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,
- Economics hasn't really removed scarcity for humans,
- Economics wasn't really necessary for the survival of the human species, certainly not other species, and,
- 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?
Posts
1 comment:
A creature thats as as smart as humans and hence is able to consume a lot more resources than another creature of the same size could not have supported a population of 7 billion unless there was some sense of collective prioritization.
In any case, like other academic studies, economics also started off as a observational study - just to observe and comment on how groups of people act and react. And then someone realized we could use all that knowledge for active practice as well. The process of converting thought to action is lossy and hence practice by its nature is imperfect. But its the best we got.
Post a Comment