I will deal with only one section of the contribution by Laura Murphy below as she writes:

"The ISOE model further turns P-E on its head asking not what is the "population" impact on the environment (based on certain assumptions and measureable variables), but how do we provision humans—real people in real places? (of course-- also based on certain assumptions) Diana Hummel argues furthermore for attention to different forms of knowledge and an appreciation for the social shaping of technological systems which we have set up to “provision” people."

Being able to  turn "P-E on its head" based in part on "the social shaping of technological systems which we have set up to “provision” people." ----- does not recognise that "technological systems" are largely driven by and dependent upon the cheap and abundant energy resoures that we have become accustomed to during the last few centuries as we have augmented the energy from the sun with temporary stores of geological energy (fossil and nuclear) stores. As geological energy depletion proceeds during the next century, the "technological systems which we have set up to “provision” people." will increasingly become non-functional as we will again be faced with the necessity to confine our energy use to level that can be harvested from incoming sunlight - AND - we will have to recognise the limits implied by the "the older IPAT as well the much improved STIRPAT" which Laura Murphy suggests "place too much emphasis on quantifying those 'impacts' and identifying deterministic relationships related to demographic variables."

Geologial energy realities and the food production potential of the [now damaged] arable soils on the planet will drive our appreciation of population-environment imbalances much more actively than will shifting our attention to "complex systems, [and] an acknowledgement of power dynamics at any level of analysis".

Peter Salonius 

 ===============================================================================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Population-Environment Research Network (PERN) cyberseminars on behalf of Laura Murphy
Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 1:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PERNSEMINARS] A CLEAR CHANS?
 
Influenced by CLEAR model of Ian Kellar (common sense and experience), I suggest we can't take anything for CHANS! .How important is "population" in population-environment research? Evidently, it is becoming less important in theoretical and conceptual approaches and a less salient a variable in methodologies. Some comments: Many researchers (myself included) have looked to Political Ecology (Zulu, Batterbury contributions in this seminar) for the more useful models of human (not "population") - environment interactions that make sense given our on- the-ground experiences in specific places. >The Sustainable Livelihoods approach (as in livelihoods.org offers related valuable insight into the reality of land managers, ordinary poor people in much of the developing world, their knowledge and motivates for action. Also not mentioned here yet, but insights from the Machakos Miracle (Tiffen, Mortimore and Gichuki study of Kenya) and the Misread West African Landscape (of Melissa Leach and James Fairhead at IDS) add to the value of political-ecology informed, social-theoretical perspectives and multidisciplinary, grounded research. Meanwhile: Development Paradigms of major international agencies (see my other statement) have already shifted from "sustainable development" (modernization models) to enhancing freedoms and rights. Reading the work of IDS/STEPS and ODI: complexity science has relevance for 'development', recognizing that humans, environment, place, and our social institutions and norms function as "dynamic systems". Liu comments on 'complex systems' : population per se (in a quantitative sense) is just one among many variables in a complex quantitative systems model. The ISOE model further turns P-E on its head asking not what is the "population" impact on the environment (based on certain assumptions and measureable variables), but how do we provision humans-real people in real places? (of course-- also based on certain assumptions) Diana Hummel argues furthermore for attention to different forms of knowledge and an appreciation for the social shaping of technological systems which we have set up to "provision" people. From this point of view, (trends in normative development and thinking about people & environment), the older IPAT as well the much improved STIRPAT place too much emphasis on quantifying those 'impacts' and identifying deterministic relationships related to demographic variables. Yet we are all concerned with the real environmental problems at many levels: climate change, degradation of coral reefs, loss of biodiversity etc. ... (see the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.) What to do? Some questions: >Do we even need to talk about 'population-environment' research? Or is that too loaded a term now? >What does this shift to complex systems, an acknowledgement of power dynamics at any level of analysis, and a normative focus of provisioning real people in specific places mean for relevant methodologies . to study what, exactly? >Do we have time for decades-long research such as the Woolong NR study if we are to respond as a global society to major environmental problems? >What sort of research is needed to change policy? Where? Which policy- makers? Which policies? >Which theories and methologies accommodate the critical perspectives on increasing consumption among a rising middle class-around the world, not bounded by convenient data boundaries-- which is driving deforestation, pollution, CO2, etc. at the same time as acknowledging the need for increased consumption by among the poorest to enhance freedoms? >How do we prepare researchers --present and future? (ourselves -through continuing education, retooling, exchages? For the future: rethinking graduate curricula, building new programs?) Thanks for your attention, Laura Murphy [log in to unmask] ***************************************************************************** The Population-Environment Research Network Cyberseminar Discussion List. For postings and replies send messages to [log in to unmask] Questions? Email [log in to unmask] 



*****************************************************************************


The Population-Environment Research Network (PERN) Cyberseminar Discussion List. For postings and replies send messages to [log in to unmask]  Questions?  Email [log in to unmask] The opinions expressed on this list are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PERN, CIESIN, IUSSP, IHDP, their staff or sponsors.