eBook - ePub
A History of Ecological Economic Thought
Marco P. Vianna Franco, Antoine Missemer
This is a test
Share book
- 190 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
A History of Ecological Economic Thought
Marco P. Vianna Franco, Antoine Missemer
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Contributing to a better understanding of contemporary issues of environmental sustainability from a historical perspective, this book provides a cohesive and cogent account of the history of ecological economic thought. The work unearths a diverse set of ideas within a Western and Slavic context, from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the late 1940s, to reveal insights firmly grounded in historiographical research and of import for addressing current sustainability challenges, not least by means of improving our grasp on how humans and nature can generously coexist in the long term.
The history of ecological economic thought offered in this volume is rich and diverse, encompassing views that are bound by the observance of the tenets of the natural sciences, but which differ significantly in terms of the role of energy and materials to cultural development and the normative aspects involving resource distribution, social ideals, and policy-making. Combining the approaches of independent scholarly figures and scientific communities from different historical periods and nationalities, the book brings elements that are still missing in the scarce literature on the history of ecological economic thought and highlights the underlying threads which unite such initiatives.
The book brings a fresh look into the historical development of ecological economic ideas and will therefore be of great interest to scholars and students of ecological economics, environmental economics, sustainability science, interdisciplinary studies, and history of economic thought.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is A History of Ecological Economic Thought an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access A History of Ecological Economic Thought by Marco P. Vianna Franco, Antoine Missemer in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Economía & Historia económica. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1 Natural History, Botanical Gardens, and Political Economy
DOI: 10.4324/9780429345623-2
As the chronicle of the long history of ecological economic thought begins, it must be admitted that the relationship between production and consumption activities, on the one hand, and the natural environment, on the other, predates by far the industrial period, which flourished in Europe in the late 18th century. However, to talk about economics, ecology, or the environment at a time when these terms did not exist may raise a few questions. Having defined ecological economic thought as a specific kind of cross-fertilisation between natural and social ideas, one might wonder whether it is reasonable to talk about it when scientific disciplines themselves were neither constituted nor well delimited. Certainly, the boundaries between the natural and the social spheres were not always clear in the pre-industrial era. Yet, it enables us to explore corpuses articulating natural and socio-economic issues in a more symbiotic manner, which is a relevant perspective for the history proposed here.
As is usually the case in the history of ideas, a starting point could be located in Antiquity, when Greeks and Romans began to forge the intellectual categories we inherited, including the multifarious concept of nature. One can just as well place the start of one of different possible stories in the 16th century, when the first discourses on modern science emerged, more specifically during the Renaissance and throughout the Enlightenment. Hence, we initiate our exploration of the articulation between a bourgeoning naturalist knowledge, in particular within natural history, agronomy, and physiology, and the newly established field of political economy from the 16th to the early 19th centuries, with a special focus on the 18th century.
A detour through Physiocracy and agronomy is unavoidable, and there are some familiar landmarks here on that matter. We lay focus on natural history in Linnaeus’s economy of nature as well as French natural history, in the latter case in connection with the expansion of the Jardin du Roi in Paris. Public gardens, as will be shown, have indeed played a crucial role in the development of ecological economic thought in the 18th century. The works of cultural historian Emma C. Spary (2000, 2003) invite us to look at natural history as caught up in economic, political, and social issues, going far beyond species classification.
Early developments in natural history
Natural history as a field of knowledge appeared in the 15th and 16th centuries from various concerns about natural riches and their organisation in the world. Swiss naturalist and physician Conrad Gessner’s Historia Animalium (1551) was one of the first books devoted to the subject. Gessner had a conception of natural history based on the collection of testimonials, without field experiments or observations. He did not limit himself to the description of natural attributes of species; he also listed the myths, symbols, and expressions associated with them (Ashworth, 1996). In retrospection, Gessner’s early view of natural history, therefore, was different from more recent frameworks, which draw clear cuts between physical features and social representations.
The definition of natural history as the science describing the physical characteristics of species appeared in the mid-17th century. Symbols and expressions associated with animals and plants were taken out of the naturalists’ agenda. Field experiments, which had first been developed in physics and medicine, became commonplace: to be true experts in botany, scientists had to work in gardens, as close to the observation grounds as possible. This methodological proximity with physics and medicine helped natural history become a reference in scientific circles at the turn of the 18th century. Any group claiming to be scientific would have to practise physics, medicine, and natural history to gain a reputation. With their transcontinental conquests, European settlers discovered, at the expense of indigenous populations, new worlds to explore, including unknown animal and plant species. Natural history soon became the best ally of these settlers to understand and nominate their surroundings. As made clear by Nicholas Jardine and Emma C. Spary (1996), natural history was located at the centre of the scientific as well as the political game.
As it became more and more popular, natural history turned into a potentially useful discipline not only for scientists, explorers, and conquerors, but also for the typical entrepreneur and merchant. The practical convenience of natural history was first related to botany and medicine: the discovery and study of valuable plants for the purposes of herbalism. In this sense, it is remarkable to note that the first French botanical garden in Montpellier was created in 1593 near the faculty of medicine (Mathis and Pépy, 2017). Throughout the 17th century, agricultural studies were also enriched by additional botanical knowledge aiming to improve the fertility of the soil.
The consolidation of this new discipline occurred in the 18th century, along with the appearance of new methods and tools. Detailed classification of species (in classes, orders, genera, species, etc.) appeared and became the norm. Until then, the organisation of specimens in the so-called ‘curiosity cabinets’ (cabinets de curiosités) did not follow these classifications. Natural and artificial objects were jointly presented, and geographical areas not respected. This was rarely due to clumsiness—catalogues were appropriate—but rather the consequence of a mode of exhibition which emphasised the contrasts between distinct specimens (Whitaker, 1996). In the 18th century, even the most provincial amateur natural historian became aware of this new way of organising species and objects based on detailed classifications. This advancement was complemented by new quantitative methods to measure anatomical differences or to statistically enumerate populations in a specific place. Mathematics started to pervade most scientific domains; natural history was no exception.
With more sophistication and methodological tools, natural history progressively lost its general character to become a field composed by specific areas of expertise: mineralogy, botany, and zoology. What did not change, however, was the connection between natural historians and political and commercial power. When the first professorship of natural history was created at the University of Ferrara in 1543, Giuseppe Gabrieli had already insisted on the benefits of his field to the yeoman and above all to kings and princes (Findlen, 1996). In the 18th century, European political powers would push for further development in natural history.
This support was supplemented by a true interest from the bourgeoisie and local amateurs of scientific knowledge, especially in the early 18th century. In botanical gardens, although not all employees were scientists, they still participated in the creation of scientific knowledge through their daily operations (Cunningham, 1996). Local farmers also contributed to the constitution of practical experiences in relation to agricultural improvements (Lowry, 2003). In urban communities, objects of interest increased the appeal of natural history, as in the case of the obsession with shell collections (conchyliomanie) which made prices skyrocket all over Europe until the bubble bursts of the 1750s (Allen, 1996). Aristocrats and the bourgeois elites wished to impress their friends with large cabinets and ever more extravagant specimens.
Linnaeus’s economy of nature
Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus played a decisive role in the development of natural history. Born in 1707, he essentially contributed to botany, even though some of his works in zoology also stand out (e.g. Linnaeus, 1751, 1761). He was aware of the pioneering studies that preceded his own work and he understood quite early the need for patrons to fund and publicise his research. He worked in close cooperation with his students, who, after training, were sent all over the world to collect specimens and make observations. Pehr Kalm, a famous 18th-century naturalist, was one of these disciples. He travelled through the American colonies between 1748 and 1751. His diary, translated into English in 1770–1771, would contribute to the recognition of Linnaean science across Europe (Albritton Jonsson, 2015).
Linnaeus’s acknowledgement as a fundamental figure in the history of the natural sciences is due to his famous taxonomy of the natural world, divided into three kingdoms (animals, plants, and minerals) and organised in subgroups (class, order, genera, species, etc.). The taxonomical proposal appeared early on in his career in his Systema Naturæ (1735), which was regularly re-edited until Linnaeus’s death in 1778. His taxonomy had at least one important economic consequence. It was based on Latin denominations of species, with more systematic and neutral designations in comparison with previous attempts. As a result, natural objects became less imbued with symbols, and this standardisation favoured commercial exchanges (Müller-Wille, 2003).
Linnaeus’s taxonomy has certainly been the most diffused and discussed way of arranging the natural world. Competing classifications would appear in the second part of the 18th century and in the early 19th century, when other scientists found the original taxonomy too complex and not adapted to certain areas. Linnaeus’s proposal would also soon be deemed inaccurate for classifying species that could be found in different continents—in Linnaeus’s system, some designations were geographically specific and hence misleading if individuals of the same species could be found all over the world. Nevertheless, Linnaeus’s intuition, according to which universal classifications were the basis of natural history, remained as a cornerstone of subsequent studies in natural history. It is no coincidence that, one century later, Jules Verne would build a character for his novel Vingt Mille Lieues sous les Mers (1871), Conseil, who, alongside his master professor of natural history, was so overtly fond of classifications. Linnaeus and 18th-century taxonomies shaped the representations of the natural world in a broad cultural sense, moving beyond scientific circles.
To arrange the natural world was not an end in itself for Linnaeus; it was a way of understanding the complex natural order, the harmony between species, and the general balance of nature. In this context, he coined the famous expression ‘economy of nature’ in Œconomia Naturæ (1749), asserting that each species had a role to play in the general arrangement of nature designed by God. Plants, animals, and humans belonged to the same harmonious destiny, shaping the world as we know it.
Linnaeus’s economy of nature was an encompassing concept, gathering humans and non-humans in a common conception of nature and recalling in retrospect the more recent concept of biosphere. The economy of nature was also a static concept, which did not provide a true framework to think about the evolution of species, which would come a century later in the writings of geologist Charles Lyell and biologist Charles Darwin (Schabas, 2005). By connecting God’s will with the arrangement of the natural world, Linnaeus added a sort of spiritual dimension to his economy of nature contrasting with the purely scientific views of his classification (Rausing, 2003).
In fact, the expression ‘economy of nature’ can be found in writings predating Linnaeus’s contributions, e.g. in Kenelm Digby’s works from the 1650s (Worster, 1994; Deneault, 2019). Conceptually speaking, the idea of a great arrangement of the natural world with interdependencies between species goes back to Aristotle. As is well known, the word ‘economy’ etymologically comes from the Greek oikos and nomos, meaning the rules and practices for the good management of the household. In the early 18th century, ‘economy’ was still associated with this ancient definition. Political economy and economics were still far from being established fields. Therefore, Linnaeus conceptualised the economy of nature in an Aristotelian fashion, meaning the good organisation of God’s house, i.e. Earth’s nature (DesRoches, 2015). Does it mean that talking about ecological economic thought at Linnaeus’s time would be meaningless or misleading? Not insofar as Linnaeus’s thought did not limit itself to describing the balances between animals, plants, and minerals, but also aimed at contributing to the development of the Swedish (human) economy.
From the early to the late 18th century, Swedish economic thought was different from the Scottish Classical thinking of David Hume and Adam Smith. German Cameralism, focused on the enrichment of political powers through commercial expansion, was the most influential doctrine in Sweden, with a small inclination to agricultural issues. Swedish scientific and political elites were particularly sensitive to the economic utility of science and to the question of making natural history beneficial to the whole country (Liedman, 1989; Rausing, 2003). Linnaeus had no problem with this position. He participated in the creation of the Swedish Academy of sciences in 1739, sharing its motto of enhancing national prosperity through scientific progress and agricultural improvement (Frängsmyr, 1989). Linnaeus surely considered natural history as a discipline devoted to practical issues, whereas economic studies were the most socially useful application of natural history. Throughout his writings, one can find information about the utility of species not only for the general balance of nature but also for specific human needs. In Œconomia Naturæ (1749), for instance, he described the circulation of organic matter and its critical role for maintaining the fertility of the soil (Warde, 2018).
Linnaeus, supported by his patrons and assisted by the observations of his students during colonial expeditions, tried both to improve knowledge on the Swedish territory and to find exotic plants for acclimatisation, what would contribute to the prosperity of his country (Albritton Jonsson, 2010, 2015). The acclimatisation of plants was one of the great fashions of the 18th century, professing that under certain conditions species might be successfully transposed from one point of the globe to the other. It could take time and demand intermediary steps, but its practise presented huge opportunities for Northern countries to strengthen and diversify their agricultural output. Linnaeus saw acclimatisation at first with strong optimism. Soon he had to moderate his enthusiasm, facing severe failures in attempting to tame exotic specimens. However, the general idea that species could be moved and adapted to new climatic environments was something that he constantly kept in mind. Acclimatisation was seen as an appropriate tool to reinforce Sweden’s economic independence. In a sense, Linnaeus considered acclimatisation as a substitute for imports (Müller-Wille, 2003), which shows the close relationship between his natural history and his economics.
Because of the economic dimension of Linnaeus’s work, some scholars have argued that Linnaeus could be cons...