"The study of economics and ecology without an ethical objective, in my mind, is akin to studying medicine not to relieve suffering, but simply for something to do to."
I've noted a company called Easy Being Green Pty Ltd ACN 116 769 781 is Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement with a notice inviting formal proof of debt or claim. Hmmm... must not been so easy!
It seems that Hundloe and all his fellow travellers are about to get a taste of what life in a world community is actually like when a large part of the economy stops growing. The problem is that people like him have tenure and will be insulated from the slings and arrows of the very misfortune they champion.
Economic growth is like life itself. It can sometimes cause some problems but it remains far superior to the alternative.
Methinks that this headline constitutes much of today's fisheries policy.
Year after year , scientists in ICES , propose lower lower quotas than the fishermen want, and the final decision is made by the Gov't , that almost always take the side of the fishermen.
The actual numbers of whales in the ocean is not dependent upon human emotions or what country you live in. It's a hard fact and it can and must be determined independent of human emotion and politics.
An ecologist is a scientist, just like a geologist or a biologist. She/he should do his/her work within the strict parameters of the scientific method. In the lab, or the field, curiosity and a thirst for discovery are the only appropriate passions for good science.
This doesn’t mean that an ecologist can’t then later put on an activist’s hat and attempt to interpret soundly and transparently performed science into environmental policy. One would hope they don’t confuse hats.
Understand the fundamental difference between activism and scientific research---The two can and should meet, but they can never be performed at the same time. Or we end up with people who seem to think the number of whales in the oceans is determined by politics and emotion.
If the science is performed at the research level with the end policy result (consciously or unconsciously) predetermined, then that’s unethical science. Science must be performed as objectively as possible and be reproducible, if it cannot stand up to transparent inspection by other members of the scientific community it isn’t acceptable. Researcher bias in experimental situations is why activism must always be removed from the laboratory.
Take Louis’s work as a geologist looking for minerals for a mining corporation. The goal is to discover recoverable minerals deposits, but the policy outcome from Louis’s research ALWAYS remains open ended pending the empirical results. If Louis skews his research to prove a deposit exists because that is what he wishes to prove, (ie, he becomes an activist while doing research) he’d be on the dole pretty quick.
The same strict rules of evidence enforced by fiduciary responsibility in the mining world, must be enforced in the academic world by the rules of scientific method: transparency, reproducibility, etc.
This is why climatological research evidence when funded by a petroleum corporation would be deeply suspect to Ann. It is also why research performed upon the Rainbow Warrior should be equally suspect.
In general I would tend to agree with you Louis. But in this case Hundloe is hardly making any statements that he has not already said, ad nauseum. Those of us in Brisbane who have had to endure the turgid ramblings of this sad old academic cliche for a few decades can be excused for being a bit more selective with our source material.
But if you are into rampant narcissism, reinforced by a constantly renewing supply of gullible undergrads, then, by all means, partake of the swill.
Alas I have parted with the readies and its on its way.
The conflation of economics with ecology (I am still wondering what point he was making with the sentence Jennifer initially quoted) shows that he does not, as all social democrats, understand economics.
Economics is simply the study of the mechanics of human action - proposing that is needs to be ethical implies that there is also an ethical way of riding a bicycle or for that matter, laying a course of bricks when building a house.
But I need to read it in order to understand his points and thus refute it on a basis of knowledge, rather than on the colour of its covers.
Rejecting an idea simply on the basis of its title, without reading it and actually comprehending the author's opinion is much like Ender's approach to science - any contradictory evidence must never be examined in detail.
This approach results in a self satisfying feeling that one KNOWS one cannot be wrong simply because one has not personally observed the error of one's ideas by studying contradictory evidence. I've noticed this is pervasive attitude with lefties/greenies - contradictory fact is studiously ignored, presumably because if you don't think about it, it does cannot exist.
It is impossible to reason with this manner of interlocution. Hence why the left then resort to violence to assert their POV. And they regard this as ethical as well.
I've noted a company called Easy Being Green Pty Ltd ACN 116 769 781 is Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement with a notice inviting formal proof of debt or claim. Hmmm... must not been so easy!
It is also interesting to note that the so-called 'ethical' or 'responsible' investment funds at QSuper have performed the worst over the past 3 months. http://qsuper.qld.gov.au/public/members/investment_performance/
I wonder where Hundloe had his retirement funds invested?
It seems that Hundloe and all his fellow travellers are about to get a taste of what life in a world community is actually like when a large part of the economy stops growing. The problem is that people like him have tenure and will be insulated from the slings and arrows of the very misfortune they champion.
Economic growth is like life itself. It can sometimes cause some problems but it remains far superior to the alternative.
The Ecology and Ethics.
Methinks that this headline constitutes much of today's fisheries policy.
Year after year , scientists in ICES , propose lower lower quotas than the fishermen want, and the final decision is made by the Gov't , that almost always take the side of the fishermen.
The actual numbers of whales in the ocean is not dependent upon human emotions or what country you live in. It's a hard fact and it can and must be determined independent of human emotion and politics.
An ecologist is a scientist, just like a geologist or a biologist. She/he should do his/her work within the strict parameters of the scientific method. In the lab, or the field, curiosity and a thirst for discovery are the only appropriate passions for good science.
This doesn’t mean that an ecologist can’t then later put on an activist’s hat and attempt to interpret soundly and transparently performed science into environmental policy. One would hope they don’t confuse hats.
Understand the fundamental difference between activism and scientific research---The two can and should meet, but they can never be performed at the same time. Or we end up with people who seem to think the number of whales in the oceans is determined by politics and emotion.
If the science is performed at the research level with the end policy result (consciously or unconsciously) predetermined, then that’s unethical science. Science must be performed as objectively as possible and be reproducible, if it cannot stand up to transparent inspection by other members of the scientific community it isn’t acceptable. Researcher bias in experimental situations is why activism must always be removed from the laboratory.
Take Louis’s work as a geologist looking for minerals for a mining corporation. The goal is to discover recoverable minerals deposits, but the policy outcome from Louis’s research ALWAYS remains open ended pending the empirical results. If Louis skews his research to prove a deposit exists because that is what he wishes to prove, (ie, he becomes an activist while doing research) he’d be on the dole pretty quick.
The same strict rules of evidence enforced by fiduciary responsibility in the mining world, must be enforced in the academic world by the rules of scientific method: transparency, reproducibility, etc.
This is why climatological research evidence when funded by a petroleum corporation would be deeply suspect to Ann. It is also why research performed upon the Rainbow Warrior should be equally suspect.
In general I would tend to agree with you Louis. But in this case Hundloe is hardly making any statements that he has not already said, ad nauseum. Those of us in Brisbane who have had to endure the turgid ramblings of this sad old academic cliche for a few decades can be excused for being a bit more selective with our source material.
But if you are into rampant narcissism, reinforced by a constantly renewing supply of gullible undergrads, then, by all means, partake of the swill.
Ian
Alas I have parted with the readies and its on its way.
The conflation of economics with ecology (I am still wondering what point he was making with the sentence Jennifer initially quoted) shows that he does not, as all social democrats, understand economics.
Economics is simply the study of the mechanics of human action - proposing that is needs to be ethical implies that there is also an ethical way of riding a bicycle or for that matter, laying a course of bricks when building a house.
But I need to read it in order to understand his points and thus refute it on a basis of knowledge, rather than on the colour of its covers.
Rejecting an idea simply on the basis of its title, without reading it and actually comprehending the author's opinion is much like Ender's approach to science - any contradictory evidence must never be examined in detail.
This approach results in a self satisfying feeling that one KNOWS one cannot be wrong simply because one has not personally observed the error of one's ideas by studying contradictory evidence. I've noticed this is pervasive attitude with lefties/greenies - contradictory fact is studiously ignored, presumably because if you don't think about it, it does cannot exist.
It is impossible to reason with this manner of interlocution. Hence why the left then resort to violence to assert their POV. And they regard this as ethical as well.