Economy vs. ecology

Budak suffers from a somewhat contrarian spirit. When I am at home, my butt desires to get up and about. But once outdoors, I long for the lazy respite of home. Too much reading and I long for doing; yet after much ado, my senses yearn for wordy input. Long dreary days spark seated dreams, but idle weekends in bed fester the guilt of sloth. Periods of abstinence arouse wild desires, followed by listless lulls in libido. Boredom seeks diversion in jolly gatherings, where tipsy talk inspires the sanity of solitude. I am not sure if my relative silence this week has anything to do with an innate ambivalence to mass encounters with a Brownian movement or other experiences of a ‘browning’ nature, but for some reason, concentration eludes me like a lubricious duck. It’s also rather disturbing that this double-faced month is already on its last legs, when I seem to have barely hit my stride in making progress in office and out. It doesn’t even feel like payday’s coming. *deflated wheeeee.*

- - - - - - - -

Parliamentary sessions are normally not my cup of tea, but mrs budak’s prolonged tryst with the transport system last night (expect a rant from her soon) led to my dalliance with televised excerpts of this nation’s lawmakers in action. I must certainly applaud the efforts of MP Dr. Amy Khor and Nominated MP Dr. Geh Min (also president of the Nature Society of Singapore) in standing up for nature preservation and its role in making this city-state more than a concrete jungle. Dr. Geh’s valedictorian skills, unfortunately, appeared (at least in the featured clip) less than inspiring, dulling the worth of her words, while Dr. Khor regretfully couched her cause in terms a wee too vacuous – what exactly are the “psychic” benefits of trees and greenery?

There is possibly no ‘scientific’ school of thought more amoral than modern economic theory, where unfettered competition is regarded as paramount to the achievement of optimal equilibriums between demand and supply. Unfortunately, market clearing prices  do not necessarily equate to real life outcomes that could be considered just or even desirable. The problem of free-riders and positive or negative externalities (caveats which seem forgotten by many economic advisers) means that purely private provision of goods such as national defence, education, healthcare, national infrastructure (street lighting, emergency services) and yes, nature preservation, is highly likely to be at prices unaffordable by a significant number of citizens and at levels where an entire nation suffers the negative consequences of results such as a shrinking pool of educated and healthy workers, slums of have-nots and gated communities of have-a-lots, deforestation and water pollution, and the instability of vast income and socio-political chasms.

[An aside: it’s a wonder why religious groups don’t wage a crusade against neo-classical economics for its obsession with the economic efficiency demanded by textbook theories over real issues of equity that affect the lives of millions. Evolutionists don’t campaign for a return to a life that’s nasty, brutish and short, but economists spouting pet theories enjoy exalted think-tank or even executive positions that allow social experimentation on a national scale. Hmmm, a nice school sticker would say: “Free-for-all capitalism is just a theory. Students should also consider the merits of other economic models such as social democracy, libertarianism, communitarianism and neo-conservative corporatism.” Hey wait! Isn’t the last -ism what they already have in Bushland? I guess Godless palaeontologists are just easier targets… ]

Growth is another idée fixe of economists and policy-makers alike. Few seem to question the merits of economic growth, a numbers chase that seems correlated with an assumption that population figures and GDP must always ascend. Leaving aside the silly question of how overpopulation coupled with dwindling land and natural resources serves human welfare (even if it is economically price efficient), it is hard to escape the conclusion that the captains of this ship believe that eventually, every square inch of Singapore’s soil and sea will have to yield “economic value”. As Second National Development Minister Lim Swee Say put it, “So if we were to say that every natural value – every tree, every plant – has to be left untouched, then we are not going to be able to pursue our economic value creation. If we are not able to create economic value, then where do we find the value to preserve our natural value?”

I dare say it is hard to imagine life on an island where every plot of land must some day be converted into a wealth-generating asset that supports a quality life for the projected 5-6 million inhabitants who will jostle for space in a pressure kettle of factories, industrial parks, military installations, ministry headquarters, science parks and spanking new public housing blocks as far as the eye can see. Arguably, this conjecture overstretches the point, but so does Mr Lim’s picture. Few but the most militant greens are wont to say that every tree or blade of grass must be saved. What nature lovers are convinced, rather, is that beyond the notion of its intrinsic and moral value, there is a vital link between the preservation of biodiversity and human welfare.

One misconception about ‘natural capital’ that pervaded the discussion and which is likely to be common amongst even educated observers is that a tree is a tree is a tree. In other words, since we already have a garden city overflowing with lush tropical flora, why fuss over the loss of a few measly swamps and messy woods? Dr. Khor compounds the error in her noting that the authorities have planted more than 300,000 trees and shrubs since 1971. But as Dr. Geh highlighted, the natural capital of Singapore cannot be assessed by the sheer biomass of non-human life, but the incredible diversity of discrete species that dwell still in the shadows of the city – 8,000 species of marine life; 1,006 species of fungi, 2,697 plants, 364 birds, 451 crabs and shrimps, 935 species of insects, and 150 species that have yet to be studied in detail (source: Lee Poh Onn in “How much is natural heritage worth?”, Sunday Times 23 Jan 2005). With many of these species restricted to microhabitats vulnerable to human disturbance and physical destruction (e.g. Johora singaporensis, a little crab found only in Bukit Timah Reserve), there remains a vast gulf and narrowing window of opportunity in the human knowledge of their ecological roles, much less their possible biochemical or biophysical value to applied sciences. It is for such reasons that few conservationists would mourn the loss of a family-friendly spot such as Bishan Park compared to the destruction of a patch of primary forest, coral reef or peat swamp that is but a quarter of the park’s size, yet containing an infinitude of endemic organisms. 

Mr Lim’s speech also posits the zero-sum notion that economic value and the preservation of natural capital are mutually exclusive. To the extent that this island had to be transformed from an entrepôt trading economy to a manufacturing and finance hub, one can accept the encroaches of urban landscapes on much of its once primeval hills, and even the inevitable extinction of its mammalian megafauna. But one wonders again how far would the logic of current policy go in dictating the further clearing of ‘uneconomic’ land in the name of the growth mandate. Are not the planners guiding this polity away from resource and land-hungry sectors into higher added-value endeavours that thrive only in an milieu of unfettered intellectual space and the capacity for curiosity in authentic natural spheres for both inspiration and research? 

In his Sunday Times commentary, Mr Lee points out that the International Union of the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources estimates that at least a tenth of a nation’s land area should be reserved for nature conservation to preserve local biodiversity. He further notes that while “forests presently account for more than 6 percent of Singapore's land area, and land protected as parks and other reserves around 4.5 percent”, the government has “set aside only 5 percent of Singapore's land area (3,130ha) as nature areas” and that “only 3 percent of these areas are protected by current legislation.”

To be fair, Mr Lee draws attention to perhaps less known undertakings by the local authorities: “…improvements the Government has undertaken since the 1990s include the extension of the Bukit Timah nature reserve by 43.8 ha, realigning the Seletar Expressway to limit damage on the Nee Soon Swamp Forest [it’s nice to hear this! But the threat of downstream drainage works that could reduce the swamp’s water table remains], the reforestation of degraded areas in the central catchment area, and revegetation at Kent Ridge.”

Naturalists are loathe to place a monetary value on their subjects of study, such assignations being vulnerable to rather arbitrary judgements and prone to manipulation. Still, it is arguably helpful to look into indirect measurements of the positive contribution of ‘green’ sectors (in the US, for example, the birdwatching industry was worth US$5.2 billion back in 1991 and generated 191,000 jobs) as well as the negative values that the loss of forests, mangroves, clean seas, rivers and wetlands might incur to both individuals and economies (Dr Geh cites a 1997 study that gave a ball park figure of US$33 trillion for the income that ecosystems worldwide generate for humanity). Mr Lee rightly calls for a more rigorous deployment of established valuation methodologies for natural resources in Singapore, and I hazard that such studies (the report in the link traces a connection between coraf reef health and seafood catches, a not unimportant subject for many Singaporeans – see this Habitatnews entry for more resources marrying economics and environmental protection) might yield surprising and possibly more imaginative assessments (than the current thinking of ‘let them be til we need them for development’) of how local ecosystems, from bird sanctuaries to adventure islands, fern valleys and tidal mudflats could serve as tangible as well as emotional assets for both national wealth and well-being. So far, except for ecosystems on the periphery or dead centre of the island, the conventional imperatives of enterprises, public and private, have subsumed the bulk of objections to an approach in development that disregards the irreplaceable nature of ecosystems and the value that citizens would accord to their preservation (the marshland now occupied by Sun Plaza in Sembawang and the old Senoko wetlands comes to mind).

Could a case for eco-tourism as an emergent sector be credibly constructed for Singapore? The nearby region undeniably offers vast alternatives for visitors in search of wild experiences and exotic wildlife. Yet, how many havens of migrant avian life, botanical diversity and marine fauna are there within reach of your hotel room in a mere hour (rather than a day’s bus journey and boat ride), offering in addition the urbane treat of Bollywood farm meals and wine, or the civilised balm of scones and a cuppa’ after a hard morning’s walk through a rainforested hill? It’s hard to believe that all eco-tourists are high-climbing, extreme sports-loving hardbodies – how many greying visitors from abroad might have stayed a while more if they had known of the accessible pathways for elderly birdwatchers, frail greenhouse gardeners and land-bound wetland fans that abound beyond the confines of the fruitless orchard?

What is the value of nature for a nation? If the felling of the last Hopea sangal or draining of a night heronry should raise no hue and cry, might not such a loss be accepted as the price willingly paid by a people who see their welfare served more by finance than foliage? Straits Times writer Asad Latif, in his gallery view of the debate, describes it as an attempt to achieve balance. To this observer, a balance is probably too much to even hope for, seeing that the driving impetus of short term gross domestic product gives nary time for efforts to quantify and appraise the role that sustained ecosystems play in the human welfare of this city-state as well as exercises in national self-reflection that would ponder the meaning of life and its loss.

- - - - - - - -

Amidst the usual "fiona xie nude" google pages linked by my stats page, I found that somebody had keyed in the parameters: "what is budak". To address this, I must firstly disavow any connection with a near eponymous local acappella group. Next, I must give due credit to my old schoolmate Bob (hi Bob!) from whose email address the nick 'budak' was stolen. Budak means boy or kid in Malay and I suppose this aptly describes my disposition if not my girth. For professional reasons (my lack of facial hair seems to endow me with less respect and feminine attention than desired), I have periodically attempted to develop a stubble worthy of George Clooney, but my chin unfortunately yields straggly, uncooperative strands and mrs budak threatens to deny conjugal rights to cavemen. Thus, budak remains cleanly cut peter pannish above the neck but more pooh bear-like below.   

Comments

[baboon]

mrbudak if you continue to generate such quote worthy posts, i swear i'm going to start using your site as a reference site for my research in school lol. speaking of which i found the ST article about this particularly parlimentary debate by Dr Geh Min quite encouraging. Got it in a NSS email. Think I'll definitely use that for my env planning class.

btw, i am guilty of searching for "definition budak" when I first encountered your blog. THANK GOODNESS the definition i got was correct! *PHEW* but judging by the photographs on mrsbudak blog from your foray into epicurian 16course(!) heaven the other day, budak definitely fits the description :P facial hair or otherwise is always a problem. tsk tsk tsk

but hey many men your age wish they looked younger. my bf's already fretting about balding and my BIL at 32 has already been bald for 10 years!

Why are you men always fretting about hair?

[Tyrone]

Wow... that was a long one.

Economy is perhaps the most noble science as it searches for the optimum relationship between supply (what natural resources offer) and demand (what people need). Economy is about creating wealth for all. Economy cannot be separated from ecology for all life on Earth is part of the same corporation. While I hate to lend lunatic Gaia theorists credit but the point is inescapable: should we tip the balance beyond repair we will be ousted from our part in the Earth Corporation. Snuffed out like the victims of some timeless efficiency expert (the processes of evolution). (FYI: I don't buy the Global Warming Catastrophe hype.) No, I firmly believe we could never cause so much damage that there would not be any humans left to suffer for their stupidity but now I digress…

Bible-Thumpers regular preach about the coming end where the faithful will be raptured and the wicked damned; and that for this reason we should not concern ourselves with matters of conservation.

The opening chapters of Genesis contain 3 commands: do not eat from the tree of knowledge (stuffed that one up... now we are accountable for our actions); be fruitful and multiply (no problem there...); and that we should rule over all life on Earth.

So, we are to rule over the Earth. God, later on, says that rulers have responsibilities to their subjects and they will be brought to account for their actions. On the day of judgment we will be weighed on two things:

1) Did we accept the gift of God's grace through faith in Christ? (Yes means you progress to phase 2; no means you join Satan, Hades, Death, the False Prophet and Antichrist for a barbeque. Guess who is on the grid?)
2) How have we served God? On this we will be rewarded according to our works. But what reward do we deserve if we have squandered the wealth God gave us to take care of? Recall the parable of the Bad Servant, the bad servant was tossed out on his ear and his reward was given to someone who served better.

Modern economy has two problems:
1) those in charge are not concerned with optimum good but rather optimum goods. They are not concerned with generating wealth and quality but rather generating money and quantity. They ignore John Nash's theorems as if they were stop signs.
2) Today, businesses are molded around ideal economic theories rather than economic theories molded around real world situations. This is so in science today as well. Models and theories, however accurate in explanation and prediction, are still inventions and far cries from the essential truth.

We often remark that the universe obeys strict mathematical laws. Rubbish! We invented the math. How can the universe obey laws we invented after the fact? Our math fits and describes the Laws that govern the universe not the other way around.

If we ignore this, theories become ideologies rather than tools. And history tells us that ideology generally ends in war and suffering.

What is today's market ideology? Greedism. Get as much as you can while you can and stuff anyone who gets in the way because I'm not accountable because God doesn't exist.

It is wrong to equate Capitalism with Greedism. Capitalism is about capital: interest, responsibility, owner's equity. Capitalism is a philosophy of ownership and responsibility. Each has to work for himself to bear fruit in society and all have the opportunity to do so. This is not what we see in the Corporate World which is dominated by Greedism where the Fatcats reap the rewards and the pay-cheque slaves carry the responsibility.

The ecology is a source of great wealth that cannot be equated to money or worldly riches. It is a source of inspiration and relaxation. It is a source of priceless beauty and unending innovation. To destroy the world's ecologies we rob ourselves of a remarkable richness. It makes us poorer. And God will certainly not taking kindly to how we have squandered these vast riches he bequeathed to us.

tt4n

[budak]

Haha, the dismal science is as dangerous and Byzantine a discipline to tread as evolution, and with more money and lives at stake to boot. I would say that there is are both descriptive and prescriptive economics. For myself, I would agree that capitalism is still essentially the best possible (or as with democracy, the least worst of the lot) model for the optimal provision of a vast bulk of goods and services. It is also (as our mutual friend in Bishop would say) compatible with the principle of individual free choice.

The problem I have is really with the prevailing (and largely conservative-politics-driven) ideology of universal marketisation and monetisation of every aspect of life, and their explicit goal of eliminating the state from everything but the most basic of functions (defence, law and order, and of course censorship and regulating morals/family values). As you said, the ideals and equilibriums generated by theoretical models typically ignore the real dynamics on the ground – especially the fact that even in the most ‘capitalist’ of economies, the distribution of power (both market and political) and knowledge is highly uneven, and worse, in much of the developing world (look at the Philippines and Indonesia), what passes for ‘capitalism’ is merely oligo-feudal-corporatism, a state of affairs where political and business elites are cohabitants and genuine business and profit-making motives are secondary to mutually reinforcing favours, kick-backs, pork and concessions. You could say that it has come to the absurd point where corporations (and the individuals who control them) enjoy more rights of action and say in policy than the accumulated voice of individual citizens.

There is an essential role for the state to serve as a neutral enforcer of rules that would create a more level playing field as well as establish institutions and regulatory bodies that uphold the rule of law and mitigate the negative externalities of many commercial or industrial activities. I am not a great fan of welfare aka income redistribution, but it’s not too far fetched to say that with many goods of public nature (education, healthcare, city planning, parkland, infrastructure etc), private supply would be at levels that would generate negative externalities for the entire populace. With the environment, there is both the above problem of it being a public good as well as the irony that because nobody in particular owns it, nobody has the incentive to utilise it in a sustainable manner (the so-called tragedy of the commons). Thus, a company which gets a 5 year concession for a forest will logically prefer to squeeze every log out rather than manage the harvest for the long term. Of course, there is the other element of measuring the costs (from flooding, pollution, water deterioration, tourism, biomedical potential etc) that an economy would incur if, say, a forest or wetland is removed. The dilemma, then, is how to construct a framework that offers individuals, corporations and politicians lasting incentives to see that the preservation and sustainable management of natural areas serves both private interests and public good. Some would in fact argue with good reason that more capitalism (e.g. giving property rights, tenure and microcredit to landless peasants, or removing barriers to rural entrepreneurship) is needed to achieve this.

[Secret Rapture]

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!

At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman/

Your jaw will drop!

eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of Days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day