Public extension services play a key role in the implementation of strategies for rural development based on the sustainable management of natural resources. However, the sector suffers from restricted financial and human resources. Using experiences from participatory action research, a strategy for rural extension in the Amazon was defined to increase the efficiency and the relevance of external support for local resource users. This strategy considered activities initiated and coordinated by local people. Short-term facilitation visits provided continuous external support for (...) the purpose of establishing locally based planning and learning mechanisms. In collaboration with the municipality of Muaná in the Eastern Amazon, the strategy was tested in two traditional communities – Monte Moriat and Boa Esperança. Both communities recognized as most important the need to reduce their dependence on açaí (Euterpe oleracea Mart.), the principal source of food and income. This forest resource has been overexploited, seriously affecting açaí stands and diminishing the forest benefits fundamental for survival. Two local groups decided to raise chickens as a way to reduce nutritional problems and as an alternative source of income. Supported by monthly, short-term planning and evaluation visits, the groups managed to achieve significant progress in their endeavor. The groups identified (1) the control of decision-making and information, and (2) the absence of external obligations to be the greatest advantages of the development initiative. The study confirmed the potential of participatory strategies for public extension in the Amazon. Special attention was given to realistically define the role of forests for local development. However, drastic measures are necessary to smooth the way for real participation in governmental and non-governmental organizations acting in the Brazilian Amazon. (shrink)

This Elibron Classics title is a reprint of the original edition published by Leopold Voss in Leipzig, 1878.

In two pre-registered online studies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the early 2020 lockdown (one of which with a UK representative sample) we elicit risk-tolerance for 1,254 UK residents using four of the most widely applied risk-taking tasks in behavioral economics and psychology. Specifically, participants completed the incentive-compatible Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) and the Binswanger-Eckel-Grossman (BEG) multiple lotteries task, as well as the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Task (DOSPERT) and the self-reported questions for risk-taking used in the German Socio-economic Panel (SOEP) (...) study. In addition, participants in the UK representative sample answered a range of questions about COVID-19-related risky behaviors selected from the UCL COVID-19 Social Survey and the ICL-YouGov survey on COVID-19 behaviors. Consistently with pre-COVID-19 times, we find that risk tolerance during the UK lockdown (i) was higher in men than in women and (ii) decreased with age. Undocumented in pre-COVID-19 times, we find some evidence for healthier participants displaying significantly higher risk-tolerance for self-reported risk measures. We find no systematic nor robust patterns of association between the COVID-19 risky behaviors and the four risk-taking tasks in our study. Moreover, we find no evidence in support of the so-called “risk compensation” hypothesis. If anything, it appears that participants who took greater risk in real-life COVID-19-relevant risky behaviors (e.g., isolating or taking precautions) also exhibited higher risk-tolerance in our experimental and self-reported risk-taking measures. (shrink)

Jan Patočka's “Galileo Galilei and the End of the Ancient Cosmos” was initially published in the popular science journal Vesmír, 33 (1954), no. 1, pp. 27–29. The year before, there had been published in the same journal, under the general heading “On the Development of the Ideas of Natural Science,” a series of Patočka’s articles, including “The First Critics of Aristotelianism” [Vesmír 32 (1953), no. 7, pp. 254–256]; “The Breakdown of Aristotle’s Dynamics and the Prelude to Modern Mechanicism” (ibid., no. (...) 8, pp. 285–287); “Intermezzo on the Threshold of Modern Science: Cusanus and Comenius” (ibid., no. 9, pp. 322–325). This series had been introduced by yet another text: “Aristotle’s Philosophical Natural Science” [Vesmír 32 (1953), no. 3, pp. 102–105]. A last short essay on the theme of the birth of modern natural science—“On the Significance of Francis Bacon of Verulam” [Vesmír 40 (1961), no. 5, pp. 152, 155, and no. 6, pp. 186–188]—followed several years later. These texts were all subsequently revised to a greater or lesser extent and included in the book Aristoteles, jeho předchůdci a dědicové (Aristotle, His Forerunners and Successors), Prague: NČSAV, 1964. (shrink)

If critique does not want to be more than just a ‘passion of the head’ it has to engage in dialogue with the worst-off in society. However, there are several mechanisms that hinder the excluded from giving words to their suffering. Furthermore, there are processes of invisibilization that impede even the perception of the excluded and their critique in the public space. The aim of this article is to conceptually explore the mechanisms of formulating critique by the excluded and of (...) understanding critique in the public space. Therefore, I first provide a brief overview on the meaning of critique before then presenting suffering as a language of critique. In a third step, I explore the multiple mechanisms that hinder suffering from becoming visible and end up discussing some (fragmented) solutions for overcoming these invisibilities. Although the excluded is hindered in formulating public critique in linguistic form, the suffering of the excluded can be understood as the ground for a powerful form of social critique. (shrink)

Posthumanism is presented in this text as a problem and analyzed from a conceptual level, which includes other related concepts such as anthropocentrism, humanism and the Anthropocene, and especially at the level of prefixes, i.e. the expressions posthumanism, transhumanism, dehumanization, inhumanity and inhuman, pre-human or subhuman. The problem of posthumanism is understood here in the context of the interregnum as a time of transition, multiple crises and the transformation of the human into the inhuman. The problem of posthumanism is grasped (...) as a problem of philosophical anthropology related to the question of humankind’s place in the cosmos, as an ontological problem associated with the relationship between identity and hybridity, and as an ethical-political problem associated with the question of human technological domination and control. Posthumanism is seen as an opportunity to formulate a picture of transversal thinking. (shrink)

Marxism has often been associated with two different legacies. The first rests on a strong exposition and critique of the logic of capitalism, grounded in a systematic analysis of the laws of motion of capitalism as a system. The second legacy refers to a strong historicist perspective grounded in a conception of social relations that emphasises the centrality of power and social conflict to the analysis of history. This article challenges the prominence of structural accounts of capitalism by showing how (...) the tension between these legacies has played out within Political Marxism, both orientations already having co-existed, somewhat uneasily, within Robert Brenner’s original contributions to the Transition Debate. Through this internal critique and re-formulation of Political Marxism, we wish to open a broader debate within Marxism on the need for a more agency-based account of capitalism, which builds more explicitly on the concept of social relations, to recover the historicist legacy of Marxism. (shrink)

This article discusses the role of communication research in the Cold War, moving from a US-centered to a comparative-transnational point of view. It examines research on prop-aganda and mass communication in the United States and the Soviet Union, focusing not only on the similarities and differences, but also on mutual perceptions and transnational entanglements. In both countries, communication scientists conducted their research with its benefits for propaganda practitioners and waging the Cold War in mind. It has been suggested that after (...) an initial period of close cooperation between politics and communication science, early expectations of the potential of systematic research for controlling the hearts and minds of people through propaganda started to fade. On both sides of the Iron Curtain, communication research eventually became a ‘normal’ scholarly discipline. (shrink)