From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:24:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.231139.7026@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Oct14142412@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct14.142620.1114@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   >   In article <STEINLY.92Oct13150814@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:


[I hate seeing those tiny percentage numbers when I start reading an
 article.  I have edited this article a lot and it may not make sense
 if someone is reading it for the first time.  Apologies.]

   > ??? Do we live in the same world? From where I'm sitting
   >_the_ activity of choice is consideration of alternatives and examination
   >of alternatives to growth.

   But not among establishment economists.  They are very disconnected
   from the real world.  did you see how an American won the Nobel Prize
   for economics by showing that people include economic considerations
   when making a decision?  What about the economist who

>Considering the recent furor over whether EIS's should be allowed
>to include consideration of economic impacts maybe that is not
>such a stupid thing to worry about. You do understand the need
>to verify hypotheses, in particular simplifying ones?

Yes, but my contention is that the establishment will not apply
these concepts to sustainability issues.  I believe this is true
because the rare criticisms I see of sustainability by the
establishment economists always avoid the points made by its
proponents.  For example, when someone argues that growth in
_physical_ throughputs cannot continue indefinitely, the response 
will be that growth in _monetary_ throughput can grow indefinitely.
Is the argument over including economic impacts _within_ the
economics community?


>Dingo, sustainability and limits to growth issues are questions
>that establishment economists are very much aware of, you want them
>to accept a different paradigm as the basis of their study and you
>do not seem to understand _why_ it is that not all economists are
>running around tearing their hair out because of unsustainable
>practises.

Yes, I understand why.  They avoid the central arguments supporting
it, in the rare cases where they choose to address it.  I don't 
expect them to all accept the new paradigm.  I expect them to
debate it in a fair framework.  The status quo framework is one
of maximized abstraction.  Economics is not physics.  The
assumption that this abstraction is absolutely a good thing is
the basis of economics inability to truthfully analyze sustainability.

>Yes. I am not convinced by dogma, if I were I'd hit "u" and have
>a quiet giggle. Are you completely incapable of understanding
>that people disagree with you for genuine reasons that have
>been considered and critiqued for decades? 

I have not _seen_ genuine reasons at this point.  As I have said
above, economists that I have seen cannot view the issues outside
of the abstracted structure that economics has surrounded itself
with.  Economics cannot be separated from the perceptions and
desires of the human mind.  And no mathematics, including those
of econometrics, are even close to analytically representing
human decision-making (right, John?).  It is the dogma represented 
by this abstraction that is the problem.

   >As opposed to conventional economics? That schisms exist does not
   >preclude dogma, nor does the fact the opposition is dogmatic
   >preclude the ecocentrics being dogmatic.

   True, but it does preclude it from being ossified, as you claimed.
   Some proponents certainly are dogmatic, but not all, so the
   philosophy is not dogma.

>It does? I'd describe the catholic church as fossilised, and it has
>had some rather heated disagreements historically.
 ^^^
And where did the losers of these debates end up?  I bet they aren't
Catholics today.  Or they gave in.  Ossified means hardened into bone.
A philosophy that includes debate about its specifics from within
has not hardened.  In addition, I think that religions that have rules
that were provided by deities are the best example of dogma.  After
all, God can't be wrong.

   >   Various proponents see certain aspects very differently.  Some hate
   >   all technological society and others think technology isn't the
   >   problem at all.  The existence of such internal debates when compared
   >   to the silence among economists about sustainability demonstrates
   >   which side is more dogmatic.  I don't see how anyone who is familiar
   >   with this literature could remotely describe these philosophies as
   >   ossifying.  They are dynamic.

   >I honestly don't understand where you see a silence among economists
   >on sustainability. Certainly academic economists I know are well aware
   >of the sustainability arguments, and its faults. Are you suggesting
   >all economists switch to investigating "sustainability" or merely
   >that they abandon all other considerations of economic theory?

   There is no silence, there is ostracism and scorn.  You may believe
   this scorn is deserved, but the people heaping the scorn do not
   consider sustainability worthy of consideration.  This is
   dogmatism.  Maybe you are one of the dogmatists.

>Is it dogmatism to scorn people if they remain strident
>even when wrong, even when wrong given their assumptions?

Here we have an _assumption_ that they are wrong.  Where is the positive
proof?  This is opinion represented as fact - the definition of dogmatism.
People will get strident when they are ignored or not treated fairly.

>Is all critique tantamount to scorn?

Of course not.  Nor is scorn tantamount to dogmatism.  However, as I said
earlier, the critiques that I have seen do not address the issues.  My
impression is that the _initial_ reaction of most economists to
sustainability is scorn.  Maybe
you could suggest a good book that refutes sustainablilty.  Even if it
doesn't convince me, but still adresses the central points of
sustainability, it would disprove dogmatism.  Know of one?

   Are you suggesting that the criteria is good but
   the application of the criteria is bad?

>No, I'm suggesting that have a criterion it should be
>applied honestly and consistently. Deciding whether
>the criteria are good or bad is a separate issue
>although the applicability is certainly a factor.

True, and it is the criteria I am debating.  Bad application of a
criteria does not invalidate the criteria, though it certainly
affects their credibility when debating the _criteria_.  That may
be part of the problem with the presentation of ecocentrism and
sustainability.

>Not necessarily, I'd say that if the entire set of Jesuits worked
>on determining the number angels dancing on pinheads the applicability
>remains zero.

You obviously like the religion analogy.  Isn't it a given that some
issues are not subject to scientific answers?  That some decisions
must be made when the scientific technique is inadequate to provide
an objective answer?  How are we to differentiate between the need
to calculate the number of angels on a pinhead and the, previously
impossible, need to prove that slaves were not really inferior and
the current desire to _prove_ that non-sentients have value?  You
can try to make an analogy that any question beyond our scientific
capability is superstition, but most people know this is not true.
That I argue that non-sentients have value is not scientifically
provable.  Is the issue then invalid?  Must our arguments always be
compared with superstitions that both of us agree are invalid?
These types of tactics are a smokescreen. 

   >   change is impossible to predict but we simply want to "aim" them
   >   in a certain direction. Conversion to a more appropriate technology
   >   will not be absolute, nor will it be particularly planned. There is
   >   no concept of a "great evil and exploitation for which someone ... should
   >   be made to pay".  What there is is a belief that impacts should be

   >Oh there most certainly is. You may need feel it, but it is there.

   Its there for some, not for others.  The books I have read do not 
   talk of blame or punishment.  They simply talk about what they 
   think is better.

>You should read more books.

We are talking about books about ecocentrism.  From our discussion so
far, it seems that you haven't read any.  Note that ecocentrism is _not_
a dominant philosophy among environmentalists.  A paternalistic concern
for wild animals is not ecocentric.  The success in protecting whales
and dolphins succeeded _because_ it successfully appealed to
anthropocentric concerns that such animals are "intelligent" or
sentient.  This is not ecocentrism.  The most hardline book I have
read about ecocentrism specifically said it is not the people who are
at fault, it is the system.  Fault is not the issue. [Don't worry,
you're safe :^) ]

   >Oh really? You have it all figured out already?
   >And you wonder why some of us are concerned?

   Above I said "They don't claim to be able to accurately describe what 
   an ecocentric society would be like in a hundred years." so why do
   you ask if we have it already figured out?  Understanding a criteria

>"It will, howevere, function on the general precepts which have been
>described."
>This, in my opinion, is a very strong statement, you claim to have
>stated the general precepts on which future ecocentric societies
>will function. The only way I could see this as a reasonable claim
>is if you say that any society not functioning along these precepts
>is by definition not ecocentric, in which case I suggest no ecocentric
>society will develop.

All that statement says is that an ecocentric society will be based
on ecocentric principles.  A society not based on ecocentric
principles will not be an ecocentric society.  A shrewd probe into
the depths of the obvious, Steinn.  My point was that I am not
predicting the details of implementation of the ecocentric society.
What I am doing is trying to convince people that the _criteria_
are good.  I leave the implementation up to the time if/when a
consensus exists about this.  I would also argue that the issue
is not whether an ecocentric society _will_ develop, but whether
an ecocentric society _should_ develop.

   is fundamentally different than understanding what the results of
   applying that criteria will be.

>Are the two separable? That is a very serious question and I'm not
>certain I know the answer.

I think they are.  I once again offer the slavery analogy.  Does the
economic impact on slave-owners even a consideration in supporting
emancipation?

   No, I don't.  I never claimed to know specifically.  If you want to
   debate on what technologies will fit into a ecocentric society, I
   need to go to the library.  This discussion has previously been a
   discussion of ecocentric criteria.  You are trying to change it
   to what would result from this criteria.  While this may be a valid
   question, I don't think it can be answered by either of us now.  
   You may be claiming that no criteria can be evaluated without
   knowing what its general impact may be but I think that is like
   saying that the economic impact of emancipation a good argument for slavery.

>Well, how do you define "good"? There is a class of economic
>historians that in fact argues that slavery and its abolition
>were more or less completely determined by economic impact.
>I like to think they're wrong but I can't prove it.

I think that economic issues did have an effect, though not total.  There
is no equation for "good" here.  The definition of good is totally
subjective in this context.  Actually, you might say that a definition
of good is whether the answer to the question/argument will have any
bearing on the larger issue.  Economic hardship to slaveowners has no
bearing on the whether I support slavery.

>Not on this newsgroup, please. My blood pressure probably
>could not handle a discussion on homepathy. Perhaps the
>psychology of placebos...  :-)

Sounds like more dogmas at work! :^( (You should have that blood
				      pressure taken care of)

   >Come visit Santa Cruz ;-)

   I'd love to.  Its a beautiful place.  Whats your addess?
   Whoops, missed the smiley. [Debating these things over the net
   is very tiresome eventually.]

>Oh, everybody should visit SC - very nice place, has a couple
>of nice pubs ideal for these discussions...

I have a cousin who lives in Scotts Valley.  Maybe some day...

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory           *
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
>*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
>*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment