Do you see anything scientific about either the economic calculation problem or the socialist refutations of it that you've stated? Or the whole of economics for that matter (whether right, left or middle)?

It seems to me, there is little or no attempt to determine relevant variables, measure them, almost no use of physical referents, little attempt to make quantified predictions... Lots of sitting down and trying to use reason and logic to figure out a problem, little collection of data (or when there is some data - drawing extremely unwarranted conclusions from it). Lots of philosophy, pretty much no employment of the scientific method.

And these people are trying to create theories about how manage the resources. On what basis? What do they know of creating products that don't break down and can self-repair, making them fully recyclable, making them non-hazardous to the people and the environment, developing automated production plants, creating an electronic system that follows the movement and use of each material resource, and so on, and so on.

The level of thinking economists seem to be on (like thinking about what distribution of resources may be "logical" or "rational" - completely pointless abstractions) seems quite troubling to me. So the theories produced by the field, from my point of view, are likely causing enormous damage to people and environment, but of course there's not really much data to use to substantiate my point of view or anyone else's (which doesn't seem to stop economists from saying how an entire country's economy ought to be run).

I feel frustrated. I'm wanting a shared understanding of how to determine what approach to managing our planet's resources would lead to more needs being met.