Ouch: a system of environmental justice

Maximising happiness does not work. I wonder if minimising pain can work a bit better.

Let’s say we create a measure of a unit of pain e.g. a “hurt” established by experiment as the pain experienced by putting your index finger in x˚C water for x seconds.

You can then list all pain and anguish and suffering (physical and mental) along a scale of hurts.*  As we are talking about pain, and we know that other species also suffer pain, we would also include in the analysis, using the same measure, the pain and suffering of all other sentient species.**

Then you can say that one goal of a good, sane and independent person should or could be to minimise the total sum of all pain.  This implies considering across all species across all time.

So whenever there is a decision to be made (e.g. “Shall I eat this sausage?”) you just get a big computer and tot up the total aggregate of pain in all the infinite universe of possible future worlds.  If the average of the aggregates of pain in all the worlds where you don’t eat the sausage is less than in all the ones where you do eat the sausage, then obviously you shouldn’t eat the sausage.

Even though people erroneously use economic measures to evaluate decisions on policy, almost all policy is ultimately aimed at reducing suffering so really policies and policy proposals should be evaluated by measuring hurts and seeing which cause the fewest.  Or, where capital is constrained, hurts per pound.  So at a country level you might talk of one policy causing 3.2 megahurts (ouch!) compared to another which just causes 2.8 megahurts.

We will need a measure of distribution – if a pain can be distributed to lots of people sharing the burden it’s perhaps more tolerable than if a small group gets it in the neck. 2.8 megahurts could be fatal if applied to a crowd, but would go unnoticed when borne by the population as a whole.

We might also ignore the effect of discounting which complicates financial decision-making.  The time value of pain is not so obvious: compare breaking a leg today with breaking a leg in a year’s time … they are both pretty bad and you might actually want to do it today to get it over with.***

Notwithstanding the complexities, scientifically grounded pain-quantification as a foundation for a moral framework and a basis for decision-making is a useful thought exercise.  Although it does not embrace all the richness of a well-lived life (it ignores positive things like joy and love, which actually might need some pain to have full value) I think it is more likely to lead to a just world than our current model of utility optimisation.

 

Notes
1. The system might throw up some anomalies.  For example nuking the whole planet might prevent an enormous amount of future, net pain.  This wouldn’t do.

* If physicists complain that this sounds too much like their measure of frequency, we could kindly ask them to find another car rental company.

** Practically this might need some experimentation. Note problem.

*** On this point I am trying to unravel what we learn from people’s tendency to postpone going to the doctor or dentist.  We often regret that delaying of the truth.  This might imply that pain now is better than pain later.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The footprint of fulfillment

One of the most important social, economic and environmental questions is: what do we do once we have enough food and shelter?  This is relevant for two or three billion people on the planet, and among those are the people with the biggest resource footprint.

One way of approaching this question is to map different lifestyles on a graph of fulfillment against footprint.

Here are caricatures of the occupants of the four main quadrants:

(1) The couch-potato – low footprint, low fulfillment.  He is probably quite content so leave him be.

(2) The shopaholic – high footprint, low fulfillment. She is typically stressed, anxious and unhappy and has a huge footprint.  Work is needed here to give this person purpose in life and fend off insidious accusations that by curing the shopaholic you destroy the economy.

(3) The achiever – high footprint, high fulfillment.  Although his fulfillment is probably rather self-centred, he lives a full life.  The problem is the footprint.   The techno-optimists have a solution – make everything he uses clean-tech.  Others wonder if this is feasible or just encouraging something which is inherently undesirable.  The key here is to give the achiever a vocation so that his or her enterprise, tremendous energies, intellectual fire-power and charisma are turned to more important problems than selling fizzy drinks.

(4) The philosopher – low footprint, high fulfillment.  Other inhabitants of this utopian quadrant are the gardener and the monk or nun.  This is where people need to be shifted towards – gardening for physical fulfillment, thinking for intellectual fulfillment.

From this analysis the challenges of climate policy take on a different light.

 

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pelicans, sufficiency and fear of the future

How we respond to sufficiency is critical for addressing the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.  This is critically linked to education and attitudes to risk.

Consider how pelicans handle sufficiency.  Of these the American naturalist John James Audubon wrote: “Pluming themselves, the gorged Pelicans patiently await the return of hunger.”  So they eat, and then they contentedly wait until they need to eat again.

My cat deals with sufficiency in a similar way.  She spends about 18 hours a day asleep.  Once she has eaten and cleaned herself thoroughly, inspected her small territory, all that remains is to rest and sleep.

Even some humans have the wisdom to handle sufficiency like the pelicans.  My daughter, who spent a month in Africa, said: “In Malawi loads of people just sit about all day.”

These people and animals deal well with enough: in play, in rest, in reflection, in cleaning, in digestion and simply in waiting.

What a contrast to the anxiety and guilt we feel when we have had enough to eat, have a moment to rest and then are suddenly reminded of time passing!  Our culture says: “Get up!  Do, do, do! You have to be active! You have to fulfil yourself!  Get up, get on, get out! Get better.  Get more.”

Our culture despises inactive people.  We call them lazy, couch-potatoes, slobs, lay-abouts and ne’er-do-wells.

But who’s got the smallest carbon footprint: the eager, conscientious, driven, ambitious, jet-setter, who never knows contentment? No. It’s Joe Six-Pack slooching around at home; or Uncle Alf pottering about in his garden, shuffling contentedly among his roses.

So there are huge numbers of people struggling against contentment.  Let’s look at how this battle is waged.  The first step in our struggle against contentment is to create want, a sense of lacking something.  The world offers us a wide menu of things to choose from which we could be lacking, but we can narrow it down to three main categories: physical comfort, social status and financial capital.

Once we start to perceive our morning bus-ride as uncomfortable we project in our minds the possibility of ownership of a car.  This creates a want and contentment is vanquished. Rather than sitting about in the garden we have to start working hard to be able to afford a car.

Thorstein Veblen’s invidious comparison* is the second creator of discontent.  We see that the Jones have rather plush curtains, thereby a sense of insufficiency is sown in our minds, and we won’t feel happy until we have even plusher curtains than the Jones.  This takes us down a well-documented** yet perilous path whereby consumption, initially for the purpose of comfort and status, becomes subject of an addiction, a goal in its own right, and, critically, an analgesic from the mental pains caused by our rejection of contentment and the pursuit of satisfaction from artificial wants with all the collateral damage it causes to us and the environment.  This mechanism is a vicious circle which denies us contentment indefinitely.

Then comes the third and most intractable escape route from contentment: the need for insurance against future risk.  Where pursuit of financial capital is not about satisfying the first and second causes of discontent, its role is to create a buffer against things going wrong.

Think of the Malawian lad sitting in the shade, poking the ground with a stick. He can spend all day doing that quite happily.  Then he starts going to school, gets the bug, then gets a place at college in Lilongwe.  He completes his MA in Johannesburg and gets a job at a brokerage in New York.  He’s made it!  Now his notion of sufficiency has been completely changed!  Even when he has enough in American-sized bucketfuls, still he has a sense of insufficiency.

What has happened is that education has made him intensely conscious of the future and the risks it presents.  This has made him want to reduce his vulnerability to those future risks by accumulating wealth as a buffer.  Since the future offers an infinity of risks to him and his descendants, there is no limit to the amount of wealth needed to provide that buffer.  You can never get enough.  A few years ago enough was a stick.  Now it is the universe.

In this way education*** – by making us more fearful of the future – changes our sense of sufficiency.  We are no longer content with what we have.  Fearful for the future, we feel the urge to build a buffer of wealth so that we can be protected against all the adverse events which might occur.  In building that wealth we (generally) massively speed up the exploitation of the earth’s resources.

How ironic that education in general contributes so much to making us scourges of the planet: the ambitious jet-setter is far better educated than the Pelican, the cat, the Malawian boy, Joe Six-Pack and Uncle Alf.  But he still has a bigger carbon footprint than all of them together. Education is what opens his eyes to things he can compare his own status with and it is what gives him a more sophisticated sense of future risk.

These processes are among the most powerful drivers of human behaviour.  Moderating our sense of enough could have an immensely beneficial effect for the planet.  We must take our lead from pelicans.

 

Notes

1. Boredom intolerance and loneliness also seem to motivate busyness.  While the three forces above each above imply a direction, these two just create a more general sense of want without prescribing action.

Boredom has a history.  In the 17th century Blaise Pascale said something like:

“I have discovered that all human evil stems from one fact alone: man’s inability to sit still.”

It we can tolerate stillness or boredom, then we are less susceptible to the lures of physical comfort, social status and financial capital.

2. A further category of motivating busyness is vocation.  Rather than wishing to satisfy a want, the individual motivated by vocation seeks to remedy an injustice or misfortune brought upon someone or something else.  The altruistic and beneficial character of a vocation puts it in a different category from the three categories above which are essentially self-serving.

* See Theory of the Leisure Class

** See The Joyless Economy by Tibor Scitovksy.  And more recently this article by George Monbiot: http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/16/are-we-bothered/

*** Despite the generally negative impact of education on the environment, there are, of course, many specific pieces of education which are good for the environment: learning about the importance of conserving forest, caring for other species and so forth.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dealing with addiction

We jail drug dealers but we celebrate the creators of addictive computer games.

It is a peculiarity of our brains that we get addicted to things: alcohol, drugs, sex and so forth.  And it doesn’t do us any good because when hooked on one particular stimulant we lose touch with real life.  Luckily, society often recognises the dangers of addiction and tries to do something about it.  Efforts to curb addiction are not always successful – look at the war on drugs – but at least there are efforts: you can’t stand by when people’s lives are being wrecked.

Now there is a new category of addiction.  Computer games such as Candy Crush are deliberately designed to be addictive.  Internet gaming addiction is now recognised as a mental disorder [1] and there is a growing list of people who have died as a result of this addiction.  But rather than jail the promoters of such games as we jail drug dealers, we celebrate them as great entrepreneurs.

This is bonkers and it is time to think holistically about addiction of all sorts, its costs and the people responsible for promoting it.

Why is this important for someone wanting to cut emissions?  Surely it would be a great way of reducing emissions to get everyone sitting at home addicted to their screen, not travelling long distances, not spending lots of money on consumer goods.

It is important because we are rewarding talented people for the wrong things.  They should not be devoting their brilliance to hooking millions of people on inane, time-wasting games.  We should try to give talented people worthwhile ambitions.  What about, for example, spending their time on how to solve the biggest addiction of all: addiction to fossil fuels?

Kill-joy?  Yes, if you define joy as wasting your life being zombified at level 286 of Candy Crush.

[1] See the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Audubon and changing times

America’s greatest naturalist was John James Audubon, 1785-1851.  A first printing of his book, Birds of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_of_America), will fetch $8 million in auction.  His life-sized studies of the bird species of America are captivating.

Today we revere him as an icon of conservation.

In the first 8 days of his 1820-1821 Mississippi river trip he records killing:

86 partridges

28 grey squirrels

11 wild turkeys

7 pheasants

6 teal

5 small grebes

4 tall tail godwits

2 doves

2 hermit thrushes

2 wood grouse

1 American buzzard

1 autumnal warbler

1 bared owl

1 barn owl

1 Blackburnian warbler

1 blue-winged teal

1 Carolina cuckoo

1 common crow

1 fish hawk

1 great Carolina wren

1 hare

1 mallard

1 robin

1 turkey buzzard

1 woodcock

In his defence, he ate some.

In 100 years’ time, or perhaps sooner, people will read the works of great environmentalists and campaigners against climate change in the early 21st century.  People will not comprehend their use of aeroplanes or consumption of meat.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment