THINQon : Zero-sum model

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Robert Percy, Tired but waking up more everyday

Zero-sum model

Latest Post: September 30, 2010 at 10:34 PM

2 followers

My professor says the zero-sum models for lessening humanity's impact on the environment is bullshit. I want to argue with him on this point, but first I need to sound it out to figure out exactly why he is wrong.

Basically the zero-sum model says that we should strive to use less. Whenever possible, do something that infringes less on the environment than you normally would. Drink tap water instead of bottled water. Grab three less napkins at the drive-thru. Bike to work. Etc. Etc. Etc.

My professor doesn't think this is bad. In fact he thinks it much more important to follow the zero-sum model than being actively harmful to the environment. But still he qualifies the zero-sum model as doing nothing at all. Real and positive environmental improvement, he says, must be active. And the zero-sum model is passive. An example of this would be a hypothetical energy efficient car (zero-impact) that cleans the air while driving. If the car was just energy efficient (made and driven with zero-impact) than it would fall under only the zero-impact model. But because it is actively cleaning the air it is positively affecting the environment.

Well. I take issue with this on the basis of logic.

By my professor's model we can envision a number line.

By striving to live a zero-sum life a person moves positively towards zero. But not beyond that. The person with the air cleaning car moves positively towards infinity.

My professor is ignoring the trajectory of motion. In both cases, the examples are moving in a likewise direction. In ecological terms, this direction equates to the lessening of humanity's harm towards the environment. If the goal is the same, and the means are the same, why should we distinguish between different models? It's all to the same effect. We shouldn't think a zero-sum car is useless because in reality it replaces a harmful car. Maybe a plus-sum car that cleans the air is better, but we shouldn't neglect one person's small contribution of personal change. It's the same issue as voting, maybe one person's vote isn't worth all that much in the scheme of things, but put it together and there you go.

Do you all think there is logic in my argument before I go ahead and assault my teacher?

This post is referenced by the following other contributors:

Robert Percy

in "What makes a good idea good?"

(The Living Room)

Reply to:

Andrew Esch

September 30, 2010 at 10:34 PM

15 followers

"My professor doesn't think this is bad. In fact he thinks it much more important to follow the zero-sum model than being actively harmful to the environment. But still he qualifies the zero-sum model as doing nothing at all."

I basically agree.

I think it depends on how you want to define and apply a scale to what "doing something" means... individual vs. global. You are zeroed in on the individual side of things, but, as with your voting example, one individual bucking a trend does not affect the outcome. No matter how fervently I support the Dems this fall, the Republicans are still going to take the House of Representatives...

If you consider the aggregate of humanity and any of the major ecological worldwide trends, your professor is correct. Zero-sum models do nothing because reduction in resource consumption is not universally applied, nor will it be. About 3 billion people in India and China alone are increasing their living standards through increased energy and product consumption. That trend line is up and is not going to bend in the coming decades. Nor should it. There is no reason third world residents should not aspire to a more comfortable and modern life.

Plus, global population is increasing. Individual reductions are futile because humans are making more humans - mostly in the third world, which adds an exponential increase to the trend mentioned above. So in light of these two factors alone, the trajectory line you envision is reversed when applied to the globe.

If you would like to reduce reuse recycle for your own benefit, as an individual, that is certainly well and good. Your professor and I both agree here. But on the macro/policy scale, it rightly is not given much weight. Because it is not a solution.

I think your professor is correct in assuming that the only way humanity can reduce its impact on the environment in any appreciable way is through drastic innovation and systems change. The current major systems supporting modern society are not sustainable - well-intentioned reduction efforts notwithstanding. So, starting with renewable energy, zero impact (or very close to it) solutions have to be envisioned and implemented.

If in the distant future historians chronicle the makings of a greener society in the 21st century, they will not talk about "reduce, reuse, recycle." It will be much more radical than that.