College of Business Administration

1) Buchholz states that one of the causes of increased consumption was the movement away from the work ethic. He states that things like the knowledge of the atomic bomb, and knowing that humans have the ability to destroy the plant, was a reason that people sought to live now rather then defer gratification for some future time that might not be there. Do you agree?

2) The author states that changes in religious beliefs and a weakened belief in afterlife caused more people to hold the belief that you only go around once in life so you might as well enjoy it to its fullest extent was a change in behavior and consumption. What do you think?

3) “The greatest single engine in the destruction of the Protestant ethic was the invention of the installment plan, or instant credit. Previously we had to save in order to buy, but with credit cards one could indulge in instant gratification. The system was transformed by mass production and mass consumption, by the creation of new wants and the new means of gratifying those wants.” Agree or Disagree?

4) The government, education system, marketing, and technology all have been blamed for accelerating consumption in various articles and periodicals.

Do you think they are to blame?
Which is the greatest evil?
Can you think of any other causes?

5) Dr. Lesinger writes, “International evidence suggests, that it is possible to lower population growth in an ethically acceptable way. The main pillars of a development policy that motivates parents to have smaller families are

• the satisfaction of basic needs
• economic, political and social reforms to create distributional equity and equality of opportunities
• and good governance resulting in social security and guaranteed human rights”

How can these conditions be met in your opinion (if at all)?
What roles would governments and business play?
Is China’s limit of 2 children per family an ethical alternative?

6) Dr. Lesinger writes, “The top consumers and waste producers live in North America, Europe, and the rich countries of Asia and break all the records against the absorption and regeneration capacity of the global environment… A child born in a rich, industrialized country… places a much greater burden on the planet than a child born in a poor country.”

As countries in the “South” develop, is it fair for the “North to demand they do so using clean energy? Who should pay for capital investments in clean energy?
Is it fair for the “North” to ask the “South” to control population growth? Why or why not?

7) Can the “North - South” problem be resolved without agreed upon and enforceable rules? Can NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) be effective promoters of change?

8) In the article the Author argues for increased government involvement (e.g., through selective subsidies and taxes). The proposal would increase the price of energy derived from sources deemed to be environmentally destructive and/or unsustainable (e.g., coal and oil). The result would contribute significantly (at least in the short run) to the cost that we pay for energy. In the past, the public has been extremely reluctant to accept significantly higher costs for energy (especially gasoline).

Is it possible for politicians to successfully enact the proposed changes without having them removed by a successor elected as a response to public disapproval?

9) When humans first began relying upon oil and coal as energy sources the environmental consequences were not understood. More recently, the discovery of nuclear power initially appeared to be the perfect source of energy.

Is it possible or even likely that a substantial shift towards using and harvesting renewable energy sources (e.g., geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, biomass) as proposed by the author will have detrimental consequences similar to, or at least as devastating as, those associated with our current sources of energy?

10) Many economists believe that new technology will allow humans to overcome natural resource scarcity. In effect, these economists are arguing that humans will be able to continue to overcome the limitations of nature through their ability to create new technology, and that economic growth will always be able to continue.

Do you believe that at some point a threshold will be reached regarding resources and that the only alternative will be to accept negative or flat economic growth?

11) There is estimated to be $125 to $350 billion (1998 dollars) worth of recoverable oil within ANWR. It can be argued that the cost of not developing the land is equal to the above figures. We discussed a preservation valuation method in class that determines individual preferences for the knowledge of preservation verses a material good. Using this method, it can be argued that in order for the value of preservation to match the value of recoverable oil, the “average” American values the preservation of ANWR greater than something worth about $1,000 (e.g., a week-long vacation to Hawaii).

Is this an effective way to determine the value of preserved land?

12) The article discusses the contrasting views and lifestyles of the Inupiat and Gwich’in – The Inupiat have “chosen” to incorporate many Western standards into their lives, whereas, the Gwich’in have not.

Consider for a moment that the lower-48 was not involved with the issue. Do you feel that the Inupiat have the right to develop their land despite the possible consequence to the continued sustainability of the Gwich’in?

13) Do you think that the US should lease ANWR for oil development? Why or why not?