[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: