Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The neurons are up to speed after a nap. Whatever good that will do.
I'm tempted to point out that your "one" and "two" are not at all mutually exclusive, but could easily be sequential, but I know that wasn't where you were aiming. Granted.
Yes, the "channels" do seem to support a "Denial by Heresy" verdict, sentenced to (fail to)deal with the cleanup on an ad-hoc basis.
And yes- if you read my diary, "The best and the brightest" -I think I called it here- you will know I share your view of the limiting nature of deep, committed knowledge in a "field" (as described by Bourdieu) as more of a source of blindness than an aid to vision, if the thing you try to focus on is outside the permitted vocabulary of the field.
I've commented often about that, as in "Krugnered it"-(my newly invented verb for that very event). One could also say, perhaps, "-they came close, but in the end they Bakered the data).
But there remains the "blazing saddles" moment---

"Everybody freeze, or the nigger gets it!"

By devouring the 90%, they insure their own demise.

Why is that, prey tell?  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2011 at 10:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... both very scientistic (scientific appearing, albeit not scientific in fact) with its heavily abused statistics and its arcane mathematical modeling, and very convenient to the status quo under normal conditions.

After all, under normal conditions, helping to understand the dramatic change coming and getting ready for it is not required of social theory ~ under normal conditions, it is far handier to have a strong bias for explaining why those with economic power should be allowed to do whatever they wish to do, by virtue of an economic theory which is blind to economic power.

And the supplanting of economic theory which arrived at inconvenient conclusions and replacing it with economic theory that arrived at more convenient conclusions started long, long before the Limits to Growth was every published, so explaining its continued progress from the 1970's through to today in terms of a reaction to the LTG is less persuasive than explaining it as a continuation of the strategies that accounted for its growing prominence through the 50's and 60's ~ tapping military and business sources of incomes to establish "economic analysis" units in PhD granting institutions which both funded the generation of the next generation of PhD's and also tilted the votes in academic departments in favor of the number crunchers.

A bias in your favor in both generation of new PhD's and hires of new PhD's means that over successive generations you shift the theoretical predisposition of young academics, who do the bulk of the work in peer review, and therefore tilt the degree of difficulty in getting different sorts of work published in the "top" journals.

Now, there was a very deliberate aspect to this, in that both military and business funding for this kind of economic research was a deliberate conservative strategy ~ but it was more a deliberate conservative strategy of the 1950's. By the time that the LTG was published, that channel of development was already entrenched as the status quo.

The fact that as a result economics has reached a cul-de-sac where it has blinded itself to almost all of the most important challenges facing economies in the real world is normal ~ there is no reason to expect development within an academic discipline to be dramatically different from development of "harder" technologies, and in harder technologies, development tends to follow established channels until the opportunities implicit in those channels runs out, and only then are the conditions ripe for more fundamental innovations to take hold and establish new channels with a wealth of unexplored new opportunities.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2011 at 12:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Mainstream economics does not have a syntax and grammar in which the Limits to Growth thesis can be coherently stated."

Is not the current geoeconomic situation tearing down the current syntax and grammar?

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Fri Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series