Thanks! Could you post some specific references for Ravetz and Funtowicz? I agree with a lot (I think most) of the specifics you raise, but such a diffuse critique runs the risk of not communicating itself beyond the small circle of people who go through the whole thing systematically. Is there a bumper sticker version?
Peter "Forstater, Mathew" wrote: > Hi Peter - > > I have taken a multi-pronged approach that includes arguments about > valuation problems (criticisms of contingent valuation, travel cost, and > other methods); an alternative view of social costs based on Kapp's work > that includes cumulative causation; critique of "optimality" notions > based on preferences, productivity, and profitability (all narrowly > defined) and the inability of cost-benefit solutions to fully consider > what I call "biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy"; > critiques of neoclassical-Coasian-'tragedy of the commons' notions of > 'property' and historical evidence concerning forms of property and the > social institutions that mediate resource use; knowledge problems > concerning human impact on the environment under conditions of radical > or fundamental uncertainty (do you know the work of Ravetz and > Funtowicz, by the way, some of the best stuff on this I know of?); > alternative theories of price and value and critiques of neoclassical > price theory; emphasis on the distinction between cost-benefit and > cost-effectiveness analyses; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. > > If by the time I'm done my opponents are not convinced, at least they > are worn out or asleep. > > I admit that I have made some mistakes in the past (wow!) and have had > to modify some of my claims. > > Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint appt > in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of individual > and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs, after > going through all the above, elaborating during a long q and a period, > someone in the audience asked me: "but why does it matter if humanity > survives [or survives longer than the amount of time it will take to > wear out the earth if we continue on the present path]?" > > Mat
