----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 1067] Re: economics and anthropogenic climate
change: from RealClimate
>
>
> john fernbach wrote:
>> But supposing you're right. If added "value" in an economic sense has
>> no physical component to it that's worth talking about, if "value" is
>> added to the economy that means absolutely nothing in terms of either
>> resource expenditures or expenditures of energy -- then how meaningful
>> is it?
As meaningful as human values. Without human value there is no meaning.
Some energy expenditures are valuable and meaningful, others are not. The
value of energy expenditure does not correlate well with the magnitude.
Computer software is valuable, but it's physical impact is minimal. It
controls the patterns formed by electricity flowing through computer
systems, so using software in a meaningful sense requires some expenditure
of energy, true. It's value for record-keeping, communication, art &
entertainment, for example, is recognized in part as a replacement for the
much more energy-intensive activities of record-keeping, communication, art
& entertainment on paper media, rather than electronic. Software is an
example of how a large increase in value can be realized by a large
reduction in energy expenditure and resource consumption (rather than an
increase).
> about what money actually is, a liquid uncomitted general human value,
> we see that it is our values that have perhaps become generally selfish
> and it is not the fault of the money.
Money is a symbolic expression of perceived value, similar to a stained
glass window depicting the martyrdom of St. Joan. Money is a medium, not a
message. It is easier to carry than stained glass. The value of gold as a
medium for the symbolic expression of religious values is on display in
temples and shrines the world over, and the value of gold as a medium for
the symbolic expression of economic values is on display in bank vaults the
world over. Credit cards are easier to carry than gold. The value they
represent is symbolic, independent of the physical medium.
>>
>> And it is partly a matter of semantics. If we define "value" to be
>> without any material substance, we can play with words in a fashion
>> that seems to make the problem of finite limits to growth disappear.
>> But I submit that it's really just playing with words.
>
You could think of it as playing with words, or as working with words,
either way, it is symbolic. The rhetoric of "limits to growth" is no less
symbolic wordplay than the rhetoric of "infinite expansion". The value of
petroleum is in the goods services we derive from it, not from the sticky
stinky sludge underground. Its finitude imposes a physical limit on the
amount of petroleum that may ultimately be consumed, but that does not
necessarily limit our continued enjoyment of organic chemicals, lubricants,
and transportation.
Because human ingenuity, aided as it is by our capacity for symbolic
expression, gives us the ability to substitute alternate physical resources
as feedstocks for the goods and services that we value, we are able to
sustain growth in value beyond the limits of physical feedstocks.
Recognizing this does not constitute the assertion that all resources have
substitutes and resource scarcity is therefore never a problem; but refusing
to recognize this does constitute an assertion that we are doomed by
resource exhaustion, and soon. The repeated historical failures of
physical-determinist doom prophecies supports the observation that adherents
of the "physical limits" school underestimate the power of technology and
organization to mediate the relationship between the human population and
physical environment.
Having innovation and resource substitution as a relief valve has (so far)
successfully delayed our Malthusian demise, and afforded a large growth in
material prosperity. Whether growth in human value or welfare is contingent
on material prosperity is a matter of some debate. In the conclusion to his
1997 book "Growth Triumphant: the 21st Century in Historical Perspective",
economic demographer Richard Easterlin observes that material prosperity
does not necessarily bring happiness: "triumph of economic growth is not a
triumph of humanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of
material wants over humanity". The hedonic treadmill, always wanting more
more more, needn't translate to "more more more paper" if software is
involved, and similarly the "need" for "more more more petroleum" may be met
without any, provided the conditions for technical innovation and diffusion
prevail.
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
