‘Nature’ and Economics are incompatible

Having attended a very interesting lecture from Tim Lenton, possibly the subsequent discussion was even more informative!

Tim suggests that economics is way too influential in the government – and also generally – and that the environment is seemingly of little, or subsidiary, consequence.

I’m sure that this will echo the views of many PP contributors.

As would the idea that ‘natural’ capital, implying, as was suggested, an entity or even community of which we could all be part, as against ‘financial’ capital which is a system with which we could not probably connect without, at least, certain ‘financial’ prerequisites…

The former was, unsurprisingly, generally agreed to be of far more importance.

Yet the journal ‘Nature’ is, it appears, going to appoint an economics correspondent.

I regret I’m decidedly put off by the headline: “Economists and scientists: solve big societal problems by working together”.

I suggest that the economy is not ‘ Nature’ and actually the economy should be – well, let’s not beat about the bush – irrelevant when compared to the environment. And I think that we must take on board that, importantly and in effect, the environment is actually preserved as an environment beneficial for homo sapiens. The economy is for – well, no more than, homo economicus. Which ‘man’ are we exactly?

The ‘Economist’ might, of course, choose to have scientifically and peer reviewed articles yet I don’t think it does? Meanwhile, surely they should also be showing just how orthodox economics, with its supposedly rational decision-making and never-ending growth does not serve the population as it is supposed to.

The journal ‘Nature’ has nothing to do with the economy and it should not be deceiving its readers by suggesting that the economy has importance beyond that of a human construct.

Is it too late for ‘Nature’ to reconsider?

Because the never-ending growth in economics in particular has no conceivable basis.

And surely it is of utmost importance to show that this supposed economic reality actually is NOT ‘Nature’?

Comments

  1. Ed Phillis -

    I think its a bit like wrapping the dog’s tablet in a piece of ham roll.

    ‘The environment hey? What’s in it for me?’

  2. Tony_B -

    Peter, Its the march of the MBAs and business friendly ‘advisors’.

    Aldhous Huxley alluded to the rise of overmanagement; as well as David Graeber in his critiques – ‘Utopia of Rules’, 2015 and ‘Bullshit Jobs’, 2018.

    1. Peter May -

      It is – but I’m old-fashioned enough to consider it shouldn’t be encouraged by natural scientists…

Comments are closed.