At 05:34 PM +0000 4/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Ashwani says (and ascribing to Ernie), “conservation alone would allow
>us to grow into the foreseeable future (say, 50 years), without ANY
>increase being needed in energy production.” I disagree. By
>definition, conservation is not growth, but rather maintenance of
>natural capital stocks.
>
I agree. The term conservation probably better applies to the steady state
economy position than to what I have in mind--Holling's shifting domains of
equilibrium.
>Really, its' the macroeconomic goal that counts.
>
I agree that changing societal and directional goals matters. But, and without
touching the debate between the primacy of macro- or micro-economics in shaping
human behavior, the world in which I work is at the neighborhood level of
organization, so to speak. Personally, I can do nothing about macroeconomic
goals per se (Ben Bernanke is out of my reach and influence), and signing
petitions is not satisfying for me. But I can change individual behavior at my
own level of organization, and perhaps that of groups and communities, one or
two levels out. And my changes in behavior can, very effectively I believe,
change the settings on the macroeconomic world. (When I choose to drive at 55
mph, some few individuals will almost always cue up from me. Nearest neighbor
theory does work.)
Its about preferred domains of action, more than anything else, I think. I
like big picture stuff. But only because it allows me to rethink my own
detailed world. The think ecologically, I find, is to consider context richly,
and to trace consequences across levels of organization.
Cheers,
-
Ashwani
Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
