This is not altogether different to my question regarding technology in that  
   technology is defined in most textbooks quite simply by the production  
   function, the current state of knowledge as how to best combine factor  
   resources, such as capital, labour and land, to produce desired goods and  
   services.  
  
   You  can  find  many  discussions on Georgescu-Roegens critique in the  
   environmental/ecological economics literature right up to the present.  
   Unfortunately, most economists continue to disregard the role of natural  
   resources in production. Check out the ideas of weak sustainability vs.  
   strong sustainability (though Im not a big fan of the terminology). The  
   former assumes a Solow/Stiglitz/Hartwick endless substitutability between  
   natural capital and manufactured capital via the Cobb-Douglass production  
   function. The latter a Georgescu-Roegen/Daly/Ayres non-substitutability  
   based on thermodynamic laws.  
  
   I think this is a debate that really needs to penetrate the mainstream,  
   especially given the current concerns of many geologists over oil. We have  
   to check to see if we have been too complacent with our substitutability  
   assumptions.  
  
Adam McHugh