Ecological Economics versus Economic Ecology.

Economics Economics Questions
1

There is a dispute in academia of whether ecology is a sub-set of economics or whether economics is a sub-set of ecology. Economists argue, “Ecology is a sub-set of economics because economics is the study of scarce resources, while ecology is the study of simply natural resources.” Ecologists argue, “Economics is a sub-set of ecology, because economics the the study of human behavior with regard to scarce resources, while ecology is the study of all behavior regarding natural resources.”

What’s your opinion? I mostly agree with the economists, but it’s a decent argument: Mises made this explicit in Human Action. Why should the allocation of resources by discussed strictly in terms of “human action”? It’s true that animals aren’t “rational,” in the human sense, but they are rational even in the same sense that economists define it. Just as the law of supply and demand affects price, similarly, if an area has more food, animals will move there. If an area has less food, animals will move away. All life is in the process of seeking subjective utilit no differently than the way man does.

2

“Why should the allocation of resources by discussed strictly in terms of “human action”?”

Because men own ressources and animals and animals own nothing.

I’m not interested in your answer.

3

An Adami approved message.

4

What a wonderfully value-laden methodology!

So it turns out that it’s true. Austrian economics was invented to support radical property rights. Keep toking, buddy.

5

Exactly what is the point of this kind of hostility? Can’t we just discuss economics?

6

Because animals do not understand the benefit of social cooperation under the division of labor, no matter how hard you try to teach them.

7

You dont know the history. Other than some issues on these boards, its my understanding that Nathyn goes to other boards and disrespects everyone at the Mises forums. Correct if I’m worng.

8

“Ecology is usually considered a branch of biology, the general science that studies living organisms”

Thus, ecology is neither a superset nor subset of economics, but a separate branch, although there may be some overlap between the two.

Where do you get this stuff, Nathyn?

9

Economics is a subset of ecology. Same as the dogma that psychology is a subset of biology, biology is a subset of chemistry, chemistry is a subset of physics, physics is a subset of mathematics.

Most economics are ignorant about neuroscience, and deny this subject because of their perceived “empirical” methods. This is not true.

Most economics disregard reproduction as an axiom. Their work is based on the postulate that individuals like “optimal” hedonistic satisfaction, no matter if they reproduce, which is ecologically contradictory. Reproduction is more important than hedonism. Therefore, satisfaction is an axiom. Austrians deny it, but they are still unconsciously assuming that postulate. These economics deny that ecology is a superset of economics.

Males on average have a genetic advantage for competition, this is why most entrepreneurs are men. If all people do not have a genetic advantange for competition, then our economy would be far less rigorous.

Economic growth is contributed solely by irrational adaptations. Reward systems and cognitive biases are irrational adaptations. Indivuduals work to satisfy their genetic addictions, no matter how awkward they are. For example, they buy useless junk to play with and watch irrational television just to satisfy their adaptations. All human actions are based on emotion. Rational choices are based on emotion. Without emotion, rationality would disappear.

The free market allows individuals to have the freedom of choice for genetic satisfaction, assuming humans have “perfect knowledge”.

A common dogma held by Austrians: The free market allows individuals to have the opportunity to achieve maximum hedonistic satisfaction and “optimal” order, given limited ability and no positive freedom. This utilitarian statement that cannot be proven since there is no “overall” satisfaction over a collective entity. Austrians may say this as propaganda to convince socialists.

All of our actions are altruistic. Selfish actions are altruistic. These actions helps a man survive so they can reproduce. Africans are the least altruistic to their children, because of the unpredictable climate in Africa. Europeans and East Asians are more altruistic to their children. African men, on average, like to have sex with women more than others because of their adaptations from the extreme African climate. Thus, Africans are more economically inclined to consume more goods based on sex. Humans that have evolved from small populations, such as the Inuit peoples, are the most egoistic.

Egoism and altruism are both religions.

Some individuals are less intelligent than others. Unintelligent ones are considered nonhuman animals. Intelligence is subjective.

Religious faith is genetic. Therefore, anarchy would not work in certain places where people are religious. The definition of anarchy is subjective. I am a nihilist. “egoism” “selfism” and “rationalism” do not have any meaning since they are subjective.

10

either side of your coma you make an empirical statement without evidence. then “this is not true” is either contradicting your prior statement e.g. "my previous statement was false. or you are trying to say that economists are wrong to ‘deny’ the subject of neuroscience (and the reason they do this wrong thing is they are mislaid my their empirical methods). im not sure what sense you put into the word ‘deny’ , care to comment?

have you come across economists that have considered ‘reproduction’ - ‘as an axiom’ and stated that they are disregarding it as such, or is this speculation? when you say that its is ecologically contradictory that individuals would like optimal hedonistic satisfaction overriding reproductive issues, do you mean to say that individuals will choose pain and torture for the priveledge of being allowed to reproduce, and shun a life of ease and happiness should they be threatened with a reduction in reproductive opportunity ? the sentance “satisfaction is an axiom” is too short to mean anything.in denying your reproductive theory how are austrians unconsciously assuming that reproductivity has primacy? this appears to be wild speculation

what is your evidence that males have genetic advantages of the entrepeneurial kind, do you have apriori theory for why this should be so, or is it an entirely empirical truth ? it looks to me like a stereo-type or prejudice that you harbor in need of justification. in what sense could all people have advantages of competition. advantages relative to what, non-existant people that dont have genetics at all?. what is a rigorous economy?

your first sentance in this paragraph ontradicts the last two.

if humans did not have ‘perfect’ knowledge, the free market would not allow individuals to have freedom of choice?

its a utilitarian argument if it relies upon adding up utils in the aggregate to provide its force of persuasion

. however theaustrian perspective is a rightsbased justification, it does not require utilitarian analysis.

again,your first sentance contradicts your last sentance. and this guff about africans is prejudice masquarading as bizarre emprical study.

pass…

it would make more sense to say that measuring intelligence is a subjective act BEFORE you pose a statement that looks like n objective statement about people in the world and their (objective) intelligence

if religious faith is genetic, in the same way eye colour is genetic (assuming away environmental effects, (haha)) then how are people who adopt faith late in life, to be squared against, those who abandon it in later life, against yet still those who believe their whole lives, and those who disbelieve their whole lives.

11

The idea that something is a benefit is normative, not value-free.

All science is connected in the form of truth. The question is: Is it true that primarily economic principles determine the state of ecosystems, or is it true that primarily ecological principles determine the state of economies?

12

So you’re the guy standing on the corner with the tinfoil over his head!

13

Austrian economics is empirical the same way as neuroscience is empirical. All Austrian theories can be deduced to psychology, which is based on empirical studies. All theories about our brain can be deduced to empirical studies of psychology. When I say genetic means that I meant genes have an influence, not 100%. There are many apriori theories about race and sex.

14

The empiricism of economics is completely different from the empiricism of neuropsychology.

Whereas economics is concerned with the effect. Neuropsychology wants to discover the cause.

15

In what way are cause and effect separate?

Cause–>effect

Science is the study of the relationship between cause and effect. If you are espousing “effects,” for which there is no justifiable cause or espousing “causation,” for which there is no implied effect, you are a pseudoscientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

Red = cause

Blue = effect

16

Austrians are concerned with cause when they develop the Austrian Business Cycle theory. Neuropsychologists predict effects to test their theories when they develop theories.

17

You’re correct in tha taspect. I was thinking of empirical observation in the context of the two, that is observations. Whereas psychology looks for the reason behind an action, economics will look for an action and then an effect, but I did not take into account anything different.

In any case, psychology is still not economics and what they teach you in any economics course will have nothing to do with psychology, neuroscience, or anything else. The intricacies of brain chemistry have nothing to do with resource allocation, at least not to the extent that economists are going to investigate it, this is because the sciences are divided into separate branches of science. To some extent, yes, everything does have a connection, does this mean neuroscience should affect economics? Not at all.

18

Libertarian, I am curious, have you read even a single Austrian work? What you described before has little to do with it. Economists take the findings of other sciences as ultimate givens. Austrian economics is no exception. What it studies is action itself. Whether males are better entrepreneurs etc. is a historical fact, perhaps rooted in genetics etc. It has nothing to do with core praxeological theorems though. They are prior to any facts, as they are what must outline what is to be studied and what economic cause results in what economic effect, in otherwise complicated facts incapable of being interpreted (it thus is necessary for any economic facts to be meaningfully interpreted.) Certainly, genetics might influence time preference, for instance. But again, that is not an economic datum (it is for geneticists to discover why this is, and what it means), although Austrians might use such data in constructing broader theorems.

I recommend you read Geoffrey A. Plauche’s paper I linked in the reading list. It’ll help immensely.

Back on topic, I’d say they’re different subjects altogether.

19

What an imbecile. He is probably unaware of Menger’s existence.

20

I fully agree that axiomatic subjects should be seperated from natural sciences. Implementing cognitive science with axiomatic economics would be irrational:

  1. Entrepreneurs are vital for economics. Entrepreneurs are very intelligent, and should not be considered laymen. Psychological studies only study laymen. Therefore, psychoanalytical studies should be avoided. All humans have the potential to act whatever they want. Their actions are not limited to psychological studies. Therefore, it is impractical to add cognitive science.
  2. Humans evolve. Humans do not behave the way as in the past. Psychoanalysis is not accuate because time change. Therefore, it is impractical to add cognitive science.
  3. Evolution is far from perfect. Therefore, it is impractical to add cognitive science.
  4. Cognitive science is probabilistic. Probabilistic conjectures cannot be synthesized with axiomatic sybjects. You cannot incorporate mathematical conjectures as theorems. Therefore, it is impractical to add cognitive science.
  5. Psychology is collective. Not everyone behaves the same way. Therefore, it is impractical to add cognitive science.

But that was not my point. I did never say psychology should be connected with Austrian School. This is as absurd as saying that number theory should be connected with psychology. (although psychologists can impose number theory tests on individuals to figure out how problem solving executes)

That paper you mentioned over-excessively emphasises the well-known faults of empirical science that I already knew. Even that you apparently misinterpret me and I was confident what the paper was about beforehand, I entirely read Plauche’s paper, since I am open-minded and a fast reader. Of course, at least I learned something while I reading it.

It is probable that the anti-“empirical” prejudice held by Austrians may partially be a factor motiviting them for their assumption that “I want Austrian with psychology.” Don’t worry, cognitive biases that enduce assumptions are evolved from evolution.