Passage Discussion

[yoohoo081]

Can somebody help me disect this passage please?
First my scale: please fix if wrong.

Economist view of prosoerity(on monetary value) is fine
-example of harvest to support fault in critic reasoning
Vs
Critics view that there are other values like quality of life and environmental health to consider in prosperity
(Author likes this view better)
-examples given to state why monetary isn't everything.

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you were real close with the scale, but not as clear as I'd love to see when it came to the role of the examples.

The scale is:

Prosperity (defined in terms of monetary value)
--- the conventional view

vs.

Prosperity (defined in terms that also include quality of life indicators)
---- the author, and critics

There are 2 examples.

The 1st is one in which a thinning ozone layer creates health hazards, which spurs people to buy hats/sunglasses/suncreens/etc.

Since buying those things creates economic activity, the conventional view would say that the thinning ozone layer is contributing to prosperity.

Our author and the critics would say, "you call THAT prosperity? Being imperiled by UV radiation?"

The author is attempting to illustrate that this environmental hazard would be considered 'prosperous' by the conventional view, but 'unprosperous' by his/the critics' view. (and, naturally, he thinks the latter interpretation is more correct)
--

The 2nd example is the timber harvest situation.

A rural town is considering placing a limit on how much timber could be harvested per year. Residents object to this. They know that timber is the town's primary source of income. They (and the conventional view) would argue that reducing the amount of timber harvested/sold is reducing their prosperity.

The author/critics would respond by saying harvest limits are needed to keep the town's land from being damaged. Short-term monetary prosperity could lead to long-term ecological damage (and therefore long-term monetary damage).

Furthermore, residents are choosing to live in this town for the natural beauty, and forfeiting the opportunity to make more money in a less beautiful area. Thus, the residents are in a sense "paying a price" to live in this beautiful area.

If there were no harvest limits, the area would lose its natural beauty, so the "price" the residents pay to live here would be wasted.

Here the author is arguing that the town's monetary prosperity is actually better secured by keeping the harvest limitations than by getting rid of them. (It's really an issue of short-term gains in jobs/wages vs. long-term losses in terms of property values)

It's kind of a crappy example, because the author is saying that the harvest limitation would be considered 'un-prosperous' by either definition. (so it doesn't really demonstrate that the conventional view is wrong ... just that the residents of the town were applying the conventional view too narrowly and missing the more qualitative, but still monetary, factors that would be affected as well).

The final paragraph anticipates an objection of the conventional view, "health and happiness are harder to quantify than dollars and cents" and responds by saying "yup. you're right. they are harder to quantify. but that doesn't mean they aren't a real part of what we mean by prosperity."

Ultimately, the two examples brought up are meant to support the author's/critics' position. However, in discussing each one, the author initially shows how the conventional view would interpret the example. So in that sense, you may have been tempted to put the examples on either/both sides of the scale.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Let