Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)

• To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
• Subject: Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
• From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
• Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:12:59 -0700
• Organization: Netcom
• References: <E15pJD.K9F@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>, <32932C25.4129@ix.netcom.com>, <E171Ct.KyH@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>
• Reply-To: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
• Sender: london@sunsite.unc.edu

George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
> 
...
> 
> If resource X is limited, its continued use will lead to its exhaustion.
> 
> This seems to be the fundamental rationale used by people arguing for the
> slowing of economic activity to save resources.  I note that the definition
> may not satisfy everybody's views on the issue.
> 


I reply:

Ok - if you use a material faster than it is replenished until it's 
gone you'll use it up.  I don't know if it's natural law, but it is 
logical.  Don't you think it's valid?

• Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
• From: antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818)
• Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
• From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
• Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
• From: antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818)

• Prev: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
• Next: Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread