|
| I
am
also
sure
that
|
|
 |
|
 |
I am also sure that there is an ethical cnonudrum present within Western Civilization at large that needs to be addressed here. Rather than rant off into one of the two predominant rhetorical arguments that present themselves in the contemporary media (the free-marketers vs. the liberals) I would prefer to offer analysis of the problem from two different continuum: Traditionalism versus Neo-Dynamism, and Short-Run vs. Long-Run thought. As a dual major in Philosophy and Economics (UCI) and a Masters in Philosophy and Public Policy (LSE), I find the historical nature of the current problem intriguing. Essentially, the current situation of our world necessitates, as far as our science and our governing bodies are able to determine, a drastic change in human thought and action in order to prevent consequences on a global scale. Whilst such choices have, in the past, been put to societies (Jared Diamond's book Collapse does a thorough job of considering myriad societies that have been put to the test of dwindling natural and economic resources as a result of policy mismanagement), never before has a problem as INTERNATIONAL in scope as global warming is heralded to be been presented to the human race. Thus there is a very strong tendency to deny or discredit the problem, even as the water around the frog starts to boil, as Al Gore analogized. More specifically, humans hold onto the patterns that have been created in their societies, and do not change thought and action patterns without a significant amount of re-education, quasi-religious euphoria, a few dramatic situations, etc.. The stories of Christ, MLK, Ghandi, Socrates, Lao Tzu, and others come to mind as readily-accessible analogues to the current situation. In each of these situations, an outsider presents a solution that the traditionalists in society are wont to acknowledge. Often the outsider pays a price for fighting those traditional values. And yet, global warming is much more than a need to have a new religion or to recognize a segment of the population as more than minority; it is a physical and real threat to the lives and livelihoods of millions if not billions of human beings in the next half-century. Despite global warming's empirical reality (and in congruence with the stories of the luminaries mentioned earlier), our governments continue to deny the direness of the situation whenever they come together, and focus on what they consider to be traditional rights to enjoy certain levels of production and consumption. I believe the problem comes down to the human ethic; how well we as rational beings are able to regard others and to see the need to change our current practices in order to help people. I fear, as many do, that humanity will play a role similar to that of Pentheus in The Bacchae, and end up torn apart by the Mynaeds for our inability to recognize that the gods are different now; that humanity needs to play a different game. Traditions will need to be changed that a neo-dynamism may emerge, and change is never easy.Secondly, I wish to consider the issue from the perspect of short vs. long run thought. It has been the resounding epic of humanity that individuals think short run (free-marketers), while governments and policy-minded individuals tend to think long run (liberals). While others often label the split as ideological or religious in nature, I believe the issue is more psychological and maturational. It is obvious to me, having studied philosophy and history for the better part of a decade, that young men and women (and the uneducated) live life more on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. As we grow older and learn the hard lessons' that life has to offer; as we watch our occasionial family members and friends die, and as we find ourselves in other difficult, self-made situations, we learn to value the future and to see life beyond a simple hedonistic perspective. Yet: Western civilization, primarily because it is devoted to the capitalist ethic of youth, celebration, ownership, sensuality, etc, does not provide the sort of national or international culture that respects maturation. Empirical examples are as close as any mall, shopping center, or grocery store checkout aisle. This psychology of close-run, day-by-day existence is important to us. It is inculcated and repeated and washed into and through us and we choose to appreciate and enjoy it, not merely because it feels good, but because our peers, our leaders, our potentates both practice and promulgate the same ethos. Short run thinking therefore dominates our investing, our marketing practices, our eating habits, our lives in general. I do not know, as a philosopher, how to discuss the problem without unfortunately sounding like I am on a jeremiad. Let me therefore skip the rant and say the psychology is deeply entrenched, and it is trenchantly implanted on all of us. While not every nation affirms to the same set of ideals, and certainly not every individual within even the most Western of nations, there undeniably exists a split of short-run free-marketers' and their lliberal' counterparts. As any game theorist knows, humanity is currently in a prisoner's dilemma with regard to global warming, whereby the short-run thinking of the individual harms the long-run situation of all.I believe that any investors,businessman, consumers, and policy creators need to consider where they fall on these two continua, and seek to invest and develop their actions in accordance with their self-acknowledged ideals.-Travis ChamberlainMSc, Public Policy and PhilosophyLSE
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Tony
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 01:48:57
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
190.74.187.119
|
|
|
|
