Sustainability and Economics

It is a miracle in itself how the earth has come to exist. No matter what theory is preferred, the fact that a planet has been formed to create solid rock and water juxtaposing across diverse landscapes is quite unique. That our own human bodies have been created by molecules to accept the particles in the air is an astonishing natural wonder, and that nature seems to have an innate desire to fight is something remarkable.

 

What is then even more fascinating is the journey of our own species. That we should desire to live together in large groups and to communicate with one another has enabled us to control our planet. A fundamental question to understanding our nature, our philosophy of the world and our aims for the future is this: How do we organise ourselves? The fact we exist is remarkable, but the idea that we are now influencing the planet and dictating its future is actually quite terrifying, yet somewhat epic. What have we been and what have we done to lead us to the point we are at today? What direction are we going and why do we want to go there?

 

There are questions I have about the human race. Some are macro-orientated, in that they are generalised across all humans. These macro questions could be common for perhaps an outsider looking into human civilization. Other questions are micro-orientated, in that they question particular cultures or sub-groups as if I belong to them.

Macro-questions:

Why do we continue to consume finite resources when we know that these will run out for our future generations?

Are we showing that we only innately care for our immediate survival by not living a sustainable lifestyle?

Why do we leave some parts of the world in worse conditions than others?

 

Micro-questions:

Why do we eat foods that are detrimental to health?

Why do we consume toxic substances knowing they are bad for our health?

Why do we want to put a price everything in order for it to fit into a monetary system?

Why do we do things we know are bad?

 

It is interesting to question and learn why our society is what it is today. Why have we decided to do certain things, and not other things? The miracle of our species is amazing. How we have engineered our land and our minds to survive for as long as we can. But then what worries me is just how much our human race is limited. We say to ourselves that we possess intelligence, and in that we do. However, we are not yet as intelligent as we should be. It is interesting to see how people decide to live their lives in a constructed world. In a world not constructed by nature anymore, but by humans ourselves. It is indeed so interesting to see what our overall aims are, to see how we should achieve them and to see why we have chosen them. Whilst all individuals will be different, one thing should remain constant amongst us all. That constant variable is that we should strive to be sustainable and we should strive to develop. These two variables consist of unquestionable logic, and will demonstrate true intelligence.

 

 

 

The miracle of life is now also shared with the miracle of human civilization. Just how have we decided to organise ourselves? That answer is extremely complex, but it is indeed answerable. The study of our organisation will help to decide the way we should develop. In a now constructed world, we rely on a materialistic, and increasingly virtualistic, item to control almost everything. It controls the access of resources and it dictates the happiness of many individuals. It can cause death, and it can prevent it. The item is money, and it is so effective because it is used in a civilization that is centred on it. We have organised our society around money. In order to understand our civilization and why we do what we do, we must study what our society is based upon. That is why the field of economics is so crucial, and why it is valuable to me.

Mechanism

Human life is the same as the market mechanism.

The market mechanism can be defined as the technique used to allocate resources. In the UK, we follow the form of a mixed economy where all of our resources are split up between the private and the public sector. The other two types of markets are planned, where all resources are allocated by the government, and a free market where resources are left to be allocated by individuals.

When individuals are left to allocate resources for themselves huge problems usually arise. This is known as market failure. The market, if left alone, is not allocating resources efficiently. For example, a monopolistic company can set high prices for its product, meaning only the rich can access it. Without the interference of the government to implement competition policies or laws, the company can get away with being very inefficient.



If humans are to be left alone then we shall face huge inefficiencies. We are already seeing them today. The world is a finite place.
For example, we are producing more CO2 emissions than the plant life can absorb. we are allowing the sun's radiation into our atmosphere by omitting pollutants . We are wasting land by feeding our demand for meat. We are filling up land-fill sites. We are using machines that damage our organs. We have made a majority of the world poor, whilst the minority are rich. We are over -fishing many oceans. We are over-consuming many resources.

Humans are running on a free economy. Our government is nature itself.

Control

The AA have just completed primary research which shows that the wholesale price of fuel, the price that retailers pay for it, has actually gone down. the AA have said that the price of petrol should have been decreased by as much as 10p-11p. Instead, we find ourselves with rising fuel prices.

This phenonenom shows me quite a few things about our economic climate and brings up certain conditions. Firstly, companies have control of natural resources and are limiting its use to the population. Secondly, the government are taxing fuel and are showing no sign of decreasing this rate. There are reasons why they are doing this.


The seriousness of the statement "Companies have control of natural resources" should not be underestimated. In essence, the equitability of items that are available to us is limited and thus our lives are beginning to be changed because of this. Philosophers ponder the meaning of life, but they certaintly do not forsee it to be in a place where we are limited to what we can do because of other individuals. Of course there is two sides to this argument, those that say that the fuel would not be accessible or refined for us unless these companies existed. However, there comes a point when companies no longer seek to improve the lives of the majority, but instead to control it. I believe we have crossed that point.

My second point concerns the ideology of the UK government. The price of petrol for consumers would be around 50 pence if it was not for taxes. One contributor to a BBC forum stated that the high prices are "exactly what the government wants, as it means they are simply pumping more money into their account". Regardless of this mans displeasure, we do have a deficit and it must be reduced. Goods which have negative externalities, such as motor vehicles, should be discouraged. And this is why I personally do not have a problem with the tax rate the government has set because of the negative externalities which motor vehicles have. On the surface, the tax seems very high on fuel and is having a detrimental affect on the lives of millions. Fuel for our cars is dictating our lives. Put in a much better way, cars are dictating our lives. This is our main problem, and I hope that this is the motif behind the governments high taxes, not the revenue-seeking politicians that BBC contributors despise.

Until electric cars are a realistic product, I do not see myself driving a car. I do not need to at this moment in time and I do not think I ever will with the development of public transport and the opportunity to car-share. I hope others share my view.

Distraction

I used to be very interested in business. Modules such as International Business and Business Economics during my Sixth form studies were a lot of fun and I found them stimulating, whilst also being academically successful with it. However, my interest has decayed quite a bit. I now gain stimulation and excitement from economics, and especially economics not concerned with business. I do not know why I had a change in interest, but I do not think it matters why either.

Regardless, I have somewhat seen a major flaw in business and its excitement. Business is a distraction from the world. Business ignores problems. It's an idea that I have been devouring for some time but it has credibility. Working in business creates a new form of world for an individual. They must worry about its growth, its sustainability (how long will the business last?) and its current health. All the time someone is in business, 'making money', I do not think they can worry or be concerned about more pressing issues. Climate change, poverty, inequality, food shortages, rising fuel prices, water shortages and inefficient supply-chains are real-world problems. But who cares when they are in business? All these real problems are ignored when an individual works in a business.


I have a friend, Mark, who works as a trainee accountant. Talking to him about it  reveals that it is a lot of fun. It can be stimulating and it can be rewarding. I find business the easy solution and a route that I should not take. I think about the future of the world, not the future of a business. I worry about the pollution we cause, not the profit that can be made from the things that cause it. It is for this reason that I do not like business. Business is a distraction from the world. Business is a completely new world, with new worries and new consequences.

I know I am archetyping the term 'business'. I know that is was essential for economic growth and to increase our standard of living. My theory is still legitimate.

Struggle

Having decided to do a gap year after not achieving the grades required for entry this year, I have spent a lot of my time searching for courses again. There is no doubt that I shall go to university. And, I almost certainly know what it is that I am interested in, what I aim to do after my degree and what I see my passion being.
 

My search for five more courses has not been as easy as I had thought. When I read an article from the University of Gloucestershire it seemed apparent as to why. The article can be found here:

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/sustainability/Education/Documents/Sus%20in%20DNA%20_Javier_%20FINAL%20Mar%2010.pdf

The article queries why 'sustainability sciences' are not being brought into the university curriculums with full effect. It states "The early decades of the 21st century have brought challenges which are forcing universities worldwide to reconsider their role in society as well as the skills needed by future graduate cohorts to address worldwide recession, ongoing humanitarian concerns and unexpected ecological crises (Ryan et al 2010)."
 


I am interested in solving these '21st century challenges'; such as inequality, environmental mis-management and poverty. My problem comes when I try to find a subject that helps me solve these problems. Sustainable Development courses seem to outline the problems, with little real-world application and methods to solve them. Meanwhile, Economics courses seem to focus heavily on financial institutions and 'insignificant' problems, in my opinion. International Development courses focus on the developing world too much for my liking, whilst Sociology courses are more theory based and concerned with more micro-problems, such as crime and gender. It seems as though my perfect course does not exist as of yet.
 

I have always intended to do a Masters degree and I think I have found an even stronger reason to do so. Whilst browsing many times online at the types of courses; Innovation of Sustainability for International Development, Environmental Economics, Economics of Natural Resources, Global Environmental Challenges to name a few, I think that a Postgraduate degree is where I shall be able to specialise in my interests. I researched the entry requirements for these programmes and others and found that a 2:1 or above in Economics is very desirable. It is for this reason that I feel a solid grounding in economics is perhaps my safest option for undergraduate study. I hope that my interests in the environment and ecology are not however brushed aside by lecturers or classmates who are obsessed with financial institutions, economic growth and labour markets. This is perhaps my greatest scare when choosing to study economics.


I have been told many times that I think too much. Perhaps I have thought too much about my degree choice and this is all irelevant. My brother seemed to pick History with relative ease, and others chose sciences and English without much deliberation. This makes me think I think too much. Insane.