3 ms·

That's all true, and let's be clear that this problem is fundamental to the very notion of economics. It is not fixable. An 'economy' doesn't map usefully to ph

That's all true, and let's be clear that this problem is fundamental to the very notion of economics. It is not fixable. An 'economy' doesn't map usefully to physical realities. Say you wanted to develop a 'real', comprehensive GDP-alike metric. Even if you could develop measures for all the mutual interactions between a so-called 'economy' and the ecological system with which it is enmeshed, the interactions are so manifold & complex, you'd have to end up with those metrics as parameters in whole-ecology models in any case. We live in ecologies, not economies.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Sadly I tend to agree that it's not fixable, certainly not in the timescales we seem to have. I suspect a simplistic metric could be achieved to replace GDP that would have to assign value to leaving things alone. The ore or oil in the ground, and the tree uncut. If nothing else to remove absurdities where polluting then cleaning up and grassing over is "good" for the economy (because money was spent, which is GDP positive) is better than leaving some pristine acres of mature forest (because money is not spent). I doubt that would be a popular metric with some though as that would imply far more value to not exploiting than doing so. That's before you get to the more vague aspects of quality of life that can't be given spreadsheet space like community, family, friendship, health etc. > We live in ecologies, not economies. Too true. I'm not optimistic for how the next 100 years plays out.
mirimir 8y ago
> We live in ecologies, not economies. That depends on what "we" means. If "we" means human meat machines, that's arguably true. On an evolutionary timescale, the global ecosystem is incredibly resilient. We could likely take out most multicellular species, and within a billion years or so, they'd get replaced. The problem, of course, is what we'll have for dinner, in the interim. And maybe we could work around it all. The "free market" to the rescue! But damn, that'd be a different world, for sure. And if we went full virtual, we could let the global ecosystem recover. Or just use the mass for something else.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Sadly I tend to agree that it's not fixable, certainly not in the timescales we seem to have. I suspect a simplistic metric could be achieved to replace GDP that would have to assign value to leaving things alone. The ore or oil in the ground, and the tree uncut. If nothing else to remove absurdities where polluting then cleaning up and grassing over is "good" for the economy (because money was spent, which is GDP positive) is better than leaving some pristine acres of mature forest (because money is not spent). I doubt that would be a popular metric with some though as that would imply far more value to not exploiting than doing so. That's before you get to the more vague aspects of quality of life that can't be given spreadsheet space like community, family, friendship, health etc. > We live in ecologies, not economies. Too true. I'm not optimistic for how the next 100 years plays out.

mirimir 8y ago

> We live in ecologies, not economies. That depends on what "we" means. If "we" means human meat machines, that's arguably true. On an evolutionary timescale, the global ecosystem is incredibly resilient. We could likely take out most multicellular species, and within a billion years or so, they'd get replaced. The problem, of course, is what we'll have for dinner, in the interim. And maybe we could work around it all. The "free market" to the rescue! But damn, that'd be a different world, for sure. And if we went full virtual, we could let the global ecosystem recover. Or just use the mass for something else.