I lost the link between my question and
thermodynamics, sorry, could I have it please?
Eva
From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You make it a no-win situation. So we
If you are asking can "business as usual continue",
the answer is NO. It IS a no-win situation.
There are NO known
I just pick one of the many fuzzyness and what gives
the impression of a tedious pseudo-scientific bla-bla.
Private property is inextricably part of our commons because it
is part of our life support and social systems. Owners affect us
all when they alter the emergent properties of our life
Here is the short version of the laws of
thermodynamics:
#1. You can't win.
#2. You can't break even.
#3. You can't even get out of the game.
Jay
I did some physics in my distant and fuzzy past, but
I cannot remember these...
Eva
Eva Durant wrote:
I thought these laws of thermodynamics operate in
a closed system. I don't know about our universe,
but Earth is not a closed system.
It sounds awfully mystical and speculative
("self organization is a property
of energy"??) what you are talking
about and I cannot see the link
Brad McCormick wrote in reply to a comment of mine re Marx getting a job
instead of sitting around starving and theorizing:
You bring out a very important consideration. To paraphrase an old
Coca-Cola
ad, what, at the back of our minds, all us scholars (in both senses
of that word...) are
(Elinor:)
The first thing I'd like to do is a bit tax on financial movements, which, would
slow down some of the financial speculations.
It has been tried in various countries, did not
make a lot of difference. Our entrepaneurs complain, that
that others make the profits they should have.
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Durant wrote:
(Elinor:)
The first thing I'd like to do is a bit tax on financial movements, which, would
slow down some of the financial speculations.
It has been tried in various countries, did not
make a lot of difference. Our entrepaneurs complain, that
As far as I know, Canada has always had free blood. We had some problems with our
collection system, but not with getting it, otherwise.
Re. "Herschel Hardin" Does anyone bother reading this portentious
thread? Or are people posting without reading?
A few days ago, a correspondent from British Columbia corrected the
original correspondents, pointing out that they were talking about
*Garret* Hardin, not Herschel Hardin.
The
Jay Hanson wrote:
From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems obscene to seek out this catastrophic vision
and sit back saying this is our fate. You totally ignore
the ability to plan and to cooperate.
I am not "seeking out" this vision. I am telling whoever
will listen that this is
Jay Hanson wrote:
[snip]
It's Garrett Hardin, and perhaps you should read it again.
[ http://dieoff.org/page95.htm ]
[snip]
Well, I finally *made* the time to reread the article,
and I find it every bit as "good" as when I first read it
years ago.
I can find no clear evidence or even credible
Dear Elinor,
You wrote:
The emergent properties is interesting; they only arise in certain
situations, including the catalytic loop (closed network). Is that right?
I'll have
to go back and look at it again, but I see it as a development, a next step
forward.
Thomas:
To close to bed time,
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Information about lawlike connections sets off a
process of reflection in the consciousness of those
whom the laws are about. Thus the level of unreflected
consciousness, which is one of the initial conditions
of such laws, can be
Thomas Lunde wrote:
... I once was able to say I lived in "Hope" BC and it
always made me feel good to say, "I live in Hope", sort of a positive
affirmation.
Long ago I was canvassing in a provincial election and I returned several
times to the walk-up apartment of an old geezer who was a
14 matches
Mail list logo
