[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)



yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

>I think it is totally appropriate to point out that ecologists know more
>about Carrying Capacity and its definition than the economists whose
>"economism" often blinds them to the basic realities of biology and
>ecology.

Forceful assertion of such primitive generalization does not prove anything, 
merely invites ridicule.  

One cannot overlook the irony of you claiming that economists (all) cannot
be accepted as authoritative on issues ecological while at the same time
you are continuously making 'contributions' to debates on economic issues
without the slightest gift of background or understanding.   You know:
goose/gander, cattle/pot, etc.

But more than that, many social scientists, e.g., typically many or most 
agricultural economists, have studied the 'basic realities of biology and
ecology' before they studied human societies.  I would contend that more
economists have a background in natural sciences than natural scientists
in social sciences. 

>Many of these lightweights that Jay mentions in his post DON'T EVEN ACCEPT
>that Carrying Capacity is relevant in describing and analysing human
>societies and their relationship to the environment. 

It may be the lack of clarity on part of the economists here: perhaps we
should try to cater for the lowest common denominator and write at the
level of remedial primary schools.

The main argument of social scientists is that the laws of the physical 
and biological worlds cannot be unthinkingly used for human societies.
Since humans are capable of creative thinking, human societies are not
necessarily limited by natural laws.  This is why constant trend projections,
assumptions of unchanged technology and unchanged human preferences are
just as fallacious arguments by the less thinking types of 'ecologists'
as applying the simile of bacteria multiplying in a test tube to human
population dynamics.  While it is very difficult to predict the change
in human societies, the only certainty is that they will not stay static. 

Hence, restricting the definition of human carrying capacity to biological
rules and to the socio-economic status quo is fundamentally flawed.  In
case you are not clear on that, this is what you and the unthinking types
of 'ecologists' are guilty of.  It is fortunate that there are ecologists
who think in terms of the total physical-biological-SOCIAL system.

You are, of course, perfectly right if you can think as far as calling
social scientists anthropocentric: this is a basic tool of the trade.

>For THESE ideologues
>of hell-bent-for-growth dogma, even to begin to challenge the fine points
>of defining the Carrying Capacity is itself the height of irrelevance.

A bombastic sentence that proves to be devoid of meaning when examined
closely.

George Antony


Follow-Ups: References: