Next Thursday
We have three papers to discuss next week. I do not think we will get to all three of them as we still have some ground to cover that we did not get to yesterday.
In addition to finishing our conversation concerning the material in chapter 3, I think we will get to the Tragedy of the Commons on Tuesday.
So, let's focus our comments in preparation for Thursday on Krutilla's Conservation reconsidered.
http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/News/Features/Documents/071003%20Krutilla-ConservationReconsidered.pdf
In addition to finishing our conversation concerning the material in chapter 3, I think we will get to the Tragedy of the Commons on Tuesday.
So, let's focus our comments in preparation for Thursday on Krutilla's Conservation reconsidered.
http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/News/Features/Documents/071003%20Krutilla-ConservationReconsidered.pdf
I found the idea of an options market on the preservation of natural environments intriguing. These options would obviously draw several groups who had interest in the long value of these options. As mentioned in the article, there are many scientific discoveries hidden in these environments. These potential discoveries provide an economic incentive for companies to preserve the environment. Are drug companies currently lobbying the government to protect these areas, or buying rights to these lands for speculation? Nature lovers would also be long on these options. Even some individuals who had no plan to actually visit these areas may draw satisfaction simply from knowing they still exist. However, if a market for such options was established, there would also be a possibility for individuals and companies to short these options, and thus have an economic incentive to destroy or sabotage these environments. Obviously new rules and regulation would be required to oversee this market. The returns, both monetary and non-monetary, from these areas are also highly uncertain, further complicating the potential market.
ReplyDeleteWhat intrigues me the most about this paper is the notion that the sheer availability of an accessible, public natural resource will increasingly generate demand for it over time. The first thing that came to mind when I read this section was the ski lift. Skiing was a very niche sport that was not extremely common prior to the 20th century. Since the introduction of the ski lift, the sport of skiing has exploded, creating an industry worth billions of dollars. The ski lift made skiing accessible to everyone who could afford it, and ever since the demand has continued to grow as more and more people learn how to ski each year. The value of the areas around which people ski have likely skyrocketed, because people appreciate the mountains now more than ever. The same story can be applied to surfing, climbing, mountain biking, and other outdoor sports that have exploded in the past century. This forces us to consider the future value of some of our public natural areas--it is likely that many of these places will eventually be greatly valued for some sort of use that does not currently exist in the mainstream. Thus, we must assume that the demand for the natural environment increases, to some degree, as time continues.
ReplyDeleteThe section of this paper discussing how advancement in technology can only benefit society up to a certain point in terms of conservation efforts. Due to the likely inability to develop technology to recreate "grand geomorphologic wonders" or resurrect extinct species, a major issue still remains. On this note, the author describes the supply of natural phenomena as virtually inelastic. He discusses the advantages of appreciating value of these natural environments over those which are manufactured, though I lose some understanding within the paper as to how this would occur and if it would be something that is controllable or rather a gradual natural occurrence or change in tastes and preferences.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAn additional point the author made that relates to Emma’s is this idea that in a future time period with more environmentally-conscious technology, we will not be able to achieve the same level of well-being that we would have had the technology existed in the current time period. Thus, a tradeoff exists between using natural environments now, while we do not have “more advanced technology,” and holding back our use of natural environment now so that we can sustain its use in an environmentally-conscious way in the future. Though it is an apparent part of this story, this is a tradeoff I had never fully considered in economic terms by considering long-run and short-run usage of inputs. It seems, in the long run, that some inputs in this scenario are not only variable, but, since they are exhaustible, do not even exhibit diminishing returns in the traditional sense. This is something I’d like to explore in more depth during class.
DeleteKrutilla's point about current and future technology and its role in conservation also stood out to me. As Mason mentions we don't often consider future implications of present day decisions at least in most theoretical contexts. Something I struggled with in Krutilla's argument is the fact that it could be made perpetually if you are of the opinion that technology will perpetually improve. If we have a positive opinion on our civilization and believe that it will continue to progress over time (this very well may not be the case) then we could never take any action if we were waiting for the point at which technology has "fully developed". I think an application of this argument is to attempt to take action in such a way as to minimize environmental impact with the technology available. Unless it appears that much better technology will be available in the very immediate future. Otherwise society risks stagnating to a point that is less than socially optimal. This hearkens back to the conversations we've had in class that zero pollution is not actually the optimal level of pollution.
DeleteThis article was my first exposure to the idea of option demand, and at first it was quite perplexing to me. I was astounded by the notion that there could be a market for options that may be useful in the future but currently has little to no demand. However upon continuing the reading I understood why these environmental option markets don’t fully exist due largely to the fact that the environment is a public good and establishing a market in this realm comes with many complications of its own. Be it inefficient at the moment, as the article previously mentions more research in the field of option demand markets could be extremely useful in terms of steps towards environmental protection. As Krutilla mentions, environmental protection is important for human well-being while also leading to the growing demand for outdoor recreational activities due to increased participation in said activities. One final takeaway that I had from this article was the fact that scientist currently have not estimated the amount of ocean that we would need to preserve in order to ensure humankind’s survival. I was shocked that with the Ocean being one of our most valuable resources we have yet to quantify just how much of it we need to survive. Ultimately, this has led me to believe that we need the ocean and its entirety for survival, a scary thought with the current deteriorating state of many coral reefs.
ReplyDeleteI thought the section on private versus social demand for a natural resource as it pertained to the net present value of future income streams particularly interesting. Specifically, I really liked how the author states, in basic economic terms how a business owner, under the assumption of profit maximization, would choose the allocation of resources such that this future stream of net income would be maximized. In most cases, the chosen stream does not consider efficient and socially optimal allocation. The inefficiency that the author isolates is that individuals concerned or motivated by the preservation of said resource cannot fulfill the minimum marginal willingness to pay of the business owner, and similarly, the business owner will not compensate those affected for the use of a diminishing resource. The author introduced an interesting caveat to this with option demand, which transforms this issue from static into dynamic in terms of the time periods observed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Tragedy of the Commons, I thought that privatization was one of the better ways to preserve common resources. As we discussed last class, the problem with shared resources is that no one has an incentive to hold back since each person thinks that if they don't deplete the resource, someone else will. This reading helped me understand why privatization does not necessarily minimize social costs. As Krtutilla explains, private owners choose whichever use provides the highest net value for them although it is not necessarily compatible with the preservation of the natural environment.
ReplyDeleteKrutilla's article also shed the light on the tradeoff between developing a resource and preserving it- a question I never really thought about prior to this reading. It seemed to me like the author is more in favor of preservation since decisions to develop have irreversible adverse consequences. Also, a preserved resource can always be developed later. I don’t necessarily disagree with the author's point of view but I can also think of cases where the benefits developments outweigh the opportunity cost of foregoing preservation. If we care about economic efficiency, preserving the resource would probably not be a good way to maximize benefits to a society in that case.
This is an interesting point Zainab makes. I agree that after the last class discussion, it is clear that individuals must be forced to internalize the cost of externalities (such as pollution) in order for them to change their behavior in a way that results in abating the externality. This could take the form of privatization so firms and individuals have an incentive to preserve and protect their resources. This could, in theory, minimize social costs. Zainab quotes Krtutilla saying, "private owners choose whichever use provides the highest net value for them although it is not necessarily compatible with the preservation of the natural environment" and uses it to criticize the potential effectiveness of privatization. I don't necessarily think that's the case. If private owners choose the option that provides the highest net value for them, and they have to bear the cost of abatement via some sort of government regulation, then they may actually improve their technology or pollute less, for example, if that resulted in the highest net present value. This would be compatible with both their finances and the preservation of the environment. I don't say this to support privatization but more to suggest there is a way to make a firm dually interested in their profit and the environment through policy.
DeleteZainab brings up an interesting question that I think is central to Krutilla's ideas. What is the best way to preserve common resources? In his paper, Krutilla talks about some of the limitations to privatization. Those in favor of the privatization of public goods often argue that privatization eliminates the free rider problem. However, Krutilla counters this idea with his example of the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is a private organization which purchases land and raises money for conservation through voluntary subscriptions. In this case, even those who don't pay for a subscription still benefit from the availability and preservation of the land, and hence, the free rider problem doesn't disappear. Moreover, Krutilla points to an asymmetric information problem that exists between firms and scientists. Private investors don't have perfect information about the characteristics of all the various natural areas/ecosystems, thus limiting the efficiency of their decisions about where to invest. Krutilla's paper made me think more carefully about the costs and risks associated with privatization.
DeleteKrutilla effectively integrates conservation principles into the economics field with the introduction of option value. This concept definitely complicates an analysis of conservation policies but his idea finally allowed for some degree of accounting for the future. Previous arguments for conservation may have failed to convince policymakers of the economic value of such proposals, so this development surely led to an increase in public appreciation for nature. With that being said I'm intrigued with the debates over recreation use in these protected areas. The benefits of allowing recreation are that ordinary people gain an appreciation for the natural world which may contribute to a stronger market for conservation efforts. When people enjoy these areas they may be more willing to contribute to funds or support tax measures. I am curious if there are some in the community who fear too much human interference (wildlife disruption, trash etc.) and favor stronger preservation efforts.
ReplyDeleteI found this reading to be very interesting. The first thing that popped out at me was that it sounded a lot like Krutilla assumes that all people view land as a means to generate revenue. He first talks about how land can either be preserved to maintain the natural beauty to attract tourism or it can be harvested for natural resources. If I’m not mistaken, he did not account for people that preserve their land not for any form of wealth or revenue but for the beauty of nature itself and the betterment of the environment. While this may fall under the same category as generating revenue by tourism, I do not believe that all people make conservation efforts with tourism being their end goal. While summarizing his observations towards the end of his paper, he mentions that, “it appears that utility to individuals of direct association with natural environments may be increasing while the supply is not readily subject to enlargement by man.” (Krutilla 784). If this is true, wouldn’t it be in the governments best interest to expand and better preserve natural parks instead of making them smaller?
ReplyDeleteThe conversation in this paper regarding the effect of technological gains on natural environments was very intriguing. Krutilla makes a great point when saying that technology will likely never be able to bring back an extinct species, and even if it eventually can, it probably won't be as valuable to us as the original species once was. This is likely true, but I think Krutilla underestimates the value that this kind of reproduction could hold. He speaks about the medicinal advantages of these kinds of resources elsewhere in the paper, and I think that technological reproduction of a species or piece of the natural environment could be very beneficial for these medicinal purposes. Being able to freely reproduce more of a certain plant with medicinal properties, even past its extinction, could help to provide more people throughout the world with the medicines they need indefinitely. I agree with Krutilla that preservation is generally a better strategy to take than reproduction, but for those portions of the natural environment that are already beyond preservation, the possible benefits of reproduction should not be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteWhile earlier readings and class discussions have proved the idea that cost-benefit analysis vis-a-vis natural resources may prove difficult, Krutilla’s article helped put some of these concepts into concrete examples. What I found most intriguing was the suggestion that the marginal cost of resource loss could be asymptotic (that is, increasing exponentially as the stock approaches zero and becoming immeasurably costly at zero). Furthermore, I enjoyed how Krutilla discussed the differing role of technology in the realms of capital manufacturing and natural resource preservation. While it seems unlikely that technological advancements would be able to compensate for natural resource losses, it was an option that I had not considered before Krutilla interrogated it.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction to this paper in which the author discussed whether or not modern technology is beginning to free industry from the traditional natural resources sector reminded me of a podcast I listened to recently. NPR's planet money is a semi-weekly economics podcast and one of their more recent episodes was about a bet made between a biologist named Paul Ehrlich and an economist named Julian Simon. Ehrlich's position was that the human population growth rate was such that sometime in the near future population would outstrip food and resource production. Simon was of the opinion that technology would outstrip this growth rate and humans would never run out of any resources. They used the price of five metals over a 10 year time period as a measure for whether resources were becoming more or less scarce and in the end, the economist won. I found this interesting in how it relates to both to Krutilla's paper and to our broader class objective. The idea that technological progress will make resource depletion a moot point seems like a position that big oil/coal companies would have not an economist. In the paper, Krutilla even discusses how we currently don't have a good way to even value a lot of natural resources. This being said, while the depletion of natural resources may not cause a mass extinction event like Ehrlich believed, it's still an issue that seems to require direct intervention of some form.
ReplyDeleteIf you're interested, here's the location of the podcast episode
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/
It was really interesting of you to bring up the bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. Since the 1960s, Ehrlich’s views on human overpopulation have been influential but also criticized as alarmist. Many of the predictions he has made in the past few decades have primarily turned out to be incorrect and exaggerated. As such, I was not surprised to hear he had lost the bet. I wonder whether the bet’s outcome would change if they examined a longer time period (10 years is relatively short) and considered a larger range of resources than just 5 metals (Ehrlich wrote a lot on food security). Overall, this bet does have several connections to Krutilla’s piece including the implications of technological progress. One of the main issues I perceive in relying on technological solutions is that it doesn’t always address the root of the problem. There is also the possibility that some countries will be unwilling to share their technological findings with others. I do agree with you that direct intervention is needed to ensure natural resource usage is properly handled.
DeleteHaving read Solow's Sustainability: An Economist's Perspective right before reading Krutilla's Conservation Reconsidered, I was already thinking about how sustainability should be defined. Krutilla emphasized multiple times throughout his work the importance of replaceable vs. irreplaceable goods, which Solow used in his definition of the word sustainability. I am very fascinated by the notion of markets that include option demand and how this could incorporate the non-replicables that both of the authors focused on. Like Krutilla also mentions, I still fail to see the likelihood of success of such a market. In Econ 101, I remember Professor Silwal talking about people over-evaluating their value of public goods, like street cleaning. While street cleaning is certainly different from the Grand Canyon, I think the issue of false price evaluation would still occur. In fact, it is probably more likely to occur with a resource that cannot be replaced for people will value it much higher than it is actually worth to them in fear of losing it. When people over evaluate the item; however, this does seem to (subconsiously) factor in the future value that the resource will have (reflecting back on the definition of sustainability). I hate to be so negative about the idea, but I just can't see a future for a market of option demands.
ReplyDeleteTwo things really popped out at me: first, is the simple concept that refraining from converting the natural environment into something more commercial may not actually be that great of a cost. And second, that under this we have already ensured we won't reach a level of social welfare that we could have had we waited to convert some natural environments in the past. I found this to be pretty depressing. Thinking in this way has never really occurred to me, but it almost seems obvious. Although it is slightly different, I remember in my environmental studies class how implementing environmentally friendly equipment (solar panels, wind turbines, etc) would be very costly in the short term, but much less costly in the long term. It reminded me of this because, conceivably, there could be a businessman who doesn't care about the environment at all so he converts a natural area into something industrial, but if there was some sort of new technology that came out a couple years later, it is possible that that businessman forewent a lot of money and could have more appropriately used the area.
ReplyDeleteLike others, the points made by Krutilla on net present value of resources intrigued me. The fact that we choose to allocate our resources to maximize profits and our net incomes makes sense from the perspective of profit-maximization. In a different case, where the allocator may not be out to maximize profits via some form of moral suasion, they will likely face the “double bind” no-win situation. The resource allocator can allocate and maximize the net present value of his resources, likely increasing social costs, or minimize social costs and reduce his own marginal benefits while watching other individuals allocate resources and maximize net present value of their resources. Rationale individuals should allocate. It would be interesting to hear more about decisions when the value a resource is fluctuating. In the recommendation section towards the end I thought back to the reference of the Roman poet in The Tragedy of the Commons regarding bureaucrats, or “watchmen”. In reference to policy creation, ensuring just, uncorrupted processes is always a challenge and is considerably important in the preservation and conservation of the many environments that government oversees.
ReplyDeleteKrutilla’s paper really stressed to me the irreversible nature of our decision to deplete the natural environment. The idea that we could benefit from a higher state of well-being now had we chosen to conserve in the past is one that resonated with me. But due to our attempts to better ourselves in the short term, we have inadvertently made ourselves worse off in the long term. Furthermore, Krutilla emphasized the idea that while technology can advance to the point where it eliminates the need for some natural inputs, it can never advance to the point where it can recreate ecosystems or resurrect extinct species. Ultimately we cannot recreate the environment. As Krutilla states, the supply of the environment is inelastic. This is a frightening notion that creates both an urgency and a necessity for a solution to environmental depletion. I thought Krutilla’s option market was an interesting solution, and it's one that’d I’d like to explore more in class. I’m curious to see how a market for option demand could be implemented and how people who know little about economics or placing value on the environment could participate in it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about this article was the author's link between preservation and creating demand, especially in the context of outdoor recreation. This article is the first that I've personally read that has forged this kind of link and shown it in a positive light. I think that his argument that reservations and policies for scientific purposes should also benefit those with tastes for outdoor recreation is unique, particularly when he states it should address rare tastes as well as common ones. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it sounds as if he's using humanity's desire for recreation as one kind of fuel for preservation (on top of the arguments for advances in life and biology sciences and the study of adverse consequences for humanity). However, I would have liked to see a stronger counterargument, addressing outdoor recreational activities that might harm areas that are designated for preservation. Even if the activity itself is not harmful, what about the detrimental actions that humans partake in, such as littering, going off of trailings, feeding wildlife potentially dangerous foods? Would these things affect Krutilla's argument or are they something he has already taken into consideration?
ReplyDelete*Not sure if it is appearing correctly, but that's my comment ^^
DeleteIn Robert Solow's speech about sustainability and an economist's perspective, his notion of natural resource substitutability as a way to guide our path of sustainability seemed like a potentially dangerous way of thinking about the scarce resources of the earth. Solow defines sustainability, which he emphasizes as inherently vague, as our obligation to give future generations the opportunity or capacity to be as well off as we are - not that we shouldn't deplete the earth's resources or do with them as we please. He says that, like market goods, natural resources are substitutable with one another and that we shouldn't necessarily worry about the extinction of a certain species as long as we leave future generations with a gift of equal value. Besides the moral opposition, which would no doubt reproach the idea of humans trading entire species and ecosystems like market goods, the fledgling environmentalist in me feels fishy about this notion too. I'm not sure how much Mr. Solow knows about environmental science, but something tells me that someone more well-versed in the discipline might raise some valid points that he ignores. Is one species of owl really a perfect substitute for another? Should we be comfortable with the prospect of replacing wild tracts of land for some other man made "amenities?" I get where he's coming from, but it sits a little uneasy with me.
ReplyDeleteI found Krutilla’s discussion of option demand in the context of resource conservation particularly thought provoking. He claims that educated guesses as to what the minimum reserve should be are around 10 million acres of land in North America. A quick google search indicates that the 50 states have a total of 2.3 billion acres of land, making that minimum land reserve equal to less than a half of one percent of the total land in the United States. In other words, reserving 10 million acres is not too much to ask for. Double that amount and the total is still less than one percent of the total land in North America. To think that we, as a society, would not reserve the bare minimum for recreational, medicinal or any number of other utility-bearing activities that are environmentally conscious is pretty discouraging. Krutilla mentions consumption-saving behavior in terms of the inheritance people often try to reserve for their children. That forgone consumption is really an implicit cost. Sure, there is an opportunity cost to preserving land today, but that reserve may offer a future return in excess of whatever benefits could be reaped in the present. Uncertainty obviously plays a huge role here. It would be difficult to sell a private owner on the possibility that his or her land might be worth more years from now. That said, if landowners can adopt a more long-term mindset, i.e. increase option demand, burning through our resources might not be inevitable.
ReplyDeleteBy nature, humans are selfish, profit-maximizers. Therefore, if the benefits and profits from exploiting a natural resource arise, we will exploit that resource. However, the question as to if that resource will stay profitable the more you use it complicates things. It brings the idea to the forefront, that once we make a decision to deplete a natural resource, its permanent. While technology has been advancing to aid in the efforts to reduce the resources of our environment, there had to be a depletion to begin with for people to even consider innovation in order to conserve. It was interesting how he says that it is in our best interests to have a mix of public and private amenities in order to enjoy the environment, while also having readily producible goods, which seems obvious but when arguing for one or the other can be lost.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrior to taking this class I had always figured that monopolies or negative externalities were the worst types of market failures. Now, however, I'm beginning to think that public goods are the worst type of market failure in economics. People inadvertently free-ride all the time. Anyone who has enjoyed the benefit of petting somebody else’s golden retriever without ever having fed or walked that dog was technically free-riding. Krutilla makes a point which I had not previously considered: when people die they like to leave their kids as much as possible; this will necessarily consist of a mix of public and private assets in order to maximize value of the estate. So, how to get people to treat non-exclusionary assets with greater care and respect. Thinking just from the individual level, we could introduce more taxes on bad behavior or introduce incentives for greener behaviors. We could even get politicians to encourage environmental accountability and better behavior among the public. Politicians have previously used to promote changes in attitude: in the 1850s British banks paid Whig politicians and religious figures to publicly promote repayment of debts, and made a fortune when attitudes in the US towards debt repayment shifted in their favor. I’m not saying this was a morally correct thing to do, but maybe the public needs a little more convincing that the environment is worth protecting and that every individual makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteI find this paper very thought provoking, introducing a market framework to preserve the natural environment. However, as someone who is not an econ major, I view this paper with a lot of skepticism. I appreciate his suggestion to shift environmental economics from conserving raw materials to conserving entire environmental landscapes. From an economic standpoint, I understand the benefit of raw materials such as plants used for medicinal purposes. But, I’m getting lost in his economic argument for “option demand, ” assigning value to natural phenomena such as the Grand Canyon. As someone who enjoys the outdoors, I was happy to see Krutilla offering an economic benefit to preserving these landscapes. However, I’m doubtful that in a policy driven world, this idea can withstand the typical-cost benefit analysis.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Krutilla's point about the decision making process of private investors when it comes to analyzing potential investments particularly interesting. It is true that most investors base their entire investment thesis on a NPV calculation trying to mazimize their IRR. In doing this, private demand obviates the negative "cash flows" involved in depleting the resource in question. Besides the options demand market solution suggested by the author, an incentive policy could be imposed. If the government were to tax the landowner for depleting x units of the resource, then the investor would take this into account when calculating the NPV of the investment and therefore accounting for the social costs involved in the development. This would bring NPV and IRR down and if total costs are higher than total benefit, the project would not take place.
ReplyDeleteThis paper was interesting to me for many reasons, and I was intrigued by how Krutilla looked at conservation form a very broad point of view as well as in a very specific manner and through out time from the past to the future. The part about option markets in the environment was very thought provoking to me because it gave me a new way of thinking about conservation that involved a modern and complicated idea. Furthermore, the way he explained technology’s impact added to his realistic approach to the topic and his consideration for the evolving generations. Overall, I enjoyed this paper and felt like what made it extraordinary was how well rounded it was in its conclusion.
ReplyDeleteKrutilla writes that "Natural environments will represent irreplaceable assets of appreciating value with the passage of time. " Addressing the pressing issue of irreversible spoilage of the environment, there are scenarios in which firms can make long-term investments (on the appreciating value of land), such as buying and protecting large areas of wilderness and profiting on the steady demand for outdoor activities. I really appreciate how Krutlla includes the aspect of diversity in this market. Biodiversity is a large component of environmentalism and sustainability and providing a variety of recreational activities for all tastes would be beneficial in two ways. Increased inclusion and diversity of outdoor activities protects nature by establishing a larger pool of admirers and users of nature. By only supporting mainstream activities such as hiding and fishing, we are excluding a demographic that could potentially build strong bonds to wildlife through other activities. Evidence has shown that connectiveness to nature is one of the biggest driving factors towards environmental behavior. In addition to this more behavior-based argument, Krutilla reasons that providing opportunities for a wide range of outdoor recreation is exactly what a "well-functioning market would do."
ReplyDeleteI thought Krutilla made several interesting points in his paper most of which I had never considered before. The concept of considering what might be lost in the long run by developing a natural resource in the short run is something I had not thought. This concept led me to what I believe is the essential question asked by this piece: how do we know when the social benefit of developing a resource is high enough to outweigh the social costs developing that resource in an irreversible manner? The marginal benefits of encroaching further into natural reserves are easier to quantify than the costs since one cannot know the full extent of potential benefits within reserves. It is entirely possible that by developing more of our reserves for socially beneficial reasons n could mean sacrificing even additional unknown benefits in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe section of thEn article that struck me the most was the discussion of untouched natural areas and the relative value they may bring individuals simply because they exist. Reading this section caused me to pause and think about how to remotely attach a value to that benefit which I certainly admit I subconsciously submit to. Is this a form of societal value that is beneficial to all humans? Ie. is this part of human nature that we desire to have part of I think perfectly preserved? Viewing this phenomenon from both a variety of lens yields interesting insights into how the human brain thinks about the world around it. On one hand desiring part of the natural world to remain untouched yields little discernable economic value but large societal (public) value. Especially for Americans I think there is a sense of pride around the wild roots of the United States, especially in the west and Midwest, the area constantly associated with the frontier and American exceptionalism. If you consider the American and western civilization as a an integrated system I would submit that holding some lands untouched by non natural interference hold a base value in our societal ideals, on which our free market thinking is based. Through this lens I believe that there is significant economis value to these unblemished territories.
ReplyDelete