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

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



In article <E155sM.2uJ@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au>,
antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) wrote:


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

Yes indeed, though perhaps ironic is a better word.

> 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.

We're trained to evaluate the sustainability of cultural systems, among
other things.

> 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 

I beg to differ.  I included economics within the ideological aspects of
culture, since it deals with counting up abstract ideas (dollars and
cents) in order to make recommendations as to how we ought to live (i. e.
it is an ethical system).  There are also social and ecological
implications which flow from the decisions it makes based upon this ethic,
of course.

------------------------------Regards--------------------------------
Roy C. Dudgeon <umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  A THING IS RIGHT WHEN IT TENDS TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, STABILITY
AND BEAUTY OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY.  IT IS WRONG WHEN IT TENDS OTHER-
WISE.
                                --ALDO LEOPOLD, "THE LAND ETHIC".                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------