tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7165044694341896839.post4141791351419259281..comments2024-02-29T06:51:50.242+01:00Comments on Daniel Pargman's academic homepage: Undisciplined environmentspargmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17208443783482286491noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7165044694341896839.post-12648627854118129392016-08-04T18:23:16.603+02:002016-08-04T18:23:16.603+02:00Very useful and fascinating post -- thanks. It is ...Very useful and fascinating post -- thanks. It is perplexing that the obvious limits to finite resources on this third rock from the sun are not part of the study of political ecology. I get that they don't want overpopulation to be the boogie man, and that our wasteful Western ways must figure prominently in any strategies going forward, but it's absurd to suggest that a world that had 2.5 billion people in 1950, and now has 7 billion, cannot have been affected by all those new people. It seems that the single word "Malthusian" can shut down conversations. Too bad the degrowth people also choose to deny the reality of population processes. In their European context perhaps it is less important. But Indonesia! And many other places. <br /><br />It seems to be cutting off noses to spite faces if we say, "Well, the West did what they did, and now the rest of the world the right to be as wasteful as the West has been." I don't buy that -- it's not the world we want to leave for our children and grandchildren, however politically satisfying it might seem. <br /><br />Maybe the Transition Town people have devised solutions that are as good as any. Take your life into your own hands, respect limits (like peak oil), work with local authorities, and have fun getting to know your neighbors.<br /><br />I see that the political ecology people are doing very good empirical work. I think, judging from what Daniel has written, that they have a blind spot that undermines their own purposes. It's a complicated world we live in.Bonnie Nardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03861823956078794511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7165044694341896839.post-50673815006720444622016-03-29T12:44:36.454+02:002016-03-29T12:44:36.454+02:00I can't say. I forgot to write about the fact ...I can't say. I forgot to write about the fact that they would like to reframe/rephrase Rockström's safe operating space too since it (apparently) also emphasises "limits" that should not be overstepped...pargmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17208443783482286491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7165044694341896839.post-41672511528938353782016-03-28T23:07:06.592+02:002016-03-28T23:07:06.592+02:00great comment, thank you Daniel. Really intriguing...great comment, thank you Daniel. Really intriguing with the degrowth stance on Limits to Growth and Malthus. Is it that they believe that their view was wrong or that they believe it is the wrong focus, do you think? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06423293516796720222noreply@blogger.com