Re: Equilibrium, stasis and death

[ECOPPC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Let's go back to Brad's original statement that "living systems are
fundamentally unstable, tending towards the equilibrium known as death." True,
if we look at living organisms and systems in terms of long-run thermdynamic
equilibrium. We need, however, to separate some issues. First, there is an
important sense in whic organisms are stable (the presence of homeostatic
mechanisms combined with their ability to obtain the materials, energy, and
information they need to maintain life processes. Thermodynamically this
requires the constant processing of "available energy". Sensory mechanisms,
intelligence, activity, etc are used to maintain these ongoing processes. This
is something quite different that a mechanical equilibrium of two forces (the
kin of analogy which underlies demand and supply analysis) or thermodynamic
equilibrium which is something else again (the absence of energy in an
available form to do work, cause motion, etc.).

Alan Isaac suggests that we examine the role that concepts of "equilibrium and
homeostasis" play in biology, physiology, etc. Right now the palms of my hands
are in equilibrium and since I have been on the computer all morning I am
famished and about to sign off to go make lunch. I'm not a physiologist but I
would think that this qualifies as part of a homeostatic response of a living
body to the need for a break and for "nutriments" as my beloved Hobbes referred
to them (Hobbes, following his friend Harvey, established the physiological
outline of the first "physiological" model of the economy). Equilibrium
(mechanical) and homeostasis (physiological) are quite different processes and
we are only going to remain confused if we continue to conflate them.

Obviously, instability is vital to our understanding of physiology, ecology,
and economics. The heart's rhythm is chaotic (this seems to be part of a
healthy heartbeat), organisms and ecosystems are capable of surviving and even
flourishing in unstable circumstances. This does not obviate the need for
equilibrium (mechanical) analysis or study of homeostatic mechanisms. Nor does
the study of these do away with the need to study evolutionary processes.
Like biology we need a multi-level investigation into physiology, "ecology",
and evolutionary processes. Post-Keynesians are tilling important ground but we
need to link up with other fields of study: ecological economics, philosophy,
evolutionary economics, etc. (the latter are off trying to study evolution
without much concern for "physiology."

Cox also raises the question of what paradigm lies behind economics. It is on
this question that we need to take Mirowski, More Heat than Light, chs 5 & 6,
seriously. Neoclassical economics takes its conceptual model, its methods, and
its early mathematics from mid-19th century energy mechanics and field theory
(which Maxwell had integrated with Thompson's contributions to energy physics).
As Mirowski charges, economists are doing ersatz science when they apply these
models and math to economics. Mirowski, in my view, is not particularly helpful
or in many cases even close in his interpretation of classical theory. Nor do I
think that some free floating "institutionalism" is the way to go. What we need
is a total systems approach (but this does not mean the given categories of
systems theory).

Best, Paul
Paul Christensen
Hofstra University
e-mail: ECOPPC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx