[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: