Robin Neill wrote:  
>Would you consider Malthus on population "environmental  
>literature"?  It was a precursor of limits to growth  
>literature which is environmental.  
  
  
Your statement is true.  However, in my view, the answer to your  
question depends on how one defines "environmental literature".  
  
Malthus certainly took environmental considerations into account.  
  
However, not all literature which focuses on environmental limitations  
can be classed comfortably alongside limits-to-growth literature (some  
literature concerned with environmental limitations focuses on  
technological and other solutions to environmental constraints,  
recognising that we need to change current approaches to accounting,  
economics, finance and money systems around the world if technological  
solutions are to have any chance of taking effect "in time")  
  
Conversely, not all limits-to-growth literature focuses on environmental  
limitations (that is, some of the limits-to-growth literature focuses on  
aesthetic, ethical, social, political, and "human" or "humane"  
objections to the proposed means and possible consequences of unlimited  
growth - e.g. technologist Bill Joy's famous article "Why the future  
doesn't need us", Wired magazine, April 2000)  
  
Prabhu Guptara