[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
George Antony Ph 93818 (antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> jovially inquires:
: >Perhaps restate your assertions and definitions concerning carrying
: >capacity?
: My view is that the concept of carrying capacity is not particularly
: meaningful, useful and applicable to humans. Since carrying capacity
: is tied to the exhaustion of specific resources, human inventiveness
: that substitutes resources for others and human preferences that change
: make it impossible to come up with anything that stands up to scrutiny.
: Carrying capacity for humans has the promise of scientific rigour that
: it cannot deliver on.
Translation from George-speak: I already know Carrying Capacity is "not
relevant", yet I will waste everyone's time nitpicking about its
definitions.
: 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
Ah, now he's on a REALLY familiar territory!
: than carrying capacity. Still, it is more
: flexible and it will take much further our discussion of what is essentially
: subjective preferences.
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: