PHIL 149

The Dependence Effect

Galbraith challenges the notion that economic growth increases people's quality of life. Instead, he says that producers actually create the desires consumers have through advertising and conspicuous consumption. Consumer desires have the wrong source and structure.

The Twisted Poisoner

A man poisons you, and then offers to cure said poison, but its an uncomfortable process. It's an analogy for the dependence effect. Your life is not improved at all by this process.

Evaluative Invert

In Tolstoy's story, Ivan Ilyich was an evaluative invert, someone who valued instrumental goods in his life over intrinsic goods. As he died, he realized this and it caused him immense pain, realizing his life lacked meaning

Instrumental Goods

Valuable in virtue of its being able to produce something else

Intrinsic Goods

Valuable in it of itself, not for what it produces

Ehlrich Equation

Human Impact on Environment = Population (amount of humans interacting with the environment) X Affluence (material standard of living humans enjoy X Technology (efficiency in which we use our natural environment to support our material standard of living)

Andreou's First Point

Whether and how affluence contributes to human quality of life depends on what the view of a good life is.

Two views of a good life for humans

Exalted View: Spiritual realm more important than material realm.

Worldly View: Goodness of our lives depends on the material goods we have

Andreou's Second Point

For both the views greater affluence does not mean you have a higher quality of life. We can reduce worldly material goods without reducing affluence because it's about how much you have relative to others and relative to what you already possess. Also, hedonic adaptation says we get used to things, so even if the worldly view is true, our lives would not be worse by reducing affluence.

The Accultruated and the Wild

Environmentalism is doomed if we don't have people in the genuine wild some of the time. Accultruation makes the wild lose its aura

Employmentism

the high importance assigned to paid work across a broad swath of our personal and collective lives.
It's just as bad as consumerism and for similar reasons. Replacing employmentism with an alternative value system would reduce the consumption of luxury goods, and lower impact. Just as environmentalists should minimize their consumption, they should minimize their own paid work.

4 conditions sufficient for a free-rider problem

1) There is a non-excludable good attainable by a group

2) Can be rationally attained by K members of a group (less than all)- reward will exceed cost of contribution

3) cannot be rationally obtained by single person

4) fear of contributing when fewer than K do and hope of not contributing when more than K do makes it rational to not contribute

Solutions to the Free Rider Problem (Dietz): Gov Regulation

• Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon

• makes a good excludable and impose sanctions on non-cooperation (fines, punishment, etc) Limits:

• difficult and expensive to enforce

• invasive

• corruptible

• lack of sufficient expertise on whats best for the maintainment of the public good

Solutions to the Free Rider Problem (Dietz): Private Property

• makes it excludable

• internalizes externalities (cost or benefit that happens to people who do not engage in the behavior) Limits: -Who gets it? -One person faces responsibility in face of disaster

Lockean Proviso

1) The means by which you get property is by mixing your labor with a natural resource (initial appropriation)

2) You must leave enough for others

Solutions to the Free Rider Problem (Dietz): Norms of cooperation solution

Impose social sanctions on non-cooperation thrrough guilt, shame, etc.

Limits: -Only works if they care -They need to be frequently interacting with the good

Johnson's position on individual emissions

There's no reasonable expectation of success- enough others will never reduce emissions. Therefore, you shouldn't either. The only moral reason to prevent harm from occurring, which it will not do, so no reason to.

Why is limiting your emissions positively bad?

It distracts you from actual, tangible methods against emissions, like political action and lobbying.

Challenges to Johnson

- What you do individually is morally relevant, no matter the result.

-Small contributions still make a difference

Cafaro on why increasing technological efficiency and reducing affluence won't work.

Efficiency lowers prices

Lower prices increases consumption

While the number of resource use per unit of goods produced goes down, the number of good produced goes up to meet that new consumption pattern,

So, the amount of resources used to does not decrease.

Reducing affluence is morally undesirable in some places

Cafaro on why decreasing population is the best way to reduce impact

Non-coercive measures could decrease impact immensely more than the others

Methods: Free contraceptives, increased abortion access, increased educational opportunities for women in developing countries, tax incentives for fewer children, and media campaigns

Arguments against Cafaro

Conservative: contraception and abortion immoral, women should stay in the domestic sphere

Liberal: puts undue burden and responsibility on poor countries even when its not their fault

Burkett on reducing population

1) We are morally responsible for curbing our inessential emissions

2) More of those emissions, stronger incentive to not make that choice

3) Choosing to have children is an enormous amount

4) They are inessential

Objections and Responses to Burkett

Lowers overall utility: it's not necessary to live a decent life, ppl without children are generally happier

Too demanding: you can enjoy the love of parenting without having your own children

Right to have them: Could be overridden by crisis

Responsible for their impact: responsible for their essential emissions, which are enormous

Cafaro/Staples on Reducing immigration in the US

1) immigration levels are at a historic high, is main driver of US population growth

2) Pop. growth contributes to envi problems within our borders

3) Growing pop. increases large envi footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role In stressing global envi

4) To seriously address envi and become good global citizens, we must stop US pop. growth

5) We are morally obligated to seriously address envi and become good global citizens

6) Therefore, we should limit immigration into the US to the extent that it is needed to stop pop. growth

Cafaro/Staples ex. for #2

Urban Sprawl, Heat Island Effect, Habitat Loss, Overall higher carbon cost

What Cafro/Staples think environmentalists should advocate for

-Cut immigration to 200,000

-Enforce sanctions against employers who hire illegals

-rework trade agreements and foreign aid to bolster countries where immigrants come from (yes it raises affluence but we only care about the US)