--
*Mar*
Edited and Improved VersionProfit — The Apocalyptic Falsehood
When your income becomes my expenditure, and my expenditure becomes
another’s income, then at the macro level the total incomes and total
expenditures of society must ultimately balance. In such a reality, the
modern obsession with “profit” becomes questionable. Yet every economy
today is organized around the pursuit of profit as the supreme goal. This
pursuit often disguises itself as progress while continuously extracting
from nature without restoring what has been taken.
Profit, in its deeper ecological sense, frequently means taking more from
nature than is returned. Forests are cut faster than they regenerate,
rivers are poisoned without healing them, minerals are removed from the
lithosphere without replenishment, and the atmosphere is burdened with
wastes without repair. What appears as financial gain may actually be
ecological loss concealed behind account books.
Modern economics fortified this process by modeling itself after mechanical
and Cartesian ways of thinking. Influenced by the spirit of Newtonian
mechanics, the economy came to be viewed as a machine composed of lifeless
units, measurable only through quantities, prices, outputs, and
efficiencies. In such a framework, emotions, ecological bonds, and the
living symbiosis of nature disappear from consideration.
Human life was thus separated from the ecological life of the Biosphere.
Yet every organism exists only through an intricate chain of
interdependence — a coordination of births, deaths, rebirths, decay,
renewal, and transformation. Nature functions not merely through mechanical
interaction but through living symbiosis, mutual dependence, and emotional
resonance among life forms.
The modern firm, celebrated as an autonomous unit dedicated to maximizing
profit, becomes the institutional expression of this separation from
nature. Every firm seeks the “optimum size,” meaning the lowest possible
cost and the highest possible return. Beneath the technical language lies a
simple reality: taking more while giving less. Efficiency often becomes a
refined method of ecological depletion.
The result is visible across the planet. The Biosphere has been converted
into a gigantic livestock system for economic extraction. Mountains are
excavated for minerals, forests destroyed, rivers dammed and polluted,
glaciers weakened, and polar ice sheets endangered. The destruction of
Greenland, Antarctica, and mountain ice systems threatens rainfall
patterns, ocean currents, and climatic stability itself. When geography is
wounded, ecology becomes unstable; when ecology becomes unstable,
civilization itself trembles.
The concept of profit has therefore become not merely an economic
principle, but a moral justification for the continuous destruction of
nature.
Universities, instead of becoming centers for contemplation of life and
ecological wisdom, increasingly function as factories of invention serving
industrial and military competition. Research is financed by corporations
and governments seeking technological advantage, economic dominance, and
destructive capacities. Institutions gain prestige through patents,
rankings, and profitability, while nature itself is rarely allowed to speak
as a teacher.
The deepest tragedy is educational. The mechanical paradigm has displaced
ecological understanding. Discovery through communion with nature has been
replaced by manipulation through technique. Humanity no longer listens to
nature as a living presence; it seeks only to control, reorganize, and
exploit.
Can even one university in the world free itself from this stranglehold?
Can one institution dare to place ecological symbiosis, emotional
participation in nature, and contemplative understanding at the center of
education?
Perhaps the beginning may come through the creation of a “Free Nature Park”
— a place where nature is allowed to live, regenerate, and reveal itself
without technological interference; where students learn not merely from
books and machines, but from forests, rivers, winds, birds, silence, and
the rhythms of life itself.
Such a beginning may appear small. Yet every renewal in civilization begins
with a new way of perceiving reality.
— YM Sarma
------------------------------
My Views
Your essay is not merely an economic criticism; it is a civilizational
critique. You are questioning the metaphysical assumptions behind modern
economics itself. That is why your writing moves beyond ordinary
environmentalism.
Your strongest insight is this:
Economic “profit” can conceal ecological deficit.
Modern accounting counts monetary gain but often excludes the destruction
of forests, rivers, soil fertility, emotional well-being, biodiversity, and
climatic stability. In that sense, you are arguing that economics measures
only market transactions while ignoring the deeper metabolism of nature.
Your criticism of Cartesian and mechanical thinking is also philosophically
significant. You are saying that once nature is treated as dead matter
rather than living participation, exploitation becomes inevitable. This
connects economics, education, technology, and ecological collapse into one
integrated framework.
At the same time, there are areas where your argument can be strengthened
further:
1.
*Distinguish all profit from destructive profit*
Not every form of surplus is necessarily ecological destruction.
Traditional village economies, cooperative systems, regenerative
agriculture, and small-scale craft production can create surplus while
sustaining ecological balance. Your critique becomes more persuasive if you
distinguish between:
-
exploitative profit, and
-
regenerative surplus.
2.
*Clarify the macroeconomic argument*
Your statement that “income equals expenditure” reflects an important
macroeconomic identity.
Y \equiv C + I + G + (X-M)
But economists would argue that individual firms can still earn profits
within the larger circulation of money. Your deeper point seems to be that
monetary profits may coexist with hidden ecological losses. That
distinction can sharpen your essay greatly.
3.
*Your concept of “emotional symbiosis” is original*
Most ecological writing discusses interdependence biologically. You go
further by proposing that nature contains emotional participation and
rapture-filled coordination. This is unusual and philosophically rich. It
moves toward an ecological phenomenology of life.
4.
*The “Free Nature Park” idea is powerful*
This may become your most constructive contribution. Instead of only
criticizing modernity, you are proposing experimental ecological spaces for
contemplative education. That transforms your work from protest into vision.
Your essay belongs to a stream of thought that combines ecology,
philosophy, education, economics, and civilizational criticism into one
framework.
------------------------------
Relevant ThinkersEcological and Civilizational Thinkers
-
Fritjof Capra — Critiqued mechanistic science and emphasized systems
thinking in ecology.
-
Arne Naess — Argued for intrinsic value in all forms of life.
-
Vandana Shiva — Criticized industrial agriculture, corporate
globalization, and ecological destruction.
-
E. F. Schumacher — Critiqued profit-centered economics and advocated
human-scale economies.
-
Small Is Beautiful — One of the foundational critiques of industrial
economics.
-
Ivan Illich — Challenged modern schooling, industrial systems, and
technological domination.
-
Murray Bookchin — Linked ecological destruction with hierarchical social
systems.
-
James Lovelock — Viewed Earth as a self-regulating living system.
-
Gaia hypothesis — Resonates strongly with your idea of biospheric
coordination.
Thinkers Relevant to Your Critique of Mechanistic Thought
-
René Descartes — The mechanistic separation of mind and matter that you
criticize.
-
Alfred North Whitehead — Rejected mechanistic reality and emphasized
living processes.
-
Process Philosophy — Close to your understanding of living nature.
-
Martin Heidegger — Warned that technology turns nature into “standing
reserve.”
-
Gregory Bateson — Explored mind, ecology, and patterns of relationship.
-
David Bohm — Emphasized wholeness rather than fragmentation.
Thinkers on Economics and Ecology
-
Herman Daly — Critiqued endless economic growth on a finite planet.
-
Ecological Economics — Very close to your concerns.
-
Karl Polanyi — Argued that markets became detached from social and
ecological life.
-
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen — Connected economics with entropy and
ecological depletion.
Indigenous and Nature-Centered Traditions
Your thought also resonates with many indigenous traditions that see nature
not as an object but as kinship and participation:
-
Arctic Inuit traditions
-
Amazonian forest cosmologies
-
Indigenous Australian ecological spirituality
-
Himalayan contemplative traditions
-
Native American relational philosophies
These traditions often understand rivers, forests, mountains, winds, and
animals as living presences rather than exploitable resources.
Your essay therefore stands at the intersection of ecological philosophy,
process thought, deep ecology, and civilizational critique.
--
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/CACDCHCKHKSqy1ejENa1%3DB%3Du5yxbNe6V-ZM2f4OM_-isQudvdZw%40mail.gmail.com.
