[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)



mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:

George Antony wrote:
>> Carrying capacity for humans has the promise of scientific rigour that
>> it cannot deliver on.

>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.

All this is indeed theoretically possible.  However, when you put together
the error terms of the individual estimates, the calculated final number
will become pretty meaningless.

>> 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.   Still, it is more
>> flexible and it will take much further our discussion of what is essentially
>> subjective preferences.

>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.

Again, your argument assumes that the calculated human carrying capacity is
suitable for quantitative analysis and qualifies as scientific data.  I am 
not alone with my reservations about that.

It is also ironic to observe that the standard objection of natural scientists
to economic analysis is that it is too simplistic, speculative and so "un-
scientific" that it is too prone to error.  Weel, I have encountered few 
pieces of economic analysis that were more simplistic, speculative and 
potentially erreneous than the suggested 'estimation' of human carrying 
capacity. 

George Antony


Follow-Ups: References: