Talk:Ecological economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale
Ecology Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject 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.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Green vs Ecological

I think a lot of what you mention is related to people coming here both from the Ecological economics article also the Green economics redirect to here. I think some of the tone you mention would be cleared up by splitting this article and giving Green economics its own page. --Treekids (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Treekids, the post on 'Article Tone' to which you refer was 2006 and editing was done since, not checked if it has been reversed. The Green Economics addition this year (2008) did seem a bit awkward (equated to Ecol Econ in opening) and with bits and pieces elsewhere, I thought as a new development (in some repects) seems more suited to the discussion under History/Development section with clear links to external sites for those interested to follow. I would suggest if this area requires more it be given a section amongst the Topics. Ecol Econ has had a fair share of Green poltical activists involved so I don't see any major division here i.e. need for a seperate page. Ecol econ is however primarily an academic discipline, as noted in intro and not a politcal movement as such. The extent to which the recent Green journal and activities of poltical activist around Oxford, UK are indictive of something substantively different seems too early to say. I would also suggest that unity is better than division and there appears more common cause than difference here. Prof C (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article tone

Recent (2008) 'vandalism' to the intro, which has been reversed, does raise a more serious question as to whether the tone is too academic and the wording obscure. I think the first few sentences should be more in plain English. Prof C (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is writen as if the field of ecological economics is settled with respect to a number of social and political issues. I don't think that is the case. For example sentences like: "It accepts as a goal the high standard living we enjoy..." and "It rejects the view of energy economics that growth in the energy supply is related directly to well being..." sound too much like the field is unified on these and other points. In fact I contest the claim of the latter since energy economics considers itself a part of ecological economics (or for some, co-extensive with and therefore synonymous).

Additionally, the article stresses sustainability over the actual study of ecological economics. The former concept is a social goal, the latter is a study that will presumably determine if the former is feasible and by what mechanisms it might be achieved. Economics, itself, is the study of wealth, its creation, distribution, etc., for the purpose of understanding the subject, not, necessarily just for telling us how to get more! Only after the political/social decisions for growth and development are taken is the knowledge of economics put into application. The current article reads like these objectives have already been decided and now it is up to the study of ecological economics to produce the result (sustainability). I personally do not feel that is a suitable tone for an encyclopedic article.

Since the activity history shows some recent work, I assume those still interested are watching this discussion. What do others think? Gmobus 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article should stay but be developed!

Ecological Economics is an Encyclopedic article but it needs to be developed. There is a lot of books written in the subject and it has to clearify its main subject: Ecological Economics is the merging of Ecology and Economics, Ecology meaning the science of "house=earth" and Economics the "science of householdning" and the notion that it should be based on the same values and bounderies. Example Lester R. Brown, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (W. W. Norton & Co., NY: 2001)© 2001 Earth Policy Institute®. --Swedenborg 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a quote from eco-economy would signficantly help the introduction: "Economists see the environment as a subset of the economy. The ecologist, on the other hand, sees the economy as a subset of the environment." (ch 1, pg 3)

The first page or so paraphrased, drawing the anology to the Ptolemaic vs Copernican models of the universe, would provide the contrast between views. I suppose the traditional economists might be offended by the lower status of the economy just as many objected to the world not being the center. Mulp 03:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RasputinAXP! Make your argument here!

There is no reason for deleting the www.grb.net link in this article!, The Global Reserve Bank is a important 3000 person network part of the Ecological Economics movement! --Swedenborg 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not, as has been proven several times on AfD. I'd like you to stop pushing your agenda now. It'd be greatly appreciated. In the future, if you'd like to get my attention, my Talk page is the best way.  RasputinAXP  c 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The AfD was made on wrong facts and with wrong participants, needs to be reopend..--Swedenborg 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


The Global Reserve Bank and link serves to further expand upon and explain the positionality and understanding of Ecological Economics. The Link is available through the Grund Institute at the University of Vermont and provides an applied example about the topic. If the interest is to provide information about the topic including the link seems a rational unbiased effort. I motion to include the link. --laskinmystic

[edit] Marx a forefather?

I would be interested in hearing why Marx should be considered an inspiration for ecological economics. Was not Marx alone among the classical economists in paying very little attention to the limitations nature might put on growth? 217.210.4.92 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

True. Marx believed rather strongly that technology can overcome obstacles to growth. JS Mill and Ricardo acknowledged limits (see, for example, Perman et al. 2003). I do not believe Marx was an inspiration for ecological economics. Maybe from the social justice perspective, but certainly not from the ecological perspective. Splashprince 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref: Perman R, Common MS, McGilvray K, Yue M. 2003. Natural Resources and Environmental Economics. NY: Pearson.

I deleted Marx' name.

217.210.4.92 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calton read this!

Dear Calton,

The original deletion of GRB article was made under totaly rediculiuos conditions with 2 -3 participants, an article that was on Wiki for many years uncallenge and accepted.

The deletion is a phenomen of deletionist activites that are looking more like acts of vandals then contribution to Wiki spririt...

The Two AfDs and 1 DRV was then just a pricip for deleting and no real discussion or serious considuration about facts and reality. It need to be reopened and voted with participants who have knowledge and facts about the subject, not just pimpelfaced kids who thinks that deleting and pissing of others is funny.

Start talking or help me find a way to get this properly handled in real Wiki-ways better... I have no economical or other personal interest in this I am just interested in putting the fact about one of the most creative and substantial movements in Ecological Economics development right now... --Swedenborg 17:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong in every respect. The GRB is utterly non-notable, having no real-world impact, importance, or substance -- something amply demonstrated despite all your vociferous argumentation -- by NUMEROUS participants (not the the falsely claimed 2-3) at three AfDs, at least, and two second shots via DRV.

You offered every opportunity to come up with reliable sources for claims regarding this so-called group, and you've failed. Instead, you've been using Wikipedia as part of you attempt to gain some sort of respectability for it.

Start talking or help me find a way to get this properly handled in real Wiki-ways better. Reality check: you HAVE talked...and talked and talked (not mentioned blustered, insulted, and ranted) and it HAS been handled in a real Wiki-way. You've had FIVE bites of this apple and have come up nil. And the Wiki-way is consensus, and consensus is that out it goes.

So others can judge for themselves,

--Calton | Talk 01:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is NOT a Democracy as certain editors like to spew on many occasions, so saying somthing has reached a consensus means nothing really. TruthCrusader 08:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's your idea of logic, how the hell did you ever get out of college? --Calton | Talk 13:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil, I would hate to see you get banned again. TruthCrusader 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't tell lies, they reflect badly on you. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well you are expert in lies so you should know :-) --Swedenborg 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? Which third-grade classroom did you pick up that bon mot from? --Calton | Talk 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm here for the RfC?

What's the issue? Please do not list RfCs until there is something on the talk page that can be found easily, and summarises the problem and diverging opinions on how to solve it. RandomP 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple: spam, just as it says above. Editor Swedenborg has been attempting to continually reinsert a link to a unreliable source, namely a website which he's spent the last year trying (and failing) to use Wikipedia to promote. See the four (4) AfDS above. During the last year, he's failed to provide a single reliable source for this thing's importance or even existence. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not so clear and def not spam, look around and if you read and understand this subject come back with comments, Calton is wrong. --Swedenborg 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Initial comment:

Issue: As far as I can tell, the issue is whether or not to include a link to http://www.grb.net. Swedenbourg (talk · contribs) wants it in, Calton (talk · contribs) wants it out.

History so far: There has been a prolonged edit war, where the link was repeatedly inserted and taken back out.

Other observations: Both users have been using a number of expressions in reference to each other that I, at least, would consider personal attacks; examples include

  • "if you not competent enough to write coherent sentences"
  • "you are expert in lies so you should know"
  • "you are really fucked up"
  • "you HAVE talked...and talked and talked (not mentioned blustered, insulted, and ranted)"

To move forward on this, I would first suggest that both editors take the time to review WP:NPA, Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. That another editor has attacked you personally or doesn't appear to mind personal attacks is no excuse for making them.

Afterwards, the relevant policy on external links is WP:EL. I believe that it is not obvious that this policy dictates including the link to the GRB. Thus, a discussion is necessary, and consensus must be reached, before a link is included to the GRB.

It is only because I've read the attacks that were made so far as a result of the RfC, and not as a contributor to this page, that I am not putting the formal warning notice required for WP:PAIN reports on both editors' talk pages. If any further personal attacks happen, I will do so.

So, my reading of Wikipedia policy suggests the following:

  • Calton and Swedenbourg, stop personal attacks on each other on Wikipedia now. If you feel the need to continue attacking each other, please do so off Wikipedia.
  • Swedenbourg, please provide (at least) a short explanation for why you want the GRB link in the article on this talk page. I would appreciate if you referred to WP:EL to explain why you think it is permissible or suggested by Wikipedia policy to include the link. A sentence or two should suffice.
  • Swedenbourg, do not readd the link until you have written that explanation.

(Of course, do feel free to ignore me. I'm just another editor making a comment, as has been requested.)

RandomP 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


According to WP:EL this is a highly valid link and from working within the field of ecological economics I know that GRB is one of the most influnent organisations and should be on wikipedia or at least as a external link here. Check it out your self www.grb.net

What to link to In Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible? / Yes! Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? /Yes! Is it entered correctly? /Yes Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity? For example, it is not useful to link to a homepage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Similarly, be very wary of citing an unstable page as a source. / It has been on Internet since 1995 and is stable.

--Swedenborg 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, those are the formal criteria for deciding whether or not an URL is suitable, in theory, to be an external link. Which of the "what should be linked to" criteria do you think are met here? Or is it one (or several) in the "Links to be used occasionally" list? I do not see how you have made an argument that it is a "highly valid link".

If the GRB is an influential organisation, can you find reliable secondary sources about it? Those are frequently preferable to primary sources.

RandomP 11:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I see your point, I will change to 2:nd source (and there are many) so maybe it will end this nonses... --213.67.58.210 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I put 2:nd source but Calton keep deleting and now he brought a friend that is admin and they are both warning me? and have no regret or will to check the facts, what to do now?

This is totally faul play and not something that should be part of wikipedian spirit.

What to do? Start by not insulting people, that's my advice. Don't you even notice when you do that? It's not like you haven't been warned. I'm not a friend of Calton's and he hasn't contacted me. Do you have any basis for your aspersions on my integrity and accusations of foul play? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
well admin or not you are insulting me with your oneside critic of a dispute with someone who only have one interest in this matter, to delete... to warn me and not warn Calton says it all, but most of all you are totally missing the point, I think that a link to 2:nd source about one of the most developed ideas in Ecological Economics belongs in a wikipedia article of Ecological Economics... The Nobel Peace Winner is also supporting the Global Reserve Bank initiative and 2000 other registered members and 10 000 + supporters.--Swedenborg 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts about Global Reserve Bank

The Global Reserve Bank (GRB) at www.grb.net is a proposal for a world central bank that sustains a prosperous community of shareholders. GRB shareholders, who include every person in the world, define economics as the science that deals with the production, distribution and conservation of Earth's ecosystem wealth. As Earth products such as air, water, soil, climate and biological diversity are the basis of our economy, GRB shareholders achieve financial freedom by restoring the quality of our natural assets. The GRB produces ecocredit equal to the shareholder's valuation of Earth's ecosystem wealth, and issues' ecocredit as a global medium of exchange, a universal unit of account and a store of wealth. By this method the GRB converts natural capital to ecocredit money. The GRB earns income from an ecosystem impact charge on GRB accounts. GRB income pays for shareholder communications, ecosystem renewal and earns shareholders, a basic income. Shareholder income enables everyone to enjoy the beauty, abundance and vitality of Earth's natural environment.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Ecological_Economics" --Swedenborg 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the link: * What is the Global Reserve Bank? should be added to this article. Any objections? --Swedenborg 20:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Citing Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia reference is so ludicrously absurd as to defy description. Reliable sources, remember? "Because I said so"? Not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What????? You really outdo your self again and again... Citing Wikipedia what are you talking about? This is an article on [1] and do not citing anything but itself... your argument is weak as usual and your tone is not Civil, could somebody else then Calton have a say, what huge lack of knowledge he has in this matter is already clear.--Swedenborg 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Global Reserv Bank is also in Nobel PeacePrice winners head.

For your information, Muhammad_Yunus is a strong supporter and one of 2000 active and registered members of GRB.--Swedenborg 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The only source for that is -- surprise, surprise -- the GRB website. And that mention doesn't even make the claim you just made. So you know this, how, exactly? Sounds like you ARE directly connected with this GRB, whatever your claims to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding link to example of Ecological Economic E-credit

This article have around 10 editors/ 1000 readers and only one deletionist (Calton) and only Calton (not a very big surprise) has obejection about putting this link http://www.progress.org/2006/grb02.htm to this article.

If anybody have objections about this he/she should make his/her argument here on discussions to avoid another deleting circus. --Swedenborg 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Try not tell OBVIOUS untruths, as it hurts your already diminished credibility. Hint: who were the others who weighed in on the 3 AfDs on your pet imaginary subject?
10 editors/ 1000 readers -- And you pulled this statistic from WHERE, exactly?
this link
1) That's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination.
2) That's a press release/proposal, not a news article.
3) Nothing in that says that this thing ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD. Unlike, say, Grameen Bank.
Your task, for the umpteenth -- and no doubt, NOT final -- time, is to provide a RELIABLE, THIRD-PARTY SOURCE that this thing EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please be Civil Calton!--Swedenborg 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
False. Please don't make up nonsense. Please don't make up nonsense to divert from the subject. Please don't make up nonsense to divert from your failures. Please don't make up nonsense to divert from the falsity of your claims. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You obvious belive that you have monopolý on truth and what is false, what a sad approach, I feel pity for you and hope that you will develop in time...

No there is no one more have a problem with puttning the link to a Ecological economy proposal and movement så I see no reson and no rouls, on the contary, this is a open forum and not a paper encyclopedia, and I will put back a link highly appropriate in this article about [www.grb.net Global Reserve Bank] --Swedenborg 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

No there is no one more have a problem with puttning the link... If that pidgin means what I think it does, yet another untruth:

  • I think you've completely missed what we've all been trying to tell you each time the GRB comes up for deletion: there are no verifiable sources about anything you're putting up there. It's not personal, and you shouldn't take it as such. RasputinAXP c 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [2]
  • [In response to your "There is no reason for deleting the www.grb.net link in this article!, The Global Reserve Bank is a important 3000 person network part of the Ecological Economics movement!"): No, it's not, as has been proven several times on AfD. I'd like you to stop pushing your agenda now. It'd be greatly appreciated. RasputinAXP 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC [3]
  • Swedenbourg, do not readd the link until you have written that explanation. RandomP 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[4]
  • Additionally, it is my opinion that he is correct about those links; I see no reason for them to be there. --InShaneee 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [5]

So guy, stop the attempt at spamming with the link. Even begging for meatpuppets at your blog hasn't produced any support. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil! How many times have you been told this? You do not have monopoly on truth or what to be published or not on Wiki. Maybe you and others have noticed that your actions and way of handeling things have created several alternatives to wikipedia? Stop you activities or you will destroy the wonderful idea of an open and free Encyclopedia on Internet.--Swedenborg 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Demonstrating your untruthul statements and asking you to stop your years-long spamming campaign is NOT uncivil, no matter how you spin it. Once again, PROOF. EVIDENCE. RELIABLE SOURCES. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed this ongoing problem for quite a while now. I believe, as the consensus shows, it's best to leave out the controversial GRB website from the page. I think Swedenborg should, as a gentleman, kindly desist from adding that link, thereby gracefully ending this long-standing altercation. Doing this would demonstrate his gallantry, by pre-empting any further response by Calton. I believe this to be the best way forward, and I believe Swedenborg can show the opposition that he is a very reasonable and civil-minded person. Oxford Dictionary 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, it's enough with the POV-pushing and the calling for meatpuppets

Crossposted to User talk:Swedenborg. Hi, Swedenborg. I see Calton links to your call for meatpuppets at your blog. Here is Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.
The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.
If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

And here's the call you issued for other people to come insert the link you want in the article:

About Wikipedia, could somebody else then me ad that link, I have some issues with the "Deletionists" that deleted the original article about GRB that was put on Wikipedia by onknown for many years (and it was good) and now I met some recistance to put link to GRB on Ecological Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics (click on discussion and history pages to check my efford to get the link to GRB here..) article (witch I was a part to write like the Eco Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_Theology article (the Swedish one is very much apriciated but in that english will take some more tome to get the right people to support).
I will instruct you how to do but they can identify the editor by IP-adress and mine is abit to hot right now.

Assuming good faith, as far as I possibly can (for I must admit to being taken aback by such cynicism), I'm going to assume, this time, that you didn't know the policy, and let you off with a stern warning. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia we're writing, not a mouthpiece for your views. Don't do it again or you will face a lengthy block. I for one will regard any future addition of that particular link as simple vandalism, revert it promptly, and, depending on circumstances, consider blocking the person who adds it. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC).


:: Please read the whole conversation before putting jugement or warnings on to me please! :

I have all the time acted in good faith and with openness, and any way been accuesed for the opposit, this is I belive on more example, taking a citat from its context it looks like I am cheating, but if you look carefully I only tried to learn another person to become Wikipedia contributer in another place then what is discussed here.

http://lellebylle.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_lellebylle_archive.html My blog].

for your information: Mohammad Yunus speaks about women in this 1997 interview. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s400630.htm

I found the interview linked to Yunus's wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yunus

I would like to put a www.grb.net link on Yunus's wiki page: Maybe under References or External links at the bottom of the page.

"Godspeed the Global Reserve Bank." - Mohammad Yunus (click, go to www.grb.net) I've got this quote in writing.

What do you think? Also I need help with the edit. I don't understand Wiki's editing system too well.

John

Therefor it is no meatpuppit or what you call it, I am only trying to be a contributer in Wikipedia, but now I am harrassed and Calton is attacking me and my work in ecological economics, ecotheology and swedish version of both. So if I am wrong and he is right I will say good bye and leave Wikipedia. --Swedenborg 09:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To say " About Wikipedia, could somebody else then me ad that link" is the very definition of meatpuppetry—didn't you read the definiton I looked out for you and quoted immediately above? I don't understand what difference your supposed "context" (=red herring) makes. I have replied more fully on your page. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Are you sure it's Rfc you want?

Looks like you have a bigger problem here than just a need for commentary. I think you folks need the attention of Arbitration. Robovski 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there's an RFC for this article..? I can't find one. No, I'm sure that's not what we need. The problem is one of user behaviour. But I don't think it's quite time for arbitration yet, since I have given User:Swedenborg a stern warning about meatpuppetry. Hopefully that'll give him time to come to grips with the concept of neutral editing. He's a newbie and there seem to be some language issues, so I'm cutting him a lot of slack. However, as I say above, I will block him in case of further egregious abuse. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything at this page that needs my attention. Bishonen | talk 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
The whole reason I came here was for a RfC I followed yesterday morning, apparently regarding a commercial link. Looking over the 'situation' you do seem to be having a user dispute a bit stronger than what Comment seems to be for. The article itself seems to be OK, there's already a tag for the criticism section needing references, so there's nothing there you aren't already aware of. Robovski 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still can't find an RFC for this page. (Digging into the RFC History.) Ah. It was removed this morning (UTC), as "long settled". Right, sorry for your trouble, Robovski, and thanks for your comments. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
Hi there, I belive that Bishonen have a bit of problem with objectivity, I would propose that if someone that is looking at this have a have a look if he/she is not meatpuppetrying and in fact is that same user as Calton, it surely looks like that, and from Tokyo both? Well I am leaving this shit becouse of Calton and Bishonen and I give you one more year and then you are all history if these people are the front figure and ideal of Wikipedia...--Swedenborg 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
... that is the single funniest statement I've ever heard. It was so funny you almost made me crack my skull open on my desk laughing. I will say this. Bishonen is one of the most level-headed , calm, and helpful admins in Wikipedia. Calton very simply does not act without overwhelming evidence and is about as likely to violate policy as you are to spell correctly or comprehend irony. If this goes to RfC it will be an absolute disaster...I'd suggest you actually try listening to what is being said. And FFS, use a spell/grammar checker. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presumed copyright violation removed

I've removed the section "Example of Sustainable Development Policy", as it is word for word identical with a portion of the source given. If the source has been released under the WP:GFDL, or if the Wikipedia version is the original one (the second seems unlikely, as the soure is a draft research paper), please provide evidence of this before restoring the section. Bishonen | talk 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Additions and suggestions

I just added a link to the The International Society for Ecological Economists (IEEE) and their journal, which seems to be the main academic journal on the subject. I wasn't signed in so I thought I better write a note of explanation here. I do think this page could be improved. More references perhaps and a clearer articulation of the key concepts/goals but it would have to recognise that within the field there is considerable divergence of opinion.

The key originators of the subject have been mentioned, Boulding, Costanza, Georgescu-Roegen and Daly.

Here are some other academics that I know about that could be mentioned:

Nordhaus, W Solow, R. M. Norgaard, R. B. Pearce, D. W. and R.K. Turner Wackernagel, M., & William R. Weizsäcker, E., Amory B. L., & L. Hunter Lovins

I tried to rank them according to their view from weak sustainability to strong sustainability. I think a discussion of the substitutability of natural and human-made capital would be an important addition to this page, and definitions of the concepts of 'strong' and 'weak' sustainability.

Hope this helps.

Bill. (Grad student at the School of Resource Management, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC).

Billtubbs 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you are right about the need to discuss about substitutability and weak-strong sustainability. Some useful references for that are:
  • Daly, H. 1997. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press
  • Daly, H. 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz, Ecological Economics 22(3): 261–266.
  • Solow, R.M. 1997. Reply: Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz, Ecological Economics 22:(3) 267–268.
  • Tisdell, C. 1997. Capital/natural resource substitution: the debate of Georgescu-Roegen (through Daly) with Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22(3) 289-291.
  • Ayres, R.U. 2007. On the practical limits of substitution. Ecological Economics 61: 115-128.
  • Hediger, W. 1999. Reconciling 'weak' and 'strong' sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics 26(7/8/9): 1120-1144.

AppleJuggler 05:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered a good description of the Weak vs Strong Sustainability definitions in the section on Sustainability so we don't need one here after all. Maybe just a link to this section. I'll see what I can do.

Billtubbs 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)