Re: [Fis] reinvesting on life support systems

Dear Sergio, Enzo and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks to you both for the very valuable ideas brought into this
discussion. In what follows let me attempt a few information-oriented
speculations.

I think that some further discussion on value could be interesting. Al
least I have still some trouble with the proposed interpretation of the
'notary rule' and Scarrott's theme. Theoretically, if I have understood
Sergio well, the basic problem of ecological economics is that mainstream
neoclassical doctrines do not consider the inherent natural cost of the
economic resources. In this sense, Herman Daly relevant proposals
summarized by Enzo with the 'steady state' label represent a tough guidance
both for local level and global activities... Let us accept this whole
direction (plus the further suggestions made on measurement of natural
resources and ecosystem services). However, something would be missing.

I cannot express well what I mean, but the unidimensional metrics of
economic calculus based on accounting human work (but subtly 'classified',
'networked') would also be based on other "shared expectations" among the
living agents --engaged in a totality of interrelationships of national,
cultural, political, moral and even esthetic dimensions. It is true that
by the 'valuation' operation one can project the expectations about that
fuzzy totality into a shared metrics of monetization; but also vice versa.
Apparently it is a new, independent world full of emergent formal
properties (see the recent messages on 'artifical markets') but not so.
Actually, one could not deeply change econometrics without a parallel
change in the accompanying shared expectations: the culture, the politics,
the esthetics, and the moral.

So the importance for sustainability of having a very well crafted
multidisciplinary assemble where the most relevant global aspects are
strategically integrated. In this regard, should the allegiance to the
Second Law be presented as the interdisciplinary leitmotiv, the 'banner',
to attract social attention? Contemporary (Western) societies are calling
themselves 'information societies' and I think that, beyond fashionable
cliches, that direction is right in several grounds. Indeed the historical
growth of social complexity is based on the advancement of the 'software'
side (communication, information, scientific knowledge --language, numbers,
writing, printing press, computers) while the 'hardware' side of energy,
materials, applied production, etc. catches up a little bit later.
Inherently, information is the crucial social 'stuff'.

To sum up: the immaterial (informational?) sides of sustainability also
'count'. But how?

Apologies for the lack of specifics, but I needed this general
expostulation before entering into the numerous contents of these two
contributions by Enzo and Sergio.

Best greetings

Pedro

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Nov 19 14:07:48 2003