A hot debate in the pages of the Wall Street Journal between Princeton professor Peter Singer and Copenhagen Business School professor Bjørn Lomborg over whether we can afford to both reduce poverty and clean up the environment.
Singer asks:
"What should we do? Sometimes we should choose to protect the environment and the nonhuman animals that depend on it, even if that denies economic opportunities to some people living in extreme poverty. Areas rich in unique biodiversity are part of the world's heritage and ought to be protected. We should, of course, try to find alternative environmentally sustainable opportunities for those living in or near these areas. But there is no single currency by which we can measure the benefit of saving human lives against the cost of destroying forests that provide the last remaining refuges for free-living chimpanzees, orangutans or Sumatran tigers.
Cost-benefit analysis certainly can't handle this task. Even when economists ignore environmental concerns, their usual method of assigning a value to human lives leads to the ethically embarrassing conclusion that the poor count for less because they earn less and cannot pay as much to reduce life-threatening risks. (...) Giving equal weight to the interests of future generations provides us with strong reasons to be concerned about environmental preservation, as well as about the more immediate concern of reducing global poverty. We should help today's global poor, but not at the expense of tomorrow's global poor."
Lomborg replies:
"Mr. Singer criticizes the use of cost-benefit analysis because it doesn't value human lives at the same rate in developed and developing countries. As uncomfortable as it may be, the reality is that we don't actually think of all people as equal. If we did, we would be building all of our new hospitals in developing countries. Mr. Singer may regard this fact as shameful, but ignoring the ethical judgment of nearly everyone makes his analysis less helpful. Similarly, Mr. Singer criticizes the way that discounting is used by economists to make future costs comparable to values in the present. He argues that we should give "equal weight to the interests of future generations." Once again, this may sound admirable. But think about the consequences of heeding Mr. Singer's advice. By choosing a discount rate close to zero, we effectively say that the desires of infinite numbers of future generations are vastly more important than our own, meaning that we should save the great bulk of our resources for the future and consume just enough to survive. Essentially, our generation should eat porridge, while we leave virtually all benefits to the future."
Singer concludes:
"All of us living comfortably in industrialized nations should use more energy from sources other than fossil fuels, use less air-conditioning and less heat, fly and drive less, and eat less meat. And we ought to start doing these things now, for our own sake, for the sake of the global poor and for the sake of future generations everywhere."
And Lomborg counter-replies:
"This is a poor prescription, not only for those of us in developed nations but for developing countries and for future generations as well. It is an incredibly expensive way to achieve very little—and it won't happen (...) We are perfectly capable today of tackling the problems of both poverty and environmental pollution. But to do so, we must think clearly and rationally, and we must carefully weigh the costs and benefits of the approaches available to us."
Link to Singer's op-ed piece here and to Mr. Lomborg's article here.
After reading the argument both Singer and Lomborg raise, my opinion on the argument of aiding the poor and cleaning the environment; I would lean towards Lomborg's perspective. Mainly because, in reality helping the poor is ethically the right thing to do, but not the easiest task. The amount of neighborhoods in the environment today that are surrounded by poverty is very high and would a very long and expensive process to complete. As for the environment, it would take a lot for a society to change the way they live in order to prevent pollution. I believe Lomborg is speaking as a realist with a sense of how the economy reacts to different matters.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the argument both Singer and Lomborg raise, my opinion on the argument of aiding the poor and cleaning the environment; I would lean towards Lomborg's perspective. Mainly because, in reality helping the poor is ethically the right thing to do, but not the easiest task. The amount of neighborhoods in the environment today that are surrounded by poverty is very high and would a very long and expensive process to complete. As for the environment, it would take a lot for a society to change the way they live in order to prevent pollution. I believe Lomborg is speaking as a realist with a sense of how the economy reacts to different matters.
ReplyDeleteWhile Singer's stance is an admirable one, it seems very unlikely to actually work. For me it is frusterating to read Singer because many of his arguements are of the same mold. Singer habitually advocates for idealist, short sighted solutions to complex problems. While many of his arguments are sound philosophically and morally, they often impractical or impossible. While Lomborg's view might seem more pessimistic, it can at least be considered more constructive because it actually advocates logical, critical thinking to find solutions to the problems of poverty and hunger in the real world.
ReplyDeleteSorry I forgot to post my name, Brad Johnson.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Singer seems to advocate a more realistic solution in this particular case: sometimes one needs to choose between the environment and the poor and Singer apparently acknowledges that sometimes the environment trumps the poor. Mr. Lomborg simply avoids the problem by denying the conflict. He says that can both combat poverty and environmental pollution effectively. If we can, there is no moral dilemma and we do not need economists or ethicists to think about it. However, we need to wait at least 30 years to see whether the optimistic view advocated by Lomborg is realistic. We will see...
ReplyDeleteSinger seems to be suggesting that my eating meat somehow denies someone else from eating meat. In reality, markets work to turn scarcity into abundance. The poor in this country are far better off than the rich were a century ago. That is progress. Singer seems to suggest that denying ourselves of a good standard of living will somehow ensure a good standard of living for future generations, however the history of the world, particularly in the past 200 years, seem to suggest the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteProfessor..I don't see why Singer's solutions are more realistic. I think that his recommendations to start "now:" flying/driving less, eating less meat, using less heat/air conditioning seem rather unrealistic to begin happening any time soon.
ReplyDeleteBrendan, fair claim. We are talking about two different kinds of realism; Mine is moral realism, yours is psychological realism.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my point is that Singer does not avoid the tension between global poverty and sustainability and gives some serious consideration to future generations. In contrast, Mr. Lomborg assumes that we can achieve both goals and so the conflict does not really exist. If you take a look at the Singer's piece, there is a PS with a brief reply to Lomborg suggesting this point. What you say is that people will not follow Singer's advice. And that is probably right. That is indeed a pervasive difficulty of utilitarianism, namely, its overdemandingness.
I like that Professor Alzola mentioned the “overdemandingness” of utilitarianism. I tend to dislike the utilitarian philosophy simply because I feel that it is always asking too much of me. For example, Singer says that everyone ought to donate part of his or her income to world poverty. In addition to this, he is now also saying that we ought to save resources for the future. While these ideas sound good in theory and I would LIKE to follow them, the truth is that I will probably not. For now I have my own problems to deal with, and unfortunately, many other people have the same mind set as I do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Petroula said. The fact of the matter is that as much as we would like to follow all of the things that Singer mentioned,in reality we are not going to. Humans make themselves a priority. They first think about how they can solve their own problems before even thinking about helping others. We know that these things are out there [poverty]and we would like to help them. But we always end up putting it in the back of our minds or at the very very bottom of our infinite list..
ReplyDeletePetroula and Kaylyn: suppose that you are right. That is, suppose that we will never do it. Does it make it false? I mean, according to the Milgram experiments almost all of us will inflict electric shocks on innocent persons when receiving orders under pressure. We know that harming innocent human beings is morally wrong. Yet, most of us would do it in real life... does it prove that the principle "do no harm to innocent human beings" does not hold? And we can go on and on with the examples. The evidence demonstrates that most college students cheat. Does that make cheating morally permissible? What I am trying to highlight here is the difference between ethics and psychology. Great comments!
ReplyDeleteI think that the only way our planet will be better off in the future, like having less pollution and eating less meat, is for the big companies and industries to take the first steps. They can't wait for the demand of products to go down from the people when they decide not to eat anymore or drive fuel gulping cars....these companies have to say "We're going to cut back on the production of meats because we're going to run out soon". I feel as though the only reason why those companies and indutries are still producing as just out of pure greed, to make a buck.
ReplyDeleteIf Lombarg is correct: "We are perfectly capable today of tackling the problems of both poverty and environmental pollution", then I believe that this is the optimal solution. However, I believe we cannot afford to both reduce poverty and clean up the environment. I believe that we should make the decision that will save the most lives. Initially I agreed with Lombarg on focusing on reducing current global poverty. However, Singer raised an excellent point. If we save the environment, we are essentially saving future generations. I believe that future lives should be valued equal as to current lives. Therefore, saving the vast amount of future lives should take priority before the current global poverty.
ReplyDeleteIf Lombarg is correct: "We are perfectly capable today of tackling the problems of both poverty and environmental pollution", then I believe that this is the optimal solution. However, I believe we cannot afford to both reduce poverty and clean up the environment. I believe that we should make the decision that will save the most lives. Initially I agreed with Lombarg on focusing on reducing current global poverty. However, Singer raised an excellent point. If we save the environment, we are essentially saving future generations. I believe that future lives should be valued equal as to current lives. Therefore, saving the vast amount of future lives should take priority before the current global poverty.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two arguments I would tend to agree with what Lomborg said.
ReplyDeleteHowever we can only see what the long-term effects have to offer and I believe Singer has a more realistic point of view. Even though we're told everyday to consume less water, less AC/heat and be careful about recycling we often tend not to respect it seriously enough. We waste so much resources and if the law forced us to respect it more, I am sure it would have some positive effects. But i also agree with Petroula and the "overdemandingness" idea. Only the long-term response will make sense to us.
Lomborg believes that we can eventually develop a feasible solution to the problems posed by global poverty and environmental pollution. Although he might be right, no such solution has been found yet. Until we do so, I believe Singer’s strategy is the most effective and ethical one. Ignoring environmental concerns will only serve to compound problems in the future for the World’s poorest citizens, as well as its most affluent. Like Singer, I believe that it is up to the leaders of the Globe’s biggest polluters (the U.S., China, India, et al.) to initiate a fundamental shift in the way we use our natural resources. I don’t think encouraging people to use less air-conditioning or eat less meat will solve the problem. People will only change if they are offered more “green” alternatives. Otherwise, Singer's strategy will not succeed.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think applying cost-benefit analysis to an environmental issue is extremely difficult. Sometimes the immediate costs of an environmental initiative do not outweigh the long-term benefits, and sometimes the immediate benefits do not outweigh the future costs.