Economic Consequentiality

Economic Consequentiality

The purpose of economics is to produce positive results that are predictable. Failure is not economic, nor are random results. Behaviors have consequences, and economics is planned behavior for the purpose of humanitarian benefit. Think of economics as a voyage, all people traveling on a ship that is heading to a better place.

All economics is global. Capitalistic influence on the study of economics has turned the subject into a competitive crapshoot that is ignorant and dismissive of both global, and generational consequences. Economics is by its nature is a branch of ecology. It is the legitimate purpose of education is to avoid harm, and to maximize benefit to the environment that we share across all borders for all generations.

The economic concept stems from the fact that the behavior of people has an impact on the survival and well being of humanity. History has clearly shown us that cooperation is environmentally effective, while chaos, war, and superstition reduce both the quality and the duration of life. They even reduce the desire to live.

Science has a sharp edge. What does not balance there often emerges as a new superstition. Einstein is quoted as saying, “If you can’t explain it to a six-year old child, you don’t understand it yourself.” “The survival of the fittest,” that sprung out of Darwin’s Theory of Genetic Selection has been misinterpreted both scientifically, and economically. People are pitted against each other, and against common sense as the superstitions derived from this are academically shoveled down the throats of children, and religious fanatics around the globe have inserted the nonsense into books that were written with knowledge that predates the discovery of genes.

Dodo’s probably didn’t become extinct because the fittest individuals didn’t contribute to the gene pool. They, the species, in all probability could not adapt to the changing environment that they were powerless to control. If the fittest people arm themselves, create chaos, and poison the water, genetic selection will not matter. The human race will follow the Dodos. Like a bunch of dumb Dodos, people are destroying their own environment. People are totally capable of doing the opposite. It seems like a six-year old child could understand that.

People are born with an economic attribute. They have the ability to modify the environment for their survival and for their happiness. They are not individually smart enough or strong enough to survive much environmental degradation. People are endowed with a natural economic attribute that makes it possible for them to learn how to make a bright future with a humane environment, one world under God. People are genetically predisposed to thrive culturally as lovers of humanity. As fighters they destroy themselves, their neighbors, and their progeny.

Fighting over the fruits of civilization destroys it. Economics is an opportunity, not a hereditary gift. Other species must adapt to the environment or they die. The good news is that people inherited the economic ability to improve their own environment. The bad news is that not using the opportunity is environmentally destructive.

Who are the dumb dodos? Birds are naturally deprived of the environmental possibility for survival, or not. People have a choice. Facing the choice of whether it is smart not to improve the environment that protects humanity is not a difficult question. A six-year old child can understand it. The captan of a sinking ship suffers the same fate as its passengers. Dodos were incapable of saving their environmental ship, people are not. Humanity will steer the ship on the trip to paradise as one body, or slip down into the icy waters of despair with the same ship they choose not to protect.

History has treated this social issue as a moral dilemma, “good people” against “evil”. People could only survive if they superstitiously engaged in the fight of good against bad. In that fight the bad guys always win because they fight for their own immediate interests. They don’t burden themselves with the needs of the vulnerable or protecting resources that will be needed by other people and other generations. History has been an ongoing demonstration of poor management with terrible consequences.

Economics is an intellectual solution to a moral problem. Why can’t “good” people win the battle for moral high ground? There can be no army if there are no soldiers. Good people don’t genetically exist. They exist only superstitiously. Superstitious armies don’t win real battles, but they really do damage the environment that all people share with other generations.

Humanity has the ability to survive and thrive economically. In an economy the fittest protect the vulnerable. While that seems to be the right thing to do, they receive little in the way of thanks. They could demand much more. Why would they work for the weaker or the less fortunate?

An environment in which, only the strongest survive needs improvement. Natural genetic selection improves individual chances for survival in a harsh environment, but individual toughness is not a dominant human attribute. It takes a third of a persons life to mature, and another third is spent in age related declination. The attribute that people have that allows them capability and happiness is economic. That allows them to inherit more than genes. They also inherit the economy of the previous generations. Building economy can create and improve the environment they share with other people, and other generations.

Economic health can not be measured by the wealth of the fittest. The wellbeing of the vulnerable is the most accurate indicator of environmental achievement. How are the vulnerable doing? Is safety, capability, and kindness being passed to the next generation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 + 6 =

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *