Questions and answer

I would like to discuss forests and timber as a specific natural resource. With a growing population, the demand for housing increases and construction never seems to stop. The open green spaces available would continue to decrease and produce negative results such as loss of wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and increase air pollution. Same as with recycling, there is the idea that if it doesn’t affect me why would I take any action to cooperate. The reality is that forests benefit us all, providing absorption of particles in the atmosphere and reducing air pollution. On the other hand, forests provide lumber for new construction developments, needed to sustain the demand of a growing population. There are a series of possible solutions that come to mind that could help overcome the negative results:

Policy and regulation changes to incorporate more public green spaces in developed areas.
Promote sustainable landscapes within communities.
Promote the use of old or abandoned buildings as new living spaces, decreasing the need for new constructions.

2. What is your opinion on his example?
When considering a dwindling resource, one’s first instinct is to use it before someone else takes it. To react otherwise is a learned behavior. Could you imagine if the first group of human arrivals in America had been able to communicate the decline of the number of Woolly Mammoths to those humans who followed? They could have cooperated in conservation policy. If successful, we would have needed bigger fences for our cattle ranches today. Even with a conservation agreement in place individual communities or tribes would see the benefit in just taking one more unit outside of the agreement. So long as the other tribes stuck with the agreement everything would be fine and the offending tribe would benefit greatly. We all know how this turned out for the Mammoth. The humans just moved on to another resource. Now we are left with domesticated beef and swine… Ooh, the Methane!!! With a little stretch, this is an example of the prisoner’s dilemma.

In today’s environment, we have examples of the prisoner’s dilemma everywhere. Education is just the start. The best scenario is to create a culture where doing the right thing is the norm and shame is enough to deter breaking the agreement. In the case of the prisoners, this agreement is the code of never being “a rat”. This doesn’t always work (unless you are the President). A solution to this dilemma is to make the cost of breaking the agreement greater than the benefits. Mandatory caps and carbon taxes are just a few of the deterrents possible. Laws and regulations are in place to enforce these. Economic incentives can also be very powerful. The challenge is to come to an agreement defining what the right thing is.

3. What is your opinion on the essay?
When thinking about the prisoner’s dilemma and cooperating to achieve a net benefit, public land forests come to mind. All-State and National Forests are managed by a government entity, namely the Forest Service, but provide services and resources to many stakeholders. These stakeholders, who if left unchecked, would act in their own best interest to the detriment of the others.

While this example is oversimplified, I hope it serves the purpose of this forum. If loggers acted in their own best short-term interest of maximizing profits, they would cut down all the trees they could, resulting in large percentages of a new-growth forest. If hikers, hunters, or most other outdoor enthusiasts acted in their best interest, the forest would consist only of mature forests with large trees and navigable under-story. If both groups were rational-minded and operated only in there own best interest, either no timber would be harvested, OR, all of the timber would be harvested.

This is where the government steps in and attempts to provide regulation and guidance that allows both parties of stakeholders to compromise and cooperate in the use of the forest and the natural resources/services it provides. Loggers can only operate in specified areas under the direct prescription and supervision of a certified forester. Hunters can only hunt during certain windows of time and if they abide by heavy regulation. Due to government oversight, an optimal and efficient solution is achieved where both young and mature forests exist in a sustainable fashion and all parties are mostly happy.

I want it in a simple english language, no deep vocabulary so my professor won’t doubt that somebody did my homework.