CONSCIOUS ECONOMICS; A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMIC
PERFACE.
I will like to start by saying that no theory is given as they all are some form of social construction in
their own right hence cannot be treated as an absolute truth that cannot be contradicted or challenged.
If we seek to progress at this tumultuous times in our collective history then it is important for us to
consider and reconsider the theories that we live by. Commerce, since the inception of man has always
existed in one form of the other however what is peculiar is the fact more often than not the economic
structure of each time is in part a reflection of the point in time-space. Ever social structure is in itself a
window to particular period in the collective history, development and evolution of man because every
theory regardless of what field it is postulated in is a function of what is known at that in point hence
relative consequently to know better is to put forward better theories. The fact ideas and theories are
all a function of what is known at particular point in time-space is the main reason why we should not
fear to always consistent evaluate these theories no matter how deeply held they are to see if they still
serve as today. The failure to do this will imply that we are trying to use old ideas to solve modern
challenges.
CONSCIOUS ECONOMICS
While there are a number fundamental principles that collective make up the totality of economic
theory, central to economics is the theory of scarcity of resources.
Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of
limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants
and needs. This serves as an essential foundation upon which economics is built basically on the
assumption that resources are scarce. While no one can effectively argue otherwise that human wants
are truly insatiable, however from an esoteric philosophical perspective I would like to say that the fact
that man’s wants are insatiable has nothing to do with economics and it’s a fundamental error for us to
have solely tied man’s desires and wants to the bandwagon of economic materiality when it truth what
appears as the instability of the wants and desires of man although while having an economic angle to it
has really nothing to do with economics and materiality. Like Amit Goswami said in his book ‘Quantum
Economics’ “the basic economic model in most of the world today, was formulated in an age dominated
by the philosophy of modernism or Cartesian dualism in which both matter and mind were valued.”
Man’s insatiable desire and wants stems from the desire of man to know and wake to his real self and
nature and until he does this regardless of the heights that he may climb or how grand and great his
material possession and achievement maybe he will suffer from the same base insatiable desire as the
man next to him. On the one hand it is this desire that lies at the root of all of man’s achievement and
economic progress. Commerce and the advancement of civilization is in itself a measure of the
insatiability of man’s desire and every of man’s reaching out is in a direct proportion of the urge to reach
within. Even if he is to go to the moon and back, transverse the entire solar system and makes it across
to the clusters of galaxies in the universe and still goes ahead to explore and conquer the entire cosmos,
he wants and desires will be unquenched and unsatisfied. Hence the only water that can quench the
every pressing desires of man is for himself to awaken to himself which if done will likewise have
profound economic advantages because for starters we can say goodbye to the days of war, arms and
weapons of mass destruction, environmental depletion and degradation and economy drive by pure
greed and welcome an era of peace and tranquility and advancement of technology that will not
sacrifice environmental health and planetary wellbeing and personal security and privacy on the altar of
economic wealth and progress.
Regardless of how we choose to look at it the economic and environmental situation of the world today
it is somewhat a technological interpretation of opportunities forgone, a zero sum approach to thing
which dictates that you have to forgo something for the sake of another instead of a win-win approach
where man lives in unity with his environment and planet as a whole. The basic assumption that has
driven man’s development over the years has been based on the primary idea that there is separate
field for human activities (technological and economic) and a separate field for the environment and the
planet and as such these two fields do not interact or meet. To suppose that this extension of the
Descartes logic of a separation of the I from Me, in is true is nothing short of pure ignorance. This
dilemma however is quite understandable because no man can exhibit what he is ignorant about and for
the whole race; we will not be able to experience that which our collective consciousness (race
consciousness) to a large extent is ignorant about. This however is a topic for another day for the
essence of this paper is to overturn a fundamental assumption central to economics and this
assumption is the principle of the scarcity.
I would like to start by saying that a theory or principle that is incapable to revision is one that is bound
to die. Such a theory will be one that will find itself unable to adequately account for the complexities of
the ever changing world and if religion itself is not immune to this, then not even our beloved principles
of economics can be immune to this fundamental principle of life.
According to the traditional principle of economics as we were taught in school “scarcity is the
fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a finite world with
limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants
and needs” (Wikipedia). Especially when we consider the fact that we live on a planet with limited
boundaries hence finite and not necessary limited resources.
While this view point has been properly articulated and buttressed by most economists since time in
memorial, I am of the opinion that the assumption of the scarcity of economic resources is a crucial
error, a weakness in the amour of the theory economics. More so the view of the scarcity of resources
has done more harm than good when we look at the overall picture and come into a good
understanding of the true nature of things. First of all, what are resources? What makes a thing of value
that we are quick to term it as a resource or better still a productive resource while discarding other? Is
it simply a function of the cost and factors of production and its retail price? The dictionary defines
resource as “that of which one resort or on which one depends for supply or support”. Bearing this in
mind we see that the word resource means that which we resort to for support or in terms of a nation,
resource will be that which we resort to in regards to material production or wealth or revenue increase.
Hence we realize that there is a direct correlation between resource and wealth and general livelihood;
be it of a person or of a nation. The next logical question that proceeds from this definition of resource
is what then is a resource or better still what qualifies something as a resource? We would all agree that
what makes a thing a resource is the amount of value it confers on its owner, the higher the value the
higher it is on the scale of resourcefulness and the value of something is found in the sacrifice it requires
to obtain it. So to determine how resourceful a thing is in regard to material production, revenue and
wealth generation, all we have to do is look at its predictable value. Fossil fuel for example is regarded
as a prime resource in the world today because of its immediate value and value chain as it also
determines the wealth and growth of a nation. Likewise in an increasing globalized world driven by ICT,
information communication technology appears to be a very important resource in the world today. As
a matter of fact it is said that you can determine the wealth of a nation by the level of it ICT penetration
and depth. Using these two examples it is adequate to see that what makes a thing a resource is
determined by the level of its immediate value and other value chain as well. Since the days of Adam
Smith, the scarcity of resource has always been at the heart of economics and in other to refute this; I
suggest that we carry out a thought experiment which is not beyond the reach of any thinking person.
Let’s take a lion, a sheep and a man and place before each of them; stones, leaves, diamond, gold and
iron in a bit to see which of the items will appeal best of the participants as that which appeals best
ultimately becomes the primary resource for that participant. To the lion none of the stones, leaves
diamond or gold are of no value in themselves, neither are they of all value to the sheep thus to these
two animals they cannot be regarded as resources hence they are of no use of these animals. The lion
will find the sheep of much more value than Gold, Iron or diamonds, while the sheep will find grass of
greater value than diamonds and precious stones. But in the case of the man, the iron, gold and
diamond are of value but the most resource would be diamond and gold while iron will come next and
the stone comes in last because it has little or zero value to the man in question. With this example in
mind, I ask the question what is it that enables man to make the distinction between the things placed
before him the same thing that was lacking in the sheep and the lion. To the lion, weather gold is
ubiquitous or scarce is no importance to the lion thus of zero value hence not a resource. As a matter of
fact, the lion will regard not only wild animals but also rain and a stream of water as resources central to
its survival than regard gold, silver, diamond or even fossil fuel because if there is rain, there will be
vegetation and where there is vegetation animals will come to graze and when they eventual come to
graze, the lion can haunt with ease. The same thing too goes for the stream of water; where there is a
stream of water, animals will come to have a drink and when they do, the lion can likewise haunt with
the great ease.
In this simple though experiment we see that what makes a thing a resource is not a function of the
thing itself but it is a factor of the ability of the specie in question to make distinctions and the ability to
make distinction stems from ability to think. To properly understand why the gold, diamond et al are of
prime importance to the man and of zero importance to both the sheep and the lion we must delve a
little into the realm of psychology and eastern philosophy.
In order to properly make this distinction between the man, the sheep and the lion, we must go beyond
their physical makeup and look else. While on the surface it appears that there are a lot of difference
between the man, the sheep and the lion, however the principal difference between all of them lies in
one factor, the level of intelligence or consciousness that they exhibit. Both eastern and western
philosophy and even quantum physics are all in agreement to the fact that everything in this universe is
alive, and manifest some level or levels of consciousness; form the blade of grass to the crystal to the
mountains and even stars billions of light years away, they all manifest some level or levels of
consciousness/intelligence. It is this discovery that made physics drop the idea of a clear distinction
between what we once knew as living and non-living things and join in with both eastern and western
philosopher to chorus that this is not a dead universe but a living universe driven by intelligence. As a
matter of fact it is held that the difference between thing be it inanimate (used in term to mean lacking
spirit) and animate is essential and principally a function of the level of consciousness/intelligence of the
thing in question; be it as a collective or as an individual.
Hence we see that what makes a species is principally its level of intelligence. In the same regards what
differentiate an epoch of civilization and societal arrangement inclusive of the means and factors of
production from the next if not the aggregate level of intelligence of the collective whole at a specific
point in time/space. It is this level of intelligence/thinking that defines societal arrangement,
technological advancement, means and factors of production et al. what separates say ancient Egypt
and Greece from our present day besides the fact they represent different point in time of human
history? The primary difference is the level of collective intelligence which in turn defined the level of
thinking and the mental height of the people. Because when we look at it, fossil fuel which we heavily
depend on today was present then, so was electricity and likewise it was possible for them to have not
only discovered all these things but they could also have invented television, twitter, Facebook,
Mercedes Benz, the internet and developed a global and intricate system of commerce and
industrialization because everything was present back then. The only thing that was lacking wasn’t the
means or factors of productive resources but the intellectual heights necessary to tap and make use of
that which was already very present for them there and then. It was the lack of the present intellectual
heights back then that in turn defined their social structures and institutions also the factors and means
of production. Even while agriculture was and still represent a huge economic market present back then
but they lacked the present technological tools that we have which are the tractors and likes to ease up
and quicken the process. In the same vein what will differentiate the society of today with its societal
structure and its means and factors of production will not be alien intervention as believed by some
neither will it be the discovery of some resources that isn’t already present here and now. The key
difference between the society and economy of today and that of tomorrow will be the average
intellectual height and mental capacity of its people which in turn will find interpretation in
technological advancement, better means and factors of production and societal structure and
arrangement in general.
With this in mind we go back to the theory of economic scarcity and we realize that productive
resources are not and cannot be scarce for the primary reason that the most effective productive
resource is not be found in raw material because as a matter of fact using fossil fuel as an example over
the years, we have found better and more effective means of exploring, refining and transporting fossil
fuel. If raw material themselves are not to be regarded as the principal productive resource because to
regard raw material in themselves as productive resources will be to take effects and regard them as
cause thus inverting the creative process which is what economics has done over the year, what then
should we regard as the prima productive resource be it in the case of an individual or a nation. As
shown with our little though experiment the most essential and the number one productive resource(s)
is the average intellectual height of the race hence intelligence or better still thinking is the one and the
most fundamental resource. What separates man from animal is not the bodily covering but the
presence of mind which is his capacity to think be it logically or irrationally.
Central to the new theory of thinking and to the economy of tomorrow is the theory that the ability to
think - the average intellectual height of the people is the first and only productive resources. And we
see this already happening with the ever increasing brain drain and intellectual importation happening
around the world especially within the corporate space. Today the race is not for the person with the
fanciest degrees but it is for those who have their thinking caps on and can show their mental prowess.
While the world today appears to be driven by crude oil because of its immediate value et al. I am very
certain that right here right now are better resources that if tapped and explored will yield better energy
that crude oil. If we find way to unlock the abundance of energy all around us then the race for crude oil
will be a matter of the past. (ie, the faraday experiment for one shows that it is possible to get higher
and better form of energy from a vacuum environment. More so, according to the documented speech
of Nikolai tesla which he gave annually during his birthday, he was on the verge of announcing
something that he believed would have impacted mankind positively in regards to electricity considering
the fact that he is the father of the electric age) And with this new intellectual height will come better
means, factors and key determinant of production and social structure and hierarchy.
This new theory of conscious economic is one that asserts the mind as the most basic and most
fundamental productive resource as such it is the most crucial economic resource there is. It is theory of
economics that understand that resources in themselves are nothing without the intelligence of man to
unlock, tap and put them to good use. And if quantum mechanics and esoteric philosophy are both right
that this is a universe filled an abundant of energy and a creating universe then it appears to be
impossible for man to exhaust all his resources because the primary implication is that it been a creating
universe where the consciousness of man has a measureable effect, then man can create for himself
that which he collectively requires to perpetuate his extistence. And if the mind is the most fundamental
of all resources it then must be understood, unlocked and put to valuable use because the level of
mental development and heights is in tandem to the level of development of the people at a specific
point in time and space