>Adam wrote:
>I appreciate this overtly ethical discussion. The paradox is that maybe we
>can't develop even a utilitarian ethic without first developing a
>deontological (principle based) one. The purpose of, say, new criteria for
>moral considerability will be in a sense to decide the parameters of
>utility. What is the most sacred value in our physical universe? It is not
>mere happiness. It is neither intelligence nor sentience. It is the process
>the of living itself. The entropic flow is the essence of our (physical)
>consciousness, and therefore must be some part of our vision of the sacred.
>
>You might then also consult
>
>Georgescu-Roegen. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge:
>Harvard University Press.
>
>I would say neither the Leopold nor the Georgescu-Roegen text are out of
>date despite their age. Both are classic texts in their fields and looked up
>to today.
For another, more recent view, you might look at Eric Zencey's essay "Some
Brief Speculations on the Popularity of Entropy as Metaphor" (in _Virgin
Forest_). Zencey cautions that entropy will have contradictory meanings
for different people in different contexts, and he also warns against the
(mis-)use of Georgescu-Roegen's economic writings seen for example in the
work of Jeremy Rifkin and Hazel Henderson. fwiw.
Jim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|