Preface
There's a popular term, the "circular economy", making the rounds in the economic arena and in the halls of policy making... especially in Europe, a region in the forefront of the search for sustainability. Proponents of the circular economy appear to be on the cusp of finalizing a concept which seems to provide a solution to the vexing problem of saving the ecosphere, the technosphere, the economies of the world, and society in general. As my father used to say, however, "Hold your horses... not yet.".
............................
Uncomfortable Knowledge
While the "circular" economists acknowledge the dependence of the economy on biophysical elements/flows, they simultaneously ignore the fact that those same elements are subject to thermodynamic constraints. Their solution to any problems encountered is to: 1) "decouple" the economy from natural resources; and, 2) to rely on technology, human genius, and the magic of the Market to do so. In part, such thinking is based on the following.
The agricultural "Green Revolution" increased world food production exponentially in the late 1960's. That was due mostly to the development of high-yielding cereal grain crops, and from the petrochemical industry, the development of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides.
In addition to the concept of entropy, the uncomfortable knowledge being ignored by proponents of the circular economy are the following facts.
1) Agricultural and urban/suburban runoff of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has caused massive eutrophication of bodies of fresh water, thus depleting them of oxygen and essentially killing all life in them.
2) Synthetic pesticide use has had disastrous results over the decades on both nonhuman and human life.
3) Synthetic fertilizers have caused a significant negative impact on soil structure, resulting in increased soil erosion in many places.
In other words, using the ag green revolution to encourage reliance on technology, human ingenuity, and the Market to solve social-ecological problems is not a good idea. It totally ignores the downside of that revolution, and all the downside is not even fully known yet.
For a full (& brilliant) discussion of this topic, see this journal article---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 ,
From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
For anyone studying the crisis in economics, it's a must-read.
..............................
Conclusion
It seems to me that mainstream/neoliberal economists are attempting to repackage their economics as even more "circular" than before, and now "green" as well. The problem is that they're still promoting unlimited growth and overconsumption. Meanwhile, our life support systems on Spaceship Earth continue to be negatively impacted. The "new" circular economy being proposed will not stop that. And by the way, tick-tock. Time is getting short.
.............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Showing posts with label Entropy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Entropy. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2020
Sunday, July 26, 2020
The Bioeconomics of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen
Preface
Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Romanian-American masterful mathematician and economist, laid the groundwork (with his Bioeconomics) for the discipline of Ecological Economics (Eco-Econ). Herman Daly, generally acknowledged as the "Father of Eco-Econ", was Georgescu-Roegen's student back in the day.
The article at the link below relates in great detail a small part of the Bioeconomics founder's life. His most famous publication was the book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). It's a discussion of a key principle in Eco-Econ.
.......................
Why Study History?
In this particular case, there are at least two reasons:
1) It's a fairly fascinating story.
2) It's a great example of how and why a brilliant idea/concept can get smothered, ignored, delayed, and essentially squashed by the Establishment in any field of endeavor. In regard to the application of entropy to economics, that's still ongoing to some degree by "mainstream" (neoliberal) economists.
.......................
Conclusion
In trying to grasp the essence of any discipline, it's important to delve into its history. I imagine some/many younger people who find Eco-Econ extremely appealing often wonder why it's not already implemented. The article at the link below will give anyone great insight into a few possible/likely reasons for that. It should encourage them to "hang in there".
https://www.degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Levallois_degrowth-an-historical-nite.pdf
........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Romanian-American masterful mathematician and economist, laid the groundwork (with his Bioeconomics) for the discipline of Ecological Economics (Eco-Econ). Herman Daly, generally acknowledged as the "Father of Eco-Econ", was Georgescu-Roegen's student back in the day.
The article at the link below relates in great detail a small part of the Bioeconomics founder's life. His most famous publication was the book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). It's a discussion of a key principle in Eco-Econ.
.......................
Why Study History?
In this particular case, there are at least two reasons:
1) It's a fairly fascinating story.
2) It's a great example of how and why a brilliant idea/concept can get smothered, ignored, delayed, and essentially squashed by the Establishment in any field of endeavor. In regard to the application of entropy to economics, that's still ongoing to some degree by "mainstream" (neoliberal) economists.
.......................
Conclusion
In trying to grasp the essence of any discipline, it's important to delve into its history. I imagine some/many younger people who find Eco-Econ extremely appealing often wonder why it's not already implemented. The article at the link below will give anyone great insight into a few possible/likely reasons for that. It should encourage them to "hang in there".
https://www.degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Levallois_degrowth-an-historical-nite.pdf
........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Overview: The History & Future of Entropy's Influence on Economics
Preface
Admittedly, this topic is a bit esoteric. Nevertheless, and even though I'm not any kind of mathematician, I believe there's a lot of insight to be gained from the journal article (published in April, 2020) at the link below. The researcher, Jakimowicz, presents an analysis of entropy and the largely theoretical or nascent disciplines of quantum economics, complexity economics, econophysics, and the much more developed ecological economics. He covers the role of the brilliant Romanian-American economist and science philosopher, Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, in opening the door to the ongoing development (arguably, it's now pretty much complete) of ecological economics. [In my next post, I'll link to a journal essay which discusses that. It's quite an interesting story, and one which I believe demonstrates the arrogance of the "Church of Perpetual Growth & Overconsumption", aka, neoclassical/neoliberal economics.]
..............................
Navigating the Article
If, like me, you're not a mathematician, then you can skim over the somewhat complex math formulas in the piece below. Like Georgescu-Roegen, I've never believed that it's wise of economists to attempt to represent human behavior with math formulas anyway... and economics is very much about human behavior, not just goods and services.
To get a fairly solid understanding of the article, I recommend reading the Abstract, and then sections 1, 3, 6, and 12. That should give you valuable insights into the connection of the Law of Entropy to ecological economics, and really, to all economics.
Though the piece is for those with advanced backgrounds, I believe anyone with only a bit of science education plus at least average intelligence can grasp the nuts & bolts of it.
.............................
Conclusion
The journal article at the link below provides more proof that neoliberal economics--- which is destroying our life support systems--- is on the ropes, so to speak. The King is vulnerable to being dethroned. 😄 It's time for people to step up, to demand of politicians (probably 90% of whom are neoliberals) a major change. Without pressure, those politicians will not abandon their main constituency--- the Super-Rich.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/4/452/htm
............................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails, and Stay Well
Admittedly, this topic is a bit esoteric. Nevertheless, and even though I'm not any kind of mathematician, I believe there's a lot of insight to be gained from the journal article (published in April, 2020) at the link below. The researcher, Jakimowicz, presents an analysis of entropy and the largely theoretical or nascent disciplines of quantum economics, complexity economics, econophysics, and the much more developed ecological economics. He covers the role of the brilliant Romanian-American economist and science philosopher, Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, in opening the door to the ongoing development (arguably, it's now pretty much complete) of ecological economics. [In my next post, I'll link to a journal essay which discusses that. It's quite an interesting story, and one which I believe demonstrates the arrogance of the "Church of Perpetual Growth & Overconsumption", aka, neoclassical/neoliberal economics.]
..............................
Navigating the Article
If, like me, you're not a mathematician, then you can skim over the somewhat complex math formulas in the piece below. Like Georgescu-Roegen, I've never believed that it's wise of economists to attempt to represent human behavior with math formulas anyway... and economics is very much about human behavior, not just goods and services.
To get a fairly solid understanding of the article, I recommend reading the Abstract, and then sections 1, 3, 6, and 12. That should give you valuable insights into the connection of the Law of Entropy to ecological economics, and really, to all economics.
Though the piece is for those with advanced backgrounds, I believe anyone with only a bit of science education plus at least average intelligence can grasp the nuts & bolts of it.
.............................
Conclusion
The journal article at the link below provides more proof that neoliberal economics--- which is destroying our life support systems--- is on the ropes, so to speak. The King is vulnerable to being dethroned. 😄 It's time for people to step up, to demand of politicians (probably 90% of whom are neoliberals) a major change. Without pressure, those politicians will not abandon their main constituency--- the Super-Rich.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/4/452/htm
............................
Not only my opinion. Happy Trails, and Stay Well
A Paradigm Shift in Ethics is Needed for the Journey to Sustainability
Preface
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality. One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior. Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society. Its three primary principles are: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. A simple definition would be: a code of conduct for human good. Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage
As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage. Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day. Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.
Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability. More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society. History disagrees with that assessment.
Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society. "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage. That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit. Much more is needed. Here's why.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2. Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat. "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3. As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled. So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4. Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured. If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5. While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6. Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes. That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7. Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes. Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8. Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already. More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.
All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight. It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem. Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue. Why? Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption. The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics). Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................
Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]
It's a short read. Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it. Thanks. Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality. One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior. Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society. Its three primary principles are: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. A simple definition would be: a code of conduct for human good. Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage
As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage. Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day. Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.
Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability. More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society. History disagrees with that assessment.
Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society. "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage. That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit. Much more is needed. Here's why.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2. Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat. "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3. As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled. So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4. Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured. If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5. While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6. Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes. That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7. Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes. Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8. Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already. More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.
All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight. It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem. Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue. Why? Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption. The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics). Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................
Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]
It's a short read. Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it. Thanks. Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)