ECON371/UBCO2024WT1/Reflections/Chris/Reflection1

Intrinsic Value vs. Value of Life

Quantifying the value of a human life can be a slippery slope. Assigning a dollar value to people is sensitive because it raises comparisons between tangible assets, like superyachts, which can seem worth more than the human experience—something I strongly disagree with. I think that we can still recognize that the lives of humans and animals have an intrinsic value that has nothing to do with the assigned dollar value of a human life. Money after all is a tool to be used to make it easier to facilitate transactions. If the assigned dollar value of a human life can be used to identify which project saves more human lives, I’m all for it.  Although weighing the potential for saving lives is a sensitive topic, it is necessary to determine which projects are worth pursuing.

Conservative vs supporting the environment.

When you mentioned the point that being conservative does not correlate with my views on the environment, I had a chuckle to myself in class. I never though about it before, but funny enough, I do have a more conservative political viewpoint. I get conflicted when it the subject of environmental regulation vs economic health is brought up. If there’s too much regulation then often people suffer from inflated prices, but if companies are free to do as they wish then naturally, we won’t have an economy to enjoy in 30 years. This class has taught me the balance between the two. I do believe that organisms have a transactional relationship with their environment. A classic example is a wolf is hungry, so it needs to take a deer from the environment to exist. This represents a sustainable relationship between predator and prey. I believe that there are very complicated solutions to facilitate sustainable transactions between humanity and the environments we live in. This is probably done through green technology which I am excited to learn about in class.

Terrence Mackenna – on a treadmill that we cannot get off.

I am a fan of Terrence Mackenna, reading the textbook and listening to the lectures in class often makes me think of his ideas and the tangents they have with the class material. The open access problem is what sparked a connection. Tarence refers to the progress and modern technology that we are achieving as a metaphor to a hedonistic treadmill that we cannot get off. The more that we rely on new gadgets and faster ways to consume the faster we are turning up the speed. The open access problem facilitates environmental transactions where people are forced to overfish, over-farm (mono-crop farming) etc. If the systems that are put in place direct us down a path towards overconsumption, then I think that there will be disastrous consequences to the world. I also believe that the economic concept of consumption bringing consumer happiness is flawed. Western culture is all about consuming and trying to make as much money as possible. Canada and the U.S are ranked as one of the unhappiest first world countries, while in Europe which has a much more lackadaisical lifestyle benefits from advanced technology and a relaxed lifestyle. This shows that people don’t get happiness or benefit from consuming most goods, now don’t think that I don’t enjoy the benefits of running water, I’m talking about new phones, new clothes, new cars. This class has especially shown me that overconsumption and exploitation have negative externalities on parties across the world. This makes me think if there was an economic model that focused on the necessities rather than hedonistic human desires.

Prof: Is this Terence McKenna, the ethnobotanist and mystic who was into psychedelics? One of the chapters we could have chosen to look at after the break does get into the rat race of consumerism. If we consume to keep up with our peer group, rather than because of the actual pleasure from the consumption, we just remain on a race of ever increasing consumption. If we get through the other topics people were interested in quickly, maybe we will have time to discuss this.

I like the idea of a polluter pays principle

Now this course has brought an idea that I think is really fascinating. The polluter pays principle is a fair and equitable way to pay for people experiencing the negative externality of smoke or smell etc. I think the polluter pays principle is a step in the right direction where though prices are likely to increase because the company causing the externality has to pay those affected by the pollution, that money likely goes to lower income families which will find that basic food and clothing will be more affordable.