Birds, Technology and Destruction

What is it in the nature of people to kill birds even when it's illegal?

"I have a gun,
I will go out and kill,
because it is fun."

The unfortunate truth about technology is that not everyone will use it responsibly. I wonder what proportion of the world's population has the moral, emotional and intellectual maturity to use the technologies that humans produce responsibly? Can we get it right or will it destroy everything around us and ultimately ourselves too?

It happens in America too, as this article indicates: Last successful breeding whooping crane shot and killed.

It's not the environment, it's the economy , stupid.

It's not an environmental problem, it's an economic problem.
It pollutes the way we think.

Here's a classic example. The BBC runs a story entitled "Australia fails to plug oil leak". From the way the article is written and the way those involved have framed the problem it sounds like an impossible task - trying to plug a "small hole" in the pipework below the sea bed. Statements like "extraordinary difficulty" and "complex task" are used to explain just how difficult it is when "trying to hit a needle in a haystack 2.5km below sea level".

This is a classic problem framing issue. Those involved have framed the problem from their own perspective and are ramming their view down your throat. If we reframe the problem we get a different perspective.

Let's assume the real problem is the damage to the environment. If the highest priority is to protect the environment and manage this "resource" in an environmentally responsible way then the solution is simple - replace the entire pipe system that has the leak. The process is relatively simple - block the pipe as low as possible, pull the upper pipe section out, lay new pipes with no leaks and redrill the artificial plug at the bottom of the well.

So what's the problem? Ah, now we get to the real problem. It's too expensive. This is a good environmental solution but it's an unattractive financial and economic solution. This is where we have to challenge our paradigms and ask ourself the most important question: IS ECONOMIC PROFIT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ENVIRONMENT? If it is then you try a cheap patch and leak oil into the sea and say 'it was really difficult and we did the best we could'. If the environment is more important then you need to consider that maybe the expectation of endless growing profits and the primary motive that drives all business is fundamentally flawed wrt to actually treating the environment correctly.

Perception Problem
So what we have is a perception problem, which is polluted by the assumption that business is more important than the environment.

Part of this problem is the international nature of free market competition. By having a leak that needs expensive repairs your costs increase, which means your competition can outperform you and in the ruthless world of business if you go out of business that means more market share and more profit for the other guy. Business likes that. Business is not going to try help you.

So what's the solution?
I've tried to come up with a pragmatic business friendly approach to a solution. Throw money at the problem. The solution is actually quite simple. Tax everyone so that there is a huge fund to help pay for this stuff.

Unfortunately it's the management of the solution that is problematic, because it raises new problems. This is where policy makers and government officials become as meek as little lambs - I know, I've had the DDG tell me he doesn't like my solution (different situation) because it's too difficult to implement. Who can be trusted with that much cash? The potential for fraud is massive. Everyone will be applying to use what's available and then someone needs to assess the merits of the application and the validity of the costs involved. The bigger and more global the scheme the more bureaucratic and cumbersome it will become. It may also result in companies using lower safety standards in an attempt to drop Capex costs and then expect to be able to fix the resulting mess with free funds later.

Let's face it, policy is difficult - so even those responsible for the required regulation (governments) are finding it hard to provide the necessary leadership. To make things even more difficult governments are also not neutral enough. They are dependent on business for taxes, which help pay for other essential services. They have national interests in competitive international businesses and are therefore not able to act by themselves. This means they have to cooperate with others and now we get into the international treaty area. There is a reason why WTO and Kyoto are failing to deliver - governments, like business are acting out of self interest.

Economic Paradigm
When you teach Adam Smith and adopt his view of "the 'invisible hand' to describe the apparent benefits to society of people behaving in their own interests" - then you get the world we live in. Philosophically I challenge the central tenant of "self interest" being the basis of good economics. I believe our world view needs to change to an economic paradigm that looks after cumulative interests, which include the environment with all it's interdependent ecosystems.

Economics is also fundamentally flawed because it doesn't take the cost/value of nature into account. By not establishing that link we cannot get the pricing signals required to act in time. This will result in a day of natural reconning, when the indirect costs catch up to us. My fear is that when that happens it will be too late to do anything about it because as an engineer I understand irreversible processes (thermodynamics, time and extinctions). Economists do not have this appreciation for nature - they solve problems by creating more debt. When you pollute and kill a working natural system you cannot buy back a new one, regardless of how much money you have.

The other thing that bothers me about trying to link the cost/value to nature is that it lends itself to more exploitation by businesses acting out of self interest. It also encourages this crazy idea of ownership - that individuals need to put a fence around something and own it in order to make their own living. Imagine all the big businesses buying up all the trees that produce oxygen for the planet and charging us for our right to breath their clean air. This would be a horror story on unprecedented scales.

Paradise Lost
Part of the miracle of living in the "paradise" that we live in is that we live in a symbiotic relationship with those trees and they do it for free. We humans are the ones who are failing to live up to the deal of engaging in symbiotic relationships. Business is killing this notion, and it is destroying the paradise we had (and the little we still have left). It is also destroying the miracle of life and the treasures of biodiversity (food, medicines, aesthetic beauty).

Business is our 'Eve' personality biting into the apple of exploitation based on the knowledge we have acquired through science. We are making that choice today - Genesis can be interpreted as a contemporary tale of life today.
(Now that would make for an interesting story Alex:-)