tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1148797755731444630.post4107074433698220365..comments2024-03-26T04:38:44.333-03:00Comments on Ecological Sociology: Environmentalist's ParadoxGaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594415948430315779noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1148797755731444630.post-75810188829524969362010-09-17T11:07:29.117-03:002010-09-17T11:07:29.117-03:00I think you're right that the article reinforc...I think you're right that the article reinforces certain conclusions emerging out of ecological economics. But, it seems to me, that the article points in other directions as well. I don't think it is accurate to reduce the entire phenomena to a process where well-being tracks resource price.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01594415948430315779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1148797755731444630.post-13464158686056579012010-09-12T19:43:20.688-03:002010-09-12T19:43:20.688-03:00It seems likely to me that this is essentially a q...It seems likely to me that this is essentially a qualitative reinforcement of points from ecological economics. To use its crudest form, current well-being seems to depend more on "flow", or withdrawal from the stocks of our ecosphere, rather than on the total remaining stock itself. I mean, possibly clear-cut examples could be gold booms, fisheries and forestry, where high extraction rates lead to increases in all types of human welfare (though equality is not typically one of them), but as per Hypothesis 4, a "bust" follows.<br /><br />In ecological economic theory, you can draw down various resources, generating short-term economic goods, but the replenishment of these resources become compromised and therefore, at *some* time point, the flows will slow and then collapse. Even when flows slow, you may continue to get increases in "well-being", say, up until some inflection point between maximum withdrawal and total collapse. See i.e., <a href="http://www.envirovaluation.org/index.php/2010/09/07/on-the-ehrlich-simon-bet-both-were-unskilled-and-simon-was-lucky" rel="nofollow">On the Ehrlich–Simon bet: Both were unskilled and Simon was lucky</a>, "Resource prices reflect the relative scarcity of different resource types, not their absolute scarcity. Given the basis upon which Ehrlich and Simon entered the bet, both men revealed their lack of understanding of the relationship between absolute resource scarcity and resource prices. In the end, Simon was lucky because factors other than a rise in absolute scarcity had the greatest impact on resource prices between 1980 and 1990." I would argue well-being would track to some extent with resource price...JohnofGauntIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12418332469233226082noreply@blogger.com