Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:26:34 CST
From: "Dennis P. Bradley" <bradl008-AT-maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: dialectics and Georgescu-Roegen



This is my first posting to Markism too. I'm replying to the message from 
Jim Devine's comments on Dialectics. His address was:

jndf-AT-lmuacad.bitnet or jdevine-AT-lmumail.lmu.edu
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950

I also found "The dialectical biologist" by Levins and Lewontin to be very 
useful. But the most interesting book by far that I've come across is "The
Entropy Law and the economic process" by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen 1971 
Harvard Univ. Press. I am an economist with the Forest Service in St. Paul 
who is a member of a project entitled "the social and economic dimensions 
of ecosystem management". We are interested in two related topics: 
Reconstructing the ecological foundation of economic activity (the so-
called program of at least some ecological economists) and because the 
economy is only one aspect of a society, to attempt to integrate other 
kinds of values beyond the economic that serve to motivate and inspire a 
society. What does this have to do with the Forest Service one may well 
ask? In my view, we have overestimated the capacity of various ecosystems 
to meet even meet basic resource needs, let alone the impossible 
consumptive expectations of the West and North. Yet as resource managers 
who presumably understand ecosytem potentials best, have largely accepted 
uncritically the ideology of unlimited economic growth. REgardless of the 
demands various people make on resources, we have responded largely 
without alarm that "no problem, we can do it." Needless to say, our 
acquiescence has had profound social impacts as well. It is our hope, 
however utopian, to raise a number of concerns and of course we are not 
alone, and to provide concrete evidence and alternative visions.
    But in specific response and in contrast to Mr. Devine's comments, 
Georgescu-Roegen points out that the capitalist laws of motion DO NOT, 
repeat do not explain change. That is, motion per se is not the same thing 
as change. Nor does the commonly used word "dynamic" suit the deeper 
complexities of the emergent properties of systems undergoing largely 
irreversible change. Dynamics is appropriate for describing motion, so 
called movement from place to place, and the various mathematical tools to 
approximate motion. Finally, his entire book as he himself describes it, 
makes much use of dialectical notions, although his uses differ 
substantially from Hegel's. Or at least so he said and I'm in no position 
to judge. It is very much like "the dialectical biologist" 
One of the things we're trying to do is to use his approach to explain 
some troubling problems with applying neoclassical concepts of capital to 
ecosystems. While there are fascinating parallels, there are also profound 
problems that (not surprisingly, considering our ecological economic 
biases or perspectives) fit in nicely with our more modest views of 
ecosystem and social system capacities for reproducing themselves-the 
whole point of taking a "capitalistic" view of nature and society.

Dennis P. Bradley
Forest Economist
USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station
1992 Folwell Ave
St. Paul MN 55108
email: Bradl008-AT-Maroon.tc.umn.edu
Phone:612-649-5164
Fax: ditto 5285
DG: d.bradley:s23a


     ------------------