A Critique of Ecological Economics - Part 1 of 2

Ecological economics is an academic field of study that merges ecology with standard economics. Here I outline its faulty historical vision as well as its errors with respect to value, cost, and capitalism. I also suggest that the field, by rejecting the necessary shift to a new mode of civilization, could be contributing to ecological collapse. Ecological economics is a prominent example of Green Reformism, which I criticized sharply in my previous video. The present video is intended for ecological economists, for students of the subject, and for those who may be attracted by the field's environmental strengths without appreciating its pronounced weaknesses. (To obtain the script for this video, email the author: frank_rotering@yahoo.com. For further information, see my website: needsandlimits.org)

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• ecological
• economics
• Daly
• Costanza
• green reformism
• economic growth
• uneconomic growth
• capitalism
• value
• cost
• Soddy
• Boulding
• Georgescu-Roegen
• overshoot
• environment
• natural capital
• optimal scale
• Ruskin
• steady-state
• Keynes
• Frank Rotering

[chadisapunkrocker]

The ecological economists did not define the capitalist structure as a permanent reality: the capitalists do. Attempting to correct that conventional wisdom would have been a waste of time. Their model is faulty in a finite system; it doesn't need to be defined: it fails in it's own definition. Anyway, why represent a non-linear idea with the same linear visual model as it's predecessor. Ecological Econ should be a loop. If you understood Schumacher, you'd loop it. I give your critique a 40%.

[frankr29]

@chadisapunkrocker Sorry, but I find it very difficult to interpret several of your comments. If you want to discuss, please email me. Click the Contact tab at my website for the address.

[slurpeeday]

@mphello haha, too true, humans don't understand consequences either. This is when economic theory doesn't work. We need rational humans for most of economics to apply. If animals aren't even going to be rational a decent percentage of the time then how is economic going to be helpful in finding a better solution? How are we going to find what's best for them, when they can't express preference or even make good decision?

[slurpeeday]

@mphello Also, how would animals express choices for more complex decisions? What would be an optimal outcome be for predator/prey dynamics?

I feel like economic theory doesn't work very well for animals. Nevertheless, good point. there is certainly a market failure here. Though I have no idea how to find an optimal solution.

[mphello]

@slurpeeday .. think about them. i.e. at this moment, there's no cost in scratching this itch, or taking this drink, or turning left or right. Yet, even those have imperceptibly small costs - energy to scratch an itch, to drink, to turn. etc. So game theory and utility functions operate at all times.

Not quite sure what your point was. Pigs don't understand delayed consequences perhaps?

Man oh man can I give you examples of so-called "humans'' who don't, either.

[mphello]

@slurpeeday Of course the pigs would not understand that many of them would not survive.

But, humans know we cannot survive forever (i.e. we know we're not immortal). We haven't figured out a way around that. That doesn't mean we don't have utility functions. We and pigs and et al have many localized utility functions: scratch an itch at this moment, take a drink at this moment. Turn left now. Turn right now. Uncountably many other events for which the trade off is so small we don't even

[mphello]

@slurpeeday Of course the pigs would not understand that many of them would not survive.

But, humans know we cannot survive forever (i.e. we know we're not immortal). We haven't figured out a way around that. That doesn't mean we don't have utility functions. We and pigs and et al have many localized utility functions: scratch an itch at this moment, take a drink at this moment. Turn left now. Turn right now. Uncountably many other events for which the trade off is so small we don't even

[slurpeeday]

@mphello :) yes. That's a better way to put it. If the reader understands calculus, but we are on youtube.

Ignoring utility functions: good point. However, wouldn't animals need to understand the trade-offs in their choices, in order to have utility functions? For instance, what if let a bunch of pigs go. Would they understand that many of them would not survive in most parts of the world?

[mphello]

@slurpeeday whose utility function *I* want to ignore. (I choose to ignore the utility function of anti-vegetarians and breeders - anyone who has a kid.)

[mphello]

@slurpeeday

THANK you!

= Thus, $50 to a wealthy person is less than $50 to a poor person =

Easier just to say the utility function, v(X), of X dollars is a nonlinear function of X, with a negative second derivative.

Also, to be logically consistent, economic theory must include the utility function of ALL fully sentient beings: the animals needlessly tortured in factory farms just because people won't go vegan.

If one arbitrarily omits them, then I am free to pick and choose

[mphello]

Until one has detailed mathematical and logistical models that prove the optimal sets of laws or actions humans and non-human animals should take toward one another in a fair way, the anti-growth pro-animal rights pro-environmental approximations are the closest to the set of optimal strategies. Further philosophizing and speculation and "lumping everyone in a movement together" is stupid, a waste of our time, and worthless.

[ashevillecat]

While ecological economics does recognize the market economy as the dominant paradigm, it is far from considered "permanent". On the contrary, it recognizes its inevitable impermanence. It recognizes that no one economic system is optimal for all cases, and that a variety of systems could fit depending on the circumstances. Finally, it only advocates sustainability within a context that provides for well-being & ecosystem services simultaneously. So humans AND nature should be in the "ends" box.