Talk:Ecological economics

Ecological economics was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 14, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ecological economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems ecology.

Externalities Major Change

This section was highly misleading and might still need changes. The Fred Pierce reference does not seem to fit here, nor the discounting topic to which it refers. Neither pierce nor Hawkins in next paragraph are noted ecological economists so why are they here? Giving the benefit of the doubt I left them in but tried to place the existing text into some context of the actual page which is meant to be about ecological economics. This has been referenced in terms of some better know people. The point here is that externality theory is from orthodox environmental economics and is criticized by ecological economics. The previous version made it seem like there was no different and that Joan Martinez-Alier would support Hawkins endorsement of externality theory and a new capitalism! Thinksome (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History and development

The first paragraph was inconsistent with the second. This cited 1960s as the earliest discussion of ecology and economics while the second then cited even earlier work! I have corrected the text to remove this error. In addition I added another reference about the first meeting and stated who organized it. I removed the remark about the people listed being later influential as several have totally disappeared from the field!! I think mentioning the names is enough without making such claims.Thinksome (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological footprints need to be mentioned here, because they are now becoming a defacto standard way to measure economic impact on the biosphere. The definition ecological footprint by Mathis Wackernagel is now widely accepted. I plan to add it to history and development soon. TheKevlar 00:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Link or Describe "positional analysis or multi-criteria analysis"

The section on "Ethics" mentions "positional analysis or multi-criteria analysis". I am not familiar with these concepts and they are not Wikilinked. These need clarification to make the article more accessible. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak sustainability used to redirect to Ecological economics#Strong versus weak sustainability

I've redirected Weak sustainability to Weak and strong sustainability. Just noting that it used to link to the a section about this topic. Cf.: [1]174.3.125.23 (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a { { main | link } } main article link under that sections heading, also adding link back to this link from that article. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable development

Added lede part to sustainable development, here. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecological economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080621054850/http://www.sosyasuni.org:80/en/News/Ecuadors-Oil-Change-An-Exporters-Historic-Proposal.html to http://www.sosyasuni.org/en/News/Ecuadors-Oil-Change-An-Exporters-Historic-Proposal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ecological economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ecological economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Infinite-Earth supply and demand diagram?

Why the orthodox Infinite-Earth diagram labeled: "A supply and demand diagram, illustrating the effects of an increase in demand?" Right at the top of our article. How quaint. True in orthodox economics, when demand goes up, 1) price goes up, 2) supply goes up. But for both 1) & 2), not necessarily on a (depleting) finite Earth.

(Since price is relative, if demand for all things go up equally (as economic forces will tend,) prices will not change. (Sound familiar?) Those curves only work for local, therefore temporary scarcity, not universal scarcity.) How ironic! Perhaps we could create some stock out of nothing! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:BCCC:1306:CE70:60 (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecological economics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article as nominated has a "citation needed" tag dating from 2009, a cleanup banner in the external links section dating from 2012, and a reference tagged as a permanent dead link in early 2018. As such it meets the WP:GACR speedy fail criterion #3, "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid." In the "Nature and ecology" section, a potentially contentious paragraph on global warming is entirely unsourced, as is another paragraph in "Differentiation from mainstream schools", three in "Methodology", three in "Weak versus strong sustainability", etc. The article contains external links in inline text in violation of MOS. In addition the nominator appears never to have edited the nominated article. Please make sure all tagged issues are cleaned up before any GA nominations, and refrain from drive-by nominations that do not put any effort into getting the article ready for GA review prior to the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe?

I wouldn't even say that WP:FRINGE applies to heterodox schools of economic thought, since they are already clearly labelled as heterodox, and anyway, economics as a social science doesn't provide clear and testable conclusions the way, e.g. physics, chemistry, or even medicine does.

I would argue that the position of ecological economics (and heterodox schools in general) with respect to orthodox approaches is more similar to the position of string theory or supersymmetric theories with respect to mainstream physics than, e.g. homeopathy with respect to modern medicine. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Alternative theoretical formulations. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: Your reason for reverting my revert, "Ecological econ is rejected both by mainstream economics^[who?] and by physicists^[which?] as a field, and article does not adequately explain these arguments" lacks the necessary details to discuss its validity, or make changes to the article based on it.

Please provide some context (preferably citations) for your broad and sweeping assertions; otherwise I will remove the header, per WP:BURDEN and Hitchen's razor.

Since I doubt that WP:FRINGE even applies to heterodox schools of economic thought (and from a quick check, cf. Austrian school of economics doesn't get the fringe treatment), I would argue that, on the contrary, WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to claims that ecological economics is fringe. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]