The practical difficulties of dealing with three different measures of the
same whole are considerable, and thus, the challenges before us are not
trivial. However, changing a difficult question to one that is more easily
answered does not answer the difficult question. The challenge is similar
to that of dealing with humans as physical, mental, and spiritual beings -
three dimensions of the same whole being. We are just beginning to realize
that when we deal with only parts of people we create all sorts of
unanticipated problems for whole people. Perhaps as we learn to deal with
people as whole beings we will learn to deal with other wholes as well. We
may learn also that relationships among the economic, social and ecological
dimensions are not competitive, implying inevitable tradeoffs, but instead
are complimentary, implying that all must grow in harmony together.
As we learn, I suspect some sociopolitical process will become the ultimate
arbiter among the economic, social, and ecological -- as you suggest. After
all, the question of sustainability ultimately is about the nature of human
intervention into natural ecosystems. Without people the question of
sustainability becomes mute. Maybe we just need to accept the fact that
people must give thoughtful consideration to their actions, individually and
collectively, rather than blindly hope that something else or someone else,
somehow, will turn their acts of individual greed in to societal good.
John Ikerd
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob MacGregor [mailto:rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 3:49 PM
To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Social and political aspects
The practical limitations to consideration of all three
dimensions are considerable. What the resource economists are trying to do
is construct a common numeraire. If your box's width is measured in inches,
the height in barleygrains and the depth in ogglequats, it is difficult to
describe its reality.
If we cannot find a common numeraire for the economic,
social and environmental dimensions, then we have no way to figure out the
optimal balance among them --they cannot be considered holistically, as is
most desirable. Some folks would, or course, weight economic returns or
social well-being above environmental concerns; others might place the
sacredness of species above ANY other concern. In aggregate, though,
societies (indeed, the entire world society) must eventually come to terms
with the inevitable tradeoffs among the three dimensions (sort of like
saying the volume of the box is fixed, so expanding one dimension means
reducing another to compensate --> too crude an analogy, since technology
can introduce some flexibility in the world's economy/society/environment
"box"; still, the world is finite in the end).
If we cannot find an acceptable way of rating all factors
against each other, we will always be locked into looking at them
separately. The political process becomes the ultimate arbiter which will
implicitly decide on the relative value of these factors (as reflected in
subsidies, tax laws, incentives, endangered species or anti-pollution
regulation, etc.).
BOB
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the
command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format,
use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with
the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail