WHAT IS ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS?
Ecological Economics addresses the relationships between
ecosystems and economic systems in the broadest sense. These relationships
are the locus of many of our most pressing current problems (i.e.
sustainability. acid rain. global warming, species extinction. wealth
distribution) but they are not well covered by any existing discipline.
Environmental and resource economics, as it is currently practiced, covers
only the application of neoclassical economics to environmental and
resource problems. Ecology, as it is currently practiced, sometimes deals
with human impacts on ecosystems, but the more common tendency is to stick
to “natural” systems. Ecological Economics aims to extend these modest
areas of overlap. It will include neoclassical environmental economics and
ecological impact studies as subsets, but will also encourage new ways of
thinking about the linkages between ecological and economic systems. The
chosen the name Ecological Economics for this area of study because it
implies a broad, ecological, interdisciplinary, and holistic view of the
problem of studying and managing our world. The need to treat integrated
economic-ecologic systems with a common (but diverse) set of
conceptual and analytical
tools. There was much discussion of other possible names, such as “Economic
Ecology” or “Ecology and Economics” or some conjoining of the two words
that to me end up being confusing tongue twisters like “Ecolnomics” or
“Econology.” But Ecological Economics seemed to get closest to the meaning
we desired while still being evocative to the uninitiated.
In studying the relationships between ecosystems and economic systems
a large measure of “conceptual pluralism” is warranted . There is probably
not one right approach or paradigm, because, like the blind men and the
elephant, the subject is too big and complex to touch it all with one
limited set of perceptual tools. The Journal will therefore pursue a
strategy of pluralism.
TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIMISM VS. PRUDENT PESSIMISM
Current economic paradigms (capitalist, socialist, and the various
mixtures) are all based on the underlying assumption of continuing and
unlimited economic growth. This assumption allows problems of
intergenerational, intragenerational, and interspecies equity and
sustainability to be ignored (or at least postponed), since they are seen
to be most easily solved by additional growth. Indeed, most conventional
economists define “health” in an economy as a stable and high rate of
growth. Energy and resource limits to growth, according to these paradigms,
will be eliminated as they arise by clever development and deployment of
new technology. This line of thinking is often called “technological
optimism”.
An opposing line of thought (often called “technological pessimism”) assumes
that technology will not be able to circumvent fundamental energy and
resource constraints and that eventually economic growth will stop. It has
usually been ecologists or other life scientists that take this point of
view), largely because they study natural systems that invariably do stop
growing when they reach fundamental resource constraints. A healthy
ecosystem is one that maintains a stable level. Unlimited growth is
cancerous, not healthy, under this view.
The technological optimists argue that human systems are fundamentally
different from other natural systems because of human intelligence. History
has shown that resource constraints can be circumvented by new ideas.
Technological optimists claim that Malthus’ dire predictions about
population pressures have not come to pass and the “energy crisis” of the
late 1970s is behind us.
The technological pessimists argue that many natural systems also have
“intelligence” in that they can evolve new behaviors and organisms
(including humans themselves). (KR MAYBE I AM ONE OF THE PESSIMISTS TOO)
Humans are therefore a part of nature, not apart from it. Just because we
have circumvented local and artificial resource constraints in the past
does not mean we can circumvent the fundamental ones that we will
eventually face. Malthus’ predictions have not come to pass for the entire
world, the pessimists would argue, but many parts of the world are in a
Malthusian trap now, and other parts may well fall into it.
There have been thousands of studies over the last 15 years on various
aspects of our energy and resource future and different points of view have
waxed and waned. But the bottom line is that there is still an enormous
amount of uncertainty about the impacts of energy and resource constraints.
In the next 20 to 30 years, we may begin to hit real fossil fuel supply
limits. Will fusion energy or solar energy or conservationor some as yet
unthought of energy source step in to save the day and keep economies
growing? The technological optimists say yes and the technological
pessimists say no. Ultimately, no one knows. Both sides argue as if they
were certain but the most insidious form of ignorance is misplaced
certainty.
Whatever turns out to be the case, a more ecological approach to economics
and a more economic approach to ecology will be beneficial in order to
maintain our life support systems and the aesthetic qualities of the
environment. But there are vast differences in the specific economic and
environmental policies we should pursue today, depending on whether the
technological optimists or pessimists are right. Given this fundamental
uncertainty about such a fundamentally important piece of information, what
should we do? This is a key area of research for Ecological Economics.
The optimists argue that unless we believe that the optimistic future is
possible and behave accordingly it will never come to pass. The pessimists
argue that the optimists will bring on the inevitable leveling and decline
sooner by consuming resources faster and that to sustain our system we
should begin to conserve resources immediately. Ecological Economics will
attempt to reduce our ignorance about the real energy, environmental, and
economic state of the world, develop methodological and ideological options
for better understanding of our dilemma, and look for the optimal social
paths and more effective social instruments given our very real and,
unfortunately very large, ignorance.
We can cast this optimist/pessimist choice in a classic (and admittedly
oversimplified) game theoretic format using the “payoff matrix” shown in
Fig. 1. Here the alternative policies that we can pursue today
(technologically optimistic or pessimistic) are listed on the left and the
real states of the world are listed at the top. The intersections are
labelled with the results of the combinations of policies and states of the
world. For example, if we pursue the optimistic policy and the world really
does turn out to conform to the optimistic assumptions then the payoffs
would be high. This high potential payoff is very tempting and this
strategy has paid off in the past. It is not surprising that so many would
like to believe that the world conforms to the optimist’s assumptions. If,
however. we pursue the optimistic policy and the world turns out to conform
more closely to the pessimistic technological assumptions then the result
would be “Disaster”. The disaster would come because irreversible damage to
ecosystems would have occurred and technological fixes would no longer be
possible.
If we pursue the pessimistic policy and the optimists are right then the
results are only ‘I Moderate”. But if the pessimists are right and we have
pursued the pessimistic policy then the results are “Tolerable”. Within the
framework of game theory, this simplified game has a fairly simple
“optimal” strategy. If we realfy do not know the state of the world then we
should choose the policy that is the maximum of the minimum outcomes (i.e.
the MaxiMin strategy in game theory jargon). In other words, we analyze
each policy in turn, look for the worst thing minimum) that could happen
if we pursue that policy, and pick the policy with the largest (maximum)
minimum. In the case stated above we should pursue the pessimist policy
because the worst possible result under that policy (“Tolerable”) is a
preferable outcome to the worst outcome under the optimist policy
(“Disaster”).
One must conclude that too little attention is currently being given to
policies based on technologically pessimistic assumptions. Pursuing these
policies (or at least having them worked out in detail and available as
part of the policy dialog) might be our most prudent long-run alternative,
given our present large uncertainty about the true energy and environmental
state of the world.
Ecological Economics will encourage elaboration of these prudently
pessimistic policies and issues. and compare them to alternative optimistic
policies while trying to help reduce our uncertainty about the real state
of the world vis a vis the ability of technology to circumvent fundamental
resource and energy limits.
Do we adapt to limits with technologies that have potentially large but
uncertain future environmental costs or do we limit population and per
capita consumption to levels sustainable with technologies which are known
to be more environmentally benign? Must we always increase supply or can we
also reduce demand? Is there an optimal mix of the two?
If the limits are not really there then conventional economics’ relegation
of energy and environmental concerns to the side of the stage is probably
appropriate, and detailed energy analyses are nothing more than interesting
curiosities. If the limits are there then energy and environmental issues
are pushed much more forcefully to center stage and the tracking of energy
and resource flows through ecological and economic systems becomes much
more useful and important.
Issues of sustainability are ultimately issues about limits. If economic
growth is sustainable indefinitely by technology, then all environmental
problems can (in theory at least) be fixed technologically. Issues of
equity and distribution (between subgroups and generations of our species
and between our species and others) are also issues of limits. We do not
have to worry so much about how an expanding pie is divided, but a constant
or shrinking pie presents real problems. Finally, dealing with uncertainty
about limits is the fundamental issue. If we are unsure about future limits
the prudent course is to assume they exist. One does not run blindly
through a dark landscape that may contain crevasses. One assumes they are
there and goes gingerly and with eyes wide open, at least until one can see
a little better.
What is emotional economics?
Human activities like greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and
deforestation are largely responsible for climate change and biodiversity
loss. The climate is a complex system and scientists are striving to
predict, prevent, and address the aforementioned issues in order to avoid
reaching tipping points. The threat to humankind is not only physical (ie,
heat waves, floods, droughts) but also psychological, especially for some
groups. Insecurity, danger, chaos, and an unstable system due to climate
change have both short- and long-term psychological effects. In this
scenario, the need for new psychological categories is emerging, namely,
eco-emotions and psychoterratic syndromes which include eco-anxiety,
ecological grief, climate worry, and climate trauma. This paper focuses on
these new categories, presenting a summary of each one, including
definitions, hypotheses, questions, and testological evaluations, as a
useful tool to be consulted by researchers and clinicians and to help them
in the therapeutic work. Also, this paper endeavors to distinguish between
a psychological stress resulting in a positive outcome, such as
pro-environmental behavior, compared to a stress that leads to a
psychopathology. Prevention and intervention strategies including social
and community support are fundamental to help cope with and mitigate the
effect of climate change on mental health. In conclusion, the climate
crisis has led to an enormous increase in research on climate change and
its consequences on mental health. Researchers and clinicians must be
prepared to assess this complex phenomenon and provide help to those who
cannot cope with anxiety and climatic mourning.
Our planet has been affected many times by climate change, which has
significantly impacted humanity from its origin and played an important
role in the evolution of our species, leading to biodiversity losses,
collapses of societies and reshaping of cultures . Although some natural
variations in the Earth’s climate are due to factors that are independent
of human activity (ie, solar irradiance, orbital variations, autonomous
activity of the planet such as volcanic eruptions), changes in climate in
the last decades have been attributed to human activity above all, ie, the
alteration of the atmospheric composition through the use of fossil fuels,
pollution, and deforestation that led to greenhouse effect and,
consequently, to global warming. Scientists are monitoring several
phenomena related to climate change, nevertheless, predictions are
impervious because our climate is a complex system characterized by chaotic
fluctuations as well as being entangled in biophysical and socio-political
systems. The change is deemed to be gradual with sporadic extreme climate
events (eg, floods, drought, heat waves, and storms) until a critical
threshold is reached; thus, compromising the state of the system. This
process is known as a “tipping point” and is seen in deforestation, arctic
ice retreating, and loss of biodiversity. When different tipping points are
activated, they can overcome the actual climate equilibrium causing a
global change, ie, a “regime shift” .
The consequences and damages are not always clear at the very beginning as
the exact cause-effect chain is not known. {Mr Gopalakrishnan wrt his
yesterday ranking question and answer} Although not all effects are
equally significant to human adaption, they are considered to be an
existential risk to humankind, threatening means of support and human
capital (eg, loss of resources, agricultural crisis, epidemics). Humans are
facing a global ecological crisis in which their demands are exceeding the
regenerative capacity of the biosphere [6] and this will inevitably impose
alterations to our lifestyles
In a guaranteed and quite stable climate system, living organisms may be
biologically more sensitive to atmospheric events or perturbations on mind
and body (“meteorosensitivity”), such as temperature, humidity, rain,
barometric pressure, brightness, rate of air flow, air ionization,
thunderstorms, and sudden shifts of some of these factors, with symptoms
below the pathological threshold. Sometimes, individuals may react to
weather changes showing psychopathological phenomena (“meteoropathy”) and
developing a specific illness, such as seasonal affective disorder, or
experiencing psychophysical symptoms (eg, irritability, mental and physical
weakness, hypertension, headache, hyperalgesia, and pain and autonomic
symptoms) or the worsening of an existing disease. By contrast, in the
context of climate change, the whole system becomes unstable. Climate
change can affect mental health, both directly and indirectly, with
consequences in the short- and long-term. More specifically, the direct
effects of climate change may occur rapidly, usually from extreme weather
events and natural disasters (heat waves, floods, droughts, tornadoes,
hurricanes, storms, and wildfires), as well as slowly and not immediately
life-threatening (eg, changing temperature and rising sea levels). When it
comes to the indirect effects of climate change, these can be caused by
several elements. First, by poor physical health which is associated with
mental wellbeing; second, by environmental risk factors such as smoke,
dust, pollen density, plant disease, infestations, water scarcity and
disease, food reduction, living in urban slums, and loss of sense of place;
finally, through their impact on human activities and change to the social
environment via adaptation and mitigation (eg, travel by alternative means,
availability of air conditioning).
The effects of climate change on mental health can be difficult to
detect immediately, they can be delayed and may persist over several years.
In addition, they do not tend to be uniform and may differ based on the
type of climate event to which one is exposed. What seems relevant is not
only the change itself, whether in the climate or in the environment, but
the difference between the “before” and the “after” state, the speed of the
disruption, and the time needed to reach a new stable state.. They are
sequential natural disasters in the same specific area, and they create
conditions that alter the effects of subsequent disasters (eg, fires in the
US, floods in Europe). Each new disaster can reshape the psychological
experience of past and future ones being a repeated and often similar
disturbance, thus, causing symptoms more quickly and more severely on the
subsequent exposure therefore, resulting in a repeated trauma, especially
if there has not been enough time between events to recover or to prepare
to face a new disaster, with effects also on a community and social level
(inevitability, resignation, loss of trust) . This kind of trauma is
usually endured by the populations living in those areas most frequently
exposed to extreme climate events, nevertheless, it can also affect those
who did not have direct experiences of natural disasters but are
particularly sensitive to climate change and hence tend to be influenced by
the news and the worsening trends.
Eco-emotions and Psychoterratic Syndromes
Recently, researchers have coined terms such as climate emotions to address
the emotional experience of global climate change, sometimes used
interchangeably with ecological emotions, that refers also to the emotional
impact of environmental degradation of other origins, or more generally
speaking, eco-emotions. They often include phenomena which are not exactly
“emotions” (ie, strong feelings) but rather mental states (ie, global and
relatively constant mental conditions, which include more than emotions,
such as thoughts and behaviors) and mental health syndromes (ie, conditions
characterized by a group of symptoms) , making classifications a bit
confusing and not always easy to compare.
The strong emotional response and the distress that people may
experience in relation to climate change should not be seen as pathological
by default: even if they correlate to a lower wellbeing, they often do not
meet the criteria for a mental disorder and eventually they can contribute
to a more pro-environmental behavior. They mediate between climate-related
stimuli and our cognitions, behaviors, health, and wellbeing: the way we
emotionally experience climate change concerns steers our reactions and the
social mechanisms of climate change mitigation and adaptation . Indeed, the
practical dimension of exploring climate emotions is the efforts of
researchers, communicators, and educators to support pro-environmental
behavior.
While the impact of the changing climate is mainly local and often
depends on the resilience resources of the communities, emotional and
psychological responses to climate crisis are affecting humans globally,
sharing a wide range of deeply uncomfortable feelings and widespread
distress. *That’s why climate change syndromes are “glocal” syndromes,*
thus, consistent with the postmodern syndromes of the globalization. From a
sociological and a psychological point of view, the clash is between
indifferent authorities that prioritize governance issues and corporations
that prioritize their interests spreading misinformation and continuing
business as usual, and the young and exposed communities that support a
radical change in energy supply, pollution, and deforestation.
In order to engage in eco-anxiety, many authors pointed to the
importance of community-based and culturally-sensitive supports targeting a
wide range of people, such as young people, students, climate
professionals, policymakers, and people working in industries that
contribute to the crisis. Support should include a span of offers,
environmental education, reflective journaling prompts, listening circles,
group mourning rituals, and advice helplines. That, on a collective level,
provides space for the expression of emotion and for action, including
activism (knowing that it could also be frustrating)
Challenges posed by climate change exposes tensions between the
individual and the collective, calling into question a shared moral
responsibility (ie, political) . Talking about eco-emotions and climate
change-related syndromes exposes the debate about the role of psychotherapy
in the contemporary world and its anthropocentric and individualistic
perspective , critically questioning the dichotomy between the focus on
individual solutions and the need for collective (thus political)
transformative interventions .Moreover, living in a more and more uncertain
and unsafe world undermines people’s confidence, leading them to look for
distraction and comfort engaging in pleasure activities and consumerism .
But both economic demands and compensative actions unveil as destructive to
the environment and human population, enhancing the feelings of guilt,
shame, and inadequacy . Indeed, climate change is challenging the
neoliberal ideology of unlimited growth and everlasting progress that has
been promoted for the last 40 years.The risk is that obtaining a new
classification of mental disorders related to the climate crisis, validated
through specific psychometric evaluations, leads mental health
professionals to stick to the role of healthcare-workers and induces
affected people to identify themselves as patients, instead of sparking a
debate on how to build a fair and sustainable lifestyle on the planet
Earth. In this crucial time, critical thinking is an essential tool.
Societies are facing this challenge through different responses:
structured (identification of critical issues with the development of an
action plan and an active intervention), indifferent (lack of interest and
low priority), concerned (risk perception followed by an alarm reaction
with uncoordinated responses), paralyzed (unfocused alert and terror
inducing a state of inaction). The differences in social responses are
based on social cohesion, leadership, and information, and reflect the
community capacity to adapt to critical situations, ie, to promote a change
towards a more resilient society to climate-driven disturbances .
Therefore, we are witnessing an exponential increase in research and papers
focusing on climate change and its threat on human health, in the effort to
understand this extremely complex phenomenon, untangle the association
between climate change and mental health, and propose proper interventions.
Researchers and clinicians are expected to support who is facing
difficulties in controlling the distress, hence they must examine in depth
whether the new terms proposed and the psychometric instruments are
actually helpful in defining and explaining such issues and whether the
psychotherapeutic approaches are effective, and if not, develop suitable
tools and strategies, since we may expect an increase in the need for help,
especially in the most exposed groups. On the other hand, mental health
professionals must be aware of the political implications of their role,
striving to avoid the exploitation of their medical and psychological
interventions to minimize the responsibilities of policymakers and benefit
economic interests.
Moreover, the feeling of betrayal and lack of support by governments
and policymakers may become a possible trigger for political and social
instability and turmoil. Hence, promoting an informed awareness, although
inflamed with some anger, is crucial to support the demand from society for
trustful actions by policymakers. Presenting a positive picture of an
alternative future seems to motivate pro-environmental behaviors whereas a
communication overly stressing on threat and damage can be unsuccessful or
even dangerous as it may make people feel excessively anxious and depressed
, facilitating maladaptive reactions and inaction.
In such circumstances, the economic and emotional environment wrt
the nature balance, theoretically has no consequences at all; the damage
caused by the numan elements are within bounds. But preservation of nature
is undoubtedly a collective and wide arc job.
K Rajaram IRS 17 9 24
On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 07:02, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*The Universe of ‘After Death’
>
>
>
> Every nano second trillions of organisms die on earth. The transformation
> of after death must be something, may be different but still must be there
> in the Universe. During life the Physical body becomes the self identity,
> but after death, the process of consciousness must enter a different arena.
> Life in living is actually the flow of the process of consciousness
> experiencing, the breathe based emotional perception and understanding
> coupled with the cosmic understanding based on quantum entanglement. Body
> is actually the big illusion of life which you are living now. Actually if
> you develop the all seeing, feeling and perceiving eye of Siva, then you
> get freedom from the limitation of the visible spectrum, and you enter the
> real world of transformations and manifestations, the so called ‘you’ also
> participating as a component. You continuously change every nano second,
> freeing from the static self definition. The very concepts of births and
> deaths vanish, and you confront the reality that you are part of the
> dynamic flow of consciousness, the real macro being. The Universe is
> consciousness.
>
> In free and healthy nature, the spell of the grand process of
> consciousness, continuously takes you to the transformations of the
> universe, as the universe. As it is, Biosphere means, simply the layer of
> consciousness processes, each organism, representing a path of
> enlightenments, in the grand march of the universe.
>
> Thanks to mechanization and technology, you no longer want to feel and
> understand. The computers are doing the Cartesian mechanization of
> perception for you and the developing of the resulting frozen organs is
> represented as great achievement of high standard of living according to
> the MBAs who specialize in marketing. When you use a machine to do the work
> of your limbs, then you are simply freezing trillions of cells and many
> more bacteria in their living, freezing your limbs.
>
> The simple fact is, if you can see everything-atoms, particles, their tiny
> molecules etc, and then you cannot find your body. You experience the real
> reality of consciousness processes interacting, blending, transforming etc,
> where birth and death have no meaning. You enter the arena of the
> Birth-less and death-less and timeless Universe of feelings and processes
> of consciousness, the universe of the electromagnetic consciousness.
>
> Every life form is actually part of you, if you do not indulge in the
> destruction of nature calling it economic activity. You desperately need to
> revive your own macro realty, as part and component of nature. If you
> regain your natural eye of Siva, then you will confront the present
> disastrous maiming of yourself as economic activity.
>
> Please start free nature movements, where nature if free from human
> tampering. As it is economics has become the horrible destruction of
> nature, and its very subject matter must be changed into ecology and
> consciousness. Economic life must be ecological and emotional life, as the
> day to day life. The very meaning of profit must mean, profit in terms of
> enlightenment via participation in free nature, as nature.
>
> Only in free and healthy nature, you can enter the grand abstract world of
> feelings that spell you continuously. Free and healthy nature means your
> own macro self. There births and deaths are continuations in the process of
> consciousness.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat GPT
>
> YM Sarma's essay *The Universe of 'After Death'* presents a perspective
> that sees life and death as continuous processes in a cosmic consciousness,
> transcending the physical self. The essay is rooted in several interwoven
> themes:
>
>
>
> ### 1. **Consciousness Beyond the Body**:
>
> Sarma argues that the physical body and self-identity are illusions in
> life. While alive, humans perceive themselves as limited by their body and
> senses, especially sight, which only allows them to experience a minuscule
> fraction of reality. He suggests that after death, the process of
> consciousness continues, entering different states or arenas. The idea of
> death as a mere transformation implies that the self is not static but part
> of a dynamic flow within the universe's larger consciousness.
>
>
>
> ### 2. **Siva’s Eye and Cosmic Perception**:
>
> Sarma introduces the metaphor of the "Eye of Siva," a reference to
> Hinduism's god of destruction and transformation. Siva’s eye represents an
> all-seeing awareness that transcends the limitations of human perception.
> If one can develop this form of cosmic vision, they would understand the
> interconnectedness of all life forms and free themselves from the narrow
> confines of self-definition, birth, and death.
>
>
>
> ### 3. **Critique of Technology and Mechanization**:
>
> Like Sarma’s other essays, this piece critiques modern technology and
> mechanization for distancing humans from nature and their true cosmic
> reality. He argues that by relying on machines, humans "freeze" their
> bodily functions and lose touch with the natural processes of life, leading
> to an artificial state of existence. Technology prevents the natural flow
> of consciousness and evolution, ultimately disconnecting humanity from its
> true place in the universe.
>
>
>
> ### 4. **Nature and the Universe of Consciousness**:
>
> Sarma emphasizes the importance of free, healthy nature as the space
> where humans can reconnect with the larger process of cosmic consciousness.
> In this natural state, birth and death are not ends but part of a
> continuous cycle of transformation. Nature itself is a manifestation of the
> universe's dynamic flow of consciousness, and by engaging with it, one can
> move beyond material perceptions and enter the "grand abstract world of
> feelings."
>
>
>
> ### 5. **Call for Ecological and Emotional Economics**:
>
> Sarma’s solution to the disconnect caused by technology and economic
> systems is to shift from profit-driven industrialism to an ecological and
> emotionally-driven economy. In this new paradigm, the true meaning of
> profit would be participation in nature’s processes and the continuous
> expansion of consciousness through engagement with the natural world.
>
>
>
> In summary, Sarma's essay calls for a deep rethinking of life, death,
> economics, and technology. He argues that only by reconnecting with nature
> and embracing a broader cosmic consciousness can humans transcend the
> mechanical illusions that currently define modern life and enter a
> timeless, interconnected existence.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopdrscgotyTwB0FwRWbKnfdv2WvtYzbNVp0N%3DmVfzMw8A%40mail.gmail.com.
