Taking a Look at Resource Utilization

Neo-Malthusianism redefines the old, and out of date concepts and biases that are attached the malthusianism. However, both Malthusianism and Neo-Malthusianism suffer from the same type of “apocolypse is nigh” rhetoric. Neo-malthusianism takes an immensely important factor of climate change, such as overpopulation, and places extra emphasis on it, stating that the key the containing global warming, rising sea levels, starvation, and disease is controlling and harnessing the rapidly growing

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

That being said, Orr also suggests alternate views in his essay, reporting that, “Arguments for technological sustainability rest heavily on beliefs that humans [as economic maximizers] are incapable of the discipline implied by limits.” He refers to advocates of technological stability who relate humans and human behavior to the model of the “economic man”. The Economic Man Model regards humans as unbeknownst to all limits - including those of sufficiency, sanitation, and appropriateness (Orr 25). These humans are not necessarily concerned with the ecological ramifications unless it is in their their best interest. In contradiction to what seem to be his own views, this view of technological sustainability he presents falls beneath the umbrella of the dominant paradigm of economic growth.

In Garret Hardin’s paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, he talks about the problem of overpopulation and why it can’t be solved by a technical means. He talks deeper about the population rate and a supposed optimal population. Also, Hardin mentions the commons which are the resources of our world. On this subject he argues the problems of how the commons are unregulated which would lead to them being exploited into ruin be rational people. I will write to argue why the commons are being protected regularly and how rational people can reason and understand long-term effect of their actions on these commons.

In his essay, "Resources and Environmental Policy," Jan Narveson claims that, "there are no global shortages of anything that we have to worry about." In this claim he makes two basic assumptions about resources. The first assumption concerns infinite substitutability; no matter what we need, we will always be able to find something else that will work just as well or better. The second assumption concerns infinite technological advancement; we will always be able to invent something that will either allow us to use a resource more efficiently and extend its life span, or we will invent something that will allow us to exploit a new resource and thus render the previously scarce resource obsolete. The major problem

Ever since then, energy demands have only increased. With increase in the ability to obtain resources from the earth came an increase in population. This only created a vicious circle where demand rises with increase in the number of people to be sustained (Crutzen, 2006). As a result, the geological structure of the earth has become strained over the decades, resulting in depletion of important resources. However, even with the way humans have dominated the earth, there has been need to recognize the damage resulting from this. In as much as the current state of the earth provides us with sufficient resources to thrive, an extensive array of studies suggests that the trajectory may in fact not be sustainable (Steffen et al,

After the industrial revolution the Earth left its sustainability (Holocene) era to enter an uncertain future. The Anthropocene period involves the Earth’s well-being since this period of sustainability ended and the Earth has become more susceptible to the destructive ways of its human inhabitants. A group of twenty-eight scientist have recently (2009) gathered to devise a way to ensure humans do not continue their trend towards irreversible damage. These scientist came up with the framework for defining a reasonable range for humans to work in. Passing these thresholds could mean effects to local and regional problems to global effects depending on which boundaries are pushed. These planetary boundaries, with each threshold threat stated,

Julian Simon and his other so called cornucopians make the argument that things are not as bad as people portray them to be. They say that we are better off in all measurable ways then we were before. They say populations are not going extinct at the rate scientist believe. They say that instead of deforestation the opposite is happening and were reforesting more then we are destroying. Basically everything predicted in the Malthusian Catastrophe was complete and total garbage. Another statement his colleague and him make is the argument that the resources that are being thought to run out are not the important one. It makes empirical sense that as the population

These ideas have led to unrealistic ideas that our resources are infinite and pose an excuse for disregarding the environment. It also brings the disregard of the forms of human life that are viewed as having little or no utility.

In his essay Hardin discusses how the rapid decline of the world’s common places, such as natural animal pastures, are the result of rapid, uncontrolled human population growth. Hardin suggests that environmental problems such as deforestation, crowding out of native species, loss of resources, pollution, poor job economy, etc., are the result of the loss of common spaces. He indicated that common spaces used to be plentiful enough for every person to have an abundant share, but that was when the human population was smaller than the current population of 7 billion people. Hardin’s powerful essay proposes many solutions and methods

In the words of Bryan Rayner, “We always have to be on our toes and be alert and ready,”(n.d). Since Utilization-focused evaluation does not operate under textbook conditions but can be complex the evaluator has an obligation to make changes when necessary. Change can mean stepping out of your comfort zone and into the discomfort of uncertainty. But an evaluator goal and mission is to provide accurate and credible findings. If goals and intended outcome of Utilization-focused evaluation is the focus then the evaluators and primary intended users will determine those goals to be evaluated. But not all goals-based evaluation will be useful for every program. Some programs merit formative and summative evaluation, but others seek alternatives

The possibility of our planet Earth coming to an end is coming faster than expected. There are theories, documents, and myths about this unrealistic phenomenon that can come true if actions aren’t being taken. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “The majority of American farmland in modern society is dominated by industrial agriculture – the system of chemically intensive food production developed in the decades after World War II, managing single-crop farms and animal production facilities”(1). The main source and reason why factory farms are active today is because the government’s permission to use corn to feed animals and produce crops. Subsiding corn came about two decades because the high demand for food was increasing and corn is cheaper to use to produce food such as meat and crops. With the practices of using corn in everything that we eat and make came with consequences. One of the consequences of factory farming is the endangerment of our environment. Our environment is very important to us because without it, our Earth will be nothing, but a planet of pure pollution. Society’s demands of food for affordable prices has taken a toll on the environment as we used fossil fuel, not becoming responsible for animal waste being dispose, and regulations not being implemented. However, solutions to saving our environment from the biggest problem of all, global warming, can be solve by eliminating fossil fuels, recycle the wastes and using it to make

In our current capitalistic society nothing is more closely followed than economic growth. When economies are growing they are praised, but when they are not they are perceived as a failure. Growth has brought us many great technologies that have helped form the global culture that we now live in. However, there is a misapprehension among society that economic growth is limitless. In fact, it is impossible to have unlimited growth in a finite world. This has lead society to expect more from the economy and the earth than what they are actually able to provide for us. As a result, we are now overproducing and over consuming at record rates, which is having extremely detrimental effects on the environment. If we

One thing people have learnt from learning history is the fact human interactions influence the environment. And these effects can have varying magnitude bearings on the economy and the timeline of humans on earth. The main driving force behind human interaction with the environment is greed: The need for more. Understanding environmental history has made it clear that people do not necessarily know when to stop. Some even believe the earth is a beast that has to be tamed; all its bounties extracted and left empty and barren. Although, there is much on earth that is yet to be discovered, and the soil, sun, plants and animals are meant for consumption, the method of consumption and exploitation of others is where the issue lies.

The issue of sustainability is one of the most fundamental and important subjects in economics. Thomas Malthus’ bleak evaluation of humanity’s prospects in the face of overpopulation heralded a new age in economics where pessimism became the undisputed ruler of discourse. John Stuart Mill’s efforts to banish this pervasive gloom by appealing to the capabilities and intelligence of his fellow men is both inspiring and devastatingly effective. In a broader context, the struggle between Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill cannot be viewed as merely a peripheral debate on a singular issue; it is a battle for the very soul of economic analysis.