Posts

Comments

"I really liked Ostrom’s comparison of social-ecological systems to the human body, too. It helped me understand the point she made in the speech very clearly. What I got out of it the most is that, like in a body, interaction is key. Similarly to how those enzymes and hormones interact, there is a need for thorough communication between people in order to achieve success, and, in this case, to not overuse natural resources. Her explanation of how the SESs work through all these different functions really shines a light on the changes that might need to take place within not just us as people, but the government as well, as the question on how much it should really be involved starts to emerge. The idea of communication between people being the key to successfully using resources, without overusing them, seems to highlight her idea that resources should be commonly owned, rather than having the government become too involved and create privatization. What the research seems to highlight is that SESs will naturally fall into a sort of accord (as long as the functions interact successfully). As Elinor Ostrom said, no one likes to be a sucker; but key interactions can perhaps solve the common resource problem, instead of having privatization happen, or having the government interfere too much."
--( posted on Nov 11, 2013, commenting on the post Complexity vs. Chaos )
 
"I also came to realizations to similar things as you while reading the article. It was very interesting to hear about the bottom-up systems and the way every living thing interracts with other living things within the same system. The entire idea gives a new perespective to how dependent every organism is to others within its surroundings. The article definitely puts a whole new spotlight on us as humans. The fact that we, as a species, have such strong influence over other organisms and the structure of our environment means that our responsiblity towards it is greater than most people realize. Even the smallest of our actions can have a great effect on the rest of the environment, so we do need to be more careful when making decisions. Although it might be true that not every change is necessarily bad, harming other organisms or putting them in danger could have a more harmful consequence than people can imagine."
--( posted on Sep 25, 2013, commenting on the post Bottom-Up or Top-Down? )
 
"You made some really great points. It is great to see the links you found relating to the ecological problems the paper discussed. Constanza explains the idea of ecosystem services very well: they "represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions." When I think about putting a dollar amount on the benefits that the ecosystem gives the human population, I do not think I would be able to imagine the number well enough without this paper. If we lose these services, our lives and the lives of all of human popuation would drastically change, and most people do not even think about how hurrtful the destruction of the ecosystem would be for the human kind. Constanza writes: "we can consider the general class of natural capital as essential to human welfare." Even if we find a way to replace them with artifically made products, it would cost too much money and take decades to even develop as a possibility. This is why it is of great importance that more individuals become aware of the dangers that we are facing when it comes to the destruction of the nature around us, especially because it is humans who induced it."
--( posted on Sep 12, 2013, commenting on the post valuation matters )