Say what you will about "human nature" it does seem to me that "the earliest customs of people" at least had a healthy regard for limits, however mythically and allegorically it was expressed. Capital -- having discovered the magic of compound interest and the charm of the exponential function -- has no use for the old superstitions.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ian introduced a new topic that is entitled to a subject title of its > own. > > At his blog, Brad DeLong discussed the topic under the long-winded and > > all-capitalized title of "BUT WE MUST DO THE WRONG THING!": UNDERSTANDING > > THE "ECONOMIC" ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING. Meanwhile, > a > > commission has been set up called the "Global Commission on the Economy > and > > Climate" which will conclude in a report next year that "the purported > > choice between economic growth and battling climate change 'is a false > > dilemma,'" It's always good idea to make up your mind about the results > of > > your study before you actually undertake it. That way you're less likely > to > > be confused by facts. > > > > Facts? Did I say facts? The two articles below discuss the rather > pertinent > > issue of which facts are relevant and which are not. > > =================== > > The problems of backwards chaining-backwards induction and modus > ponens as well as the underdetermination of policy options by evidence > [Warren Samuels] have always been with us, no? > > It would be nice to have lots of folks on board with respect to the > [always contested] virtues of forward chaining, but evolution on this > planet just can't be bothered with such fragile human centered > epistemic practices; the planet is going to keep on doing it's shit. > Indeed this may be what the kapitalists throw back with ever greater > fervor in the face of radicals who think we can come up with social > systems that complement rather than wreck the staggering variety of > ecosystem dynamics of the next century-5k years; that is, the > secularized version of the impassibility of god. Indeed, Gregory > Bateson pointed out this problem many years ago in "Steps to an > Ecology of Mind" in his comments on St. Paul. > > We're way past the "benign indifference of the universe" problem of > Camus and the existentialists. > > E. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
