|
|
|
For The Long Term
By
David E. Wilson, Jr.
ew research on the economics of impatience is shedding light on the
difficulty conservationists sometimes face when asking for short-term
sacrifices with long-term goals.
 ecently,
at the international Nobel Symposium on Experimental and Behavioral
Economics in Sweden, scientists revealed what is perhaps not a big
surprise to most — that when given the choice between smaller,
immediate rewards and much larger long-term rewards, people and animals
usually fail to maximize their long-term gain by choosing the smaller,
short-term rewards. The results were released last year in the international
scientific journal, Nature.
 he
work is particularly relevant to those involved in conservation because
such choices are often at the heart of environmental ethos. Not filling
in wetlands, not over fishing, not over fertilizing, or not paving
the countryside all involve restraint from short-term desires for
more noble long-term goals.
 ifferent
scenarios apply. If Jon Dough makes soup out of every last hellbender
in Pennsylvania rivers, he may become fat and rich to no significant
long-term disadvantage. In this case, the disadvantage belongs to
the community and to the ecosystem. However in other cases, such as
filling in wetlands and over fertilizing, the short-term personal
gain can have a negative impact on both the individual and the society.
 t
can be hard for individuals to contemplate how future water quality
will affect them and as such, hard to control their urge for short-term
personal gain. This case is particularly easy to see in commercial
and recreational fishing where size and catch limits are designed
to preserve future fishing in exchange for present self-control.
esearch
shows that knowledge of probabilities and personal effects may be
the key components in delaying gratification. Where conservationists
need to step up is in showing how an individual's actions can affect
his long-term quality of life and financial health. Recognizing that
everything we alter in our environment has an impact on something
else, whether in the short or long-term, is just the beginning. Asking
for individual liability, and recognition of our actions is the next
step.
 ssuming
people's concern is with themselves and not society or wildlife, the
symposium's work suggests that the more certain science can make personal
consequences, the more likely people will be able to restrain themselves
in the short-term. They may always have a tendency for immediate gratification,
but being sure of future rewards is the key mitigation component of
that tendency. Show that filling wetlands or keeping undersized fish
will significantly impair an individual's long-term prospects and
you have a good chance of changing short-term behavior.
Contact Dave Wilson
See past topics of In the Flow here!
|
|
|
