[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)



umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca (Roy C. Dudgeon) writes:

>   Speaking as a Ph. D. candidate in anthropology, I would suggest that
>this is not a basic tool of the trade.  There is a long tradition of
>ecological anthropology which examines the RELTIONSHIP between humans and
>their ecological habitats, but which is anything but anthropocentric.  In
>fact, many of the writings by ecological anthropologists remind one of the
>writings of deep ecologists, ecofeminists, or social ecologists.
>   Thus, while I agree that it is fortunate that there are social
>scientists, and ecologists, who think holistically, in terms of the total
>ecological, social, IDEOLOGICAL system--such as us anthros--it seems clear
>that economics is not such an undertaking.

Given your better background than mine in anthropology, I accept your point
that some anthropologists are not anthropocentric (nice contradiction, isn't 
it ?).

On the other hand, however grand an achievement it is to be a Ph.D. candidate
in anthropology, it hardly makes you an expert on ECONOMICS and certainly
makes you unsufficiently equipped to pass such a summary judgement on the 
whole profession.

Besides, holistic thinking necessarily includes a requirement to address
economic issues.  Hence, social scientists and ecologists considering only 
the "ecological, social and IDEOLOGICAL" components of the system are not 
holistic thinkers.

George Antony 


Follow-Ups: References: