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

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



Jay Hanson wrote:
> 
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > The most evident flaw in your argument is that 'given behavior'
> > actually includes the response of humanity to various incentives, the
> > rate of technological development and dispersion, as well of more
> > obvious paramenters - not just some 'we're doing it now, we'll be
> > doing it tomorrow' assumption.
> 
> I would also like to like to comment on this aspect
> of your argument.
> 
> You seem to imply that we are somehow directing our
> society for the common good.  This is far from reality.

I note:

Of course it's far from reality.  I just think it is worth striving 
for, since the alternative justifies any criminal behavior I can get 
away with, and the wealthy and influential become the most desirable 
targets for anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

You continue:

> 
> There is no reason to assume that we will alter our
> behavior in order to survive.
> 
I note:

Also true.  Historical data tells us that periodically the citizens of 
nations revolt, often against their own desires, against their 
government.  The French Revolution was probably the bloodiest in 
recent history, and the French had the sense to realize that to leave 
any member of a wealthy family alive is to invite recreation of the 
same aristocracy.  An unfortunate occurrance in many respects, and 
certainly something to try to avoid.


Follow-Ups: References: