Resources. Shiva, V. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, pages 228–242. 2 edition. ![Resources [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex [Excerpt] 'Resource' originally implied life. Its root is the Latin verb surgere, which evoked the image of a spring that continually rises from the ground. Like a spring, a 're-source' rises again and again, even if it has repeatedly been used and consumed. The concept thus highlighted nature's power of self-regeneration and called attention to her prodigious creativity. Moreover, it implied an ancient idea about the relationship between humans and nature: that the earth bestows gifts on humans who, in turn, are well advised to show diligence in order not to suffocate her generosity. In early modern times, 'resource' therefore suggested reciprocity along with regeneration. [:Gifts, inputs and substitutes] With the advent of industrialism and colonialism, however, a conceptual break occurred. 'Natural resources' became those parts of nature which were required as inputs for industrial production and colonial trade. John Yeates in his Natural History of Commerce offered in 1870 the first definition of the new meaning: 'In speaking of the natural resources of any country, we refer to the ore in the mine, the stone unquarried, the timber unfelled (etc.).' In this view, nature has been clearly stripped of her creative power; she has turned into a container for raw materials waiting to be transformed into inputs for commodity production. [...] Nature, whose real nature it is to rise again, was transformed by this originally Western world-view into dead and manipulable matter. [] [...] [Destruction of the commons] Parallel to the destruction of nature as something sacred was the process of the destruction of nature as commons - that is, something all have access to and responsibility for. The destruction of the commons was essential for the creation of natural resources as a supply of raw materials for industry. A life support base can be shared; it cannot be owned as private property or exploited for private profit. The commons, therefore, had to be privatized, and people's sustenance base in the commons had to be appropriated for feeding the engine of industrial progress and capital accumulation. [] [...] [Limits of nature - Limits to development] Limits are not unidirectional. They work reciprocally between nature and society. Recognition of the limits of nature implies limits on society, and notions that no limits are necessary in society imply a breakdown of limits in nature. Either nature's limits are respected, and human activity is limited within ecological bounds, or nature's limits are disregarded and violated in order to exploit nature for society's limitless greed and consumption. 'Development' of natural resources has basically involved a breaking down of nature's limits in order to meet the unlimited demands of a market that sees limitless expansion as essential for profit. [...] [] The organizing principle of economic development based on capital accumulation and economic growth renders valueless all properties and processes of nature and society that are not priced in the market and are not inputs to commodity production. [...] While the diversion of resources, like diversion of land from multi-purpose community forests to monoculture plantations of industrial tree species, or diversion of water from production of staple food crops and provision of drinking water to cash crops, are viewed by the modernizers and businessmen as 'development' in the context of the market economy, they actually lead to a shrinkage in nature's space and people's space. The endless growth of markets and production processes at the cost of nature's stability is at the root of the crisis of sustainability. Sustainability demands that markets and production processes be reshaped in line with nature's logic of returns, not the logic of profits, capital accumulation and returns on investment. 'Development' must be restrained by limits set by nature on economy. [] There is, however, another - and dangerous - meaning being given to sustainability. This meaning refers to sustaining not nature, but development itself. Sustainability in this context does not involve recognition of the limits of nature and the necessity of adhering to them. Instead it simply means ensuring the continued supply of raw materials for industrial production, the ongoing flow of ever more commodities, the indefinite accumulation of capital - and all this to be achieved by setting arbitrary limits on nature. Thus the dangerous original shift in the meaning of 'resources' is now being reproduced in an equally disastrous shift in the meaning of 'sustainability'. The original concept refers to nature's capacity to support life. Sustainability in nature implies maintaining the integrity of nature's processes, cycles and rhythms. It involves the recognition that the crisis of sustainability is a crisis rooted in neglecting nature's needs and processes and impairing nature's capacity 'to rise again'. In a finite, ecologically interconnected and entropy-bound world, nature's limits need to be respected; they cannot be set by the whims and conveniences of capital and market forces, no matter how clever the technologies summoned to their aid.
@incollection{shivaResources2010,
title = {Resources},
booktitle = {The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power},
author = {Shiva, Vandana},
editor = {Sachs, Wolfgang},
date = {2010},
edition = {2},
pages = {228--242},
url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14160778},
abstract = {[Excerpt] 'Resource' originally implied life. Its root is the Latin verb surgere, which evoked the image of a spring that continually rises from the ground. Like a spring, a 're-source' rises again and again, even if it has repeatedly been used and consumed. The concept thus highlighted nature's power of self-regeneration and called attention to her prodigious creativity. Moreover, it implied an ancient idea about the relationship between humans and nature: that the earth bestows gifts on humans who, in turn, are well advised to show diligence in order not to suffocate her generosity. In early modern times, 'resource' therefore suggested reciprocity along with regeneration.
[:Gifts, inputs and substitutes]
With the advent of industrialism and colonialism, however, a conceptual break occurred. 'Natural resources' became those parts of nature which were required as inputs for industrial production and colonial trade. John Yeates in his Natural History of Commerce offered in 1870 the first definition of the new meaning: 'In speaking of the natural resources of any country, we refer to the ore in the mine, the stone unquarried, the timber unfelled (etc.).' In this view, nature has been clearly stripped of her creative power; she has turned into a container for raw materials waiting to be transformed into inputs for commodity production. [...] Nature, whose real nature it is to rise again, was transformed by this originally Western world-view into dead and manipulable matter.
[] [...]
[Destruction of the commons] Parallel to the destruction of nature as something sacred was the process of the destruction of nature as commons - that is, something all have access to and responsibility for. The destruction of the commons was essential for the creation of natural resources as a supply of raw materials for industry. A life support base can be shared; it cannot be owned as private property or exploited for private profit. The commons, therefore, had to be privatized, and people's sustenance base in the commons had to be appropriated for feeding the engine of industrial progress and capital accumulation.
[] [...]
[Limits of nature - Limits to development] Limits are not unidirectional. They work reciprocally between nature and society. Recognition of the limits of nature implies limits on society, and notions that no limits are necessary in society imply a breakdown of limits in nature. Either nature's limits are respected, and human activity is limited within ecological bounds, or nature's limits are disregarded and violated in order to exploit nature for society's limitless greed and consumption. 'Development' of natural resources has basically involved a breaking down of nature's limits in order to meet the unlimited demands of a market that sees limitless expansion as essential for profit. [...]
[] The organizing principle of economic development based on capital accumulation and economic growth renders valueless all properties and processes of nature and society that are not priced in the market and are not inputs to commodity production. [...] While the diversion of resources, like diversion of land from multi-purpose community forests to monoculture plantations of industrial tree species, or diversion of water from production of staple food crops and provision of drinking water to cash crops, are viewed by the modernizers and businessmen as 'development' in the context of the market economy, they actually lead to a shrinkage in nature's space and people's space. The endless growth of markets and production processes at the cost of nature's stability is at the root of the crisis of sustainability. Sustainability demands that markets and production processes be reshaped in line with nature's logic of returns, not the logic of profits, capital accumulation and returns on investment. 'Development' must be restrained by limits set by nature on economy.
[] There is, however, another - and dangerous - meaning being given to sustainability. This meaning refers to sustaining not nature, but development itself. Sustainability in this context does not involve recognition of the limits of nature and the necessity of adhering to them. Instead it simply means ensuring the continued supply of raw materials for industrial production, the ongoing flow of ever more commodities, the indefinite accumulation of capital - and all this to be achieved by setting arbitrary limits on nature. Thus the dangerous original shift in the meaning of 'resources' is now being reproduced in an equally disastrous shift in the meaning of 'sustainability'. The original concept refers to nature's capacity to support life. Sustainability in nature implies maintaining the integrity of nature's processes, cycles and rhythms. It involves the recognition that the crisis of sustainability is a crisis rooted in neglecting nature's needs and processes and impairing nature's capacity 'to rise again'. In a finite, ecologically interconnected and entropy-bound world, nature's limits need to be respected; they cannot be set by the whims and conveniences of capital and market forces, no matter how clever the technologies summoned to their aid.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14160778,bioeconomy,cognitive-biases,controversial-monetarisation,definition,environment-society-economy,epistemology,integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management,resources-exploitation,science-society-interface,sustainability,technology,terminology}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"9edStvFCNinhRMoMB","bibbaseid":"shiva-resources","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Shiva, V."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","title":"Resources","booktitle":"The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shiva"],"firstnames":["Vandana"],"suffixes":[]}],"editor":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sachs"],"firstnames":["Wolfgang"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2010","edition":"2","pages":"228–242","url":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14160778","abstract":"[Excerpt] 'Resource' originally implied life. Its root is the Latin verb surgere, which evoked the image of a spring that continually rises from the ground. Like a spring, a 're-source' rises again and again, even if it has repeatedly been used and consumed. The concept thus highlighted nature's power of self-regeneration and called attention to her prodigious creativity. Moreover, it implied an ancient idea about the relationship between humans and nature: that the earth bestows gifts on humans who, in turn, are well advised to show diligence in order not to suffocate her generosity. In early modern times, 'resource' therefore suggested reciprocity along with regeneration. [:Gifts, inputs and substitutes] With the advent of industrialism and colonialism, however, a conceptual break occurred. 'Natural resources' became those parts of nature which were required as inputs for industrial production and colonial trade. John Yeates in his Natural History of Commerce offered in 1870 the first definition of the new meaning: 'In speaking of the natural resources of any country, we refer to the ore in the mine, the stone unquarried, the timber unfelled (etc.).' In this view, nature has been clearly stripped of her creative power; she has turned into a container for raw materials waiting to be transformed into inputs for commodity production. [...] Nature, whose real nature it is to rise again, was transformed by this originally Western world-view into dead and manipulable matter. [] [...] [Destruction of the commons] Parallel to the destruction of nature as something sacred was the process of the destruction of nature as commons - that is, something all have access to and responsibility for. The destruction of the commons was essential for the creation of natural resources as a supply of raw materials for industry. A life support base can be shared; it cannot be owned as private property or exploited for private profit. The commons, therefore, had to be privatized, and people's sustenance base in the commons had to be appropriated for feeding the engine of industrial progress and capital accumulation. [] [...] [Limits of nature - Limits to development] Limits are not unidirectional. They work reciprocally between nature and society. Recognition of the limits of nature implies limits on society, and notions that no limits are necessary in society imply a breakdown of limits in nature. Either nature's limits are respected, and human activity is limited within ecological bounds, or nature's limits are disregarded and violated in order to exploit nature for society's limitless greed and consumption. 'Development' of natural resources has basically involved a breaking down of nature's limits in order to meet the unlimited demands of a market that sees limitless expansion as essential for profit. [...] [] The organizing principle of economic development based on capital accumulation and economic growth renders valueless all properties and processes of nature and society that are not priced in the market and are not inputs to commodity production. [...] While the diversion of resources, like diversion of land from multi-purpose community forests to monoculture plantations of industrial tree species, or diversion of water from production of staple food crops and provision of drinking water to cash crops, are viewed by the modernizers and businessmen as 'development' in the context of the market economy, they actually lead to a shrinkage in nature's space and people's space. The endless growth of markets and production processes at the cost of nature's stability is at the root of the crisis of sustainability. Sustainability demands that markets and production processes be reshaped in line with nature's logic of returns, not the logic of profits, capital accumulation and returns on investment. 'Development' must be restrained by limits set by nature on economy. [] There is, however, another - and dangerous - meaning being given to sustainability. This meaning refers to sustaining not nature, but development itself. Sustainability in this context does not involve recognition of the limits of nature and the necessity of adhering to them. Instead it simply means ensuring the continued supply of raw materials for industrial production, the ongoing flow of ever more commodities, the indefinite accumulation of capital - and all this to be achieved by setting arbitrary limits on nature. Thus the dangerous original shift in the meaning of 'resources' is now being reproduced in an equally disastrous shift in the meaning of 'sustainability'. The original concept refers to nature's capacity to support life. Sustainability in nature implies maintaining the integrity of nature's processes, cycles and rhythms. It involves the recognition that the crisis of sustainability is a crisis rooted in neglecting nature's needs and processes and impairing nature's capacity 'to rise again'. In a finite, ecologically interconnected and entropy-bound world, nature's limits need to be respected; they cannot be set by the whims and conveniences of capital and market forces, no matter how clever the technologies summoned to their aid.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14160778,bioeconomy,cognitive-biases,controversial-monetarisation,definition,environment-society-economy,epistemology,integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management,resources-exploitation,science-society-interface,sustainability,technology,terminology","bibtex":"@incollection{shivaResources2010,\n title = {Resources},\n booktitle = {The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power},\n author = {Shiva, Vandana},\n editor = {Sachs, Wolfgang},\n date = {2010},\n edition = {2},\n pages = {228--242},\n url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14160778},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] 'Resource' originally implied life. Its root is the Latin verb surgere, which evoked the image of a spring that continually rises from the ground. Like a spring, a 're-source' rises again and again, even if it has repeatedly been used and consumed. The concept thus highlighted nature's power of self-regeneration and called attention to her prodigious creativity. Moreover, it implied an ancient idea about the relationship between humans and nature: that the earth bestows gifts on humans who, in turn, are well advised to show diligence in order not to suffocate her generosity. In early modern times, 'resource' therefore suggested reciprocity along with regeneration.\n\n[:Gifts, inputs and substitutes] \n\nWith the advent of industrialism and colonialism, however, a conceptual break occurred. 'Natural resources' became those parts of nature which were required as inputs for industrial production and colonial trade. John Yeates in his Natural History of Commerce offered in 1870 the first definition of the new meaning: 'In speaking of the natural resources of any country, we refer to the ore in the mine, the stone unquarried, the timber unfelled (etc.).' In this view, nature has been clearly stripped of her creative power; she has turned into a container for raw materials waiting to be transformed into inputs for commodity production. [...] Nature, whose real nature it is to rise again, was transformed by this originally Western world-view into dead and manipulable matter. \n\n[] [...]\n\n[Destruction of the commons] Parallel to the destruction of nature as something sacred was the process of the destruction of nature as commons - that is, something all have access to and responsibility for. The destruction of the commons was essential for the creation of natural resources as a supply of raw materials for industry. A life support base can be shared; it cannot be owned as private property or exploited for private profit. The commons, therefore, had to be privatized, and people's sustenance base in the commons had to be appropriated for feeding the engine of industrial progress and capital accumulation.\n\n[] [...]\n\n[Limits of nature - Limits to development] Limits are not unidirectional. They work reciprocally between nature and society. Recognition of the limits of nature implies limits on society, and notions that no limits are necessary in society imply a breakdown of limits in nature. Either nature's limits are respected, and human activity is limited within ecological bounds, or nature's limits are disregarded and violated in order to exploit nature for society's limitless greed and consumption. 'Development' of natural resources has basically involved a breaking down of nature's limits in order to meet the unlimited demands of a market that sees limitless expansion as essential for profit. [...]\n\n[] The organizing principle of economic development based on capital accumulation and economic growth renders valueless all properties and processes of nature and society that are not priced in the market and are not inputs to commodity production. [...] While the diversion of resources, like diversion of land from multi-purpose community forests to monoculture plantations of industrial tree species, or diversion of water from production of staple food crops and provision of drinking water to cash crops, are viewed by the modernizers and businessmen as 'development' in the context of the market economy, they actually lead to a shrinkage in nature's space and people's space. The endless growth of markets and production processes at the cost of nature's stability is at the root of the crisis of sustainability. Sustainability demands that markets and production processes be reshaped in line with nature's logic of returns, not the logic of profits, capital accumulation and returns on investment. 'Development' must be restrained by limits set by nature on economy.\n\n[] There is, however, another - and dangerous - meaning being given to sustainability. This meaning refers to sustaining not nature, but development itself. Sustainability in this context does not involve recognition of the limits of nature and the necessity of adhering to them. Instead it simply means ensuring the continued supply of raw materials for industrial production, the ongoing flow of ever more commodities, the indefinite accumulation of capital - and all this to be achieved by setting arbitrary limits on nature. Thus the dangerous original shift in the meaning of 'resources' is now being reproduced in an equally disastrous shift in the meaning of 'sustainability'. The original concept refers to nature's capacity to support life. Sustainability in nature implies maintaining the integrity of nature's processes, cycles and rhythms. It involves the recognition that the crisis of sustainability is a crisis rooted in neglecting nature's needs and processes and impairing nature's capacity 'to rise again'. In a finite, ecologically interconnected and entropy-bound world, nature's limits need to be respected; they cannot be set by the whims and conveniences of capital and market forces, no matter how clever the technologies summoned to their aid.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14160778,bioeconomy,cognitive-biases,controversial-monetarisation,definition,environment-society-economy,epistemology,integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management,resources-exploitation,science-society-interface,sustainability,technology,terminology}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Shiva, V."],"editor_short":["Sachs, W."],"key":"shivaResources2010","id":"shivaResources2010","bibbaseid":"shiva-resources","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14160778"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14160778","bioeconomy","cognitive-biases","controversial-monetarisation","definition","environment-society-economy","epistemology","integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management","resources-exploitation","science-society-interface","sustainability","technology","terminology"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:24.690Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14160778","bioeconomy","cognitive-biases","controversial-monetarisation","definition","environment-society-economy","epistemology","integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management","resources-exploitation","science-society-interface","sustainability","technology","terminology"],"search_terms":["resources","shiva"],"title":"Resources","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}