Comment by perfunctory | Hacker News Reader

Comment by perfunctory | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This is the correct way of thinking to move forward.

I guess it depends. In case of rare earth elements supply problems we will just skip the next iPhone upgrade cycle, wait until supply chain readjusts and buy the next iPhone version a couple of years later. No big deal. This cannot be said about all (eco)systems.

Just to take a random example - Aral Sea [0].

"The Aral Sea is considered an example of ecosystem collapse."

"...As a result, the land around the Aral Sea is heavily polluted, and the people living in the area are suffering from a lack of fresh water and health problems, including high rates of certain forms of cancer and lung diseases. Respiratory illnesses, including tuberculosis (most of which is drug resistant) and cancer, digestive disorders, anaemia, and infectious diseases are common ailments in the region. Liver, kidney, and eye problems can also be attributed to the toxic dust storms. All of this has resulted in an unusually high fatality rate among vulnerable parts of the population: the child mortality rate is 75 in every 1,000 newborns, and maternity death is 12 in every 1,000 women."

And these people cannot just "adapt to changes" and move to new territories, because somebody is standing on the border with a gun. Tell them that "economic" thinking is the way "to move forward".

All I am trying to say it's not so black and white.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

> And these people cannot just "adapt to changes" and move to new territories, because somebody is standing on the border with a gun. Tell them that "economic" thinking is the way "to move forward".

The “economic” solution would be to remove the people with the guns. There’s a reason why so many economists are in favor of completely open borders.

Agree with open borders part. At the same time you can't keep moving to new territories forever. Sooner or later you'll fall off the edge of the Earth.

Sometimes borders guarded by people with guns are there for valid historic reasons. Maybe those economists are thinking too theoretically and shallowly, and overlooking the unfortunate but very real complexity of life.

Funny, that was a (highly criticized) solution used by the US when it comes to oil. Go in and remove the people with the guns - using (or buying) force when economics fails. And economic means fail quite often - people are not always rational actors who do the things that are in their best interest.

> Tell them that "economic" thinking is the way "to move forward".

What would the "ecological" solution be for those people? As in, what can they do ecologically?

Economics is just the study of scarcity. Water in that location became scarce. Any action anyone takes as a result of that scarcity is economical thinking.

The point is that water didn't just become scarce all by itself. It was the result of the economic activity upstream. To be honest I don't know what those people can do now, after the ecosystem collapse. But the situation could have been avoided in the first place I suppose. "economic" and "ecological" thinking need to work together to begin with imho.

Or maybe "economic" vs "ecological" is the wrong dichotomy and misleading terminology. Maybe ecology should be just part of the economy. Who knows.

Yes, but it's the other way around : Economy is part of (Society, which is part of) Ecology.

I think the labels need some work - this is not a fight between economics and ecological science. It's just that economists view a system as a robust, constantly-adapting set of tensions between different market forces, while ecologists look at systems as a fragile set of fixed energy flows.

I think it's interesting that the Aral Sea is an environmental disaster. This reflects a mindset that values stability, and sees any change as bad. You could equally view this as an environmental triumph - millions of hectares of previously barren land is now flourishing, providing not only a huge crop yield, but also all that goes with that; animal life relying on the now-abundant food and water, humans tending and improving the landscape, etc.

It's just change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com