Being a student of economics, there’s an urgent need to bail the subject out of its cruel accusation of being dismal – okay, this topic seem pretty old. I could have gotten back to Geography but I think my pretty lengthy discourse is going to share similar nature has what I have done on Geography.
Unfortunate for the geographers who thinks only of problems and nothing else, and the environmentalists who argues how ungreen our world is – I am on the side of the economists. The subject, being extremely depressing on the systems, in which human interactions work upon, seem extremely optimistic about the way nature is played around and growing with humans. In other words, humans are interacting with nature better than with themselves. The views on resource balance that have long gotten out of date are still pretty much dwelled upon by the students taking Geography (like me) and therefore, there’s s great need for economist to correct the ideas involved. We have to clarify that the world has much more than it needs and the problem really lies not on the nature but the logistics involved and the distribution, which can be part of nature’s fault but looking on the bright side, humans should be able to resolve such problem if not for their nature (not abilities). As such, if we fix the context, and simply change a single variable and that is the burden to bear, we realise that there’s isn’t much problems to speak of.
Geography, because of its roots in natural sciences, in contrast, needs a more systematic way of describing everything, much like economics, while economics are heading towards a more mathematical viewpoint that involved studies of mathematical theoratical models. That would make things more balanced. Unlike the sciences, data and models in Geography are rarely updated because of their irrelevance in dispute. Unless new landscapes or natural compositions are found, it is hardly possible to postulate any theories on the behaviours of nature. It is such a circumstance that makes Geography unrealistic as compared to economics. For economics, it appears that things are logical in the sense that when we assume ceteris paribus, things can still apply in reality, but not that well for geography because of its apparent lack of control over the subject matter. As such, there’s a real need for geography, especially its human branch to merge with economics to study human interactions with themselves and nature in the process, and thus the effects on our environment and so on.
Things are just being studied in such isolated manner that I think the world would have been much less depressing if people can correct each other well enough before they present themselves. Disputes in the hybrid fields arises out of the over-reliance of traditional theories within individual subjects. If these traditional theories could be revised, fused and reviewed, we can get the universal equation tha Physics seek for, or at least get close to it. Making sense at first won’t be easy – but at least we try.