The Temporary Life: The Purpose Driven Life
I am a big fan of reading. There's something beautiful about learning, something intrinsically satisfying. When you couple that with sharing, or communicating to others - it's even better. Maybe that's how I found myself being a teacher or professor.
Anyway, enough about me! It's not about me. It's not about you (depending on your point of view). I'm writing this little essay on - "The Purpose Driven Life." That's both the topic of this short essay and the title of Rick Warren's book, the bestselling non-fiction book of 2003 and 2004. In fact, as the cover indicates, it's the best selling non-fiction, hard cover book of all time.
The book takes a very Christian perspective, however, I believe, based on my limited knowledge of others and of many religions I'm somewhat familiar with, that it is quite compatible with most everyone's core religious beliefs.
The Purpose Driven Life is for all those who wonder what it is they are on Earth for. And it's definitely needed by all those "mixed up" people you encounter every day and it's definitely for all of those famous folks you read about or watch on the Phil show, or Oprah, or Entertainment Tonight, or for those looking to be famous, rich, important, or other Earthly matters.
It's also an interesting book to read from a social perspective. If we think of societies from 4 perspectives: (1) communism, socialism, planned (2) capitalism based, (3) dictatorship based, or (4) religious based, they are all failures at some level. Communism doesn't work because it starts with the notion that people are good and that we will share, cooperate for the common good, but we don't. Hard work does not bring benefits above and beyond what the slackers acquire. There's no equity for the work. "What about me?" We cannot suppress self interest. In fact, the better life comes from cheating and being a member of the inner, planning establishment. Capitalism starts with people being self-centered and motivated for their own interests. By the invisible hand, more is created and more is available to be shared. The capitalistic United States started with the notion of - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Through self interest people will produce for the common good. Of course, everything can be taken to extremes. We now have "American Idol!" (Think narcisism, self-interest taken to extremes without corresponding philanthropy, etc). Dictatorship based socities: start with one person's view of life, and of course, power corrupts, self-interest and power make a bad combination. Lastly, religious based societies - appear to place God and religion first, but, they are still controlled by people, with all of our faults, self-interests and corruption by power, and they are still doomed for failure.
What then is the answer for the world? Ha!, there isn't one, of course. There will always be imperfection, since man is flawed, weak, given-in to our self-interests and flaws. But, at least "The Purpose Driven Life" will get you to think about "what am I here on Earth for?"
In fact, I think the book does more than that. It informs you about God and love. And that's what it's all about. (The first chapter - "It's not about you").
Natural Resource Consumption and Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) argue that the cause of “eliminating dependency on foreign oil” is a far more important goal than environmental concerns and possible environmental impact to ANWR.
In order to have independence from foreign oil, there are two basic perspectives. First, there’s the perspective of decreasing our demand for foreign oil. This can be achieved through conservation, changes in lifestyle and through the use of alternative fuels. Second, there’s the perspective of increasing our supply of domestic oil. This can be achieved by finding additional reserves, such as drilling in ANWR.
Does pursuing the second strategy (increasing our supply of domestic oil) solve our problem (eliminating dependency on foreign oil)? Suppose we drill in ANWR and find a 100 year supply of oil. This apparently solves our problem. However, at the same time, let’s suppose that our consumption of oil is increasing at a small rate of 2% per year. How long will a 100 year supply of oil last? A 100 year supply of oil only lasts 56 years with a modest growth in consumption.
Now what happens if demand for oil increases even more? Suppose the demand for oil is growing at a rate of 5% per year. How long does the 100 year supply last? The 100 year supply lasts just 36 years. Is a 5% growth in oil consumption a possibility? Consider that China with a population of over 1 billion people is experiencing economic growth with an ever expanding demand for energy. Consider the current demand for US consumers to drive SUVs and the increasing economic expansion in the third-world; and if further proof is needed about the growth in demand for oil, just check out the rising price of gas at the pump.
All of this analysis means that simply pursing a supply side solution to the “dependence on foreign oil” problem will not work. Given the likelihood of economic expansion throughout the world, our solutions to this problem must include reductions in demand.
Proponents of drilling in ANWR must realize that newly discovered oil supplies are dramatically reduced by increasing demand. Since supply side solutions must be coupled with reduction in demand anyway, why risk irreversible damage to pristine habitat?
In the abstract:
Let p = initial resource consumption
g = growth rate,
c = current consumption
then,
At end of year 1
c = p(1+g)
At end of year 2
c = p(1+g)+(p(1+g)g)
and then factor p(1+g),
p(1+g)(1+g) = p(1+g)2
therefore, cn = p(1+g)n
Thoughts on Environmental Protection:
Environmentalists must work within a system.
In order for progress to be made in the design of human-based systems that takes into account the surrounding environment and local ecology, an awareness, understanding, and concern for the environment must be inculcated in all of the participating parties involved in economic activities (or the design of human-based systems).
Two Viewpoints
In essence, there are two major viewpoints that must be understood in order for real progress to be made in the management of environmental concerns. First, there is the scientific knowledge required to understand man's environmental impacts and the engineering knowledge that can be applied to reduce or repair these impacts. The second viewpoint is the economic viewpoint. We need to understand how to better assess the economic impact of environmental problems and solutions. In other words, economic incentives are necessary in order to motivate people, organizations and government to take appropriate action to reduce environmental problems. Without economic incentives, consumers' desires to help environmental problems will fade away.
The People
"Environmentalists" is the label used to denote people who have concern for and who work toward managing our natural environment. However, the connotation for "Environmentalists" is that they are people who have "over concern" for the natural environment and who lack an understanding of economics, business and the human-based social world. For example, "Environmentalists" are often referred to as "tree huggers" and they are often viewed as people who's misplaced priorities place care for the environment ahead of human concerns.
"Consumers, workers and citizens" are the individuals who make numerous decisions that impact the environment. In other words, "all of us." We are consumers when viewed as buyers in the marketplace (capitalistic or economic viewpoint), workers when employed by companies (producers of products and environmental externalities) and citizens when viewed as members of the voting class of our respective countries (political viewpoint).
At present, environmentalists would make the most progress not by protesting economic development or by creating greater awareness of environmental problems, but by finding additional ways for companies and individuals to profit from environmental protection.
Example 1: Elephant populations in Africa
For example, in Africa, those areas that have made the hunting of elephants illegal have witnessed a decline in elephant populations. This is due largely to poaching. Poachers are able to seek out a profit from the illegal taking of elephants. On the other hand, areas of Africa where elephant hunting is allowed by permit have actually seen a greater rise in elephant populations! How is that possible? The selling of elephant permits is granted to local villagers. Thus, local villagers are able to make a profit from selling hunting permits and they have an economic incentive to protect elephant populations. Very little poaching will happen in these areas ... "it is not wise to kill the goose that lay's the golden eggs."
Example 2: Watershed Management - Investment in Natural Capital
In New York City, drinking water is supplied via a natural filtration system. About 125 north in the Catskill Mountains, water naturally flows down mountains, hills, pastures, farmland and eventually into giant aqueducts that supply 1.3 billion gallons a day to 9 million people. "Because it flows directly from the ground through reservoirs to the tap, this water - long regarded as the champagne of city drinking supplies - comes from what's often called the largest 'unfiltered' system in the nation."
However, the system isn't 'unfiltered.' It's simply filtered by nature - for free. Well, nothing is exactly free ... especially as man-made systems intermingle with natural systems.
Water is naturally filtered by the ecosystem .... water percolating through the Catskills is flowing beneath the forest "where fine roots and microorganisms break down contaminants. In streams, plants absorb nutrients from fertilizer and manure. And in meadows, wetlands filter nutrients while breaking down heavy metals."
How valuable is this natural water filtration system to the city of New York? Approximately 15 years ago a combination of un-checked development and failing septic systems in the Catskills caused the degradation of the water supply that served Queens, Brooklyn and the other boroughs. "By 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warned that unless water quality improved, it would require the city to build a filtration plant, estimated to cost between $6 to $8 billion and between $350 to $400 million a year to operate."
The city of New York tried a creative solution. Rather than investing in a man-made filtration plant, the city decided to bring back the quality of the Catskills watershed ... an investment in the natural system.
So far, the city has committed $1.3 billion dollars to build sewage treatment plants in the Catskills and to protect the watershed through a variety of incentive programs and land purchases. Although this seems like an enormous investment, it's still only a fraction of the cost of building and operating a filtration plant.
"It was a stunning thing for the New York City council to think maybe we should invest in natural capital," - Stanford University researcher Gretchen Daily.
- Reference: Morrison, Jim, "How much is clean water worth?" National Wildlife, February, March, 2005, 24-28.
Summary
For researchers and individuals interested in finding ways to protect the environment it will become increasingly important to find ways within our economic/capitalistic system to place a monetary value on natural products and services. Historically, we have placed monetary values on nature's products - the raw materials needed for the production of goods and services within our economic and social systems. It will also become increasingly desirable to place monetary values on natural or ecosystem services - flood control, natural water filtration, and other implicit, hidden services that are quietly supplied by nature.
In addition, it will become increasingly important to think creatively about the economic value of natural resources and of economic ways to both protect natural resources while also making profits and providing social benefits within our man-made or human systems. For example, curtailing suburban sprawl and protecting ecosystems or restoring habitat for wildlife and fish can bring in economic value as areas become more desirable for hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, and for current housing.
While many will view this essay as merely suggesting an increased emphasis on the viewpoint of environmental economics, I want to stress the following points:
1. Multiple viewpoints are necessary for the management of environmental problems:
a. Science and Engineering are necessary for understanding and managing problems directly.
b. Environmental, Ecological awareness and understanding is necessary, but not sufficient.
c. Economics, or Environmental Economics is necessary in order to design whole systems that take into account human welfare (production of goods, services, and other consumer benefits) and that also fully account for the natural environment and its impact on people both now (health and quality of life benefits) and for future generations.
2. Education that takes into account the multiple perspectives must also include an appreciation of General Systems Theory.
a. Environmentalists must also become educated in Economics and Environmental Economics. Since Environmentalists are the most motivated individuals to discover and to try bring environmental problems to the public's attention, they must have a better understanding of economics so that they can advocate practical solutions and ideas (and understand the motivations of individuals and groups within societies). For change, individuals, groups and companies must be motivated for action.
b. If higher education can enlighten business people of the profit potential and business opportunities available in finding solutions to environmental problems, we can reduce environmental degradation and increase the quality of life for current and future generations.
c. Researchers (Environmentalists or Economists, or hopefully, we won't label these researchers since this implies a constrained viewpoint, something we are advocating against!) ... need to explore innovative ways at examining the monetary costs of natural products (resources) and natural services (e.g., natural water filtration, etc.).
Future Problems and Solutions
In many third-world countries, from New Guinea to Brazil, we are seeing destruction of valuable habitat (e.g., rainforest destruction). People are increasingly burning habitat at an alarming rate ... in New Guinea rainforest the size of Vermont is disappearing every year. This loss of habitat is coming at a tremendous, but uncalculated cost. Villagers burn rainforest to make farmland ... but at the same time we have a loss of habitat for important and rare wildlife.
Much of this habitat loss makes little economic sense ... if the costs are analyzed and the comparison of benefits is conducted. Innovative solutions are possible if a wider system viewpoint and economic analysis is performed. For example, the potential profits to be made from managed eco-tourism to these locations could result in far greater economic benefit to these local people than the farming of the scorched land. So not only would the local people benefit from greater income but the natural ecosystem could be maintained and greater bio-diversity could be maintained ... with many potential future benefits that could be derived as a result (e.g., the classic example is that many medicines and products can be derived from exotic species of flora and fauna, not to mention the direct benefits to the eco-tourists themselves).
EJG, February 16, 2005. Let me know what you think ...
garrity501@adelphia.netThanks.
The new multi-cultural world.
The new multi-cultural world.
I was reading
Girish's review of the Glenn Miller story and the point he made: the Glenn Miller story was good and interesting, but, ....
... but, what about all of the more innovative non-white big-band and jazz musicians that never had Hollywood tell their story? Of course the trend, in business and US culture, is to include people of all races, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds. To many people this is viewed as unnecessary, un-productive, and in a way, racist against white, males!
I recently watched the films "Ali" and "Ray." These films were of course about famous black figures Muhammed Ali and Ray Charles. Although they were both quite famous, as with all people, there were many interesting, deep and contradicting aspects to their lives and personalities. But, imagine for a moment if we weren't allowed to ever have and witness the amazing career of Ali, or never to hear the music of Ray Charles. Imagine taking an ethnic background and erasing all of their accomplishments from art, music, sports, or literature. If Italians were removed from the art world? No Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, .... etc. Wow. Remove the Irish from literature. No Becket, James Joyce, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, ... etc.
Now look back at all of the films that are missing from the Hollywood archives of the 1940's, 50's, 60's, ... How many stories are we missing? How many perspectives, lives, and what is its impact? We don't know.
Ed
