Talk:Commodification of nature

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmbatt, JarrodE, Johnamiller69, Hstandley. Peer reviewers: Fparra247, Tracemarsing, Ldavidson1, A.jali, Tysauer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Help formatting references

Have uploaded new page--major area of research in critical environmental geography. Could use help formatting references. --RedCorvus (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidegger

Shouldn't Heidegger be mentioned in this article somewhere? Such as his famous essay The Question Concerning Technology? --18:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The linked article mentions neither commodity or nature - although humans are part of nature. The Martin Heidegger article does state:

Heidegger's later work is especially notable for its important criticisms of technology's instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as "enframing," treating all of Nature as a "standing reserve" on call for human purposes.

So some of his work definitely looks at the commodification of nature. At any rate WP:BOLD and add a section. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you understand. I don't have time right now. But I wanted to alert people that Heidegger is very good on this subject and is probably one of the more important notable philosophers in talking about it in the 20th century. I think his view on it is a bit unique compared to a materialist like Marx. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is extremely thorough, well structured, and well sourced. My only criticisms of the sourcing are that Marx probably counts as a primary source, so I'd avoid directly citing the Communist Manifesto, and the formatting of the references needs to be reviewed to be more in line with Wikipedia's standards. In particular, I think there's too much bundling and way too many redundant references. Castree 2003 should have 1 citation that gets reused every time it's relevant, for example. I also think this article is somewhat one-sided. I understand that it's about a critical theory, so it absolutely does make sense to focus on criticism, but I think it'd be appropriate to create a section discussing the arguments of people who are in favor of privatizing natural resources. A sort of "criticism of the criticism" section. Tracemarsing (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead section is thorough and easy to understand. However, I feel that the line “Critics emphasize the contradictions and undesirable physical and ethical consequences brought about by the commodification of natural resources…” is unnecessary in this section and also one-sided. Other than that, again the lead section is informative and makes perfect sense.

The structure has a nice flow, and it is divided up in a helpful manner. The sections and subsections are set up very nicely, and outline the important aspects of the topic.

I do agree with Tracemarsing however about the one-sidedness and drawing too heavily from one resource as opposed to multiple. Hannaheaton (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. We'll consider editing the lead section and seek sources that offer a non-critical view. JarrodE (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

While well structured, the sections titled "Reclaiming the commons" and "Possible consequences of commodifying nature" could be expanded upon or simply linked to other pages. It may be useful to provide other sources argueing for the alternatives to commodifying nature, such as the more intrinsic value of nature. It would useful to have counterpoints from sources such as George Perkins Marsh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Nature or Gifford Pinchot's "The Fight for Conservation." The expansion of the section on neoliberal nature and market environmentalism seems necessary given the commonplace argument by environmentalists to examine the economic benefits of protecting natural processes, and is a major facet of this particular article. Ldavidson1 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! I will seriously consider adding some of Pinchot's narratives to "Possible consequences of commodifying nature". Hstandley (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commodification of nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.landaction.org/gallery/sellnature.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626173323/http://tomasontario0.tripod.com/photos/swyngedouw_water.pdf to http://tomasontario0.tripod.com/photos/swyngedouw_water.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! This is a very well researched and thorough article. The lead section outlined the article well, and the article itself is formatted in a straightforward and comprehensive way. The writing quality varies throughout, but for the most part I found it quite academic. However, most of the sources used are around 15-20 years old. How come there aren't more up to date sources used, especially since there are countless articles and sources about environmental issues being posted everyday? Older sources, such as the Communist Manifesto and early marxist texts are important to include, but modern sources are as well. I know this article hasn't been worked on recently but I think some recent voices would add depth and new lenses to this topic; it is especially important to also consider the voices of marginalized folks, which this article does not highlight. Thanks! Mem20 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article contains pertinent justifications and theoretical explanations about the commodifications of nature. The content pretty much stays relevant to the Marxian explanation of what it means to become a commodity and the consequences as it relates to the environment. The aspects page is especially useful when trying to understand the full scope of this concept. Yet I do think that there is a skew in the theoretical verses the practical. I would suggest adding more examples in the "Specific Examples in Modern Society" section so that readers can relate what they are seeing in the news to the capitalist critique. This is a topic that extends to events like offshoring and even colonialism that I think needs to be addressed. I would also have to agree with previous feedbacks that there is a high emphasis on Marx's explanation of commodification at the start of the page but as we read more it does seem to wane out. Maybe adding more perspectives like Timothy Luke would be helpful!

Hyaak (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)