The Nature of Scientific Theory

What exactly is an electron? What is it made of? How about a photon?

The Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman is said to have mentioned that calculus is the language that God speaks. Students of science tend to believe that scientific theories are undying eternal truths. Apparently both the masters and the students of science have forgotten an important word that appears over and over again in science: model. In physics (which happens to be the most basic and foundational of all natural sciences) we encounter terms such as Newtonian model, general relativistic model, Bohr model, Sommerfeld model, cosmological model, big bang model, standard model. Model? But isn't a model a mock-up of the real thing?

Newton's theory of gravitation explained attraction between two massive bodies with a force that could act at a distance and make its effects felt instantaneously. The attraction part was the only real observation. The rest came from Newton's head. He imagined that there was a mysterious force that pulled the two masses together and proposed a formula to measure the force. This was a hypothesis. The name of the method used by Newton was induction: from specific to generic. Given the accuracy of the measurements that could be made in Newton's time, his formula predicted the force and its effects very precisely. But not precisely enough by the time Einstein came around. The ability to observe and measure had significantly improved in three hundred years and Newton's law needed a replacement. Similarly, classical electromagnetism, based on experiments and measurements made by Faraday, Ørsted, Ampère and others and codified by Maxwell had to be replaced by quantum electrodynamics after new observations (photoelectric effect) were made half a century later. Of course, that gave rise to quantum mechanics which in turn replaced or modified other models including Einstein's gravity and atomic physics. Atomic physics itself had several models: cubic model, Rutherford model, Bohr model. I think I've made my point: models are aplenty in physics. Models are how physicists model the universe. And if nothing else, then just the fact that model after model has been thrown away to accommodate newer models should make one wonder about the nature of scientific theories: are they really accurate depictions of the world or are they simply guesses about the universe?

Just because a model matches observations and measurements does not mean the model is the truth. The universe is a like a black box (or many black boxes, if that's easier) with lots of wires going in and coming out. We have built meters to measure the signals on these wires. We measure the inputs on a set of wires, measure the outputs on another set and then we guess what could be inside. With time our meters have grown more sophisticated and we can measure with more precision. We can also measure signals we couldn't measure before. And as we get more details, we keep modifying our guess of what's inside that black box. We derive relationships between the various wires, we slice and splice them and come up with fascinating theories. But we don't really know what's inside that box. I don't think there is any serious scientist worth his or her weight in salt who would want to debate that point. Sorry Professor Feynman, God probably doesn't speak in little squiggly lines. Calculus is a tool that contemporary terrestrial scientists use to model physical phenomena. Ironically, Newton, who invented (or discovered) calculus, didn't use calculus in his models at all. He used geometry. In future, someone might invent (or discover) yet another clever way to model the universe.

How does an electron behave? How do photons behave? Or to back up even further what is an electron? Is it spherical? What is it made of? What shape is a photon? What is gravitation? What is matter? What is energy? I don't believe there are any definitive answers to these questions. In fact even these terms are not definitive. We merely experience the world and attempt to model it. In our model, we introduce several items that we call by different names. Furthermore, the models are just guesses based on our current ability to observe this world. What is a galaxy after all? It is merely a name we give to a shape: a shape filled with stars, planets, dust... What is a star or a planet? It is merely a name we give to shape filled with atoms. What is an atom? It is merely a name we give to a shape filled with electrons, protons and neutrons. What is a proton? It is merely a name we give to a shape that is filled with quarks. What is a quark? We can't see that far yet. Just like three hundred years ago we couldn't see at the level of atoms.

Scientific theories are not absolute truths. They are models and frameworks that we create or guesses that we make to understand reality. The true nature of reality is unknowable through the methods of physical science.

Science and Incontestability

There is this misperception that science is somehow superior to religion because scientific theories are modifiable. Why is modifiability equated to superiority? When people say that science is open to questions and that scientific hypotheses, theories and laws are open to change, what do they really mean?

As I have posited previously, science begins with the presupposition that there are some laws governing the universe, and then sets out to discover those laws. That presupposition is absolutely necessary for science to even survive. All our scientific efforts are attempts to find out what those laws are. Scientific process is iterative and uses trial and error. We look at the world, make observations, take notes, make some guesses, build a model, make further observations and compare the model with these new observations to see how accurate the model is and then if needed we modify the model and do it all over again. As our ability to observe becomes keener and more precise, we keep overhauling our theories to encompass details we didn't notice before. For instance, Newton proposed a model of gravitation. After three centuries Einstein overhauled that theory to match new observations and proposed a new understanding of gravitation. More recently scientists have proposed yet another way to explain the phenomenon that we call gravitation. Now these are all attempts to understand and explain the same mystery. The phenomenon in nature where everything attracts everything else hasn't changed at all. Only our model for it has changed from a hypothetical force to a hypothetical curvature of space-time to an exchange of a hypothetical particle. Gravitation is just one example, but there are many others. Sometimes one theory merges in another, sometimes one replaces another. But always, it goes from less precise to more precise, lesser understanding to greater understanding, less perfect to more perfect. This progress obviously begs the question, is it ever to end? Can we ever come up with the final theory or theories? Or is it an infinite progression to a never achievable goal?

Let's see what happens in either case:

1. First, take the case where such a final theory is indeed achievable. We know scientists aspire for a Theory of Everything. One fine day in the not-so-distant future one or more scientists might actually discover that theory. It would describe the entire universe in exact detail. It might be a monolithic theory or it might have separate parts pertaining to different natural phenomena. But either way the theory would be perfect. Science would reach its pinnacle: no more groping around, no more approximations, no more iterations. But if you stop to think, at that moment science would also become unchangeable. With that achievement its reputation for being modifiable would be forever ruined. How do you modify a perfect theory? Why would you?
2. Let's take the other possibility where a final theory is unachievable. In that view, science can forever update its theories but will never reach the end. The theories will always be partial, imperfect and approximate. No matter how many times they are modified and rewritten, they'll always miss something. While such a fate of science would keep its reputation of modifiability intact, it would also greatly weaken its reputation as a truth seeking tool. Why rely on something that is doomed not to succeed?

Unfortunately, those are the only two directions science can go. It can either find the ultimate theory, as many believe it can, or it can't. But no matter which one is true it does not bode well for science as it is right now. If you believe the first option is how it will end then you must agree that there exists a peak and science hasn't reached that peak yet. It's theories are still imperfect and its vaunted openness to change is not so much an evidence of superiority as it is a warning of incompleteness. So if your biggest argument against religion is that it is incontestable and impervious to change, then your argument is slightly hypocritical, because the moment science finds that Theory of Everything it too will become incontestable and unchangeable. On the other hand, if you believe that a final theory can never be reached by science and while it shall always remain flexible, it can never actually get to the bottom of the mystery then you are acknowledging that you are working with an inadequate tool. Note that none of these two conclusions are forced upon science from outside.

Scientific Faith

There are people who ridicule religion and extol science because science is logical and cerebral whereas religion is, according to them, devoid of logic, based on faith and entirely fantastic. Science accepts nothing on faith and religion accepts nothing but faith. But is this characterization really true?

Science strives to find an underlying order in the nature of things. If things were truly random, or at least if people believed that everything was random then seeking universal laws would be futile, since no law would ever hold, if one could even formulate one. But even if things were utterly random (e.g. gravity on today, off for the next three days, back on at 17.31% intensity for eight and three quarter days etc. with even the length of days varying completely unpredictably) scientists would probably still try to find a pattern to the randomness. Pattern finding is at the heart of science, because seemingly, patterns point to an underlying commonness, a natural law. That, in fact, is the first faith of science: the belief that there are some laws which govern the universe. You cannot participate in the scientific dialogue if you think that there are no laws and everything is completely unpredictable and transient, much like a dream (which is why dreams are outside the realm of science). Of course, you can say that it's not mere faith, patterns actually exist in the world: there are cycles such as days and nights and seasons, water always freezes to ice, fire always burns, rainbows look the same, all drops of water take a spherical shape etc. Therefore, patterns exist in nature whether we seek it or not. Alright. But so what if patterns exist? Does the occurrence of patterns prove anything? The scientific argument, as I mentioned, is that patterns point to the existence of underlying laws, that repetition can be explained by a common cause. Now that's another point of faith! What reason is there to believe that repetitions of an observable fact in nature is caused by the same underlying cause? There could be two (or three or infinitely many) completely different circumstances that gives rise to the same observable effect! Yesterday's rainbow could have been caused by some thing entirely different from what caused today's rainbow. And tomorrow's could be caused by a whole new principle. Just because the manifestation is the same, the reason behind it doesn't have to be. (In all fairness science actually acknowledges this last one, but in a limited manner e.g. both acceleration and gravitation can produce the same effect. But why stop at two?)

Therefore the primary postulates of science are:

• there are laws that govern the universe causing patterns to appear and,
  
• there are only a finite number of underlying laws for all observable phenomena in nature.

If you do not believe that is an accurate depiction of science, ponder the pursuit of a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory Of Everything (TOE).

The two postulates are interdependent, like two sides of a coin, and neither takes precedence over the other. They cannot be proven by any means known to science and are therefore, fundamental beliefs no matter who argues to the contrary. Without them science cannot exist as a discipline. Of course, there are other beliefs that also go into the making of science but this is good for a starting point. As far as I know, this view is quite different (if not diametrically opposite) from the one we are taught: that science is a tool to uncover and understand the laws of nature. I can almost anticipate the counterargument: that modern science proves the existence and underlying unity of natural laws. But that is a circular argument and many renowned scientists have committed that fallacy. Science does not prove the existence and unity of natural laws, science presupposes it. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several other instances of faith in science to be examined in later posts.

How is then science so much superior to religion?

Intellectual Dishonesty of "Scientific" Atheism

There are several varieties of atheists and agnostics. The ones described here are the "intellectual" atheists who say there can be no God because it cannot be proven by logic or science and cannot be seen (or heard, or touched etc). Unlike other types of non-believers these people have no personal or empathetic grievance against God. They are atheists simply because they are proud. They are proud of their alleged intellectual superiority over people of faith and they resort to mockery of believers for their feeble minds. These are the people I want to talk about here.

Of all the criticism that is leveled against religion by these atheists, the most common is that people of belief lack the ability to think clearly (or "scientifically", "logically" etc). This basic criticism, however, can be broken down into several components. I think these components are:

1. Religious belief is not supported by facts, or in other words religion is based on unproven hypotheses,

2. Religious doctrine is not open to questioning and verification and/or experimentation,

3. Religious doctrine appeals to the authority of scriptures and,

4. Religion also appeals to the authority of personalities (prophets, incarnations...)

Atheists proclaim the superiority of scientific reasoning (and of their own intellect) by pointing out the stark difference between scientific method and the four points above. Perhaps no one has held a mirror up to them.

Not too long ago I visited an online forum of atheists. I was surprised at the wanton abandon with which terms like "quantum fluctuations", "Higgs Boson", etc. were being thrown around. I was curious to find out how many of these self proclaimed "scientific" people had any real grasp over any of these concepts. So I asked (a) if anyone has carried out or witnessed an electron diffraction experiment and (b) if anybody would explain to me the difference between Fermions and Bosons. Most of them said irrelevant things and didn't even attempt an answer. One person said she had dyscalculia so quantum mechanics was clearly beyond her ken. Another said her husband was a physicist with a PhD from an Ivy League school and a solid understanding of quantum mechanics. The husband himself popped up later to quote a technical bookish answer†. It was precise but utterly useless. I am not sure if he was trying to merely show off or if he didn't actually understand the concept very well. (I am not really in awe of Ivy League schools, as you can tell.) However, the issue here isn't whether the physics doctorate knew his stuff but that even if he did, assuming he did, he still could not explain it in terms which a lay person could understand. However, to be fair it's not all his fault. It is also the nature of the subject.

In order to understand some of the most sophisticated concepts of modern science, physics for example, you have to devote about twenty-three years of your life to education (school, college, grad school, PhD), of which half should be spent studying physics. And to be an expert of any repute you may have to spend many years even after that. I can say with absolute certainty that not only the person with dyscalculia, but the vast majority of atheists (on that forum and elsewhere) haven't spent anything even close to eleven years studying physics. But they invoke quantum mechanics and general relativity all the time. They talk of the Big Bang as if it was an event they witnessed in their backyard. They talk of baryons and leptons as though they have seen them with their own eyes. I use physics and science interchangeably because it happens to be the most fundamental of all the natural sciences, but the argument is true for any other branch of science as well. So this is the first problem of "scientific atheism". Most atheists ridicule persons of faith for believing something blindly, but they are guilty of the same fallacy.

Let's examine the example and compare it with the four arguments above:

1. Religious belief is based on unproven hypotheses.

I submit that so is science. Without hypotheses science cannot progress. Newton didn't arrive at the theory of gravitation by proof, but through insight perhaps even inspiration. That is why it is called a discovery. Discoveries are stumbled upon. And as regards the adjective unproven, well, look at gravitation, for instance. Is there a final theory of gravitation? During Newton's time it was explained by an instantaneous force, action at a distance, a field. Einstein's theory dismissed that idea and replaced it with the idea of a space-time continuum curved by the presence of matter: no longer a force. With the advent of quantum field theory, now the prevalent idea is that gravity is caused by the exchange of gravitons. And gravitons have never been detected. Over three centuries, gravitation, something we experience everyday, has had multiple explanations. Each new explanation has used a new paradigm. There is no finality to any of these theories and none can say for certain that there will not be another explanation which will use yet another heretofore unheard of paradigm. We have gained the ability to measure the effects of gravitation to a greater detail than ever before but we have not gained a better understanding of how gravitation works, and certainly not what it is. Those of you who disagree with my statement, tarry, I will preemptively address your argument. Why does a newer theory replace an older one? Because the newer theory can more accurately predict the results of a measurement of something. It is still an approximation. We are looking at a black box with inputs and outputs. By observing how the outputs and inputs behave with respect to each other we are trying to guess what is inside the black box. And as we gain the ability to measure the inputs and outputs more precisely, we must keep modifying our theory of what is in the box. And so it is with every theory of science. Just like no one has detected gravitons, no one has seen an atom. No one has seen an electron. Is it a particle? Is it a wave? A wave of what? Mathematics is the tool one uses to understand physics. But mathematical models are still models. Models of reality. We can build better models, but models are not reality. They are unproven hypotheses and that is why they are replaceable.

2. Religious doctrine is not open to questioning and verification

One of the strongest criticisms of atheists is that religious doctrine is not verifiable, but scientific fact is. I refer back to my question in the forum: how many atheists have actually carried out or even witnessed an electron diffraction experiment? That is the starting point of wave particle duality. If you haven't done that experiment, do you still believe in wave-particle duality? If you do, you are not scientific as you think you are, but let's say you are indeed interested in setting up the experiment and observing the results. Can you? Do you have the necessary equipment? Do you have the instructions? How easy is it for you to independently verify the truth of that theory? In case experimentation is not your cup of tea, and you are more inclined to theory, how easy is it to understand quantum mechanics? Have you tried classical mechanics first? Science is in plain view only to those who have spent years upon years in the pursuit of it. The tool of mathematics that is used to model physics is an extremely specialized language. You are better off reading the Vedas written in ancient Sanskrit: it would probably take less time to master Sanskrit than to learn tensor calculus, which you will need to understand general relativity. So you see scientific fact is not independently verifiable by just anyone. To be able to verify you first have to be able to understand the models. To understand the models, you have to devote many years of dedicated study. I am not convinced that the ordinary atheist who huffs and puffs and invokes high physics all the time has spent a decade in its study. Therefore the claim that science is independently verifiable is only a fantasy. One needs special training to be able to follow the language of modern science, and that training is not open to all. Modern science is arcane, more arcane than most religions. That brings us to the next point.

3. Religious doctrine appeals to the authority of scriptures

Students of science don't go about discovering the entire body of scientific knowledge from scratch. Instead they build on what others have done. And in order to start from where the previous person left one has to have deep faith in the work that has already been done. Didn't a famous scientist once say that he could see so far only because he stood on the shoulders of giants? Where would modern physics be without the Principia? It strikes me as interesting that it was written in Latin and most of us have to rely on a translated edition. But that's just one book, and there have been many others. Some very technical, some not at all. Even non-technical, popular science books like A Brief History of Time or The Emperor's New Mind are nearly unreadable without an extensive background in science. But it is remarkable how often atheists quote from popular science books such as these. This really rolls back into the previous argument: these concepts are difficult for most people even in their "non-technical" forms. And usage of terms and concepts that are not clear to one is nothing but an appeal to authority. Just like the physics doctorate who couldn't explain the difference between Bosons and Fermions and therefore quoted the book definition.

4. Religion also appeals to the authority of personalities

That's the other kind of appeal to authority. And it is known by a more popular phrase: name-dropping. Atheists quote scientists left and right and often without context. "Einstein didn't believe in God", "Feynman was an atheist", &etc. First of all they were great physicists, but their knowledge was also specialized in a particular realm only. These scientists spent their entire life in the study of physics, but how does that make them an authority on religion? It is like quoting an economist while arguing against the current theory of gravitation: Professor Shilling says "Money is the ultimate gravitational force" therefore general relativity is wrong. Well the professor would have about as much authority on gravitation as Einstein has on religion. Second, we don't really know the lives of these scientists. While they may have said something at some point that may make them look like atheists, their personal lives and beliefs may have been different. Without knowing them in person it is impossible to say what is it they believed. And third, for all the scientists that may appear to have been atheists, there are those who were evidently spiritual. Newton was no atheist. Schrödinger was deeply influenced by the Vedantas, as was Tesla.

These are just some examples of the intellectual dishonesty that atheism perpetrates. There are others that I will examine in future posts.

† The paraphrased answer from the physicist, if anyone is interested, was that Fermions are half-integer spin particles following Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bosons are integer spin particles following Bose-Einstein statistics. It's like if the question was what's the difference between an apple and an orange and someone says that an orange grows on an orange tree and an apple grows on an apple tree!

Economics III – Conclusion

Physics deals with the same underlying substance no matter what level it is being studied at. An experimental particle physicist deals with the same universe that the relativist or the quantum theorist deals with. The equations may change, the paradigms may change, but the real universe being studied doesn't. Of course one could question the nature of reality itself, but that's a different matter and for another time. The act of studying the universe, or the different theories for it doesn't change the actual universe in any way. It is just our description of it that changes. We are looking at the same thing just from different angles, different perspectives. However, economics isn't a science like physics.

Although economics, too, has many manifestations, unlike in physics, the differences between them are not merely skin deep. The economics at a larger scale is very different from the economics at a very small scale. Economics driven by one set of principles and ideologies is very different from that driven by a different set of principles and ideologies. These differences are not the result of looking at the same thing from different perspectives. They are the result of looking at entirely different things altogether. Thus economics, largely, is not a science where one discovers hidden relationships, but more of a craft where relationships are created.

Don't agree? Let's revisit the premise. Human existence, for the vast majority of people, serves one single need: preservation of the species. Yes, we have made computers and mobile phones and rockets and what not, but for what need? What purpose does all this serve? Before humans had made any of this, they were feeding and breeding, and that's exactly what they do even now. So we do it a little differently. Instead of foraging, we farm. Instead of living in caves, we build houses. Instead of hurling stones as weapons, we hurl other projectiles. The difference is only superficial, "lipstick on a pig". All our endeavors simply serve to dress up a primitive instinct in pretty packaging. Now, there are a few occupations that seem to rise above these primitive purposes and people in those occupations perhaps believe there is some greater purpose to human life than merely eating and reproducing. They ask questions like "why does the universe exist", "where did the universe come from", "who are we and why are we here" and so on. But the practical world is as unconcerned about them as they are about it. So I'll leave them out of this as well. This is about the rest of us.

Every other species survives and breeds without the knowledge of economics. They don't barter, they don't trade, they don't manufacture. Yes, I know nearly all of humanity will be offended by my constant comparison between humans and animals. However, I also know that nearly all of humanity will be unable to show me a better, higher purpose of human life. Ironically, the only people who could point to a loftier goal for humans are the ones that humanity disregards, as I mentioned earlier. The reason I say this is to point out that the laws of economics do not exist in nature. They are not natural laws, unlike, for example the laws of gravitation or electromagnetism. Although the wolves, the deer, the sparrows and the tunas do not know those natural laws, they are still subject to it. However, they are not subject to the laws of demand and supply. They are unaware of the concept of "price" or "elasticity". There is no money in the wild, and scarcity in nature (natural scarcity?) is very different from scarcity in our markets (artificial?).

The laws of economics are man made laws. Just like the laws of governments. And like the latter, the laws of economics can change from nation to nation, from society to society. They can be different at different places and different times. Not only that, it is also different for different structures in society. There is economics of the nation, economics of the firm and economics of the family or individual. A nation can print more money. A firm can sell more shares. But individuals must cut their coats according to their cloth. Just like administrative laws, laws of economics are merely whims of those who are in a position to enforce them. It is a curious fact that economics is even called a science. It is no more a science than politics is. Economists who fancy themselves to be scientists should send in their papers to their elected representatives for peer review. As a side remark I must say that numerical analysis of people's behavioral data isn't quite economics either, although some modern economists like to think so. People's behaviors are the results of the laws of the societies they live in and behavioral economists are missing the forest because of the trees.

Therefore to say that economics applies equally and universally to all humans and is necessary for human existence is incorrect. The argument that all progress we see around us is the result of economic thought may be true but that does not mean that the progress we see around us is the most optimal outcome. Progress compared to what? What we see around us may very well be the worst case. Or perhaps we made all the progress despite economics.

Economics II – More Questions

One can argue that scarcity is a fact of nature and undomesticated animals do not really have an abundance of food and water as I claimed earlier. One can further argue that wild animals, without the knowledge of economics or by just plain being unable to reason, cannot successfully negotiate nature. As a result some over consume their food and become extinct, some fall victim to the changes in the environment and so on.

Unfortunately, both of the above are incomplete arguments. To say that there is scarcity in nature does not make economics any more meaningful. (Not for most people, but I'll get to that later.) Despite our knowledge of economics there are still millions of humans who do not have food and water. And for those who want to raise the argument of national boundaries, well, even within the boundaries of every nation there exist groups of people who face no scarcity whatsoever and groups of people who live in extreme abjection, facing scarcity of every sort. The animals of a region, at least, either flourish together or suffer together. In most instances they migrate together to greener pastures. And as for the second argument, well, it seems humans, for all their ability to reason, also over consume their natural resources and frequently fall victim to changes in the environment. In some cases the change in environment is brought about by their over consumption!

But there is yet another answer to both points of view. Modern humans didn't appear over night, and economics didn't always exist. There was a time when humans were more like wild animals and didn't know economics. Somehow those creatures who couldn't reason (well, not like us modern humans!) and didn't know economics, survived. And not only did they survive, but they survived well enough and long enough, as a species, to develop the methodical study of economics over the past several centuries. However, during the early stages of development of this species, perhaps the roughest time of all, when economics would have probably made the biggest impact, it was absent. If this science is so essential, that without it the species would be plunged into danger of extinction then why did it develop so late? Unlike, for example, hunting, or fishing, or agriculture? Perhaps even other sciences and technologies, like fire making, weaving, boat making? And even if we accept that some species may have become extinct due to lack of knowledge of economics, that doesn't explain the existence of so many others that also don't know economics (or can't reason, for that matter). If anything, humans, with their knowledge of economics, may be a bigger danger to many species, than those species' inability to formulate economic theory.

So,

1. Economics hasn't really removed scarcity for humans,
2. Economics wasn't really necessary for the survival of the human species, certainly not other species, and,
3. Despite having developed all these sophisticated economic theories, humans have actually become a threat to their own survival, by over consuming their resources, and also threat to other species.

My question remains: what justification, then, for the study of economics?

Economics I

What is the more important concept in economics? Value or scarcity? To me it seems the only thing of value in economics is scarcity. If a certain thing doesn't have scarcity then it doesn't have value.

Take the example of sunlight or air, for instance. There is an abundance of both of these and therefore in an economic sense they have no value. But as we have started to realize that air: clean air, breathable air, good air is becoming scarce we have started to attach economic value to it. Thus the various arrangements for cap & trade, pollution taxes etc. No one needs to be told how badly we need air. How much would one pay for a breath of air? Yet as long as it is abundant, not scarce, it has no value in economics! A perverse science indeed.

With that in mind I would like to examine how economics plays a part in human life. The classical definition of economics is of course the study of human behavior with regard to ends and means which are scarce and have alternate uses. That definition is almost taken for granted by all students of economics. "Means", "ends", "scarce" and "alternate uses" are like the cardinal directions on an economist's compass. But let's start at the beginning and ask, why are means scarce? Did not humans start out as most other animals? Much like deer, antelopes, wolves or lions? What ends do these animals live for? And what ends did the early humans live for? The only end for animals seems to be procreation. I doubt the early humans strove for something much higher. And most humans of these days don't strive for much else either. Behind all the struggles and achievements of modern humans that is one stark truth. There are few, very very few might I add, that strive for a higher or even different purpose. But for the vast majority the purpose of life is to procreate: to keep the individual genes and the species going.

The animals: the wolves, the antelopes, the lions and the deer, manage just fine without any knowledge of economics. Food is abundant, so is water and air. Sunlight is abundant. All conditions that were necessary for life to first begin are still there. For these animals and others, there is no scarcity. And if there is, it is part of nature. The natural scarcity that they faced is different from the economic scarcity modern humans are accustomed to. If the water dries up in one lake, there is yet another. If the leaves have all been eaten from one tree, there are still other trees. If one antelope gets away, there will be another to prey on. Nature, that gave rise to these animals, takes care of them. The territorial behavior of animals that we see is limited to only a few species and is not only temporary, but is also related to procreation. Outside of that animals share resources. If resources become scarce in one area, perhaps due to flood or fire, these animals move on to another area. I have little doubt that early humans behaved no differently from the other animals they shared their habitat with.

Early humans were not so different from animals in regard to both behavior and the purpose or end they were living for: they lived to procreate and they lived off the land. Modern humans have pretty much the same purpose they live for as well. And the means of meeting that end is still the same: we get all our resources from the land. So, if the means have remained the same and the end is the same too, where did economics come from?