Today, though, I have several thought processes stirred by my Archaeology class (Human Impacts on Ancient Environments) that I figure might require further consideration at a time when I am not "bogged down".
In my time of not quite having the time to develop my thoughts, I shall leave them here for others to consider in my absence:
1.
Net Primary Production:
Total energy fixed – respiration of primary producers= total
food resources on earth.
Logically, the energy input HAS to be less than the output.
BUT behavioural ecology teaches otherwise, that it in fact does not have to be
such that there is a great deal, if other important things jump out at the
individuals instead- eg: social upgrading.
So, is this even a useful (if not overly simplistic) concept to touch on? Can this be used to prove non-logical human steps? Can this be used to determine the amount of not-logic that may lead up to a society's collapse? Has it been used for this purpose? Can it be used in biology, for behavioural ecology?
2.
SUNK COST EFFECT aka the CONCORDE EFFECT
Where more effort is put into existing and failing
investments (as a result of path dependency) without investing in the
exploration of new options which undermines innovation (eg: fossil fuels: Let’s
dig from the oil sands instead of finding new technology that could do the same
thing).
I would argue though,
that this is adaptation in a nutshell: responding to current events rather than
foreseeing events; that it is impossible to move away, once you’re dealing with
the emergency because a lack of that continued procedure (eg fuel) would mean
the shutting down of all of the systems to move the money to developing new
methodologies—which would greatly diminish the current stages of expected fuel
and impact the daily living of individuals, which in itself could cause the
collapse of societies dependent on the procedure.
A better option, logically,
would be to use existing technology and develop half stuff that didn’t leave
society completely lame while increasing the new technology at the same time…
fusions>hybrids>electric cars (but, electric cars could cause the same
issues, because they will require energy input just the same way).
So, is there any way for humans to solve these issues? Are we bound to continue simply responding to rather than being ready for, our environment? Would society listen? Would they agree? Would it be plausible to assume that we will never change?
So, fellow individuals who have equally no time and some interest in further studies than what you're already doing: What do you think?
