[Brother of Karl]

I just realized something. The study of human ecology is not an integral part of education for economics, but to me it seems like the entire field of macroeconomics should be viewed through the prism of human ecology. It seems that macro focuses on the effects of the free market and the government on topics like inequality, wealth generation, and so on, and while you do read a lot about negative externalities in popular economics publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, certain topics are rarely brought up within the realm of economics. Human carrying capacity is one such topic, and economists rarely seem willing to factor in the theoretical limits of population growth, and so on. Perhaps the two disciplines need to be merged. I'm not very knowledgeable in either field, so I'd like to hear some thoughts from people here who are.

[Max Linder]

You are a genius, you should really stand for Congress.

Admin note: one-line posts such as this are against Forum Rules in on-topic areas. This would be fine in Gorkiy, but please desist in on-topic areas. Thank you.

[quetzalcoatl]

I just realized something. The study of human ecology is not an integral part of education for economics, but to me it seems like the entire field of macroeconomics should be viewed through the prism of human ecology. It seems that macro focuses on the effects of the free market and the government on topics like inequality, wealth generation, and so on, and while you do read a lot about negative externalities in popular economics publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, certain topics are rarely brought up within the realm of economics. Human carrying capacity is one such topic, and economists rarely seem willing to factor in the theoretical limits of population growth, and so on. Perhaps the two disciplines need to be merged. I'm not very knowledgeable in either field, so I'd like to hear some thoughts from people here who are.

Not only are most economists not interested in such an enterprise, they are proselytizing other disciplines to adopt their methods. In the beginning was the model, and the model beget reality. The model is Rome - there is only Rome, and the rest just barbarian outlands.

[Brother of Karl]

Well look, I'm not a very persuasive writer, but if someone could develop the idea, maybe it would have legs.

[mikema63]

It would be difficult to expect economists to also study other subjects like human ecology, an economics degree is not an easy one to get. It's extremely math heavy and tales of econometrics and partial derivatives make me shudder.

There is a reason academics specialize, you cannot and should not be expected to, know everything. Besides, imagine how many extra classes you would have to take to learn even just the basics of biology and ecology coming from an economics background. I wouldn't be able to do the same with economics (at least I wouldn't be even close to willing.)

[Saeko]

If economists should be forced to learn anything (besides economics, of course) it's history.

[Brother of Karl]

Don't most universities have a history requirement for most majors? Maybe human ecology needs to be moved to the core curriculum. I'm not suggesting that econ majors need to also double major in it, but maybe they should be required take a human ecology for econ majors class, or something to that flavor.

[Rejn]

Externalities are discussed in core economics subjects and even high school economics. If you want to read more about them in depth, you can take an elective. I majored in economic history, and we spent about a week or two on Malthusian thought.

What is your goal though? Why do you want economists to spend more time on these issues?

[mikema63]

I don't doubt economists have sub specialties that branch into other fields as well, so it is probably at least an option for them to study economics with an emphasis in ecology.

[Brother of Karl]

Externalities are discussed in core economics subjects and even high school economics. If you want to read more about them in depth, you can take an elective. I majored in economic history, and we spent about a week or two on Malthusian thought.

What is your goal though? Why do you want economists to spend more time on these issues?

The ultimate goal is to get economists to suggest policies that won't cause a sudden population bottleneck in the near future. It seems like all mainstream economists these days follow schools of thought from economists like Keynes or Hayek. No matter whether they support supply side or demand side economics, the ultimate goal is still economic growth and support of the free market and free enterprise as an end in itself. Economists should instead support policies that promote sustainability instead of growth. IMO, human ecology is the best prism from which to view the economy. In a sense, all living things have their own "economies", only the human one is much more complex and developed than anything found in nature. We thus need to get all economists to see it that way.

[Lightman]

Economists should also learn physics because the world is governed by physics.

Also biology because human biological agents carry out economic decisions.

Also neuroscience and psychology because these offer understandings of actual human behavior. Throw in some Philosophy of Mind there for good measure.

Yes, the polymath ideal is attractive but isn't practical for the general academic population (not to knock indisciplinarian studies at all - but bear in mind that most indisciplinarians are limited in knowledge to two, maybe three fields). Division of intellectual labor is as necessary as any other division of labor. Yes, it is good to have a wide range of knowledge, and every intellectual should have a certain base of quasi-common knowledge.

I think that economists are commonly the subject of caricature for a couple of reasons. One - non-economist critiques of economists are usually written by people who have taken intro courses and take their over-simplification to be the standard economist party line. Two - legitimate criticism of the idea of homo economicus, without understanding that, yes, economists generally understand that it's only an approximate tool, and have in fact incorporated critiques of the concept through the advent of behavioral economics. Three - the libertarian meme that economics consists of a battle between Keynes and Hayek. Essentially no mainstream economists holds to unadulterated Keynesianism. Also, really no mainstream economists adhere to Austrianism. Nor does Keynesianism vs. Austrianism map so easily to the left-right dichotomy. Four - the French meme of "economic autism." Five - a belief that economists have more influence over policy decisions than they actually do. Etc., etc.

Note: I am not an economist (philosophy/English student).

[Ummon]

Information theory is a good general purpose school to tackle a lot of problems that are interdisciplinary like this. It can be used to estimate species in the rain forest, create a framework for understanding intelligence, humor, or to examine the origins of life.

[quetzalcoatl]

Economists should also learn physics because the world is governed by physics.

Also biology because human biological agents carry out economic decisions.

Also neuroscience and psychology because these offer understandings of actual human behavior. Throw in some Philosophy of Mind there for good measure.

Yes, the polymath ideal is attractive but isn't practical for the general academic population (not to knock indisciplinarian studies at all - but bear in mind that most indisciplinarians are limited in knowledge to two, maybe three fields). Division of intellectual labor is as necessary as any other division of labor. Yes, it is good to have a wide range of knowledge, and every intellectual should have a certain base of quasi-common knowledge.

I think that economists are commonly the subject of caricature for a couple of reasons. One - non-economist critiques of economists are usually written by people who have taken intro courses and take their over-simplification to be the standard economist party line. Two - legitimate criticism of the idea of homo economicus, without understanding that, yes, economists generally understand that it's only an approximate tool, and have in fact incorporated critiques of the concept through the advent of behavioral economics. Three - the libertarian meme that economics consists of a battle between Keynes and Hayek. Essentially no mainstream economists holds to unadulterated Keynesianism. Also, really no mainstream economists adhere to Austrianism. Nor does Keynesianism vs. Austrianism map so easily to the left-right dichotomy. Four - the French meme of "economic autism." Five - a belief that economists have more influence over policy decisions than they actually do. Etc., etc.

Note: I am not an economist (philosophy/English student).

This would be a much more convincing argument if economics were an actual freaking empirical discipline, or barring that, they would at least stop making policy prescriptions based on mathematical models not required to withstand real-world testing. Jeez, even psychology, for chrissakes, is expected to do experiments. If experimental verification is not possible, okay. Just revert to political economy and make economics a subset of history. Political economy is a perfectly honorable discipline - you are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Any economic calculation that involves more than a bit of addition and subtraction is most likely bogus - at least until the economic community is willing to submit its models to the same discipline as the rest of the scientific community. Simply put, they must make testable predictions in the real world over a variety of economic conditions and timescales.

What is missing from economics is even the most elementary recognition that it does not study objective phenomena at all. What economics does study is a virtual construct of human society. Its rules, laws, and operations are all human creations and serve human purposes. They are in no sense whatsoever equivalent to observations of the dynamics of physical bodies...nor the observations of biology, astronomy, or evolution. In a very real sense, economics cannot ever be an empirical science, just as literary criticism cannot be an empirical science. Both of these disciplines study creations of the human mind. Now, there is nothing wrong with literary criticism, but then literary criticism is not commonly employed as a justification for labor flexibility, is it?

Economics, as a discipline, has been weaponized. In its current incarnation it can do little other than serve as an adjunct to the class war being waged against the most vulnerable. Those economists who have resisted this co-optation have my deepest respect. You can find many of them among Sanders list of supporting economists.

My position is that mainstream economics as currently practiced is a dangerous fraud, and that is intentionally being used to hurt people on a mass scale. If this offends anyone, so be it.