Please forgive my cynicism, but if I give it up I get terribly
depressed like Jim.
This thread is looking more and more like an exercise in tip-toeing
around the ever growing elephant in the room. While we fiddle with
splitting hairs, Rome continues to burn. Of course many of the
subjects that were touched upon yesterday are non-starters. Reality is
a non-starter. This tends to put the issue in denial with all of us.
We probably just need to tell it like it is as gently as possible. As
Jim noted
"science is supposed to be about pursuing truth about nature wherever
that pursuit may lead us.
We can find substitutes for "growth limitation," but no matter what we
call it, it is still growth limitation. So games in semantics are
disingenuous and also nonstarters.
I largely agree with Jim Brown and especially the observation that
probably none of us will agree. He pretty much summed it all up very
well. Lack of consensus and academic hair-splitting serves to paralyze
us and ESA into inaction.
Economists are never going to take ecologists seriously because no
matter the semantics we put on a truthful message, it will be
perceived as raining on their greedy parade.
And this article does look interesting and is probably closer to the
truth.
cheerio - randy
=========================================
RK Bangert, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Mancos, CO
[email protected]
http://www.isu.edu/~bangrand/index.html
=========================================
On Jan 2, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Neil K Dawe wrote:
Their time has come. This year, 2009, will signal the birth of a
genuinely innovative economics that will eventually displace the
patchwork rationalizations for greed. The new ecological
accounting is variously called "dynamic equilibrium," "steady-
state" or "biophysical" economics.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/01/02/Economics/
