I will follow up the previous blog-topic and switch from games to economics and sustainability.
For about 4 months ago I came across an article in The Atlantic called "What Isn't for sale" and in this article Michel J. Sandel (an american political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University) argues that without morals we can't sustain a healthy society (this is a pretty common theme for most great writers through history - even Freud argues in this direction though he shared a materialistic world view - and then you've got the 10 commandments). So this blog post is maybe more in between the dimensions of economical and social sustainability, but if you read the article (it's quite "long", depending how much you like to read) you get the feeling that it also embraces the ecological viewpoint - and therefor qualifies for this blog?
I'm posting this because it's in stark contrast to the efficiency of measuring GDP as a country's dominating health indicator, it's maybe also a critique to the more technocratic theme Nils Brandt spoke about in "how many rabbits can live in a sustainable society" - if I did understand him correct. So it should be a good platform to build some kind of discussion on morals, economics and sustainability. Also because some of the key-factors for building a sustainable society according to Mulders (Sustainable development for engineers; 2006) is to reach equilibria between rich & poor, our generation & future generations, humankind & nature, and how do we solve this without speaking of values and morals?
Michel J. Sandel has also written a new book called What Money Can't buy: The moral limits of markets, and I'm hoping I will have the time to soon give it a read-through.
If any one have read it, please let me know what you think about it.
Ding
ReplyDeleteThe connection to ecological sustainability is perhaps a bit tenuous, but I think the connection to social sustainability (a topic that will be discussed in a separate lecture later in the course) is better with its emphasis on (economic) justice and of everyone having access to the basic resources for living a good life etc.
I'm can't really see the tension between this perspective and Brandt's. That doesn't mean there is no tension or that your are wrong, just that I don't directly "get" the connection you apparently see there. I'm not sure how the rabbit argument is (primarily) "technocratic". I see it as having to do with basic concepts from ecology such as "carrying capacity" and "overshoot" (and "crash"/"die-off" - when the "surplus" rabbits die for lack of food).
As it so happens, I subscribe to The Atlantic and there were soe more stuff in the print copy infographic:
- Shoot a black rhino for just $ 225.000
- $ 500.000 for the right to immigrate to the United States
- Your doctor's cellphone number now just $ 1.500
- Make $ 1000 a day fighting in Somalia