The Economics Of The Coming Spaceship Summary

The space race was a competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that occurred during the Cold War. They competed for dominance in space technology and spaceflight, which spurred many significant inventions and events. Some of these inventions and events include the first-ever landing on the moon, the first artificial satellite to be launched into the Earth’s orbit, the establishment of NASA, the invention of the microprocessor computer, the invention of satellite communication technology, and other direct and indirect impacts. Each of the different events and inventions that spawned from the space race have had significant impacts on the United States economy.

Instead of focusing on the individual, “ecological economics invites us to picture ourselves not as isolated individuals but as housemates” (McFague 132). This model has two goals striving for sustainability and distributive justice which will allow for the earth’s resources to be sustained for future generations. McFague feels that the ecological economic system will provide an efficient system that will suit and support the needs of the world.

Within this chapter Bell explains the concept of ‘The Treadmill of Production’, where capitalism 's core impulse to expand production without regard to natural limits of growth set by the biosphere. This impulse makes the process of capital accumulation inherently unsustainable and anti-ecological. According to Bell and the Treadmill of Production model, developments in technology, primarily encouraged by owners of the means of production seeking to increase profits, drive the expansion of production and consumption simultaneously. This process leads to a cycle of production demanding more production, because all sectors of society (the state, organized labour, and private capital) depend on continued economic growth to solve problems, such as unemployment generated by mechanization, which are created by growth itself. As more production is required to keep up with demand so too is the increase and acceleration of ecological demands. The advanced capitalist economies are so unsustainable because production is secured into this capitalist treadmill of never-ending expansion and growth for growth 's sake.

Economic analysis that weighs all costs and benefits of a particular model must include environmental considerations. That is to say, the potential for short-term economic losses caused by conservation in the present, should be measured against the dividends that conservation will pay in the future (Nordhaus, 2007). If the earth is truly our most valuable commodity, then analysis under these conditions should recognize that if a “dollar value” were placed on environmental sustainability, more often than not it would outweigh any initial monetary loss resultant of the implementation of more sustainable practices.

When I was ten, my best friend and I found a twenty dollar bill on the ground. We argued over how to spend it for an hour. I wanted to buy a pizza; my friend thought we should spend it playing Mortal Kombat at the arcade. A similar passionate controversy exists over money spent on exploration. Some propose that government spend its money on exploration of the earth’s oceans, while others think exploration of space is more important. While space exploration is a nice idea and captures the imagination, advocates of ocean exploration are right. Exploring our earth’s oceans will have immediate benefits, it is relatively inexpensive, and it is a matter of survival.

Wilson asserts, “No one should look to GNPs and corporate annual reports for a competent projection of the world’s long-term economic future.” In other words, the Gross National Product (GNP) and corporations will not accurately depict the long-term economic future, due to the lack of environmental factors that if implemented would surely fluctuate the projections. Furthermore, the more reliable sources are from research reports from the natural-resource specialists and ecological economists that provide an accurate representation of the financial and environmental future. In addition, the environmental experts factor in the imperil that is posed to the environment while expanding the economy. Thus, the idealistic balance between the environment and economy will not be found in the GNP reports, but in the ecological economist reports that can veritably attest to both sides of the political spectrum. On a national scale, converting to renewable energy is not prioritized, due to the fact the fossil fuel industry has an abundant of sizable investments. So, reasonably an annual national report would be in favor of the large corporations, such as the fossil fuel industry. As a result, the projections for the economic-future with fossil fuel as our main energy source is one-sided and

While industrialization has been strongly associated with greenhouse gas emissions, it is premature, however, to conclude that economic growth is the independent factor responsible to climate change. Neumayer (1998) contended that there is no sound scientific evidence documenting consequences of economic development on the environmental degradation in the long term (p. 4). There is also no linear association between economic growth and environmental deterioration, as maintained by Ferguson et al. (1996, p. 28) that the existing evidence “cannot be used to justify a view that economic growth (…) will automatically be good or bad for the environment” (cited in Neumayer 1998, p. 16).

Assess the view that economic development is not possible without causing environmental degradation – 15 marks.

However, when examining environmental sustainability, it does not seem to be the case. When people are faced with knowledge in relation to natural resources that may be sold for personal capital, people are quick to exploit the resource without taking the environment into consideration. For example, it can be presumed that if people did not have knowledge of the abundance of cod in Newfoundland in the 1960’s, the environment would have been thriving in that area to this day. Similarly, a notion that was present in Davis’ article is the tragedy of the commons. This plays a key role when looking at the environment today, in a capitalist world. Furthermore, people are often too caught up in extending their own enterprises to even consider the potential effects that certain acts can have on the environment. On the other hand, there are people who obtain knowledge on something that is harming the environment, yet they do not act on that knowledge or do anything to mitigate the damage. In the modern world and especially western society, people will easily put their needs above the environment from which we live. Therefore, from a sustainability point of view, knowledge is not

Important advantages of Resources on the Earth are limited.That the way we behave now does not make life difficult or impossible for future generations.To achieve sustainable development,we need to carefully consider the need for economic development,where standards of living improve

For the assignment this week, I will explain my view on Solow’s view of sustainability and natural resources. By definition, sustainable development is defined by the United National World Commission on Environment and Development as the development that meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Keohane & Olmstead, 2007). Studies estimate economic growth to decrease about 1 percent per year in global consumption per year (Keohane & Olmstead, 2007). In conclusion, I will discuss how my views relate to intergenerational equity.

The interest in sustainability is beginning to call into question some of the established modes of disciplinary thinking in the social sciences. Environmental economics began the assault by rattling the bars of its disciplinary cage, but this exercise is gradually being taken forward in other disciplines.”

Over the course of the past few decades, humans have truly started to understand and study issues that threaten our environment in great depth. Modern environmental sustainability is defined as “the link between the health of nature and society, population growth, distribution of wealth and the combined approach to development, equity and conservation not new to social and environmental policy” (Oiamo 23). The definition of sustainability has transformed over time along with our knowledge and continually evolving understanding of the word. Sustainable development is a process that goes hand in hand with sustainability, however the definition is widely deliberated. Nonetheless, the most accepted definition was coined from the Brundtland Report in 1987 is “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Oiamo 28). Succinctly, sustainable development is only using the essentials needed to preserve ourselves as of right now, and nothing more. What lead to this present-day concept of environmentalism and sustainability were economic, environmental and social shifts prior to the 1970s.These are known as the three pillars of sustainability and were contrived by environmentalists such as Ebenezer Howard and Rachel Carson.

Some were not interesting in answering those calls, some were interested in other ideas, and one of those people was Mikhail Bernstam. In his article “The Wealth of Nations and the Environment” Bernstam explores the idea that the negative effects of technology and innovation have on the environment are only temporary. He argues “as economies grow (due to innovation), discharges to the environment increase rapidly, then decelerate, and eventually decline.” He supports this argument with multiple tables, charts, and statistics that show the rise and decline of various emissions and pollutants in the United States, Canada, various European nations, Japan, India, and China from the 1950s into the 1980s. What Berstam adds to the

Alier defines “The Gospel of Eco-Efficiency” in her journal more specifically as the idea, “the richer a society becomes the more it can afford to be concerned with the environment and the more it will invest in environmental protection” (Alier). Alier critiques this idea by claiming that developed countries, such as the United States, do not understand the value of land and therefore will not support as much as needed because it is not their direct source of livelihood, as it is in third world and undeveloped countries.