[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
George Antony Ph 93818 (antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: 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.
: you are continuously making 'contributions' to debates on economic issues
: without the slightest gift of background or understanding.
How's that, George? Can you provide some details on this? Anxious to hear
more...
: I would contend that more
: economists have a background in natural sciences than natural scientists
: in social sciences.
And on what would you base your contention? Hint: hot air doesn't count.
: >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.
: The main argument of social scientists is that the laws of the physical
: and biological worlds cannot be unthinkingly used for human societies.
So? Use them _thinkingly_! Have you thought of this one, George?
: While it is very difficult to predict the change
: in human societies, the only certainty is that they will not stay static.
Just curious, how many years of education did it take you to arrive to
this wisdom?
: Hence, restricting the definition of human carrying capacity to biological
: rules and to the socio-economic status quo is fundamentally flawed.
You've made a nice straw-man, now get the lighter fuel! It's fun, isn't
it?
But be careful, George. These games are mostly for the grown-ups, ya know?
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
References: