Re: A Finite Earth

["James R. Olson, jr." <jhavok@xxxxxxxx>]

At 04:36 PM 9/13/97 -0300, David MacInnes wrote:
>James Olson, Jr.
>
>I think you are right in concluding that a finite earth measured in
>terms of its weight or area would change very little as economic growth
>occurs. However, it is important to point out that an economics that
>conceives of a finite earth only in  terms of weight and area is
>incapable of perceiving or understanding pollution or natural resource
>exhaustion. Such an economics would be blind to the collapse of the
>fishery on the east coast of Canada and the resulting economic and
>political problems it created. Is there not a problem with an economics
>which cannot even perceive this issue?

I disagree.  Keeping in mind the finite character of the Earth keeps one
from expecting to pull fish from the ocean without cease, or from expecting
to use the ocean as an infinite sink for industrial waste products.  And
keeping in mind the finite character of the Earth doesn't have to be the
limit of an economics, it should just be one of the axiomatic bases.

Believing that we can recycle forever, world without end, and that any
shortage will be remedied by a future tech fix is the sort of attitude that
will end with humanity exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth.

It's true that we use the stuff around us to make more and different
things, but no matter how efficiently we may do so, there's still an
absolute limit to the amount of stuff we have to use.