[extropy-chat] Bioeconomics was Why I'm Not Libertarian...

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 27, 2005, at 8:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Peter Brooks <peterhmotta1965 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> This is a good start at explaining it. Then there is
>> the high cost of litigation; citizens who hate
>> everything about D.C. with a passion except the
>> checks being funded from that location, and so
>> forth. Notice how citizens want virtually unlimited
>> growth on their terms yet also want a very clean
>> environment-- which is not merely double-minded but
>> also schizophrenic. It never ends.
>>
>
>      Precisely. Which is why I propose a merging of
> memes from economics, biology, and ecology into the
> new fields of bioeconomics and bioeconomic
> engineering. They are designed to study and achieve
> healthy biological growth of the total world economy
> in the context of a sustainable life-promoting
> enviroment.

So the first question would be worthy you know what "healthy  
biological growth" looks like as the scientific/technological ground  
and fundamental possibilities change rapidly underfoot.  What kind of  
life?

>
>      Current economic theory faces the problem in that
> it focuses on unregulated, unhealthy growth, like a
> tumor.What I propose, instead is a rational rationing
> of natural resources in such a way that we can grow
> our economy and our species in a healthy sustainable
> manner to the point that we can shape our world into a
> tropical paradise, instead of a toxin strewn boneyard.

I too want to see this world turned into a paradise.  But I don't  
think it will happen by focusing on rationing what we now have a  
limited supply of.  I think it far more likely to concentrate on  
creating more supply and on those things that increase rather than  
decrease with use.  But perhaps there is some temporary need in some  
areas.  So where are these and how does rationing them make it more  
likely we come to inhabit the type of world we wish?


> All the while, maximizing personal gain for the
> well-being of as many people as possible in a
> meritocratic fashion.
>

Sounds good.  Does the program uplift all?

>      If we achieve sufficent growth, we may be able to
> colonize other worlds. If not, we will choke to death
> ourselves and our entire local food chain of
> ecological niches including many other large
> vertabrates.

Or we may change in unimaginable ways.  Or with MNT covering our  
material needs may be quite ecnomical and environmentally friendly to  
boot.  The same technology starts undoing environmental harm.

>
>      The environment of course will still function at
> some level but what will populate the planet when it's
> healed itself in a few million years is anybody's
> guess. Perhaps the sentient descendents of the
> cockroaches.
>

Where are you going?

- samantha