Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
Jay Hanson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Your problem George is that your world-view is inverted.
In your eyes. Others have different perspectives from you,
and may even have the humility not to put themselves forward
as the yardstick to measure everyone else with.
Your sermon [deleted to save badwidth] on the claimed
duality of economy-first or ecosystem-first world views has
all the sophistication of a mediaeval parish priest preaching
about Heaven and Hell to the peasants. Since nowadays people
are used to questioning ideas, this will not do.
It also misses the possibility of not putting forward such a
general hierarchy and deciding on issues of conflict between
conservation and economic activity on a case-by-case basis.
Which, incidentally, is the way it works in practice.
>Obviously, neoclassical economists are not trained in living
To falsify this statement it is enough to find one neoclassical
economist who was trained in living systems. Pfoooooof goes
>That is why ecologists do not care what economists and
>politicians think about the environment -- they go through
>life looking at things ass-backwards.
However eloquently put, not respecting the rules of human social
processes will not help ecologists achieve the desired
objectives. This is why not all ecologists are as pigheaded
and dogmatic as you.
>If you want to contribute to the debate, you are going to
>have to change your world view.
Fortunately, this kind of Soviet Politburo approach to the
interchange of ideas is not backed up by coercive power on
your part. So, make a scene, stomp your feet as much as
you like, it will make no difference.
>BTW, even your SE is defective because you left out the laws
>of thermodynamics. In fact, we are on a one-way trip -- and
>running out of energy.
As for running out of energy, this has been debated a lot and
you have failed to convince about this claimed axiom.
Beyond that, the universe has a finite life. We are on a one-
way trip, whatever we do.