Interesting but not memorable

Environment, Development, Agriculture: Integrated policy through human ecology
By Bernhard Glaeser
UCL Press, 1995. $39.95
Reviewed by Dot Tumney In his conclusion Bernhard Glaeser suggests: "If humankind wishes to achieve sustainable use of natural resources and of natural absorption capacities, as other animals do, then the natural controls that maintain the ecosystem for other species but are hardly applicable and certainly not acceptable to humans, must be replaced by human, cultural controls. The problem for the human being is ... actually achieving self organised cultural control that would have to comprise two things: the insight that sustainable behaviour is necessary, and the political will to implement measures that reflect that insight." What's necessary, he continues, is a policy that integrates environment, development and agriculture, in a way that is applicable to both rich and poor countries. "Of course, the success of such a venture requires long term planning and cannot be achieved with any great speed. The object of this book was to point out some of the conditions for success or failure from a variety of perspectives, approaching the question holistically in the tradition of human ecology." He arrives at this point through some interesting descriptions of the development of the concept of human ecology and the sort of conceptual models required to actually make use of it. Rigid academic delineation of natural feature and human artefact seriously cramp the potential for the intellectual work force to get off the leash and inflict some serious damage to established mind sets. So far, so good. A well-reasoned appeal for reasonable behaviour, complete with a variety of case studies and analysis of philosophy and ethics and why things happen. Glaeser even draws parallels with the contradictions arising between public health, basic medical research and treating individual patients, which is a sure way to my intellectual heart. Possibly if this were the first "contribution to discussion" I had ever read, it might have got past interesting to memorable. A memorable "contribution to discussion" would have some spice. Possibly even inflammatory language; you know: revolutionary changes instead of political will and demolition of vested interest instead of implementation of policies. Its chief deficiency, however, is the lack of discussion of the methods required to overcome a social/economic system whose existence requires overuse and injustice. Vested interest is a force not amenable to reason. Therefore I suggest adding some of the useful bits to that overflowing bin of opportunities to be realised once capitalism is history and arming yourself with some snippets for gentlemanly discussion with lobbyists on the virtues of planning past the next election. Skim it rather than study it.