>>Ed Weick
>> There is something rather uncivilized in the last few posts from Jay
>>Hanson, and I don't like it.  I'm not an economist, and have no great
>
>On the subject of economics and economists, Jay Hanson has been uncivilized
>for some time.  I've had a great deal of difficulty in understanding it.

Do economists have a civilized term for "murder"? (Externalities?)

I will explain for those of you who haven't been paying attention:

Economics has nothing to do with science, it's strictly a political
movement.  Specifically, it's a political movement that advocates converting
our life-support system into commodities.  Economists call this "economic
growth", Herman Daly calls it "the ideology of death".

SCIENCE NEWS
While the economists, like the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, master highly
complex rhetorical details, millions of people are dying because of
economist politics. [1]  The scientific consensus [2] is that the "future of
our planet is in the balance" and billions more innocent people will die
this coming century unless economist politics can be defeated.

I will make it simple for you -- it's a litmus test:  If you advocate more
economic growth, then you are part of the problem -- not part of the
solution.

I really want economists to know why:

"First, economists' outpourings should, as a matter of principle, be met
with laughter, derision, benign paternalism. They should cease to be
employed as media commentators. In the long term they should cease to be
hired. Let them be pensioned off and die out. Extinction is a worthy end for
a profession whose brief is rotten to the core." (Dr Evan Jones, Economics
Department, University of Sydney, 1991) [3]

I now open the floor to questions.  Specifically, what don't you understand.

Jay -- www.dieoff.com
-------------------------------

[1] http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/1998/10/100298/killingus.asp

      Study: Life on Earth is killing us
      Friday, October 2, 1998

Life on Earth is killing us concludes a Cornell University study of
population trends, climate change, increasing pollution and emerging
diseases.

 An estimated 40 percent of deaths around the world can now be
attributed to various environmental factors, especially organic and chemical
pollutants, according to an article published in the October issue of the
journal BioScience

I just archived the study itself at http://dieoff.com/page165.htm

[2]  In 1992, the two most prestigious scientific institutions in
 the world, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal
 Society, issued POPULATION GROWTH, RESOURCE CONSUMPTION, AND
 A SUSTAINABLE WORLD which ended with:  "The future of our
 planet is in the balance.  Sustainable development can be
 achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the
 environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be
 crucial."  http://dieoff.com/page7.htm
.................................................................

Also in 1992, a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued by the Union
 of Concerned Scientists that began:  "Human beings and the
 natural world are on a collision course. Human activities
 inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the
 environment and on critical resources.  If not checked, many
 of our current practices put at serious risk the future that
 we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms,
 and may so alter the living world that it will be unable
 to sustain life in the manner that we know.  Fundamental
 changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our
 present course will bring about."

 This warning was signed by over 1,500 members of national,
 regional, and international science academies. Sixty-nine
 nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including
 each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen
 largest economic powers.

 It was also signed by 99 Nobel Prize winners.
  Archived at http://dieoff.com/page8.htm

[3] FWD:
 >The "Cane Toads" quotation reproduced below comes originally from an
>article by Dr Evan Jones (Economics Department, University of Sydney,
>Australia) entitled "Down with Economists". It is an excellent article, and
>to my knowledge has been reproduced on at least four occasions.

Reply via email to