Essay about when hard work paid off - reflective paper topics


 

Manage



 
 

Search

 
 
 

News

 

Comments

essay about when hard work paid off

essay about when hard work paid offEssay about when hard work paid off -However, given an infinite source of energy, population growth still produces an inescapable problem. [4] The arithmetic signs in the analysis are, as it were, reversed; but Bentham's goal is unobtainable.For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama." The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons.No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art… I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. In reaching this conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it is the acquisition of energy that is the problem.If this assumption is correct it justifies the continuance of our present policy of laissez faire in reproduction.We want the maximum good per person; but what is good?The problem for the years ahead is to work out an acceptable theory of weighting.But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society.This energy is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work." It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly.(Cynically, we suspect that they gained more votes than they lost by this retrogressive act.) In an approximate way, the logic of the commons has been understood for a long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of private property in real estate.As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome.If the assumption is not correct, we need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are defensible.Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry.Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by "work calories" which he takes in.Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons.The appearance of atomic energy has led some to question this assumption.Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1. In a sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial.Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality.If it is correct we can assume that men will control their individual fecundity so as to produce the optimum population.essay about when hard work paid offTo live, any organism must have a source of energy (for example, food).The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe.I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can falsify the records.Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free enterprisers. "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution.Any people that has intuitively identified its optimum point will soon reach it, after which its growth rate becomes and remains zero.The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it.They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment...." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present article.We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size until we explicitly exorcise the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of practical demography.Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially.At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a population is below its optimum.It is when the hidden decisions are made explicit that the arguments begin.For man maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day ("maintenance calories").But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. [2] A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem -- technologically.How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment.In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution.However, by any reasonable standards, the most rapidly growing populations on earth today are (in general) the most miserable.This association (which need not be invariable) casts doubt on the optimistic assumption that the positive growth rate of a population is evidence that it has yet to reach its optimum. essay about when hard work paid off At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, J. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation.'' [1] I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem.The calculations of utility are much the same as before.We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first.It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution.Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution.Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly 1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal.Even at this late date, cattlemen leasing national land on the Western ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent understanding, in constantly pressuring federal authorities to increase the head count to the point where overgrazing produces erosion and weed-dominance.Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem.Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. [8] The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness.It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy.Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level?The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily eroded. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system.[9] The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. The parks themselves are limited in extent -- there is only one Yosemite Valley -- whereas population seems to grow without limit. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them.To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands.Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences.Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. essay about when hard work paid off The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known Pamphlet in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852).The pollution problem is a consequence of population.Reaching an acceptable and stable solution will surely require more than one generation of hard analytical work -- and much persuasion.[6] We may well call it "the tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it [7]: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness.Specifically, can Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be realized? This was clearly stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern, [3] but the principle is implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to D'Alembert (1717-1783).Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in -- sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight.Free parking courtesy of the mayor and city council." In other words, facing the prospect of an increased demand for already scarce space, the city fathers reinstituted the system of the commons.A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.The second reason springs directly from biological facts.Synergistic effects, nonlinear variation, and difficulties in discounting the future make the intellectual problem difficult, but not (in principle) insoluble.It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste.In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations (1776) popularized the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual who "intends only his own gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible hand to promote…the public interest." [5] Adam Smith did not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his followers.(I can also, of course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it." This utility has one negative and one positive component. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal.Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. York concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race are…confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security.Only a criterion of judgment and a system of weighting are needed. Is it better for a species to be small and hideable, or large and powerful?The problem of the acquisition of energy is replaced by the problem of its dissipation, as J. The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum.I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found.Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd? essay about when hard work paid off No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art… I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. In reaching this conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it is the acquisition of energy that is the problem. essay about when hard work paid off




Status: FreeWare
OS: Windows|Mac OS
Autors 1942
Update: 26-Nov-2017 18:06
Cat: Home »