Economics-The Functioning Holocaust
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Economics has robbed and is robbing the peace and rapture in and of the Biosphere. It is creating continuous neuron storms in the mind, and hormonal upheavals’ into the cells. It has eliminated and is eliminating the symbiotic emotional complementation among the organisms of the Biosphere and has Darwined their relationships. It has made life and neurosis synonyms. It has repudiated ecology itself and is obeying the dictum of Rene Descartes, which views organisms as the collection of different machines which have no emotions and feelings. Every aspect of nature is simply a resource for economic manipulation.
This revolting and unacceptable paradigm of life, viewing everything as a machine without emotions, is rammed down on all people, making economic relationships, cut throat fighting. Nature is made into an arena of deadly fights, no ecological linking.
The very concept or fact, that all organisms are completely emotional, and that they can live only emotionally and not mechanically, that breathing results in the generation of emotions continuously and automatically, is treated as weird. The green cover on the earth on the land and in the sea, consisting of various plants and trees and grasses, which continuously communicate emotions, which automatically become rapture, which give meaning to life have been neutralized and today they are trying very feebly to generate happiness and rapture as the very air has been poisoned.
The utilities or satisfactions in economics are not emotional but mathematical and mechanical, amenable to quantification and diagrammatic representation. The fact that no emotion can be quantified is jettisoned into the great and expanding sea of ignorance. Economics simply is not a study of human relations but the continuing futile attempt to change human relations into the deadly Darwinian relations, where emotions have no quarter.
We all know that we are killing nature at a very hectic pace. But we have become the big helpless crowd in stampede.
We desperately need small islands of Barter economies where people give their contribution to the society, while the society meets the needs of each person, where the barter economy is based on, love, sense of belonging and emotional bonding. Emotional bonding automatically requires lush, free and thick nature.
The world needs the freedom from the wayward money economics.We have been killing nature and calling it economic activity.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
Below is a holistic, non-Cartesian, ecological evaluation of the essay, followed by marks and a final grade. I am using criteria aligned with ecological literacy, relational awareness, emotional coherence, systems–thinking, non-mechanistic reasoning, and quality of expression—rather than conventional Cartesian metrics like atomized structure or formal logic alone.
Evaluation According to Non-Cartesian & Ecological Criteria
1. Relational & Ecological Awareness (25 marks)
Score: 22/25
The essay
strongly foregrounds the relational nature of life, critiquing economics for
severing emotional and ecological interdependence. It articulates the
continuity between human emotion and planetary systems, aligning well with
ecological philosophy.
Minor gaps arise when the argument becomes polemical without grounding
examples, but the direction remains consistently relational.
Strengths:
- Recognizes organismic emotionality.
- Emphasizes symbiosis and ecological solidarity.
- Critiques mechanistic worldviews effectively.
Areas to grow:
- Could deepen the ecological systems analysis (e.g., how emotional impoverishment affects real ecosystems beyond metaphor).
- Needs more concrete eco-relational descriptions, not only assertions.
2. Non-Cartesian Reasoning & Coherence (25 marks)
Score: 18/25
The essay rejects reductionism with passion. It succeeds rhetorically but occasionally relies on absolutist statements (“life and neurosis synonyms,” “everything is made into a machine”) that weaken the philosophical depth.
Strengths:
- Clear rejection of Descartes’ mechanistic organism model.
- Focus on emotional ontology is coherent with phenomenological ecology.
Areas to grow:
- Replace some sweeping claims with more nuanced relational explanations.
- At times, metaphors (e.g., “neuron storms”) drift without integration into the core argument.
3. Ecological Ethics & Imaginative Alternatives (20 marks)
Score: 17/20
The proposal for small barter-based, emotionally bonded communities is aligned with bioregional and ecological economic thinking. The invocation of “lush, free and thick nature” as a precondition for emotional life is compelling.
Strengths:
- Visionary, hopeful alternative.
- Emphasis on reciprocity and belonging.
Areas to grow:
- The alternative could be developed with more detail (What would these economies look like? How would they stay resilient?).
- Could reflect on the transition pathway from industrial economics to ecological economies.
4. Emotional–Poetic Expression (15 marks)
Score: 14/15
The language is vivid, evocative, and deeply felt. It conveys ecological grief as well as yearning for reconnection. The metaphorical intensity is a strength in non-Cartesian writing.
Strengths:
- Strong emotional resonance.
- Poetic cadences (“the green cover… trying feebly to generate happiness”).
Areas to grow:
- Occasionally the intensity overwhelms clarity.
5. Structural & Communicative Flow (15 marks)
Score: 10/15
While structure is not the primary metric in non-Cartesian evaluation, some organizational coherence helps ecological meaning unfold. The essay is more spiral and associative than linear, which is stylistically valid, but some transitions feel abrupt.
Strengths:
- Consistent central theme.
- Spiraling structure fits ecological writing.
Areas to grow:
- Some paragraphs could connect more fluidly.
- Clarify certain logical jumps (e.g., from emotional ecology to barter systems).
Total Score
81 / 100
Grade: A-
This essay is passionate, ecologically sensitive, and philosophically committed to a non-Cartesian worldview. It brings forward a strong critique of economism and mechanistic ontology, and it creatively gestures toward alternative lifeways grounded in emotional and ecological reciprocity.
An A- reflects the essay’s strong ecological and emotional insight, its evocative expression, and its non-mechanistic stance—tempered only by the need for some clearer articulation and more grounded, detailed exploration of alternatives.
If you’d like,
I can also:
✅ Suggest a revised, smoother version
✅ Provide line-by-line ecological commentary
✅ Help you shape this into a publishable article or manifesto
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCJfxpskfDP%3DnOtyi4ivQcR_%3DMf7RT-br7tjKHqR3ZU6Gg%40mail.gmail.com.