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

Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy



David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
....
> >
> >No-one claimed there was such a science.  The assumption was behavioral
> >consistency, and the preceding point was that you use real data when
> >real data is available.  I'm surprised that you didn't notice this -
> >well, somewhat surprised.
> 
> BUt this is precisely what the preceding point was _not_.  The
> original quote had no content beyond a cynical viewpoint about
> humanity.
> 
> People like the original poster in fact tend not to be interested in
> data in the past, present, or future.  The past they ignore, the
> present they distort, and it is only about the future that they are
> certain: it is disaster in precisely, pick a number, years.

I reply:

Perhaps, but what was quoted, essentially that the real data should be 
used if available when calculating parameters of a system, and that 
human behavior is consistent, is in the first case certainly true and in 
the second a very reasonable assumption.  It struck me as a very valid 
point.  Above you're making value judgements about the original poster - 
a cynical view of his cynicism if you will.  Personally I don't believe 
in impending disaster although I don't disbelieve in it either - I'll 
really have little to say about it in specific terms unless I can do the 
analytical work myself which seems unlikely, but if a valid point is 
made why shouldn't I support it as a valid point?  And if I see 
something important in the post, why do you tell me to pay no attention 
but instead concentrate on the intent, whatever it was, of the original 
poster?



References: