The Politics of a Finite World
For today's lab section, I asked my students to read a essay/narrative called "A Moral Code for a Finite World" written by Herschel Elliot and Richard Lamm and was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education in November, 2002. In a nutshell, it expands on the classic work "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin in which we analyze how we deal with a world with finite resources, which is in direct conflict with our expectation toward unsustainable resource extraction and consumption (i.e. sustaining our "lifestyle" or "way of life").
In the world as we see now, resources are abundant and the negative aspects of our resource demands are dealt without much thought in our everyday lives.We throw away just about everything we own at some point (or sell/give it to someone else who eventually throws it away). The Moral Code piece points out that the land can only support so much; "technology can extend but not eliminate the limits" of the natural world. Only so many stalks of corn grow on an acre of land, migratory fish can only breed a certain amount, trees grow only so fast. Many of our products derived from non-renewable resources are simply discarded. Products that are derived from renewable sources are generally overharvested and later discarded as well.
The popular perception is that because we have grown up in the land of plenty, that this will always exist. But as humanity continues its exponential growth, there will eventually become a point where growth in consumption will outstrip the ability of the earth to support it and consequently population growth rates will begin to drop, eventually leveling out or even declining. During this time, competition for scare resources becomes fierce. Those who win will mostly be the economic elites who dominate today and the losers will either perish in the ensuing famine or engage in warfare against the elites (which is a partial explanation for international terrorism but also armed conflct in general). There could also be warfare between the elites (US and China perhaps?).
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was one of the first to identify this problem, which has since been labeled "The Malthusian Catastrophe". I speak of the Malthusian Catastrophe in terms of expanding on the moral code in relation to our political beliefs. This growth catastrophe is illustrated in the graph below, which is derived from data in the UN estimates in the report "Population to 2300" (2004).
Credit- Loren Cobb PhD, Creative Commons License
Our political belief structure in the United States cherishes the concept of individualism and personal freedom. But faced with the possibility that unrestricted freedom and unsustainable consumption will be the agents of our own (or others) demise, what should be government's role in restricting these? For example, thousands of farms are being sold to developers who turn them into subdivisions. In doing, millions of acres of productive agricultural land are being taken out of food production. Thus, we are reducing the capacity of the human race to feed itself and spiraling increasingly closer to conflict over scare resources. Thus, should we prohibit development on such lands? I could name hundreds of similar examples, but this is a blog post and not War & Peace.
So what is our moral code? Some argue that our economic system is most efficient operating on a system similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" (or should I suggest "survival of the richest"). Economics certainly have a preeminent stake in this outcome but it seems to defy our moral code. Those of us who seek "less market intervention" and "lower tax" platforms subscribe to this Darwinistic approach. But anyone who subscribes to almost any form of organized religion must realize that such a belief is antithetical to their basic belief structure (particularly Christianity). Morality and ethics can exist outside the realm of organized religion, so religion is not the exclusive realm of this discussion.
Of course it is rational to believe that people have different market worths based on their profession and disparities will exist. The big question is are we to allow this managed scarcity of resources to regress to the point where we would (or would continue to) punish people with untimely death due to our belief in the infallible nature of the free market? Is that the end of the ethical conscience of our country? Its one thing to be ignorant of such things, but to be mindful of ones actions and simply not care is insidious. It creates a paradox where ones beliefs and actions are contradictory.
Its probably not feasible at this point to think that population control measures would be effective in curtailing growth. War, famine and pestilence have historically been the primary method of population control. But its possible for us to strive at reducing our impact by reducing waste. This means the types of cars we drive, the food we eat, the things we buy and discard. One can speculate that the mandatory water restrictions that have been introduced in much of the Southeastern United States (due to the drought) illustrate the point that elective measures can only be so effective.Whether or not we reach a point where governmental action will be needed in other realms remains to be seen.
Some good Wikipedia links for your reference
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)
The Malthusian Catastrophe
-Steve
http://www.stevewk.com
In the world as we see now, resources are abundant and the negative aspects of our resource demands are dealt without much thought in our everyday lives.We throw away just about everything we own at some point (or sell/give it to someone else who eventually throws it away). The Moral Code piece points out that the land can only support so much; "technology can extend but not eliminate the limits" of the natural world. Only so many stalks of corn grow on an acre of land, migratory fish can only breed a certain amount, trees grow only so fast. Many of our products derived from non-renewable resources are simply discarded. Products that are derived from renewable sources are generally overharvested and later discarded as well.
The popular perception is that because we have grown up in the land of plenty, that this will always exist. But as humanity continues its exponential growth, there will eventually become a point where growth in consumption will outstrip the ability of the earth to support it and consequently population growth rates will begin to drop, eventually leveling out or even declining. During this time, competition for scare resources becomes fierce. Those who win will mostly be the economic elites who dominate today and the losers will either perish in the ensuing famine or engage in warfare against the elites (which is a partial explanation for international terrorism but also armed conflct in general). There could also be warfare between the elites (US and China perhaps?).
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was one of the first to identify this problem, which has since been labeled "The Malthusian Catastrophe". I speak of the Malthusian Catastrophe in terms of expanding on the moral code in relation to our political beliefs. This growth catastrophe is illustrated in the graph below, which is derived from data in the UN estimates in the report "Population to 2300" (2004).
Credit- Loren Cobb PhD, Creative Commons License
Our political belief structure in the United States cherishes the concept of individualism and personal freedom. But faced with the possibility that unrestricted freedom and unsustainable consumption will be the agents of our own (or others) demise, what should be government's role in restricting these? For example, thousands of farms are being sold to developers who turn them into subdivisions. In doing, millions of acres of productive agricultural land are being taken out of food production. Thus, we are reducing the capacity of the human race to feed itself and spiraling increasingly closer to conflict over scare resources. Thus, should we prohibit development on such lands? I could name hundreds of similar examples, but this is a blog post and not War & Peace.
So what is our moral code? Some argue that our economic system is most efficient operating on a system similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" (or should I suggest "survival of the richest"). Economics certainly have a preeminent stake in this outcome but it seems to defy our moral code. Those of us who seek "less market intervention" and "lower tax" platforms subscribe to this Darwinistic approach. But anyone who subscribes to almost any form of organized religion must realize that such a belief is antithetical to their basic belief structure (particularly Christianity). Morality and ethics can exist outside the realm of organized religion, so religion is not the exclusive realm of this discussion.
Of course it is rational to believe that people have different market worths based on their profession and disparities will exist. The big question is are we to allow this managed scarcity of resources to regress to the point where we would (or would continue to) punish people with untimely death due to our belief in the infallible nature of the free market? Is that the end of the ethical conscience of our country? Its one thing to be ignorant of such things, but to be mindful of ones actions and simply not care is insidious. It creates a paradox where ones beliefs and actions are contradictory.
Its probably not feasible at this point to think that population control measures would be effective in curtailing growth. War, famine and pestilence have historically been the primary method of population control. But its possible for us to strive at reducing our impact by reducing waste. This means the types of cars we drive, the food we eat, the things we buy and discard. One can speculate that the mandatory water restrictions that have been introduced in much of the Southeastern United States (due to the drought) illustrate the point that elective measures can only be so effective.Whether or not we reach a point where governmental action will be needed in other realms remains to be seen.
Some good Wikipedia links for your reference
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)
The Malthusian Catastrophe
-Steve
http://www.stevewk.com