I have spent a good deal of my life studying the benefit, and the necessity of humanity protecting itself. Several years ago I gave the unique discipline that I was studying a name, a name that had already been claimed by an academic discipline that is subjectively similar, but is superstitiously based on an entirely different premise. The academic premise is inconsistent with reality. Human attributes determine human possibility. I borrowed the name as concrete strategy to decrease harm in the human environment, and demonstrate the benefit that can be obtained as a direct result of choosing to do so. There is an urgency to use our uniquely human attributes to recognize, to facilitate, and to achieve kindness and competence as a way to improve the quality, and the durability of human existence.
Economics, the academic study, fails to be economic. It fails to separate harm from benefit. It fails to address environmental reality. It fails to acknowledge basic rules of mathematical equivalence. Any one of these conditions should naturally invoke academic skepticism. Why does this happen? Why is there such a lack of curiosity? It makes no sense. People are expected to be opportunistic superstitious sycophants to protect themselves from harm, and to achieve benefit. Of course that doesn’t work. It is not economic. It fails to protect other people, other generations, and the environment that everyone shares. It fails to allow humanity to use its naturally existing physical attributes to protect itself from harm and extinction.
The reason for assuming the name is in itself educational. In clear language it points out the precise difference between what economics naturally is, and the hocus-pocus that spoils the results of antinomic behavior in the presence of reality. People serve humanity, or suffer genetically predetermined consequences for failing to do so. When people serve money, humanity is ignored. Is your paycheck money, or humanity? Money is used wrong. Money must serve humanity, not kleptocrats. Humanity is harmed when academia blocks access to the very facts that are incumbent on it to expose.
People have an economic attribute that is part of their genetic structure, just as hair, bones, and skin are. Both survival and benefit require the help of other people, and other generations. There is exactly one environment. It is smarter to protect it, and share it than to ignore it, or to fight over it. Economics is protection, not failure.
While all of the preceding facts are simple, abundant and clear, it is equally clear why there is a problem. Academia, as it exists, is a monetary sycophant whose purpose is not to serve humanity, but to divide it into groups that subjugate lesser groups and individuals. Inhumane motivators, such as smugness, hate, and fear, blind purpose. They divide it into warring factions that strive for superstitious dominance. The king of a trash pile lives on a pile of junk. Those who support him are rewarded with a little junk, or the promise of some protection not afforded others, maybe. If there is some truth hiding in a thousand lies, How can it be recognized, identified, or believed? As some supporters are elevated, previous supporters are deserted. They desperately squirm into the slime of despair that is the byproduct of inhumanity. They are sub-humanly forgotten along with an environment that could be used to increase the quality of life, and the durability of existence.
By definition, economic force is always in the direction of service and protection, failure is not economic, nor is it effective. Economics puts despair in the past. Why would any humane institution want it in the future?