Comments on "Words of Magnificence" by Andrew!: UPeace - Responsibility and Sustainability

Barry, I don't think my critique was that it would...

2009-06-12T14:40:55.654-07:00

Barry, I don't think my critique was that it wouldn't solve everything. My intended critique was that, due to pre-existing problems, I wasn't sure it would solve anything, or maybe make things worse. After all, a forced service program is not inherently a good thing. It can have many effects, good and bad, intended and unintended. I'm not saying for sure it's a bad idea here, but I'm not quite convinced it's a good one either. Many countries have required military service; it seems to work pretty well for most. But the U.S. got rid of that, and overall it's hard to argue with the military efficacy of the U.S. (whether or not one agrees with how it's deployed). Youth organizations can run the gamut from the Komsomol to the Americorps. They aren't all necessarily benign, and while correlation/association isn't causation, I would wager that most all of the "non-benign" ones were mandatory.

From my own personal perspective, my high school had a "mandatory volunteering" requirement to graduate. In my experience and the experience of many (or most) people I knew, it did not do much to foster a closer connection to community, but rather tended to inculcate cynicism. Of course, there were some exceptions even in that experience.

The point is, when a country suffers from corrupt government, poor economic performance, and citizen cynicism, I'm not sure it solves any of those problems to have the government co-opt several productive years from the citizenry by mandating national service on the government's preferred projects. It seems to me at least plausible that that could misfire and worsen government corruption (think Warden Norton's "work program" in Shawshank Redemption), economic under-performance, and citizen apathy.

I'm not saying it couldn't work as intended, nor that it's unworthy of consideration and maybe even trial on a limited scale. But I'm just not totally convinced that it gets to the heart of the problem, whether it works or not. And it's possible that a government program might actually make things worse if it turns out that the biggest problems are caused by incompetent, inconstant, and/or dishonest government.

I think it's a good idea. NJR, I think your resps...

2009-06-05T15:53:03.317-07:00

I think it's a good idea. NJR, I think your respsonse might boil down to "No, that wouldn't solve everything." That's hardly a valid goal...

Many other countries have mandatory national service. It seems like a good fit to increase moral, national identity, and the sense of ownership, as well as building infrastructure. I would suggest that someone who has completed a term of national service would be less likely to tolerate corruption in his government or poor environmental practices.

No, it wouldn't immediately solve Costa Rica's economic problems or government corruption, but it might improve the foundation on which those both stand.

In short, one can either view environmentalism as ...

2009-06-02T13:20:07.026-07:00

In short, one can either view environmentalism as a good to be purchased, or as a wealth generator. It is comforting to assume that the latter is true, because if so, it eliminates thorny trade-off problems. Thus O the Prophet endlessly talks up "clean energy" as leading to economic renewal. But as Spain's example has showed, it simply is not true. Making energy more expensive probably DOES help the environment - but it also hurts the economy. The only countries signing up for (and even after signing up, abiding by) various global warming protocols are countries that have the luxury of cash (or are so poor they have no emissions anyway). It is wishful thinking to simply assume that because something is good, it is good for everything and everyone. Generally it isn't. If global experience shows anything, it supports the "environmentalism must be purchased" model.

If true, then Costa Rica's disengaged citizenry and corrupt government also make more sense, particularly in light of your argument re: tourism. The government mandates enviro regulations to preserve tourism. But if tourism is self-contradictory and culture-sapping as you say, then no wonder the people despise themselves, their government, and their tourist guests. The people are essentially buying a clean environment by expenditure of government resources, solely for the "privilege" of serving it up to tourists. Meanwhile, the centralization required to maintain such enviro controls, in the absence of general societal consensus and excess wealth, offers a concentration of power, and power inevitably corrupts.

That, in essence, is why I am not certain about your proposed solution. It assumes that environmentalism pays for itself and more (history seems to indicate that it often doesn't - it usually follows wealth instead of creating wealth). It assumes that the solution has to come from a government that has already shown a propensity for corruption. And it assumes that further curtailing the freedom of Costa Ricans by mandatory service will lead to increased respect.

I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I'm well aware that the "tragedy of the commons" almost always requires some level of government protection to preserve the environment. I know that historical patterns of dirty --> clean do not prove that such a pattern is the best or only way to get a clean environment. It seems to me that what your invocation of a "new military" is trying to do is to create an orderly civil society and civic culture from the top down. I think that goal is correct, though I may disagree with the methods.

At the risk of being seen as a sentimental classic liberal, it seems to me that fostering the orderly rule of law while maximizing individual freedom is the best hope to solve all the listed problems. Such a government tends to encourage growth, engagement, wealth, respect, and eventually reach a consensus to protect the environment on which everything ultimately depends.

Here's the problem. Everything you've described i...

2009-06-02T13:19:45.337-07:00

Here's the problem. Everything you've described is a chicken-and-egg situation. The poor don't act sustainably because sustainability and environmentalism mean little when you're struggling to scratch out a meager living. But they can't maintain a living without the resources they're using. Or culture attracts tourists, but any culture engaging with tourists suddenly gets branded as "inauthentic." Or people are apathetic because of government corruption, but your proposed solution requires the people to be activist and clean up the corruption.

Without sounding dogmatic - this is just my first impression - isn't substantial economic development and improvement - even "non-environmentally friendly" development and improvement - the solution to cutting through the chicken-egg problems? By almost every measure, developed countries consistently dominate top of the environmental protection list. They have cleaner air, better water, better protections for forests, stronger species protection, more enforcement resources, etc. Yet many of these same countries went through horrible dirty development phases. It seems at least plausible, then, that revving up your economic development can lead to enough wealth to care about the "rich man's" concerns of environmentalism. The path of "sustainable development," meanwhile, though alluring, must at least be admitted to be virtually unproven. The developed world started dirty and then cleaned up its act once it got rich. I'm not saying that is the optimal strategy - maybe "sustainable" development would work even better - but it is the only strategy with a positive track record that I'm aware of.

Actually, Costa Rica itself provides interesting fodder for this theory. Costa Rica, as you noted, bases huge chunks of its economy on eco-tourism. Costa Rica actually, therefore, is one of the cleanest non-developed countries, because it has made relatively pristine environment part of its "competitive advantage" economic strategy. But eco-tourism doesn't work without tourists. And tourists don't come without money. So Costa Rica's "clean" strategy is itself largely dependent on the developed world's already-accumulated prosperity.