Let me define economics and meta-economics for this context before I start with any debate. Economics helps us decide based on one crucial judgement - whether an action yields a monetary profit to those who undertake it or not. What, then, is meta-economics? As economics deals with man in environment, we define metaeconomics to be dealing with two aspects - one dealing with man and the other dealing with the environment. In other words, this is economics that derives its aims and objectives from a study of man, and that it must derive at least a large part of its methodology from a study of nature.(E.F. schumacher)
For most of the things, meta-economics has been seen as a kind of hindrance to profit-oriented economics. Mostly we talk about balancing 'growth' with environmental conversation. But, it is not the case always. It is not conflicting in all the cases. I will just give an example of using compost derived urban waste for farming. Here, we agree that compost derived from urban waste is surely more eco-friendly. But we tend to believe that it might be costly for the farmer using such compost and also that it might not be productive enough. Let us look at reality. When compost was used it did give higher productivity. Now let us also look at input costs in both cases.
This is just one example. Here, we see a saving of 10% in total costs and 50% in usage of most other input material and also compliance with meta-economics .I will post other examples as we can move towards looking at meta-economics as a thing that could co-exist with economics
0 comments:
Post a Comment