Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Not what I meant. This is the part I'm referring to when you said:

"Economics was born to address the imposition and demands of the universal laws of thermodynamics on the human enterprise."

PhilX

I don't know of any articles on the subject, about the direct link between economics and thermodynamics. But economics is about more than just the relationship between individuals in the marketplace. it's about more than monetary policy. It's also about the prudent management of resources, natural and human, their scarcity, costs and allocation. It's also about sustainability and maintenance.

Resources get used up and need replacing. Infrastructures decline and need rejuvenating. Mechanisms wear out and fall into disrepair. Equally, management and governing systems become stagnant and need revamping. All these occurrences fall under the category of the second law of thermodynamics. - things naturally fall into disorder and disrepair. Economics devises systems to overcome disorder and decline in the marketplace. If somethings becomes scarce or too costly economics finds alternatives. The brunt of economics is renewing things that get used up, burnt out and fall apart.

The first law of thermodynamics sort of contradicts the second law, saying that energy can neither be destroyed or created, but shifted from one form to another. Economics is about this, about innovation and finding new ways of doing things to insure we don't run out of goods, by changing energy from one form to another, from bad to good. Of all the economic systems devised capitalism has proven and emerged the best at shifting energies from decline to renewal in order to achieve a sense of equilibrium, both with natural and human resources. Economics works on solutions.

Physics, like all other disciplines, is bound by economics, more so in today's world. It always needs funding. The economics of capitalism, with its free markets, has done best at this job. The economics of capitalism has also been very successful in transforming and finding markets for those things physics invents.

spike wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Not what I meant. This is the part I'm referring to when you said:

"Economics was born to address the imposition and demands of the universal laws of thermodynamics on the human enterprise."

PhilX

I don't know of any articles on the subject, about the direct link between economics and thermodynamics. But economics is about more than just the relationship between individuals in the marketplace. it's about more than monetary policy. It's also about the prudent management of resources, natural and human, their scarcity, costs and allocation. It's also about sustainability and maintenance.

Resources get used up and need replacing. Infrastructures decline and need rejuvenating. Mechanisms wear out and fall into disrepair. Equally, management and governing systems become stagnant and need revamping. All these occurrences fall under the category of the second law of thermodynamics. - things naturally fall into disorder and disrepair. Economics devises systems to overcome disorder and decline in the marketplace. If somethings becomes scarce or too costly economics finds alternatives. The brunt of economics is renewing things that get used up, burnt out and fall apart.

The first law of thermodynamics sort of contradicts the second law, saying that energy can neither be destroyed or created, but shifted from one form to another. Economics is about this, about innovation and finding new ways of doing things to insure we don't run out of goods, by changing energy from one form to another, from bad to good. Of all the economic systems devised capitalism has proven and emerged the best at shifting energies from decline to renewal in order to achieve a sense of equilibrium, both with natural and human resources. Economics works on solutions.

Physics, like all other disciplines, is bound by economics, more so in today's world. It always needs funding. The economics of capitalism, with its free markets, has done best at this job. The economics of capitalism has also been very successful in transforming and finding markets for those things physics invents.

Thermodynamics(TD) is a complete non-starter for economic theory. No one every set up economics with a view to thinking about TD , and no economic journal, learned paper or thesis references it, as for as I know.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Thermodynamics(TD) is a complete non-starter for economic theory. No one every set up economics with a view to thinking about TD , and no economic journal, learned paper or thesis references it, as for as I know.

I am surprised that people are so dismissive of the idea.

Our entire technology is based on the principles of thermodynamics.

If that is so, then, wouldn't you think that there's a cost involvement, with cost-effective and cost-beneficial considerations coming into play when technologies are developed? Would not that consideration come into the realm of economics and necessitate economic thinking?

Alternative forms of energy are going to have to be developed in the future because with time we will run out of fossil fuels. We also need alternatives to fossil fuels because of the pollution they cause. But right now most alternatives are too expensive. We just can't stop using fossil fuels just like that because our economies are too dependent on then. At the same time we worry about the economic impact of climate change. And in all this we have the ring of the Economics of thermodynamics.

Spike said:

"Alternative forms of energy are going to have to be developed in the future because with time we will run out of fossil fuels. We also need alternatives to fossil fuels because of the pollution they cause. But right now most alternatives are too expensive. We just can't stop using fossil fuels just like that because our economies are too dependent on then."

I refer you to my technology marches on thread in the lounge area. See what you think about that?

PhilX

spike wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Thermodynamics(TD) is a complete non-starter for economic theory. No one every set up economics with a view to thinking about TD , and no economic journal, learned paper or thesis references it, as for as I know.

I am surprised that people are so dismissive of the idea.
.

I'm not dismissing the idea. I am refuting your claim, about why economics was started.