I always thought the greatest (moral) argument for conservation was about future generations. Kind of like intertemporal property rights—who are the Romans to unilaterally deprive us of that magic plant? We moderns had no say in the matter.
A related argument is Tyler Cowen’s moral imperative for “growth with rights”. If you believe that, then you also believe we have a moral imperative to enable growth in the future, not just today. So with non-renewable resources you should be thinking: will I get more bang for my buck today or later? Better to grow below top speed today to enable future growth. Imagine if all the oil had been refined into kerosene for lighting. Would heavier than air flight have been possible without oil?
I wonder if there are insights from archeology. With destructive analyses it’s a similar problem: you need to balance knowledge production today with knowledge production with better methods tomorrow.
I always thought the greatest (moral) argument for conservation was about future generations. Kind of like intertemporal property rights—who are the Romans to unilaterally deprive us of that magic plant? We moderns had no say in the matter.
A related argument is Tyler Cowen’s moral imperative for “growth with rights”. If you believe that, then you also believe we have a moral imperative to enable growth in the future, not just today. So with non-renewable resources you should be thinking: will I get more bang for my buck today or later? Better to grow below top speed today to enable future growth. Imagine if all the oil had been refined into kerosene for lighting. Would heavier than air flight have been possible without oil?
I wonder if there are insights from archeology. With destructive analyses it’s a similar problem: you need to balance knowledge production today with knowledge production with better methods tomorrow.