[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: