FTT #5- McEvoy vs. Solow due by 11:59 pm October 6

This week’s forum post will require some additional effort.

Step 1: Read the paper by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow. The paper is : sust-solow

Step 2: Write a response by COMMENTING on this post in which you compare and contrast the views of sustainability between Solow and Art McEvoy discussed in the Fisheries Management I lecture last week. Note this is a change from you creating your own post. This is a change in process to try and keep things more organized for all of us.

Step 3: In your post also discuss whether you think Solow and McEvoy would consider the Yukon salmon fishery sustainable if Chinook salmon catches could be substituted with chum salmon

A thorough response to this week’s prompt will be at least 250 words.  As per usual, respond to at least two (2) posts by your peers by Wednesday at 11:59 pm by clicking the ‘reply’ button to a student’s post


61 thoughts on “FTT #5- McEvoy vs. Solow due by 11:59 pm October 6”

  1. Test comment response. Just making sure this new process should work. Please share your thoughts on this topic in your own multi-paragraph comment, and reply to others thoughts as well.

  2. Solow has very different views of sustainability than Art McEvoy. Solow believes that sustainability is a vague concept that describes the investment we should make for the future at a cost to our present wellbeing. He believes that if we use up a resource, it aligns with the notion of sustainability as long as we can replace it with an alike resource or technology to get other similar resources. He argues that it isn’t our business to know what future generations will need or want, and that it is difficult to justify shortchanging poor people now to insure that people 100 years from now will have enough food. Mostly, he thinks that sustainability is a vague idea that we should follow, but there are no hard numbers or specific guidelines that can come from it. McEvoy, on the other hand, believes that sustainability is necessary for the future. He defined a fishery as a dynamic balance between the environment, the economy, and a management system. He believed that as soon as the fish population began to drop, the rules should change. Likewise, if the economy demanded more produce, the guidelines should change to accommodate that. It is an ever changing thing that good fisheries must stay aware of and keep up to date in order to stay sustainable. Both people do think that sustainability is necessary, however, just with different definitions.

    I think that Solow would definitely think the Yukon salmon fishery is sustainable if chum salmon replaced Chinook salmon, as he thought that substitutes could keep up sustainability. However, McEvoy might not, as it would no longer be the original fish in the fishery, and obviously that population was not managed well. It would not be considered sustainable and would be something new.

    1. ” justify shortchanging poor people now to insure that people 100 years from now will have enough food. ”
      I really liked the fact that you brought this to the light!

    2. I agree with you on what their opinions would most likely be on the Yukon Salmon fishery. McEvoy definitely saw the importance of managing each population well, while Solow had a more “go with the flow” attitude with keeping resources and populations alive so long as there were available substitutes.

    3. Hi Rachel,
      I love that you brought up Solow advocating the fact that we can’t speak on behalf of the future generations because it is impossible to predict what they will want or need. You betrayed McEvoy in a light “fish population began to drop, the rules should change” it is short to the point but i’d agree with the statement. Now for the second question about substitution, we answered very different! I think Solow would find substitution not adequate but mcEvoy would probably except it because on the economic again and adapting to the times. We felt very opposite it’s kinda amusing 🙂

    4. I agree with you on the sustainability of the Yukon fishery. If there was a fishery harvesting shrimp, would you still call it shrimp if they started to harvest crab? Probably not! And even if we don’t know what future generations are going to want, it is still important to sustain what we have now because fish is what we are currently living off of. Great post.

    5. hey Rachel! i think we both agree on their views with sustainability! also i like how you said “Mostly, he thinks that sustainability is a vague idea that we should follow, but there are no hard numbers or specific guidelines that can come from it.” that was a really good sentence to incorporate into your writing.

    6. Very well said Rachel, I also believe Solow would say chum salmon would be sustainable. I am not sure what the future generations will need, but I want to save as much as I can for them to choose. Poor people, I believe aren’t given the benefit of the doubt by Solow. I find Mcevoy’s approach much more reasonable.

  3. When I think of fish sustainability, I lean more towards the views of Arthur McEvoy over Robert Solow.  Only because to me, Solow is more of an idealist, and McEvoy is more of a realist. I myself am more of a realist, over ideologies. McEvoy, being an Environmental historian, argues that it’s not the size of the stock or the prosperity of harvesting. McEvoy thinks the most important factor in sustainability is the long term health, combined with the interaction between nature and the economy. Along with the legal system.  Solow, being an economic idealist has other views. His views are that it is our moral obligation to our future, not to satisfy ourselves by impoverishing our successors. Solow thinks that there should be a trade off between our Current Consumption along with our Investment in the future. Leading up to basically having the same concern about the future, as the state of the world today. In my personal opinion, I think what you give into this world, it will somehow give back. A bit like the saying, ” What goes around, will comeback around in full circle.” While both sides share their differences, I just lean more towards McEvoy’s views. I believe that everything plays an important role in fisheries sustainability. Just like he mentioned the long term health, it is dependent upon all the factors within the economy as well. 

    I feel like McEvoy wouldn’t think that the Yukon Salmon Fishery would be sustainable, if you replaced Chum Salmon with Chinook Salmon, simply because it’s not the original species that started there and would be considered a new risk. Whereas Solow would say, ” Yes, it could be sustainable.” 

    1. I also thought that Solow seemed more like an idealist while McEvoy dealt with things from a realistic and logical perspective, and I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both. I agree with you that McEvoy’s perspective that everything interacts with everything is an important one to consider and recognize, as fisheries on not an isolated branch and many factors go into their success (or lack of such) and sustainability.

    2. To Shelby – I really like your interpretation of the difference between idealistic and realist views. I also agree with you and McEvoy that we should be using more specific terms of the word sustainability and that we should be instigating rules to make populations sustainable and to protect for our future. So many things are interconnected in fisheries and it’s important to make sure that everything in fisheries is balanced.

    3. I agree with you on how they are idealist vs. realist but I believe that you need a little bit of both characteristics to truly run a fishery successfully. Someone who thinks ahead and wants to preserve for the future (Solow) and someone who understands how fish abundance can effect the future and wants to be careful (McEvoy). I had the same answer as you in regards to the Yukon fishery. If it isn’t the original species, it isn’t the same fishery.

    4. Hi Shelby,
      I agree with your perspective that Solow is an idealist. I also agree with your statement that McEvoy is more of a realist. And your opinion is very well stated in this post.

    5. I also lean more towards McEvoy’s views on sustainability. You summed it up really nicely when you describe Solow as an idealist and McEvoy as more of a realist. I really liked that. I agree that everything plays an important role in fisheries sustainability, the way you explained this all was very well put together!

  4. McEvoy and Solow both identify the importance of sustainability and recognize that it is necessary for a bright future. However, their definitions of sustainability differed. McEvoy talked about sustainability in very specific terms and referenced graphs that showed the abundance of different populations over time. He talked about how a fishery comprises multiple parts that all interact: the economy, the environment, and the management and legal system. He talked about how all of these factors are fluctuating and must accommodate the changing needs of each, and overall emphasized the importance of long term health. His definition of sustainability was focused on that long term health of fisheries and the actions that can help that. Solow on the other hand spoke about sustainability in much more vague terms. He thought of it as the moral obligation of people to ensure that the future has, at least, the same possibility for success that we do in the present. This doesn’t have to mean that they have exactly the same resources, but as long as they are similar in their availability and use. He said that there isn’t really any way to define certain things that can be done to accomplish that and that sustainability is inherently a vague concept. He said that one can’t quantify sustainability by looking at numbers and even intentionally avoided talking about population growth, which McEvoy did not. Overall McEvoy had much more specific ideas while Solow talked about things in an idealist tone, but they both recognized the importance of sustainability in the long term.
    I think that Solow would definitely consider the Yukon Salmon fishery sustainable. He clearly stated that it’s acceptable for future generations to not necessarily have the same resources as long as they have a good replacement, and that is exactly what chum salmon is in this case. They aren’t the same, but they’re analogous. McEvoy on the other hand most likely wouldn’t consider the fishery sustainable because the original Chinook salmon has been replaced, and he focuses more on keeping things the same.

    1. To Samantha – This was a really nicely laid out response! I agree that the two men differ greatly in their views of sustainability, but also it’s important to remember that they both think sustainability is important. For me, this opened my eyes to the disparities of the definition of the word sustainability, and I think that we should try to understand what everyone else means when they use this word.

    2. I like how you identified them both as being important enough to recognize for a sustainable future! But also agreed with McEvoy being more of a realist as well.

    3. I definitely agree with you about the Chinhook salmon Sam. The way they both talk about sustainability of resources, you were able to depict them well.

    4. Samantha, you have explained these views well. McEvoy’s approach to sustainability makes sense and genuinely feels like the fish and people will have a future. Solow’s views if applied to fisheries would think it ok to deplete a fish stock as long as there is an investment into the future. I don’t agree with Solow’s view, but I see the idea behind it.

  5. McEvoy and Solow have two very different views on the concept of sustainability. Solow views sustainability as a more philosophical concept, an ideal to live up to. This is in contrast to McEvoy who views sustainability in a more concrete way. McEvoy sees sustainability as the interactions between the ecosystem, the economy, and the legal system, he looks at concrete numbers of distinct species. On the other hand, Solow looks at sustainability in a more philosophical way, he views it as a question of the equity of our actions towards future generations. He argues that if resource is no longer abundant it is still sustainable if we replace it with another resource. He further elaborates and says that we have no business trying to guess what future generations will want so we should just focus on not doing irreparable damage. In this way, Solow would likely consider the Yukon river Chinook fishery as sustainable if equal numbers of chum salmon could be harvested. On the other hand McEvoy would view this as un-sustainable because he would take into account the ecological and cultural effects of the change from a chinook to a chum fishery.

    1. Hi Eli,
      I like the word choice philosophical for Solow’s point of view. I said his was more emotionally fueled while McEvoy was more about the concrete facts. It would be hard to argue that abundancy and sustainability are not directly corelated. I felt different than you about the Chinook fishery. I believe McEvoy would support it as an econmic subsitution and Solow would feel there is no such thing as subsituting another spieces, It means it is not sustainable.

    2. Eli,

      I like how you pointed out that Solow states we have no business assuming what future generation will value. Though I do not fully agree with Solow, I did find this point of his intriguing and correct. Things that my parents generation value are not necessarily of value to mine. We do not really know what furniture generations will deem important in the natural world however, I am not saying we should use resources to exhaustion. I just though it was a different view, thank you for bringing it up.

  6. 1. Compare and contrast the views of sustainability between Solow and Art McEvoy.
    My impression of Solow is that he is an activist. Pushing to pass policies he feels support sustainability, planning for the future and human mistakes. As well as his intentional word choice of well being, the well being of past and future generations. He also stresses that sustainability in itself is a very broad vague term, a buzzword or sorts. Art McEvoy on the other hand approach feels less driven by emotion, what I mean by that is that he is looking past just people but the system itself. The relationship shared between nature, the economy and legal system, he feels this is key to the long term health of a fishery. He sees them working together, ecosystem the commodity and economy the restructure. I don’t think that there is necessarily a right opinion, in an issue this complex and delicate it is helpful to have more than voice and perspective. I think personally my heart tends to lie more with Solow. I think he does a great job explaining and breaking down the meaning of sustainability in words most could grasp. My connection to fisheries is very emotionally driven. Being my upbringing, a fisherman’s daughter, establishing roots in a fishing community and having dear friends in the industry.

    2. Discuss whether you think Solow and McEvoy would consider the Yukon salmon fishery sustainable if Chinook salmon catches could be substituted with chum salmon.
    Solow stresses a main part of sustainability is leaving enough of a resource for the future generations. I don’t believe that substituting chum in place of the chinook qualifies as this. It leaves the future generations lacking a once plentiful resource because past generations damaged the resource beyond repair. While I think Art McEvoy would feel sustain is to do what is in the best interest long term relationship of nature, economy and legal system. Rather than how much of a stock (this case Chinook) size or if it is prosperous. Therefore if it boosted the economy and the state/natives felt it was the right decision he’d support it.

    1. Hi Madelyn,
      I agree with your viewpoint on how McEvoy would support the chum fishery. McEvoy seems like more of a realist so sustaining the economy by substituting Chinook for Chum salmon, McEvoy would defiantly see this as maintaining the balance between the economy, nature, and the legal system.

    2. Madelyn,

      I like how you capture both of their ideologies with sustainability. The comments of McEvoy, like many others in the chat have put it, I too agree with your statement of building the relationship with nature, the legal system, and the economic results. I think that Solow would do whatever it would take to get a positive outcome. I think he would also ignore a lot of the short term effects on the community and the ecosystem.

  7. Robert Solow believes that sustainability should involve everyone getting an equal share with the environment as well as preparing for the future by not taking too much. Sustainability for our future generation is important to Solow because he thinks we have the ability to have life-long resources when it comes to the environment. We have a right to satisfy ourselves with the options we already have, but not to disturb the future generation’s ability to sustain the same resources we have now. Solow also states that protecting the environment will better sustain resources for the future.

    Art McEvoy believes there can be a healthy relationship between the interactions with nature, the economy, and the legal system. McEvoy says that economy and the environment interact with each other because the economy can restructure the ecosystem and vice versa. Each of these interactions can effect the sustainability of our resources and McEvoy was specific on exactly what we ought to sustain instead of talking in a general term like Solow.

    While Solow would claim that the Yukon fishery is sustainable and healthy, McEvoy would believe different. Solow looks at a general spectrum, meaning he would most likely look at the fisheries as a whole and claim that the combined numbers of the different species of salmon are healthy while McEvoy would look into the big picture and be interested in how the fisheries is effecting the environment, economy, and the legal system and determine that the Yukon fishery is cutting corners by substituting the original species of fish with something similar.

    1. Andrea,

      I like how you mentioned the relationship between the economy and ecosystem and how one can influence the other. I had forgotten about that part of the classroom discussion.`

    2. I like the way you stated Solow’s idea… “We have a right to satisfy ourselves with the options we already have, but not to disturb the future generation’s ability to sustain the same resources we have now.” I think that sums it up well : ) Where I agree with Solow to some degree, not everyone does. There are a lot of people that feel natural resources should never be disturbed, and that is okay, too. The two opposing arguments are what keep our sustainable resources in check.

  8. In Salow’s opinion, sustainability is the moral obligation to the future. Sustainability is about providing the future with the means to be as “well off” as previous generations. This could be demonstrated by the opportunity to use resources or have access to technologies.

    In McEvoy’s opinion, sustainability is about maintaining the relationship between the environment, economy, and management. When one of these interactions collapses the whole system fails and sustainability is lost.

    The difference between these two views is the sense of timescale and the breadth of its application. For Salow, the interactions between environment, economy, and management is only relevant if it benefits future generations; if it does not the relationship should collapse. For McEvoy, the future generation has nothing to do with the overall decision; as long as the system continues, it is sustainable regardless of its use to the future generation.

    The concept of substituting Chinook for chum at the Yukon salmon fishery would be considered sustainable by both Salow and McEvoy. With Salow, the substitution would help the Chinook recover and use of chum does not necessitate their complete depletion; in both cases it could serve as benefit to future generations. With McEvoy, the substitution would allow for the relationship between the salmon, fishers, and managers to continue to exist; this is assuming regulations do not impede the transition from Chinook to chum. As long as there remains to be salmon in the Yukon and those populations continue to be fished, the future generation will have benefit and the relationships will hold.

  9. After the reading, I had to go back and pull them up side-by-side to compare. Both see the natural environment as providing raw materials to help economic growth. I saw both looking at the economic and environmental considerations along with policy making decisions that impacted sustainability. Without further research, I see McEvoy focused heavily on the long-term health with nature, the economy, and legal system. Not so much caught up on the stock size and harvest. Having a solid platform to continue management will continue in the future without interference. The connection of the people, mangers, and the environment. Thinking critically to steer away from what could seem to be what has been traditional in the past. Think culture, industrialization, law and regulations, and today’s market.
    Solow, I believe, viewed on the innovation and technological advances to have replacements of similar materials once one becomes expended. Investments on sustainable products that provide good return. Utilizing the natural resources we have for the people today with better knowledge and management. Meeting the supply and demand of the consumer with taking necessary measures to introduce newly similar products to achieve results.
    I think both of these two would see the Yukon as sustainable. While one creating relationships with the fishers and management, while the other thinking of ways to highlight the dog salmon on today’s market. I don’t think either one could ignore that the fisheries provides employment and contributes to the local economy. I could see McEvoy using the foundation in place and trying to implement new ways to make it better with building relations with the fishers and community. Solow, I could see envisioning future salmon pens within the Yukon. Exploiting what is being used in many other regions and bring it to the Yukon. Maybe using “exploiting” is too much, but this is an opinion from what I know from the material given. The chums do taste pretty rough, but I think that catfish also taste rough and I know a lot of folks who love to eat that. Why not fry up some good ol’ dog salmon and back it up by a market label.

  10. Solow and McEvoy have such contrasting views on management it was interesting to read both of their opinions.
    McEvoy focuses more on the health and over all sustainability of the fishery, like the nature of the fisheries, the economic side, and the legal side of the fisheries. McEvoy didn’t focus on the harvest of the fisheries or on the stock of the fish, he mainly cared for the health of the fishery. Solow on the other hand was the complete opposite, he was focused on the stock and harvest of the fishery and cared about making money for the fishery.
    I think McEvoy would want to put more restrictions on the Yukon, because the overall health of the fishery is quite low and McEvoy is more focused on that aspect of the fishery. Where as Solow would see the Yukon as sustainable and he would keep the management for the most part the same.
    They both don’t think that Chinook salmon could be replaced by chum salmon.

    1. I agree. The two opinions are very different. Solow’s is one that I have never heard, so I was intrigued by some of his viewpoints. Where I agree with a few things he said, I don’t agree with the idea that one resource can and should be replaced by another, when depleted. If we have the ability to sustain a particular fish stock, then we should find ways to do so.

    2. Olivia,

      I see McEvoy focusing on the regulations as well. Where is the red tape in the laws? Who really benefits from those laws? What has been the impacts of these laws? Well, I think McEvoy would obviously go much more in-depth to all of it. Trying to close up the gaps that benefit a side heavily and by-pass another. You nailed it with him focused on the health of a system and the importance behind it.

  11. In the article by Solow, he says multiple times that sustainability is vague and in some cases unattainable. He also says it can become a problem of saving and investing as well as the needs of now and the needs of the future. Solow mentions towards the end that if we do use up a resource we should be able to replace it with something else. We should be able to substitute it and still fulfill our current needs and the needs of the future. Sustainability is an obligation only if we want there to be future generations. Solow seemed to have the mindset of if we have other options we can always turn to those resources in case the main resources are used up.
    Based on the fisheries management lecture 8, Arthur McEvoy is more concerned with keeping the three interactions (an ecosystem, social interactions, and management) in balance and healthy for the future. If the interactions between the three groups determine sustainability, I would think a lot of species or fisheries are at risk as management isn’t always the best or the economy is struggling (especially now) and these factors fluctuate frequently.
    I think that Solow would think that the Yukon Chinook salmon is sustainable if it were to be substituted with the Chum salmon. I don’t think McEvoy would agree as his view of sustainability is very different from Solow’s. Since each species has its own fishery I think that McEvoy would argue that the Chinook salmon stock is being depleted and that whole fishery could be gone. While the Chum could be fished instead of Chinook they are definitely not the same fish.

    1. I like your outlook on McEvoy’s take on sustainability. You’re right in that the ecosystem, social interactions, and management fluctuate frequently, and those fluctuations do change the perspective of each, in terms of managing a fish stock. In some ways, I like Solow’s idea that a natural resource should be looked at as an investment. If you think of something as an investment, you will probably take better care of it. However, the whole point of keeping something sustainable is to keep it from becoming extinct or depleted, so just simply replacing it, defeats the purpose.

    2. agreed. i think its interesting how you compared their views on sustainability. i also like how you added “(especially now)” in your sentence, it made it feel a lot more pressing. very nice!

  12. i personally believe, that although both McEvoy and Solow are both on the same page, which is that, without sustainability, a lot of marine life may be disappearing through out the years, they both have different ideas on how said sustainability should be upkept. for instance, McEvoy is under the philosophy that sustainability is necessary so that the environment and the economy can thrive and that if one of them collapses, the other is likely to fall right after. Solow’s philosophy on sustainability is more of a job that we as humans are supposed to make sure that every organism that we interact with is kept safe and is in no danger. Solow believes that, using salmon for instance, that its our duty as fisherman to keep ourselves in check and to make sure that that population does not die off. i feel that

    based on the fact that the chinook salmon have been replaced, i personally would say that McEvoy wouldn’t believe that the Yukon salmon fishery would be sustainable, whereas Solow would say that they are sustainable, so long as we take some sort of action.

    1. I agree. I think Solow would definitely feel the Yukon salmon fishery would be sustainable by simply replacing Chinook salmon with another species. To him, any action is better than no action. In his paper, Solow mentioned that although rules and regulations are implemented, mistakes will be made and unforeseen issues can easily change the outcome of any management. I think his line of thinking is, be prepared to replace if necessary.

  13. McEvoy’s belief to sustainability is feeling that in order for a fishery to be sustainable that the long-term goal should be for the heath of human/environment interaction, the economy, and the legal system. On the other hand, Solow feels that sustainability is about an obligation to the future, to not do so well for ourselves as to impoverish future generation. Though both McEvoy and Solow felt that we should not concentrate on saving one species; McEvoy felt we needed to preserve the ecosystem as a whole and that substituting one species for another, like Solow, would not cut it. This is because the interaction of humans and a specific species is one of the key’s sustainability. These species hold an important to a community, a culture, a way of life. Because of this, substituting chum salmon for Chinook salmon in the Yukon would not be sustainable to McEvoy, there is not the same connection to chum salmon. Though in terms of the economy and the legal system, I feel that substituting chum for Chinook would mean a sustainable fishery according to McEvoy’s belief. However, for Solow, this species substitution would be okay, from an economist point of view, communities could still make a living off of chum salmon, the way they would Chinook. The spiritual connection to the Chinook salmon is not an important factor to Solow.

    1. It’s interesting to see such different perspectives on sustainability, and to agree and disagree with both, to some degree. Personally, I lean more towards McEvoy’s beliefs, but I also agree with some of what Solow is saying. McEvoy looks at how all the systems intertwine, and the importance of balance. Solow focuses on the here and now, knowing that anything could disrupt the future. I think a combination of the two ideas would be nice, but is that even possible?

    2. I like that you point out the connection Chinook salmon have to the culture. It didn’t occur to me to connect that with sustainability but I think you’re absolutely right when you say due to the cultural and spiritual connection it wouldn’t be sustainable to swap Chum and Chinook out in the fishery.

  14. Robert Solow speaks about sustainability in a very different way. One that I have not heard before. I find his idea to be interesting, and one that was created with deep thought. When he talks about the notion of sustainability being our moral obligation to the future, and how that demand is not feasible, he is right. It is not possible for us to know what the tastes, preferences, and technologies of future generations will be. Nor does it make sense for us to be more concerned about the well-being of future generations than we are with the current poor population. However, we have to begin making an effort to conserve and sustain, because without that thought, we will deplete natural resources too quickly. Solow proposes the idea that resources should be converted into revenue, or an investment to guarantee a constant capacity to consume, and if a resource is depleted, it should be replaced by something with equal value. From this standpoint, I feel Solow would consider the Yukon salmon fishery sustainable if Chinook salmon were substituted with chum salmon. McEvoy argues that a sustainable fishery meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to be able to do the same – to continue or maintain at length without interruption. The fishery management approach shouldn’t be about the size of a particular stock or even the prosperity of a particular harvesting group, but instead, the most important target is the long-term health of the interaction between nature, the economy, and the legal system. In many respects, fish management isn’t about managing fish, it’s about managing people that catch fish. In a slightly contrasting sense, McEvoy may consider the Yukon salmon fishery to be sustainable if Chinook were substituted with chum, but in some respects depleting an entire stock would also compromise generations and the interaction between man and nature.

    1. Hi Zosha!

      I think you worded this really well. I agree with you, I think Solow would consider the Yukon salmon fishery as sustainable if chum could replace the chinook. Great post!

  15. The way that Salow saw sustainability was to make sure there that there was enough for the future generations to be well off. I think what he meant by this was leaving the future generations newer technology and resources. He also stated that if we run out of a certain resource that we should create something new to use in its place.

    McEvoy’s view was more about realism than Salow. What McEvoy’s view was that we needed to keep the management, the environment, and the economy all equal and in balance. If one of those three things goes out of balance, then that could lead to a catastrophe.

    Both men really seem to focus on preserving and making sure that nature is treated well and able to sustain itself. On the other hand, Salow is more of an idealist, and McEvoy is more of a realist.

    I think that both McEvoy and Salow would see the Yukon fishery substitute as sustainable. From Salow’s perspective, he would agree because the substitution is seen as a way to repopulate the King salmon population while also maintaining the salmon production. In McEvoy’s eyes, by substituting the king salmon for chum salmon the economy will stay stable keeping the management, the environment, and the economy in check.

    1. Hi Josh,
      I agree with your take on McEvoy and Salow’s opinion of the Yukon salmon fishery and I think you said it better than I did.

      From the other posts, it appears that most people considered substitution to be a bad thing that was done after the King were completely gone. I thought that the substitution would be a good thing done now to save the Kings and maintain a relationship with the salmon, and it looks like you thought that as well.

  16. Sustainability, in Robert Solow’s eyes, real sustainability is almost unattainable. To Solow, it’s more about sustaining resources for future generations, not centered around the sustainability of certain species, which means that if a species dies out, it can be replaced and still be considered a sustainable fishery. Arthur McEvoy’s idea of sustainability differs from Solow’s because McEvoy’s involves almost perfect balance between the three elements of a sustainable fishery, an ecosystem, an economy, and a system of management. McEvoy’s three elements need to work in harmony to earn the title of sustainable.
    Solow would consider the replacement of Chinook salmon in the Yukon salmon fishery with chum salmon to still be sustainability because it is a continuation of resources for future generations while McEvoy would consider the switch unsustainable because of the loss of Chinook salmon to chum salmon, to be considered sustainable, the Chinook salmon would have to be saved.

  17. McEvoy and Solow without has similar view when it comes to sustainability with the end result being a healthy stock of marine life. Having long term goals to obtain is their main priority to sustain what they what.

    With Solow however it would seem that his way of view sustainability would be that of investing towards other possible options. From the article he referenced that as long as people were to exhaust the resources for its intended purpose it would be fine. The resource is there to be use until depletion, but as long as the people were to also invest some of the resources being used then all is well. As long as there is another options to replenish what has already been lost, then what resources that were used can now be sustained.

    McEvoy on the other hand has a different outlook on the subject. What it seems to me is that he has more of a methodical approach when it comes to sustainability. With the way humans would interact with the environment around us the key things to respect is nature, the economy, and the legal system that intertwines it all. From it seems is that as nature takes its course we must adhere to it financially and legally. As we we change from one thing to another so does the ecosystem around us.

    The perspective Solow has about sustainability there is no doubt in my mind that as long as chum salmon can replace the demand and numbers of chinhook salmon then all is correct. McEvoy on the other hand I believe will not believe that could considered to be sustainable. If overfishing chinhook salmon to the point of extinction then interaction between nature, economical, and legal system was never sustainable.

    1. Hi Paul,
      I like how you worded McEvoy’s version of sustainability.

      For myself I though the McEvoy would consider switching to chum to be sustainable. My reasoning was one, both Chinook and chum are salmon; two, by switching now we could prevent the Chinook form becoming an exhausted resource and allow populations to recover for future harvest.

      That being said maybe the difference between the two salmons is so large that the original relationship would be completely destroyed.

  18. I can see where Solow is coming from with the idea that the concept of sustainability is an unstable one. Everyone’s idea of sustainable is different and in the paper, I think that concept stuck with me the most. That is also, in my opinion, where the big difference between Solow’s and McEvoy’s opinions is. McEvoy has a solid definition of sustainability. He thinks we should meet the needs we have in the present while making sure not to compromise the future generations’ ability to do the same. While on the other hand, Solow thinks that sustainability is all about a moral obligation to the future generations, and less about the here and now. Between these two I tend to lean towards agreeing with McEvoy’s definition and belief in handling the situation. Of course, we want to make sure our future generations have what they need to do what they want with it. However, if it comes at the cost of just using up resources of today and moving on to the next available one that works, I don’t believe that would have a good effect on the environment.
    I think that Solow would absolutely believe that the Yukon salmon fishery is sustainable if we could just replace Chinooks with Chums. He would see it as using up a resource that was meant to be used and moving on from the Chinook resource to the Chum resource. He would think we should invest in the fishery and get what we can out of it but otherwise wouldn’t put out effort to preserve the Chinooks for the sake of sustainability. McEvoy would want to preserve the Chinooks to keep the fishery alive and I don’t think he’d see it as sustainable if we just switched fish. I believe that he would see it as a failure to regulate and maintain the fishery as it was meant to be.

    (Sorry it’s late I got confused)

  19. Solow’s belief in using a non-renewable resource to invest in the future is an interesting take on sustainability. His comparison of how people would think life in 1980 would be from their experiences in 1880 explains how much things can change in 100 years. I understood from this paper that developing nation’s people are unable to discount their current resources to save for future people. I thought it was a different take, not considering the population growth, and that low-income people have a higher number of children as a form of retirement. I like how it is pointed out that people want to preserve resources for future generations, and not consider the well being of people currently. Sustainability is also viewed without regard to a particular species in Solow’s perspective because things can be substituted. Like McEvoy, Solow believes the environmental policy is needed for sustainability. Solow is different than McEvoy because of the belief that a resource can be used as long as it can be replaced by something else in the future, like using salmon to invest in technology.
    McEvoy would consider sustainability a long-term balance of nature, economy, and legal system. The legal system is used to keep the economy’s balance and allow our interaction to continue with nature.
    I believe Solow would consider Chum salmon substitute for Chinook. They would provide the same benefit to people, but not consider the quality or value placed on the Chinook by the people.

    My question is that if we used resources to help the poor, wouldn’t that be investing in the future?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.