Here’s something to think about. The following argument is the essence of a memo leaked from the office of the then Chief Economist of the World Bank – Lawrence Summers in 1991:
Pollution causes increased death and disability
The costs of death and disability are measured as lost earnings of those affected
The lost earnings will be lowest in the poorest countries of the world
Therefore the costs of pollution will be minimized by dumping pollutants in the poorest countries
In the light of all that we have discussed concerning Reason in TOK, what do you have to say about this?
Truly speaking the first time i read this article i just felt angry and i closed the page but later i decided to read it again and the funny thing is that i actually understood and it's so funny that i agree with the economist. His reasoning is sort of right to me to an extent because looking at the situation at hand there is not reason why those with a lot of earnings should die and those with less live. actually it will be waste because those with small will do nothing to the economy but those with a lot will at least stabilize the economy.So him saying that pollutants should be sent to the poorest countries is kind of like sensible because the damage in the economy in the poor countries wont be as much as the one in the rich countries own. I believe you all agree with me that this reasoning has been conducted in accordance with universal principles of logic and hence the outcome here can be agreed on by everyone if we actually think rigorously. i dont know what you guys think but i think the reasoning here is valid. In one of the classes Mr Kitching asked if reasoning was a duty. A lot of interesting things came up and i am sure you agree with me that according to this current situation i think the answer is a yes because I think it was like a duty for Lawrence Summers to reason out and come out with a sensible solution as an economist. on the other hand to and extent his reasoning was not that valid because he sending pollutants to poor countries will not actually do nothing but just increase the number of deaths in the world which means the world population will have a drastic change. The other thing he did not think about are the people in those poor countries he looked at the whole idea from one side and this critisizes reason to a larger extent which means reason can influence the way we think and see things. really want to hear what you people think-Linda Ndlela
ReplyDeleteThanks Linda for starting off discussion on this thread.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that:
"...this reasoning has been conducted in accordance with universal principles of logic and hence the outcome here can be agreed on by everyone if we actually think rigorously. i dont know what you guys think but i think the reasoning here is valid."
But that:
"...his reasoning was not that valid because he sending pollutants to poor countries will not actually do nothing but just increase the number of deaths in the world..."
I understand your thinking here. But can you or someone else explain exactly the distinction that is being made (to do with the nature of reason) by these two statements.
At first i got the impression that the economist was a very selfish person, but it actually makes sense because the cost of pollution in the poorest countries would actually be much lower, because there wouldn't be much to lose anyway, but this statement happens to be one without emotion because if the economist had allowed his emotions to interfere, this might have been a situation where emotions would cloud his judgment because for example, he could have thought about the fact that there are human beings in the poorest countries too, and they also have lives which they deem precious and don't want to lose, just like some people in the rich countries, but because he sort of abandoned his emotions, he came up with a statement that would make perfect sense if we all abandoned our emotions
ReplyDeleteIn Mr. Lawrence Summer's argument he is more concerned with "damage control" than the complete eradication of the pollutants, the root of the problem, themselves. This in itself could be considered illogical from an idealistic point of view, where it is believed that every problem has a solution. From a realistic point of view, however, there may be no apparent solution and the best one can hope for is to mitigate the costs. From that standpoint the reasoning is perfectly sound. Is this morally right though? Can the dumping of pollutants in already deprived countries be justified using this logic? As a human, I sincerely doubt it. I also believe this goes to show that reason must be in accordance with emotions before good decisions can be made.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA person from a poor country may be upset by this statement and so was I at first glance but as Mr. Michael Djan usually says 'there is intelligence in every word a person says’. Logic is sometimes said to be thinking with your head(rationality) and not your heart or influenced by emotions but it is only the nature of language to present some ideas as selfish or biased perspectives or opinions(ambiguity) but most of them actually have hidden meaning and make a lot of sense so never be too quick to criticize
ReplyDeleteI understand what Teye Mensah and Elom are saying about knowledge being in accordance with emotions. But I just wonder: Did Lawrence Summers really exclude emotions as he made this statement? Was it only logical?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that emotions do go along side reasoning. However in response to what Teye and Elom have said about Summers not including emotions in his reasoning, I beg to differ.
First of all, I think that Summers included an emotion(s) in what he said. The thing about his emotion however is that IT IS NOT DIRECTED TO POOR COUNTRIES. He looks at the cost of the pollutants to countries like his own and is sorry that so much money will be lost. He can be said to be concerned for his country. He can be said to be troubled for his country. And although selfishness is not an emotion, he is being selfish here. However, the point of this is to just show that Summers has emotions about he said, just that they were not directed to poor countries. He was (another emotion coming up) indifferent, unsympathetic about the implications of the action on poor countries. These are all emotions. (I do not think that indifference is a lack of emotion. It is an emotion to me. I have felt it.)
Another important factor we should note is that richer countries help poor countries. I would like to state that under no circumstances do I think that since rich countries help poor countries anything at all can be done to poor countries (in this case the dumping of pollutants). However, we should know by now that there are people who do a lot of things for the greater good. Assuming Summers was one of those people, his statement would not be solely based on logic. In-fact a great deal of emotion would be incorporated into it. If Summers was a person like that he would perhaps have thought:” Since the costs of pollutions would be minimized in poorer countries, why not send these pollutants there? After all, we would be in a greater position to help them.
“Take this scenario: America has 5 million and they are to spend it first on pollution and then poor countries. However, if pollutants are sent to poor countries, America uses 1 million to combat the effects of it and then 4 million goes to the poor country. At the end it is realized that the poor countries as well as America benefit. Although I think that this is a poor way of thinking, (it is morally wrong) there are people who think like this. And they usually feel that they are usually doing it for good in the long run. They are compassionate to all involved… (I am looking for an emotion but I hope we get the point). Perhaps, they are even more concerned for the poor countries! (There are Africans who think like this.)
NB: I know that this illustration can be flawed because of things like corruption and deceit- how do we know that all the remaining money will go to the poor country? How do we know that America will keep its promise? However, I think we should just look at it in an idealistic manner.
The whole reason for this illustration is to show that Summers is not completely devoid of emotions as he makes this statement. Also, we do not possibly know how he must have felt about what he was saying.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteEmotion is certainly relevant to this discussion. But I would like us to concentrate on the nature of reason/logic here.
First of all, what kind of argument has Summers presented? Is it valid? Linda recognized that it is a valid argument. But remember what validity means in logic - it means that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, and I think in this case it does.
But are we not at the very least uneasy with this conclusion? You will recall the idea of GIGO - garbage in garbage out - and that is quite possible in logic. A conclusion is only as good as the premises that were provided to support it.
Now I wouldn't describe the premises in this case as garbage - indeed the first and the third premises are perfectly acceptable (and apparetly true). But the second premise...
"The costs of death and disability are measured as lost earnings of those affected."
...is a value judgement - Summers has decided to value human life, death and disbility in these terms. And it is not surprising that he has - he is, after all, an economist! We could, for the sake of this discussion, change the premise to...
"The costs of death and disability are measured by the distress caused to the relatives and friends of those affected."
...and then the whole argument would take a different turn.
The problem is that thinking of human life in the Summers way leads us inexorably to a conclusion that many would find unethical. So we should think carefully about what we "put into" our reasoning processes before we accept blindly what "comes out" the other end. We may not like what we get. Or, worse, we may not notice before we go and act on what we get...
Alternatively, we could change that premise to...
"Human life has the same value everywhere."
And I suggest that this is perhaps what Linda was getting at when she said that Summers's thinking was, after all, not valid - in that if we were to include some other premises that we all accept (perhaps such as the one above about the intrinsic value of human life) his argument would not stand up.
But he didn't, and that's why he can get away with describing his argument as "impeccable logic".
What do you think about putting a financial value on a human life? Isn't that what economists have to do?
First I would like to correct or rather add on to what Linda stated on her agreement with Economists' reasoning of dumping their toxic waste in the vulnerable Countries. I would like to to start by awakening all of you that according to World Organisation for Human Rights, all human beings have equal rights, which includes the RIGHT TO LIFE! If the developed countries dump their waste in developing countries, doesn't this imply that they are violating this crucial right?
ReplyDeleteI, therefore, can conclude that although this logic statement may seem valid, we have have a duty to reason well, before we can make our conclusions. We should always remember that our actions always affect somebody out there!
the text denotes that summers is aware of the effects of polution which is very dangerous to humanity and the economy. for this reason i see no logic in his reasoning. if you know something is harmful but you go aheard to do it just because it wont affect u much then i think you ara as 'wise' as the ignorant one. this is a valid statement but doesn't make the reasoning morally acceptable. from a humaniterian point of view it is illogical.however,as some have argued out; its best solution to send the polutants to the poorest countries becuase the effsts will be less from a realistic point of view. from this also i have reallised that one doesn't need to add emotions to reasoning as summers being a realist views the world to have solutions to every thing. definitely such a person won't always reason with emotions .
ReplyDeleteTimah
the first time i read this post, i smiled, because the temptation to launch a moral attack on the resoning of this argument was a little too great, so i waited a little. pollution causes increased death and disability, this is a true statement. pollution does increase instances of death and disability, however, this is usually a long term process. and thinking from an absolutely objective point of view, the deaths and disabilities caused by pollution hinder the working force, resulting in lost manpower and hence lost earnings. economically, thats a great way to measure the costs of pollution. people in poorer countries earn the least amounts of money and so in spite of the environmental costs of pollution, economically, from this limited viewpoint, to minimise the cost of pollution, polutants should be dumped in poorer countries.
ReplyDeletethis argument is absolutely valid, its reasoning follows and is deductive. however, it is a very myopic argument. this argument fails to realise that though incomes earned in poor countries are abysmal, production units obtain resources for production from these countries in some situations. Assuming a tree killing pollutant was shipped to ghana by a firm that needed ghanaian timber extracts in order to produce, that would be a very daft decision, because by the time the ghanian people begin to experience the effects of the pollutants, the supply of timber, due to the tree killing pollutant, would have greatly diminished, reducing the quantity that the firm in a MEDC can produce, and subsequently worker incomes. it also detaches production units from the pollution they emit, and for most heavily polluting firms to relocate pollutants, they would have to relocate production units, which is in essence infeasible and would mean the mass loss of jobs in its home country, reducing the income earned and hence the costs of pollution in that country. meanwhile, it would increase the well being of people in an LEDC, and so the cycle continues. Manufacturing is not even the main source of income in more developed countries, its the tertiary sector. expanding the manufacturing sector of an ledc by trying to avert the effects of pollution in your country, will eventually give rise to a tertiary sector, and increased income, and GDP, and government expenditure. its is possible that the circumstances will turn around and that due to mass unemployment in more developed countries, ledcs will be better off ecoomically, and hence medcs will become more "deserving" of pollutants and polluting porduction units.
the argument this economist makes is perfectly valid, yet in my opinion, after weighing it from an economic and environmentla point of view, it does not make sense.
the moral and humane implications of such a scheme make its imlpementation infeasible, because even if the UN fails to cry foul,several individuals would stand against it.
WOW!! I know almost everyone has said this already but when I read the conclusion that he managed to read I was angry and quite shocked!! So i'm going to try to remove myself from the situtuion and speak objectively. In TOK class we all agreed that if you accept the premises then you willl have to accept the conclusion..the second premise that mr.kitching drew our attention to is something that I do not agree with completely. Yes, we can look at the results or effects of pollution (death) in that way but there are also many other ways to look at it (as Mr. Kitching stated). The judgement he makes can only be deemed true and accepted by an individual if they accept ALL premises stated before the conclusion. Sorry to talk about emotion again but I think Deborah is right when she says he is letting his emotion and his bias towards his own country and therefore others like it, cloud his judgement. BY THE WAY, if emotion is a way of knowing then can't I say that my initial reaction of anger and incredulousity and everyone else's anger as well shows that there is something intrinsically wrong with the conclusion here.
ReplyDeleteI think i will take sides with Worlan on this matter because quite evidently Lawrencce summer's reasoning is flawless, inferring from the lessons i have learnt in TOK.The only problem here is the cold logic of his statement.Also, this is where i am in agreement with Ezekiel Jere's suggestion that ALL humans have the right to life.The interesting thing i can discern by reading Summer's statements is that though reasoning may be one of the things that uniquely defines us as humans,it may have its limitations. A world based on such logic and reasoning would be hell on earth.
ReplyDeleteAMPEEZY
i think that Summers is not reasoning well because as an economist who knows the financial state the third world countries are in,it does not make sense for him to make such conclusions. He should know that dumping the pollutants in such countries will add to the load of the leaders.i think this is a common problem with the western world because they think that Africa must inherit all the "Bad things." Though in their countries, these pollutants might be used for other things, he should realise that these poor countries do not have the materials for this. This will end up worsening the situations these countries find themselves in, both environmental and financial.
ReplyDeleteEsther
Yes, as most of you have said already, there is no fault in his reasoning, if we accept the premises made. But I think it's really arguable whether human life should be valued based on the economic worth it adds to the world. What about all the other things that make up a person. Are we saying that they are useless then? That's where I think the problem is.
ReplyDeleteOkay, as an economist shouldn't he think about the unrealized economic potential of all the third world countries and reconsider his conclusion? Pollution harms the environment (where do we find natural resources?-hint, hint) and that could have an effect on the natural resources in those countries. But of course nothing about this is included in the premises so we can assume that he just didn't think about it ...cuz if it actually came to mind and he decided against considering it then I shudder to think about what will happen to the world in the hands of leaders such as this one...seriously....
ReplyDeleteAt this point in time it would be crucial to point out,that,this is a clear example of the extent to which emotion clouds judgement. Unfortunate as it is, the logic in the economist's statement is undeniable. It is only our feeling of guilt or remorse of some sort that would prevent us from carrying out this.
ReplyDeleteAnyone could only argue against this statement, at best,from an ethical point.Most statements which did otherwise were flawed in one way or another.
I totally agree with John Daniels comment. In fact I actually wanted to write that but he beat me to it. Anyway, this is a good scenario of where emotion really affects our reasoning. We us humans are bound totally by compassion therefore we do not agree with the economist's statement. Also for living in a poor country country are also clouded with an emotion of anger towards the economist's statement. However his statement makes perfect sense and his argument is very valid.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I agree with what Ezekiel is saying about all people having a right to life or live. Therefore, there will be no sense in killing these poor people just for the fact that pollution has to be reduced. Honestly speaking, I don't think this is good enough reasoning by this economist. Although this speech by this economist is completely valid, it just is illogical to dump toxic and or waste materials in the poor country because 'The lost earnings will be lowest in the poorest countries of the world.’ Whether what he is saying is done or not, there will still be death, whether at a reduced rate or not, therefore I think this speech is not a good one. Well, pollution is not a good thing, obviously, but then again killing is even worse so then I think this speech has to be reviewed....
ReplyDeleteCHRISTOPHER ISAAC COBBINA
I actually agree with Sefakor's post very much. I was about to comment strongly against the economist's resolution, but then I noticed the point she made. Well, hopefully I am still being objective when I say that despite the economist's apparently sensible argument, he makes some sketchy assumptions and predictions; one of them being the statement that "the lost earnings WILL BE lowest in the poorest countries of the world."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Sefakor's comment I tried to understand where he was coming from. What I assume is that his mind was geared towards the question "What do they have to lose?"; 'they' being the poorer countries. Since they have less money, they have less to lose. It seems like a perfectly fine, logical argument. His argument is actually deductive, and appears quite valid.
However, my reasoning tells me that the effects of dumping pollutants in poorer countries would be so adverse, and worse than those on more developed countries, because they already have little money, and pollution would only give them more costs and problems to deal with (in addition to the ones they already have, furthermore).
His argument was obviously different. My viewpoint may be subjective after all, since I have some knowledge about pollution and poorer countries. Yet with his first statement (which is true), he seems to know what he is talking about. It is only his statement about poorer countries that does not seem very intelligent (especially for a person in his position who is expected to have good judgment and education).
One more thing to consider is the economist's position as the Chief Economist of the World Bank which gives him authority, power and influence. For some people, especially more ignorant people, there would be no problem with believing what he claims in his argument. The fact that he says it can make it true. Thus, someone may be even more inclined to see his argument as perfectly alright.
For me, to make a good and truly valid argument, you should avoid generalizations as much as possible and use strong (and real) evidence that supports it. With the information we've been given, he seems to be violating that, and jumping to conclusions without analysing certain things.
having read most of the interesting coments that people have come up with,iam forced to agree with some of the points given.looking for instance in ezekiel's comment that humans are entitled to the right to life, looking at the effects that will affect people in less developing countries when pollutants are dumped in their country makes us get a little bit emotional. the question that pop out of ny head per se is that why should the pollutants be dumped to a country which already has a lot of problems to deal with? emotion clouds us and we are forced to have feelings of anger toward the economist.based on the premise that i have acquired through knowledge from the national geographic,no matter how small the pollution is it will still affect the environment in which we live.pollution started from small emmisiions and right now is causing a threat to alot of living organisms according to biology. with this i am forced to take a stance that opposes the dumping of pollutants to LEDCs.
ReplyDeletebenjamin.k
OKAY, if we are talking about reasoning here technically speaking Lawrence is actually right. this is because the beginning of the argument is followed by a logical conclusion. the cost of dumping the refuse here would actually be the most logical thing to do. HOWEVER the implication of his statement is that due to the fact that we are not economically advantaged, we have to be at the receiving end of the waste produced by the economically advantaged. Even though I said that the statement does follow logic, its not right thing to say.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mr Kitching's comment I personally do not see why we should put financial value on human life in an instance like this, this particular instance to a large extent has nothing to do with us i.e. the Economically developed countries contribute a lot to pollution. So why should we be at the receiving end.
OK, firstly, good day to you all.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the interesting comments, I might say that some points of mine may be in agreement with others whilst some may not.
Now, Let's begin. An inductive reasoning...
"Pollution causes increased death and disability"
Certainly, true. As Akua Banful said, Though this may take quite a long time to occur, it is indeed true.
"The costs of death and disability are measured as lost earnings of those affected"
Probably true. As Mr. Kitching said, he is indeed an economist. Thus, a person who studies human behaviors and their relations is quite obvious to say this.
BUT, i may be able to ooze in some idea of language and emotion into this statement. And i think these two factors does affect the statement made by Lawrence Summers.
Language, can be varied in many forms and each individuals with his or her own perception, may put things in their own way of thinking.
Emotion, which we do not know whether is present in this case is indeed doubtful. since as a human, it is always possible for biased statements.
However does this affect the validity of this reasoning. So far as I am concerned, a lot of comments said that this reasoning is valid. Well I agree to that. But i think the question over here is reality. An argument, with it's strong base and solid premises, is mostly considered as VALID. However, how does that relate to reality?
"The lost earnings will be lowest in the poorest countries of the world
Therefore the costs of pollution will be minimized by dumping pollutants in the poorest countries"
This is indeed a laudable reasoning and thus, it is from an economist's point of view, a valid and *true* reasoning.
However, from the view of the rest of the world does it match with reality??
That is what I am interested in after reading all the comments. And any contributions to my questions will be warmly welcomed.
Thank you.
as some of my mates have said, this article seems annoying.but on the other hand, we can use reasoning here.First of all, economists rely mostly on assumptions.i thought this would have started the discussion.Lawrence Summers, as an economist based his reasoning on previous knowledge in accordance with universal principles of logic.we cannot say that Summers' reasoning was wrong.because through language, that was how the world was in his perception.and i entirely agree with him.and as baek said,i don't think his emotions drove him to think this way because it actually is not evident here.i agree with his general statement that pollution causes increased death and disability because this can actually be proven.thus it qualifies to be a positive statement.thus,i will agree with every folk here who says that summers' reasoning is valid.and i agree that the cost of pollution will be minimized by dumping all pollutants in the poorest countries.
ReplyDeleteHi guys, how are you doing?
ReplyDeleteHei alpha, I didn't know you could also give such good comments!! Actually, after looking at this situation all over again, I noticed that yeah, what most people have said is true about actually dumping all pollutants in the poorest countries. Therefore, the economist's statement is really valid and reasonable. I again agree with Baek that his emotions didn't drive him to think this way because as Alpha said, it's not evident. Also, I think that rather, it's emotions that will drive us to say something contrary to what he said. Pollution has all sorts of negative factors associated with it and so it's not good. I realized that it was emotions that actually led me to give the comments i gave previously, and that it's this same emotion that will lead any of us to actually sympathize with these poor countries. My advice therefore you, my dear friends, is that we shouldn't allow our emotions to take over us. If we do, we'll all think the same way I was thinking previously.
Thank you
Chris Cobbina
This writer of this memo has clearly applied deductive reasoning i.e. from general to more specific. His argument is valid because it follows from his premise that the lost earnings will be lowest in poor countries but for people who live in these poor countries think it is wrong. From all the comments i have read i have observed that people have gotten all emotional about this memo because they do live in a continent universally accepted as poor.
ReplyDeleteThe question we should be asking is, is the truth? Is it really true that the poor countries will be less affected by this activity? Well this might be true the rich countries because it is actually useful to them if the waste is not dumped in their country. This is truth by pragmatism.
Also is this conclusion fair to the people living in the poor countries? This highlights the selfish nature of all human beings but people may argue that it is actually survival of the fittest. Those of you who expressed emotions of anger and disgust for this activity are doing so because it negatively affects them. If the memo had said the waste should be dumped in the developed countries, many of you wouldn’t have cared or you would have even supported it.
Teye said that if the economist had allowed his emotions to cloud heis judgement then he would not have made the decision to dump the refuse in the poor countries. Are therefore saying that we should switch off our emotions in certain circumstances? If emotions are a way of knowing then we would never know the truth about the world. Then again are you saying there that is correct emotion and that anyone in this situation making this decision should sort of feel bad about the lives of the people and their resources? What if the economist just doesn’t care because of the basic emotion, selfishness?
I also think that this economist is very biased in his reasoning even though it sounds logical. Through reasoning, couldn’t he find another means of exposing the pollutants?
I agree completely agree with the comments John Daniels and Sefakor made. That was what was on my mind all the while I was reading the comments posted. It is true that the economist's arguments are valid but this argument would never have gone through and appealed to anyone because their emotions will completely clouded the judgements of any audience-just like many of those commenting. I too was appalled after reading it but the truth cannot be denied. This situation shows clearly the importance of emotion in the making of decisions, especially in positions of power which deal with the lives of humans.
ReplyDeleteSelzy...
The economist's reasoning is flawless but it is only going to benefit those in rich countries. The people in the poor countries no matter how best you can explain this type of reasoning to them, they can never agree with you and i agree with them because if the economist had given way to his emotions to influence his reasoning, i bet he would have realised that the place where these pollutants are to be dumped is occupied by poor people and that the action would make life even more unbearable for them. This shows how important emotions really are.
ReplyDeletein my opinion the reasoning in the article is sound. i completely agree with the reasoning. i also agree with sefakor and john daniels. the people who live in the 'poorer' countries would not allow the waste to be dumbed on thier land simply because their emotions would cloud thier judgement. there is another issue that could be brought up. there is talent at every corner of the earth. if there is a human being in a poor country who is capable of GREAT things either scientifically or in the arts feild. if he were to mature he might have been the next wealthiest person on the earth, however because of the dumping of waste on the land he died. there would be no way to know that he would have been rich or not. as a result it feel like there is a flaw in his reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI seriously do not have a problem with the economist.If this is the only option available, i recommend that he puts into practice his idea especially if there is any form of aid being given to the LDC where the pollutants are to dumped so as to reduce the cost of pollution.
ReplyDelete.
I agree with him on that statement that pollution causes death and disability.Unlike some people's comments of humans having a right to live, i think humans beings also have the right to death.
To be more serious, i think the people from the LDCs will be annoyed by this. They may think
he has no empathy, however, this will be welcomed by the people in the HDCs. Like Kioko's comment,if emotions influenced his reasoning, he would have come up with an ideal way of solving pollution rather than dumping the pollutants in the LDCs.
What an interesting piece! The economist with his academic and objective background, presents valid and sound reasoning, with the use of faultless premises. However, Mr. Summers fails to realize the full implications of such drastic measures. Also, he should recognize in this age, we live in a "global village" in which an occurrence in one part of the world, may directly or indirectly affect the livelihood of another. Fine, the costs of pollution would be minimized, but what about the effects of dumping in these extremely poor countries? Various, if not all aspects of society could be negatively affected. Had Mr. Summers taken into account the emotions of himself and those to be affected by the proposed scheme, he may have become morally conscious to be aware that it is unlawful and wrong to heap problems on nations, with no fault on their part. Supposing these poor countries were putting measures in place to alleviate poverty, then this dumping would be a serious setback and obstacle to their growth. Therefore had the economist employed the usage of reasoning and emotion together, which would have reduced his intense rationality, an alternative solution favourable to all parties, may be attained.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I was not sure if the economist was in his right state of mind. But after I read the comments posted here I tried to make some meaning out of the article. I don’t see why someone would like to dump their wastes in a poor country, these are the countries that suffer a lot. This idea is not the best and the economist should think twice about it. Maybe he has something against the poor countries and the emotions are over ruling his reasoning.
ReplyDeletel agree with mussy on the fact that adding more to the countries that already have alot of thier own problems but .this point lies on the effect of emotion on reasoning , because it is symphathysing with the victims however this is a viable point looking at reasoning because lesser harm is being done to the world as a whole due to dumping things in pooorer areas compared to the rich areas
ReplyDeleteI just want to say that yes there was some reasoning applied in these statements made. But really is it true??? There are so many factors that affect the low earnings in any country. This brings me back to the nature of the social sciences especially economics. Making deductions and conclusions in such areas of knowledge which are actually true is almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteIn all my economics classes one phrase i always hear is "ceteris paribus" which means "all other things being equal" for most topics being learned. This means that before a direct relationship or link can be formed between a concept/ occurence and its effects, all other factors which may pose possibly similar effects are kept constant or non-functional.
I have also often heard from my econonmics teacher (no offense...lol) that some of the things we learn do not apply to the real market. Therefore if a subject like this, so full of assumptions and abstract ideas cannot be applied to the real market and real economies in most cases, why then is it being used to pass judgements and decisions on people that actually EXIST!!! REAL HUMAN BEINGS!! there's no denying that the science has helped in innumerable ways but in a situation like this with adverse effects (OTHER THAN LOW EARNINGS), more thought should go into it!
Okay so we all know that the logic in Summers' statement and its validity is unquestionable. Fine. But i still do not think it is the best and i'm being objective here- no emotions attached. Let us be reasonable here, even if costs of pollution in the poorest countries are minimal relatively, they are still COSTS! that poor countries are going to face daily, so why don't we find another solution to waste disposal to prevent or alleviate pollution gradually so that no one is faced with any costs at all! WORD!..
ReplyDeletesheila wangari
ReplyDeleteevery country deserves respect no matter how poor it is. it is not right for a country to damp its waste in another country while it produced it on its own. the poor countries help the richer countries with the technology to become rich by giving them resources and market for it finished goods. so if they kill all the occupants by damping waste who will the market? each country needs each other in it endeavors therefore the waste should be simply recycled. after all they have all the technology and capital to do this! this is my opinion.
To comment on this i think we have to relate our form of reasoning also to our morale. In that even if what we are analyzing is concluded to make 100% perfect sense if it breaks the rules of our morales then i believe it is not 100% reasonable. I believe Morale should be a subset of our form of reasoning, thus in the extract it is not reasonable for the pollutants to be dumped into the less developed countries since it is 100% valid that the cost of pollution will be minimized. Morally this is not reasonable.
ReplyDeletei side with the economist when he says that Pollution causes increased death and disability this point is valid because once we we later suffer the consequences of our own actions.Also for living in a poor country country are also clouded with an emotion of anger towards the economist's statement. Again i was totally disturbed when the economist says to costs of pollution will be minimized by dumping pollutants in the poorest countries" this i am very sure that the LCD's would react same to this because as as Steven the people from the LCD's will be annoyed
ReplyDeletehe has no empathy. so if we should go on what this economist says, it means that more deaths are will occur which should not be so. i really think that rather polluting LCD"S we should think a sensible way of solving the problem of pollution.
Going back to what I said about emotions being a hindrance to reasoning. I just remembered the topic of natural selection be Darwin and having read the September 2009 issue of the Scientific American one theory put forward was that emotion is not innate but originated as a product of evolution. Humans needed to show fear in order to run and escape their predators. Love was developed in order to keep the bond that would allow babies to protected increase our chances of survival in a world suited only for the fittest.
ReplyDeleteTherefore it is with this that I believe that emotion a more of an inconsequential product of our species' history than a valuable way of knowing. Then again as I said the example Mr. Kitching gave above is a clear evidence of what im saying. Emotion may be a way of knowing but it does, I believe, cloud our judgement most times.
The important aspect of my argument here is morality although the cost and in poor countries may be relatively cheap it is still incorrect to carry on with this process.Even if people are ruthless out there and don't want to lend a hand to the less fortunate it is still wrong to follow in their footsteps
ReplyDelete