Posts

Comments

"It is interesting how Ms. Ostrom makes her work as accessible as she possibly can. But it is important to note one of her target audiences, which are people in these SESs that are being suppressed by government regulation. Without the accessibility of her work, and the ability to directly communicate with the people she is trying to influence, then what would be the point of doing the research to begin with? I agree with Evyatar in his observation that scientific articles are quite difficult to understand at times, although I fear simplifying the science can present a threat to the veracity of the articles themselves. I feel that if the scientists could present their data in a simpler way and also maintain the integrity of the science, then they would have already done it. A lot of these scientific studies are not always meant for the general public, they can be used to influence policy or regulations. But back to the article. It seems obvious that people directly involved in an SES would be best for drafting a regulation framework that best suits all parties involved. Those closest to the systems can interact with the subtleties and delicacies of the ecologies. Without that crucial knowledge, government policy makers can't make an informed decision and create the optimal policy. So users are the key to sustainability, which is not as obvious an idea. But now what do we do with government policy makers? Do we change their jobs? Fire them? Replace them? Or keep them as they are? There are a lot of possibilities and looking at how we move forward will be interesting."
--( posted on Nov 12, 2013, commenting on the post Letting The Common Man Learn To Manage The Commons )
 
"I find it interesting how you question the appeal to the traditional thought of bottom up forces controlling marsh grass production. Is it simply because the previous experimenters were less educated on the salt marsh process than Bertness and Silliman? And how could that belief be accepted for so long? I guess it could be similar to the 'earth is flat' dilemma but on a much different scale of course. But now that there is a greater understanding about how these top down forces are controlling surrounding forces, is there anything we can do to mitigate any damages or promote any positive effects? Well the answer to that is yes, there are things we can do to ameliorate the situation of these environments. But then another, less clear question arises. Are we actually going to do enough to help? Instead of now thinking in the best interest of the ecology, we have to decide if the cost is worth the reward. Now if the cost does outweigh the reward then there might not be a more regulated interference of humans in these systems. Whether that does mean fishing less for these blue crabs or any other precaution needed. I also like what Gen said about the scientists not bothering to include humans in the figures. People are usually a factor in these ecosystems because people are usually part of the ecosystem, whether it is because of fishing or pollution or whatever. People have the ability to make a difference, it just comes down to the fact if we will or not. But there is one factor that will always be there. Money."
--( posted on Sep 26, 2013, commenting on the post Bottom-Up? Think Again. )
 
"Great post. I really like how you point to this paper as a starting point rather than the final plan because the ideas are around 15 years old. Sure things change but I still do think that the main principles can still apply today, but I agree with you. I also think that nature will come second to the need of more space for an expanding population, especially in countries where the welfare of forests and such isn't as regulated as here in the US. Not everywhere in the world are you going to need logging permits and government intervention to decimate landscapes. However, it is also countries like the US and Canada that are expelling copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and damaging the earth as well. So its pretty clear that every part of the world is responsible for some of the things that Costanza mentions in his paper. It really is a shame though that we need to be having these discussions in the first place, the earth has provided everything we have ever needed from the inception of man and here we are slowly killing it. But unfortunately this is the situation that we are in and there needs to be steps taken to mitigate the damage and attempt to restore whatever we can before it's too late."
--( posted on Sep 12, 2013, commenting on the post “We stress again that this is only a starting point.” )