Ecological Demography: population and development from an ecocentric perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3954928Keywords:
Population and development, anthropocene, ecocentric perspective, ecological demographyAbstract
Population and economic growth have a huge impact on the environment. Since the beginning of the Holocene, about 12,000 years ago, humanity has gone from about 5 million people to billions, and probably reaching over 11 billion by 2100. It was and still has been a spectacular demographic growth. However, the increase of economic activities was several times greater. Global economic growth has accelerated with the beginning of modernity and the European expansion, especially after the Great Navigations and the process of colonization and exploitation of the natural resources of the Americas, though, economic growth became exponential after the Industrial and Energetic Revolution that began in the late eighteenth century. In the period, known as classical modernity, there was great human progress, but, at the same time, environmental regression. This opposition between the material advances of humanity and the material and energetic retreat of ecosystems was maintained and deepened in the late modernity (or postmodernity), allowing even the emergence of a new geological age. In this context, the emergence of the ecocentric environmental sociology came up to analyze the ecological reality of postmodernity. In the field of demography, on the contrary, theoretical and empirical approaches that seek to relate population dynamics with ecological dynamics are still a promise. The objective of this paper is to discuss the relationship between population and development in the Anthropocene and to talk about the challenges posed by the demographic dynamic that takes into account an ecocentric perspective.
References
Alves JED. 2002. A polêmica Malthus versus Condorcet reavaliada à luz da transição demográfica. Escola Nacional de Ciências Estatísticas, IBGE. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. [online] URL: http://sociales.cchs.csic.es/jperez/pags/Teorias/Textos/Diniz20 02.pdf
Alves JED. 2014a. População, desenvolvimento e sustentabilidade: perspectivas para a CIPD pós-2014. R. bras. Est. Pop. 31(1): 230. [online] URL: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbepop/v31n1/13.pdf
Alves JED. 2014b. Sustentabilidade, aquecimento global e o decrescimento demoeconômico, Diamantina. UFVJM, Revista Espinhaço 3(1): 4-16. [online] URL: http://www.revistaespinhaco.com/index.php/journal/article/view/44
Alves JED. 2014. Para evitar o holocausto biológico: aumentar as áreas anecúmenas e reselvagerizar metade do mundo, Ecodebate, Rio de Janeiro. https://www.ecodebate.com.br/2014/12/03/para-evitar-o-holocausto-biologico-aumentar-as-areas-anecumenas-e- reselvagerizar-metade-do-mundo-artigo-de-jose-eustaquio-diniz-alves/
ALVES, JED. 2015. A crise do capital no século XXI: choque ambiental e choque marxista. Salvador, Revista Dialética Edição 7, vol 6, ano 5.
Aron R. 1993. As etapas do pensamento sociológico. São Paulo: Martim Fontes.
Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. 1997. Modernização Reflexiva: política, tradição e estética na ordem social moderna. São Paulo: Universidade Estadual Paulista.
Beck U. 2011. Sociedade de risco: rumo a uma outra modernidade. São Paulo: Editora 34.
Catton WRJ, E Dunlap RE. 1978. Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. The American Sociologist 13: 41-49.
Cavalcanti C. 2012. Sustentabilidade: mantra ou escolha moral? Uma abordagem ecológico-econômica. Estudos avançados 26(74). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142012000100004
Cohen J. An Introduction to Demography (Malthus Miffed: Are People the Problem?), Big Think, 2012. Visitado em 29 de julho de 2018. [online] URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr44C_G0-o
Daly H. 2018. Ecologies of Scale. Interview by Benjamin Kunkel, London, New Left Review 109.
Ferreira LC. 2004. Idéias para uma sociologia da questão ambiental: teoria social, sociologia ambiental e interdisciplinaridade. Editora UFPR 10: 77-89. [online] URL: https://revistas.ufpr.br/made/article/download/3096/2477
Fraser C. 2010. Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution. Nova Iorque: Henry Holt and Company.
Giddens A. 2002. Modernidade e identidade. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Ed.
Giddens A, Beck U, Lash S. 1977. Modernização Reflexiva. São Paulo: Unesp.
Global Footprint Network, 2018. Visitado 27 de julho de 2018. [online] URL: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
Klinkenborg V. 2014. True Altruism: Can Humans Change To Save Other Species? Tennessee: Yale.
Lenzi CL. 2006. Sociologia ambiental: risco e sustentabilidade na modernidade. São Paulo: Edusc.
Maddison A. 2010. Historical Statistics of the World Economy, site do autor.
Meadows D. 1972. (Ed.). The limits to growth. Massachusetts: Riversity Press.
Marques L. 2016. Capitalismo e colapso ambiental. Campinas: Unicamp.
Martine G. Alves J. 2015. Economia, sociedade e meio ambiente no século 21: tripé ou trilema da sustentabilidade? R. bras. Est. Pop. Rebep 32(3): 433-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-3098201500000027
Pádua J. 2017. Brazil in the history of the Anthropocene. In: Issberner L, Léna P. Brazil in the Anthropocene: Conflicts Between Predatory Development and Environmental Policies, Londres, NYC, Routledge.
Patterson R. 2014. Of Fossil Fuels and Human Destiny. Blog, visitado em 26 de julho de 2018. [online] URL: http://peakoilbarrel.com/fossil-fuels-human-destiny/
O’Neill DW, Dietz R, Jones N. 2010. (Editors). Enough is Enough: Ideas for a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. The report of the Steady State Economy Conference. Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy and Economic Justice for All, UK, 2010. [online] URL: http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/EnoughIsEnough_FullReport.pdf
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin III FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber JH, Nykvist B, Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472-475. [online] URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a
Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347: 6223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Touraine A. 1994. Crítica da Modernidade. Petrópolis:Vozes.
UN/DESA, World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Vistado 28 de julho de 2018. [online] URL: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
VIGNIERI, S. Vanishing fauna, Science, 25 jul 2014. Visitado 28 de julho 2018. [online] URL: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392
WWF. Planeta Vivo, relatório 2014, Switzerland, 30/09/2014. Visitado em 29 de julho de 2018. [online] URL: https://www.wwf.org.br/?42223/Relatrio-Planeta-Vivo-2014
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Wim de Vries, Wit CA,
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Espinhaço
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.