[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> jovially inquires:
>George old boy,
I know that I am getting on bit, but it is quite a shock when people
start calling you 'old boy'.
>Perhaps restate your assertions and definitions concerning carrying
>capacity?
My view is that the concept of carrying capacity is not particularly
meaningful, useful and applicable to humans. Since carrying capacity
is tied to the exhaustion of specific resources, human inventiveness
that substitutes resources for others and human preferences that change
make it impossible to come up with anything that stands up to scrutiny.
Carrying capacity for humans has the promise of scientific rigour that
it cannot deliver on.
I think it is better to talk about "the world we want to live in and the
world we want our children to live in". Admittedly, at first sight this
is a much mushier concept than carrying capacity. Still, it is more
flexible and it will take much further our discussion of what is essentially
subjective preferences.
George Antony
Follow-Ups:
References: