[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: