On “Pascal’s Wager” in Earth in Mind by David Orr
Why is it that the things we could do to reduce our natural resources usage might actually save money but that they are not implemented? Is it because there is a class of capitalists who stand to win short-term benefits from business as usual? Or is it because consumers don’t know to choose any other options? Or, is it because ecology is not integrated into our educational programs? These are not rhetorical questions, I would sincerely like to find an answer to this question — to find out which of these possible answers or combinations of answers are correct.
Also a note on Orr’s use of the word “creation:” I wish he would explain his word choice here. “Creation” implies there must have been a creator. Since not all of the audience of this book is going to agree with this perspective, this issue deserves to be discussed somewhere in Earth in Mind. Perhaps he is implying the existence of a god-creator figure, or perhaps he is simply using this word to refer to the universe at large and the seemingly miraculous existence of galaxies and living beings, not making reference to a creator. Is he trying to reach out to the religious in his reading audience by using language that will make sense to them? In any case, it is opaque what Orr means by this word choice.
aaron :: Oct.09.2005 :: Inscape / Landscape class ::
71 Responses to “On “Pascal’s Wager” in Earth in Mind by David Orr”
I think it’s easy to villify corporations as evil forces of greed and destruction. If one accepts the definition of a “profit maximizing firm” however, then a corporation will untake all those actions that are expected to increase profits, including but not limited to energy conservation measures. There is a problem with time frames. Because a publicly traded enterprise has as its goal share price maximization, there is a strong incentive to maximize net profits for each and every earnings period. This makes it hard to expend capital resources now in exchange for a small cost saving over a long term, even if the cummulative savings are large. Also, the average tenure of a CEO in a Fortune 500 company is 18 months. Clearly this makes it difficult to implement long term policies and goals.
As to Orr’s use of the word “creation,” I do think he speaks from a religious viewpoint. I believe this is evident from his list of particularly Christian virtues as well as his discussion of the concept of sin. I agree that this constrains his message and is off-putting for some of his audience. I have a very hard time accepting his premise (and Berry’s) that reason cannot lead one to a moral framework that encompasses all the virtues he lists.