Carrol Cox wrote:
Only by grounding the discussion in politics rather than science,
morality,
or economics (or any other domain I have failed to name).
On the contrary, what we need is less rash talk and more people who
understand log tables.
Mark
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Michael posits that the two camps in our heated discussion are
"extractive" vs. "productive."
Michael is wrong. There *is* a debate going on between 'geologists' and
'economists', between classicals and neoclassicals, between Ehrlich and
Simon, between Colin Campbell and
Mark Jones wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
Only by grounding the discussion in politics rather than science,
morality,
or economics (or any other domain I have failed to name).
On the contrary, what we need is less rash talk and more people who
understand log tables.
Mark
Carrol's
How does your remark about humans and mayflies support your case. If we imagine
we are immortal then we will be concerned for the state of the world in 2050. By
2150 probably none of us will be alive and any energy crunch then can have no
effect on our welfare. In fact if we were really like
I think that the basic problem that we have been debating is whether the
economy is extractive or productive. Let me choose a couple of names to
illustrate my point.
Mark says that we are running out of energy -- suggesting that the
economy is extractive. Doug mentioned that profit-oriented
Michael posits that the two camps in our heated discussion are "extractive"
vs. "productive." Another way of dividing the two is "efficiency" vs.
"sufficiency." The former could be thought of as Doug (or Amory Lovins)
who at least entertain the idea that technology will save the day -- and
the
Michael Perelman wrote:
I wonder if we can discuss this intelligently or if the question is too
theological.
Only by grounding the discussion in politics rather than science, morality,
or economics (or any other domain I have failed to name).
Carrol
