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.
----- 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]>
>> The discussion of cultural evolution reminded me of something I wrote
>> a while ago in an early effort at a blog. See http://
>> It is titled "Acheulean Hand Axes Ought to Tell Us Something, But
>> What? "