The Bioethics of Hunting and Gathering Societies

Gowdy, John M.

doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8250-6_2

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hunting and gathering societies, which represent some 99 per cent of the time of human existence on the planet, lived off direct flows from the environment so that there was immediate feedback from resource use. Judging from contemporary hunting and gathering societies, these early cultures had elaborate rules ensuring that private decisions did not conflict with the social good, which depended on preserving biological resources (Gowdy, 1992(Gowdy, , 1994. This sustainable relationship between society and ecosystems was broken with the widespread adoption of agriculture which ushered in a new era of resource exploitation, environmental degradation and eventual societal collapse (Gowdy, 1996b;Ponting, 1991).…”

Section: Social Structure Discounting and Biodiversity Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discounting, hierarchies, and the social aspects of biodiversity protection

Gowdy

1996

International Journal of Social Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perhaps no other theoretical issue divides economists more deeply than that of discounting future costs and benefits. The dissenters against the morality of discounting future benefits and costs include Mill, Marshall, Pigou, Ramsey and Harrod (Price, 1993;Robinson, 1990). According to Hume (1739):There is no quality in human nature, which causes more fatal errors in our conduct, than that which leads us to prefer whatever is present to the distant and remote (p. 538). Harrod (1948, p. 40) writes "…pure time preference is a polite expression for rapacity and the conquest of reason by passion". According to Ramsey (1928): "…[discounting is] ethically indefensible and arises merely from weakness of the imagination". In contrast to these views, most present-day economists uncritically accept the legitimacy of discounting and blame the frequently unfortunate results of pure time preference on market imperfections such as faulty information, the lack of property rights or external effects.The neoclassical view is that individual preferences should be taken as the starting point for economic analysis and that these preferences can be correctly revealed in market outcomes. In this view, individuals are rational and are the best judge of what is good for them, the choices that give individuals the highest utility are those revealed to be preferred in market choices, and these market outcomes are sacrosanct. Eckstein (1957) writes: …a social welfare function based on consumers sovereignty must accept people's tastes, including their intertemporal preferences (p. 75).

show abstract

Section: Social Structure Discounting and Biodiversity Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discounting, hierarchies, and the social aspects of biodiversity protection

Gowdy

1996

International Journal of Social Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Sahlins has pointed out in his description of “immediate return” versus “delayed return” societies, the higher the degree of capital stock, storage, and “delayed return” (Sahlins, 1972), the higher the degree of social stratification and exclusion. Gowdy (1992) writes: The egalitarianism of the peasant work ethic as defined by Georgescu‐Roegen is appealing – equal opportunity and equal reward for equal work – but less egalitarian than the “primitive communism” of hunter‐gatherers. Disdain for those not engaged in productive activity does not seem to be a “natural” human emotion (Gowdy, 1992; p. 144; see also Georgescu‐Roegen, 1976).…”

Section: Lessons From Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gowdy (1992) writes: The egalitarianism of the peasant work ethic as defined by Georgescu‐Roegen is appealing – equal opportunity and equal reward for equal work – but less egalitarian than the “primitive communism” of hunter‐gatherers. Disdain for those not engaged in productive activity does not seem to be a “natural” human emotion (Gowdy, 1992; p. 144; see also Georgescu‐Roegen, 1976). …”

Section: Lessons From Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A place orientation requires an intimate knowledge of the dynamics and balances within an area. Such knowledge about balance with the land which they are part of and within which they live is what informed hunting‐gathering societies (Gowdy, 1992; Lee, 1968), plains Indians ( Tinker, 1993) and other indigenous peoples, and those sharing in their culture′s traditional practices (Shiva, 1992).…”

Section: Lessons From Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, numerous pre‐industrial societies as well as contemporary hunter‐gatherers exemplify a flow‐oriented mode of operation characterized by low stocks, equal access to food supply and resources, low “capital”, extraordinary knowledge of the land′s resources and balance, and an environmental ethic which includes respect of natural boundaries and limits (Gowdy, 1992; Lee, 1968; Woodburn, 1982). Such a throughput orientation of economics requires a whole new set of valuation criteria.…”

Section: Lessons From Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Valuing socio‐diversity

O’Hara

1995

International Journal of Social Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The loss of bio‐diversity has received increasing attention as one of the most serious environmental threats we face. Yet not only biodiversity is being lost at staggering rates, socio‐diversity is being lost as well. Sociodiversity is defined as the various social and economic arrangements by which people organize their societies, particularly the underlying assumptions, goals, values and social behaviours guiding these arrangements. Just as the loss of bio‐diversity has focused attention on the interface between human socio‐economic and ecological systems, so too can the interaction between these systems give us insights into the reasons for the loss of diversity in socio‐economic systems. Examines the assumptions and valuation concepts underlying economic theory and the ways in which mainline economic theory contributes to the loss of socio‐economic diversity. The analysis draws on ecologically relevant concepts and proposes that the base for economic theory and valuation be expanded to include five categories identified as relevant to sustain bio‐diversity. These are: context, participation, place, limits and temporality. These categories point to the need to expand, diversify and make concrete economic theory and methodology.

show abstract