Mainstream economists' failure to incorporate the fundamental observations of ecological economics has the look of entrenched thinking, closed even to clearly superior alternatives. What might be the mainstreamers' motives in holding fast to what seems an unsupportable position? It could be they simply feel most comfortable with economic theory as they've learned it, that change is unsettling. Most likely, there's more.
Having witnessed a few other theoretical turf wars, this writer suspects some economists, having invested their professional lives in neoclassical theory, have come to appreciate its power and logic, and see ecological economics as damaging to the theory and thus their identities. Do they fear fundamental changes to their theory will threaten their abilities to function as the economists they are? They may envision little role for themselves in a radically changed system. Mark Montgomery, economics professor at Grinell College seems to express such fear when he writes on American.com, "There is plenty of evidence that environmentalists under the ecology banner want to get rid of us economists." Are mainstream economists simply working, then, to preserve their professional identity?
Resisting their own rescuers?
The irony is that if mainstream economists have their way, and economic policy continues on its present course, the outcome will be exactly what they likely fear -- the crumbling of their profession (as well as many others). Conventional economic growth is destroying the ecosystem. If allowed to go too far, then without a viable ecosystem what sort of economy will there be? And how will conventional economists function? In an apocalyptic future they're history. In the context of a more intact but still highly eroded ecosystem and human society, their role will at best be radically altered.
The irony only increases as we recognize that the ecological economists the mainstreamers resist are fighting to preserve the ecosystem, which includes the very profession the mainstreamers fear losing. Ecological economists are, in effect, trying to save their mainstream counterparts from their own professional (and possibly biological) self-destruction. But the mainstreamers can't see it.
And it may be worse than that. An increasing number of analysts maintain the policies driving economic activity to date have already done too much damage to prevent societal collapse in the coming decades. The convergence of our population's continuing overshoot of the earth's carrying capacity, the peaking of oil production, biodiversity loss, and a laundry list of other ecological problems may be too much for any late stage corrective efforts to overcome. Peak oil activist, Paul Chefurka, who constructs well researched analyses of the state of our ecological crisis, minces no words in writing, "My conclusion is that humanity is facing an imminent, inevitable and irrevocable collapse, incorporating both a severe population dieoff and the loss of most of our technological civilization." If such predictions prove true, mainstream economists will at some point realize their work contributed heavily to their own, and nearly everyone else's, demise.
Other analysts do hold out hope that humanity will find a way to transition, with great difficulty, to a sustainable society, averting unthinkable cataclysm. At the least, they push for actions which would soften the landing in the event of some degree of societal collapse. Such scenarios will take courageous, committed policy, unprecedented international cooperation, and a willingness on the part of many leaders to put aside the corporate and self-interests to which they cling. Ecological economics offers a key vision for such an undertaking.
So this is a plea to mainstream economists: Please consider putting the state of the earth and human society ahead of your professional status. Surely you recognize that your "ecological" counterparts are right about the relationship between the ecosystem and the economy. Quibble over theoretic minutiae if you will, but gather your courage and embrace at least that crucial point. In so doing you'll be in a position to engender hope at a turning point in human history.
* * *
John Feeney, Ph.D., is a psychologist turned environmental activist. He is based in Boulder, Colorado, where he writes on ecological topics at his website, Growth is Madness! growthmadness.org
* * *
[1] Ecological economics overlaps closely with "green economics," and can be seen as a part of the "Post-Autistic Economics" movement.
[2] To avoid oversimplification, note that the ecological economics and environmental economics camps are not always warring. There is, from time to time, constructive discussion between them. Still, let's hope the latter group gives up its homicidal tendencies.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
