Re: post keynesian economics and environmetal sustainablity

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I very much like most of what "Henry C.K. Liu"
<hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes on this topic on
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:59:05 -0500, but the following
is, I think, substantially misstated:

>To be truly nonergodic means to have no way to go there from
>here.  Practically nonergodic means it is very hard to find
>route from here to there.

To be truly nonergodic does NOT mean that there is "no
way" to go there from here, it means that there is no
TRAJECTORY that you can DETERMINE from here that you
know at the outset will take you there.  Whether or
not there is a route to take you there for here is an
open question, and such a route may in fact require that
you blaze a trail for some or all of the journey.

Which is the crux of the problem with the optimising
approach: it is asking the wrong question.  The right
question are what capabilities are lacking that would
permit sustainability, what behaviours are present
that are incompatible with sustainability, and how can
we develop the former and progressively eliminate the
latter.

As a SUB-QUESTION, there are likely to be tasks along
the way that are suitably for asking optimising questions,
but starting out trying to force the question into a
framework which can answer questions about optimal
outcomes, when the prior question of feasible outcomes
have not been addressed, is like trying to determine
which right of way will give the most efficient road
to drive on at the least cost in terms of acquisition,
without asking whether people need to get to where the
road is going.


Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx