I think it is characterized by searching for efficiency, through equilibria is impossible (it is escalatory). And that the market does the moving, not society, which in MM-style patchwork would be dissolved into the market.
-
-
In terms of u/acc maybe not but then the question is how do you square social Darwinism with a philosophy of human extinction
-
speciation.
-
I dont understand how that squares the circle youve arranged here
-
i'm not sure exactly what your doubt is
-
theres a moral appeal to survival. at the same time, you're predicting (proposing) human extinction (or so I presume). the two conflict.
-
only if you suppose that survival necessarily equals human survival.
-
"if things cannot keep being, their value is limited. if they can’t be at all, their value is similarly non-extant. any ethics that is realist... will be an ethics of survival: what can we do to last longer?"
-
human survival is morally normative / human survival is irrelevant
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
would that be ground to revise what economists usually mean by efficiency? I mean, of an efficient company goes bankrupt, how efficient was it actually?
-
perhaps but its a different conception of efficiency - meaning that the market allocation of resources cannot be improved upon. its perfectly possible for inefficient outcomes to occur.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.