The more I think about it, the more I believe that leftist and liberal political economists should drop the phrase "natural capital." There are two concepts conflated in that phrase. Neither of them fits the true nature of gifts from Nature.
First, "capital" refers to property. _Some_ of Nature's bounty is owned as property, but hardly all of it. After all, even George Bush doesn't think that people can own the Sun. Second, "capital" refers to creations by humans, usually by dint of sacrifice. The gifts of Nature don't fit that in any way, shape, or form. Other, more random, thoughts: * if we bring back nuclear power as some want (the "nuclear option" for dealing with global warming), I would insist that each person who owns stock in corporations that produce and/or run nuclear power plants be required to store nuclear waste (in proportion to their stock holdings) in their dwellings. * by giving a sermon/service at Yankee Stadium, the Pope was insulting the people of Boston and all Red Sox fans (including yours truly, as long as the Red Sox aren't playing the Cubs or the White Sox). This is just one more reason why journalists must stop referring to him as the "holy father" and instead call him the "allegedly holy father." (If nothing else, we need symmetry: the news refers to "alleged perps," but not to "alleged heroes," even though many heroes turn out to be zeros.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
