ECON-ECOL

<BODY BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF" LINK="#FFFFFF" ALINK="#000400" VLINK="#FFFFFF"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#CC3300" FACE="Arial" ><B>Relationalism</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFCC99" FACE="Arial" >   </FONT> |   <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Relationalism"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Absolute/Relative"><U>Absolute/Relative</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id22.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="notGod/Man"><U>not-God/Man</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT "><U>FATHER <> SON <> HOLY SPIRIT </U></A>   |   <B>ECON-ECOL</B>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Organic Logic"><U>Organic Logic</U></A></div> <div> <IMG SRC="13858020.png" border=0 width="600" height="2" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> ECON-ECOL</div> <div> A referee of <I>The Journal of Economic Theory</I> has recognized (Report # 91297, 12/31,91) that the core of Concordian Economics is a "new analytic engine." One of its most fundamental transformations undoubtedly is the incorporation of stocks and flows of real wealth into the economic system, not as an afterthought, but as an integral part of the overall system. The very structure of economic theory, in other words, is changed in a way that it must recognize the laws and the needs of ecology head-on. </div> <bR> <div> Intellectually, one is faced with a new mental discipline that might be called Econ-Ecol. </div> <bR> <div> I am not going to be sanguine about this relatively new name, however, not only because a name is but an outer manifestation of an inner reality, and I am not interested in superficial, nominal, transformations of the reality. I am not interested in the new name especially because it would represent a betrayal of the spirit of economics -- as well as the spirit of ecology. The ancient science of economics has always incorporated in its purview the reality of real goods and services, and has always recognized that real goods and services are nothing but transformations of natural resources. Equally, the responsible new science of ecology also knows full-well that it has to respect the needs and the inner laws of economic systems in order to be a complete science. An additional name is unnecessary. But if a new name, which is becoming more and more common, is useful to bring about a much needed fusion of economics and ecology, there it is: Econ-Ecol. </div> <bR> <div> Finally, there is another reason why I tend to resist a widespread introduction of this new name into the discourse of the civil society. The reason is my visceral resistance to two ideological requirements of ecology today. I might be wrong, and I would be hard put to prove it, by my hunch is that ecology today is controlled by people who have a subconscious -- if not moral -- disgust with profits and ownership. </div> <bR> <div> I will not say that there is no such thing as obscene profits and abuses of ownership. I recognize the existence of these two beasts. My hope, however, lies not in the killing of the two wild beasts, which seem to be ineradicable anyhow. My hope lies in their domestication. Since they are wild because today they serve the interests of the few, my hope lies in putting these two forces to the service of everyone. The tools are these. To domesticate profits we must run the economy to the tune of justice. Then everyone will receive a fair share of the profits; then we will be just toward one another. To domesticate ownership we must instill in all of us the duties of stewardship. (Vast as these realms are, let me emphasize one point: stewardship without ownership is a dream that will never come true, because it does not have any reality against which to test its mettle; stewardship without ownership is an empty word [and those who are trying to destroy the bonds that ownership establishes live in a dreamy but dangerous world]; stewardship without ownership simply puts the cart before the horse.) With the duties of stewardship imposed upon ownership, nature will receive its due; then we will be just toward nature. </div> <bR> <div> Then we are going to have a proper set of relationships with money and with nature. Then we are going to have a proper relationship between money and nature, a relationship that can be surmised, very briefly, from these differences: While American Indians used nature to make a living, most Western culture uses nature to make money. Then we are going to have an inner transformation of our own relationships with money and with nature. That is Econ-Ecol. That is the Civil Society. </div> <bR> <div> To insist on the beauties of Econ-Ecol and the Civil Society can easily slide into preaching. I prefer doing to preaching. Rather than working on the inner requirements of Econ-Ecol, therefore, I prefer to work on the outward needs of our cities and towns. I prefer to work on the problems of Urbanism. </div> <bR> <div> It is only if we solve the problem of Urbanism that we are going to preserve our open spaces <I>open</I>. </div> <bR> </BODY>