Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The law of unintended consequences has applications in all of academia, which is not necessarily a good thing. Its general application in multiple fields has confined it to an abstract idea, rather than an applicable theory. Its concrete use has applications that could be beneficial to the economy, legislation, and regulation. To prove its worth as an applicable theory, it will be used as a method to analyze the unintended consequences of humans, through how they bring over invasive species. This method is based on Robert K. Mertons thorough analysis of unintended consequences. In his article The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action, he identifies the five causes of unintended consequences, as well as some of the effects, and the categories they fall into; these consequences and effects are the consistencies of the theory. Each cause and effect Merton identified will be explained, and related to invasive species to analyze their consequences. With that said, the focus will be the unintended consequences of humans, and how they bring over the invasive species.
A single flap of a butterfly wing in Australia produces a slight puff of air that causes a hurricane in the Caribbean. With the slippery slope fallacy inherent in this idea, this concept seems illogical and at best absurd. However, many people have entertained this notion, known as the butterfly effect. Contrary to its expression in popular culture, this theory was never meant to exaggerate the unintended consequences of minute occurrences. Lorenze, a professor who worked at MIT, intended to emphasize the unpredictability of the universe (Vernon). Rather, his ideas were taken too literally, with some people becoming obsessed over every little action they took. However, his ideas did inspire new applications of the general unpredictability of the universe, and how this leads to unintended consequences.
The law of unintended consequences is defined as: … [the] actions of people, and especially of governments, always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended (Norton). Having been applied to a diverse array of contexts, the idea of unintended consequences has been perceived as a general concept. It has been recognized in legislation and regulation and notably affects the economy. It has been stripped of the recognition of a concrete scientific law, having been primarily understood through social concepts, feelings, and ethical obligations (ideas that cannot be quantified). Robert K. Merton, an American sociologist, attempted to change its perception in academia. He identified consistencies within the law of unintended consequences that could make it a concrete applicable theory (Merton). The irony remains that ignoring this theory has unintended consequences. For example: after the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, many coastal states quickly reacted to the situation and placed full liability on tank operators. Rather than accomplishing their intended effect of preventing oil spills, they worsened the problem. Oil specialists were afraid of the potential consequences of a spill, so companies hired independent ships that were less apt to transport oil; Thus, damages, costs, and the need for new laws increased. Coastal states acted without considering the unintended consequences of their course of action (Norton). Having a better understanding of the law of unintended consequences can help prevent unfavorable results.
The five sources of unintended consequences Merton identifies will be used to analyze the unintended, yet possibly anticipated, consequential nature of invasive species (Merton). The only constructive approach to proving the necessity of this law is to demonstrate its real-life application in a scientific problem that contains quantifiable results. The consequential and scientific nature of invasive species is crucial to this objective: they have various social, economic, and environmental effects. In Africa, the fall armyworm has the potential to cause 4.6 billion US dollars in damage, by affecting maize yield. In Asia, the common rice black bug, one of the many invasive bug species, has affected the food supply and income of 474 million people; to understand the severity of this statistic, this damage is equivalent to 55 million US dollars ( Explore ).
The fifth source of unintended consequences is the self-defeating prediction (Merton). This factor occurs when one predicts something and the act of predicting that thing changes their original prediction (Merton). For example: a country predicts a famine in five years, so they focus on their agriculture and food production. In turn, the original prediction becomes false, because the steps they took to prepare for the famine prevented it from ensuing (Norton).
With the prediction that survival was not an issue, humans have influenced their ecosystems and environment, as well as developmental devices to reduce work. While this progress has led to positive breakthroughs benefitting the Earth and its species, the negative effects are overlooked.
One negative effect is the rapid depletion of natural resources. With this, humans then predicted that there would be a lack of available resources in the future. People were unsure of how the environment would adapt to their ways of living. As a result, invasive species, animals as well as plants, are becoming a larger issue every year. The common thread in these issues is human involvement: they cause the constant increase of invasive species ( Read ). The self-defeating prediction is clear: after humans predicted that their survival would be uncomplicated, they used resources as if they were unlimited. This in turn caused a depletion of resources and made the original prediction false.
The fourth source of unintended consequences Merton claims is basic values. To explain basic values, Merton references Webers study on the Protestant work ethic (Morton). In summation, a Protestant lives by values of hard work and self-discipline, resulting in wealth and possessions. However, these new superficial aspects of their life lead them to abandon their original (Norton). Similar, to ignorance and short-term interest, certain actions enjoined by certain fundamental values led the Protestants to ignore the consequences of their actions (Morton).
The first source of unintended consequences and one Merton argues is possibly the most unfavorable, is ignorance. In general, when people make urgent decisions in their daily lives, they ignore practical reasoning and act on their instincts and opinions. This ignorance of the facts can result in unintended consequences, simply because one ignores possible outcomes (Merton).
The third source of unintended consequences is the imperious immediacy of interest (Merton). Also referred to as short-term interest, it is a subsection of ignorance. It is when one desires an intended consequence so strongly, they choose to ignore the unintended consequences.
Like ignorance, the consequences are ignored. However, there is a significant distinction between ignorance and short-term interest. In the former, action is motivated by urgency, whereas in the latter, action is motivated by desire. This divergence in motives is significant because the placement of fault differs. In the case of ignorance, an actor may feel forced to act with a sense of urgency, and cannot consider other possible outcomes. Thus, they could be held less responsible for being in a bind. Whereas in short-term interest, the actor is acting on personal desires with the hypothetical option of being able to consider possible alternative courses of action (Merton). Thus, they could be held more responsible. This distinction would not hold well in a court of law, since the court is required to consider consequences more strongly than motives. Instead, this becomes a moral distinction based on Kantian ethics, where the intention becomes more important than the consequences.
Imperious Immediacy of Interest explains why Humans’ strong desire and attempts to advance their world have caused a multitude of unintended consequences. As humans continue to live on this Earth they find better ways to live. However, the advanced world that humans so desire is taking a toll on the environment and the species living in it. Some of the major unintended consequences caused by humans include climate change, damaged ecosystems, displacement of native species, and the depletion of available resources.
Humans unintentionally cause harm to their environment and ecosystem every day. Animals homes are being destroyed and displaced in large numbers; humans are building housing and stores right on top of species’ homes forcing them to go into civilization and disturb residents. This is especially present in central Florida where monkeys are becoming regular visitors to peoples front doors. Bears have also made their appearances across the city, concerning many people living in nearby neighborhoods who are concerned for their safety.
Another reason animals are being forced into highly populated areas is because of predator control. In areas where a certain species is too large, a predator is introduced to try and regulate the population of that animal. This is causing a threat to biodiversity and even the extinction of some species. The issue is that the predators start to repopulate and eventually take over that area as an invasive species themselves. Local species in Florida such as the pig, python, and lionfish are all non-native animals that have caused a real threat to their ecosystem and other species ( Florida ). These animals were introduced to try and control other populations of animals but have become a threat of their own. The pigs destroy natural environments, the python consumes species people need to help the ecosystem, and the lionfish destroy reefs along the coast. It is becoming more and more difficult to get rid of these invasive species though because of Floridas hospitable environment, making the land a perfect home for them (Bates).
This is causing many of them to migrate to richer environmental areas and even invade urban communities. The National Academies Press states that human societies adapt to their environments as well as influence them; human values tend to promote behavior consistent with adaptation; and values and social organization affect the way humans respond to global change, which may be by changing social organizations, values, or the environment itself. Â
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.