the Post Keynesians v. the Malthusians

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Edwards] Whether humans or pond scum, we must live
within the biophysical constraints of our
environment, or our 'milieu' if you regard
'environment' as a pejorative term.
-------------------------------------------
I do not regard environment as a pejorative term.  I
will admit that pond scum face biophysical
constraints.  I do not equate humans to pond scum.
--

[Edwards] The biophysical capacities of the planet
(including throughput of photosynthetic production
and waste assimilation) are finite.
-------------------------------------------
As reasonable a statement as saying that the universe
is finite.  The resources available to humanity on
this earth are prodigious.  They can be utilized in
an infinite number of ways ever more efficiently.
--

[Edwards] There is strong evidence from scientists of
all stripes that these capacities have been exceeded
for some years, perhaps since the 1970s in some
localities.
-------------------------------------------
Definitely not all stripes.  There is considerable
dissenting opinion.  I refer you to some materials
gathered at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/replenishment
--

[Edwards] Most of the solutions that modern economics
proposes for the ills of the world involve increased
economic growth, that is, increased consumption of
energy and other natural resources.
-------------------------------------------
Economy growth in the modern world -  through
science, technology, discovery and innovation -
entails the exponential DECREASE in natural resource
utilization per unit of consumable output.
--

[Edwards] Economics may choose to ignore or deny the
existence of the second law of thermodynamics
(entropy), but that does not invalidate the law.
Natural systems still conform.
-------------------------------------------
But the earth is not an isolated closed system.
There is constant energy input from the sun.  Plus
there is creative input from the human mind.
--


----original message----
Date:  	Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:03 +1100
From:  	"Geoff Edwards" <g.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  RE: marginally DECREASING costs

William

Whether humans or pond scum, we must live within the biophysical constraints
of our environment, or our 'milieu' if you regard 'environment' as a
pejorative term.

The biophysical capacities of the planet (including throughput of
photosynthetic production and waste assimilation) are finite. There is
strong evidence from scientists of all stripes that these capacities have
been exceeded for some years, perhaps since the 1970s in some localities.
Unless remedied, this in due course can lead only to collapse of the
ecological systems on which life depends. To date the rich countries,
because of their buying power, have been able to insulate themselves from
scarcity to a certain extent by sucking resources from all over the planet,
but this cannot continue indefinitely, because the systems really are
limited and interconnected. Let alone equity and justice considerations.

Most of the solutions that modern economics proposes for the ills of the
world involve increased economic growth, that is, increased consumption of
energy and other natural resources. This cannot continue much longer.

Economics may choose to ignore or deny the existence of the second law of
thermodynamics (entropy), but that does not invalidate the law. Natural
systems still conform.


Regards


Geoff Edwards B.Sc.(Hons.); M.Pub.Ad.
PhD Student
Griffith University
Brisbane, Australia


----------------------
-----

The following commentary is copied from an readily
avaliable online resource:

...Another problem [in the the Malthusian catastrophe
thesis] is that there is no strong evidence that the
human population - nor any real population - actually
follows exponential growth. In plant or animal
populations that are claimed to show exponential
growth, closer examination invariably shows that the
supposedly exponential part is actually the lower
limb of a logistic curve, or a section of a Lotka-
Volterra cycle. Also, examination of records of
estimated total world human population shows at best
very weak evidence of exponential growth:

Attachment1 also archived at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/replenishment/image001.gif

Clearly this is close to linear. In fact, the
correlation coefficient is practically the same for
linear growth, or very slow exponential growth (with
a characteristic time of about 60 years).

The annual increase graph is worse; for exponential
growth, it should itself be an upward trending
exponential curve whereas it has actually been
trending downward since 1986. Also the rate of
increase should increase, whereas, of the increase
between 1960 and today, five-sixths occurred in the
early 1960s (presumably attributable to the Green
revolution); it then rose to a peak in 1989 and has
since declined to levels actually lower than 1970:

attachment2 also archived at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/replenishment/image002.gif

Though short-term trends, even on the scale of
decades or centuries, do not necessarily disprove the
underlying mechanisms promoting a Malthusian
catastrophe over longer periods, the relative
prosperity of the human population at the beginning
of the 21st century and the apparent failure of
spectacular predictions of mass starvation or
ecological collapse made by activists such as Paul
Ehrlich in the 1960s and 1970s had led many people to
dismiss the Malthusian catastrophe by this time.
--



____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005