Re: Y2K

["Jay Hanson" <j@qmail.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Marasigan . Vicente <vic@pusit.admu.edu.ph>

>This suggests the need to fine-tune the term "gain-maximization" by
>distinguishing 4 levels of "gain": A. personal gain;  B. corporate gain;
>C. social gain; and D. planetary gain.  What has fruitfully (95%?)
>promoted A and B must now be raised to C and D, in view of the risks that
>Y2K is triggering on a planetary scale, at least psychologically for now
>and probably physically a little later, maybe next year or next month.

I suggest a different approach.  Optimize for the welfare of the
"individual", but define his welfare in explicit indicators. These
indicators would have a biological, scientific basis designed to
insure the long-term health of the individual and his descendents
(There is no biological basis for humans to "need" GDP.)

Naturally, the health of our life-support system is a prerequisite
human health.  About 40% of world deaths can be attributed to various
environmental factors,  especially organic and chemical pollutants.
[1]

Y2K, may or may not have permanant impacts on global socity, but the
depletion oil certainly will.   Global oil production is expected to
"peak" in about five years. [2]  So choices will be made very soon --
one-way-or-another...

Jay
-------------------------

[1] Population growth and environmental degradation
Bioscience Vol. 48 No. 10 October, 1998 David Pimentel, Maria Tort,
Linda D=92Anna, Anne Krawic, Joshua Berger, Jessica Rossman, Fridah
Mugo, Nancy Doon, Michael Shriberg, Erica Howard, Susan Lee, and
Jonathan Talbot at http://dieoff.com/page165.htm

[2]  See for example, a March, 1998, Scientific American article by
Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherr=E8re: THE END OF CHEAP OIL at
http://dieoff.com/page140.htm