I’ve been musing quite a bit about the environment lately. For the economically-minded, it’s a classic cost-benefit analysis. For others, it takes on a strong moral dimension. The following thought experiment is my feeble attempt to isolate these concerns. I’ll be very interested to hear what the other MP bloggers think of it. Here goes:
Tomorrow morning we all wake up to learn that scientists have discovered a giant asteroid headed straight for earth. The asteroid is so massive that we stand no chance of altering its course or destroying it before it comes within range; in exactly ten years, our planet will be completely destroyed.
The next day, another group of scientists makes makes a more hopeful discovery. Researchers at the Poverty Action Lab announce that they’ve found a way to end world poverty within five years.
Of course, you can’t get something for nothing. The cost of eliminating human suffering will be environmental destruction. However, the damage will only begin to materialize after ten years, conveniently enough, the day after the the world is set to end. For the sake of argument, suppose that we know with 100% certainty that the plan to end poverty will work.
What would you do? I suspect that was an easy choice. Now consider this scenario:
Instead of an asteroid that will destroy the entire planet in ten years, scientists discover a virus that has already infected everyone in the world and will be passed on to all of their descendants. In exactly ten years, the virus will cause all humans to perish at the same instant; there is no chance of a cure. The same plan to end poverty is also discovered, with the same costs as before.
Did your answer change? For my part, I’d give the same response to both: end world poverty. Yet I suspect many will disagree. What’s your take?