Template talk:Ecological economics

John Bellamy Foster
Hi User:Gaeanautes! Thanks for your additions. The template is looking great. I understand your rationale for removing David Harvey (I suppose his addition boils down to my own personal biases as a student of Marxian Economics) but I'd like to make the case for Bellamy Foster: he's a Marxian economist who has written extensively on ecological currents in Marx's work, and has written specifically on the history of ecological economics on at least one occasion. 

More to the point, I think that the line between who is and isn't an "ecological economist" is somewhat blurry as it is neither a profession nor a formal department at any university besides UVM. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, but I'll add him back for the time being if for no other reason than to get your attention. RnRa76 (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How splendid of you to create this template on ecological economics. I should have thought of this myself. But I didn't. And you did. So thank you for your contribution. I'm also glad you like the image (diagram) I added to the template.
 * Yes, you got my attention all right. I agree that ecological economics is not a 'profession', strictly speaking. Rather, it's a formal description of a subgroup or school of professional economists who share a special perspective on how the economy works, and identify themselves as belonging to this very subgroup or school. Much like being a 'psychiatrist' is a profession, but 'Jungian psychiatrist' is a description of a special subgroup or school within the profession. How does Foster identify himself, then? Well, according to his own website, he's a professor of sociology who has written widely on political economy and has earned himself a reputation as a major environmental sociologist. Now, that's first class evidence that Foster is no ecological economist at all: He doesn't even identify as one!
 * The WP article on Foster fares no better in this regard. By the time of writing, the article doesn't mention either of the terms 'ecological economics' or 'ecological economist' at all. Not once. You shouldn't consider scatter about these terms there now, as it hardly will be supported by any source material anyway (see previous paragraph).
 * Indeed, Foster has written on the history of ecological economics, as your source of reference provides evidence of. But he has done so from a Marxist point of view, criticizing Martínez-Alier's account of the 'Podolinsky Affair' (or whatever it should be called). 'What's wrong with that?,' you may well ask, 'weren't papa Karl and uncle Friedrich themselves concerned with ecological issues in their day?' — Yes they were, but their primary concern was socialist revolution — and that's what makes all the difference here: What's one's primary concern? Foster's primary concern seems to be 'ecological revision and redirection of Marxism', and not ecological economics per se as such . For yet another impression on this, be sure to read Foster's essay on the Great Transition Initiative site.
 * WP editors should avoid biases and tendentious editing. You frankly admit that your initial inclusion of Harvey in the template boiled down to your '... own personal biases as a student of Marxian Economics.' But then, in response to my intervention, you decide to give up Harvey without any quarrel. Fine. Perhaps the very same biases are responsible for your initial inclusion of Foster also? If so, you should consider giving up Foster as well. Just think it over...
 * I won't remove Foster from the template once again before having read your reply to this post.
 * Kind regards, Gaeanautes (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I think you're correct on the matter and I'll take Foster out myself. How do you feel about the inclusion of Social metabolism and Metabolic rift under the concepts heading?
 * RnRa76 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent that we have managed to reach an agreement on Foster ✅
 * Splendid — again — that you're now bringing up the concepts of Social metabolism and Metabolic rift. Curiously, I wanted to bring them up myself as the next matters of discussion here, so you got ahead of me. Here goes:
 * Metabolic rift as a concept was developed by Foster himself, so I think it should be taken out of the template altogether, as Foster the man has already been taken out. Both Foster and his concepts belong to Marxism, not to ecological economics, I say.
 * Social metabolism is only vaguely related to ecological economics, so I think it should be moved from the 'Concepts' heading to the 'Related topics' heading, at the least. The only caveat here is that a lot of WP articles may somehow be related to ecological economics without actually forming part of ecological economics, so if we put everything vaguely related to ecological economics in the template, its size would soon swell beyond reason. Some restraint is required here, I caution. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the concept of 'Social metabolism' should be either moved or taken out altogether. Your call... Gaeanautes (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More than a month has now passed since my latest post above, and no reply on your part has appeared in the meanwhile. I've decided to be bold (but not reckless) on the issue. Consequently, I have just deleted both 'Social metabolism' and 'Metabolic rift' from the template. If you object to my decision, please leave a post below before reverting. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you made the right call as on further reading most of the scholarship on metabolic rift seems to have been undertaken by sociologists. The template is looking great! RnRa76 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)