o menire

TOWARDS A DURABLE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY

2008-03-11T12:50:39+00:00

TOWARDS A DURABLE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY

? a preliminary research on a quality indicator of the social knowledge for durable development -

Dan Manoleli*, Alexandru Caragea**/*** and Aron Jinaru**/***

Paper submitted to the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on

"Management and Sustainable Marine Development"

5 ? 18 May 2008, Constanta, ROMANIA

Abstract The paradigm chosen for the research underlying this paper is specific to the new trend of sustainability science. The question pursued by this research is related to the complex dynamics created by the co-evolving coupling between human and environment systems instituted by the consequences of knowledge. The issue treated is that of representing the stage of civilizational development by means of the Ecological Footprint (EF) and Human Development Index (HDI) indicators as well as the aberrant co-evolving way in which these approximations have been used in strategic projections. The key aspect dealt with has been the significance given to the positive and nonlinear correlation between EF and HDI (see. Fig.1). The paper shows that, seeing things historically, the evolution perspective of the EF could be considered a consequence of the level attainted by human development. This could be formally expressed as EF(t+?t)=f[HDI(t)]. We emphasized that, to be strategically rational and biologically consistent, we need to see human development as being actually the element conditioned by the evolving perspectives of the EF ? and hence formally HDI(t+?t)=f[AE(t)].

By considering the explicit role of knowledge as a causal factor of the EF/HDI correlation, the paper defines a more adequate relation, expressed formally as

HDI(t.+.?+t) = f{EF(t), Q[HDI(t.-.?-t)]},

where Q[HDI(t)] is a quality indicator of the knowledge for durable development, which must be built.

The paper rigorously defines this kind of social knowledge, investigates the specific modalities of stimulating its cultivation by facilitating competent communication (between the poles represented by the actors of political science, public participation and political decision) and proposes, as a descriptor of the strategic model for the future, the ?Durable Knowledge Society? concept.

...

Figure 1

Vezi si: http://om.ablog.ro/categorie/2863/

* University of Bucharest ** CSC - Center for Complexity Studies *** PISC ? Perspectives-Innovation-Science-Knowledge, (PISK Association)

Teoria Catastrofelor - cel mai scurt 'curs de popularizare' si aplicatie pe cazul practic al problemei deciderii viitorului

2008-02-25T18:22:58+00:00

� Alexandru Caragea

"Cursul"

Cand parametrii externi ai unui sistem complex bazat pe potentiale merg de voia lor, emerg, se pot intampla numarate sau nenumarate pierderi de stabilitate structurala (destructurari) dupa cum urmeaza: - daca numarul de parametri este mai mic de 6, sistemul este pasibil sa se destructureze intr-unul din 11 clase de scenarii posibile, - daca numarul de parametri este mai mare de 5, clasele de scenarii devin nenumarate.

In esenta, acesta este rezultatul central al Teoriei Morfogenezei si Stabilitatii Structurale (teoria catastrofelor) a lui Rene Thom, formulat �ntr-un limbaj comun.

APLICATIA - Emergentele nocive civilizatiei ale umane - c�te scenarii de destructurare sunt posibile?

Emergentele sunt acea clasa de fenomene care la scara mare, a societatii, sunt provocate de consecintele neintentionate iscate in urma consumarii efectelor actiunilor individuale ale entitatilor constituente ale acesteia - "fenomene care merg de la sine", autoorganizate si nu organizate (intentionate) de cineva anume.

Exista cel putin 7 clase parametrice cu caracter de emergente globale si cu impact asupra potentialului de viabilitate al civilizatiei umane:

Cresterea demografica,
Consumul de carburanti organici,
Taierile de paduri,
Declinul biodiversitatii
Extinderea saraciei
Migratia
Cresterea interconectivitatii (decuplata de conditia proximitatii geografice - posibilitatilor de comunicare intre persoane prin sistemele de telecomunicatii )

Teoria lui Thom ne spune ca exista nenumarate scenarii plauzibile!

Care ar fi solutia? ... voi vorbi despre asta intr-o postare viitoare in care ma voi referi pe scurt la sinergetica!

� Alexandru Caragea

Scrisoare scrisa-vorbita din 2070

2008-02-21T18:00:27+00:00

Am constatat ca cea mai frecventa cautare cu care se ajunge in acest blog este * scrisoare * 2070 sau * viata * 2070! In vara, cand am neglijat blogul am facul un proiect ... exista un site al proiectului in care scrisoarea este si vorbita ... la vorbe, ajung insa numai cei care au rabdarea sa asculte intro-ul muzical ... (vocea este a actritei Maria Smaranda Caragea) Puteti gasi aceasta scrisoare vorbita si mai multe la adresele de mai jos http://megaswf.com/view/93cf2a110d5a9b647ce3cc804ddf7840.html sau pagina proiectului pentru moment in mentenanta

Andi Caragea

Pâna când ... ? (III - adaptare anticipativă: singularităţi, crucialităţi, emergenţe)

2008-02-04T18:12:48+00:00

Singularit??i ?i crucialit??i adaptative emergente ? dou? tipuri limit? de criticalit??i cognitive �n raport cu perspectiva de declin evolutiv.

Alexandru Caragea CSC

Trebuie remarcat c? performan?a este o m?sur? conven?ional? ?i relativ? dat? distan?ei �ntre a?tept?rile avute fa?? de o ingeniere ?i beneficiile ob?inute �n urma �ntreprinderii ei. De asemenea, este de remarcat c? performan?a oferit? de o anumit? solu?ie de ingeniere nu este neap?rat stabil? pe parcursul istoriei utiliz?rii sistemului creat, ea depinz�nd de stabilitatea condi?iilor de utilizare a sistemului respectiv. De exemplu, confortul oferit de un tip de construc?ie poate depinde de v�rsta celui care o locuie?te, de anotimp sau de plasarea acesteia �n diferite locuri geografice. Este de remarcat c? realitatea in care este aplicat? o solu?ie de ingeiere este una care se vrea a fi schimbat? ?i ca urmare una �n care sunt posibile modific?ri de organizare ?i, de asemenea, o realitate care are o component? social? ce este susceptibil? s? manifeste fenomene de emegen??[1] (de pild?, criticalit??i autoorganizate). Acestea pot face ca o ingeniere s? devin? (brusc sau lent, �ns? cumva nea?teptat) una insuficient de performant?. Emergen?ele din mediul �n care este aplicat? (inserat?) o solu?ie de ingeniere constituie astfel un factor principal de presiune adaptativ? care alimenteaz? nevoia de cre?tere a performan?ei �n cunoa?tere - nevoia sporirii capacit??ii de adaptare anticipativ? prin inovarea sistemelor ingeniate, care constituie arsenalul exosomatic uman. �n acest context, cunoa?terea (av�nd o arhitectur? evolutiv? ?i fiind orientat? c?tre cre?terea unui tip de performan??) poate fi privit? de asemenea ca sistem ingeniat de teorii de adaptare reactiv?, interactiv? sau anticipativ? la variabilit??ile ?i emergen?ele din mediul de via??. Putem vorbi astfel de ingenieri cognitive[2] sau de probleme de ingeniere cognitiv?. Dintr-o optic? fizicalist?, procesul economic poate fi privit ca fiind un agregat complex de circula?ii ?i transform?ri fizice ?i biochimice cu r?d?cinile ?i debu?eele inserate �n mediul terestru, amorsat pe fondul preexistent al proceselor biosferice ?i sus?inut pe acestea. Dintr-o optic? cognitiv?, putem privi procesul economic prin prisma cuplajului coadaptativ dintre procesele departe de echilibru ingeniate ?i conduse de obiective de bun?stare umane ?i restul proceselor terestre departe de echilibru, deci ca pe un isoric de ingenieri tehnologice ?i institu?ionale concrete, realizate la diferite sc?ri sociale, �n contextul: aspira?iei umane continue la un model de bun trai; al const�ngerilor legate de disponibilul limitat de resurse necesare pentru atingerea sustenabil? a acestui deziderat; ?i al ac?iunii emergen?elor din mediu. �n mod curent, ?tiin?a economic? este legat? de procesele economice ?i adopt? ca problem? general? studiul comportamentului uman referitor la rela?ia stabilit? �ntre finalit??i ?i mijloacele rare care au utilit??i alternative (Lionel Robbins ? 1932). V?zut? �ns? ca problem? de ingeniere cognitiv?, ?tiin?a economic? ar trebui s? ia �n vizor mult mai explicit caracterul evolutiv al comportamentelor umane generatoare de cuplaje �ntre finalit??i ?i resursele alocabile pentru atingerea acestora, �n contextul �n care resursele se rarefiaz? pe m?sur? ce prin cunoa?tere se m?re?te chiar spectrul de utiliz?ri alternative care li se poate imagina ?i da, unul dintre reperele fa?? de care se percepe raritatea. De asemenea, pentru a deveni o ?tiin?? a dezvolt?rii ?i orient?rii evolutive a civiliza?iei, ?tiin?a ecomomic? ar trebui s? se aplece mult mai explicit pe problematica emergen?elor cu impact asupra cuplajului proceselor economice cu procesele terestre complementare lor - factori care creeaz? presiunea adaptativ? de �mbun?t??ire permanent? a procesului de cunoa?tere economic?.

�n sprijinul acestei afirma?ii, aducem �n aten?ie c?, �n cazul procesului economic privit �n totalitatea sa, dac? privim retrospectiv evolu?ia ?i istoria societ??ii, putem u?or observa ca frecvent?, oricare ar fi scara social?, urm?toarea situa?ie problematic?.

Apar perioade ?i/sau momente ale vie?ii personale ?i/sau de grup �n care devine critic necesar? g?sirea ?i aplicarea �n timp util de noi solu?ii de organizare ?i conducere/orientare, adecvate �n raport cu evolu?ia spa?io-temporal? a disponibilului de resurse accesibile ?i utilizabile pentru satisfacerea la un nivel acceptabil/rezonabil/mul?umitor a nevoilor ?i dorin?elor (individuale ?i de grup), �n condi?iile varia?iei pe (perioade scurte) ?i evolu?iei (pe perioade lungi) a distribu?iei satisfac?iei sau lipsei de satisfac?ie, a?a cum este aceasta perceput? de c?tre entit??ile sociale �n ansamblul lor.

De asemenea, se poate observa c? nereu?ita g?sirii ?i adopt?rii unei solu?ii adecvate conduce la declinul performan?ei de conducere ?i la destructurare organiza?ional? ? la declin evolutiv.

Privitor la categoria de situa?ii de mai sus, se remarc? u?or c? ele au caracteristici de fenomene ce se manifest? ca apari?ii ?ca de la sine? a unor calit??i noi obsrvabile la scara global? a unui sistem ?i care nu pot fi reduse la propriet??ile p?r?ilor constituente ale acestuia ? de emergen?e. Dac? observ?m, mai departe c? sub aspect cognitiv astfel de emergen?e sunt ne�ndoios necesitante, se pot distinge urm?toarele dou? cazuri limit? de rezolvabilitate a unor situa?ii problematice ca cele de mai sus:

cazul crucialit??ilor adaptative emergente, �n care perspectiva declinului evolutiv este con?tientizat? ?i exist? proiecte de aplicare a unor solu?ii viabile,
cazul singularit??ilor adaptative emergente, �n care perspectiva declinului evolutiv nu este con?tientizat? sau este insuficient con?tientizat? ?i nu exist? proiecte de aplicare a unor solu?ii viabile.

Urm?toarele dou? conceptograme ilustreaz? ?i de o manier? vizual? cele dou? cazuri ?i, �n acela?i timp, subliniaz? c? pentru edificarea unei civiliza?ii sustenabile este necesar de adus �n discu?ie, �n afar? de crearea de resurse curate, ?i cererea de capacitate de adaptare anticipativ?. �n acest sens, devine clar c? tema edific?rii societ??ii sustenabile nu poate fi separat? de tema edific?rii societ??ii bazate pe cunoa?tere.

� Alexandru Caragea

-------------------------------------------------------- [1] Emergen?ele sunt fenomene ce se manifest? ca apari?ii ?ca de la sine? a unor calit??i noi obsrvabile la scara global? a unui sistem ?i care nu pot fi reduse la propriet??ile p?r?ilor constituente ale acestuia - vezi Laughlin, Robert (2005), A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-03828-X [2]? instituiri de cunoa?tere sub form? de concepte, ideologii, dogme, paradigme, mituri, legende, teorii acceptate etc.

Standardul de performanta cerut unei teorii de dezvoltare a civilizatiei

�n lumina conceptelor definite ?i dezvoltate p�n? aici, putem desprinde deja c�teva elemente ale standardului de performan?? cerut unei teorii de dezvoltare a civiliza?iei care s? fie capabil? s? reduc? consistent riscul de declin evolutiv al acesteia.

O teorie consistent? din punctul reducrii riscurilor de declin evolutiv va trebui s? r?spund? necesit??ii g?sirii ?i aplic?rii �n timp util a cel pu?in unei noi solu?ii de organizare ?i conducere/orientare a vie?ii personale ?i comune, corespunz?toar nevoii de creare de perspective de avans evolutiv prin care s? produc? transmutarea unei singularit??i adaptative emergente �ntr-o crucialitate adaptativ? emergent?.

O astfel de teorie va trebui s? fie suficient de puternic? pentru a permite decizia asupra solu?iilor de adoptat �n raport cu:

evolu?ia disponibilului de resurse accesibile ?i utilizabile pentru satisfacerea la un nivel acceptabil/rezonabil/mul?umitor a nevoilor ?i dorin?elor individuale ?i de grup, �n condi?iile varia?iei pe (perioade scurte) ?i evolu?iei �n timp (pe perioade lungi) a distribu?iei satisfac?iei sau de lipsei de satisfac?ie a?a cum este aceasta perceput? de c?tre entit??ile sociale �n ansamblul lor:

prin prisma distribu?iei surplusurilor sau deficiturilor de bunuri ?i servicii ?i
prin prisma distribu?iei acumul?rlor istorice de surse de satisfac?ii ?i/sau insatisfac?ii psiho-sociale,

atenuatoare sau amplificatoare a gardului de insatisfac?ie sau satisfac?ie perceput;
stabilizatoare sau destabilizatoare fa?? de realit??ile culturale ?i psiho-sociale active �n raport cu filtrarea op?iunilor, adoptarea deciziilor ?i punerea �n practic? a ini?iativelor de reformare a sistemelor de reglementare, organizare ?i conducere, cu structura ?i distribu?ia deschiderilor/adversit??ilor fa?? de schimbare;

starea, structura ?i distribu?ia polilor ?i instrumentelor de putere;
stadiul de dezvoltare a cunoa?terii teoretice precum ?i a infastructurii ?i orizontului de dezvoltare tehnologic?;
tendin?ele de evolu?ie, structura ?i distribu?ia a competen?elor ?i abilit??ilor;
starea arsenalelor exosomatice disponibile;

?i �n contextul nivelului riscurilor actuale create de persisten?a iner?ial? a umanit??ii �ntr-un regim supracritic de exploatare a resurselor.

� Alexandru Caragea

Să înţelegem lumea în care trăim, dar fără a uita că facem parte din ea !

2008-01-29T19:21:12+00:00

Not? de blog Este nevoie s? ie?im pentru o clip? �n afara noastr? pentru a reu?i s? �n?elegem lumea �n care tr?im, dar f?r? a uita c? facem parte din ea ! "Exist? cel pu?in o problem? filozofic? �n care orice om g�nditor este interesat. Aceasta este problema cosmologiei: problema �n?elegerii lumii, incluz�ndu-ne aici pe noi ?i cunoa?terea noastr? ca parte a lumii."

Karl Popper ? Logica descoperirii ?tiin?ifice

Vreau s? spun c? legile fizicii, care sunt valabile doar pentru o lume f?r? observatori, deci f?r? fiin?ele vii, vor explica aproape totul, �n afar? de via??. Totodat?, vreau s? spun c? tocmai aceast? limit? a legilor fizicii ne ofer? reperul fa?? de care s? �n?elegem prin raportare ceva din logica/sensul vie?ii. Mai mult, sus?in c? diferitele formalisme/formul?ri ale teoriilor fizicii, de?i sunt matematic ?i fizic echivalente, s-ar putea s? nu fie cognitiv echivalente. INTUI?IA �mi spune c? formalismele/formul?rile �n care AC?IUNEA este o m?rime central?/primar? (m?rimea la care se refer? postulatul definitoriu pentru acea formulare) sunt cele mai fertile dintr-o perspectiv? transdisciplinar?, care dep??e?te limitele fizicii. �n fond, via?a este caracterizat? de ac?ionalitate! ...

... ?i, mai mult, s? nu uit?m c? a cunoa?te �nsemn? a ac?iona!

� Alexandru Caragea

Pana cand .... (II- Problema generala a ingenierii)

2008-01-28T23:38:03+00:00

O scurt? analiz? a problemei generale a ingenierii

Alexandru Caragea

Centrul pentru Studii Complexe

Sistemele ingeniate [1] sunt posibile datorit? capacit??ii de adaptare anticipativ? a �nf?ptuitorilor lor. Problema general valabil? pentru orice categorie de ingenieri este aceea de a c?uta leg?tura determinist? �ntre capacitatea de furnizare de performan?? a unui sistem ?i arhitectura acestuia ?i de a utiliza acest? cunoa?tere pentru �mbun?t??irea performan?ei cu care se ac?ioneaz? asupra mediului, prin intermediul sistemului ingeniat, pentru a se ob?ine beneficiile urm?rite.

Pornind de la tratarea acestui tip de problem? pentru cazul sistemelor de curgeri, Adrian Bejan a construit metoda ?i teoria constructal? a sistemelor de curgeri cu configura?ie (termodinamica sistemelor de curgeri cu configura?ie) [2], una dintre cele mai fertile metode ?i teorii ?tiin?ifice formulate ?i dezvoltate �n ultimii 12 ani.

�n contextul defini?iei de mai sus, se desprind trei mari tipuri de cercetare care s-au sedimentat �n contextul unei asemenea probleme: - Fiind stabilit obiectivul de �mbun?t??ire a performan?ei �n condi?iile constr�ngerilor concrete globale ?i locale impuse de un context, s? se g?seasc? arhitectura capabil? s? confere sistemului de ingeniat capacitatea de a realiza performan?a cerut?. [C1] - Fiind dat un sistem oarecare cu o arhitectur? stabil? s? se desprind? obiectivul de performan?? al acestuia - ca fiind -rezultatul unei concilieri �ntre: un scop/?el/func?ie (natural? sau premeditat? de o minte) ?i un set de constr�ngeri concrete care au ac?ionat �n contextul form?rii/construc?iei acelui sistem. [C2] - Fiind dat un sistem cu arhitectur? cunoscut? s? se �ntrevad? evolu?ia sistemului de consr�ngeri ?i s? se redefineac? sau respecifice cerin?ele de performan?? pentru a optimiza evolu?ia speciei respective de sisteme ingeniate, adecvat cu ?elul/scopul care �i d? sens [C3] Ne vom referi �n continuare la aceste tipuri de probleme [3] ca la: ?problema concretiz?rii arhitectonice" [4]- [C1] ?problema decodific?rii arhitectonice? - [C2]. ?i, respectiv, ca la ?problema prospec?iei arhitectonice? (sau a foresight-ului arhitectonic) - [C3] Dup? cum se poate remarca, problema general? a ingenierii se refer? la dou? tipuri de realitate. O realitate a specific?rii proiectului �n care problema central? este a definirii ?i specific?rii cerin?ei de performan?? ?i o realitate a solu?ion?rii proiectului, �n care problema central? devine g?sirea arhitecturii cele mai adecvate pentru satisfacerea cerin?ei de performan?? fixate. Pentru sistemele evolutive analizate din perspectiva C2, istoricul speciei poate fi un indicator implicit al evolu?iei cerin?elor de cre?tere de performan??, c?rora respectiva specie de sisteme ingeniate le-a r?spuns ?i poate eviden?ia invariantul teleologic (nevoia esen?ial?) care a cauzat cursul evolu?iei lor. Istoria unei specii de artefacte ne poate vorbi astfel despre aspira?iile creatorilor ei. �n finalul acestei scurte analize, not?m c? ori de c�te ori se vorbe?te de cre?terea unei performan?e, �n orice domeniu al vie?ii, se invoc? mai mult sau mai pu?in explicit o problem? sau o combina?ie de probleme de tipul [C1], [C2] ?i/sau [C3].

---------------------------- [1] A fi ingeniat ? a fi conceput ?i fabricat de om ? a fi o proiec?ie �n concret a inteligen?ei umane [2] A. Bejan and S. Lorente: The constructal law and the thermodynamics of flow systems with configuration - International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Volume 47, Issues 14-16, July 2004. [3] Se observ? �n practica curent? c? proiectan?ii (de pild?, un inginer sau un chirurg) se confrunt? mai ales cu primul tip de problem? [C1] pe c�nd un investigator (de pild?, un criminalist un arheolog sau un etolog) se va confrunta mai ales cu al doilea tip de problem? [C2], iar un dezvoltator sau inventator va fi focalizat pe tipul de problem? [C3]. [4] Sim?im totodat? nevoia s? facem urm?toarea subliniere. Concretizarea arhitectonic? este un proiect. Implementarea reprezint? concretizarea proiectului prin transpunerea �n realitatea material?. Concretizarea arhitectonic? se face deci �ntr-o realitate a posibilit??ilor de rezolvare.

� Alexandru Caragea

Pana cand .... (I - coperta si introducerea)

2008-01-27T19:52:33+00:00

Am decis sa nu mai astept publicarea fizica acestei lucrari si sa incep cu publicarea pe blog. In fond, de ce sa distrugem verdeata planetei cu ideile noastre? Doar pentru a satisface formalisme de CV-academic? Astazi public coperta si introducerea. TITLU P�n? c�nd vom putea men?ine regimul supracritic de exploatare a resurselor biosferice pe care este a?ezat? civiliza?ia actual?? ? o problem? de ingeniere limit?, de solu?ionat pe muchia dintre declinul ?i avansul evolutiv al capacit??ii de adaptare anticipativ? -

* , ** Alexandru Caragea Centrul pentru Studii Complexe

Motto "Viitorul nu vine, nu a?teapt?.Viitorul se construie?te!"

Cuvinte ?i sintagme cheie: bucuria de a tr?i, bun trai, economie, cunoa?tere economic?, salt de civiliza?ie, ingeniere, problema general? a ingenierii, decodificare telic?, concretizare arhitectonic?, prospec?ie arhitectonic?, capacitate de adaptare anticipativ?, crucialit??i adaptative emergente, singularit??i adaptative emergente, specia?ie exosomatic?, regim supracritic de exploatare a resurselor, sisteme complexe de structuri disipstive, entropie, exergie.

--------------------------------- * Multe dintre ideile din aceast? lucrare au prins via?? ?i s-au rafinat �n urma conlucr?rii cu Aron Jinaru, colegul meu de echip? �n Centrul pentru Studii Complexe, ?i cu profesorul Dan Manoleli , de la Facultatea de Biologie a Universit??ii din Bucure?ti. Lor, ?in s? le mul?umesc �n mod special. ** Cea mai mare parte a acestei lucr?ri a fost conceput? cu func?ia de material preg?titor pentru provocarea unui exerci?iu de dezbatere prin controvers? crosdisciplinar? �n cadrul seminarului ?Metodologia ?i Logica Cunoa?terii Economice - Nicholas Georgescu Roegen? - Centrul de Cercet?ri Financiare ?i Monetare - Victor Sl?vescu, din cadrul Institutului Na?ional de Cercet?ri Economice al Academiei Rom�ne, sesiunea a 3-a , noiembrie 2007.

Introducere

Afirm�nd c? ?adev?ratul scop al economiei nu �l constituie fluxurile materiale pe care aceasta le creeaz?, ci fluxul tainic, imaterial al bucuriei omului de a tr?i?, Nicolae Georgescu Roegen atr?gea aten?ia asupra pericolului ca �n g�ndirea dezvolt?rii ?elul s? fie confundat cu mijloacele. Aceea?i afirma?ie indic? ?i o problem? de cercetare fundamental? extrem provocatoare, anume aceea a �n?elegerii cuplajului coevolutiv dintre tr?irile umane (de natur? sufleteasc?, spiritual?, emo?ional? etc.) ?i procesele din mediul biofizic pe care acestea se sus?in. Tradus, Roegen atrage aten?ia c? teoriile economico-matematice ignor? faptul c? bunul trai nu este reductibil la asigurarea abunden?ei fluxuri materiale consumate, de?i asigurarea unui optim al acestora este indispensabil pentru a face posibil bunul trai. Bunul trai nu poate fi disociat de tr?irea bucuriei. Aceasta depinde esen?ial ?i de alte lucruri, cum ar fi, de pild?, c?ldura interac?iunilor psiho-sociale. Teoriile economice adoptate �n prezent ca ?oficiale? ?i conven?ional etichetate ca ?ortodoxe? ignor? �ntr-o mare m?sur? caracterul limitat al resurselor terestre. Aceast? ignorare metodic? ?i metodologic? pune �n pericol civiliza?ia �n care tr?im, aspectul cel mai �ngrijor?tor al acestui fapt fiind acela c? se genereaz? riscuri de nesustenabilitate care practic sunt f?cute cadou genera?iilor urm?toare. Acest comportament poate fi perceput de con?tii?ele umane ca pe o vinov??ie moral?, venit? din neputin??, din nevoin?? sau din reavoin??. �n aceste condi?ii nu se mai poate vorbi de un model de bun trai durabil al civiliza?iei actuale, concordant cu sentimentul de lini?te moral? care este esen?ial pentru tr?irea st?rii de bucurie. Mai degrab?, s-a conceput ?i pus �n func?iune un substitut de bun trai care este efemer. Un substitut bazat pe promovarea ?i proliferarea unui stil de via?? consumerist, �n care lipsa orizontului de acces c?tre o tr?ire veritabil? a bucuriei este, de prea multe ori, compensat? prin consumarea de experien?e hedonice. Un fals adoptat ca original prin proliferarea filosofiei de via?? a tr?irii clipei. Un fals care nu poate avea alt rezultat dec�t instaurarea unui sentiment cronic de insatisfac?ie, mai cur�nd �n comunit??ile care resimt acut lipsa de mijloace de trai, dar �n cele din urm? ?i �n comunit??ile care ?se bucur?? de abunden??. �n acest context, parafraz�ndu-l pe Nicolae Georgescu Roegen, ne al?tur?m ideii c? ?nu putem vedea o societate, ?i cu at�t mai pu?in o �ntreag? omenire, care nereu?ind s?-?i programeze existen?a �n cadrul unei teorii ar prefera s? se sinucid? dec�t s? caute o alt? teorie!? �n lumina celor ar?tate mai sus, se poate afirma c? arhitectura fluxurilor materiale (structura, calitatea, intensitatea, ritmul, durabilitatea etc.) depinde puternic de cum anume este �n?eleas? ?i tradus? �n fapt, la nivelul civiliza?iei, aspira?ia uman? c?tre bucuria de a tr?i, de cum este conceput la nivel social ?i personal bunul trai ca orizont de tr?ire. Din aceast? perspectiv?, cunoa?terea economic? ar trebui v?zut?:

ca o filosofie a conceperii bucuriei de a tr?i ?i, derivat din acest? concepere, ca ?tiin?? a dob�ndirii ?i/sau cre?rii condi?iilor pentru concretizarea unui bun trai ca o cunoa?tere izvor�t? din practic? ce ar fi capabil? s? furnizeze ?elurile ?i obiectivele de parcurs �n?elepte - adecvate cu cerin?a de realizare durabil? a bunului trai la scara umanit??ii, �n contextul realit??ii resurselor terestre limitate, ca fiind un proces de �nv??are prin �ntreprindere continuu, evolutiv.

Sintetiz�nd, cunoa?terea economic? ar trebui privit? fiind una izvor�t? din practica ingenierilor[1] tangibile ?i intangibile[2]orientate c?tre solu?ionarea nevoii de bucurie a omului. Se poate observa c? devine din ce �n ce mai urgent? fundamentarea, g?sirea ?i punerea la treab? a unei strategii de dezvoltare, larg acceptabil? ?i realizabil?, care s? fac? posibil un salt pe o treapt? superioar? de civiliza?ie ? un concept de provocare prin ingeniere a unui salt civiliza?ional.

------------------------------- 1) A fi ingeniat ? a fi conceput ?i confec?ionat/fabricat sau instituit de om ? a fi o proiec?ie �n concret a inteligen?ei umane 2) Ingenierile intangibile sunt acele lucruri inserate �n realitate ca institu?ii - care sunt concepute ?i instituite.

� Alexandru Caragea - CSC

Până când vom putea menţine regimul supracritic de exploatare a resurselor biosferice pe care stă aşezată civilizaţia actuală?

2008-01-10T16:56:07+00:00

? o problem? de ingeniere limit?, de solu?ionat pe muchia dintre declinul ?i avansul evolutiv al capacit??ii de adaptare anticipativ? -

Revin dup[ mai multe luni grele care m-au tinut departe de blog. �ntre timp, am �naintat cu Econofiziologia ?i am scris nucleul unei viitoare lucr?ri de �ntinderea unei c?r?i cu tema descris? de titlul ?i subtitlul acestei post?ri. Postez deocamdat? prezentarea sintetic? a unui articol nucleu, care sper sa fie publicat in cur�nd �ntr-un volum al CSC.

Preprint sintetic

Motto "Viitorul nu vine, nu a?teapt?.Viitorul se construie?te!"

Alexandru Caragea Centrul pentru Studii Complexe

Lucrarea pleac? de la atragerea de aten?ie f?cut? de Nicolae Georgescu Roegen, privitoare la faptul c? nu trebuie uitat c? de fapt scopul ultim al economiei este crearea condi?iilor pentru nutrirea bucuriei de a tr?i a omului. Privind economia ca pe o ingeniere av�nd ca scop (implicit sau explicit formulat) crearea condi?iilor bucuriei de a tr?i, se pleac? de la o analiz? f?cut? prin rafinarea problemei generale a ingenierii (engineering ), aceea a g?sirii leg?turii deterministe �ntre �mbun?t??irea de performan?? ?i arhitectura unui sistem de ingeniat. Adrian Bejan �n cartea sa Shape and Structure, from Engineering to Nature, publicat? �n 2000. Analiza se focalizeaz? pe aspectul c? produsele ingenierii sunt inser?ii locale ce devin �ns? factori cauzatori de emergen?e la scar? supralocal? sau global?. Se eviden?iaz? c? aceste emergen?e conduc la consecin?e de tipul unor presiuni adaptative conretizate ca cerin?e de inovare prin re-ingeniere ?i se definesc conceptele de singularitate ?i crucialitate adaptativ? emergent? ca situa?ii limit? �n care se manifest? riscul declinului evolutiv al unor popula?ii de organisme vii dependente de artefacte tehnologice. Din aceast? perspectiv?, se reinterpreteaz? problema rarit??ii economice ca o problem? de re-ingeniere. Prin prisma acestor concepte, se opereaz? un exerci?iu de foresight focalizat pe perspectivele civiliza?iei actuale de a ie?i din regimul supracritic de exploatare a resurselor. Se ia �n calcul c? civiliza?ia este modelabil? ca un system complex de specii exosomatice care �n acela?i timp sunt ?i structuri disipative. Apoi, se identific? drept scenariu posibil provocarea programat? a unei extinc?ii �n mas? de specii exosomatice, f?cut? concomitent cu introducerea de specii noi bazate pe surse de exergie curate. Se eviden?iz? costurile exergetice ?i entropice implicate de extinc?ia programat? de specii exosomatice ?i se trage concluzia necesit??ii cre?terii ?i mai rapide de capacit??i de produc?ie de energie din resurse neregenerabile ?i regenerabile anorganice f?r? impact climatic. Se emite scenariul �n care o cre?tere masiv?, dar temporar? la scara istoriei, a capacit??ilor de producere a energiei prin fisiune nuclear? ar fi cea mai precaut? cale de adaptare anticipativ? pentru ie?irea din regimul supracritic de exploatare a resurselor. �n final, se fac c�teva considera?ii privitoare la semnifica?ia econofizic? pe care ar putea-o avea faptul c?, �n cele din urm?, ar trebui s? ne decidem s? facem saltul la Civiliza?ia Bazat? pe Resurse Extraterestre.

� 2008 Alexandru Caragea CSC

Privind înapoi cu autoironie, salt înainte! (1)

2007-05-09T18:57:20+00:00

Andi Caragea (CSC)

Observa?ia 1. De fapt, ne confrunt?m cu un ghem vicios de 4, ?i nu cu unul de 3 amenin??ri majore globale interdependente!

Dup? momentul istoric Rio, a devenit aproape un cli?eu s? se vorbeasc? de Cele 3 Mari Provoc?ri Globale: schimb?rile climatice, de?ertificarea ?i pierderea de biodiversitate . Un alt efect al activit??ii umane asupra mediului este cel al iner?iilor inerente imprimate de modul nesustenabil de cre?tere[1]; o palet? larg? de iner?ii �nc�lcite, ?i �ntre ele, ?i cu consecin?ele lor �nc�lcite ?i ele-ntre-ele; �nc�lciri vicioase: ideologice, de stil de via??, culturale, tehnologice, paradigmatice, etc. G?sirea c?ii de desc�lcire din chingile �ncurcate ale acestor iner?ii, constituie de fapt cea mai profund? provocare global?. Pe scurt, ceea ce trebuie s? ne �ngijoreaze cel mai mult este imobilismul cu care au fost ?i sunt �nc? tratate cele trei mari amenin??ri create de oameni dar devenite autonome fa?? de voin?a ?i puterea lor de control - aceast? stare paradoxal? de �nge? �n tiparele de dezvoltare care dezvolt? �nc?lzire global?. Imobilismul este �ns? un factor care se poate trata cu mobilizare. Singurul impediment �l constituie �ns? sedentarismul creator de os�nz?.

Este cumva un fel de ironie a sor?ii s? constat?m c? am ajuns s? ne pl�ngem simultan, at�t de �nc?lzirea gobal?, c�t ?i de un fel de �nghe? global. Ca ?i cum, umanitatea ar trece printr-un stadiu de bufeuri menopauzale. ?i, peste toate, asta s? ne fie dat s? se �nt�mple tocmai atunci c�nd industria farmaceutic? ne bombardeaz? cu o adev?rat? infla?ie de leacuri anti-bufeu ?i c�nd medicina se f?le?te c? este capabil? s? dea na?tere unor copii cu mame naturale cvasicentenare!

Glumesc pentru c? cred c?, dac? vom reu?i s? con?tientiz?m p�n? la nivelul de con?tientizare capabil? de autoironie colectiv?, situa?ia �n care ne-am b?gat ?i ne-am cam �ncurcat cu ?tiin?ific? trufie, va putea fi mai lesne desc�lcit?.

�n fond, este mai u?or s? deznozi 3 fire �ncurcate �ntre ele dec�t 4.

Andi Caragea (CSC)

[1] Cre?tere at�t economic? c�t ?i demografic?

Introducere în Econofiziologie [1] (Econophisiology - an introduction [1])

2007-04-11T18:28:25+00:00

"Economics text-books create the mindsets, mindsets create the world. I think economics has mistreated this world. It got us into a lot of troubles and many human tragedies. For one thing seeds of poverty are planted firmly in the pages of economics text-books." Mohammed Yunus

Mohammed Yunus - Premiul Nobel pentru Pace 2006 -

Introducere �n Econofiziologie (Econophisiology - an introduction)

Alexandru Caragea (CSC)

Primul pas: cum este econophysis-ul afectat prin infaptuirile economice umane? Urmatoarele doua conceptograme pun in evidenta un tip de proces invariant implcat de orice infaptuire umana cu caracter tehno-economic.

Conceptograma urmatoare specific? procesul economic la cazul economiei locuirii:

Ca orice alt? ?tiin??, econofiziologia apeleaz? la reduc?ionisme, simplific?ri ?i aproxim?ri. Specific acestei abord?ri, este faptul c? reduc?ionismul maxim admis pentru modelarea proceselor economice este cel ilustrat �n conceptogramele de mai sus. Econofiziologia se uit? atat la fluxurile utile cat si la cele reziduale, at�t la �nf?ptuirile ingeniante (artefacte) c�t ?i la cele posesive (�nsu?irile �n proprietate), at�t la latura biofizic? pe c�t ?i la aceea psiho-cognitiv?.

CREDINTA cu OMENIE

2007-04-06T12:59:41+00:00

... Dragostea crestinului trebuie sa se indrepte intai catre Dumnezeu, catre poruncile si legile Sale; apoi catre aproapele si, in fine, catre sine insusi, caci aceasta este porunca Mantuitorului: "Sa iubesti pe Domnul Dumnezeul tau cu toata inima ta, cu tot sufletul tau si cu tot cugetul tau. Aceasta este marea si intaia porunca. Iar a dona, la fel ca aceasta: Sa iubesti pe aproapele tau ca pe tine insuti" (Matei 22, 37-39). Cand spun Omenire, O Menire sau Om cu Menire, spun "pentru ce-ul". >>> Cand spun CREDINTA spun "cu ce-ul" Cand spun OMENIE, spun "cum-ul". Oare as putea scrie aici, mai mult de atat, acum, in prejma Pastilor? Poate doar ca vreau sa ma bucur impreuna cu voi ca in romana se poate rosti atat de simplu: OMENIE si sa se cuprinda sensul (noima) iubirii aproapelui ... temeiul trairii cestine dintru si intru care sarbatorim Invierea Domnului. Si daca noi romanii avem privilegiul de a rosti atat de simplu aceasta noima, eu cred ca avem totodata si datoria sa intelegem, si mai adanc si mai inalt, sensul Invierii - deschis prin Logos si intrupat (concretizat) prin Hristos ca sens realizabil cu credinta prin omenie, al fiecarui om si Omenirii, deopotriva.

Alexandru Caragea

Un nou capitol de cercetare si o noua categorie pe blog: Econofiziologia ( The Econophysiology )

2007-03-29T22:48:22+00:00

Deschid ast?zi o categorie nou?: Econophysiology (Econofiziologie), adresat? cu prec?dere cititorilor interesa?i de epistemologie ?i de cercetarea ?tiin?ific?.

Numesc prin termenul Econophysis (Econonatura) ? acea parte a naturii (sub-sistem din natur?) a c?rui transformare este influentat? direct sau indirect de c?tre umanitate prin procesele economice.

Corespunzator acestui sub-sistem al naturii, se poate defini si delimita un domeniu de cercetare ?tiintifica avand ca ?el eviden?ierea legilor de transformare ?i/sau evolu?ie care �l guverneaz?. Am numit acest domeniu econofiziologie [1] (econophysiology).

Toate post?rile din ?Categoria Econophysiology? vor fi f?cute din perspectiva de mai sus, ?i au ca origine un proiect de cercetare mai vechi, demarat �mpreun? cu Aron Jinaru acum 10 ani. (A se vedea in acest sens articolul: Bioeconomia Fenomenologica http://www.csc.matco.ro/framedPage.htm).

Pentru �nceput, propun cititorilor interesa?i s? se aplece meditativ asupra a dou? concepte care sunt �n opinia mea de neocolit atunci c�nd se abordeaz? Econophysis-ul:

� conceptul de ?flux imaterial al bucuriei de a tr?i? indicat de c?tre Georgescu-Roegen ca ?el al economiei deturnat de c?tre teoreticienii economiei ?i

� conceptul de ?tensiune filosofic?? introdus de c?tre Mihai Dr?g?nescu ?i utilizat de c?tre acesta pentru explorarea din perspectiv? structural-fenomenologic? a dimensiunii spirituale a omului.

Surse bibliografice:

"La Decroissance" - lucrarea "testament" a lui Nicolae Georgescu Roegen

Mihai Dr?g?nescu:

"Spiritualitatea ? Cap.2al Studiului despre Societatea Constiintei"

[1] Am exclus, oarecum fortat, alternativa de a numi acest domeniu de cercetare prin termenul econophysics (econofizic?) datorita faptului ca acest nume a fost adoptat, cu precadere incepand cu anul 2000, pentru campul de cercetare in care obiectivul este de a utiliza rezultate si modele ale fizicii in solutionarea problemelor economice.

Atentie! Voga ProStrutului poate fi pervers intretinuta de fenomenul mediatic 'Petrica si Lupul '

2007-03-27T05:56:16+00:00

Incompetenta amestecata cu iresponsabilitatea ziaristica, aflate in goana dupa senzational, pot conduce la efectul "Petrica si Lupul" in legatura cu problemele globale de mediu. Urmatoarele 3 legaturi sunt elocvente! www.gandul.info/articol_34337/dunarea_quot_pe_cale_de_disparitie_quot_.html www.compact.info.ro/index.php?section=articole&screen=articol&art_id=26416 www.cronicaromana.ro/index.php?art=67965 De fapt, avem senzational si iresponsabilitate , exagerari si confuzii voite facute numai din goana dupa cititori. Dovada? Aveti aici legatura la Studiul WWF la care se face referire direct sau indirect in articolele de mai sus! http://assets.panda.org/downloads/worldstop10riversatriskfinalmarch13.pdf Ce-i drept nu-i roza situatia Dunarii, dar nu chiar de secare este vorba. Ba, sunt si solutii. Iata numai un citat! "Dam and infrastructure projects threaten freshwater habitats in the Salween, La Plata, and Danube basins. Solutions: Assessing whether new infrastructure is the best means of delivering the required service is the first step (for example, in the Danube, rail transport may be a better option). If infrastructure is the best option it should be planned to minimize impacts by: siting off the river?s main stem and floodplains, mimicking natural water flows, allowing fish passage, controlling thermal pollution, and maintaining sediment and nutrient flows critical to sustaining the health of the rivers. Effective treaties between riparian nations to support integrated river basin management are essential for good governance." Pericolul de secare ameninta totusi Lacul Victoria si Nilul, dependente de ghetari! Asta nu-i de gluma Daca vrem sa gasim solutii va trebui sa vedem cat mai limpede posibil. Din pacate, presa induce cam multa ceata in vremurile astea. Iar, strutii se pot ascunde in ea ca si in nisip! Atat "Petrica si Lupul" cat si "Drobul de Sare" mentin in voga doar Strutii din postarea cu pricina. O voga destul de paguboasa! Voga Pro-Strutii! Andi Caragea (CSC)

HUMMER LifeSTYLE - Attractive or Aversive ?

2007-03-23T09:32:21+00:00

Heat the Planet, heat it up!

Incinge, incinge planeta !

HUMMER LifeSTYLE

Stiinta Politica a Strutilor ne ofera ... Pseudo Solutions: Growth Management—Smart Growth

2007-03-22T18:49:07+00:00

Pseudo Solutions: Growth Management?Smart Growth

Quoted from Albert A. Bartlett Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment?2006 in The Future of Sustainability Edited by Marco Keiner Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Z�rich

"The claim is often made that ?smart growth will save the environment?. It is worth remembering that: Smart growth is better than dumb growth, but Smart growth destroys the environment; and Dumb growth destroys the environment. The difference is that smart growth destroys the environment with good taste So it?s a little like buying a ticket on the TITANIC. If you?re smart you go first class. If you?re dumb you go steerage. But either way, the result is about the same." Si, pentru a vedea de unde provine comportamentul "strutilor" si chiar cine sunt ei ... Adica ce ii sperie si nu ar vrea cu nici un chip sa vada ... publicam un articol al lui Herman E. Daly, trimis de catre acesta Centrului pentru Studii Complexe cu prilejul comemorarii a 10 ani de la moartea profesorului si mentorului sau: Nicolae Georgescu Roegen.

How Long Can Neoclassical Economists Ignore the Contributions of Georgescu-Roegen? [i]

Herman E. Daly

School of Public Affairs

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742-1811

I. Introduction.--Some will immediately object to my title-- Georgescu-Roegen has not been ignored, they will point out. He was a Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association; Paul Samuelson, the pope of American economists, called him ?a scholar?s scholar, an economist?s economist? (1965); and Mark Blaug (1985) included him in his book Great Economists Since Keynes . All true. What I mean is that G-R has been ignored in the sense of not being taken seriously. Samuelson has said little about G-R since his 1965 paean. Did he change his mind? Why? Certainly none of G-R?s ideas on the biophysical foundations of economics ever made it into the canon of Samuelson?s famous textbook. Nor have Samuelson?s colleagues and students at MIT paid G-R the slightest attention. Little notice was taken of G-R?s death by the American Economic Association. Hardly a trace of his influence remains in the Economics Department of Vanderbilt University where he taught for twenty years. Did someone subsequently refute the ?economist?s economist?? Who? Where? Why this combination of temporary recognition followed by apparent amnesia? Mark Blaug (1985, p. 71) gives a partial answer:

?It is only fair to add that Georgescu-Roegen?s later books have not been well received, or rather, have been respectfully received and quickly put away. For various complex reasons, not to mention the difficult style in which they are written and the intimidating references they contain to theoretical developments in physics and biology, these works have received virtually no critical discussion from economists. ?

It would seem that economists are allergic to physics and biology, and should be excused from any contact with such irritating and intimidating sciences! After all, the neoclassicals had just made a very heavy investment in learning mathematics, and that was thought sufficient to acquire scientific status, or at least the appearance thereof. Also if one starts encumbering mathematical growth models with biophysical dimensions one loses the analytical beauty and austere elegance of the pure mathematics. One also raises impolite political questions about biophysical limits to economic growth, and the sufficiency of economic growth as the panacea for poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, environmental degradation, etc. One may even arive at the very awkward conclusion that some very respected economists have been saying some very erroneous things for a very long time.

S. De Gleria (1995), in a thoughtful tribute to G-R, argued that his was a mind that thought ahead of its time. If this is true, and I think that it is, then the future should witness our catching up with G-R?s thinking. I believe this will eventually happen. Although it is ungracious to say so, G-R?s ideas may advance more rapidly now that he himself is no longer around to scare people away from them by his irascible nature and impatience to ?suffer fools gladly?. Some of G-R?s secret admirers may now openly take up his cause, no longer fearful that the master will disown them because of some minor difference.

In their excellent obituary essay and summary of G-R?s contributions, A. Maneschi and S. Zamagni (1997) remark that in spite of the recognition accorded G-R, ?....it is somewhat paradoxical that Georgescu seems to be better known outside than inside his adopted country, the United States.? (p. 705). While in some ways adding to the puzzle, this remark also suggests a clue. European economists might have been more receptive because they learned from G-R at a distance--more through his writings than in person. Also Europeans accord more respect to professors than do Americans, and that made personal relations with G-R easier because, a European himself, he took the respectful deference of others as his due. Most importantly, Europeans are less under the domination of the MIT department of economics and its clones than are US economists. Samuelson?s 1965 laudatio notwithstanding, the US neoclassicals found G-R just too problematic to deal with. He was after all an accomplished mathematician who criticized the frequently excessive and pretentious use of mathematics in economics, and, as already emphasized, he was not an easy man to get along with. I once asked him why he thought that the neoclassical MIT ?mafia? (his term) never referred to him or cited his work. He replied with a Romanian proverb to the effect that, ?in the house of the condemned one must not mention the executioner?. He was indeed something of a executioner, but usually a just one. A discussion of his critique of Solow/Stiglitz will provide an example of his justice, as well as of the neoclassical school?s capacity to stonewall for twenty years. G-R?s ire was not always unprovoked--not by any means!

As Gowdy and Mesner (1997) pointed out, in the end G-R gave up on the standard economists, and resigned from the American Economic Association. G-R?s own assessment of the situation was given in the following words, ?If I finally realized that I was running against one current or another, it was not from any crossing of intellectual swords with my fellow economists, who have systematically shunned such an encounter, but from their personal attitude attitudes toward me. I was a darling of the mathematical economists as long as I kept contributing pieces on mathematical economics?. (Georgescu-Roegen, 1992. p.156) . That the systematic shunning of any intellectual encounter with G-R continues to be modus operandi of the neoclassical establishment, is evident from the forum discussion in Ecological Economics in September 1997. Parts of that discussion are repeated below.

II. Georgescu-Roegen?s Critique of the Solow/Stiglitz Neoclassical View of Production.-- In his Richard T. Ely Lecture to the American Economic Association, Robert Solow (1974, p.11) stated that ?If it is very easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then there is in principle no ?problem?. The world can, in effect, get along without natural resources....? . As an ?if-then? statement this is no less true than saying, ?If wishes were horses then beggars would ride?. But the facts are that wishes are not horses, and that natural resources and capital are generally not substitutes, but complements. While it is no doubt useful to state this conditional possibility for the sake of logical completeness in cataloging alternatives, one would expect that the production-without-resources case, once recognized, would be quickly set aside as unrealistic and unworthy of further analysis. However, Solow does not set it aside, but retains it as a real possibility. In fact, it is precisely this ?real possibility? that has provided the foundation for a significant part of his previous work. His well-known work in growth theory is based on an aggregate production function in which resources do not appear at all, and which takes production to be a function only of capital and labor. That production function is a mathematically clear way of saying that ?the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources?.

What evidence does Solow offer for this remarkable affirmation about the way the world works? In the next paragraph he says, ?Fortunately, what little evidence there is suggests that there is quite a lot of substitutability between exhaustible resources and renewable or reproducible resources......? True enough, but irrelevant. The issue is not substitution between two types of natural resource, rather it is one of substitution of capital for resources--an entirely different matter. Easy substitution between two types of natural resource will not help the world to get along without natural resources!

Since the production function is often explained as a technical recipe, we might say that Solow?s recipe calls for making a cake with only the cook and his kitchen. We do not need flour, eggs, sugar, etc. , nor electricity or natural gas, nor even firewood. If we want a bigger cake, the cook simply stirs faster in a bigger bowl and cooks the empty bowl in a bigger oven that somehow heats itself. Nor does the cook have any cleaning up to do, because the production recipe produces no wastes. There are no rinds, peelings, husks, shells, or residues, nor is there any waste heat from the oven to be vented. Furthermore, we can make not only a cake, but any kind of dish-- a gumbo, fried chicken, a paella, bananas foster, cherries jubilee--all without worrying about the qualitatively different ingredients, or even about the quantity of any ingredient at all! Real recipes in real cookbooks, by contrast, begin with a list of specific ingredients and amounts.

A technical production recipe that contradicts both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, as well as best practice in cooking, is more than a little troubling. It led Georgescu-Roegen to the following verdict on Solow : ?One must have a very erroneous view of the economic process as a whole not to see that there are no material factors other than natural resources. To maintain further that ??the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources? is to ignore the difference between the actual world and the Garden of Eden.? (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975, p.361).

Perhaps as an unacknowledged concession to Georgescu-Roegen?s criticism, we find some years later a new version of the production function in which resources appear along with labor and capital, all multiplied together in a Cobb-Douglas function. Georgescu labeled this the ?Solow-Stiglitz variant?, and showed that including R (resources) in this type of production function simply sweeps the contradiction under the rug, without removing it.

Georgescu-Roegen deserves to be quoted at length on this point. He writes the "Solow-Stiglitz variant" of the Cobb-Douglas function as :

Q = Ka1 Ra2 La3 (1)

"where Q is output, K is the stock of capital, R is the flow of natural resources used in production, L is the labor supply, and a1+a2 +a3 = 1 and of course, ai > 0.

From this formula it follows that with a constant labor power, Lo, one could obtain any Qo, if the flow of natural resources satisfies the condition

Ra2 = Qo / Ka1 Loa3 (2)

This shows that R may be as small as we wish, provided K is sufficiently large. Ergo, we can obtain a constant annual product indefinitely even from a very small stock of resources R > 0, if we decompose R into an infinite series R = SRi, with Ri --> 0, use Ri in year i , and increase the stock of capital each year as required by (2). But this ?ergo? is not valid in actuality. In actuality , the increase of capital implies an additional depletion of resources. And if K--> infinity, then R will rapidly be exhausted by the production of capital. Solow and Stiglitz could not have come out with their conjuring trick had they borne in mind, first, that any material process consists in the transformation of some materials into others (the flow elements) by some agents (the fund elements), and second, that natural resources are the very sap of the economic process. They are not just like any other production factor. A change in capital or labor can only diminish the amount of waste in the production of a commodity: no agent can create the material on which it works. Nor can capital create the stuff out of which it is made. In some cases it may also be that the same service can be provided by a design that requires less matter or energy. But even in this direction there exists a limit, unless we believe that the ultimate fate of the economic process is an earthly Garden of Eden.

The question that confronts us today is whether we are going to discover new sources of energy that can be safely used. No elasticities of some Cobb-Douglas function can help us to answer it.? (Georgescu-Roegen, 1979, p.98). (See also Stiglitz, 1979, p.41, fn 5).

To my knowledge neither Solow nor Stiglitz has ever replied to Georgescu-Roegen?s critique. What reply could they make? Let us consider a few possibilities that others have put forward in similar contexts.

First, it might be argued that resources can be left out of the production function because they are not really scarce. Air is usually necessary for production, but we do not explicitly enter it in the function because it is considered a free good. This argument loses plausibility as soon as we remember that most resources are not free goods. Furthermore, we cannot logically use price, even a zero price, as a coefficient of factors in the production function. The production function is a technical recipe with all terms in physical units, not value units. The fact that aggregate production functions must use prices as weights in calculating an aggregate quantity index (dollar?s worth) of capital (or labor or resources) is a fundamental problem that limits the usefulness of aggregate production functions, not an answer to the difficulty just raised. Also, expressing the quantities of different factors in units of the same numeraire reflects an assumption, not a demonstration, that the factors are substitutes.

Second, it is sometimes argued that leaving resources out of the production function is justified by the implicit assumption that resources can be perfectly substituted by reproducible capital. Nordhaus and Tobin (1972) are quite explicit: ?The prevailing standard model of growth assumes that there are no limits on the feasibility of expanding the supplies of nonhuman agents of production. It is basically a two-factor model in which production depends only on labor and reproducible capital. Land and resources, the third member of the classical triad, have generally been dropped........the tacit justification has been that reproducible capital is a near perfect substitute for land and other exhaustible resources.? If that were the case then we could equally well leave out capital and include natural resources (substitution is reversible), yet no one suggests doing that (for related discussion, see Victor, 1991). To do that would run counter to the whole animus of neoclassical theory, which is to deny any important role to nature.

The Solow-Stiglitz variant includes resources explicitly, but implicitly makes a similar assumption about near perfect substitution of capital for resources--what Georgescu-Roegen aptly dismissed as a ?conjuring trick?. In the Solow-Stiglitz variant, to make a cake we need not only the cook and his kitchen, but also some non-zero amount of flour, sugar, eggs, etc. This seems a great step forward until we realize that we could make our cake a thousand times bigger with no extra ingredients, if we simply would stir faster and use bigger bowls and ovens. The conjuring trick is to give the appearance of respecting the first law of thermodynamics (material balance) without really doing so.

Another argument for the unimportance of resources was offered in the influential book Scarcity and Growth, (1963, p.11) by Barnett and Morse, who argued that ?Advances in fundamental science have made it possible to take advantage of the uniformity of matter/energy--a uniformity that makes it feasible without preassignable limit, to escape the quantitative constraints imposed by the character of the earth?s crust.....Nature imposes particular scarcities, not an inescapable general scarcity.? Just below the surface lies the alchemist?s dream of converting lead into gold. All we need from nature are uniform, indestructible building blocks--the alchemical ?quintessence? or ?fifth essence? to which the traditional four essences (earth, air, fire, and water) are thought to be reducible, and through which they become convertible one into the other. Given the building blocks, all the rest is transmutation--value added by capital and labor (and perhaps a few magic words or symbols). Technical improvement enables labor and capital to add more value to the inert building blocks, but nature remains unnecessary beyond the initial provision of those blocks. This view at least respects the first law of thermodynamics, but unfortunately crashes headlong into the second law. While it may be technically possible to convert lead into gold thereby eliminating the particular scarcity of gold, we do not thereby remove general scarcity, because the potential for making such conversions is itself scarce. That potential must be continually used up by the economy and resupplied by nature in the form of low-entropy natural resources.

Another possible reply would be to take off from Georgescu-Roegen?s qualification that in some cases ?the same service may be provided by a design that requires less matter or energy?. This implicitly introduces a distinction between substitution among factors within a given set of technologies (existing state of the art), and substitution among factors made possible by a new technology (improved state of the art). Even the latter case is limited--future technologies must also conform to the laws of thermodynamics, Georgescu-Roegen insists-- but he leaves it at that. Just how far new technology can ease the burden of scarcity, within the constraint of physical laws, remains an open question. But that really is another subject from the one at hand, since in constructing their aggregate production function Solow/Stiglitz aim to represent actual production processes of today and the recent past--not unknown future possibilities. It is as an empirically-based representation of actual production processes that their production function is intended, and it is as such that it fails. That it would also fail to depict future technologies is an a fortiori criticism.

In an article otherwise critical of neoclassical theory, R. U. Ayers (1996, p.12) offers a last-ditch defense of Solow/Stiglitz, in the absence of which he considers Georgescu-Roegen?s critique ?devastating?. Ayers? too-generous defense is that, ?in the distant future the economic system need not produce significant amounts of material goods at all.? Further down the same page he implicitly conflates the production function with the utility function to make the claim that, ?nobody can define a finite absolute minimum material input required to produce a unit of economic welfare.? Maybe not, but we were talking about physical output, not welfare. Even production functions that yield services are producing a physical output--the use of something or somebody for some period of time. That is different from utility or welfare. The service of my physician may not increase my welfare at all, and could even reduce it--but it remains a measurable service for which I am charged. But even without this clarification Ayres found it necessary to immediately condition his statement questioning the existence of a minimum material input, by adding ?with the obvious exception of food and drink?. Are there not other obvious exceptions, e.g., clothing and shelter?

Maybe there are other replies to Georgescu-Roegen?s criticism that are less unconvincing than those considered above, but if so then Solow or Stiglitz should break their silence and finally reply to Georgescu-Roegen?s criticism of long standing. Of course Georgescu-Roegen is now deceased, but his critique did not die with him. Serious criticism and serious replies are both essential parts of science. When a fundamental critique from a very prominent economist goes for twenty years without a reply, we should worry about the health of our discipline!

Consider a further major difficulty resulting from the conjuring trick of just plugging R into a production function along with K and L. An immediate consequence is that the marginal physical products of K and L would have to be zero once R is included in the function. This is because the definition of marginal product of one factor requires that the amounts of all other factors be held constant as one more unit of the variable factor is added. But when resources are held constant then there can be no extra unit of output as labor or capital is increased because there is no extra physical substance for the extra output to be made from--it would have to be produced out of nothing, again fracturing the first law of thermodynamics. The point of course is not limited to Cobb-Douglas functions--any production function that obeys the first law of thermodynamics cannot avoid a strict complementarity between resources on the one hand and capital or labor on the other hand.

Zero marginal physical products of labor and capital, a necessary consequence of including R in any production function that obeys the most basic laws of nature, would destroy neoclassical distribution theory--perhaps too heavy a price to pay for admission that the world, in effect, cannot get along without natural resources! And once we admit that natural processes, as well as labor and capital, add value to the indestructible building blocks, then we must ask who has the right to appropriate nature?s contribution? These are not trivial issues! Of course, we can continue to write mathematical functions that contradict physical laws, call them ?production? functions, take the partial derivatives of L and K, and still label them marginal products of labor and capital. But then, as Georgescu-Roegen put it, this becomes a ?mere paper-and-pencil operation? (PAP was his acronym).

Georgescu?s fund-flow model of the production process is superior to the neoclassical production function. It emphasizes that physically what we call ?production? is really transformation--of resources into useful products and waste products. Labor and capital are agents of transformation (efficient causes), while resources, low-entropy matter/energy, are ?that which is being transformed? (material causes). We can often substitute one efficient cause for another, or one material cause for another, but the relation between efficient and material cause is fundamentally one of complementarity, not substitutability.

If we wish to retain the neoclassical production function then we must at least include natural resource inputs and waste outputs, and must adopt mathematical representations that, unlike the customary multiplicative forms, do not assume that agents of transformation (funds) can substitute for the resources undergoing transformation (flows). Accuracy of analytical representation of reality must replace mathematical tractability as the main criterion of a good model. Once we recognize the reality of inputs from nature then we must inquire about their scarcity and about the ecological processes that regenerate them. Once we recognize the necessity of returning waste outputs to nature then we must inquire about the capacities of ecosystems to absorb those wastes. We will no longer be able to avoid the ecological economist?s vision of the economy as an open subsystem of a complex ecosystem that is finite, nongrowing, and materially closed. In effect, neoclassical economists will become ecological economists!

Perhaps the best way to get an answer to Georgescu-Roegen?s critique is not to raise it again with the same people that have ignored it for twenty years, but rather to somehow get 10,000 students to ask their economics professors the following questions in class: (1) Do you believe that economic activities must satisfy mass balance? (2) Why is it that neoclassical production functions do not satisfy the condition of mass balance? (3) Do you believe that Georgescu-Roegen?s interpretation of production as physical transformation is correct? (4) Do you agree that the economic system is embedded in the larger environmental system, and totally dependent on it as both source and sink for the matter/energy transformed by economic activity? (5) Do you believe that the matter/energy transformations required by economic activity are constrained by the entropy law?

In a recent discussion forum in Ecological Economics (1997) these five questions were put to Solow and Stiglitz, along with G-R? s resussitated critique of their neoclassical model of production, as restated above. In their invited replies neither Solow nor Stiglitz even mentioned G-R! For the most part they chose to simply repeat their well-known position rather than to defend that position against the arguments G-R had raised against it. But in closing Solow offered some forthright, if brief, replies to the above questions. The five questions, Solow?s replies, and my comment on each are given below.

(1) Do you believe that economic activities must satisfy mass balance?

Solow?s answer: ?Yes?.

Comment : Agreed.

(2) Why is it that neoclassical production functions do not satisfy the condition of mass balance?

Solow?s answer: ?Because up until now, and at the level of aggregation, geographic scope and temporal extent considered, mass balance has not been a controlling factor in the growth of industrial economies.?

Comment : Mass balance holds at all levels of aggregation, geographic scope, and temporal extent--so Solow?s qualifications seem beside the point. I think what Solow means is that material balance is unimportant because materials themselves are unimportant, which is implied by his use of a production function in which material flows are either absent or somehow substitutable by capital stocks. If material flows themselves are not important then material balances would not be important either. That is why Georgescu-Roegen criticized Solow for analyzing ?the Garden of Eden? rather than the real world. The criticism remains unanswered. Does the qualification ?up until now? indicate an expectation that the situation is about to change, that the mass balance constraint is gaining relevance?

(3) Do you believe that Georgescu-Roegen?s interpretation of production as physical transformation is correct?

Solow?s answer: ?This is no doubt one aspect of production?.

Comment: Yes, but Solow has treated it as a very unimportant aspect--one that could safely be abstracted from in the analytical representation of production. Georgescu-Roegen criticized him for that--for abstracting from the essential, rather than from the incidental. If production is essentially the transformation of a flow of resource inputs into product outputs, with capital and labor funds serving as agents of transformation, then capital and resources must be more in the nature of complements than substitutes. As Georgescu-Roegen noted, agents of transformation cannot create the the materials they transform, nor the materials out of which the agents themselves are made. Agent of transformation and material undergoing transformation are basically complements--they can be substitutes only along the margin of reducing waste of materials-in-process to zero--e.g. using a press to make particle board out of wood chips and sawdust. But then the press (capital) and the wood chips (resources) are again complements. Solow makes no recognition at all of this fundamental complementarity. Complementarity is pushed further offstage by its more technical definition based on constant output (which rules complementarity out of existence in a two-factor world). Georgescu-Roegen remains unanswered.

(4) Do you agree that the economic system is embedded in the larger environmental system, and totally dependent on it as both source and sink for the matter/energy transformed by economic activity?

Solow?s answer: ?Certainly, and I welcome any attempts to model the dependence in a transparent way, so that it can be incorporated into aggregative economics.?

Comment: One should take Solow at his word about what he now welcomes. His recent concern about the greenhouse effect is certainly welcomed by ecological economists.

However, if one agrees that the macroeconomy is a subsystem embedded in an ecosystem that is finite, nongrowing, and materially closed, then wouldn?t one expect the macroeconomy to have an optimal scale relative to the total ecosystem--a scale beyond which its growth is uneconomic? Why is it that each micro activity has an optimal scale, while the aggregate of all microeconomic activities is supposed to grow forever, unconstrained by any notion of optimal scale of the macroeconomy relative to the ecosystem? Ecological economists would welcome any attempts by Solow to model the limit to growth resulting from optimal scale of the macroeconomy.

(5) Do you believe that the matter/energy transformations required by economic activity are constrained by the entropy law?

Solow?s answer: ?No doubt everything is subject to the entropy law, but this is of no immediate practical importance for modeling what is after all a brief instant of time in a small corner of the universe.?

Comment: Solow seems to identify the entropy law only with the ultimate heat death of the universe. I don?t worry much about that either, and neither did Georgescu-Roegen, whose critique of Solow was not based on such a remote cosmic event. But the entropy law has more immediate and relevant implications : that you can?t burn the same lump of coal twice; that when you do burn it once you get soot, ashes, CO2, and waste heat, as well as useful heat. The entropy law also tells us that recycling energy is always a losing proposition, that there are limits to the efficiency of conversion of energy from one form to another, and that there is a practical limit to materials recycling--all in the here and now, not just in the cosmic bye and bye. Would Solow suggest to engineers designing real production recipes that they can neglect the second law of thermodynamics because we are concerned only with ?a brief instant of time in a small corner of the universe??

Low-entropy matter/energy is the physical coordinate of usefulness; the basic necessity that humans must use up but cannot create, and for which the human economy is totally dependent on nature?s services. Entropy is the qualitative difference that distinguishes useful resources from an equal quantity of useless waste. Solow?s statement that entropy is ?of no immediate practical importance? to economic life is evidence in support of Georgescu-Roegen?s indictment that Solow ?must have a very erroneous view of the economic process as a whole?. In any event Georgescu-Roegen?s criticisms remain unanswered.

These unanswered criticisms bring us back to the question posed in the title--how long can neoclassical economists ignore G-R? The answer, as far as production theory is concerned, seems to be ?twenty years and still stonewalling.? This is disgraceful, and it is time for those of us who understood G-R to press his arguments and not allow them to be brushed aside.

References

Ayres, R. U., 1996, ?Theories of Economic Growth?, INSEAD, September 1996, Fontainebleau, France.

Barnett, Harold, and Chandler Morse, 1963, Scarcity and Growth, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for RfF.

Blaug, Mark ,1985, Great Economists Since Keynes, Totawa, NJ: Barnes and Noble.

De Gleria, S. ,1995, ?Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen: a mind that thought above its time?, Economia Internazionale, vol. 13, pp,3-32.

Ecological Economics,1997, ?Forum on Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz?, vol. 22 no. 3, September, 1997.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1975, ?Energy and Economic Myths?, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1975, pp.347-381.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1979, "Comments on the Papers by Daly and Stiglitz?," in V. Kerry Smith, ed., Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, RfF and Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1992, ?Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen about himself?, in MichaelSzenberg, ed. Eminent Economists and their Life Philosophies, Cambridge: Cambridge Univbersity Press, pp.128-60.

Gowdy, John, and Susan Mesner, 1997, ?The Evolution of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen?s Bioeconomics?, (manuscript, forthcoming in Review of Social Economics .

Maneschi, A. and S. Zamagni,1997, ?Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1906- 1994?, Economic Journal, vol. 107, no. 442, May, 1997, pp.695-707.

Nordhaus, William and James Tobin, 1972, ?Is Growth Obsolete??, in Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, Columbia University Press.

Samuelson, Paul, 1965, ?Foreward? to Analytical Economics by N. Georgescu-Roegen , Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.

Solow, Robert, 1974, ?The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics?, American Economic Review, May, 1974, pp1-14.

Stiglitz, J. E., 1979, ?A Neoclassical Analysis of the Economics of Natural Resources?, in V. Kerry Smith, ed., Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, RfF and Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Victor, P. A., (1991), ?Indicators of Sustainable Development: Some Lessons from Capital Theory?, Ecological Economics, 4 ; 191-213.

[i] "How Long Can Neoclassical Economists Ignore the Contribution of Georgescu-Roegen?", in Kozo Mayumi and John Gowdy (Eds.),Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honor of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K., 1999, pp. 13-24. Spanish version , "Cu�nto tiempo seguir�n ignorando los econom�stas las aportaciones de Georgescu-Roegen?", Fundaci�n Argentaria, Madrid, November 19, 1997, Jornada sobre econom�a y ciencias de la naturaleza, to be published in Madrid in volume edited by Jose Manuel Naredo.

... Scrisoare scrisa in anul 2070

2007-03-14T16:01:15+00:00

Un mesaj de constiinta. Pur si simplu, sa-i dam curs! Descarca slide show-ul: NOU! Scrisoare scrisa-vorbita din 2070 (ROMANA - FLASH - SCRISOARE ILUSTRATA si VORBITA) Scrisoare scrisa in anul 2070 (aprox. 700Kb - Varianta originala)

Auteur : Ria Ellwanger, en collaboration avec Lopez Chavez Ariel Alahin riaellw@globo.com, alainlopez909@hotmail.com

Texte : revue "Cr�nica de los Tiempos?, d?avril 2002.

Musique: Chopin - Tristesse

Images : Getty Images

Traduction fran�aise ?maison?: Eva Sagasti generationsfutures.net

(NOTA: Acest slide-show tradus in romana a ajuns la mine de la Ana Constantinescu - o vizitatoare dintr-o lume cu noima!)

Cateva reflectii despre noima nestiutului si noima din spatele tainicului

2007-03-06T15:56:00+00:00

Noima ne?tiutului ?i noima din spatele tainicului

Alexandru Caragea (CSC)

�n r?stimpurile dintre salturile �n cunoa?tere, este tr?it: sentimentul de f?r?-de-noima. Noim? �nseamn?: ?i acel lucru pe care �l tr?ie?ti ca

"n?zuin?? de a fi fiind ceva de g?sit" �n spatele tuturor �ntreb?rilor cu care cau?i;

?i acel lucru prin care o realitate tr?it? cap?t? �n minte

"un �n?eles rotund" (ca �ntregime consistent? / de entitate cu rost unitar).

Atunci c�nd tr?im sentimentul de f?r?-de-noima, "ceva anume" ne dicteaz? inten?iile ?i ne decide faptele. Acel ceva anume poate fi uneori n?zuin?a, alteori nevoin?a, dar ?i desn?dejdea sau nehot?r�rea.

�ns?, �n?eleptul nu uit? c? fiece lucru trebuie s? aib? o noim? a lui! ... "F?r?-de-noima" este numai un sentiment creat de faptul c? acela care �l tr?ie?te nu a reu?it s? g?seasc? sau s? dea un �n?eles rotund realit??ii cu care se confrunt?. A ?ti cum s? ac?ionezi din nevoin?? �nseamn? a fi pragmatic. A ?ti cum s? g?se?ti echilibrul �ntre ac?iunea din n?zuin?? ?i ac?iunea din nevoin?? �nseamn? a fi �n?elept.. �n?eleptului nu �i dicteaz? inten?iile ?i nu �i decid faptele nici desn?dejdea ?i nici nehot?r�rea, c?ci el le ?tie noima. C�nd acestea �i dau ocol, e semn c? nici un �n?elept nu le-a �n?eles �nc? pe toate cele cu care s-a �nt�lnit, c? ac?iunea din nevoin?a de a �n?elege este de fapt ceea ce-i d? �n?elepciunea. Cu alte cuvinte, se poate spune c? noima ne?tiutului este crarea nevoin?ei de a g?si noima. Mai mult, se poate spune c? adev?ratul �n?elept a deprins noima tainicului. Cercet?torii pot fi bucuro?i de noima ne?tiutului care d? noim? cercet?rii. �ns?, a fi cercet?tor nu �nseamn? neap?rat ?i a fi �n?elept. �n?elep?ii sunt bucuro?i de noima din spatele tainicului care d? noim? �ns??i n?zuin?ei de a g?si ?i face firescul.

Pentru o lume cu noim? avem nevoie de �n?elepciune!

Alexandru Caragea (CSC)

După o zi de la trăirea concretă, să ne bucură din toată inima de dăinuirea vie a celei mai vechi si stabile traditii românesti !

2007-03-02T20:10:43+00:00

Funia anului l?sat? de Baba Dochia este poate cea mai veche tradi?ie vie pur rom�neasc?. A rezistat ?i a reu?it performan?a de a co-evolua �mpreun? cu o suit? ?i o diversitate de asocieri simbolice asimilate (bijuteriile-talisman ata?ate de ?nur). O tradi?ie care este consolidat? de inovare! In acesr caz Traditia nu mai este versus Inovare. Contrariile se �mbin? pentru a se propaga ?i poten?a reciproc, co-evolu�nd. Iat? un lucru cu adev?rat interesant. Ro?ul ?i Albul simbolizeaz? chiar contrariile, ?nurul ... chiar d?inuirea �n timp. Cu siguran??, m?r?i?orul este o fibr? fundamental? din identitatea rom�neasc? !

Despre traditia martisorului

Poate fi sustenabilă o societate bazată pe cunoaştere în care noţiunea de vacă face ouă?

2007-02-28T15:58:32+00:00

Un studiu efectuat �n Marea Britanie (un v�rf european de lance al societ??ii bazate pe cunoa?tere) arat? c?: "One in 50 city youngsters thought eggs came from cows and bacon came from cows or sheep" (cititi stirea pe larg). Asist?m la formarea unui hiatus �ntre homo sapiens "ecosferic" ?i homo sapiens "tehno-himeric"?

Andi Caragea (despre mine la CSC)

Ce anume animă şi încheagă Blogosfera? Ce fel de realitate este ea?

2007-02-27T19:27:03+00:00

Andi Caragea /despre mine la CSC/

?tiin?a obi?nuit? nu poate r?spunde dec�t par?ial si formal la aceaste probleme.

?St?p�nind cunoa?terea unei mari p?r?i a lumii fizice �ntr-un interval de timp mai mic de 500 de ani, ?tiin?a se apropie �n cele din urm? de cea mai grea problem? dintre toate: cum este posibil s? existe ceva de genul subiectivit??ii �ntr-o lume de obiecte fizice? Cum este posibil ca ceva material (spre exemplu, creierul Dvs.) s? aib? un punct de vedere sau, cel pu?in, s? fie intim implicat �ntr-un punct de vedere?[1]?

Christian de Quincey (http://www.noetic.org)

Blogosfera este �nainte de toate o experien?? tr?it?. Fiind a?a, avem nevoie s? privim lucrurile �ntr-un nou fel, �ntr-o nou? cheie, perspectiv? ? printr-o nou? paradigm?.

Iat? de ce, av�nd nevoie de noi perspective ?i afl�ndu-ne �n acest moment �mpreun? �ntr-un germene blogosferic (�nc? instabil) v? propun s? parcurge?i c�teva pagini ale unei alte mari personalit??i a g�ndirii rom�ne?ti ? Mihai Dr?g?nescu: ?The fundamental Phenomenological Information of Universe?. De asemenea, pentru unii complexi?ti tenta?i s? invoce paradigma complexit??ii ca poten?ial? cale de r?spuns este interesant de citit ?i articolul: ?The Frontiers Of Science And Self-Organization?

MIHAI DRAGANESCU

[1] Vezi Chr. de Quincey, Consciousness: the Final Frontier?, �n ?Noetic Sciences Review?, nr. 42, Summer, 1997: ?Having mastered knowledge of much of the physical world in a span of less than 500 years, science is finally coming around to the hardest problem of all: How is it that some matter (for example your brain) happens to have a point of view ? or at least is intimately involved with a viewpoint? It could have been otherwise: If the basic, raw �stuff� of the universe is matter or physical energy, there is no necessity that anything like minds or consciousness should ever accompany physical events ? no matter how complex they might become?. Traducerea: Ionu? Isac ? (in PERSPECTIVE ASUPRA REALIT??II FIZICE)