SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

December 2006

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:57:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
Tadit,

       You've hit the proverbial tip of the iceberg. People who promote 
mercury light bulbs powered by chemical stew transformers to save energy. 
The whole "environmental foot print" phenomenon, which lays a guilt trip on 
people instead of focusing on corporate promotion of fossil fuel use. I 
could go on for pages and pages.

Regards
Jonathan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tadit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Cultural evolution


> Okay, as long as we sem to be drifting a bit on this topic......  There is 
> problem in the definition of economic demand and elasicity of demand that 
> will have strong influence upon the ability of the nominal homo "not so' 
> sapiens relative to adapting to rapidly changing economic conditions. One 
> popular choice has been to choose inelasticity and finding a scapegoat 
> population (do I really need to give an example here?) To put in slightly 
> different terms how does culture get adapted to environment as opposed to 
> the more familiar adaptation of adaptation of the environment to 
> expectations, until the inelasticity of the environment strikes back, eg 
> collapsing fishery stocks, dead zones from pollution, or more mundanely 
> shifting from a car culture to high density occupancy. It seems as much to 
> do the principles and vocabulary of economism(note spelling, ie not 
> "economics"). Another variety is political reformism. I went to a grand 
> confabulation of MoveOn.org here recently and they had four top issues and 
> then a a whole elaborate concept of generating a lobbying organization. 
> Trouble is, as one example, in the advocacy of "Clean Energy" they didn't 
> have a clue as to what they were advocating for and what the real choices 
> are, other than a very nebulous "restoring democracy" (doesn't anyone real 
> political and economic history at all?), In the lobbying process they 
> seemed uncommonly tilted toward specious speculations about bio-ethanol or 
> nuclear as an acceptable risk. The more particular response was that I was 
> way ahead of them. It all seems to be more about being caught in a certain 
> set of demand assumptions, and refusing to adapt to the 'environmental' 
> details. It seems to bode very poorly for the hand axe equivalents over 
> pther possibilities.  Comments general and specific, please, Tadit
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:37:24 -0500, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> 
> wrote:
>
>> The discussion of cultural evolution reminded me of something I wrote
>> a while ago  in an early effort at a blog. See http://
>> mhgoldhaber.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_mhgoldhaber_archive.html
>>
>> It is titled "Acheulean Hand Axes Ought to Tell Us Something, But
>> What? "
>>
>> Best,
>> Michael
>>
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2