Honorable Forum: Please believe me when I say that I don't want these remarks to appear impertinent or disrespectful, nor do I intend to address them to Warren or anyone else; his post, and a few others, served only as a stimulus, nothing more. It is a great joy to witness such intellectual vigor, and such first rate thinking rocking the towers of hierarchy.
"Steady-state," whilst perhaps a valid term technically, has created the (mistaken?) impression among the heathen in the past (and present) that "steady" refers to "static," which refers to "standing still." This further reinforces a certain rigidity of mind, casting in concrete concepts as old (or older) than 1848, thus removing from such "lesser" minds the concept, well-recognized by the "better" minds of having the quality of dynamism, or at least dynamic equilibrium. When it comes to communicating to the vast unwashed multitudes, semantics is not everything, it is the ONLY thing. This is not to suggest "framing" or any other form of manipulation of the masses, nay, far from it, but that the arcane codes of the guilds of old (or the present and future) should be abandoned and a universal, but still accurate mode of speech be adopted, lest the world at large continue to misinterpret academic lingo, not to mention jargon. "Homeostasis" has created similar problems, for example; the multitudes have a pretty sharp intuitive (osmotic, one might say, but that would be obfuscatory) knowledge of word roots (I shall eschew use of the more respectable, but less commonly understood term, etymology), thinking erroneously as a result that organisms are like statues (graven images?) rather than "homeodynamic" ones, or are, when within the realm of conditions we refer to as "healthy," in a state of dynamic equilibrium. This does not question the validity of the term, "steady-state" within the bounds of those academic circles which communicate effectively with it, but it does, respectfully, question whether or not individuals not so blessed will similarly interpret it; further, it does acknowledge its antiquity and its relevance for present purposes, despite its entrenched, even habitual and unconscious use beyond (and, perhaps, sometimes within) those bounds. Frankly, I do question its usefulness as a scholarly term as well, largely for the reasons just stated. Either these distinctions are useful and valid for the reasons stated or they are not. While I do fully recognize that "most people" might be more familiar with the term "steady" than "equilibrium," if there is any justification for sending the reader to the dictionary at all, perhaps that is one. An informal "one-word-answer query" survey of (wo)men on the street might be revealing--what percent would be non-responsive, not know, or respond with "electronics" or "computers," and what percent with "economics" or "ecology?" As to the substance of "steady states," or however the fundamental concept of dynamic stability or equilibrium states should be most clearly expressed, I can only guess at their nature. A well-tuned and balanced engine will continue running provided all of the necessary systems, including an energy source are maintained within acceptable limits; whether or not this is a useful analogy or not depends, I suppose, upon the bounds of relevance and limits of the analogy, and whether or not the question is embraced or "begged." A few non-critical parts--a bolt here and there, for example--might not be immediately apparent in its effects. But given enough time, apparently inconsequential actions can lead to partial or complete system failure. As systems go, earth systems are fairly resilient; they can, crucially and distinctly unlike engines and other artifacts, re-structure themselves and regain their equilibrium in some form, and they can do so without our help. Some might question, whether or not our help is more harmful than helpful--as the sign in the mechanic's garage used to say, "Rates: $5 per hour, $10 per hour if you help." As one who struggled to "help" for more than, shall we say, fifty years trying to help, I must confess that I bungled the job for at least fifteen years before I saw anything like "success." Much of what I "learned" had to be unlearned, and even after embracing intellectual discipline, certainty, aka egocentrism, maintained a certain momentum. By definition, learning has to go on. Ecological economics, like any other term (as happened quickly with "sustainability") that is valid initially, can be abused (as happened quickly with "sustainability," not to mention ecology). It can signify an opening up of consciousness in a new way, or it can be debased by opportunists and used, for example, to justify the continued rape of South Pacific forests, reefs, and other habitats until all there is left in the world are "hot spots." Remember how, in the USA, the citizens were hoodwinked by the "multiple use" concept that was blatantly a licence to continue to steal from public lands? Today's "common" is tomorrow's hot spot. I doubt that any economic system that does not mimic the "no net loss" cycles of ecosystems can do much to reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life--otherwise it must be judged on its actual and continued trend in that direction; if not one must check carefully to see whether it sounds like BS, looks like BS, and plops like BS . . . I firmly hope that ecological economics passes such tests. Semper vigilans. As always, I look forward to standing corrected, by those with or without standing. WT "'Tis frriction's brrisk rub, 'at pr'vides the vital spark!" --Anon. (As in engines and ecotones--and intellectual enquiry.) At 08:16 PM 1/18/2008, Warren W. Aney wrote: >As an organization of professional and academic ecologists, we need to >emphasize that ecology and economics are closely intertwined disciplines. >This interrelationship, as best demonstrated in steady state economics, is >neither new nor is it a concept limited to a small group of ecologists. > >(1) The idea of a steady state economy has been around a long time and comes >from classical economics. John Stuart Mill's "Principles of Political >Economy" (1848) discusses the idea of a "stationary state." This book was a >principle economics text in England until the early 1900s. > >(2) Today, steady state economics is being promulgated by many economists of >stature. Professor Herman Daly (University of Maryland) and Professor >Joshua Farley (University of Vermont) made adopting steady-state economics >the theme of their 2004 book "Ecological Economics" (Island Press). > >So for the ESA, this is more than just a small group supporting a one-man >campaign. It is both a long-standing and a compellingly current imperative >that is strongly ecology-based and economically rational. We need to >reassure organizations that have failed to adopt a clear and strong >steady-state policy -- The Wildlife Society, for example -- that this is a >widely recognized and credibly supported position. And we need to make sure >that ESA takes the lead on this and does not fall in behind those who have >chosen to produce unclear and weak statements. > >Warren W. Aney >Senior Wildlife Ecologist >Tigard, Oregon > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. Edward Gates >Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Response to Nadine Lymn Re: Economic Growth > > >Dear Nadine, > >I am one of the 50-some ESA members proposing that ESA take a position >on economic growth similar to the one being circulated on this list. I >am encouraged to hear that some progress is being made, but I am also >concerned about what has happened to our initiative. My concern stems >from experience. > >I am a member of The Wildlife Society, which published a technical >review on economic growth in 2003 that found a "fundamental conflict >between economic growth and wildlife conservation." In 2004 TWS >developed a position on economic growth. Early drafts of the position >described that conflict in clear terms, like the technical review, but >then a very small group, the TWS policy director and four Council >members (the Policy Statements Subcommittee), took the draft position >into their own hands and kept their work secret. Without any input from >the experts that had originally drafted the position, they published a >different version in /The Wildlifer/ and asked for comments on it. That >version was weak and also showed a lack of familiarity with the language >and principles of ecological economics, and even of conventional >economics, but eventually it was adopted by TWS. > >Many TWS members were incredulous over the outcome of this process and >felt betrayed by TWS staff. In 2006, my co-authors and I published >"Perspectives on The Wildlife Society's Economic Growth Policy Statement >and the Development Process" in the /Wildlife Society Bulletin/ (Volume >34, No. 2) to describe the shortcomings of the position and the process >used to develop it. > >To prevent a similar outcome in ESA, I propose that some of the original >group be included from the beginning and throughout the process, working >with the Public Affairs Committee, in developing the ESA position. >Clearly the proposers are very concerned about this issue, and concern >brings about familiarity and expertise. Several of the proposers have >published papers on this topic and teach courses or portions of courses >on ecological economics. The core group who drafted the position would >be a good place to start. They are especially experienced with this >subject and would be helpful not only with the technical issues but also >with identifying political red flags. > >Along these lines, although I would not classify myself as the foremost >expert on this topic, I have had a long-running interest in economic >growth and teach about the effects of growth on the environment at my >institution. I am also editing a book on peak oil, economic growth, and >wildlife conservation, stemming from a symposium I helped organize on >the same topic. I would be willing to serve on the ESA group that is >developing the position. > >Sincerely yours, >Ed > >J. Edward Gates >University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science >Appalachian Laboratory >301 Braddock Road >Frostburg, Maryland 21532, USA
