Economy vs. ecology
Locked
 
|
I've been thinking about the differences between our economic system and a natural ecology. Since I'm not an expert in either I'm writing this in the hope that someone who is will clarify any issues I get wrong.
It seems to me that a fundamental difference is that natural ecologies are supply-driven. By that I mean that the supply of resources (food, sunshine, etc.) is the primary determinant of how the ecology functions. (I'm not talking here about transitions when a species invades an ecology and upsets the pre-existing balance. I want to focus at least at the beginning on ecologies that have achieved a fairly stable state.) In such ecologies fairly well-defined food webs are established. These determine the sizes of the various populations, etc. Of course there are or can be cycles such as the standard predator-prey cycle. But even in these cases, the whole thing is supply driven. It's what's available (primarily to be eaten) that determines everything else.
Our economic system is for the most part supply-driven. The economy is not completely detached from the need for basic energy and other natural resource supplies. If there are supply shocks in these areas, the economy will feel them. But for the most part what most people do (as economic agents) depends on whether someone is willing to pay them. That means that most people are dependent on the demand (for their services) rather than the supply (of available food). Our current economic situation illustrates that very well. We are currently demand-deficient. Not enough people want to buy enough things (or services) to keep us all employed. This seems very strange and artificial. That so much of the economy depends on demand rather than supply makes it very vulnerable to the kind of problems we face today.
But as I said, our economy is not completely demand driven. We are still supply dependent. Working with others I'm hoping to build a model that illustrates where the tipping point is. When does a supply-driven ecology become a demand-dependent economy? Is it a sharp phase transition? Can it be characterized in terms of other properties? Comments are welcome.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero) blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Both systems can be viewed as complex
adaptive systems consisting of many interacting agents that adapt and learn from their interactions with one another: system: economic system - ecosystem agent: organism - company interaction: food webs - supply chains One major difference is perhaps what the agents do with their supply, the agents of ecosystems are more "selfish": * Organisms consume s.th. to produce more of themselves, they maintain themselves with food, and they produce stuff necessary to make more copies of themselves. Agent and product are identical. * Companies consume s.th. to produce a product which is different from themselves. Agent and product are different. On the one hand, economic systems are more complex and more differentiated than ecologic systems. Companies can consume other companies to produce larger companies and to maintain themselves, but they also generate a product which is independent from themselves. On the other hand, ecologic systems are much more sophisticated, since they are unbeatable in green technology, regenerative energy and natural recycling ;-) -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: Alexandre Lomovtsev ; Shuger,Debora ; Porter,Edith Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:35 AM Subject: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology I've been thinking about the differences between our economic system and a natural ecology. Since I'm not an expert in either I'm writing this in the hope that someone who is will clarify any issues I get wrong. It seems to me that a fundamental difference is that natural ecologies are supply-driven. By that I mean that the supply of resources (food, sunshine, etc.) is the primary determinant of how the ecology functions. (I'm not talking here about transitions when a species invades an ecology and upsets the pre-existing balance. I want to focus at least at the beginning on ecologies that have achieved a fairly stable state.) In such ecologies fairly well-defined food webs are established. These determine the sizes of the various populations, etc. Of course there are or can be cycles such as the standard predator-prey cycle. But even in these cases, the whole thing is supply driven. It's what's available (primarily to be eaten) that determines everything else. Our economic system is for the most part supply-driven. The economy is not completely detached from the need for basic energy and other natural resource supplies. If there are supply shocks in these areas, the economy will feel them. But for the most part what most people do (as economic agents) depends on whether someone is willing to pay them. That means that most people are dependent on the demand (for their services) rather than the supply (of available food). Our current economic situation illustrates that very well. We are currently demand-deficient. Not enough people want to buy enough things (or services) to keep us all employed. This seems very strange and artificial. That so much of the economy depends on demand rather than supply makes it very vulnerable to the kind of problems we face today. But as I said, our economy is not completely demand driven. We are still supply dependent. Working with others I'm hoping to build a model that illustrates where the tipping point is. When does a supply-driven ecology become a demand-dependent economy? Is it a sharp phase transition? Can it be characterized in terms of other properties? Comments are welcome. -- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero) blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Without wanting to start a long diatribe, I am curious how the group sees this:
Is it really viable to say that ? Even to an amateur (moi, nodding to SAS) this seems unsubstantiated. Economic systems are within ecological systems, ultimately. And we have no way of knowing if we understand the complexity and intersecting differentiation of ecological systems. We just cross our fingers, then in a hundred years new information shows up and they all say "What were they thinking do to X?" The planet is a closed loop, right? So any system in it is subject to the same restrictions. And makes me wonder what one would consider (sorry everyone, really I am) an emergent phenomenon: if an element in an ecosystem generates CO2 and changes the range of potential elements/ life forms that may arise, how is this any different than generating an iPod that changes the possible desires and future products of the marketplace, or generating drugs that then change the range of potential elements/life forms? Am I missing something? Tory ps I really am just curious. No desire to start a long wrangle.... Too much to do for that. But curious. Thanks in advance. On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
----------------------------------- Tory Hughes Tory Hughes website Tory Hughes facebook ------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Tory, wonderful post, and as far as I can understand, spot-on in all respects, A few things to add to Jochen's comments, as sources for thought: The acts that organisms take, merely in the course of living from one day to the next, tend to be under-emphasized in relation to the acts of reproducing (not sure whether this is Darwin or Hollywood fetishism...). But the input-output relations of ecology should correspond fairly nicely to the input-output relations of the economy, if either were a well-formed technical theory. In economics, input-output goes under the names Leontief I/O theory, or closely related von Neumann-Gale growth theory. I have often wished that either had more of the strictness of chemical input/output relations -- at least where such are warranted -- but that is not yet the case, as both fields have been more interested in the flexibility afforded by innovation than in the constraints that limit the landscape. In terms of what organisms do to each other, whether intentionally or inadvertently, there are the two names "Niche Construction" and "ecosystem engineering". The first has a book by Laland, Odling-Smee, and Feldman. It's a big area, and the book only opens the topic, but it's a start. Many of the ideas are general enough that they are equally comfortable in the economy, which is, as you say, part of the global ecosystem. The questions about supply and demand driving are things I wish I understood how to think about. It is a strangely child-level response, but I am brought back to The Story of Stuff (internet video), about the notion of demand and its consequences. I have thought for many years that (whatever your reaction to its orientation -- I tend to agree with it) it poses the central problem we don't do a good job of understanding, about the role of economic organization and the problems of thinking about growth in a world that is physically and energetically finite. Eric On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote: Without wanting to start a long diatribe, I am curious how the group sees this: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thanks Eric, this is quite helpful in the specifics and also on the 'philosophy-of' level.
I'll look into these references. Your phrase elegantly sums up that basic human tendency that's gotten us into trouble in all areas, micro to macro, for millenia. Tory On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
----------------------------------- Tory Hughes Tory Hughes website Tory Hughes facebook ------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
Tory is right, ecologic systems and especially
their inhabitants, the living organisms, look more complex than companies or corporations. What I meant was that there seem to be a fundamental difference in the input-output relations. The output of agents in economic systems is a product made from the inputs during the business process. In ecologic systems this is only comparable to the cognitive part of organisms, where perceptions are processed to produce an action. In the "food web" there is nothing produced except the organisms themselves. Whenever there is something interesting happening in nature, it is either supper time or pairing time. The former is used to sustain the body, the latter to sustain the species. This is different from economies, isn't it? -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Smith To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology, er The acts that organisms take, merely in the course of living from one day to the next, tend to be under-emphasized in relation to the acts of reproducing. But the input-output relations of ecology should correspond fairly nicely to the input-output relations of the economy, if either were a well-formed technical theory. In economics, input-output goes under the names Leontief I/O theory, or closely related von Neumann-Gale growth theory. I have often wished that either had more of the strictness of chemical input/output relations -- at least where such are warranted -- but that is not yet the case, as both fields have been more interested in the flexibility afforded by innovation than in the constraints that limit the landscape. In terms of what organisms do to each other, whether intentionally or inadvertently, there are the two names "Niche Construction" and "ecosystem engineering". The first has a book by Laland, Odling-Smee, and Feldman. It's a big area, and the book only opens the topic, but it's a start. Many of the ideas are general enough that they are equally comfortable in the economy, which is, as you say, part of the global ecosystem. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
Ecology has no Contracts , no Enforcers and no Guilt nor Punishment.
All are rewarded with death. Every problem is solved with death. The players or actors treat each other as threats or opportunities. There is no shared consciousness. All actions are driven by Fear, or Hunger. Ecology is a theft based system and that is in part why economics is a rationalized mess trying to hide its origins. This idealization of the Natural is a devious method of unraveling civilization to restore basic selfishness. It is Natural to be Selfish. It is unnatural to be Ethical. Starting at the lowest level of picking fruit and having a "Bowel Movement" there are no willing participants. Ecology is made up of solipsistic entities with no awareness of a group dynamic. There are the powerful and then there are the edible. The fact that most ecological systems were relatively closed allowed for some measure of stability. When humans intrude into a stable system the new exploitation takes great adjustment before reaching stability. Native societies can survive in harmony with nature at very low population densities. There is a price to pay , high infant mortality and reduced lifespans. (No IPods). I think economic theory is uniquely human and though components appear derived from ecological principles this is minor. No other species attempts to regulate itself in opposition to selfish interests. I admit our success is questionable but the intent is definitely something uniquely Human and definitely no longer solipsistic. There is great danger in idealizing ecology as more pure than human economics. Theft and murder are intrinsic to ecology as is waste pollution and wreckless damages. The fact that any ecosystems ever stabilized is marvelous but human beings can not emulate such a system and adhere to civilized ideals. Certainly we can model ecology, but why do we imagine we have anything relevant to learn about economics? Perhaps we can better understand the consequences of our appetites but we should not idealize ecology. I worry that the transformation of the discussion towards specific terms such as demand driven or supply driven is fallacious. The solipsists will eat as much as they can until they despoil the region. Our economics should be based on enhancing life without endangering it further. If an Australian farmer needs to eradicate Mice he should do so in a manner that does not leave residual consequences. If we need to compete with rats to improve grain production in India we have the power to do so. There was no need for a Right since ecology does not dispense rights or entitlements. Rats had no regret about the destruction of the Dodo bird. If we use economics to give ourselves the supposed freedom to annihilate a species as the rat has done then it is just trickery. That trickery serves only to assuage our guilt over behaving like rats. On the other hand if we use intellect to find a moral or ethical balance that would distinguish us from every other living agent. We struggle so hard to give ourselves the right to act like rats while deluding ourselves that we are nearer to the Almighty. Ecology works because every living thing is rewarded with death. It is so Draconian that there is no point in acting responsibly or ethically. The good and the bad are treated equally. Idealizing nature should be confined to poetry and decorative arts and should not intrude upon human economics. We are as humans attempting to find a middle ground between opposing evils. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm Sent: October 17, 2010 4:34 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology Both systems can be viewed as complex adaptive systems consisting of many interacting agents that adapt and learn from their interactions with one another: system: economic system - ecosystem agent: organism - company interaction: food webs - supply chains One major difference is perhaps what the agents do with their supply, the agents of ecosystems are more "selfish": * Organisms consume s.th. to produce more of themselves, they maintain themselves with food, and they produce stuff necessary to make more copies of themselves. Agent and product are identical. * Companies consume s.th. to produce a product which is different from themselves. Agent and product are different. On the one hand, economic systems are more complex and more differentiated than ecologic systems. Companies can consume other companies to produce larger companies and to maintain themselves, but they also generate a product which is independent from themselves. On the other hand, ecologic systems are much more sophisticated, since they are unbeatable in green technology, regenerative energy and natural recycling ;-) -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: Alexandre Lomovtsev ; Shuger,Debora ; Porter,Edith Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:35 AM Subject: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology I've been thinking about the differences between our economic system and a natural ecology. Since I'm not an expert in either I'm writing this in the hope that someone who is will clarify any issues I get wrong. It seems to me that a fundamental difference is that natural ecologies are supply-driven. By that I mean that the supply of resources (food, sunshine, etc.) is the primary determinant of how the ecology functions. (I'm not talking here about transitions when a species invades an ecology and upsets the pre-existing balance. I want to focus at least at the beginning on ecologies that have achieved a fairly stable state.) In such ecologies fairly well-defined food webs are established. These determine the sizes of the various populations, etc. Of course there are or can be cycles such as the standard predator-prey cycle. But even in these cases, the whole thing is supply driven. It's what's available (primarily to be eaten) that determines everything else. Our economic system is for the most part supply-driven. The economy is not completely detached from the need for basic energy and other natural resource supplies. If there are supply shocks in these areas, the economy will feel them. But for the most part what most people do (as economic agents) depends on whether someone is willing to pay them. That means that most people are dependent on the demand (for their services) rather than the supply (of available food). Our current economic situation illustrates that very well. We are currently demand-deficient. Not enough people want to buy enough things (or services) to keep us all employed. This seems very strange and artificial. That so much of the economy depends on demand rather than supply makes it very vulnerable to the kind of problems we face today. But as I said, our economy is not completely demand driven. We are still supply dependent. Working with others I'm hoping to build a model that illustrates where the tipping point is. When does a supply-driven ecology become a demand-dependent economy? Is it a sharp phase transition? Can it be characterized in terms of other properties? Comments are welcome. -- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero) blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
So: a thought- is not death the end point across the board? No system is infinite. No motion perpetual. ( Isn't that a primary reason for the solipsism we fall into so easily, a knee-jerk attempt to compensate? While altruism can provide more sustainable and long-lasting systems over the long run if we take the risk?) The economics of the enormous corn shipments to Rome from North Africa two thousand years ago are nowhere in sight. The current release of technologies resulting in 'high infant mortality rate' - sudden death from a lack of sustaining interest by the public - is a factor that businesses add to the bottom line. Okay, then
Yessirree. How? What are possible tools or responses for this? Barring (good) aliens coming in at the last moment (rats!) : How long, if ever, do you-all think it may take for us to develop reasonable, sustainable systems for anything? Do we already have some? Where? Think globally, write locally. Thanks! Tory On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:
----------------------------------- Tory Hughes Tory Hughes website Tory Hughes facebook ------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
I think that Jochen is right to look at what is being produced. It's a fairly commonplace observation by now that living organisms reduce entropy locally. Someone who is fairly well know wrote as part of a fairly large book (and I can't remember either the author or the book; it's perhaps 5 years old) that a good way to decide when something is productive is to see whether it results in a local decrease in entropy. Most "consumption" is not productive in that sense; most "work" is. "Recreation" can be either.
Living organisms, as Jochen said, "produce" themselves. They also produce other things. Birds build nests. Beavers build dams. Spiders build webs. Most organisms build some sort of home for themselves. All social organisms build social networks of various sorts. So it's not just that organisms build nothing but themselves.
We, in our advanced economy have become dependent on building things other than ourselves. That seems to be one of the primary differences. Even though other organisms build other things, for the most part they spend most of their energy building themselves -- and their offspring. Also, the things they build are generally built for themselves -- or at least their social group. Most of us spend most(?) of our energy building things other than ourselves. And they are things that we don't use directly, and often not indirectly. (Although since they are produced for the economy, and we are part of the economy, perhaps that's not strictly true.) Not only that, we depend on a demand for the things we build (and I'm using "build" very broadly to refer to any kind of paid work) to supply us with the means to get the resources necessary to build ourselves, i.e., to buy food. Other organisms don't depend on demand to supply their resources.
Symbiotic species combinations make this even more difficult to analyze. What about the bacteria in our gut, for example? They depend on the demand we make of them to help us digest food. And we pay them with nutrients. Without the demand for their services, e.g., if we die, so do they.
I think this is a direction worth pursuing. Sorry if this post has been somewhat ragged. There are a lot of pieces that should be disentangled.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero) blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote: Tory is right, ecologic systems and especially ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
The connection between ecological and economic
systems is interesting, too. Originally you were asking about a phase transition between ecology and conomy, I guess there is already a name for the major evolutionary transition between them, it is called Neolithic Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_revolution The first economic systems emerged in ecological systems when hunters and gatherers became farmers and cattle breeders. In a sense, economic systems are as old as civilization and agriculture. Farmers are located at the intersection of ecological and econmic systems, because they produce organic products by controlled growth and domestication. They act like a company or organization which produces industrial products which are sold on markets, but the products themselves are organic and completely embedded in the ecological system. In every ecology there is also "mating market", if organisms use sex to reproduce themselves they try to attract mates in the mating market or they try to attract organisms which help them reproduce themselves (flowering plants try to attract insects). -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ; Alexandre Lomovtsev ; Porter, Edith ; Matthew Berryman ; Grisogono, Anne-Marie (Anemarija Degris) ; Shuger, Debora ; Weber, Bob ; causality_in_complex_systems Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology, er [...] I think this is a direction worth pursuing. Sorry if this post has been somewhat ragged. There are a lot of pieces that should be disentangled. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: [Causality in Complex Systems] Re: Economy vs. ecology, er
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
You're right. A command economy is very different. I was talking about a market economy. And perhaps by definition a market economy is demand-driven since there are no markets without demand.
-- Russ On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:13 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: [Causality in Complex Systems] Re: Economy vs. ecology, er
|
|
I want to look at what Beth said more closely. See below.
-- Russ On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:50 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: G'day, That still makes them demand dependent. The must sell what they produce or they go out of business.
Sofrom an ecological perspective that still seems a lot like the mix of driver directions you'd see in a foodweb. Ecological systems can be bottom up (supply) driven or top-down (demand) driven. When I called economies demand-driven (and I know it's not as simply as black and white) I mean that it's demand the determines whether the demand supplier will survive. In an ecology, it's not the higher levels of the food web that determine whether the lower levels survive. (At least not directly. They may be other effects.)
In fact its typical for different parts to be driven by different mixes (e.g. plankton is typically bottom up driven, forage fish are top down driven etc) or even for the drivers to change through time. The broader perception is that they are largely supply driven and so constrained by supply of food, but the dynamics of mid trophic levels are dictated by what's happening from the "users" (predators end) so is actually effectively demand driven. I know this is not exactly the same intent strictly speaking as you were aiming for in your demand driven focus (i.e. the numbers don't necessarily inc with heavier predation, though ironically due to the interaction of competing prey species and differential diets that can play out in some cases), but the resultant patterns and many of the system flow processes actually map. Right. It's not what I was getting at. I started to think about this because I was wondering how to explain the lack of demand in our economies these days and why that is so devastating. Do you know of examples like that in natural ecologies?
Other differences, which we haven't started to talk about are that economies have money, liquidity issues, speculators, markets, etc. That all comes about because there is trading, which depends on demand. Does any of that happen in biological ecologies? The closest thing to trading that I can think of is symbiosis. It's not a bad example, but it's quite basic compared to the sorts of markets we have.
So I'd still stand by saying both systems have similar sets of driving mechanisms, its just that our perception is that on average they tend to sit toward one or other of those drivers, whether that equilibrium perception really reflects the "constantly transitory" state of the actual systems remains more debatable ;) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: [Causality in Complex Systems] Re: Economy vs. ecology, er
|
|
Beth, would you mind giving some examples that are more concrete and explain a bit how they work. I'm not as familiar with the biology as you are. When I say our economy is demand driven, that's not the same as saying that there are drivers that affect it. Supply is a driver. That's a completely different issue. By demand-driven I mean that many of the participants on our economy depend on a demand for their services to survive. The simple-minded example is that bees depend on the demand by plants for their services. They are paid for those services in nectar. Fish that clean the teeth of whales are another example. Symbiosis in general is mutual demand driven. I would not call facilitation, amensalism, or parasitism a demand-driven relationship, though. The victim (or non-benefiting participant) is (by definition) not benefiting from the services of the benefiting participant and cannot be said to be demanding those services in the sense that I want to use demand.
Also, I don't see how the removal of a keystone species relates to a demand-driven relationship. Certainly the remaining species reconfigure their relationships, but why does that imply that there is a demand relationship? -- Russ On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:51 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote: G'day, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |