Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

ry; they can bank locally; and they can read a local newspape=
r,
listen to local news on the radio, watch regional news on TV, and get
meaningful news via computer.

Fourth, I would see distinct town and urban boundaries with little or no=

urban sprawl.  Rural small acreage home sites are primarily found in
clusters on land that has low value for agriculture, forests, wildlife o=
r
recreation.  And these rural small acreage home developments pay full co=
st
for infrastructure services such as roads, utilities, mail and parcel
delivery, police and fire protection and school transportation.  This do=
es
not mean that we are not honoring and supporting our farming families, b=
ut
it does mean that the rest of us are not subsidizing non farmers who cho=
ose
to live in a rural setting.

Fifth, large numbers of food-producing family-owned farms are close enou=
gh
to population centers to provide easy and cost-efficient commercial
interaction.  These farms provide products that can be bought in urban
stores as well as in farmers=92 markets and at farm site stands.  Also, =
a
large part of the grocery products sold in even the biggest cities are g=
rown
and processed within the region.  A family can eat well year-round witho=
ut
ever buying a product grown outside the region.

Sixth, high quality wildland recreation is available within 2 hours trav=
el
of everyone=92s home =96 recreation such as hiking, camping, fishing, hu=
nting,
bird watching and boating.  Nearly all ocean beaches, rivers, lakes and
streams are available and open to public access, use and enjoyment.

Seventh, all of our children complete high school fully educated and
qualified for college, technical training, apprenticeship programs, gain=
ful
and rewarding employment, or are otherwise achieving a successful and
satisfying life.  School success is evaluated on the basis of the succes=
s of
its graduates.

Eighth, affordable and complete medical care (including psychiatric, den=
tal
and optical) is fully available to all.  Persons who are physically or
mentally unable to earn a decent income are fully supported and comforta=
ble,
served by programs designed to make them as useful and productive as
possible.  Antisocial behavior is treated with a goal of rehabilitation,=
 not
punishment.

Ninth, all forest, range and other wildlands provide a healthy and
sustainable mix of extractive, recreational and esthetic resources and
values.  Forest products are processed within the region so as to provid=
e
meaningful employment in the woods, in the mills and in wood products
factories.  No raw materials or unprocessed resources are exported out o=
f
the region; rather all such resources are turned into manufactured produ=
cts
before being exported.  There is a sound balance between productive land=
s
and those lands managed and preserved for other values.  For example, ab=
out
half of the world=92s forest lands are devoted to intensive but diverse
silviculture, and about half are left primarily for maintaining other va=
lues
such as biodiversity and scenery.

Tenth, even urban and suburban areas are nature-friendly.  Interconnecte=
d
habitat supports a diversity of native wildlife and plant communities. U=
rban
stream corridors are lush with native growth and the streams support hea=
lthy
populations of native fish.  Backyards and schoolyards and institutional=

properties provide places to enjoy a quiet visit with nature.

Eleventh, our air is clean.  Granted, this condition can only be met if =
the
whole world effectively controls air pollution.  But the first world
economies can at least boast that their output of greenhouse gases and o=
ther
atmospheric pollutants is being reduced and stabilized to levels near th=
ose
that existed prior to civilization.

Twelfth, like the air, water remains a publicly owned resource.  All of =
our
streams and lakes provide water that is clean enough to support a health=
y
range of native species.  Ground water and surface water is being equita=
bly
distributed without diminishment to support farms, homes and industries.=

Dams no longer present an impediment to fish migration.  Native fish
populations are self-sustaining and productive, supporting a healthily
diverse biotic system as well as recreation and an important commercial
harvest. Ocean resources are being sustained =96 providing for stable an=
d
productive marine ecosystems as well as supporting a stable and importan=
t
level of recreational and commercial utilization.

Am I unrealistic?   I challenge you to offer something even better, more=

complete and achievable.


Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (email)


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Park
Sent: Thursday, 05 April, 2007 16:05
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


Re: economic growth versus steady state,

There i

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Ashwani Vasishth]

For a different take on this story line, see an essay that ran in the New 
Yorker a few years back, arguing that Manhattan is one of the greenest cities 
in the US, because it is one of the higher densities, with a good transit 
system.  Polemical, but still.  One copy of this is at:
 
http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/newswire/newswire_11_04GreenManhattan.pdf

>From a planning perspective, higher density settlements with well-mixed land 
>uses and with high diversity functions (socio-economic, ethnic, housing stock) 
>and a decent transit system (e.g., Manhattan) are thought to have a smaller 
>per capita ecological foot print than, say, a sprawling suburban development 
>(e.g., Levittown).  This is the basis for what some of us call "smart growth". 
> (For a bibliography of on-line documents, see: 
>http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/Smart_Growth_Reports-biblio.htm, or use 
>Wikipedia.)

Cheers,
-
  Ashwani
 Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth


At 02:04 PM -0700 4/7/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>As I understand the situation, in comparison with smaller population
>centers, large population concentrations have relatively higher
>environmental costs due to in-transportation of such things as food and
>water, out-transportation of waste products and greater concentration of
>water, land and air pollutant loads. Large population centers can also have
>higher intra-urban transportation costs because people actually tend to end
>up living farther from where they work, buy things and socialize.  Others
>who are more knowledgeable on this probably have the data to back this up.
>
>And of course we can hope no one is advocating dispersing everyone onto 5.7
>acre hobby farms; that's even more costly in terms of infrastructure support
>and transportation costs as well as land use inefficiencies and losses of
>biodiversity.  That would certainly result in a much higher consumption of
>resources per capita compared to persons living in compact communities.
>
>
>Warren Aney
>(503)246-8613
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of patrick
>Sent: Saturday, 07 April, 2007 13:01
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>
>
>The population density of the earth is estimated to be 112 people per square
>mile of land surface. That approximates a 500 by 500 foot plot of land per
>person, or 5.7 acres per person (~23 acres for a family of four). If
>families were more evenly distributed across the landscape instead of being
>concentrated within cities (and considering that a significant portion of
>the earth's surface is inhospitable to human colonization, e.g. Himalayan
>peaks, Antarctica, Sahara desert), it seems like there would be even more
>serious resource management issues and conflicts than we have today (e.g. a
>grizzly bear home range is between 10 and 380 square miles), despite the
>assumption that people would be consuming the same quantity of resources per
>capita.
>
>Patrick
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth
>Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:08 AM
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>
>At 11:32 PM -0700 4/5/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world's population
>>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.
>
>Yes, that would be a start.  Give us this much, and the rest gently follows.
>
>The most recent population projections from the UN, taking account of myriad
>factors such as the changing rates of HIV/AIDS and plummeting fertility
>rates, puts world population at over 9 billion by 2050.  That number does
>not go away, no matter what we might think to do in the here and now--short
>of massacre and mayhem.  We're just going to have to learn to live with
>that.
>
>And that's not all, folks.  There's going to be a surge in consumption rates
>across the board that will effectively double the world's population for all
>practical purposes.  Tha

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Warren W. Aney]

As I understand the situation, in comparison with smaller population
centers, large population concentrations have relatively higher
environmental costs due to in-transportation of such things as food and
water, out-transportation of waste products and greater concentration of
water, land and air pollutant loads. Large population centers can also have
higher intra-urban transportation costs because people actually tend to end
up living farther from where they work, buy things and socialize.  Others
who are more knowledgeable on this probably have the data to back this up.

And of course we can hope no one is advocating dispersing everyone onto 5.7
acre hobby farms; that's even more costly in terms of infrastructure support
and transportation costs as well as land use inefficiencies and losses of
biodiversity.  That would certainly result in a much higher consumption of
resources per capita compared to persons living in compact communities.


Warren Aney
(503)246-8613

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of patrick
Sent: Saturday, 07 April, 2007 13:01
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


The population density of the earth is estimated to be 112 people per square
mile of land surface. That approximates a 500 by 500 foot plot of land per
person, or 5.7 acres per person (~23 acres for a family of four). If
families were more evenly distributed across the landscape instead of being
concentrated within cities (and considering that a significant portion of
the earth's surface is inhospitable to human colonization, e.g. Himalayan
peaks, Antarctica, Sahara desert), it seems like there would be even more
serious resource management issues and conflicts than we have today (e.g. a
grizzly bear home range is between 10 and 380 square miles), despite the
assumption that people would be consuming the same quantity of resources per
capita.

Patrick



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:08 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

At 11:32 PM -0700 4/5/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world's population
>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.

Yes, that would be a start.  Give us this much, and the rest gently follows.

The most recent population projections from the UN, taking account of myriad
factors such as the changing rates of HIV/AIDS and plummeting fertility
rates, puts world population at over 9 billion by 2050.  That number does
not go away, no matter what we might think to do in the here and now--short
of massacre and mayhem.  We're just going to have to learn to live with
that.

And that's not all, folks.  There's going to be a surge in consumption rates
across the board that will effectively double the world's population for all
practical purposes.  That's not going away either.  The West has set the
standard for what it means to be modern, and there's a few billion decent
human beings out there who hard and want a taste of that as well.  Thus my
allusion to Garrett Hardin's call for a "life boat ethic".  Can we say to
them, we've got it, but you can't have any?

(We tried this back in the 1970s, by the way, we really did.  We developed
biogas plants and solar cookers and alternative technologies galore--read
Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World, for instance.  We didn't have
the Whole Earth Catalog, but we knew the content of it backward and forward.
We were deep into this stuff, went out to villages, did demonstration
projects, presentations, trying to convince folks that we had to grow
smarter not bigger.  And we never made it to first base.  They weren't
having any of that.  They knew modern when they saw it in the movies, and
that's what they wanted.  If it was good enough for the West, it was just
what we ought to have.)

So, populations and consumption are both going to go up.  Way up.  And we're
simply going to have to adapt.  Because, make no mistake, there's a few
billion people coming down that pike, and they're going to want their fair
share of the world.  They've been fueled by centuries of propaganda telling
them the West is the best.  And you know what?  They've bought it!!!  As ye
sow...

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[patrick]

The population density of the earth is estimated to be 112 people per square
mile of land surface. That approximates a 500 by 500 foot plot of land per
person, or 5.7 acres per person (~23 acres for a family of four). If
families were more evenly distributed across the landscape instead of being
concentrated within cities (and considering that a significant portion of
the earth's surface is inhospitable to human colonization, e.g. Himalayan
peaks, Antarctica, Sahara desert), it seems like there would be even more
serious resource management issues and conflicts than we have today (e.g. a
grizzly bear home range is between 10 and 380 square miles), despite the
assumption that people would be consuming the same quantity of resources per
capita.

Patrick



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:08 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

At 11:32 PM -0700 4/5/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world's population
>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.

Yes, that would be a start.  Give us this much, and the rest gently follows.

The most recent population projections from the UN, taking account of myriad
factors such as the changing rates of HIV/AIDS and plummeting fertility
rates, puts world population at over 9 billion by 2050.  That number does
not go away, no matter what we might think to do in the here and now--short
of massacre and mayhem.  We're just going to have to learn to live with
that. 

And that's not all, folks.  There's going to be a surge in consumption rates
across the board that will effectively double the world's population for all
practical purposes.  That's not going away either.  The West has set the
standard for what it means to be modern, and there's a few billion decent
human beings out there who hard and want a taste of that as well.  Thus my
allusion to Garrett Hardin's call for a "life boat ethic".  Can we say to
them, we've got it, but you can't have any? 

(We tried this back in the 1970s, by the way, we really did.  We developed
biogas plants and solar cookers and alternative technologies galore--read
Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World, for instance.  We didn't have
the Whole Earth Catalog, but we knew the content of it backward and forward.
We were deep into this stuff, went out to villages, did demonstration
projects, presentations, trying to convince folks that we had to grow
smarter not bigger.  And we never made it to first base.  They weren't
having any of that.  They knew modern when they saw it in the movies, and
that's what they wanted.  If it was good enough for the West, it was just
what we ought to have.)

So, populations and consumption are both going to go up.  Way up.  And we're
simply going to have to adapt.  Because, make no mistake, there's a few
billion people coming down that pike, and they're going to want their fair
share of the world.  They've been fueled by centuries of propaganda telling
them the West is the best.  And you know what?  They've bought it!!!  As ye
sow...

None of this is to say that "anything goes."  None of this is to say that we
do not face a clear imperative to find and actualize proper action.  But
these are the parameters within which change must happen.  Almost double the
population, with some legitimate claim to a better material life--more
stuff.  Now, can we do this smarter?  How? 

Steady state economics tells me nothing about what I need to be doing, here
and now, in my every day life, to accommodate this reality.  I love the
imagery of Daly's writing, I buy that he is one very, very astute man.  For
years he was my lode stone.  But a manifesto does not a plan make.

Finally, carrying capacity and ecological footprint are evolutionary as
well.  They are not finite numbers enscribed on the walls of some obscure
cave, waiting to be discovered by seekers after the greater truth.  I=PAT is
only the tip of that particular iceberg.  Read Robert Kates, "Population,
Technology and the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time," in that 1996
issue of Daedalus I mentioned.  Carrying capacity has always been at least
plastic and perhaps entirely organic.  We don't know what the carrying
capacity of the planet actually is, and we never will.  Its constan

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Ashwani Vasishth]

At 11:32 PM -0700 4/5/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world’s population
>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.

Yes, that would be a start.  Give us this much, and the rest gently follows.

The most recent population projections from the UN, taking account of myriad 
factors such as the changing rates of HIV/AIDS and plummeting fertility rates, 
puts world population at over 9 billion by 2050.  That number does not go away, 
no matter what we might think to do in the here and now--short of massacre and 
mayhem.  We're just going to have to learn to live with that. 

And that's not all, folks.  There's going to be a surge in consumption rates 
across the board that will effectively double the world's population for all 
practical purposes.  That's not going away either.  The West has set the 
standard for what it means to be modern, and there's a few billion decent human 
beings out there who hard and want a taste of that as well.  Thus my allusion 
to Garrett Hardin's call for a "life boat ethic".  Can we say to them, we've 
got it, but you can't have any? 

(We tried this back in the 1970s, by the way, we really did.  We developed 
biogas plants and solar cookers and alternative technologies galore--read 
Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World, for instance.  We didn't have the 
Whole Earth Catalog, but we knew the content of it backward and forward.  We 
were deep into this stuff, went out to villages, did demonstration projects, 
presentations, trying to convince folks that we had to grow smarter not bigger. 
 And we never made it to first base.  They weren't having any of that.  They 
knew modern when they saw it in the movies, and that's what they wanted.  If it 
was good enough for the West, it was just what we ought to have.)

So, populations and consumption are both going to go up.  Way up.  And we're 
simply going to have to adapt.  Because, make no mistake, there's a few billion 
people coming down that pike, and they're going to want their fair share of the 
world.  They've been fueled by centuries of propaganda telling them the West is 
the best.  And you know what?  They've bought it!!!  As ye sow...

None of this is to say that "anything goes."  None of this is to say that we do 
not face a clear imperative to find and actualize proper action.  But these are 
the parameters within which change must happen.  Almost double the population, 
with some legitimate claim to a better material life--more stuff.  Now, can we 
do this smarter?  How? 

Steady state economics tells me nothing about what I need to be doing, here and 
now, in my every day life, to accommodate this reality.  I love the imagery of 
Daly's writing, I buy that he is one very, very astute man.  For years he was 
my lode stone.  But a manifesto does not a plan make.

Finally, carrying capacity and ecological footprint are evolutionary as well.  
They are not finite numbers enscribed on the walls of some obscure cave, 
waiting to be discovered by seekers after the greater truth.  I=PAT is only the 
tip of that particular iceberg.  Read Robert Kates, "Population, Technology and 
the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time," in that 1996 issue of Daedalus I 
mentioned.  Carrying capacity has always been at least plastic and perhaps 
entirely organic.  We don't know what the carrying capacity of the planet 
actually is, and we never will.  Its constantly being renegotiated.

Cheers,
-
  Ashwani
 Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Amartya Saha]

 ever buying a product grown outside the region.
> 
> Sixth, high quality wildland recreation is available within 2 hours travel
> of everyone’s home – recreation such as hiking, camping, fishing, hunting,
> bird watching and boating.  Nearly all ocean beaches, rivers, lakes and
> streams are available and open to public access, use and enjoyment.
> 
> Seventh, all of our children complete high school fully educated and
> qualified for college, technical training, apprenticeship programs, gainful
> and rewarding employment, or are otherwise achieving a successful and
> satisfying life.  School success is evaluated on the basis of the success of
> its graduates.
> 
> Eighth, affordable and complete medical care (including psychiatric, dental
> and optical) is fully available to all.  Persons who are physically or
> mentally unable to earn a decent income are fully supported and comfortable,
> served by programs designed to make them as useful and productive as
> possible.  Antisocial behavior is treated with a goal of rehabilitation, not
> punishment.
> 
> Ninth, all forest, range and other wildlands provide a healthy and
> sustainable mix of extractive, recreational and esthetic resources and
> values.  Forest products are processed within the region so as to provide
> meaningful employment in the woods, in the mills and in wood products
> factories.  No raw materials or unprocessed resources are exported out of
> the region; rather all such resources are turned into manufactured products
> before being exported.  There is a sound balance between productive lands
> and those lands managed and preserved for other values.  For example, about
> half of the world’s forest lands are devoted to intensive but diverse
> silviculture, and about half are left primarily for maintaining other values
> such as biodiversity and scenery.
> 
> Tenth, even urban and suburban areas are nature-friendly.  Interconnected
> habitat supports a diversity of native wildlife and plant communities. Urban
> stream corridors are lush with native growth and the streams support healthy
> populations of native fish.  Backyards and schoolyards and institutional
> properties provide places to enjoy a quiet visit with nature.
> 
> Eleventh, our air is clean.  Granted, this condition can only be met if the
> whole world effectively controls air pollution.  But the first world
> economies can at least boast that their output of greenhouse gases and other
> atmospheric pollutants is being reduced and stabilized to levels near those
> that existed prior to civilization.
> 
> Twelfth, like the air, water remains a publicly owned resource.  All of our
> streams and lakes provide water that is clean enough to support a healthy
> range of native species.  Ground water and surface water is being equitably
> distributed without diminishment to support farms, homes and industries.
> Dams no longer present an impediment to fish migration.  Native fish
> populations are self-sustaining and productive, supporting a healthily
> diverse biotic system as well as recreation and an important commercial
> harvest. Ocean resources are being sustained – providing for stable and
> productive marine ecosystems as well as supporting a stable and important
> level of recreational and commercial utilization.
> 
> Am I unrealistic?   I challenge you to offer something even better, more
> complete and achievable.
> 
> 
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, OR
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (email)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Park
> Sent: Thursday, 05 April, 2007 16:05
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
> 
> 
> Re: economic growth versus steady state,
> 
> There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic
> EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be
> (Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you
> will).
> 
> The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can
> envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of
> where we want to be.  I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn
> their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will
> give us steady state.
> 
> Its not their fault though.  The problem is that we all have a vested
> interest in seeing growth continue.  Yes folks, growth is not just a
> sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists.  Surpluses
> generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and
> other infrastructure of civilization.  Growht is what pays for your
> pension (

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Warren W. Aney]

Stan, what I had in mind is really an improvement on the 1930s era agrarian
based society.  An example of this can be found in Sweden.  Most Swedish
villages and towns have their own industries, frequently based on local
resources.   Young people do not have to leave town to find meaningful and
rewarding employment.  Too many other countries, including the U.S.,
concentrate industry.  This means concentrated populations with all its
attendant and non-sustainable effects.

Warren Aney
(503)246-8613

-Original Message-
From: stan moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 06 April, 2007 07:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


Warren --

What you seem to be describing is a return to an agrarian society (with
islands of urbanism), something like we had in the U.S. in the 1930's.
Which is what Richard Clark Duncan and James Howard Kunstler said as the
direction we are forced to go because of the depletion of petroleum
resources.

The trick is to manage the transition so as to avoid international wars and
destructive competition as well as catastrophic consumption.  Maybe the
first step would be for people to turn off their televisions and let the
marketing agencies starve...


Stan MooreSan Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]


>From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:32:29 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by
>bay0-mc12-f18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri,
>6 Apr 2007 06:36:07 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
>l365kR8U025164;Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Message-Info:
>oG9qAjD2BNFCgnAhY5ZngAMtczCONYJZvh08d4iFaIy2ysq9bdeDzLP9rZ50vmY3
>X-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: list
>List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>,
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2007 13:36:07.0844 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[880A4640:01C77850]
>
>Andrew says, "The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who
>can
>envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of
>where we want to be."
>
>And Maiken says, "But to me predictions of extremely gloomy futures seem to
>be counter-productive to stimulate productive changes."
>
>So how about if we all try to envision a future that is both bright and
>feasible?  I'm willing to try to do my part in starting this process
>(warning, this is pretty long, and it's aimed primarily at the U.S.
>situation):
>
>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world’s population
>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.
>
>Second, each and every future community is served by a passenger transport
>service such as a rail or bus line.  All city and town neighborhoods have
>walking distance access to parks, schools, libraries, places of worship and
>small shopping centers.  All city and town neighborhoods are interlaced and
>connected by walking and bicycle paths as well as roads.  Long haul freight
>moves primarily by rail and water.  Even in what we is now the first world,
>what we call alternative transportation has become preferred transportation
>and freeways are becoming an anachronism.
>
>Third, each and every community has its own public school, public parks,
>places of worship and full-service, locally-owned businesses.  Each
>community has its own medical and dental service center or clinic.  This
>means area residents can take care of all their ordinary needs and wants
>without leaving their own community:  they can shop locally for groceries,
>clothing, hardware, building supplies and farm equipment; they can obtain
>routine medical, dental and veterinary care; they can attend the worship
>center of their choice; they can check books or DVDs out of a well-stocked
>local library; they can bank locally; and they can read 

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[stan moore]

Warren --

What you seem to be describing is a return to an agrarian society (with 
islands of urbanism), something like we had in the U.S. in the 1930's.  
Which is what Richard Clark Duncan and James Howard Kunstler said as the 
direction we are forced to go because of the depletion of petroleum 
resources.

The trick is to manage the transition so as to avoid international wars and 
destructive competition as well as catastrophic consumption.  Maybe the 
first step would be for people to turn off their televisions and let the 
marketing agencies starve...


Stan MooreSan Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]


>From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:32:29 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by 
>bay0-mc12-f18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri, 
>6 Apr 2007 06:36:07 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id 
>l365kR8U025164;Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Message-Info: 
>oG9qAjD2BNFCgnAhY5ZngAMtczCONYJZvh08d4iFaIy2ysq9bdeDzLP9rZ50vmY3
>X-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: list
>List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>,   
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2007 13:36:07.0844 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[880A4640:01C77850]
>
>Andrew says, "The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who
>can
>envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of
>where we want to be."
>
>And Maiken says, "But to me predictions of extremely gloomy futures seem to
>be counter-productive to stimulate productive changes."
>
>So how about if we all try to envision a future that is both bright and
>feasible?  I'm willing to try to do my part in starting this process
>(warning, this is pretty long, and it's aimed primarily at the U.S.
>situation):
>
>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>optimized world wide.  One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities.  Where
>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>and sustainable industry.  And less than half of the world’s population
>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.
>
>Second, each and every future community is served by a passenger transport
>service such as a rail or bus line.  All city and town neighborhoods have
>walking distance access to parks, schools, libraries, places of worship and
>small shopping centers.  All city and town neighborhoods are interlaced and
>connected by walking and bicycle paths as well as roads.  Long haul freight
>moves primarily by rail and water.  Even in what we is now the first world,
>what we call alternative transportation has become preferred transportation
>and freeways are becoming an anachronism.
>
>Third, each and every community has its own public school, public parks,
>places of worship and full-service, locally-owned businesses.  Each
>community has its own medical and dental service center or clinic.  This
>means area residents can take care of all their ordinary needs and wants
>without leaving their own community:  they can shop locally for groceries,
>clothing, hardware, building supplies and farm equipment; they can obtain
>routine medical, dental and veterinary care; they can attend the worship
>center of their choice; they can check books or DVDs out of a well-stocked
>local library; they can bank locally; and they can read a local newspaper,
>listen to local news on the radio, watch regional news on TV, and get
>meaningful news via computer.
>
>Fourth, I would see distinct town and urban boundaries with little or no
>urban sprawl.  Rural small acreage home sites are primarily found in
>clusters on land that has low value for agriculture, forests, wildlife or
>recreation.  And these rural small acreage home developments pay full cost
>for infrastructure services such as roads, utilities, mail and parcel
>delivery, police and fire protection and school transportation.  This does
>not mean that we are not honoring and supporting our farming families, but
>it does mean that the 

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[William Silvert]

This is a bit misleading, since according to the story the strike follows a 
no-confidence vote dealing with misallocaiton of funds and such issues as 
increased class sizes as well as salaries, but I think the main point of 
this posting is a continuation of the theme that no good deed should go 
unpunished, which keeps cropping up on this list. We, the Ecologists, are 
the Good Guys, and we should suffer. The rest of the world is inherently 
evil, so they can do what they want.

How should we save the planet? I envision an environmentally aware family 
walking along the side of the road juggling packages from the market 
(because they refuse to accept plastic bags) and setting a good example for 
their neighbours, who of course drive to the supermarket in a gas guzzler. 
Do you think the neighbours are impressed? How many of your neighbours have 
been shamed into swapping their Jeep Cherokees for a bicycle?

Some of the posters on this list have publicly apologised for using an SUV 
to take half a dozen students and heavy equipment into wild areas far from 
any roads. Isn't that what 4x4s are for? The problem is not ecological field 
trips, it is single-passenger vehicles stuck in highway traffic jams.

I see no reason why I should feel obliged to make more sacrifices than 
anyone else just because I am environmentally aware. We are all in this 
together, and I think we should all take steps to protect our environment, 
not just the few who are knowledgable. There are steps that can be taken 
that affect everyone. Higher prices for fossil fuels for example, not just 
for driving but for power generation as well. Subsidies for green 
alternatives. Steps to improve traffic flow. More efficient urban street 
lighting. Even -- gasp! -- coercive measures like laws against wasteful 
practices.

In short, I think we should see conservation as something that everybody 
does, and not just a chosen few wearing hair shirts. And once we are all 
doing our bit, I think that the best and the brightest have just as much 
right to a good living as anyone else. There is no reason why I should feel 
forced to accept a salary that is not commensurate with my education and 
skills (there is actually, I'm retired, but that is not my point).

Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Cherubini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


> Could even university faculty members and administrators
> somehow be pursuaded not to aggressively seek six figure
> incomes and the material affluence that kind of money can buy?
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/142191.html
>
> "California State University professors throughout the
> state -- overwhelmingly authorized a strike over salaries",
> faculty leaders said. 

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Warren W. Aney]

ands managed and preserved for other values.  For example, about
half of the world’s forest lands are devoted to intensive but diverse
silviculture, and about half are left primarily for maintaining other values
such as biodiversity and scenery.

Tenth, even urban and suburban areas are nature-friendly.  Interconnected
habitat supports a diversity of native wildlife and plant communities. Urban
stream corridors are lush with native growth and the streams support healthy
populations of native fish.  Backyards and schoolyards and institutional
properties provide places to enjoy a quiet visit with nature.

Eleventh, our air is clean.  Granted, this condition can only be met if the
whole world effectively controls air pollution.  But the first world
economies can at least boast that their output of greenhouse gases and other
atmospheric pollutants is being reduced and stabilized to levels near those
that existed prior to civilization.

Twelfth, like the air, water remains a publicly owned resource.  All of our
streams and lakes provide water that is clean enough to support a healthy
range of native species.  Ground water and surface water is being equitably
distributed without diminishment to support farms, homes and industries.
Dams no longer present an impediment to fish migration.  Native fish
populations are self-sustaining and productive, supporting a healthily
diverse biotic system as well as recreation and an important commercial
harvest. Ocean resources are being sustained – providing for stable and
productive marine ecosystems as well as supporting a stable and important
level of recreational and commercial utilization.

Am I unrealistic?   I challenge you to offer something even better, more
complete and achievable.


Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (email)


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Park
Sent: Thursday, 05 April, 2007 16:05
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


Re: economic growth versus steady state,

There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic
EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be
(Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you
will).

The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can
envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of
where we want to be.  I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn
their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will
give us steady state.

Its not their fault though.  The problem is that we all have a vested
interest in seeing growth continue.  Yes folks, growth is not just a
sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists.  Surpluses
generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and
other infrastructure of civilization.  Growht is what pays for your
pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your
investments so that you can retire.  Growht is what pays for foreign
aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated
GDPs.

And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the
multiplier effect.  Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me),
due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional
dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of
consumer and other spending.  Thus the net effect of spending an
additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy
(positive feedback?).

Unfortunately, it can work in reverse.  If you choose not to buy that
one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a
second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money
withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate
demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal.  A positive
feedback with very negative consequences :(

So how do we get off this treadmill.  Beats me..

Andy

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Jeff Houlahan]

Just a quick addendum to some of the economic barriers to moving away from the 
growth paradigm (I hate to use the 'p' word, but if it has ever been 
appropriate it is appropriate in this context).  I believe that one  large 
barrier to moving towards a steady-state economy is that it means a dramatic 
shift in ethical beliefs.  In a growth economy one can be a rich consumer and 
an ethical, moral person, because the wealth that you are creating (and 
spending) is creating wealth for everybody - you are making a contribution to 
the growing pie.  In short, you can be rich and go to heaven.  A steady-state 
economy implies a pie of constant size - that means thet every additional steak 
you eat is food someone else doesn't get, every additional mile you drive is a 
mile somebody else has to walk.  In a steady-state economy every act of 
consumption is, explicitly, a moral and ethical decision.  In short, put down 
your fork or you're going to hell.  In my opinion, that fundamental philos!
 ophical shift has to be made before we will see a change in policies...and 
that seems like a large barrier.  Best.

Jeff Houlahan

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:05:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

Re: economic growth versus steady state,

There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic  
EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be  
(Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you  
will).

The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can  
envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of  
where we want to be.  I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn  
their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will  
give us steady state.

Its not their fault though.  The problem is that we all have a vested  
interest in seeing growth continue.  Yes folks, growth is not just a  
sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists.  Surpluses  
generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and  
other infrastructure of civilization.  Growht is what pays for your  
pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your  
investments so that you can retire.  Growht is what pays for foreign  
aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated  
GDPs.

And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the  
multiplier effect.  Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me),  
due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional  
dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of  
consumer and other spending.  Thus the net effect of spending an  
additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy  
(positive feedback?).

Unfortunately, it can work in reverse.  If you choose not to buy that  
one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a  
second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money  
withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate  
demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal.  A positive  
feedback with very negative consequences :(

So how do we get off this treadmill.  Beats me..

Andy

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[stan moore]

Matt and Brian and all --

The policy document referred to by Brian, as well as the Beyond Growth book 
by Herman Daly, refer to "economic development" as an alternative to 
economic growth.  Instead of worrying about where construction workers will 
find work, think about the enormous potential there is in repairing 
infrastructure, remodeling buidlings with energy-efficent materials and 
designs, etc.  We do not need to grow to find things for skilled people to 
do!  We just need to get it into our heads that growth is unhealthy once a 
nation/planet reaches maturity -- David Brower used to say that growth is 
healthy only in adolescence ( or something like that).  We can develop 
without further growth.  We can improve even while downsizing.  Herman Daly 
emphasized the finiteness of our planetary life support system, of which our 
economy is a subset.  The Moody Blues may not have been ecologists, but they 
got it right when the used the term "A Question of Balance" (or 
equilibrium).  We are currently out of balance with earth's productive 
systems, and we must let go of fear and determine to set the balance right.  
I believe this challenge is exactly how ecologists and conservationists can 
use their training to provide leadership to society in general.

Stan MooreSan Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]


>From: Matthias Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Matthias Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:29:33 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by 
>bay0-mc7-f13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Thu, 5 
>Apr 2007 19:34:23 -0700
>Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id 
>l35L789H022392;Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Message-Info: 
>oG9qAjD2BNEmTi3jiVCi2ewbs59GqPq+DZIZhJ+TiCfkq0fiTGSo41nsGmkZrhcS
>Precedence: list
>List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>,   
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2007 02:34:23.0400 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[1658EA80:01C777F4]
>
>Brian,
>
>Thanks for the PDF, that was exactly what I was
>looking for. As explicated, the steady-state economy
>seems quite neat to me. I agree that there might not
>be any job loss once a steady-state economy was
>reached, but the transition, it seems to me, will
>result in some job loss.
>
>For example, consider buildings. I think that heating,
>cooling, and lighting buildings takes something like
>50% of all the electricity used in the US. And the
>construction sector employs many million Americans. As
>I understand the steady-state economy, eventually the
>number of buildings built each year will equal the
>number destroyed –burned, condemned, etc.
>I’m not sure how many buildings get torn down or
>destroyed every year, but I’m sure that it’s a lot
>less than the 1.5 million new houses alone that are
>built every year. So if the construction industry is
>down-sized drastically, something will have to be
>found for all of those displaced construction workers.
>
>I can see a policy solution to get to “steady-state
>buildings” – simply require each builder to get a
>special permit (the right to build a building of X
>square feet) that would be purchased from the owner of
>a building that is torn down (This would be done on a
>brokerage system, to reduce transaction costs). That
>would ensure that no net additional square footage of
>buildings is built.  It would be an open policy
>decision whether to allow trading on a local,
>state-wide, or nation-wide basis.  My vote would be
>for a state- or nation-wide level, that might ease
>some potential housing pressures, especially if people
>need to migrate in search of employment opportunities
>or in response to the effects of climate change.
>
>So, I think it would be feasible to create these
>policy options. What I don’t see developing is the
>political will to force them through. I mean, Oregon
>had something much much less restrictive (Smart Growth
>or a kind of zoning regulations) that was declared
>unconstitutional by the state supreme court. I don’t
>think the average American would take too kindly to
>the idea that he doesn’t have the right to build
>something on his own land.
>
>So I guess that my next question is: what would it
>take to build political support for 

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Andrew Park]

Re: economic growth versus steady state,

There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic  
EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be  
(Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you  
will).

The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can  
envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of  
where we want to be.  I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn  
their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will  
give us steady state.

Its not their fault though.  The problem is that we all have a vested  
interest in seeing growth continue.  Yes folks, growth is not just a  
sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists.  Surpluses  
generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and  
other infrastructure of civilization.  Growht is what pays for your  
pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your  
investments so that you can retire.  Growht is what pays for foreign  
aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated  
GDPs.

And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the  
multiplier effect.  Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me),  
due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional  
dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of  
consumer and other spending.  Thus the net effect of spending an  
additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy  
(positive feedback?).

Unfortunately, it can work in reverse.  If you choose not to buy that  
one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a  
second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money  
withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate  
demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal.  A positive  
feedback with very negative consequences :(

So how do we get off this treadmill.  Beats me..

Andy

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Matthias Schultz]

lt to manage an
> economy to achieve steady-state, it is almost
> certainly impossible to
> do when the reigning paradigm is that growth is
> good.  When every
> policy or economic decision is aimed at growing the
> GNP/GDP it is very
> unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I
> think to suggest that
> steady-state economy implies 'staying put' creates a
> straw man - yes,
> as individuals, communities, a species we are
> inevitably going to
> change over time.  Steady state implies (I believe,
> in the context we
> are talking here) zero-growth.  That doesn't mean
> 'no change'.  Best.
> 
> Jeff Houlahan
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700
> Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and
> Complexity/Evolution
> 
> At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >  - no politburo required when the democratic rider
> is strong enough
> for the
> >capitalist horse.
> >
> 
> Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial
> caveat to slip in 
> to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from
> tracking everyday 
> politics and policy shows me that democracy is
> steadily losing out to 
> corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it
> no longer matter 
> that people should get what they want, people often
> don't know what 
> they should want.  (And even when they know what
> they want and do get 
> it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of
> things that they 
> definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done?
> 
> But more importantly, show me the mechanism that
> would keep any 
> economy at an actual "steady state."  It seems to me
> that we 
> currently expend huge amounts of effort in
> attempting to "keep the 
> economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail
> more often than 
> not.  The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion,
> seems to me 
> completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if
> it is taken 
> metaphorically.  (And then it does very little for
> us, near as I can 
> tell.)
> 
> I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the
> need to manage for 
> a different set of objectives than physical or
> morphological  growth. 
> I buy the quite meaningful distinction between
> growth and 
> development.  But the root reason(s) that an
> ecosystem approach is 
> imperative to the management of life is because the
> world is a 
> dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly
> defined.  Show 
> me what specific steps we could take--both as
> individuals and as 
> groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in
> this, yes?)--to 
> get away from growth and toward a steady state?
> 
> I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of
> policies that 
> would move us toward development and away from
> growth (adopting Cobb 
> et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one
> example), but how 
> does one stay put, in life, without first needing to
> deny both 
> complexity and evolution?
> 
> By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of
> equilibrium in US 
> social science is:
> 
> Russett, Cynthia E.  1966. The Concept of
> Equilibrium in American 
> Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University
> Press.
> 
> And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see:
> 
> Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.).  1988.  Evolutionary
> Progress.  Chicago: 
> University of Chicago Press.
> 
> Cheers,
> -
>Ashwani
>   Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (818) 677-6137
>  http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
>  http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
> 


Matthias Schultz
Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology
University of Maryland



 

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Jeff hit the nail on the head.  We who suggest the steady state economy
as a policy goal are neither calling for absolute stasis nor naïve
enough to think such a state may exist on earth.  We are talking about
an equilibrating population and per capita consumption that, ceteris
paribus, would be generally indicated by equilibrating GDP (ideally
around the optimum (which we have probably already exceeded in the
U.S.)).  And all in the context of non-material cultural dynamics.

Someone else asked what a steady state economy would look like, what
kinds of institutions it would entail and so forth.  I don’t believe
anyone has written a comprehensive conjecture on that, but myself and
Herman Daly attempted to concisely answer some of the most commonly
asked questions here:

http://www.steadystate.org/files/SSE.pdf

Also, The Wildlife Society will be hosting a symposium at its annual
conference this year  on “What is a Steady State Economy?” or something
to that effect.  This issue is such an important topic for the future
of wildlife conservation that there is even a Working Group for the
Steady State Economy in TWS.  (The symposium is being hosted by the
working group.)

I think it’s been a good thread of late and it is encouraging to hear
of the interest in the ESA about macroeconomic policy issues.  A lot of
what we care about as ecologists and citizens cannot withstand the
forces of economic growth, and it seems defeatist and illogical to
think we can do nothing about the policy goal of economic growth.  

My apologies if I posted this once before but here is part of a general
strategy to unify the ecological professions on this issue, with sound
science, such that the environmental community may have a solid
foundation to stand upon as they take this up with memberships and then
policy makers:

http://www.steadystate.org/Foundation-of-a-New-Conservation-Movement.pdf

Cheers,


Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at:
www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html .
EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS?  Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- Jeff Houlahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that Brian and Herman and
others like them make is that, while it may be difficult to manage an
economy to achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly impossible to
do when the reigning paradigm is that growth is good.  When every
policy or economic decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very
unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I think to suggest that
steady-state economy implies 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes,
as individuals, communities, a species we are inevitably going to
change over time.  Steady state implies (I believe, in the context we
are talking here) zero-growth.  That doesn't mean 'no change'.  Best.

Jeff Houlahan

-Original Message-
From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  - no politburo required when the democratic rider is strong enough
for the
>capitalist horse.
>

Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial caveat to slip in 
to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from tracking everyday 
politics and policy shows me that democracy is steadily losing out to 
corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it no longer matter 
that people should get what they want, people often don't know what 
they should want.  (And even when they know what they want and do get 
it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of things that they 
definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done?

But more importantly, show me the mechanism that would keep any 
economy at an actual "steady state."  It seems to me that we 
currently expend huge amounts of effort in attempting to "keep the 
economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail more often than 
not.  The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion, seems to me 
completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if it is taken 
metaphorically.  (And then it does very little for us, near as I can 
tell.)

I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the need to manage for 
a different set of objectives than physical or morphological  growth. 
I buy the quite meaningful distinction between growth and 
development.  But the root reason(s) that an ecosystem approach is 
imperative to the management of life is because the world is a 
dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly defined.  Show 
me what specific steps we could take--both as individuals and as 
groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in this, yes?)--to 
get away from growth and toward a steady state?

I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of policies that 
would mov

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[William Silvert]

I think that we are getting to the point where we are tripping over
definitions. Fortunately ecologists seldom talk about equilibrium any more,
which is a state where fluxes are zero and all biological organisms are
dead -- a stagnant pool is a good analogy. The steady state is like a
running stream, characterised by constant fluxes. But I have argued that we
are more likely to encounter cyclic phenomena, such as the annual pattern in
many areas of spring flooding followed by summer drought. Spring floods may
or may not be destructive, depending on how we prepare for them. Drought
does not necessarily lead to degradation, if we plan responsibly. But the
cycles continue whether or not we deal with them wisely or not.

Unfortunately human populations do not seem to have learned to regulate
social cycles in a reasonable way. Growth leads to overcrowding and stress,
which is relieved by disease or war. Economic growth used to lead to drastic
cycles of rampant inflation and deep depression, but in some countries we
have begun to regulate things a bit better and only worry about mild
recessions. The economy of countries like Zimbabwe is another matter.

I would prefer to see us look for ways to regulate these cycle phenomena
better, as we have with western economies, than strive for a steady state
which in my opinion is an unrealistic goal. But we have a good discussion
going on, let's see where it leads us.

Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Wayne Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


> PS: As to "steady-state," I envision it as a living, cyclical process
> like homeostasis that does not oscillate to the point of destruction
> or degradation (that, of course, requires definition, but if "we" can
> mostly agree on the direction of movement in that direction, that
> might have to suffice until some saviour comes along).  I seriously
> doubt that there is any such thing as "static," or staying the same
> forever, except as a mental concept that deludes one into thinking
> along obsessively linear lines, leading to obeisance to authority and
> "respect" for the hierarchy.

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Paul Cherubini]

William Silvert wrote:

> Even if we can somehow persuade politicians to stop promoting growth

Could even university faculty members and administrators 
somehow be pursuaded not to aggressively seek six figure 
incomes and the material affluence that kind of money can buy?

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/142191.html

"California State University professors throughout the 
state -- overwhelmingly authorized a strike over salaries", 
faculty leaders said.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5493879?source=rss

"Instead of helping students get an education," said SJSU occupational 
therapy professor Elizabeth Cara, "the administration caters to elite 
executives who get huge pay raises and golden parachutes. The
 trustees just gave the chancellor a raise. He's paid nearly
$400,000 a year, and still the trustees won't pay professors 
a decent salary. There's something wrong with this picture, 
and it's time for the faculty to take a stand."

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Royce J Bitzer]

With regards to this discussion, the sources below are worth 
reading.  There are plenty of ideas about not only how things should be, 
but also about how we might get there from here.  I believe at least one of 
them has been mentioned in this discussion before:

Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins; The Rocky Mountain 
Institute; Natural Capitalism
http://www.natcap.org/
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid5.php
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/lovins198.htm

Given a choice between moving in new directions such as those presented 
here and living in caves wearing deerskins and masticating raw field corn, 
I suspect our eager entrepreneurs would strongly gravitate toward the first 
option.  More positively, an ecological society would be anything but 
boring; to the contrary, it would generate all kinds of new projects and 
opportunities to keep ambitious and creative people engaged.  One of the 
most surprising things to me here was reading about how truly inefficient 
our current economy actually is.

Favorite Amory Lovins quote:  "...I'm increasingly sanguine that we may all 
get out of this mess in one piece. Certainly the world remains a dangerous 
place and some very bad things are still likely to happen; but I suspect 
that the search for intelligent life on Earth is likely to turn up 
something useful."

Geoff Davies; Economia
http://www.geoffdavies.com/default.html
http://www.geoffdavies.com/Economia.html
http://www.geoffdavies.com/Economia%20Intro.pdf
http://www.geoffdavies.com/Douglas_Review.pdf

Geoff Davies thinks well outside his own field (another reason why I like 
him!!) to explain in plain English what neoclassical economic theory is, 
how its assumptions are demonstrably false, and why our current economy is 
so counterproductive.  His writing is an example of how we as scientists 
might not only vigorously challenge the pseudoscientific tenets of 
neoclassical economics, but also have a great deal of fun in the process.

Favorite quote: "Perhaps the most telling absurdity of our present economic 
system is that we are acting collectively as though we are desperately 
poor, while in fact we have material wealth beyond the wildest imaginings 
of our recent forbears.  If we are so rich (and free), than why are we so 
enslaved by the daily rat race?"

David Korten; The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community
http://www.davidkorten.org
http://www.thegreatturning.net/  Also look in the "Tools" and other menu 
headings for practical ideas about what people are doing and proposing to 
do to address current problems as well as the coming crisis.
http://www.davidkorten.org/Images/38Kortenfinal.pdf

Our current situation portrayed from a social and psychological 
perspective.  Do our cultures systematically suppress our progress to the 
higher orders of consciousness that are a necessary foundation of mature 
democracy?

Favorite quote:  "We humans are captive to self-limiting stories that deny 
the possibility of any alternative to humanity's current suicidal path. To 
change course, we must step forward to break the silence that prevails when 
truth remains unspoken, end the isolation that undermines community, change 
the stories that define the prevailing culture, and thereby turn the human 
species to a future that works for all."

Roy Morrison: Eco Civilization 2140: A Twenty-second Century History and 
Survivor's Journal
http://www.essentialbooks.com/id117.htm
RMAenergy
http://www.rmaenergy.net/

Yet another perspective, this one a practical one from New Hampshire 
Roy Morrison advocates a transition to a sustainable market system that 
assesses all economic activities according to their true costs.   He 
proposes ending all taxes on income and replacing these with taxes on 
pollution, depletion, and ecological damage.   The more polluting, 
depleting, and ecologically damaging the good or the service, the higher 
would be the tax.

Favorite quote: "How can we be prosperous without being destructive?  
If we must do but one thing, and that one thing above all else, we need to 
make what is polluting, depleting and ecologically destructive charge its 
true costs. It will therefore become more expensive than sustainable 
alternatives. In capsule summary, for markets to work sustainably, we need 
to get the prices right."


To sum up, here are four different perspectives, each brimming over with 
possibilities and each reminding us not to prelimit ourselves beforehand by 
a shortage of imagination or courage.

Royce J. Bitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


From: William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU

I thank Jeff for putting the issue that puzzles me in clear perspective. 
Even if we can somehow persua

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Wayne Tyson]

Honorable Forum:

Just the fact that those taking the time to share ideas on this 
subject are an infinitessimally small sample of the people who do 
care, not only about human destiny, but about the whole earth 
ecosystem, is all the reassurance (significance) I need.  Well, it's 
all I'm likely to get, so I'm positing that drop by drop the bucket 
will get full and tip the other way.  Or think of it in a Foucaultian 
sense, with the pendulum swinging past center now and then and 
slowing down.  So much for metaphor.

I submit for your consideration that the source of the phenomena we 
are observing and even prescribing is partly or largely egocentrism, 
a pathological development of ego.  If that be true, then the 
precondition for all the "reforms" is getting rid of the centrism 
part.  (I define ego here as that impulse necessary for survival, and 
egocentric as the tendency to think the universe revolves around 
oneself.  Authoritarianism proceeds from the pathology, as 
does  hierarchical organization.  Even ecologists are not immune, but 
they probably do less damage--intentionally anyway.)

As always, I look forward to corrections.

WT

PS: As to "steady-state," I envision it as a living, cyclical process 
like homeostasis that does not oscillate to the point of destruction 
or degradation (that, of course, requires definition, but if "we" can 
mostly agree on the direction of movement in that direction, that 
might have to suffice until some saviour comes along).  I seriously 
doubt that there is any such thing as "static," or staying the same 
forever, except as a mental concept that deludes one into thinking 
along obsessively linear lines, leading to obeisance to authority and 
"respect" for the hierarchy.

At 12:10 PM 4/3/2007, Matthias Schultz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I like the idea of a stead-state economy, but I have
>trouble imaging what it would be like. What country
>(or administrative region) do you think is closest to
>achieving it?
>
>I also worry a bit about losing the "development" with
>the "growth" sensu Daly.  I mean, ideally, the economy
>could continue to "develop" (increasing the value of
>sum of every good and service every year) without
>increasing its resource base (use of timber, coal,
>electricity, agricultural products, etc).
>Unfortunately, I don't really see a way to get there
>without some sort of coercion, either regulatory
>coercion (i.e. setting up a quota system for each
>resource) or economic coercion (pricing resources much
>higher to keep the amount used the same every year).
>
>I assume that people having been struggling with these
>ideas and I'd love to hear what you've come up with.
>
>Matt
>
>
>--- Jeff Houlahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that
> > Brian and Herman and others like them make is that,
> > while it may be difficult to manage an economy to
> > achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly
> > impossible to do when the reigning paradigm is that
> > growth is good.  When every policy or economic
> > decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very
> > unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I
> > think to suggest that steady-state economy implies
> > 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes, as
> > individuals, communities, a species we are
> > inevitably going to change over time.  Steady state
> > implies (I believe, in the context we are talking
> > here) zero-growth.  That doesn't mean 'no change'.
> > Best.
> >
> > Jeff Houlahan
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and
> > Complexity/Evolution
> >
> > At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >  - no politburo required when the democratic rider
> > is strong enough for the
> > >capitalist horse.
> > >
> >
> > Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial
> > caveat to slip in
> > to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from
> > tracking everyday
> > politics and policy shows me that democracy is
> > steadily losing out to
> > corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it
> > no longer matter
> > that people should get what they want, people often
> > don't know what
> > they should want.  (And even when they know what
> > they want and do get
> > it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of
> > things that they
> > definitely don'

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[William Silvert]

I thank Jeff for putting the issue that puzzles me in clear perspective. 
Even if we can somehow persuade politicians to stop promoting growth, how do 
we get all those eager entrepreneurs to follow? Are people like Gates and 
Jobs going to be content in the future to putter around in their garages all 
their lives? Will the western world renounce capitalism? The history of 
human societies has been one of boom and bust cycles, and I just don't see 
how the idea of zero growth is going to catch on. There are just too many 
ambitious people in this world.

Bill Silvert

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeff Houlahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution


> Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that Brian and Herman and 
> others like them make is that, while it may be difficult to manage an 
> economy to achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly impossible to do 
> when the reigning paradigm is that growth is good.  When every policy or 
> economic decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very unlikely that 
> we will achieve a steady state. I think to suggest that steady-state 
> economy implies 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes, as individuals, 
> communities, a species we are inevitably going to change over time. 
> Steady state implies (I believe, in the context we are talking here) 
> zero-growth.  That doesn't mean 'no change'.  Best.
>
> Jeff Houlahan 

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Matthias Schultz]

Hi,

I like the idea of a stead-state economy, but I have
trouble imaging what it would be like. What country
(or administrative region) do you think is closest to
achieving it?

I also worry a bit about losing the "development" with
the "growth" sensu Daly.  I mean, ideally, the economy
could continue to "develop" (increasing the value of
sum of every good and service every year) without
increasing its resource base (use of timber, coal,
electricity, agricultural products, etc).
Unfortunately, I don't really see a way to get there
without some sort of coercion, either regulatory
coercion (i.e. setting up a quota system for each
resource) or economic coercion (pricing resources much
higher to keep the amount used the same every year).

I assume that people having been struggling with these
ideas and I'd love to hear what you've come up with.

Matt


--- Jeff Houlahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that
> Brian and Herman and others like them make is that,
> while it may be difficult to manage an economy to
> achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly
> impossible to do when the reigning paradigm is that
> growth is good.  When every policy or economic
> decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very
> unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I
> think to suggest that steady-state economy implies
> 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes, as
> individuals, communities, a species we are
> inevitably going to change over time.  Steady state
> implies (I believe, in the context we are talking
> here) zero-growth.  That doesn't mean 'no change'. 
> Best.
> 
> Jeff Houlahan
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700
> Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and
> Complexity/Evolution
> 
> At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >  - no politburo required when the democratic rider
> is strong enough for the
> >capitalist horse.
> >
> 
> Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial
> caveat to slip in 
> to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from
> tracking everyday 
> politics and policy shows me that democracy is
> steadily losing out to 
> corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it
> no longer matter 
> that people should get what they want, people often
> don't know what 
> they should want.  (And even when they know what
> they want and do get 
> it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of
> things that they 
> definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done?
> 
> But more importantly, show me the mechanism that
> would keep any 
> economy at an actual "steady state."  It seems to me
> that we 
> currently expend huge amounts of effort in
> attempting to "keep the 
> economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail
> more often than 
> not.  The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion,
> seems to me 
> completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if
> it is taken 
> metaphorically.  (And then it does very little for
> us, near as I can 
> tell.)
> 
> I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the
> need to manage for 
> a different set of objectives than physical or
> morphological  growth. 
> I buy the quite meaningful distinction between
> growth and 
> development.  But the root reason(s) that an
> ecosystem approach is 
> imperative to the management of life is because the
> world is a 
> dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly
> defined.  Show 
> me what specific steps we could take--both as
> individuals and as 
> groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in
> this, yes?)--to 
> get away from growth and toward a steady state?
> 
> I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of
> policies that 
> would move us toward development and away from
> growth (adopting Cobb 
> et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one
> example), but how 
> does one stay put, in life, without first needing to
> deny both 
> complexity and evolution?
> 
> By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of
> equilibrium in US 
> social science is:
> 
> Russett, Cynthia E.  1966. The Concept of
> Equilibrium in American 
> Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University
> Press.
> 
> And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see:
> 
> Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.).  1988.  Evolutionary
> Progress.  Chicago: 
> University of Chicago Press.
> 
> Cheers,
> -
>Ashwani
>   Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (818) 677-6137
>  http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
>  http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
> 


Matthias Schultz
Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology
University of Maryland


 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Jeff Houlahan]

Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that Brian and Herman and others 
like them make is that, while it may be difficult to manage an economy to 
achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly impossible to do when the reigning 
paradigm is that growth is good.  When every policy or economic decision is 
aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very unlikely that we will achieve a steady 
state. I think to suggest that steady-state economy implies 'staying put' 
creates a straw man - yes, as individuals, communities, a species we are 
inevitably going to change over time.  Steady state implies (I believe, in the 
context we are talking here) zero-growth.  That doesn't mean 'no change'.  Best.

Jeff Houlahan

-Original Message-
From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  - no politburo required when the democratic rider is strong enough for the
>capitalist horse.
>

Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial caveat to slip in 
to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from tracking everyday 
politics and policy shows me that democracy is steadily losing out to 
corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it no longer matter 
that people should get what they want, people often don't know what 
they should want.  (And even when they know what they want and do get 
it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of things that they 
definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done?

But more importantly, show me the mechanism that would keep any 
economy at an actual "steady state."  It seems to me that we 
currently expend huge amounts of effort in attempting to "keep the 
economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail more often than 
not.  The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion, seems to me 
completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if it is taken 
metaphorically.  (And then it does very little for us, near as I can 
tell.)

I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the need to manage for 
a different set of objectives than physical or morphological  growth. 
I buy the quite meaningful distinction between growth and 
development.  But the root reason(s) that an ecosystem approach is 
imperative to the management of life is because the world is a 
dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly defined.  Show 
me what specific steps we could take--both as individuals and as 
groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in this, yes?)--to 
get away from growth and toward a steady state?

I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of policies that 
would move us toward development and away from growth (adopting Cobb 
et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one example), but how 
does one stay put, in life, without first needing to deny both 
complexity and evolution?

By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of equilibrium in US 
social science is:

Russett, Cynthia E.  1966. The Concept of Equilibrium in American 
Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see:

Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.).  1988.  Evolutionary Progress.  Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.

Cheers,
-
   Ashwani
  Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
 http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth

Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution

[Ashwani Vasishth]

At 12:21 AM + 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  - no politburo required when the democratic rider is strong enough for the
>capitalist horse.
>

Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial caveat to slip in 
to the conversation.  All evidence that I see from tracking everyday 
politics and policy shows me that democracy is steadily losing out to 
corporate capitalism--every where.  Not only does it no longer matter 
that people should get what they want, people often don't know what 
they should want.  (And even when they know what they want and do get 
it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of things that they 
definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done?

But more importantly, show me the mechanism that would keep any 
economy at an actual "steady state."  It seems to me that we 
currently expend huge amounts of effort in attempting to "keep the 
economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail more often than 
not.  The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion, seems to me 
completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if it is taken 
metaphorically.  (And then it does very little for us, near as I can 
tell.)

I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the need to manage for 
a different set of objectives than physical or morphological  growth. 
I buy the quite meaningful distinction between growth and 
development.  But the root reason(s) that an ecosystem approach is 
imperative to the management of life is because the world is a 
dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly defined.  Show 
me what specific steps we could take--both as individuals and as 
groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in this, yes?)--to 
get away from growth and toward a steady state?

I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of policies that 
would move us toward development and away from growth (adopting Cobb 
et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one example), but how 
does one stay put, in life, without first needing to deny both 
complexity and evolution?

By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of equilibrium in US 
social science is:

Russett, Cynthia E.  1966. The Concept of Equilibrium in American 
Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see:

Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.).  1988.  Evolutionary Progress.  Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.

Cheers,
-
   Ashwani
  Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
 http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth