RE: [Fis] "Ecological Economics and Information"

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for this excellent introduction.
Perhaps, we should consider the asymmetry between "economics" and
"ecology". For example, the ecology of economics may be quite different
from the economics of an ecology. These words get meaning when the
systems of reference are specified.

I agree with your appreciation of Bob Ulanowicz's work. I use his work
extensively in my own work. For example, in:
 <http://www.leydesdorff.net/th4/index.htm> The Mutual Information of
University-Industry-Government Relations: An Indicator of the Triple
Helix Dynamics, Scientometrics 58(2), 2003, 445-467. <
<http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/th4/T(uig).pdf> pdf-version>

The relation is mainly the potential production of a negative entropy in
tripartite relations at the network level. It seems to me that this
provides us with an elegant indicator of a self-organizing economy.
However, I don't see the relation with ecological thinking that easily
because the system of reference is very different in the biological
case. Of course, the formal models can be similar. However, we should
not mix them up as in Luis Serra's paper:

Question 8

Could our civilization survive in a lower energy and natural resources
world?

 The survival of our civilization is to be discussed in terms of the
social sciences (unless one assumes that civilizations are literally
alive). But this seems only a metaphor to me.

Question 9

What is the economic-politic-cultural, global paradigm that could help
humanity to develop the necessary symbiotic relationships with the
biosphere?

I doubt that such a paradigm exists. I think that there is compelling
evidence that the social sciences don't work with a global paradigm. In
the social sciences, the abandonment of this ideal of a global paradigm
has been one of the major achievements of post-modernism.

Question 10

Should we radically change our views on information, both in economy and
in nature? In other words, should we radically change our means and ways
of scientific thinking?

This is a philosophical project if not a theological one. Scientific
thinking is not so voluntaristic, in my opinion.

Question 11

Is our present society capable of confronting this challenge?

 I doubt it and I am not too unhappy about that. Society can also not
solve that there are spots on the sun. But we can sometimes do a lot for
solving natural disasters technologically.

The central point is that society is not a living being. Otherwise, one
arrives at mythical thinking. The great advancement of Galilei was to
understand that nature is not alive and that it can be made the subject
of mathematical reasoning without being harmed. Similarly with society:
it is a network system. The hypothesis that the development of this
system exhibits autopoiesis is perhaps fruitful as a heuristics. For
example: Paul Krugman, The Self-Organizing Economy (Malden, MA/Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996).

Niklas Luhmann has been mentioned before on this list for his
contribution in generalizing the notion of society as a functionally
differentiated system that processes not living, but meaning in an
autopoietic mode. While "living" is based on the exchange of molecules
(Maturana), "meaning-processing systems" are predicated on
communications that are symbolically mediated (for example, by using
money for making payments).

However, it seems parsimonous to me to define "information" not
specifically with reference to any of these systems, but yet
content-free. A mathematical definition of information (like Shannon's)
has the advantage of being content-free. The content-free information is
provided with meaning when a system of reference (a communication
system) is specified. For example, when molecules are assumed to be
communicated, a biology is generated. (When atoms are communicated, a
chemistry is generated. When prices are communicated, an economy is
generated. Note that these are hypotheses!)

For example, at this list an economy is generated by the (symbolically
mediated) rule that one is allowed to send two messages in one week. One
could study the distributions thus generated as an ecology, but the
exchange of ideas is only conditioned by this ecology and economy. The
fluxes provide the exchanges with meaning. Hopefully.

With kind regards,

Loet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
> [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of jlrchand@erols.com
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:00 AM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] "Ecological Economics and Information"
>
>
>
> Dear FISers:
>
> The topic assigned by Pedro, "Ecological Economics and Information",
> is extraordinarily challenging. The vast scope of these terms is
> nearly beyond comprehension. In these brief remarks, I can only
> touch on a few qualitative concepts of central importance in my work.
> Quantitative concepts are addressed in Luis's writings which are
> posted in the accompanying post. I am deeply grateful to Luis for
> his views and the assistance of Pedro.
>
> Let us start by noting that the root of both "Ecological" and of
> "Economics" is the derived from the Greek, oi, oikos (house, home).
> A simple implication of this common source of the two terms is that
> the pair of words, taken together, enjoy a mutual reflexivity. At
> the conceptual level, the common root, "eco", suggests that the
> concept of economics is implicit within the concept of ecology. A
> rough translation of the reflexivity in a logical sense could be "the
> study of the study of the laws of the home."
>
> The semantics of the third term "information" offer many possible
> interpretations. I choose to draw from the direct source of the
> languaging of the term itself, the notion of information as bringing
> form into a system. An example of this usage of the term information
> consists of supposing one has an open system and it acquires new
> forms. The information acquired by the system introduces new
> relations within the system. The acquired forms have a potential to
> introduce a dynamic within the informed system. This usage is
> closely associated with a general conceptualization of the concept of
> communication.
>
> To summarize the preceding two paragraphs, one interpretation of the
> phrase, "Ecological Economics and Information", is a reflection on
> the nature of the rules of the flows of a system. What structures
> could provide a basis for such a meditation on the nature of
> transdisciplinary relationships?
>
> The concept of a system requires a distinction between the "self" of
> the system and the circumstances surrounding the system. But, what
> is the self of a system? We might answer this perplexing question by
> stating that we can imagine two incommensurate classes of systems.
> One class of systems being defined inside of a boundary. The
> boundary separates the interior from the exterior. An example of a
> boundary is our skin. Our language is rich in terms describing
> boundaries. Terms such as wall, container, bank, cup, bowl, room,
> building, and so forth imply a boundary of one type or another. The
> concept of a boundary serves as an initial step in generating a
> concept of specificity of form. Thus, in one class of the two
> classes of systems, we speak of boundaries as one source of form of
> the system.
>
> The concept of boundary is thus deeply entangled with the concept
> identity in such systems.
>
> Boundary-less systems form a second class of systems. Obviously, the
> boundary-less systems lack a boundary. But, the absence of boundary
> does not mean the absence of an identity. The relation of boundary
> to identity in the first class of systems can be replaced by a
> non-physical boundary. The boundary becomes an abstraction in the
> mind of the student of the system. The absence of a crisp
> separation of the interior from the exterior in boundary-less systems
> does not mean the absence of form nor the absence of form of
> components of the system. For example, we may speak of an ecosystem
> such as the "Mississippi River Basin Ecosystem (Miribe)". The
> dynamic flow of materials through the Miribe can be roughly estimated
> in terms of averages of annual cycles. For example, the cycling of
> chemicals (CO2, H2O, Carbon, N2, minerals, and so forth) recurs each
> year in greater or lesser amounts. The flow of materials is
> creative in biological ecosystems.
>
> The components of boundary-less systems may possess boundaries. The
> boundaries of components convey specific forms on the components of
> Miribe. Thus, an analysis, a study of the study of Miribe requires
> that we ask for a classification of the components of the system.
>
> In earlier work (Chandler, NYAS,vol. 879, 75-86, 1999, vol. 901,
> 75-85, 2000) a suitable classification of systems was developed. The
> proposed classification is organic. That is, a degree of
> organization is used to distinguish among components. The chemical
> basis of the classification provides a natural relation with
> biological systems without discarding the concept of distance. The
> organic basis of the scale, grounded in the atomic numbers of the
> chemical elements, provides an intrinsic meter for counting and for
> accounting of relations in terms of semantic names of components. It
> is a simple, direct scientific classification that separates
> components on the basis of the degree of organization rather than
> linear distance or arithmetic operations .
>
> The categories are:
>
> O° 1 subatomic particles
> O° 2 chemical elements
> O° 3 molecules
> O° 4 biomacromolecules
> O° 5 cells
> O° 6 organs
> O° 7 individuals
> O° 8 populations
> O° 9 ecosystems
> O°10 planet
>
> The objective of this categorization is not to give a theory of
> everything. Rather the objective is to provide a basis for
> reflection on the structure of scientific languages and the potential
> for relations among these scientific languages in nature. Other
> categorizations can add finer structures to the distinctions. Each
> degree of organization provides a "home" for a collection of terms
> and scientific theories. Frequently, individual terms may be used in
> multiple layers or stages or hierarchical levels or degrees of
> organization. The multiplicity of usages generates a polysema that
> strongly influences communications among different scientific
> subdisciplines. Usage of a term in multiple degrees of organization
> introduces uncertainty.
>
> The concept of communication varies with the degree of organization.
> At the levels of O°1, O°2, and O°3, communication occurs as a
> physical process of interaction. At levels O°5, O°6, O°7, and O°8,
> the principle means of communication are by active acquisition.
> Components of levels O°5, O°6, O°7, and O°8, have acquired the
> capacity to generate information, to transmit information and to
> interpret information. Commutative relations among information
> creation, information transmission and information re-arrangements
> are essential features of biological and social structures. At the
> level of ecosystems, information flows include possible permutations
> of information flows among the individual components of each degree
> of organization. A general approach to analysis of combinatorial
> components of informational signals is needed.
>
> The concept of relation differs among the categories of organization.
> For example, a biological relation may be expressed in terms of
> descendents and sexual mating activities. A chemical relation may be
> expressed in terms of bonds among elements and molecules. A
> mathematical relation is ordinarily expressed in terms of functions,
> mappings between two abstract objects, a domain and a codomain. The
> different nature of the concept of relation between different degrees
> of organization contribute to polysema. It also can restrict
> calculations and accounting principles for the individual economies
> within an ecosystem. Relations within an ecosystem include
> mathematical, chemical and biological relations, that is, ecosystems
> are polyralational. The polyrelational nature of human health is a
> useful metaphor for the polyrelational nature of ecological economics.
>
> The ordinary usage of the term "economics" includes the concept of
> dynamic flows of goods and services within a system and among
> neighboring ecosystems. The dynamics of flows within ecosystems is
> of enormous perplexity which is far beyond the scope of these brief
> remarks. A few sentences introduce the critical features. The flows
> include physical and material flows. One flow of particular
> importance to all ecosystems is the continuous flow of oxygen and
> carbon dioxide. The genesis of the planetary balance between plants
> and animals depends on the release of oxygen by plants after the
> carbon has been separated the "dioxide". This gift of oxygen from
> plants to animals establishes the basis for respiration in the animal
> kingdom and is essential to the mammalian lifestyle. Other
> ecochemical cycles (nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, etc) are critically
> important to sustaining the life cycles of both plants and animals.
>
> Quantitative work on ecological information flows is not common.
> However, the work of Robert Ulanowicz must be noted. His book, Growth
> and Development, Ecosystems Phenomenology (1987) deploys Shannon
> information principles in the analysis of ecosystem flow data. The
> subsequent work, Ascendency, discusses both theory and observations.
> His views have influenced the development of the perspective
> presented here.
>
> The perplexity of polyrelational systems requires the study of mutual
> relations among systems representing different degrees of
> organization. For example, the planetary cycles of chemical flows
> are sustained by biological life cycles. Biological life cycles are
> sustained by chemical flow cycles. Sustainable flows thus emerge from
> both systems with boundaries and systems without boundaries. This
> interdependence of systems creates the foundations for ecological
> economics.
>
> These few brief paragraphs are directed toward generating a
> systematic set of categories that will contribute to a
> transdisciplinary discussion of information flows in ecological
> economics.
>
> Jerry LR Chandler
> McLean, VA
> Oct 22, 2003.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
Received on Fri Oct 24 09:33:55 2003