Talk:Cornucopian
From iA wiki
The RIAA and other copyright holders could be considered cornucopians. They have difficulty accepting the fundamental characteristics of the internet, its relationship to the music industry's products and recent profit losses. -- "nw"
The Cornucopian viewpoint is naive. -- rack
Huh!?!?! I know i'm not your typical IA user (just ask ABliss ;-) but what makes you all think that technology won't advance quickly enough to sustain our lifestyles? -- Amw
- Because sinks and basins have a quantity that can be determined. Take for example the rich top soil that has grown the fruit and vegetables you have eaten. There is only so much of it, it is not endless. To make the soil rich again, requires more resources such as fertilizer. It all goes back to the amount of energy, which has been received by the sun. A truly sustainable lifestyle is a very, very complex and difficult task, however it can, in theory be achieved. - ABliss
We've been around for two million years, we've been through much, much tougher things than we are working through right now. I have no doubt that humankind will survive for at least another two million years, even if it's not quite in the form that one would expect. -- Amw
- Cornucopians forget the very thing they cherise cannot last forever and for everyone if the process, such as capitalism is not sustainable. Economists talk about sustainability from quarter to quarter while ecologists talk in terms of centuries. Also if you think about humans millions of years ago, they are a completely different species to now. Today our life-styles have very large footprints, particularly when it comes to energy. Wny is it so hard to understand that our current situation is not a good thing because, amongst the many other reasons, its development is not ecologically sustainable.
- This here and now thinking must end. Imagine if people in the past had used our natural resources up faster than they had and we were left without. That would be a bad thing that we must not let occur. - ABliss
- Ponder this: How long have we had economists? How long have we had ecologists? Which do you think is the more mature school of thought? Not trying to lead anywhere per se, just a thought. -- Amw
- Just because something is popular is doesn't mean it is a good thing. Take slavery, homophobia, segregation, driving a car, smoking tobacco.
- What is more important that past traditions, is current conditions and our understanding of our environmental conditions. You just want to forget the correlation between the size of the American economy and the quantities or energy resources or basins which are used up, and the size of the sinks that are being filled up like dumps.
- Economists have been talking about limits since Malthus, centuries ago. Ecology is a few decades old. Ecology is far more mature because it is a science. Economics is not a science. Businesses are not experiments because no two business face the same conditions and therefore cannot be compared as a control.
What are the great theories of economics? I have seen one that makes sense to me. It describes the link between energy and economy - Economies will grow when they have more energy or more power to do manual work. - ABliss
Someone changed this to a terrible definition. Someone was suggesting that technology solves all problems and that technology has no real limits. This is ridiculous. This has to be another American-Centric myth. Even the chinese realised that no technology, could solve the problems of their population growth. Energy production is another problematic technology. I find there is no much delusion on television, the media is no good, the internet gives a little hope, but its still swamped in mythinformation. - ABliss.
Just a note that seems to be a theme I'm seeing in this thread:
The attitude that I'm afraid of is assuming that the earth is some kind of playground of ours that can handle our wacky ideas. Maybe it can and maybe it can't ... but do you really want to find out? An example is when they set off the first A-Bomb, there was some serious concern among the scientists that they would light the atmosphere on fire and we would all die. Their rationalization? Well, the Russians/Germans or someone else will eventually get this technology. I want to be a little more cautious than other people. I *like* the way nature is and the way the earth is pretty cool. I'd rather err on the side of caution and hurt industry and the economy - those are temporary concerns. Sure, we've made it 2 million years but our populace has never been this big nor have we had such an impact on the environment than in the last 200. Webfork
