economics
I don't know if this is the correct place for these observations, never the less these thoughts struck me some years ago when the CSIRO in Australia issued a report upon the state of the countries ecology and estimates of sustainable land use etc.
A television show on SBS interviewed several prominent economists on the subject of this report, the result being the universal reply that the report might well delineate the scientific facts but, "does not take into account the economic realities", declaring that the report must therefore be dismissed on this account.
As a physical scientist myself needless to say I was totally flabbergasted by such a response with its clear implication that if the physical facts of the situation do not accord with their so called "realities" then the physical reality can be ignored in favor of these realities.
I have on a regular basis pointed out to economists that any viable economic theory must be absolutely based upon the physical reality of the planet, and you can't choose what bits of the science you want to believe in, and dismiss other parts, just because they happen to coincide or not with your pet economic theories.
I think the fundamental difficulty is that politicians pay slavish regard to economists and economists pay no attention at all to the fact that all economic activity takes place in the physical reality of a finite planet and one of it's basic laws is that you can't get a quart out of a pint pot, and economists believe you can, and this is what politicians want to hear.
It seems that politicians think that physical laws are the same as other laws, that if they don't like them they can find a way around them or pass an act of parliament to repeal them.
The fact that you have to comply with physical laws because there is no way they are going to changed or amended by you seems to me a fundamental principle that those who would rule us just fail to grasp, and until they do all efforts such as Bali are in vain.
rcw
|
Linear Mode
