A Critique of Ecological Economics - Part 1 of 2

[mphello]

@slurpeeday Of course the pigs would not understand that many of them would not survive.

But, humans know we cannot survive forever (i.e. we know we're not immortal). We haven't figured out a way around that. That doesn't mean we don't have utility functions. We and pigs and et al have many localized utility functions: scratch an itch at this moment, take a drink at this moment. Turn left now. Turn right now. Uncountably many other events for which the trade off is so small we don't even

[mphello]

@slurpeeday .. think about them. i.e. at this moment, there's no cost in scratching this itch, or taking this drink, or turning left or right. Yet, even those have imperceptibly small costs - energy to scratch an itch, to drink, to turn. etc. So game theory and utility functions operate at all times.

Not quite sure what your point was. Pigs don't understand delayed consequences perhaps?

Man oh man can I give you examples of so-called "humans'' who don't, either.

[slurpeeday]

@mphello haha, too true, humans don't understand consequences either. This is when economic theory doesn't work. We need rational humans for most of economics to apply. If animals aren't even going to be rational a decent percentage of the time then how is economic going to be helpful in finding a better solution? How are we going to find what's best for them, when they can't express preference or even make good decision?

[mphello]

Until one has detailed mathematical and logistical models that prove the optimal sets of laws or actions humans and non-human animals should take toward one another in a fair way, the anti-growth pro-animal rights pro-environmental approximations are the closest to the set of optimal strategies. Further philosophizing and speculation and "lumping everyone in a movement together" is stupid, a waste of our time, and worthless.

[ashevillecat]

While ecological economics does recognize the market economy as the dominant paradigm, it is far from considered "permanent". On the contrary, it recognizes its inevitable impermanence. It recognizes that no one economic system is optimal for all cases, and that a variety of systems could fit depending on the circumstances. Finally, it only advocates sustainability within a context that provides for well-being & ecosystem services simultaneously. So humans AND nature should be in the "ends" box.

[chadisapunkrocker]

The ecological economists did not define the capitalist structure as a permanent reality: the capitalists do. Attempting to correct that conventional wisdom would have been a waste of time. Their model is faulty in a finite system; it doesn't need to be defined: it fails in it's own definition. Anyway, why represent a non-linear idea with the same linear visual model as it's predecessor. Ecological Econ should be a loop. If you understood Schumacher, you'd loop it. I give your critique a 40%.

[frankr29]

@chadisapunkrocker Sorry, but I find it very difficult to interpret several of your comments. If you want to discuss, please email me. Click the Contact tab at my website for the address.

[slurpeeday]

I don't know where you learned "standard economics." Every economic course I took said increasing utility, or as you say human well-being, is the ultimate goal. Why else would economists be concerned with developing third world countries and unemployment numbers here. Every economist will tell you that money is just like any other good experiences and faces diminishing marginal returns. Thus, $50 to a wealthy person is less than $50 to a poor person.

[frankr29]

@slurpeeday Utility is based on subjective desire and capacity to pay, and does not represent well-being adequately. I'm not sure what you're driving at with the $50 example.

[slurpeeday]

@frankr29 What do you think is a more adequate representation of well-being?

The poor gain more utility from $50 than the rich do. Economists really believe in utility try to aid the poor more than the rich.

[frankr29]

@slurpeeday Given the 500-character limit here, please email me if you want to have a discussion: frank_rotering@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

[slurpeeday]

@frankr29 just emailed you

[newb2yutube]

@frankr29 Great videos. What do you think of energy accounting as proposed by the Technocracy Technate design? Are you aware of the history with Biophysical economics?

[frankr29]

@newb2yutube Thanks very much. While Technocracy and biophysical economics include useful insights, I consider them to be far too narrow to guide our economies.

[newb2yutube]

@frankr29 Thanks for the response. It's a bit strange that you think it's too narrow minded as it is probably the most viable alternative out there. Can you please be more specific so as to understand the argument?

[frankr29]

@newb2yutube Sure, but please email me (frank_rotering@yahoo.com), beginning with a summary of these modes of thought so that I know what aspects to focus on.

[newb2yutube]

@frankr29 Sent the email

[frankr29]

@newb2yutube Sorry - I haven't received this. Please try again.

[Alexopolux]

@frankr29

Hi Frank. Interesting videos. I just downloaded the book, and hopefully I'll read it in the following days. Could you please publish your E-mail responses in your website? And, have you published some of your ideas in any journal? Thanks.

[frankr29]

@Alexopolux Thanks very much. My email address is available on the website under the "Contact" tab. Good luck with the book, and I look forward to hearing from you again.

[mphello]

@slurpeeday

THANK you!

= Thus, $50 to a wealthy person is less than $50 to a poor person =

Easier just to say the utility function, v(X), of X dollars is a nonlinear function of X, with a negative second derivative.

Also, to be logically consistent, economic theory must include the utility function of ALL fully sentient beings: the animals needlessly tortured in factory farms just because people won't go vegan.

If one arbitrarily omits them, then I am free to pick and choose

[mphello]

@slurpeeday whose utility function *I* want to ignore. (I choose to ignore the utility function of anti-vegetarians and breeders - anyone who has a kid.)

[slurpeeday]

@mphello :) yes. That's a better way to put it. If the reader understands calculus, but we are on youtube.

Ignoring utility functions: good point. However, wouldn't animals need to understand the trade-offs in their choices, in order to have utility functions? For instance, what if let a bunch of pigs go. Would they understand that many of them would not survive in most parts of the world?

[mphello]

@slurpeeday Of course the pigs would not understand that many of them would not survive.

But, humans know we cannot survive forever (i.e. we know we're not immortal). We haven't figured out a way around that. That doesn't mean we don't have utility functions. We and pigs and et al have many localized utility functions: scratch an itch at this moment, take a drink at this moment. Turn left now. Turn right now. Uncountably many other events for which the trade off is so small we don't even

[slurpeeday]

@mphello Also, how would animals express choices for more complex decisions? What would be an optimal outcome be for predator/prey dynamics?

I feel like economic theory doesn't work very well for animals. Nevertheless, good point. there is certainly a market failure here. Though I have no idea how to find an optimal solution.

[cacciato66]

mental gymnastics ... ignores that ecology is about the economics of all species which economists and philosophers exclude human endeavor ... so much nonsense