The basic feature of ecological symbiosis is ease. The basic feature of
economics is unease which takes you over into dis-ease. All economic
activity is continuous attack on ecology and nature’s symbiosis, the
economic life being diseased life. Economics invariably takes you into
restlessness. While the free and healthy nature takes you to success
continuously, economics develops into you the habit of restlessness and
failure. Free Ecology is the antonym of Economics. YMji
KR The author is thinking with the benefits needed for the society.
However, my thinking is- CAN ANYONE OF US LIVE EXCLUSIVE TO ECONOMICS ONLY
IN THE MIDST OF NATURE? IF WE WERE TO LEAD SUCH A LIFE, CAN WE BE HAPPIER,
HEALTHY AND LIVE LONGER WITH THE FREE MIND?
The entire USA cared for the nature; beauty of the nature is
maintained by the govt and the people, under threat of legal-prosecutions;
so week end travels are at large to the nature place; if you open up the
house window (many houses have only glass walls) nature widens its beauty.
It gives a feeling of wonder, as to, WHETHER PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THOSE
HOMES AT ALL. However, all the income and expenditures are multiple times
more than the Indian costs. Even your maid comes to serve only in her car.
But all AMERICANS are happier and not happier. Each carry a debt on that
plastic cards. President is forced to levy heavy tax for revenue. A drop of
a hat, survival becomes tough also. Many do not earn that target of safety
of $50000 PA; they are in majority doing many jobs; morning attend an
office; afternoon deliver in car AMAZON.COM products; evening attends some
mall job. However Indian Americans are safer; so that created
discrimination against barred by law. Thus PROTECTION OF NATURE DOES NOT
DEVELOP THE PEACE THROUGH THE ECONOMY; AND AUTHOR FEELS THAT WAS /IS DUE TO
MECHANICAL FACTOR; BUT ECONOMY IS ONLY FORMULATED AS THE NATURE IS ALSO
FORMULATED; GROWTH AND DEATH ARE NATURAL; SO DO ECONOMY. Hence Economy is
not tied down to nature at all and nature even if you stay in the ARANYA
will destroy itself in fire. Yes we shall care as good as economy is.
The provided statement is a philosophical critique of the
relationship between ecology and economics, framing them as opposing
forces. While ecological symbiosis is presented as a state of "ease,"
economics is characterized by "unease," "dis-ease," and restlessness. This
perspective suggests that economic activity is fundamentally destructive to
the natural world and human well-being, a viewpoint explored within the
field of ecological economics.
Ease in symbiosis: The "ease" associated with ecological symbiosis refers
to the interconnected, self-regulating balance of ecosystems. Symbiotic
relationships—such as mutualism, where different species benefit each
other—demonstrate that cooperation and interdependence are fundamental
principles of a healthy natural system. For example, pollinators and
flowering plants engage in a mutually beneficial relationship, showcasing
nature's efficiency without market-based transactions.
Nature's success: The idea that "free and healthy nature takes you to
success continuously" can be interpreted as the resilience and regenerative
capacity of natural systems. Ecosystems, when functioning without external
disruptions, can continuously support life and provide what are known as
ecosystem services, such as clean air, water purification, and nutrient
cycling.
Unease and restlessness: In contrast, the statement argues that economics
fosters "unease." This reflects a critique of how modern economic systems,
particularly capitalism, rely on constant growth, competition, and
consumption, leading to anxiety and dissatisfaction. Research has linked
economic instability and inequality to higher levels of stress, anxiety,
and other health issues, which aligns with the description of a "diseased
life". (NOT ECONOMY)
Attack on ecology: The claim that "All economic activity is continuous
attack on ecology" points to the fundamental conflict between the growth
imperative of conventional economics and the finite limits of the natural
world. Ecological economics, a transdisciplinary field, critiques
neoclassical economics for treating the environment as a subset of the
economy and for failing to account for ecological principles like entropy
and carrying capacity. Economic activities like industrialization, mining,
and agriculture often result in habitat destruction, pollution, and
resource depletion.
The economy as a diseased life: This metaphor highlights how a system based
on limitless growth *within a finite system* is inherently unsustainable
and leads to negative consequences for both the environment and human
health. The focus on material gain over communal well-being and ecological
health can be seen as a form of "diseased life".
Ecological vs. conventional economics
The statement is an expression of a perspective aligned with ecological
economics, which was founded as a response to the limitations of mainstream
neoclassical economics.
Divergent philosophies: Despite their shared Greek root oikos
("household"), the philosophies of economics and ecology have
diverged. Ecological
economics seeks to bridge this gap by viewing the economy as an open
subsystem embedded within and dependent on the larger system of the
biosphere, rather than as an independent entity.
Strong vs. weak sustainability: A core debate reflects this tension.
Neoclassical economists often argue for "weak sustainability," believing
that human-made capital can substitute for natural capital. Ecological
economists argue for "strong sustainability," asserting that natural
capital stocks are often irreplaceable and essential for human survival.
Reconciling the conflict: While the statement presents ecology and
economics as antonyms, the field of ecological economics attempts to
integrate their principles. Its goal is not to eliminate economic activity,
but to manage it within ecological limits to achieve sustainability and a
high quality of life.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30
democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental
challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts
to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and
concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the
challenges of an ageing population. The Organization provides a setting
where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common
problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and
international policy.
Research into the value of ecosystem services has evolved to the
point where efforts are being made to estimate the total economic value of
ecosystem change. This needs to be distinguished from misconceived efforts
to value “all” ecosystems. The problems with valuing changes in ecosystem
services arise from the interaction of ecosystem products and services, and
from the often-extensive uncertainty about how ecosystems function
internally, and what they do in terms of life support functions.
Considerable efforts have been made to value specific services, such as the
provision of genetic information for pharmaceutical purposes. But even that
literature is still developing, and it does not address the interactive
nature of ecosystem products and services. Once it is acknowledged that
ecosystem functioning may be characterized by extensive uncertainty, by
irreversibility and by non-linearities that generate potentially large
negative effects from ecosystem loss or degradation, the focus shifts to
how to behave in the face of this combination of features. The short answer
is that decision-making favours precaution. But just what precaution means
is itself a further debate. The suggestions here are that real options ,
safe minimum standards and strong sustainability are all contenders.
Whatever the particular interpretation that is adopted, incorporating
distributional concern implies initially identifying and then possibly
weighting the costs and benefits of individuals and groups on the basis of
differences in the characteristic of interest First, there is the
relatively straightforward but possibly arduous task of assembling and
organizing raw (i.e. unadjusted) data on the distribution of project costs
and benefits. Second, these data could then be used to ask what weight or
distributional adjustment would need to placed on the net benefits (net
costs) of a societal group of interest for a given project proposal to pass
(fail) a distributional cost-benefit test. Third, explicit weights
reflecting judgement about society’s preferences towards distributional
concerns can be assigned and net benefits re-estimated on this basis. A
crucial question then is where should cost-benefit analyses locate
themselves upon this hierarchy? This suggests that, at a minimum,
cost-benefit appraisals arguably should routinely provide these data.
Whether more ambitious proposals should be adopted is a matter of
deliberating about whether
1) the gains in terms of being able to scrutinize the (weighted) net
benefits of projects in the light of societal concerns about both
efficiency and equity outweighs;
2) the losses arising from the need for informed guesswork in interpreting
the empirical evidence with regards to the treatment of the latter.
On the other hand, even apparently small changes in assumptions about
the size of distributional weights – indicated by the range of values in
available empirical studies– can have significant implications for
recommendations about a project’s social worth. This finding should not be
a surprise for it primarily reflects the complexity involved in trying to
disentangle society’s distributional preferences. As a practical matter,
the danger is whether the most ambitious proposals for distributional CBA
generate more heat than light. While it would worthwhile for research to
seek further understanding of these preferences in the interim, estimating
implicit weights might be the most useful step beyond the necessary task of
cataloguing the distribution of project cost and benefits. Nature and
economy carry distinct operations dependent and independent simultaneously,
cris-crossing, effecting and affecting the human life; but subject to the
proper distribution without greed gobbling up . In my opinion nature and
economy shall co exist and we have to live through the changes.
K Rajaram IRS 311025
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 at 05:54, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*
>
>
>
> The Flow of Problems and Solutions
>
>
>
> If you realize the basic fact that you are a part and limb of nature, part
> of the planet Earth, then that fundamental connection will make you as
> powerful and strong as nature. If you live symbiotically in nature, with
> nature and as nature, then you experience the fact that there is no problem
> without solution. It is not belief. It is the acceptance of the basic fact
> that you are a limb of nature. But you must live symbiotically with nature,
> live as its healthy limb, and not participate in the activity of diseasing
> antibiosis say, Economics.
>
> All beliefs are basically assumptions and strong beliefs are only strong
> assumptions. But realizing a fact as fact and adjusting to the fact
> hormonally is converting actions into symbiosis.
>
> When you realize that you are as strong as nature and that you are part
> of the planet earth, with the potential to expand your connection to the
> Solar system and actually can feel the Cosmos anatomically, then you are
> entering the arena of the Divine. Your internal hormonal communications via
> your bloodstream into the cells continuously makes you aware of the fact
> that you are part of nature. The method is emotional and not mechanical.
>
> After all there can be no material that survives the gigantic adverse
> situations of space and there can be no material to manufacture a duplicate
> small earth as space ship. After all we cannot even dig deep into our own
> earth as the hot lava; the Asthenosphere will melt away everything.
>
> You have to realize the basic fact that there are simply no problems
> without solutions, when you adopt the method of the Sage who does not
> employ technology, and who practices the perception travel by using the
> interconnections of nature, by participating in those connections.
>
> Nature thrives in its freedom of ecological symbiosis, the symbiosis that
> takes every organism into rapture, as the natural state of living. In the
> free and healthy nature rapture is infinite, unlimited. Those that live in
> the free and healthy nature and who as a result cannot even conceptualize
> unhappiness, feel the whole of the flora and fauna as own macro body.
>
> The basic feature of ecological symbiosis is ease. The basic feature of
> economics is unease which takes you over into dis-ease. All economic
> activity is continuous attack on ecology and nature’s symbiosis, the
> economic life being diseased life. Economics invariably takes you into
> restlessness. While the free and healthy nature takes you to success
> continuously, economics develops into you the habit of restlessness and
> failure. Free Ecology is the antonym of Economics.
>
> And Economics has reached the dead end today, as machines can do every
> job. Economic activity can no longer give livelihoods. And when bugs take
> over the machines, the Robots, the devastation they can cause potentially
> is as bad as genocidal. We are handing over all life to machines, and if
> the machines get diseased or bug ridden, the economic crash that takes over
> can be unparallel.
>
> We need free nature parks without human tampering urgently as the
> desperately needed rescue. Every machine can only harm nature.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> That’s a fascinating and deeply philosophical essay by *Y.M. Sarma*,
> titled *“The Flow of Problems and Solutions.”*
>
> It blends ecological philosophy, spiritual insight, and social critique to
> make a powerful argument: that human beings must *reintegrate themselves
> with nature* rather than continue the path of technological and economic
> alienation. Let me give you a brief breakdown and interpretation of its
> main ideas:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌿 Central Thesis*
>
> Human beings are not separate from nature — we are *a limb of it*. Once
> we realize this, we gain the same strength and harmony that nature itself
> possesses. Problems cease to exist as “unsolvable” because, in the natural
> order, *every problem has its solution* — it’s built into the system.
> ------------------------------
>
> *💡 Key Themes*
>
> *1. Unity with Nature*
>
> Sarma argues that our most fundamental identity is as part of the Earth —
> and through it, the cosmos. To live “symbiotically” means to live *with
> nature, not against it*. This is not a belief or philosophy but a
> biological and emotional reality.
>
> “You must live symbiotically with nature, live as its healthy limb.”
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. The Problem with Economics*
>
> He draws a sharp contrast between *ecology* and *economics*:
>
> - *Ecology* = harmony, ease, and continuous natural success.
> - *Economics* = dis-ease, restlessness, and destruction.
>
> Economic systems, which exploit rather than cooperate with nature,
> inevitably lead to *unease and failure*, while ecological life sustains
> endless balance and joy.
>
> “Free Ecology is the antonym of Economics.”
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Technology and Alienation*
>
> Sarma warns that as machines take over human work, we reach a *dead end*
> — both materially and spiritually. Dependence on technology removes us
> further from the symbiotic flow of nature and makes humanity vulnerable to
> systemic collapse (e.g., bugs, AI failures).
>
> “Every machine can only harm nature.”
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. The Sage’s Method*
>
> He invokes the idea of the *Sage* — one who does not depend on technology
> but instead uses *perceptual and emotional awareness* to connect with the
> natural web of life.
> This “perception travel” is not mechanical but *emotional and hormonal* —
> a state of embodied awareness that feels the cosmos as part of oneself.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌎 Vision of Renewal*
>
> Sarma’s conclusion is both a warning and a call to action:
> We must create *free nature parks*, untouched by human interference, as
> sanctuaries where the Earth can heal — and where we can rediscover our
> natural ease and joy.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧘♂️ In Essence*
>
> - *Nature = Solution.*
> - *Economics = Dis-ease.*
> - *Technology ≠ Salvation.*
> - *Symbiosis = Freedom.*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like me to rewrite or summarize this essay in a more concise,
> modern format — for example, as an article, poem, or manifesto?
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BSBc2CeX_4X7NX9iDXvck5P5uTfvw78gbVE1dZyRC71g%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BSBc2CeX_4X7NX9iDXvck5P5uTfvw78gbVE1dZyRC71g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZop_Y3UrpSvqnNe24uMExxbKidYcchYcdQrCFe7v7OYH8A%40mail.gmail.com.
