[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> jovially inquires:
>
...
> Carrying capacity for humans has the promise of scientific rigour that
> it cannot deliver on.
I reply:
I don't know about that. Trends in per-capita rate of resource use
can be estimated, as well as trends from historical data to estimate a
carrying capacity. Available technology and discoveries which are not
currently implemented can also be figured in. It's even possible to
estimate the rate of discovery and implementation of presently
unavailable technologies from historic data, and from this estimate of
carrying capacity either use it as it is, take the conservative view
that it is too high, or take the liberal view that it is too low.
You continue:
>
> I think it is better to talk about "the world we want to live in and the
> world we want our children to live in". Admittedly, at first sight this
> is a much mushier concept than carrying capacity.
I reply:
It is also an entirely different issue. An estimate of carrying
capacity is a tool, and little else, to help us create the world as we
want it to be.
You continue:
> Still, it is more
> flexible and it will take much further our discussion of what is essentially
> subjective preferences.
I note:
It is useless for quantitative analysis, and in no way replaces an
estimate of carrying capacity. It's the difference between policy
objectives and scientific data.
Follow-Ups:
References: