The climate crisis is a defining issue of our time and it proves the importance of understanding the big picture. Governments will only act if politically expedient; public support is won by showing that inaction is far costlier than the economic disruption to achieve sustainability; this trade-off needs a philosophical framework of how to balance today’s preferences with the future’s. I care deeply about the environment and this passion has focused my diverse academic interests, drawing me to PPE as my ideal degree. I find exploring the facets of climate change intellectually exciting, and believe a multidisciplinary viewpoint is essential to tackle the 21st century’s biggest problems, hence my keen interest in politics, philosophy, economics – and above all, the intersections between them.
In researching an essay on climate change mitigation vs adaptation, I explored who should bear these costs, which led me to the idea of intergenerational justice. Modern cost-benefit analyses rely on “future discounting” and I was interested to read two different perspectives about it: the nonidentity problem, questioning whether current policies can technically harm future generations; and Frank Ramsey’s Welfare Economics, stating that discounting is morally unjustifiable. In my view, nonidentity can’t defend climate inaction, as present individuals are also severely harmed. However, I was able to use this learning elsewhere, evaluating child-centric criticisms of surrogacy in a talk for my school’s Feminist Society which also considered the moral limits of laissez-faire economics.
I’ve become particularly interested in new findings undermining traditional economics since reading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow about prospect theory and cognitive biases. This prompted me to write an essay exploring the politics of climate denial, where I asked if it would be moral for the government to use “nudge” tactics to push apathetic citizens into taking climate-conscious decisions, concluding that, although justifiable, it would likely be counterproductive.
My interest in the philosophy of science led me to read Stephen J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, and I was struck by how moral context shapes scientific endeavours, such as with Victorian scientists’ engrained racism. Understanding that quantitative data is not automatically impartial was valuable in allowing me to engage with Adrian Woolridge’s defence of meritocracy in The Aristocracy of Talent. He concluded that we should renew meritocratic ideals by investing in elite education, which I found unconvincing. As Gould noted, measures of intelligence often tell us more about the tester’s biases than the testee’s abilities, so more intellectual segregation might perpetuate existing inequalities. Although I would not describe meritocracy as a “tyranny” (as Michael Sandel claims), I argued in an essay on the UK’s regional inequalities that the degree to which coincidences of birth determine a person’s prospects does demonstrate that meritocracy is broken.
Beyond my academic work, I run my school’s Debating Society, where we regularly discuss motions on moral, social and political issues. Judging the debates has helped me to develop my critical thinking skills, by identifying flaws or assumptions in each side’s arguments. My involvement in music, playing clarinet and organ to post-Grade 8 level, has given me self-discipline, as well as teamwork skills from the orchestras I participate in. I was also part of a STEM team that represented the UK at the F1 in Schools World Finals, in a leadership role which required me to motivate other team members and keep our project on track.
Studying PPE would give me an opportunity to deepen my knowledge of all the challenges faced by humanity, and the different approaches through which to analyse them. I am looking forward to the opportunity to weave together these different intellectual strands and use that understanding to make a difference.