[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca wrote:
>
....
>
> I don't see how. Suppose a catastrophic collapse will occur if some index
> of human activity, A, exceeds a parametric threshold. The economic
> argument is simply that A -- not the threshold -- is not determined
> independently of market forces (in many cases).
I note:
That's reasonable.
You continue:
> The "viability of the
> system" depends on the actions of the actors in that system, which in turn
> depend on the incentives they face.
I add:
In part, yes. Excessive external stresses on the system may
precipitate collapse if they exceed the values of certain thresholds
which depend solely on market-independent parameters.
You continue:
>
> I agree. Note that I haven't asserted anything about the efficiency
> or stability of market determined outcomes. I've simply asserted that
> incentives matter.
I agree:
I agree.
You continue:
>
> I don't see how. I think, conversely, I've argued that it is imperative
> that we consider how behavior will change "based on information already
> available."
I reply:
In that case, if you consider a calculation of carrying capacity based
on all pertinent available information to be meaningful, it seems we
have nothing to argue about.
You continue:
>
> Then we agree. By "given behavior" I meant exactly the assumption that
> "we're doing it now, we'll be doing it tomorrow" (such as Ehrlich style
> predictions of resource exhaustion based on _given_ extraction rates).
> Recall I am specifically arguing against the notion that economists have
> nothing useful to say about the environment. If, as we agree, we
> include "the response of humanity to various incentives" in our
> environmental modeling, we are by definition incorporating economics.
> That's exactly my point.
I reply:
Good! How pleasant!
You continue:
....
>
> I don't. I am, however, skeptical of any estimate of carrying capacity,
> even one with very sound modeling of human behavior. The concept requires
> estimates of technology decades (centuries?) into the future, and such
> estimates are extremely inexact (moreover, it seems to me that there may
> not exist a finite asymptotic limit, and even if there is it may not be
> reached for a long time, again casting doubt on the usefulness of the
> concept in human populations). A similar situation occurs when estimating
> the economic impact of greenhouse gases: the estimates require forecasts
> of technology a century into the future, which is a dubious exercise. I
> maintain that Jay's methods, which take technology and behavior as givens,
> are useless. I think we agree on that.
I respond:
Yes, I believe we do agree. Regardless of what we suppose about the
reliability of an estimate of carrying capacity, by including
available pertinent data it is the best estimate we can get. As such
we can make decisions for future activity based on it, and based on
how much risk we wish to take.
You continue:
.....
>
> To a limited extent, I agree. Note, again, that I'm not arguing for
> laissez-faire environmental policy. I'm arguing economics matters.
>
I reply:
Yes. I think we've reached a stage where economic matters, ecology,
and other knowledge systems can no longer be dealt with as independent
entities. Yet I know of no one with the ability to master all of
these seperate fields, much less unite them. Where is AI when we need
it?
You continue:
> Economics as I present it? I suggested that 1) incentives matter and
> 2) that there is an interaction between incentives and actions. How
> is this "shamanism?" How can we make "scientific" estimates of carrying
> capacity that ignore 1) and 2)?
I reply:
It cannot. I was referring specifically to the examples of disease
demographics. But since we seem to agree after all, it's not worth
pressing the issue. Thanks for a pleasant discussion.
References: