What about nature? What about wilderness or unspoiled nature? I think that we ou

Question

What about nature? What about wilderness or unspoiled nature? I think that we ought, in our policy choloes, to embody our desire for unspoiled nature as a component of well-being. But we have to recognize that different amenities really are, to some extent, substitutable for one another, and we should be as indlusive as possible in our calculations It is perfectly okay, it is perfectly logical and rational, to argue for the preservation of a particular species or the preservation of a particular landscape. But that has to be done on its own, for its own sake, because this landscape is intrinsically what we want or this species is intrinsically important to preserve, not under the heading of sustainability Sustainability doesn't require that any particular specdies of owl or any particular species of fish or any particular tract of forest be preserved Substitutability is also important on the production side. We know that one kind of input can be substituted for another in production. There is no reason for our society to feel guilty about using up aluminum as long as we leave behind a capacity to perform the same or analogous functions using other kinds of materials-plastics or other natural or artificial materials On making policy decisions we can take advantage of the principle of substitutability, remembering that what we are obligated to leave behind is a generalized capacity to create well-being, not any particular thing or any particular natural resource -Robert M. Solow. "Sustainability: An Economist's Perspective. In Selected Readings in Environmental Economics, edited by R. Dorfman and N. Dorfman. New York: Norton, 1993: 179-187 How might Solow define the term sustainabilty? O The long-term protection of the earth's biosphere O The long-term preservation of the earth's natural capital O The long-term ability to provide for the wel-being of humanity Acconding to Solow, why might it be acceptable to allow polar bears to become extinct? O Polar beors, as a species, have intrinsic value. O Solow wouid not find the extinction of polar bears to be acceptable. O Polar bears do not contribute to the weil-being of humans. Which school of thought is most closely aligned with the ideas presented in the excerpt? O Nooclassical economics Ecological economics

Explanation / Answer

a) Solow might define sustainability as the flexible way of letting our future generations live as we do. He believes in the long term ability to provide for the well being of the community. The answer is the first optiom.

b) Solow wouldnot find the extinction of polar bear to be acceptable because it has a very large intrinsic value. According to Solow, we need to preserve something only on the basis of its intrinsic value and not under the tag name of sustainability. As economically, sustainability doesnot require preservation of any specific species.

c) This thought is aligned with the environmental economics. Its the subcategory of the subject economics, that deals with the environmental problems.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.