Having read and learned more about political ecology since my last posting, I still agree with my own conclusion that political ecology is awesome. I think the reason I find it so appealing is on the page 42, the 3rd full paragraph. After explaining the failure of a rather idiotic environmental project in Orissa, India, Robbins says, "But the larger questions still loom," and proceeds to rattle off a host of questions about why this program was started in the first place, who was responsible for it, who benefited and who suffered from it, etc. etc. It seems like so much more could be accomplished if more fields incorporated this holistic approach and, instead of trying to specialize and narrow our focus, we had a larger focus and could see all of the problems and/or issues that arise within a specific instance.

Given the historical nature of the chapter, there were not many contentious issues or points of disagreement that I had with Robbins. I actually found most of his arguments to be very well presented and explained, which had it rather nice to read. For example, his discussion of the common property theory was very logically put together. In explaining from an individuals point of view the consequences of the different actions in regards to common land, it makes sense (sadly) that people will try and let others do the work and reap the benefits, for that provides the most desirable consequences. Thus, as Robbins explains, this logic prevents common land from being available without any oversight or regulation, for it will most likely become abused in one way or another. I found this conceptually fascinating and somewhat depressing. However, it makes a lot of sense, especially in Robbins's presentation of the material.