[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca wrote:
> Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net>, in response to the argument
> that we are not "running out" of resources:
>
> >Our life-support system has its own requirements that have
> >no relationship to markets. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Jay, the activities humans choose to undertake depend critically on the
> incentives they face. The incentives they face in many cases -- and in
>
> particular in the case of resource extraction -- depend on prevailing and
> expected prices. Hence, the impact humans have on the environment _does_
> depend on the behavior of markets. I don't see how any reasonable
> observer can deny this fact.
>
> Since resource extraction is a human activity and human activity is the
> realm of social science, it would certainly appear that both natural _and_
> social science are relavant to understanding human impact on the
> environment. This does not imply, as you continually assert, that
> economists fail to consider the fact that human life depends on (and
> indeed, is part of) the environment.
While I agree in general with what you say, you do not
address my point. What are the impacts of the human
economy on the LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ITSELF.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Ask not what our life-support-system can do for you,
ask what you can do for our life-support-system." <G>
For example, what do economists say about the MAXIMUM
SIZE of the human economy? How big can it get before
our ecosystem disintegrates -- before it dies?
Consider an analogy. Suppose shuttle astronauts needed
a rope and decided to start pulling wires out of their
electrical panels to braid one.
The resident economist encouraged this use of resources
saying that if something were yanked out that caused
the system to OBVIOUSLY malfunction, then human
ingenuity would know which wire it was, put it
right back in and try another wire.
(I won't elaborate on the many dubious assumptions in
the economists' ideology.)
> Jay, could you please name some ecologists who "do not care what
> economists think about the environment?" Why do these ecologists not
> believe that social scientists might have something useful to say about
> human behavior? Or do they deny that human behavior affects the
> environment?
It was a bad choice of words, I didn't realize there were
any intelligent neoclassical economists on this newsgroup. <G>
Obviously they care about economists -- it the economist's
political ideology that rules the Earth.
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
Follow-Ups:
References: