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?