive cars that leak oil everywhere they are parked. It is therefore
impossible for an economist to project anything perfectly because consumers,
the very thing economists base many of their numbers and facts on, are
untrustworthy when it comes to keeping their word. Self-interest
too often prevails. There is a very strong discrepancy concerning
the "I" vs. "We" philosophy. Citizens know what is good for a society
as a whole, yet when faced with the dilemma of inconveniencing themselves
by taking a bus or driving their car, most of the time they will take the
car. So is everything an economist says wrong? Should we just
believe the opposite of what they tell us? Arbitrary wants are pitted
against basic rights. Who decides what resources are allocated where?
Would Congress have ratified the construction of the Disney park had citizens
not taken a stand against it? Sagoff takes a grassroots "bottom-up"
stand on how resources should be allocated and distributed. In other
words, poor people should have as much of a voice as anyone else concerning
their views on what really constitutes equality. They should be heard
by their elected representative, and the ladder should be climbed until
true public interest regarding distribution and allocation of resources
is met. Another way of saying this is that economists and philosophers
who do nothing but debate this and that in an academia setting, not really
having any contact with the actual society on which they are basing assumptions
upon, are accomplishing nothing. The question of what we should leave
to future generations arises, and when it comes down to it, this is nothing
but a moral question. Should we allow or future generations to enjoy
the natural beauty and wonders that we have enjoyed? Are the benefits
reaped by the wealthiest 3% of our nation at the expense of the natural
environment worth it? It is impossible to put any type of monetary
value on things that are not produced with money in the first place.
I agree with Sagoff in that what is really important to us (love, well-being,
clean air to breathe) are without a doubt the very things in which we have
no rights taking away from our children. Furthermore, those very
things are not quantifiable. Money must eventually shut its mouth,
and our hearts must instead do the talking.
Will Dezan Top
I thought Sagoff was very accurate in describing
the general attitude of consumers in our society. The argument about what
we will leave to future generations was an interesting point. As was stated
in the article from The Economy of the Earth on page 61, "What they will
want will be determined more or less by what we leave them…." It is true
that they, (the future peoples), will not miss something they never knew
in the first place. That raised the issue of moral responsibility
to future generations. Sagoff seemed to feel pretty strongly that
our responsibility is to use, manage, and preserve the environment and
its resources, simply for the purpose of sustaining the quality of life
for future generations.
The example of "high consumption" vs. "low consumption"
from Parfit’s policy description raised the issue of morality in environmental
policy decisions. I think that Sagoff is trying to say in his argument
that if we are selfish enough to use up all the resources available for
the future we will eliminate the possibility of a future standard of living
comparable to what it is today. Like Sagoff said, we would create
a future race of "yahoos who have lost both knowledge of and taste for
the things that give value and meaning to life" (sagoff, 63). Sagoff
identifies the need to preserve humanity as an obligation to humanity itself.