I Was Wrong: Things Are Better Than I Thought.
br...@lee.house.gov
: Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net>mocks like a hyena:
:
: >David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
: >> My impression is that within the last eight years we have passed a
: >> revolutionary cusp: the rate of population increase has started to
: >> decline, the doubling time has started to increase, and we are now
: >> within sight of stable population.
:
: >My goodness, where have you been?
: >We are now FAR OVER the carrying capacity of the planet.
Oh really? Gee. Last time I was in Wyoming, I did'nt get that impression, I
wonder how things are in NW Territories, Canada?
: >A "revolutionary cusp" would be signalled if economists
: >either started looking at something besides numbers or
: >listening to someone who does.
:
: >Sorry! No revolutionary cusp yet.
: >I don't expect to see one any time soon. <G>
:
: My error was in dating the revolutionary cusp too recently. In fact
: it was in 1963-64, not te last eight years as I had thought.
:
: -dlj.
:
: The folowing can be found at www.census.gov/ftp/ipc/www/worldpop.html:
:
:
: Average Average
: annual annual
: growth population
: Year Population rate (%) change
:
:
: 1950 2,555,898,461 1.44 37,144,864
: 1951 2,593,043,325 1.61 42,057,256
: 1952 2,635,100,581 1.71 45,337,035
: 1953 2,680,437,616 1.77 47,859,766
: 1954 2,728,297,382 1.87 51,360,701
:
: 1955 2,779,658,083 1.88 52,877,941
: 1956 2,832,536,024 1.95 55,742,487
: 1957 2,888,278,511 1.93 56,420,002
: 1958 2,944,698,513 1.76 52,248,473
: 1959 2,996,946,986 1.39 41,983,405
:
: 1960 3,038,930,391 1.33 40,622,370
: 1961 3,079,552,761 1.81 56,318,024
: 1962 3,135,870,785 2.20 69,700,009
: 1963 3,205,570,794 2.20 71,290,380
: 1964 3,276,861,174 2.08 68,957,237
:
: 1965 3,345,818,411 2.07 69,812,731
: 1966 3,415,631,142 2.01 69,307,360
: 1967 3,484,938,502 2.03 71,434,202
: 1968 3,556,372,704 2.07 74,322,686
: 1969 3,630,695,390 2.05 75,089,082
:
: 1970 3,705,784,472 2.07 77,678,978
: 1971 3,783,463,450 2.02 77,168,444
: 1972 3,860,631,894 1.97 76,662,676
: 1973 3,937,294,570 1.91 76,109,539
: 1974 4,013,404,109 1.83 74,014,196
:
: 1975 4,087,418,305 1.76 72,483,551
: 1976 4,159,901,856 1.73 72,718,911
: 1977 4,232,620,767 1.70 72,729,676
: 1978 4,305,350,443 1.74 75,665,207
: 1979 4,381,015,650 1.73 76,629,017
:
: 1980 4,457,644,667 1.71 76,688,538
: 1981 4,534,333,205 1.76 80,284,213
: 1982 4,614,617,418 1.72 80,196,734
: 1983 4,694,814,152 1.67 79,199,818
: 1984 4,774,013,970 1.67 80,569,073
:
: 1985 4,854,583,043 1.68 82,429,566
: 1986 4,937,012,609 1.72 85,836,795
: 1987 5,022,849,404 1.71 86,537,649
: 1988 5,109,387,053 1.65 84,819,906
: 1989 5,194,206,959 1.67 87,337,583
:
: 1990 5,281,544,542 1.58 83,947,792
: 1991 5,365,492,334 1.52 82,302,295
: 1992 5,447,794,629 1.48 81,284,496
: 1993 5,529,079,125 1.44 80,305,662
: 1994 5,609,384,787 1.45 82,033,007
:
:
John Kinnear
around. The human population of that state already exceeds its
carrying capacity...as does that of every state in the U.S.and of
every country in North and South America (to include David's Canada).
While he is there I hope David will take the time to read up on the
definitions of "carrying capacity" and apply what he has read to what
he sees in Wyomning... or Montana...or the Dakotas...or any other
place he chooses to visit on Earth.
Meredith Poor
In this case, we must be talking about the carrying capacity at
hunter/gatherer technology: i.e. subsistence living. The capacity of
North America in that style is around six million people.
Who's book are we supposed to be reading: another "junk scientist"? If a
population exists, it's environment can carry it. There may be a shift
at any time that causes the carrying capacity to decline, and death
occurs immediately to the excess population. So it goes.
However, predictions are silly. Particularly predictions that involve a
population of technological innovators when the prediction assumes a
static technological foundation.
The doom and gloomers that keep posting to this board have a hidden
agenda. It could be any of the following: a desire for a totalitarian
state which "they" control; a removal of all advanced technology so that
society returns to a state of economic and social poverty that they can
understand and function in; or they have an inventory of books that
they're having a hard time selling. Scenario 3 seems the most likely.
Jay Hanson
>
> : >My goodness, where have you been?
> : >We are now FAR OVER the carrying capacity of the planet.
>
>
> Oh really? Gee. Last time I was in Wyoming, I did'nt get that impression, I
> wonder how things are in NW Territories, Canada?
Hi Bruce,
Instead of trying hard to make ignorance into a
virtue, why not read at least ONE of the dozens
of books I have cited?
In case you are actually interested in the
definition of "carrying capacity":
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page13.htm
Jay
--
---
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ECONOMY
(but were afraid to ask):
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
br...@lee.house.gov
: Gee, next time David is in Wyoming I hope he takes more time to look
: carrying capacity...as does that of every state in the U.S.and of
: every country in North and South America (to include David's Canada).
: While he is there I hope David will take the time to read up on the
: definitions of "carrying capacity" and apply what he has read to what
: he sees in Wyomning... or Montana...or the Dakotas...or any other
: place he chooses to visit on Earth.
So you are saying (without offering any definitions, yourself) that the
definition of carrying capacity presents the mentioned states and northern
Canada as unable to absorb population increases?
- B David (bb...@hr.house.gov)
John McCarthy
who visits Wyoming and looks around. I doubt that it is apparent to
very many residents of Wyoming except perhaps for spiritual
descendants of Daniel Boone, who said that someone had moved in 40
miles from where he lived so it was time to move on. (My two
daughters may be actual descendants of Daniel Boone.)
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Mark Ryan
<jkinnear@!earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Gee, next time David is in Wyoming I hope he takes more time to look
>around. The human population of that state already exceeds its
>carrying capacity...as does that of every state in the U.S.and of
>every country in North and South America (to include David's Canada).
>While he is there I hope David will take the time to read up on the
>definitions of "carrying capacity" and apply what he has read to what
>he sees in Wyomning... or Montana...or the Dakotas...or any other
>place he chooses to visit on Earth.
Ok, what is you definition of "carrying capacity"
M Ryan
Gary G. Nelson
>So you are saying (without offering any definitions, yourself) that the
>definition of carrying capacity presents the mentioned states and northern
>Canada as unable to absorb population increases?
>
I agree that the most objective definition is that the population
(but whose?) is decreasing. For many natural species, that is
true as originally stated. But for human population, it would apply
mainly to some of the Maritime Provinces and some of the eastern states.
In the latter cases, the issues are mainly human-economic rather
than natural (pace the fisheries issue).
The point that seems to be overlooked is that for
human societies, the social and economic factors that define a
"social" carrying capacity are typically more stringent than the
natural ones, although I would agree that the natural are more
fundamental (sufficient but not necessary...).
David Lloyd-Jones
>He isn't merely saying it. He is saying that it is obvious to anyone
>who visits Wyoming and looks around. I doubt that it is apparent to
>very many residents of Wyoming except perhaps for spiritual
>descendants of Daniel Boone, who said that someone had moved in 40
>miles from where he lived so it was time to move on. (My two
>daughters may be actual descendants of Daniel Boone.)
Ain't it the damndest thang! Y'awl think he's forty mile away, an'
it's safe t' go out an slop the hawgs. Then ya gets back to the house
yer sees the end o' that dang coonskin leaving by the bedroom winder.
-dlj.
Jordi Sod
>
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> : Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net>mocks like a hyena:
> :
> : >David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> : >> My impression is that within the last eight years we have passed a
> : >> revolutionary cusp: the rate of population increase has started to
> : >> decline, the doubling time has started to increase, and we are now
> : >> within sight of stable population.
> :
> : >We are now FAR OVER the carrying capacity of the planet.
>
>
> Oh really? Gee. Last time I was in Wyoming, I did'nt get that impression, I
> wonder how things are in NW Territories, Canada?
>
Er... one question. How many people can Wyoming or the NW territories
support? Sure there are empty places in the world. They are empty because
not many people can make a living there. If you can make the Sahara desert an
agricultural area as productive as the Ganges plains, go right ahead. If
not, you better try not to have lots of children.
Regards from a city with 2/3 the population of Canada,
Jordi Sod.
Mason A. Clark
Not funny. You really should think twice before doing something
like this. You do not know John McCarthy and his family
history.
>
your pal Marc
: Er... one question. How many people can Wyoming or the NW territories
: support? Sure there are empty places in the world. They are empty because
: not many people can make a living there. If you can make the Sahara desert an
: agricultural area as productive as the Ganges plains, go right ahead. If
: not, you better try not to have lots of children.
: Regards from a city with 2/3 the population of Canada,
Pretend that everyone in the US lived in a typical post-war suburb --
Long Island, specifically Nassau County's south shore comes to mind.
Densities are typically in the 7,000 to 8,000 range; Levittown's density
is about 8,000. 250M people at this density requires about 30,000 sq.
miles. That means we could all fit into the state of Maine. The entire
population could live in single-family houses, with parkways, malls,
strip centers, parks, playgrounds, etc. and fit into Maine.
Is Levittown too crowded? OK, Orange County, CA is synonymous with
low-density sprawl and has a density of about 2,700. We could all live
at Orange County densities and fit into Colorado. We could all live at
*half* the Orange County density and fit into Texas.
So, why does it seem like the USA is crowded? Because, by
definition, most people are in crowded places. And the crowded places
have development. Therefore, most people see this development and assume
we're getting "paved over". As population grows, the minority in empty
areas (fringes of metropolitan areas) witness development and make the
same assumption. And they're partially correct-- the place where *they*
live is being developed.
But there's *plenty* of room beyond that.
ypM
--
David Lloyd-Jones
>Is Levittown too crowded? OK, Orange County, CA is synonymous with
>low-density sprawl and has a density of about 2,700. We could all live
>at Orange County densities and fit into Colorado. We could all live at
>*half* the Orange County density and fit into Texas.
>So, why does it seem like the USA is crowded? Because, by
>definition, most people are in crowded places. And the crowded places
>have development. Therefore, most people see this development and assume
>we're getting "paved over".
Being crowded is also a behavioural question. If everybody has a gun
and ten percent of your population gets drunk and goes around shooting
up all the stop signs, you want to live a few miles apart. Hunting
season makes rural America uninhabitable, with a daily death rate like
that of the US side in Vietnam.
In Tokyo, on the other hand, northside windows of close houses are
semiopaque: they let in light but not sight. Even if people see, they
are good at not _seeing_ what they see -- hence nudity at the public
bath involves no lack of privacy.
In the area of Toronto where I live, mixed Anglo/Portugese/Chinese,
think Macao, we live well because we live competently, not because we
are rich.
-dlj.
Kristen Blann
get on an airplane, I can't help making the inevitable analogy
between human civilization on the surface of the earth and your
incurable skin fungal infections (incurable by Western medicine,
that is, see Mark Plotkin's "The Shaman's Apprentice" for an
interesting tale on the low-density Amazonian indigenous cultures
who are right now suffering the same fate our North American
Indians suffered 100 years ago, which most of us feel somewhat
guilty about).
From an airplane, notice how the West is divided up into squares
and circles, the East largely deforested, the remaining patches of
forest so chopped up that migratory songbirds can't escape the
encroachment of the parasitic cowbird, which once lived only in
the open plains.
At the moment the debate is largely nostalgic, as those of us who
place some sort of quality of life value on solitude and wilderness
are completely losing the opportunity to exercise our preferences
for those landscapes. Those who argue that we have exceeded our
"carrying capacity" in any given local environment have a multitude
of examples to back up their claims, particularly since hardly any
locales operate without massive trade and imports; the world economy is so
interwoven at present that trying to establish self-sufficiency for any
particular geographical area is a moot point
However, those who preach gloom and doom for the Earth need only wait for
one of a multitude of potential disasters come
partially true to prove their point.
I don't think it's necessarily that they want such a thing to
come true. I think they are strongly influenced by what kind
of life they believe is worth living. I also think it is very
important for them to recognize this--that they are employing
scare tactics to alert the world to a future _they_ fear and
loathe, and this does motivate them to try to alter the
preferences and behavior of others.
I am personally very sympathetic to this desire to re-evaluate
our cultural norms. I am not at all attracted to the thought
of the futuristic high-density
highly-specialized techno-cultures we seem to be headed towards,
and its implications for personal freedoms and democracy.
I prefer an Earth with the full complement of species and natural
areas.
It's ironic that groups bent on exercizing their "personal
freedoms" such as the Montana Freemen choose some of the last
wilderness's in which to hide out. What will the rest of us
do for freedom when such wilderness is gone?
It's also ironic that advertisers are constantly appealing to
our love of such beautiful, pristine places, and that
developers and contractors name all of their subdivisions and
roads after whatever it is the cut down or filled in to build
it: "Stately Oaks" "Whispering Pines" "Walden Pond" etc.
Jay Hanson
->
-> Jordi Sod (jo...@mail.internet.com.mx) wrote:
->
-> : Er... one question. How many people can Wyoming or the NW
territories
-> : support? Sure there are empty places in the world. They are empty
because
-> : not many people can make a living there. If you can make the Sahara
desert an
-> : agricultural area as productive as the Ganges plains, go right
ahead. If
-> : not, you better try not to have lots of children.
->
-> : Regards from a city with 2/3 the population of Canada,
->
-> Pretend that everyone in the US lived in a typical post-war suburb --
-> Long Island, specifically Nassau County's south shore comes to mind.
-> Densities are typically in the 7,000 to 8,000 range; Levittown's
density
-> is about 8,000. 250M people at this density requires about 30,000 sq.
-> miles. That means we could all fit into the state of Maine. The entire
-> population could live in single-family houses, with parkways, malls,
-> strip centers, parks, playgrounds, etc. and fit into Maine.
This doesn't really answer Jordi's question: "How many people can
Wyoming or the NW territories support?"
People need far more than standing room to survive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If all ecologically productive, arable land on Earth were
divided equally among the population, each person would
recieve .62 acres. [p. 54]
"People in Canada's Lower Fraser Valley make an Ecological
Footprint 19 times the size of their home region; the Dutch
'consume' a land area 15 times larger than their country;
with an estimated 2.5 hectare Footprint per average Japanese,
the Footprint of Japan would be more than eight times the
size of that island country's productive land base. It seems
that the Footprint of many industrialized regions and
countries is about an order of magnitute larger than their
political territories." [p.96] OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT,
Wackernagel and Rees; New Society Pub., 1996;
ISBN 0-86571-312-X 800-253-3605
Jay
your pal Marc
: your pal Marc wrote:
: -> Pretend that everyone in the US lived in a typical post-war suburb --
: -> Long Island, specifically Nassau County's south shore comes to mind.
: -> Densities are typically in the 7,000 to 8,000 range; Levittown's
: density
: -> is about 8,000. 250M people at this density requires about 30,000 sq.
: -> miles. That means we could all fit into the state of Maine. The entire
: -> population could live in single-family houses, with parkways, malls,
: -> strip centers, parks, playgrounds, etc. and fit into Maine.
: This doesn't really answer Jordi's question: "How many people can
: Wyoming or the NW territories support?"
: People need far more than standing room to survive.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm. You realize I was exaggerating to make a point, right? Right.
Try this then, we can live at 1/4 Levittown densities on roughly one-acre
plots and fit into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Not quite SRO.
All those Germans live in an area the size of Wyoming. Maybe they take
turns sitting down.
: If all ecologically productive, arable land on Earth were
: divided equally among the population, each person would
: recieve .62 acres. [p. 54]
If we were spread evenly, you probably wouldn't be able to smell your
neighbor's cooking or hear their bad music. [this page, see above]
ypM
--
Jay Hanson
>
>
> : This doesn't really answer Jordi's question: "How many people can
> : Wyoming or the NW territories support?"
>
> : People need far more than standing room to survive.
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Hmmm. You realize I was exaggerating to make a point, right? Right.
Right! Yours is the same argument that Rush Limbaugh uses
to show that the earth is not "overpopulated" -- when in
fact it is. Read the following explanation:
====================================================================
THE POPULATION EXPLOSION by Paul and Anne Ehrlich (1990)
Published by Simon and Schuster Tel. 212-698-7000
OVERPOPULATION
Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its
inheritance, we can look more closely at the concept of
"overpopulation." All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply
as crowding: too many people in a given area, too high a population
density. For instance, the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine
pointed out recently, in connection with a plea for more population
growth in the United States: "If all the people from China and India
lived in the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), this country would
still have a smaller population density than England, Holland, or
Belgium." *31
The appropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally
irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brute
density were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is
"underpopulated," because it has only 55 people per square mile,
while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. *32 A more
sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of
Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. *33 This more
habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area,
giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's
still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by
2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about
that of France today (266), and few people would consider France
excessively crowded or overpopulated.
When people think of crowded countries, they usually contemplate
places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604),
or Hong Kong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal
overpopulation -- after all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and
doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short,
if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations (and
certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered
overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, lies in
trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been
recognized that density per se means very little. *34
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but
the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the
capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to
the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When
its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting
nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into
nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the
environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term
carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current
human occupants, that area is overpopulated. *35
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is
already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because,
among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being
depleted -- and that implies that its carrying capacity for human
beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States
is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources
and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental
systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are
overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon
dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.
Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are
rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They
don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the
profligate son of our earlier analogy, they are spending their
capital with no thought for the future.
It is especially ironic that Forbes considered the Netherlands not to
be overpopulated. This is such a common error that it has been known
for two decades as the "Netherlands Fallacy." *36 The Netherlands
can support 1,031 people per square mile only because the rest of the
world does not. In 1984-86, the Netherlands imported almost 4
million tons of cereals, 130,000 tons of oils, and 480,000 tons of
pulses (peas, beans, lentils). It took some of these relatively
inexpensive imports and used them to boost their production of
expensive exports -- 330,000 tons of milk and 1.2 million tons of
meat. The-Netherlands also extracted about a half-million tons of
fishes from the sea during this period, and imported more in the form
of fish meal. *37
The Netherlands is also a major importer of minerals, bringing in
virtually all the iron, antimony, bauxite, copper, tin, etc., that it
requires. Most of its fresh water is "imported" from upstream
nations via the Rhine River. The Dutch built their wealth using
imported energy. Then, in the 1970s, the discovery of a large gas
field in the northern part of the nation allowed the Netherlands
temporarily to export as gas roughly the equivalent in energy of the
petroleum it continued to import. But when the gas fields (which
represent about twenty years' worth of Dutch energy consumption at
current rates) are exhausted, Holland will once again depend heavily
on the rest of the world for fossil fuels or uranium. *38
In short, the people of the Netherlands didn't build their prosperity
on the bounty of the Netherlands, and are not living on it now.
Before World War II, they drew raw materials from their colonies;
today they still depend on the resources of much of the world. Saying
that the Netherlands is thriving with a density of 1,031 people per
square mile simply ignores that those 1,031 Dutch people far exceed
the carrying capacity of that square mile.
This "carrying-capacity" definition of overpopulation is the one used
in this book. *39 It is important to understand that under this
definition a condition of overpopulation might be corrected with no
change in the number of people. For instance, the impact of today's
665 million Africans on their resources and environment theoretically
might be reduced to the point where the continent would no longer be
overpopulated. To see whether this would be possible, population
growth would have to be stopped, appropriate assistance given to
peasant farmers, and certain other important reforms instituted.
Similarly, dramatic changes in American lifestyle might suffice to
end overpopulation in the United States without a large population
reduction.
But, for now and the foreseeable future, Africa and the United States
will remain overpopulated -- and will probably become even more so.
To say they are not because, if people changed their ways,
overpopulation might be eliminated is simply wrong -- overpopulation
is defined by the animals that occupy the turf, behaving as they
naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be
substituted for them. [p.p. 37-40]
Jay Hanson
>However, those who preach gloom and doom for the Earth need only wait for
>one of a multitude of potential disasters come partially true to prove their point.
Gloom and doom is already here (e.g, collapse of the fisheries,
ozone depletion, global warming, falling water tables, etc.).
We in the rich countries will be the LAST to recognize it for
what it is, ask someone in Africa about gloom and doom.
To find out what happens to FAMILY VALUES when people starve:
THE MOUNTAIN PEOPLE, Colin Turnbull: Touchstone, 1972.
ISBN 0-671-64098-4
Robert Kaplan knows where to find gloom and doom:
=============================================================
THE COMING ANARCHY
by Robert Kaplan
"The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest
places in the world. Streets are unlit; the police often
lack gasoline for their vehicles; armed burglars,
carjackers, and muggers proliferate. `The government in
Sierra Leone has no writ after dark,' says a foreign
resident, shrugging. When I was in the capital, Freetown,
last September, eight men armed with AK-47s broke into the
house of an American man. They tied him up and stole
everything of value. Forget Miami: direct flights between
the United States and the Murtala Muhammed Airport, in
neighboring Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, have been
suspended by order of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
because of ineffective security at the terminal and its
environs. A State Department report cited the airport for
'extortion by law-enforcement and immigration officials.'
This is one of the few times that the U.S. government has
embargoed a foreign airport for reasons that are linked
purely to crime. In Abidjan, effectively the capital of the
Cote d'Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, restaurants have
stick-and-gun-wielding guards who walk you the fifteen feet
or so between your car and the entrance, giving you an
eerie taste of what American cities might be like in the
future. An Italian ambassador was killed by gunfire when
robbers invaded an Abidjan restaurant. The family of the
Nigerian ambassador was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in
the ambassador's residence. After university students in
the Ivory Coast caught bandits who had been plaguing their
dorms, they executed them by hanging tires around their
necks and setting the tires on fire. In one instance
Ivorian policemen stood by and watched the 'necklacings,'
afraid to intervene. Each time I went to the Abidjan bus
terminal, groups of young men with restless, scanning eyes
surrounded my taxi, putting their hands all over the
windows, demanding 'tips' for carrying my luggage even
though I had only a rucksack. In cities in six West African
countries I saw similar young men everywhere -- hordes of
them. They were like loose molecules in a very unstable
social fluid, a fluid that was clearly on the verge of
igniting."
A PREMONITION OF THE FUTURE
"West Africa is becoming THE symbol of worldwide demographic,
environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal
anarchy emerges as the real `strategic' danger. Disease,
overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources,
refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states
and international borders, and the empowerment of private
armies, security firms, and international drug cartels are
now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African
prism. West Africa provides an appropriate introduction to
the issues, often extremely unpleasant to discuss, that
will soon confront our civilization. ..."
THE COMING ANARCHY, by Robert Kaplan, in the Feb 1994
Atlantic Monthly. For back issues send $7 to: The Atlantic,
Back Issues, 200 North 12th St., Newark, NJ. 07107
http://www2.theAtlantic.com/atlantic/xchg/circ/back.htm
Also see: Thomas Homer-Dixon, Jeffrey Boutwell, and George
Rathjens, "Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict,"
Scientific American, February 1993; and from Homer-Dixon,
"Environmental Scarcity and Global Security" Headline
Series (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1993).
http://www.fsk.ethz.ch/fsk/encop/enc_ftx.html
gopher://gopher.aaas.org/11/.activities/.int/.sis/.epsl
Meredith Poor
area of the earth is 57,470,000 square miles, and the total ocean area is
139,480,000 square miles. The total surface is then roughly 200,000,000
square miles.
Dividing this by 6 billion yields .3 square miles per person, more or
less, or around 210 acres. Of this, 70 acres are land, and 140 acres are
water.
If one third of the earth were considered unusable (the polar regions),
then each person's share of energetically significant land is 48 acres
and significant water is 96 acres. Energetically significant means that
it could be used for agricultural production if water and soil were
present on land, or sufficient raw nutrients were available to sea life.
For a family of four, land area is 192 acres (200 acres more or less) and
water area is 384 acres (375 acres more or less). This is for every last
person on the planet.
The average humans diet is supposed to consist of 2000 calories of
carbohydrates per day, which is actually 2000 kilocalories in the
chemical sense. A calorie is equivalent to 4.2 watt-seconds. In a
literal sense, the energy required to sustain the average person for one
day is 8,400,000 watt-seconds, or less than three kilowatt hours. A
typical solar panel yields 80 watts, times 12 hours per day yields 1 KWH,
so 3 solar panels worth of energy would be enough to sustain 1 person.
Such solar panels are typically 1 ' by 4', so 12 square feet of silicon
is sufficient to capture the energy required for one person.
Chemical conversion processes are usually around 30% efficient, so a
suitcase sized plant that generated sufficient quantities of essential
amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids might require three times this area,
or 36 square feet of solar panels. This square would be six feet on a
side, or twelve feet on a side for the abovementioned family of four.
The panels would cost $3600 per person, or $14,400 per family of four,
and would last 20 years, for an annual cost of $180 per person or $720
per family. No one has tried making the chemical plant, but the cost in
quantities of 1.5 billion would probably be equivalent to that of the
typical family car, and would last as long.
Further assuming that a family of four lives in a 2000 square foot house
(generous by most world standards) on a quarter acre of land, then the
ratio of land available to land required is 800 to 1. The ratio of land
and water area combined is 2400 to 1.
Since the area required for nutrient generation is less than required for
a reasonable living space, the difference can be made up vertically.
Assuming 500 square feet per person or 2000 square feet for a family of
four, living accomodations could be stacked more than 12 units high (12
is a common multi-story height, so I'll leave it at that). The ratio in
this case is now 9600 to 1 ON LAND, and 30,000 to one on the combined
land and water if each family keeps their quarter acre of plot. It is
100,000 to 1 and 360,000 to 1, respectively, if all 12 units are
maintained on one quarter acre.
Even in the United States, there are plenty of people that live fairly
efficently by these standards. A typical apartment is 600 to 800 square
feet and houses two people. A normal office is 100 square feet. The
area taken by classrooms, warehouse storage, and average indoor
manufacturing plant might be another 100 square feet per person. So
right now, the average American is within the bounds described above.
Bringing the world to this scenario would require research and
development into food manufacturing plant that would operate on raw
elements and solar power. While it might be difficult, it could easily
happen in our lifetime. Then the issue would be production in sufficient
quantity for the entire population extant at the time. It doesn't seem
to me to be all that difficult.
I will explore the issue of current agricultural practice and water
"consumption" soon.
JoshuaHalpern
snip
: The average humans diet is supposed to consist of 2000 calories of
: chemical sense. A calorie is equivalent to 4.2 watt-seconds. In a
: literal sense, the energy required to sustain the average person for one
: day is 8,400,000 watt-seconds, or less than three kilowatt hours. A
: typical solar panel yields 80 watts, times 12 hours per day yields 1 KWH,
: so 3 solar panels worth of energy would be enough to sustain 1 person.
: Such solar panels are typically 1 ' by 4', so 12 square feet of silicon
: is sufficient to capture the energy required for one person.
: Chemical conversion processes are usually around 30% efficient, so a
: suitcase sized plant that generated sufficient quantities of essential
: amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids might require three times this area,
: or 36 square feet of solar panels. This square would be six feet on a
: side, or twelve feet on a side for the abovementioned family of four.
You are assuming simple one step or one pot reactions. The synthesis
that you require will consist of many steps (on the other hand,
anyone who brags about at 30% yield usually gets laughed at).
snip
: Since the area required for nutrient generation is less than required for
: a reasonable living space, the difference can be made up vertically.
Given the bad assumptions you made above. I'm afraid that
without a specification of the starting materials, the
costs in energy and space for their generation and the
synthetic scheme, you are engaging in a GIGO exercise.
Josh Halpern
Mason A. Clark
>
>We live in a rich stew of technological innovation. I challenge anyone
>right here right now to predict what our energy sources will be in 2006,
>much less 2030. I would like them to predict what kind of computer (or
>computer network) we will be using ten years from now. I would like them
>to predict what kind of "miracle cures" will be in place, and what the
>shape of the health care delivery system will be. Here's a simple one:
>predict what the political party of the President will be.
>
>Should be a snap, don't you agree?
>
Agreed, a snap. Our energy sources will not be discernibly
different in 2006 from 1996. The computers will be not be
essentially much different. (My computer is essentially the
same as the ones I learned on before 1986. Does the same
things faster and with funny pictures on the screen.) There
will be no "miracle cures." They went out of style after
Lourdes. The shape of the health care delivery system will
be very good and very expensive. The Presidency selection
process is chaotic. I'll pass on that - not a fair
challenge.
The problem is the time scale. Ten years is a short time,
no matter how amazed we are at the advance of technology.
This is the problem that tripped up the Malthusian, if not
Malthus; and will very probably trip up the Hansonians; but
in the long run ---
Who was it had a prediction about the long run? He couldn't
have been an establishment member.
Mason Clark
Scott Nudds
: That means we could all fit into the state of Maine. The entire
: population could live in single-family houses, with parkways, malls,
: strip centers, parks, playgrounds, etc. and fit into Maine.
Gee, imagine how much room would be needed if we all stood on each
others heads. I bet we could all live in an area of 4 square feet.
Why are you ignoring the amount of land needed for agriculture,
forestry, mining, roads, industry, etc? Could it be because by adding
these factors your claim is seen to be false? It would appear so.
For your next abuse of arithmetic I suggest you estimate how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.
--
Scott Nudds
: Chemical conversion processes are usually around 30% efficient, so a
: suitcase sized plant that generated sufficient quantities of essential
: amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids might require three times this area,
: or 36 square feet of solar panels. This square would be six feet on a
: side, or twelve feet on a side for the abovementioned family of four.
That's an interesting efficiency you have there. Biological systems
which have been designed to be optimally efficient for their environment
convert only .05% of the radiation striking the earth into chemical
energy. So you are off by a factor of 600, assuming perfect growing
conditions. That's a square 147 feet to a side assuming your other
estimates are correct.
But even this estimate is way too low since we can't eat the bulk of
material produced by photosynthesis. We can only consume about 1% of the
material a typical plant produces. So your we have to increase the area
by another factor of 100. That's a square 1470 feet to a side, assuming
your other estimates are correct.
But even here we are underestimating since our bodies metabolism is not
100% efficient. If we assume a 30% efficiency, then we have to triple
the surface area again. This puts us at a square 2546 feet to a side.
Yet we are still underestimating since food is never produced without
loss to insects, drout, floods, etc. Lets double food production again
to compensate. This makes our square 3600 feet to a side.
Now the above estimation assumes a direct consumption of calories by
people. In other words a diet based on plants. Lets assume you would
like to get 20% of your caloric intake from the consumption of animal
flesh. In this case, you have to take into consideration the efficiency
with which meat is produced. I seem to remember that a pound of meat
requires between 6 to 12 pounds of feed, with the amount dependent upon
the animal being raised. So lets assume the factor of 6.
In this case 20% of the area is increased by a factor of 6. This
increases the area needed per person to a square roughly 5100 feet to a side.
Now what was that you were saying about only needing 6 square feet?
You seem to be off by a factor of 4 million. You must be a practicing
economist, or one of Julian Simon's mathematically illiterate desciples.
--
Scott Nudds
: Entirely possible. However, the point of this post was to create some
: perspect on the so-called "problem".
And you succeeded. Succeeded in flaunting your religions ignorance to
the world.
: No doubt, if in 1850 we had projected whale oil use growing at
: then current rates, we would have run out of whales.
They did.
: We live in a rich stew of technological innovation. I challenge anyone
: right here right now to predict what our energy sources will be in 2006,
: much less 2030.
Translation... You don't know what they will be, but your religious
faith tells you that they will be sufficient and not environmentally
disasterous. Upon what facts do you base your faith?
: Here's a simple one:
: predict what the political party of the President will be.
So, your reasoning is that since we can not predict which political
party will run the White House in 2030, it is impossible to know what
form of energy will be in use at the time.
Why wait until 2030? What political party will control the White House
in 310 days from now? Does the fact that you can not predict the answer
signify that you will not know what energy will be used 310 days from now?
Your observation is clearly childish.
--
br...@lee.house.gov
(deleted)
: If one third of the earth were considered unusable (the polar regions),
: then each person's share of energetically significant land is 48 acres
: and significant water is 96 acres. Energetically significant means that
: it could be used for agricultural production if water and soil were
: present on land, or sufficient raw nutrients were available to sea life.
:
: For a family of four, land area is 192 acres (200 acres more or less) and
: water area is 384 acres (375 acres more or less). This is for every last
: person on the planet.
:
: Bringing the world to this (deleted) scenario would require research and
: development into food manufacturing plant that would operate on raw
: elements and solar power. While it might be difficult, it could easily
: happen in our lifetime. Then the issue would be production in sufficient
: quantity for the entire population extant at the time. It doesn't seem
: to me to be all that difficult.
:
: I will explore the issue of current agricultural practice and water
: "consumption" soon.
:
I would have to say that costs would not allow this to happen easily anytime
soon (nor in our lifetime).It would be very difficult, indeed. Not because
of spending possibilities, but because of political constraints upon spending
priorities. During the 1980s, the type of spending that occurred would have
allowed this type of extensive development (that type of money was devoted to
"cold war" expenditures), yet in today's "non-alarmist" political climate,
justification for the (Public or Private) spending necessary for development
of environmentally efficient, public-access-on-demand, cost effective, power andfood production would face some doubt, if not opposition. Tell me if I am
mistaken.
- B David (bb...@hr.house.gov)
________________________________________________________________________________ (My views, not the views of my employers)
Steve Conover
>different in 2006 from 1996. The computers will be not be
>essentially much different. (My computer is essentially the
>same as the ones I learned on before 1986. Does the same
>things faster and with funny pictures on the screen.)
Except for the fact that you now have access to the largest information source
ever known to man (at least the effort to get information/quantity of
information ratio is the lowest ever). Except for the fact that you and others
can spread ideas and combine your knowledge relatively instantaneously.
I believe we have a major crisis on the horizon regarding the internet. As
soon as modems get a little faster person-to-person voice communication will
not be a problem (I've actually done this a little bit using a program called
Ubique - talked to some Parisians and Quebecers, also there's IPhone). It will
be interesting to see the telecom industry's reaction.
-- Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
hani, hani http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~boyd/
come and dance with me...(DMB, #36)
=====================================================================
Meredith Poor
starches, and fibers) could be generated purely by non-biological
processes. In reality, no one is going to live off stuff like that
anyway.
Interesting that you bring up religion. Interesting indeed. The points
are diversionary: anything at all can be made into a religion, and any
religion can be made to look sinister or benign or whatever. Your posts
are consistently more angry than most. This is certainly a safe place to
ventilate.
In 1972, Nixon was re-elected to solve the Viet Nam war crisis. What he
confronted was the "energy crisis". In 1976 Carter was elected as for
honesty in government (whatever the Republicans weren't, at the moment)
and dealt with angry Iranians. Bush had no clue whatsoever Iraq would
run amuck. Nobody belived in 1985 that the Iron Curtian would be down by
1990.
The reason these factors changed in substantial ways was because
pressures had been building for years. The OPEC states had suffered
under decades of Western intrigue and economic manipulation. The United
States had let power go to it's head following World War II, and any
number of abuses were based on the idea we could do no wrong. Iraq had
been building a military machine since the 60's. All of these things, in
retrospect, were going to break.
Fossil fueled power plants have been steadily increasing in costs over
time, whether or not environmental factors are included. Environmental
considerations have increased their costs even more. Renewable energy
sources have been drifting down in costs since anyone bothered to notice
in 1973. The break is happening now. The smooth lines are turning
jagged. The process will take a few years to play out, so it isn't so
obvious. But the crosspoint has been reached.
The same goes for landfill/solid waste recycling; water recycling; and
food/nutrient production. We now have processing plants for recycling
newsprint and magazine stock. Utility scale ozone water purifiers kill
off bacteria and viruses in waste water. We know how to make all the
chemical building blocks of food out of air and water; we just don't see
any point in doing so..., yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------
One theory I have with respect to doom and gloomers is this: they have
not had childhoods. As children they are bossed around by their parents;
coping continuously with someone else's agenda. Now out of the house,
they are projecting on others the anxiety and control that was projected
on them. With no social skills, all they can do is argue. Since there
has been no sunshine in their life, all they can see is forbodings of
catastrophe. Since they were never free to just be themselves, they need
permission from an authority figure to do what others take for granted.
Things like sex, for instance. What we have here is a group directing
all their energy into arguing with people rather than just getting laid.
No female will have anything to do with them; first because they're so
cold and remote; second because even if they were in the sack they
wouldn't do anything because it's too risky; and third, because they
can't joke around and have fun.
Any time anger comes into the picture, as it is when the words
"Militant", "Conspiracy", "War", "Oppression", "Exploitation", etc. come
up, it's time to look inward. No doubt all of these conditions exist to
some extent. But for the most part people perceive what they are
programmed by their experiences to percieve.
The kind of people people like to be around is active listeners. This is
a skill that takes real effort to develop. Listening is a demanding
process, because it requires considerable computational power to
interpret the message stream (true even when computers are talking to
each other).
Active listening means looking at someone, phrasing responses that show
that you have heard what the other party is saying, and yeilding the
floor so that others may have their say. And, you have to challenge your
own assumptions. There is a very simple rule for knowing whether real
change is taking place: the thoughts you are willing to accept now were
completely unthinkable before; and in accepting them you realize that
some parts of your life so far appear to be completely wasted. That is
what change actually means.
Once you do this, you find women flocking to you in droves. Even pretty
ones.
Carl J Lydick
=>Agreed, a snap. Our energy sources will not be discernibly
=>different in 2006 from 1996. The computers will be not be
=>essentially much different. (My computer is essentially the
=>same as the ones I learned on before 1986. Does the same
=>things faster and with funny pictures on the screen.)
=
=Except for the fact that you now have access to the largest information source
=ever known to man (at least the effort to get information/quantity of
=information ratio is the lowest ever). Except for the fact that you and others
=can spread ideas and combine your knowledge relatively instantaneously.
Sorry, but that was true back in 1986. Just because the news media and the
congresscritters are nearly a decade behind the times doesn't mean that what
they declare to be new really IS new. Oh, and your claim about (effort to get
information)/(quantity of information) isn't obviously true unless you're
willing to count misinformation as information.
=I believe we have a major crisis on the horizon regarding the internet. As
=soon as modems get a little faster person-to-person voice communication will
=not be a problem (I've actually done this a little bit using a program called
=Ubique - talked to some Parisians and Quebecers, also there's IPhone). It will
=be interesting to see the telecom industry's reaction.
I'd expect them to react, eventually, by filing suit to prohibit government
subsidies to the internet on the grounds that those subsidies are
anticompetitive. For the phone companies to provide the same service, they'd
have to cover the entire cost of all their switching equipment in user fees;
ISPs, on the other hand, are fairly heavily (though indirectly) subsidized by
the government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Carl J Lydick
=In theory, a basic set of nutrient chemicals (proteins, sugars, fats,
=starches, and fibers) could be generated purely by non-biological
=processes. In reality, no one is going to live off stuff like that
=anyway.
Actually, a more important problem comes up before you get that far, namely the
question of the most efficient way of producing those nutrients. as things
currently stand, it's often more efficient to find a biological process which
produces the nutrient you want, and then tailor an extant organism to use that
process, than it is to synthesize the desired chemical non-biologically.
=Interesting that you bring up religion. Interesting indeed. The points
=are diversionary: anything at all can be made into a religion, and any
=religion can be made to look sinister or benign or whatever. Your posts
=are consistently more angry than most. This is certainly a safe place to
=ventilate.
=
=In 1972, Nixon was re-elected to solve the Viet Nam war crisis. What he
=confronted was the "energy crisis".
And the Vietnam war crisis. He, unlike his predecessors, was willing to adopt,
quickly, the strongest measures which were, practically, available to us, and
then to admit, when even those measures didn't work, that we weren't going to
win the war.
John McCarthy
A vice-president of MCI (or perhaps just of a division) gave a talk
here at Stanford recently. I asked him about Internet telephone and
its advertised cost of 3 cents per minute as compared to an average of
22 cents per minute for international? calls. He said he thought that
MCI could do it for 3 cents per minute but for the charges at each end
from the local phone companies.
Now my opinions. It has always been the policy of public utilities
commissions to subsidize basic telephone service at the expense of
business and premium services. It's a part of liberal doctrine to do
this. Now we net users can buy unlimited connections to our net
servers. This permits us to make long distance connections without
having to pay a per minute charge at both ends in order to subsidize
the widows, orphans and old people.
I suppose the situation is more complicated than this simple picture.
It always is.
Something will have to give eventually, but the long distance
companies aren't seriously hurt yet, so the situation will undoubtedly
drag on for a while.
Incidentally, I believe the Internet is not subsidized any more - at
least within the U.S. Those Internet service providers are making a
profit while paying the full costs.
Don Baccus
Meredith Poor <mnp...@txdirect.net> wrote:
>No doubt, if in 1850 we had projected whale oil use growing at
>then current rates, we would have run out of whales. Obviously that
>argument is unassailable, but it is also irrelevant.
On the other hand, we did nearly run out of some species of whales - which
you may view as irrelevant, but many of us don't.
Sperm oil is still one of the best light oils for lubrication around,
and would still be used in many applications if it weren't for a nagging
lack of sperm whales...
How did we replace sperm oil? With other oil which in some cases
does not work as well. We still haven't learned to make metal parts
work together in most applications without lubricants of some type.
This will certainly be true in 2030. While electronics can
replace some mechanical devices - the watch, to some degree
the car (I telecommute) - the Mack truck is here for some time,
as is the 200-year-old train (in round figure).
True, we don't use whale oil for lighting. In much of the country,
we use coal instead, an interesting improvement. Of course, we
only ship the coal as far as your power station, rather than
ship whale oil to your home, but we still ship it around. Electricity
is a great way to ship power around, but the power sources haven't
changed that much, other than the use of fission. Even hydroelectric
can be merely viewed as a way of moving the water to the mill, rather
than the mill to water.
>We live in a rich stew of technological innovation. I challenge anyone
>right here right now to predict what our energy sources will be in 2006,
>much less 2030.
Sure. In ten years our primary sources of energy will be:
Oil, Coal, Hydro, Fission, Wind Power, Solar. Unless you're thinking
home heating, in which case throw in natural gas.
Energy sources based on fusion will NOT be a major soure of energy
in 10 years.
There will be no breakthrough in theoretical physics which will
promise new sources of energy from unimagined sources in the
next decade, either - or the next century. We understand nuclear
physics quite well, which was not true in 1850. Atomic power
was imagined by, for instance, HG Wells early in this century
and took 30-40 years to become reality. We don't have anything
like this on the horizon as far as I can tell. The liberation
of the energy of the nucleus was a pretty stunning achievement,
after millenia of humankind being limited by less energetic
chemical reactions. That's a hard act to follow.
When do I get my Mercedes? Jan 1, 2006 or Dec 31, 2006?
> I would like them to predict what kind of computer (or
>computer network) we will be using ten years from now.
We'll be using digital computers, many programmed in something
named "FORTRAN" (they'll still be shouting the name, too :)
More seriously, in ten years many of us will still be using Unix,
and there will still be diehards networking via UUCP.
Packets are still going to be shipped around using TCP/IP, just as
we've done for a couple of decades, but hopefully using the new standard
with wider addresses.
We have a pretty good
idea of how the bits will get shipped around. We're dealing with
legacy hardware, here, copper wire, largely. The deregulation
bill recently passed is intended, among other things, to make
replacing that wire with fiber optics more attractive from a
financial point of view. This technology has been around quite
a long time, and of course the copper wire technology it will
replace has been around for a very long time - telegraphs are
about 150 years old, telephones about a century. Communications
sattelites are also, what, three decades old?
Most computers will incorporate a CPU with the trailing digits
"86", in spirit, if not in fact. And be running a display-oriented
operating system from Microsoft.
The computer industry's surprisingly stable over the decade
timespan. Unix, after all, is about 25 years old, as is C.
C++ is about a decade old.
>Here's a simple one:
>predict what the political party of the President will be.
This last, of course, shares much with predicting the next
coin flip, and little with predicting near-term incremental
progress in technology. Though technology springs surprises
on us, the future course of technological progress does not
behave like a series of coin flips, i.e. randomly.
>
>Should be a snap, don't you agree?
>
Yes, for many things a ten-year prediction is easy.
There's a flip side to the coin, though. Escaping the limitations
of the earth's resources as we understand them today, as distant as
that time may be, requires much more than incremental progress in
existing technology. It will require fundamental breakthroughs, and
for energy, that means fundamental breakthroughs in physics. Much
less likely today than in 1850, because our understanding of physics
is much, much deeper.
Unless we leave, of course. Personally, I like our home and would
prefer we continue to live here.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <do...@rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
<Site ate disk, will return next week>
David Lloyd-Jones
>I'd expect them to react, eventually, by filing suit to prohibit government
>subsidies to the internet on the grounds that those subsidies are
>anticompetitive. For the phone companies to provide the same service, they'd
>have to cover the entire cost of all their switching equipment in user fees;
>ISPs, on the other hand, are fairly heavily (though indirectly) subsidized by
>the government.
Hunh? Evidence?
-dlj.
Richard Braakman
>I believe we have a major crisis on the horizon regarding the internet. As
>soon as modems get a little faster person-to-person voice communication will
>not be a problem (I've actually done this a little bit using a program called
>Ubique - talked to some Parisians and Quebecers, also there's IPhone). It
>will be interesting to see the telecom industry's reaction.
They are already reacting. They're pushing for FCC control over
Internet voice services. Worse than that -- they're pushing for
existing FCC regulations for phones to apply to Internet voice
services. Which would kill the whole idea pretty quickly.
Read all about it in comp.org.eff.talk, look for articles with
"FCC" in the subject.
--
Richard Braakman
If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Duane Jacobson
: My handy CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry states that the total land
: 139,480,000 square miles. The total surface is then roughly 200,000,000
: square miles.
: Dividing this by 6 billion yields .3 square miles per person, more or
: less, or around 210 acres. Of this, 70 acres are land, and 140 acres are
: water.
For starters, you're off by an order of magnitude. There's about 7 acres
of landmass per inhabitant.
Meredith Poor
David Lloyd-Jones
>Er... one question. How many people can Wyoming or the NW territories
>support? Sure there are empty places in the world. They are empty because
>not many people can make a living there. If you can make the Sahara desert an
>agricultural area as productive as the Ganges plains, go right ahead. If
>not, you better try not to have lots of children.
>Regards from a city with 2/3 the population of Canada,
If Mexico City can support twenty million people, I don't see why
Wyoming can't support thirty.
-dlj.
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
>> >The thrust of the earlier post is that the bounds of economics
>> >are to narrow to "know" if free trade is "good" or "bad".
>>
>> No. The Econ view is that let the parties subject to "free trade" [again,
>> whatever that is] decide themselves. If they prefer "free trade" -- or
>> more specifically, all the consequeces of "free trade" -- to some other
>> "less-free" on "unfree trade", then "free trade" is good; if some other
>> is preferred, then that alaternative is good.
>
>Wouldn't you say this a rather ridiculous assumption?
>Who knows all the consequences of free trade?
The Econ view is that the following. If you don't know something, eg. the
consequences of "free trade" and those of some alternative, you make
educated guesses to get (subjective) probability distributions of the
states of affairs under both (all) cases. Then you evaluate the expected
values of these, and choose the one with highest expected value. The same
logic applies, whether or not there are uncertainties and risks involved.
>You say the free trade is good, please tell us all the
>consequences of free trade.
I never said that "free trade" is good or bad; I said that individuals in
question themselves considered "free trade" to better that some
alternative.
*If* I make some assumptions on the values and objectives of those
individuals, I could evaluate whether "free trade" is good or not. For
instance, if their preferences satisfy (what in Econ jargon is known as)
"local non-satiation" (meaning, in English, you always want something
more, be it better quality, leisure, less pollution, more biodiversity),
"free trade" is bound to be good (for the parties trading).
>> >Define "good" and "bad" (what is you moral theory).
>>
>> No need for moral theory; see above. Econ let's each individual decide
>> him/herself the values, including moral values.
>
>No need for moral theory? That is itself a moral theory.
Yes, the theory being that each human her/himself makes the judgements,
and I do not impose my views on them.
>According to economic moral theory, each economic choice
>is, ipso facto, "good". In other words, if someone sells
>themselves into prostitution because there is no other
>way to eat, that is morally good.
If that someone did it voluntarily -- for instance, he/she wasn't sold to
slavery -- that choice reveals that it was better for that person than
any alternative available.
>If someone buys a bottle of booze, spends the night in
>gutter, and leaves their kids to run the streets, that
>is good. Economists have an interesting moral theory.
See above.
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Take my advice, I have no use for it
Key fingerprint = 0C D5 B6 5D E8 9E 01 C0 4C 8F 7A 60 A9 A7 BA B1
Markku Stenborg
ghy...@esinet.net writes:
>> >On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Jay Hanson wrote:
>> >
>> >> If someone buys a bottle of booze, spends the night in
>> >> gutter, and leaves their kids to run the streets, that
>> >> is good. Economists have an interesting moral theory.
>> >
Actually, some do. May I recommend J. Harsanyi (1992) "Game and Decision
Theoretic Models in Ethics", in R. Aumann and S. Hart (eds). Handbook of
Game Theory, Vol. 1, North-Holland, for starters. Yes, the same Harsanyi
that got the Nobel two years ago.
>Good for moral theory, too bad for economists and pretty disastrous
>for the rest of us.
>
>Saying that economists have no interest in moral theory (and
>I am not denying this) is equivalent to:
>
>- they don't believe people (sometimes) act on moral principles;
>- if they do, they shouldn't;
>- or something equivalent.
This is crap. Econ states that people choose according to their values,
given the constraints they face. If somebody has moral principles, this
surely will affect his/her choices, and Econ has no complaints whatsoever
on this.
>How does an economist define welfare without making some kind of
>more or less moral statement.
Economists let the people themselves define what their welfare consists
of, what their morals are, and what other values they have. We do not
impose our own views. The values come Bible, Koran, Tora, etc., history,
parents, the society, Š you name it. Econ does not give you your values.
Econ evaluates the consequences of actions that result from these.
>Jay's point is important and can not be simply waved away with
>references to distinctions that are artificial.
>
>It matters a great deal (also economically) whether income is spent
>on drugs or on books. If all an economist can say on the subject
>is that he is not interested in morals.........
Jim Burris
Er... one question. How many people can Wyoming or the NW territories
support? Sure there are empty places in the world. They are empty because
not many people can make a living there. If you can make the Sahara desert an
agricultural area as productive as the Ganges plains, go right ahead. If
not, you better try not to have lots of children.
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>If Mexico City can support twenty million people, I don't see why
>Wyoming can't support thirty.
>
> -dlj.
>
I think the jury is still out on whether Mexico City will be able to
support 20M people.
- air pollution
- water shortages
- housing shortages
- growth outstripping zoning laws, infrastructure, jobs
These problems are not unsolvable, but will require a great deal of money and
some fairly drastic changes in mindset to solve.
Jim
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>jjdixon wrote:
>
>-> > Wouldn't you say this a rather ridiculous assumption?
>-> > Who knows all the consequences of free trade?
>->
>-> Free trade is considered good in theory, because a) it provides more
>-> consumer choice and lowers prices; it increases competition, thereby
>-> dispersing power; it increases effiency (i.e. it encourages the same
>thing
>-> to produced with less resources, something that you should be
>particularly
>-> interested in, my dear Hanson); and in the end it allows society to
>make
>-> everyone at least as well off or better off than they were before.
>
>That's the theory. Have economists ever tested this theory?
Yes.
>How do they know that "everyone at least as well off or
>better off than they were before"?
Econ does not state that "everyone at least as well off or better off
than they were before". First, it is easy to understand trade leaves the
parties trading better off -- why else would they trade. Second, if there
are no negative externalities, nobody else is any worse off, so free
trade is making everyone at least as well off. Third, even if there are
secondary effects via price changes, the ones gaining from trade gain
more than the ones who lose. So, the ones gaining can bribe or compensate
the ones who'll lose to accept free trade, then everyone cane be better
off.
>-> > You say the free trade is good, please tell us all the
>-> > consequences of free trade.
>->
>-> In general, the consequences of free trade are well known. Any tome,
>-> starting with Adam Smith, Ricardo and moving on to Bhagwati, just to
>name
>-> a few off the top of my head, will tell you the consequences.
>
>How about something on the impacts of free trade by an ecologist?
>
>How about the impacts of free trade on local political
>institutions? For example, our mayor takes a trip to Japan and
>returns with his political agenda (real life).
Yes, politicians can srew up everything, including gains from trade.
>I think that real source of my complaint with neoclassical
>economists, is that they do not preface their public policy
>assertions with a disclaimer. A disclaimer that states they
>are only looking at numbers in computers -- not the
>real-world. Moreover, they fail to disclose that morals,
>politics, human suffering, and our life-support system are
>not within their field of study. Indeed, when celebrated
>economists (e.g., Solow and Nordhouse) make claims which are
>preposterous and totally outside of their field of expertise,
>they can only be interpreted as political statements.
No. Anything related to humans is (in principle, at least) within the
realm of Econ, be it morals, politics, human suffering, Š
[snip]
Merrill Hoekstra
>In article <316ACB...@esinet.net> Tihamer von Ghyczy,
>ghy...@esinet.net writes:
>>How does an economist define welfare without making some kind of
>>more or less moral statement.
>
The realm of welfare economics does include one tremendous moral
judgement. When speaking of Pareto Optimality or a pareto improvement,
we always evaluate a distributional change from the original endowment
point. If the change from the original endowment results in a
distribution wherein the utility of one person is reduced, then this
change cannot be termed pareto optimal or a pareto improvement. It is
called inefficient and lots of other bad names.
Anyone can easily envision a situation in which a "trade", likely
involuntarly, reduces the welfare of one party (say the "rich") but
increases the welfare of several parties (the "poor"). Any transfer
payment would fit this picture unless all the donors were to entr it
voluntarily, in which their utility or welfare would be improved (charity
comes to mind.)
So economists tacitly accept the initial endowment as "right" if you will
and then consider changes from it as either efficient (good) or
inefficient (bad). After this, any inefficient redistribution is the
province of philosophers and politicians. Economists can moonlight as
one of these, but inevitably they will lose their standing in the
economics community and likely in the society as well.
Personally, it seems the "liberal" economists like Reich, D'Andrea Tyson
or Thurow currently fall much farther out of faith with the economics
community than do the conservative ones like Uncle Milty since their
position requires so much more denial of obvious economic consequences.
Merrill Hoekstra
--
Mandantory disclaimer follows . . .
"This content in no way reflects the opinions, standards
or policy of the United States Air Force Academy or the
United States government."
John McCarthy
distribution of goods is Pareto optimal if there is no way to improve
the distribution for one person without making it worse for someone
else. Thus iff a distribution is not Pareto optimal, it can be
improved for some people without making it worse for anyone else. The
mathematics of Pareto optimality doesn't require interpersonal
comparisons of utility. The distribution chosen should at least be
Pareto optimal.
There will almost always be a large number of Pareto optimal
distributions. Preferring one over another does require interpersonal
comparisons, and economics treats such comparisons as well. For
example, an income tax may be used to benefit the poor at the expense
of the rich or a restriction on union organization may benefit the
rich at the expense of the poor. Economics considers these phenomena
as well. However, to optimize under these circumstances requires
criteria justify transfer payments.
There are two criteria that are interesting, because they often
conflict.
The first is equality of benefit. We could put it absolutely and say
that our measure of the value of a society is the extent to which
everyone is gets the same. This will often violate Pareto optimality.
This is exemplified by the Russian joke.
God says to a peasant, "I will give you anything you want,
provided your neighbor gets double". The peasant replies,
"Put out one of my eyes".
Hardly anyone is an absolutist about equality of benefit. Most anyone
will put equality as one criterion to be weighed against others.
People differ in the weight they will give it.
The other criterion is that people should be rewarded according to
their contribution to society and should have incentives to take risks
and contribute. A paradigmatic example in a purely agricultural
community would be someone who starts a canning plant so the products
of the area can be sold at higher prices. Suppose that previous attempts
to start such a plant have failed and the entrepreneur ruined.
Considerable incentive is required to attract a new entrepreneur.
After a plant is working and the entrepreneur is rich, an equalitarian
will want to improve society by taxing the plant. If the plant is
prosperous, it can pay considerable taxes. If the equalitarians get
too greedy on behalf of the masses, they can destroy the productive
facility and make everyone poor.
Economics treats both criteria as well as others and also compromises
and mixtures.
Many people are offended intellectually and morally by systems that
are far from Pareto optimality. It can't be right, we say, to preserve a
system that could be changed to make everyone better off.
These are elementary considerations, but much of the discussion of
economics in this newsgroup has ignored them.
I hope economists will approve what I wrote.
Carl J Lydick
=The realm of welfare economics does include one tremendous moral
=judgement. When speaking of Pareto Optimality or a pareto improvement,
=we always evaluate a distributional change from the original endowment
=point. If the change from the original endowment results in a
=distribution wherein the utility of one person is reduced, then this
=change cannot be termed pareto optimal or a pareto improvement. It is
=called inefficient and lots of other bad names.
You're close enough that some folks might believe you, and wrong enough that
the above paragraph is very misleading.
First, when making Pareto comparisons, we always compare two distributions.
Neither of them need be somehow privileged, as you imply above, however.
Second, the term Pareto optimality is generally used to refer to a
distribution, not to a change in distributions. A distribution is Pareto
optimal if nobody can be made better off than they are under that distribution
without making someone else worse off. Now, if we've got two distributions
such that at least one person is better off and at least one is worse off in
either distribution compared to the other one, it's possible that BOTH
distributions are Pareto optimal. But neither distribution will be Pareto
superior to the other. I.e., you've confused Pareto superiority and Pareto
optimality.
=Anyone can easily envision a situation in which a "trade", likely
=involuntarly,
I.e., you're not talking about a trade. It's amazing what bogus conclusions
you can reach if you redefine terms in order to make your argument, isn't it?
=So economists tacitly accept the initial endowment as "right" if you will
No, they don't.
=and then consider changes from it as either efficient (good) or
=inefficient (bad).
Again you leave out the entire category of Pareto non-comparable distributions.
Your diatribe is based wholly on your own ignorance.
=After this, any inefficient redistribution is the
=province of philosophers and politicians.
Er, on what do you base this rather remarkable claim? Again, you've got it
entirely wrong. Economists will often argue that inefficient distributions
should be avoided, but that choosing among efficient distributions is outside
the province of economics. You, on the other hand, are claiming that they
don't argue against inefficient distributions.
Mason A. Clark
adding to my collection of the axioms of Free Trade:
For which I extend my appreciation for his contributions.
> Econ does not state that "everyone at least as well off or better off
> than they were before". First, it is easy to understand trade leaves the
> parties trading better off -- why else would they trade. Second, if there
> are no negative externalities, nobody else is any worse off, so free
> trade is making everyone at least as well off. Third, even if there are
> secondary effects via price changes, the ones gaining from trade gain
> more than the ones who lose. So, the ones gaining can bribe or compensate
> the ones who'll lose to accept free trade, then everyone can be better
> off.
>
Axiom #? : People who gain from trade will bribe or
compensate the ones who lose.
>
> Yes, politicians can screw up everything, including gains from trade.
>
Axiom #?+1: Politicians will not screw up everything.
Sorry I don't yet have the axioms numbered; I'm working on
it.
Mason Clark
Markku Stenborg
h.d...@banyan.usafa.af.mil writes:
>Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi> wrote:
>>In article <316ACB...@esinet.net> Tihamer von Ghyczy,
>>ghy...@esinet.net writes:
>
>>>How does an economist define welfare without making some kind of
>>>more or less moral statement.
>>
>
Not quite true. Pareto criterion is only a partial, not a complete order,
just as an indifference curve. Example: If we start from a Pareto optimal
or efficient point and reduce somebody's welfare while increasing someone
else's, surely we can end up in another Pareto optimal point. Similarly,
if we start from non-optimal allocation, we can end up in an allocation
that is equally "close" to optimal allocations.
>Anyone can easily envision a situation in which a "trade", likely
>involuntarly, reduces the welfare of one party (say the "rich") but
Involuntary trade would be the only case where rational decision-makers
would end up in lower welfare than before the trade.
>increases the welfare of several parties (the "poor"). Any transfer
>payment would fit this picture unless all the donors were to entr it
>voluntarily, in which their utility or welfare would be improved (charity
>comes to mind.)
But Pareto criterion does not (necessarily) compare these points. Both
the original endowment and the after-trade allocation could be Pareto
optimal (or equally "close" to Pareto optimum).
>So economists tacitly accept the initial endowment as "right" if you will
No. If you only consider voluntary participation, initial endowment
matters, but only b/c this is gives us a "participation constraint". Any
allocation that leaves one party worse off is unacceptable to that party.
In involuntary cases (e.g., taxes), we can ignore this participation
constraint.
>and then consider changes from it as either efficient (good) or
>inefficient (bad). After this, any inefficient redistribution is the
>province of philosophers and politicians. Economists can moonlight as
>one of these, but inevitably they will lose their standing in the
>economics community and likely in the society as well.
>
>Personally, it seems the "liberal" economists like Reich, D'Andrea Tyson
>or Thurow currently fall much farther out of faith with the economics
>community than do the conservative ones like Uncle Milty since their
>position requires so much more denial of obvious economic consequences.
Eh?
>Merrill Hoekstra
Markku Stenborg
wfhu...@netcom.com writes:
>Markku Stenborg (mar...@utu.fi) wrote:
>
>: Econ does not state that "everyone at least as well off or better off
>: than they were before". First, it is easy to understand trade leaves the
>: parties trading better off -- why else would they trade. Second, if there
>: are no negative externalities, nobody else is any worse off, so free
>: trade is making everyone at least as well off. Third, even if there are
>: secondary effects via price changes, the ones gaining from trade gain
>: more than the ones who lose. So, the ones gaining can bribe or compensate
>: off.
>-------------
>No negative externalities? Just dispose of them with an "if" clause,
>and then proceed to ignore them in making one's point. It's a
>characteristic of all debate, but especially problematic in economics.
Did not intend to ignore externalities. If I recall correctly, the post
above was a reply to Jay, a correction for what are the welfare effects
of trade, or any other actions for that matter. Once we agree on some
principles -- well, once he chooses to listen to what the pricinples do
and do not state -- we could also discuss the issues.
Surely, Econ does not ignore externalities. Basically, all modern micro
is explicitly treats externalities.
>I would venture a guess that negative externalities are far more
>prevalent in trade than is commonly believed. One important example
Prevalent, Yes; but No, at least among economists, they are being
commonly believed to be prevalent.
>involves the exchange of natural resources for finished goods, as in the
>clear cutting of timber lands in the northwest to supply the Japanese
>demand for logs. Or the devastation of the Siberian tundra in the
>production of oil.
Jay Hanson
>
> Econ does not state that "everyone at least as well off or better off
> than they were before". First, it is easy to understand trade leaves the
> parties trading better off -- why else would they trade. Second, if there
In various posts either Stenborg or jjdixon have asserted:
#1. Economics has no objective measure of human welfare
AND the hypothesis of free trade has been tested and shown
to make most people "better off".
* Is this just a logic error? OR is it a mental problem?
#2. Economics is not explicitly concerned with either
moral theories or politics AND free trade is "good"
for most people.
* The truth is that public policy is inextricably a matter
of moral theory and politics because there are winners
and losers. For example, profits for the rich and cancer
for the poor.
If economics makes public policy assertions, yet claims no
moral theory, then "no morals" is its moral theory. It is
the moral theory of money over justice, of the powerful over
the weak, and of death over life.
Is there a Nobel Prize for economic flim flam?
#3. Economists know that the world is finite, do not study
limits to growth, AND know that more economic growth is good.
* Yet more contradictions AND more econo-baloney.
#4. The most important feature of our society is "freedom
of choice". This is defined as freely choosing offerings
among the various vendors. Each time someone makes this
free choice, one is "better off".
* A commuters' job moves farther away, thus raising commute
costs. The economist says that the additional gas
expenditures represent an increase in welfare. Does this
mean that ideally everyone should commute by Concorde?
* Someone spent $25 to get a flat tire fixed and the
economist says he is "better off". Does this mean that
one should work to maximize one's flat tires?
* A person living off of savings, excercise "freedom of
choice" and decides each day whether to eat bread,
vegetables, or starve. The economist says that each day
this person is "better off". If this person had still more
choices, say, caviar, would they be even better off?
* A condemned criminal is given the "freedom of choice" to
die by gunfire or hanging. The economist claims that
whichever one he chooses, he will be better off. I wonder
how the economists tested this hypothesis?
When is a "good" NOT necessarily good? When is a "service"
NOT necessarily a service? When is welfare measured by a
measure that is acknowledged NOT to measure welfare? What
discipline claims that "greed is good"? What discipline
awards a Nobel Prize to someone who thinks the humans can
get by without natural resources altogether? What discipline
claims to have no interest in politics yet has disciples
giving advice on public policy ALL DAY LONG?
(the following paragraphs are not contiguous in the book)
THE POLITICS OF ECONOMICS:
"The Party claimed, of course, to have liberated the proles
from bondage. . . . In reality very little was known about
the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as
they continued to work and breed, their other activities were
without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned
loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a
style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of
ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the
gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a
brief blossoming period of beauty and sexual desire, they
married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they
died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the
care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors,
films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling filled up the
horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not
difficult."
"All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism
which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make
them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even
when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their
discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas,
they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The
larger evils invariably escaped their notice."
"But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth
threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the
destruction -- of a hierarchical society. . . . For if
leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great
mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty
would become literate and would learn to think for
themselves; and when the had done this, they would sooner or
later realize that the privileged minority had no function,
and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a
hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty
and ignorance."
ECONOMISTS:
"His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete
truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to
hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to
use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying
claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and
that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back
into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then
promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the
same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate
subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then,
once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you
had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
"In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself most
successfully on the people incapable of understanding it.
They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations
of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity
of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently
interested in public events to notice what was happening.
By lack of understanding, they remained sane. They simply
swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no
harm, because it left no residue behind, just like a grain
of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."
"As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly
up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not
a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the
man's brain that was speaking; it was his larynx. The stuff
coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech
in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in
unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck."
"The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact
there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy
means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is
unconsciousness."
-- George Orwell, 1984
Jay
---
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ECONOMY
(but were afraid to ask):
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
Markku Stenborg
writes:
[snip]
>In various posts either Stenborg or jjdixon have asserted:
>
>#1. Economics has no objective measure of human welfare
> AND the hypothesis of free trade has been tested and shown
> to make most people "better off".
>
>* Is this just a logic error? OR is it a mental problem?
This we have to ask from your therapists -- from the ones who are
responsible for your lack of clear thinking and/or reading comprehension,
or perhaps from your psychoanalyst :-)
Let's try one more time. Econ starts from the individualistic perspective
in that it lets each individual to figure out his(her/its valuesystem
his/her/itself, neither Econ nor economists as scientists will tell you
what your inherent values are or should be. Your values are what ever
they happen to be, we have no objections to those. Given the values, Econ
can make recommendations.
For instance, suppose your values have the property of "no local
satiation" (in English, this Econ jargon means you always want something
more, be it better quality of life, cleaner environent, whatever), and
suppose not all individuals are exactly alike in all respects. Then,
trade will make these individuals better off.
>#2. Economics is not explicitly concerned with either
> moral theories or politics AND free trade is "good"
> for most people.
>
>* The truth is that public policy is inextricably a matter
> of moral theory and politics because there are winners
> and losers. For example, profits for the rich and cancer
> for the poor.
True. Econ can indicate who are the winners, who the losers, and what is
the net effect of said policies, given the value system, morals, goals,
etc., held by the winners, the losers and the rest. Econ can further
indicate remedies to correct policies to guarantee that more good than
bad results from said possible policies, given the values held by the
subjects of these policies.
> If economics makes public policy assertions, yet claims no
> moral theory, then "no morals" is its moral theory. It is
> the moral theory of money over justice, of the powerful over
> the weak, and of death over life.
Nope. See above. Econ lets each of you decide your own moral theory.
> Is there a Nobel Prize for economic flim flam?
Not yet, but once there is one, I'll promise to nominate you.
>#3. Economists know that the world is finite, do not study
> limits to growth, AND know that more economic growth is good.
Instead of lying, why don't you check what environmental econ is doing?
We don't know more growth is good, the citizens themselves seem to think
more growth is good. Why do I know this? From the choices they make.
Actions speak louder than words.
>* Yet more contradictions AND more econo-baloney.
>
>
>#4. The most important feature of our society is "freedom
> of choice". This is defined as freely choosing offerings
> among the various vendors. Each time someone makes this
> free choice, one is "better off".
Better off than what? The choice you make surely indicates what you
values are, so making a voluntary choice, you reveal that that you expect
to be bettr off after tha selelction than before. Why else would you
voluntarily make that choice?
>* A commuters' job moves farther away, thus raising commute
> costs. The economist says that the additional gas
> expenditures represent an increase in welfare. Does this
Economists surely do not say "Š additional gas expenditures represent an
increase in welfare." If you choose to drive to work, this act reveals
that the value of the monies etc. you receive by working out-weighs the
alternatives: leisure at home, walking instead of commuting, etc.
> mean that ideally everyone should commute by Concorde?
>
>* Someone spent $25 to get a flat tire fixed and the
> economist says he is "better off". Does this mean that
> one should work to maximize one's flat tires?
No. Compared to having a flat tire, he/she was better off.
>* A person living off of savings, excercise "freedom of
> choice" and decides each day whether to eat bread,
> vegetables, or starve. The economist says that each day
> this person is "better off". If this person had still more
> choices, say, caviar, would they be even better off?
Even English grammar requires (right?) that if you use expression "better
off", you have an alternative to which you compare. Surely, eating daily
is better than no food at all?
>* A condemned criminal is given the "freedom of choice" to
> die by gunfire or hanging. The economist claims that
> whichever one he chooses, he will be better off. I wonder
> how the economists tested this hypothesis?
No need to test. He/she either prefers hanging over gunfire, vice versa,
or is indifferent over these. Are there any other alternatives? What ever
he chose, reveals that the other alternative was not better from his/her
point of view. Economists have nothing to do w/ this.
>When is a "good" NOT necessarily good? When is a "service"
>NOT necessarily a service? When is welfare measured by a
>measure that is acknowledged NOT to measure welfare? What
Never?
>discipline claims that "greed is good"? What discipline
None?
>awards a Nobel Prize to someone who thinks the humans can
>get by without natural resources altogether? What discipline
None?
>claims to have no interest in politics yet has disciples
>giving advice on public policy ALL DAY LONG?
Loud-mouth ignorant environmentalists on 'Net?
[snip]
Jay Hanson
-> Did not intend to ignore externalities. If I recall correctly, the post
-> above was a reply to Jay, a correction for what are the welfare effects
-> of trade, or any other actions for that matter. Once we agree on some
-> principles -- well, once he chooses to listen to what the pricinples do
-> and do not state -- we could also discuss the issues.
->
-> Surely, Econ does not ignore externalities. Basically, all modern micro
-> is explicitly treats externalities.
More econo double-talk. Sure we "treat" externalities.
We "treat" them as external to economics!
-> >I would venture a guess that negative externalities are far more
-> >prevalent in trade than is commonly believed. One important example
->
-> Prevalent, Yes; but No, at least among economists, they are being
-> commonly believed to be prevalent.
Don't you see the contradictions in your statements?
Wouldn't someone who is "treating" externalities,
KNOW what they were and how serious they were?
Isn't it clear why there is so little respect for
economists?
Carl J Lydick
=In article <316FC4...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
=writes:
=
=[snip]
=
=>In various posts either Stenborg or jjdixon have asserted:
=>
=>#1. Economics has no objective measure of human welfare
=> AND the hypothesis of free trade has been tested and shown
=> to make most people "better off".
=>
=>* Is this just a logic error? OR is it a mental problem?
=
=This we have to ask from your therapists -- from the ones who are
=responsible for your lack of clear thinking and/or reading comprehension,
=or perhaps from your psychoanalyst :-)
Er, no, Markku, the problem here is that you don't speak English very well, and
Jay wasn't taking that into account. To make his objection more clear to you,
what he was saying was:
1) You claimed that economics has no objective measure of human
welfare;
2) You also claimed that free trade has been shown to make people
better off.
Now, the second claim implies an objective measure of welfare, even if that
objective measure is something as weak as the Pareto criteria with individual
welfare based on the evaluations of each individual as to whether he is better
or worse off. Your two claims, taken literally, were mutually contradictory.
=Let's try one more time. Econ starts from the individualistic perspective
=in that it lets each individual to figure out his(her/its valuesystem
=his/her/itself,
Generally described as "individual autonomy."
=neither Econ nor economists as scientists will tell you
=what your inherent values are or should be. Your values are what ever
=they happen to be, we have no objections to those. Given the values, Econ
=can make recommendations.
=For instance, suppose your values have the property of "no local
=satiation" (in English, this Econ jargon means you always want something
=more, be it better quality of life, cleaner environent, whatever), and
=suppose not all individuals are exactly alike in all respects. Then,
=trade will make these individuals better off.
=
=>#2. Economics is not explicitly concerned with either
=> moral theories or politics AND free trade is "good"
=> for most people.
=>
=>* The truth is that public policy is inextricably a matter
=> of moral theory and politics because there are winners
=> and losers. For example, profits for the rich and cancer
=> for the poor.
Here Hanson makes the mistake common to all too many greenies: He assumes that
because he's incapable of making purely positive analyses (i.e., he's incapable
of analyzing a situation without implicitly imposing his own values on it),
that nobody can make a purely positive analysis. This speaks volumes about the
moral bankruptcy of folks like Hanson.
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
>-> Did not intend to ignore externalities. If I recall correctly, the post
>-> above was a reply to Jay, a correction for what are the welfare effects
>-> of trade, or any other actions for that matter. Once we agree on some
>-> principles -- well, once he chooses to listen to what the pricinples do
>-> and do not state -- we could also discuss the issues.
>->
>-> Surely, Econ does not ignore externalities. Basically, all modern micro
>-> is explicitly treats externalities.
>
>More econo double-talk. Sure we "treat" externalities.
>We "treat" them as external to economics!
Excactly the opposite. Externailities are the central content of modern
Econ, very much internal to both Econ (the Social Science) and to actual
economies.
>-> >I would venture a guess that negative externalities are far more
>-> >prevalent in trade than is commonly believed. One important example
>->
>-> Prevalent, Yes; but No, at least among economists, they are being
>-> commonly believed to be prevalent.
>
>Don't you see the contradictions in your statements?
No. I see your narrow mind, ignorance of the contents under discussion,
and lack of reading comprehension.
>Wouldn't someone who is "treating" externalities,
>KNOW what they were and how serious they were?
>
>Isn't it clear why there is so little respect for
>economists?
Would persistant ignorance qualify as the reason?
Markku Stenborg
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <4kr32k$s...@ankka.csc.fi>, Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi> writes:
>=In article <316FC4...@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson, jha...@ilhawaii.net
>=writes:
>=
>=[snip]
>=
>=>In various posts either Stenborg or jjdixon have asserted:
>=>
>=>#1. Economics has no objective measure of human welfare
>=> AND the hypothesis of free trade has been tested and shown
>=> to make most people "better off".
>=>
>=>* Is this just a logic error? OR is it a mental problem?
>=
>=This we have to ask from your therapists -- from the ones who are
>=responsible for your lack of clear thinking and/or reading comprehension,
>=or perhaps from your psychoanalyst :-)
>
>Er, no, Markku, the problem here is that you don't speak English very well, and
Agree, English ain't my mother tongue, and I tend to be terse on 'Net.
Can I cite myself to defend my postion? This is what I wrote on 11 Apr
1996
--- Begin quote ---
I never said that "free trade" is good or bad; I said that individuals in
question themselves considered "free trade" to better that some
alternative.
*If* I make some assumptions on the values and objectives of those
individuals, I could evaluate whether "free trade" is good or not. For
instance, if their preferences satisfy (what in Econ jargon is known as)
"local non-satiation" (meaning, in English, you always want something
more, be it better quality, leisure, less pollution, more biodiversity),
"free trade" is bound to be good (for the parties trading).
[snip]
>No need for moral theory? That is itself a moral theory.
Yes, the theory being that each human her/himself makes the judgements,
and I do not impose my views on them.
--- End quote ---
>Jay wasn't taking that into account. To make his objection more clear to you,
>what he was saying was:
> 1) You claimed that economics has no objective measure of human
> welfare;
Hmm, to me, a meter or a mile are objective measures, as are bunch of
other measures that are not subjective, that are not up to my whims.
Ordinal utility is subjective, there is no measure on it other than
partial ordering of "worse than", "indifferent", and "better than".
Welfare in Econ is measured by the changes in these individuals
utilities; to me, this subjective. The idea of welfare measurement surely
is objective.
> 2) You also claimed that free trade has been shown to make people
> better off.
OK, I meant that "free trade makes people better off" by their own
account.
>Now, the second claim implies an objective measure of welfare, even if that
>objective measure is something as weak as the Pareto criteria with individual
>welfare based on the evaluations of each individual as to whether he is better
>or worse off. Your two claims, taken literally, were mutually contradictory.
I'm not sure that 2nd => objective measure is needed. I can use the
measures the participants themselves use in evaluating alternatives,
right?
Could agree more, you took my words out of my mouth
Gary G. Nelson
>Here Hanson makes the mistake common to all too many greenies: He assumes that
>because he's incapable of making purely positive analyses (i.e., he's incapable
>of analyzing a situation without implicitly imposing his own values on it),
>that nobody can make a purely positive analysis. This speaks volumes about the
>moral bankruptcy of folks like Hanson.
Too harsh. I will speak for myself to say that in fighting many
planning battles (that were not usually "green" but rather urban "gray")
I have been forced to examine both my own and others' implicit values.
It is a kind of internists-disease where, in trying to find fault
in the analysis of other, you become hyper-sensitive to your own
limitations. My conclusion, like Hanson's, is that in any debate
there is no absolute truth, and no absolute objectivity. Positivism,
if it exists, is totally decision neutral, and therefore irrelevant.
What is seen are a lot of people camoflaging their values with a
great mass of analysis. In this, I agree with Gunnar Myrdahl in
particular.
Head Librarian
Markku Stenborg (mar...@utu.fi) wrote:
: In article <4ks3m0$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Carl J Lydick,
: ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
[...]
: >Er, no, Markku, the problem here is that you don't speak English very well,
:
: Agree, English ain't my mother tongue, and I tend to be terse on 'Net.
Well, obviously you won the argument. Whenever somebody starts
whining about your spelling or grammar, it's the sure sign of defeat.
========begin quote:
<kjfair-19029...@ngrh-34.rh.uchicago.edu>
Would all of you knock it off with the spelling flames? You've ALL made
egregious spelling errors, usually in the same post that you were
criticizing someone else's spelling.
Spelling flames are about the weakest insults you can fire off on Usenet,
second only to questioning someone's sexual preference. They are NOT
rebuttals. They are NOT intelligent argument. They don't prove much at all.
=========end quote
[Followups set appropriately.]
--
Clear fair. Square rough. Ready slow. Steady quick. Dirty Cheap.
Cheerful nip. Tuck tuck. Roll duck. Cover dick. Jane kick.
[ For Public Key: finger jhaa...@lesti.hut.fi ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQBVAwUBMXQ/0lhEPvSH+00FAQFZ3AH/aAT6HC306am6aC35eyupXwJW9IkvJFBC
W/n55BYMEk5ybgRp+0N8beu4IlYGN/2LIkLu5VDdxPcFLMS/IQBM0Q==
=2tMf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Markku Stenborg
mas...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:59:25 GMT, d...@inforamp.net (David
>Lloyd-Jones) wrote at the beginning of a long post with good
>ideas, generally, but:
>
>> "Mark A. Friesel" <mfri...@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >The U.S. economy has some good points and some bad points. On the good
>> >side, inflation is under control, the stock market is booming (good?). On
>> >the bad side, over 10% of the country is unemployed (the official statistic is
>> >some 5.9%, but 'Business Week' reports over 10%), salaries are flat, many
>> >scientific fields are depressed and large scientific programs fail
>> >regularly, people who don't have a lot to invest are going nowhere or
>> >falling behind financially. Compared to the economy of twenty years ago, ours
>> >is flat and uninteresting. Nothing's happening, no-one's going anywhere,
>> >growth is a fiction, excitement is absent. Like any parasite would do
>> >to its host if it could, we're anesthetized.
>
>David wrote:
>
>> I don't think very much of this can be laid at the feet of economists.
>> Everything you write here seems to me to be a political complaint, and
>> I quite agree with your complaints.
>
>Mason is not so sure:
>
>Here, I suggest, is the sci.econ problem (other than
>Fed.Res. nuts and astrologers). Many of the posts and the
>the most economic ones have been debating (if that's the
>word) the merit of economic theory, in particular the
>neoclassical theory of establishment economics.
>
>Neoclassical theory either begins with the axioms or
>concludes with the proof of the merit of Adam Smith's
>invisible hand in the Free Market and Riccardo's arguments
Sorta Yes, but only sometimes.
>for Free Trade. (It does some other things.) These are
>essentially what we might now call Libertarian beliefs and
>sometimes call neo-liberal. They provide the scientific (?)
>basis for de-regulation, hence the savings and loan crash.
Rarely.
>The effort of economists to propagate these libertarian
>(I don't know a better word) dogma as a restraint on
>government did provide the foundation for Thatcherism and
>Reaganism.
No.
>Besides the anarchistic theories, and inconsistent with
>them, are the ideas about money, inflation, growth, and
>unemployment. Here the economists call for governmental
>interference.
Under some conditions.
> Control inflation at all costs. Control the
No, control inflation so that MB(infl, other things) = MC(infl, other
things).
>price of money but not the price of goods or wages. Control
>the unions but let wages be set in a Free Market with
>unlimited supply. These are economic theories, the provided
No, they are not.
>rationale for what's been going on. If you are already in
>the boat this all sounds like it's been working great. Not
>everyone is in the boat and the boat's leaking.
>
>Neoclassical economics in its political effect is a
>winner-take-all political economic philosophy for which the
>economists take credit and they must accept the blame when
>damage is done. Capitalist libertarianism -- business
>anarchy -- but government to protect the oligarchy -- is
>not a viable economic system.
>
> Mason, I am not a Marxist, Clark
This from neoclassical economists who can distinguish the differences
between positive and normative, economics and libertarian dogma,
"invisible hand" and optimal mechanisms, business and economics, ...