Ecology, Theism and Economics
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
If nature is allowed to bloom, one feels exhilaration in pleasant feeling of nature continuously, the feeling entering one’s body through every pore of the skin, breath, ears in the shape of pleasant music, creating the glow of health. One lives ecologically in belief as experience of feeling. One moves forward in exhilaration and anticipation and it does not drag one into some memory, suspending one from the flow. One lives 100% in the present.
Belief is something which can be deduced only on the basis of behaviour. When I walk on a road, it means that I believe that the ground under me can hold my weight. Belief is not theoretical logic. It is the basis of behaviour. When one lives ecologically, one automatically believes in nature and flows with nature, singing and dancing in rapture.
Belief in nature is Theism. Economics which follows the tenets of ecology will become an extension of Theism. But when Economics, escapes ecology, trods on assumptions, creating mathematics on the basis of those assumptions, writes off ecology completely with the clause ‘other things being equal’, then it becomes the big blundering menace to the ecosphere and the biosphere. Economics then becomes a big abyss.
When nature is blooming, nature becomes the propelling trigger of many creative ideas. One gets ideas from nature as nature and not from one’s own brain. Ideas are the results of one’s flow in nature and not when nature is killed. Just go and sit in a place where nature is blooming, enjoying the breezes, the winds, the waterfalls etc, then you cannot prevent the creative surge, nature creates in you.
Unfortunately the irrationality of modelling economics on the lines of Newtonian Mechanics is even today continued making it essentially unnatural. There is a gigantic pretence of sense, in the presentation of human life as a reduction in cost curves, revenue curves...etc,no different from the spectacle of the naked king on the throne.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
That’s a beautiful and profound essay by YM Sarma, weaving together ecology, theism, and economics into a unified philosophy of living and understanding.
Here’s a brief summary and interpretation of the main ideas, followed by a short reflection:
🌱 Summary
- Living Ecologically as Belief
- True ecological living is not an intellectual stance but a felt experience — being in harmony with nature through all senses.
- Belief, in this view, is practical and embodied: our behavior reveals what we truly believe, not our words or logic.
- Theism as Belief in Nature
- When one lives ecologically — flowing with nature’s rhythms — one naturally participates in a form of theism.
- Theism here is not dogmatic religion but reverence for the natural order and the creative intelligence inherent in life itself.
- Economics as an Extension of Ecology
- A truly ecological economics would align with theism — it would honor nature’s laws and cycles.
- But modern economics, detached from ecology and built on abstract mathematical assumptions (“other things being equal”), becomes destructive — a “blundering menace” to life itself.
- Nature as the Source of Creativity
- Creativity and inspiration arise from communion with nature. When one is attuned to natural beauty — the breeze, waterfalls, blooming trees — ideas arise spontaneously.
- In contrast, destruction or alienation from nature stifles creativity.
- Critique of Mechanistic Economics
- The essay critiques the legacy of Newtonian mechanics in economic modeling — the idea that human life and nature can be reduced to predictable equations and cost curves.
- This reductionism, though dressed in scientific rigor, is hollow — “a gigantic pretence of sense,” much like “the naked king on the throne.”
🌿 Reflection
Sarma’s thought echoes the deep ecology movement and philosophical theism, proposing that reverence for life and ecological balance should ground not only spirituality but also economic systems. It’s a call to re-sacralize economics, to reconnect production and consumption with the living web of nature.
By equating ecological living with belief and theism, he transforms both religion and economics from abstract systems into lived experiences — ways of feeling, behaving, and participating in the vitality of the planet.
Would you like me to write a short analytical essay or academic-style summary of this piece (e.g., suitable for a class discussion or publication)?
Certainly. Below is a detailed evaluation of the essay “Ecology, Theism and Economics” by Y.M. Sarma, including marks, a grade, and qualitative remarks from both a literary-philosophical and academic-writing perspective.
🧾 Evaluation
1. Content and Depth of Thought (40 marks)
Score: 36 / 40
· The essay presents a profound and original synthesis of ecology, theism, and economics.
· It moves beyond conventional boundaries, linking environmental awareness to belief and spirituality, and offering a philosophical critique of mechanistic economics.
· The insight that belief is lived behavior, not abstract logic, is especially strong.
· Some arguments could be developed with more evidence or examples (e.g., how ecological economics could function practically).
Remarks: Deeply reflective and conceptually rich; philosophically significant though not empirically detailed.
2. Organization and Coherence (20 marks)
Score: 15 / 20
· The essay flows intuitively, like a stream of consciousness—appropriate for the subject but lacking formal structure.
· Transitions between sections (ecology → theism → economics → creativity) could be smoother and more explicitly connected.
· Some repetition in phrasing slightly weakens the logical build-up.
Remarks: Strong thematic unity, but the argument could benefit from clearer signposting and paragraph-level organization.
3. Language and Style (20 marks)
Score: 17 / 20
· The prose is poetic, evocative, and emotionally charged.
· Use of imagery (“pleasant feeling of nature entering through every pore”) powerfully conveys the lived experience of ecology.
· However, occasional long sentences and abstract phrasing reduce clarity for academic readers.
Remarks: Excellent literary tone; slightly verbose for formal exposition but beautifully expressive.
4. Originality and Critical Insight (20 marks)
Score: 19 / 20
· The essay boldly critiques the mechanistic foundations of modern economics, connecting it with a moral and ecological philosophy.
· The analogy of “the naked king” is vivid and effective.
· The reinterpretation of “theism” as harmony with nature is a refreshing, inclusive, and modern theological stance.
Remarks: Original and visionary; demonstrates independent and integrative thinking.
🧮 Total: 87 / 100
Grade: A (Excellent)
🗣️ Overall Remarks
Y.M. Sarma’s “Ecology, Theism and Economics” is a thought-provoking philosophical essay that blends spirituality, ecology, and critique of modern rationality with poetic eloquence. Its greatest strength lies in its visionary synthesis — seeing economics not as an isolated human discipline but as an extension of life’s sacred balance.
However, to reach its full potential as an academic or policy-relevant work, it could:
· Provide clearer structure and transitions between themes,
· Offer a few concrete examples of ecological economics in practice,
· Simplify or clarify some sentences to improve readability.
Overall, this is a profound and inspiring piece — more a philosophical meditation than an academic paper, but one that succeeds brilliantly on its own terms.
Would you like me to provide a revised version of the essay that keeps the same ideas but improves its academic coherence and style (suitable for publication or grading at the university level)?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Newtonian mechanics of economics, ecology and theism
In economics, a "Newtonian" approach refers to the historical adoption of classical mechanics as a guiding metaphor for economic systems. This framework, which views the economy as a predictable system driven by universal, deterministic laws, has been both influential and controversial since the time of early classical and neoclassical economists.
Key concepts drawn from Newtonian mechanics
Forces and equilibrium: This is arguably the most direct analogy. Just as Isaac Newton explained the motion of planets through the balancing forces of gravity and inertia, early economists visualized markets through balancing forces.
Market clearing equilibrium: In this model, the "force" of supply and the "force" of demand interact to pull the market toward a state of equilibrium, where the two forces balance and the market is cleared.
Léon Walras's general equilibrium: Inspired by celestial mechanics, Walras formulated a quantitative, mathematical framework to show how all markets in an economy could simultaneously reach equilibrium, with prices adjusting dynamically in response to excess supply or demand.
Mathematical optimization: The mathematical techniques used by Newton and later physicists, such as calculus, were adopted by economists like William Stanley Jevons and Irving Fisher to model economic behavior. They sought to find equilibrium points by maximizing or minimizing functions, mirroring the optimization principles used in physics.
Deterministic and predictable systems: The Newtonian worldview suggested a universe governed by fixed and measurable laws, making it predictable. Early economists extended this deterministic perspective to human behavior, believing economic systems were similarly governed by universal, mathematically describable laws.
Critiques of the Newtonian framework
The flawed metaphor: Critics argue that comparing social and economic systems to physical mechanics is a flawed metaphor. Unlike predictable physical matter, human action is driven by subjective, unpredictable factors like emotion, uncertainty, and changing preferences. Economist John Maynard Keynes famously noted this fundamental uncertainty, paralleling it to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.
Rejection of disequilibrium: The focus on equilibrium in neoclassical models, derived from Newtonian physics, fails to adequately explain market phenomena that are inherently non-equilibrium, such as market crashes, business cycles, and other financial instability. The global financial crisis of 2008 exposed the fragility of models based on perfect equilibrium and rational expectations.
Overly simplified assumptions: The Newtonian-inspired approach requires highly restrictive assumptions, such as perfect competition and perfect information, that do not hold in the real world. It struggles to account for complex, non-linear interactions, delays, and other "market frictions" that prevent instantaneous adjustments.
Alternatives and descendants: Beyond Newtonian mechanics
Keynes and complexity: Keynes's theories, with their emphasis on uncertainty and disequilibrium, represented a departure from strict neoclassical mechanics. More recently, the modern field of complexity economics seeks to model the economy not as a predictable machine, but as a complex adaptive system with decentralized interactions and emergent properties.
Econophysics: Emerging in the 1990s, Econophysics is an interdisciplinary field that applies concepts and methods from statistical physics and the physics of complex systems to economic problems. Unlike the earlier Newtonian inspiration, Econophysics utilizes advanced concepts like statistical mechanics and network theory to study financial market volatility and wealth distribution. It empirically analyzes vast datasets to uncover hidden patterns that traditional economics may miss, such as the "fat tails" of distribution that show extreme market movements are more common than classical models suggest.
The analogy to Newtonian mechanics was a foundational step in establishing modern, mathematical economics. It provided early theorists with a powerful framework for modeling markets and rational behavior. However, this classical, deterministic approach has been heavily criticized for failing to capture the complexity and unpredictability of real-world economies. The development of fields like econophysics and complexity economics reflects a movement toward more dynamic and data-driven models, drawing inspiration from the richer, post-Newtonian world of physics to better understand economic systems.
The Uncertainty Principle is the most familiar concept from quantum physics. It reflects the idea that it is impossible to observe a particle without affecting the particle. The analogous concept in social sciences is often called the “observer effect,” and I explore how it plays out in experimental work on the endowment effect and social (otherregarding) preferences—cognitive phenomena of central importance in behavioral law and economics. The Uncertainty Principle for law and economics unpacks the methodological limitations inherent in much existing work upon which behavioral law and economics relies. By doing so, it helps clarify the way to more robust and policy-relevant experimental work. Much of this work is already underway, and I identify examples of key innovations scholars in behavioral law and economics have made. One of the key moves for behavioral law and economics that I advocate is to connect empirical findings to a theory of human decision-making. A theory that incorporates and makes coherent the many results from the laboratory lays the groundwork for predicting how behavioral effects will manifest outside the lab—i.e., in the real-world settings relevant to legal policy. The Quantum Conjecture is my tentative step toward such a theory. In physics, the Quantum Principle says that matter and energy cannot always be subdivided; they exist in discrete, indivisible chunks called quanta. This provides a rough but powerful analogy: my Quantum Conjecture for behavioral law and economics is that human attention cannot be perfectly and infinitely divided (as traditional models of economic decision-making assume), but can only be parceled out in discrete chunks. As I will explain, a model of decision-making as rationing a limited number of packets of mental effort out among a multitude of important choices may help unify various behavioral phenomena that we currently treat as distinct (e.g., the “certainty effect” and “choice overload”) and legal phenomena from diverse areas (e.g., “unfair prejudice” in evidence and the “precautionary principle” in regulation).
There is one more contribution that the analogy to physics offers. By casting law and economics in a different light, it overturns some prevalent misconceptions about law and economics. I have already challenged the notion that behavioral and neoclassical approaches are rivals rather than two faces of the same coin. To this I add that behavioral law and economics, not just neoclassical economics, must face up to the critique that it relies on simplistic and artificial assumptions about human behavior. Finally, I reject the stereotype that neoclassical economics is ideologically right-wing or anti-regulatory and that behavioral economics is ideologically left-wing or pro-regulatory. (Indeed, I will argue that there is a sense in which the reverse is true.) In short, the contributions of this Article are threefold. First, the analogy to quantum and Newtonian physics, and specifically the Uncertainty and Correspondence Principles, helps to organize and reframe the relationship between behavioral and neoclassical law and economics. Second, the Quantum Conjecture suggests a direction toward more unified and coherent theory in behavioral law and economics. This is a necessary next step for the field to overcome concerns that its mish-mash of empirical findings yields indeterminate behavioral predictions, and is therefore not policy-relevant. Third, delving deeper into the analogy reveals further lessons for law and economics, lessons which I hope will disrupt some of the generalizations about the field that we’ve become too comfortable with.
Although Newtonian mechanics has been very successful at describing the interactions of most of the physical systems that we can see in the world, it breaks down when we look at the tiniest constituent pieces of our universe: subatomic particles. Once we no longer look at matter in the aggregate, but focus on its smallest individual components, the world starts to look quite a bit different from what the classical model would predict. Matter behaves like energy, and energy behaves like matter. Particles behave like waves, and waves behave like particles. (Or perhaps more accurately, particles are waves.) Two things can be in the same place at the same time and the same thing can be in two different places at the same time. (Or perhaps more accurately, nothing is anywhere until you look at it and then it’s somewhere.)
I briefly introduce neoclassical and behavioral economics before tying them in with the uncertainty, correspondence, and quantum principles. A. Neoclassical Economics The methodology of most of the work that’s been done in law and economics over the last half-century is neoclassical economics. There is a vast amount that could be said about this field, but I will briefly highlight only two of its most salient concepts, both of which are central to understanding the critique of neoclassical economics by behavioral economists. 1. The Law of Demand. The single most powerful tool in the economist’s toolkit, and the most general and robust of all theoretical predictions in economics, is the Law of Demand. The Law of Demand states that people will consume more of something when its price is lower and less of something when its price is higher. Importantly, “price” is not limited solely to the money cost of something, but also the amount of time or energy it takes to realize a goal, or the lost opportunity that one forgoes when choosing to do one thing, rather than another. This notion that human behavior responds to prices in this way allows economists both to understand behavior and to generate useful and consistent predictions about behavior in countless fields of human activity. Application of the Law of Demand to generate models of human behavior is often called “price theory.” Perhaps the most famous price theorist was Gary Becker, for whom the Law of Demand was a unifying principle permitting insight into not just markets, but a wide range of social, legal, and political institutions, including crime, discrimination, fertility, marriage, education, and addiction. Importantly, the Law of Demand is a unifying principle that relates much of the theoretical and empirical work in neoclassical economics. Theoretical work uses the principles of the Law of Demand to develop formal (usually mathematical) models of human behavior that generate predictions about how behavior responds to different incentives. These predictions can then be used to specify empirically testable hypotheses, which subsequent empirical work can then support or refute. To the extent that empirical findings tend to support a model, economists can rely on that model to make predictions of how people and markets will respond to incentives in contexts that have not yet been tested, such as in response to a novel law or policy. 2. Homo economicus. Perhaps the most central, and certainly the most often criticized, characteristic of the neoclassical approach is the assumption that actors behave “rationally.” In formal, mathematical models of behavior, rationality often takes the form of the assumption that actors in the model can calculate with infinitesimal precision, and at zero cost, the course of action that is optimal given their preferences. The actor such models describe is often called, disparagingly, homo economicus, in contradistinction from actual human beings: homo sapiens. The rationality of homo economicus is unrealistic, clearly. Indeed, for more than forty years, research in behavioral economics and behavioral psychology has piled up evidence that human beings simply do not behave “rationally” in this sense. But it is important to understand that this conception of rationality has always been something of a straw man. As the leading figure in behavioral economics, Daniel Kahneman, long ago acknowledged, “No one ever seriously believed that all people have rational beliefs and make rational decisions all the time. The assumption of rationality is generally understood to be an approximation, which is made in the belief (or hope) that departures from rationality are rare when stakes are significant, or that they will disappear under the discipline of the market.” In other words, adherents to the neoclassical tradition have no illusions that homo economicus resembles any human being; rather, they see neoclassical theory as an analytically parsimonious and policy-relevant approximation of real-world behavior. Neoclassical theory makes this assumption for the convenience of mathematical modeling. It simplifies the math and serves as a rough approximation of a much milder, and more plausible, conception of rationality: a “rational” actor is merely someone who directs her energies toward those things that make her better off and away from those things that make her worse off, rather than the other way around. Nonetheless, there always remains the danger that the use of the stronger version of rationality for the sake of simplifying the math makes the resulting models bad at predicting actual human behavior. After all, people may depart from the assumptions of rationality in systematic ways, such that even the milder conception of rationality is not adequate, not even as an approximation. And indeed, much of scholarship in behavioral economics provides evidence of exactly this problem—that, at least when one looks at individual decision-making, the predictions of neoclassical theory are simply wrong. I turn to this literature now. B. Behavioral Economics The inauthenticity of the rationality assumption in neoclassical economics has long bothered many economists (and non-economists!), and leading economists have long challenged the need for rationality as a simplifying assumption. The movement to challenge the rationality assumptions of neoclassical economics took shape beginning in the 1970s with seminal work by, among others, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who documented preferences inconsistent with neoclassical assumptions about rationality, such as “loss aversion,” and systematic biases in individual decision-making, such as the “framing effect.” Another well-documented behavioral bias is the “anchoring effect.” The anchoring effect has been demonstrated in experiments in which subjects are asked to estimate some numerical quantity after being exposed to an irrelevant number. The irrelevant number serves as an “anchor” drawing the estimates closer to the anchor even though the number is totally uninformative. To make this concrete: Asking people to recite the last two digits of their social security number will affect how much people are willing to pay for a cordless computer keyboard, or a box of Belgian chocolates. Such obvious biases in decision-making are essentially impossible to square with a model of “rational” decision-making. But no finding in behavioral economics has had a greater impact on law and economics than the “endowment effect,” and if behavioral economics has a mascot, it is without question a souvenir coffee mug emblazoned with the logo of Cornell University. In a famous set of experiments, Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler examined whether subjects (undergraduate students at Cornell) who were randomly assigned a coffee mug valued the coffee mug higher than (otherwise identical) students who were not randomly assigned a mug. What they found was a dramatic difference: students endowed with the mugs valued them twice as much as those not endowed. In a series of related experiments, they ruled out other potential causes of the observed difference, such as difficulty understanding or following instructions, strategic misrepresentation of values, income effects, or perception of the mug as a “prize.” These experiments have been replicated countless times in many different contexts. This is the endowment effect: endow a person with something, and the mere fact of possession make it more valuable to him than when he did not possess it. Results such as these have undermined the assumptions of neoclassical economics, and behavioral economics has been immensely influential in the legal academy, in public discourse, and in policy Indeed, behavioral law and economics, and in particular “soft paternalism” or “libertarian paternalism,” which emphasizes behavioral “nudges” that preserve individual choice while constructing a “choice architecture” that favors welfare-enhancing decisions, has become probably the dominant policy agenda in both the academy and in many government circles today. The Quantum Conjecture is an effort to draw an additional metaphor from quantum physics, one that may provide a conceptual nucleus for a tractable but broadly applicable theory in behavioral economics. This third metaphor offers a third pair of lessons: First, behavioral and neoclassical approaches are complements, not substitutes, and should be employed in tandem. Second, the simplistic view that neoclassical economics is anti-regulatory and behavioral economics is pro-regulatory ignores the longstanding grounds for regulatory intervention identified by neoclassical economics, but also (and less obviously) the potentially profound critique of government intervention that behavioral economics suggests.
The interconnectivity of ecology and theism
Foundational concepts
Stewardship: Many religious traditions, particularly Abrahamic faiths(NOT Hinduism) like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, frame humans as "stewards" or caretakers of God's creation. This belief creates a moral and ethical obligation to protect and nurture the natural world, rather than exploit it for purely human interests.
Immanence of the divine: Some spiritual ecologies emphasize the divine presence within creation itself. Views such as panentheism suggest that God is not separate from the world but is present in all things. This perspective encourages reverence for all of nature as sacred.(Mainly Hinduism)
Intrinsic value: Moving beyond anthropocentrism (placing humans at the center), many eco-theological approaches recognize the intrinsic value of all living beings. This is based on the belief that all life is created by God and is therefore worthy of existence and respect, independent of its usefulness to humans.
Interconnectedness: Just as ecology studies the relationships between organisms and their environment, many religious and spiritual traditions recognize a deep interconnectedness among all life. Teachings from Buddhism, for example, emphasize the interdependence of all beings, a concept related to the ecological web.
Ecological justice: Theological frameworks can be used to address environmental injustice, acknowledging that climate change and pollution disproportionately affect vulnerable, low-income communities. Faith traditions are mobilized to advocate for equitable solutions.
Key theological re-interpretations
Rethinking "dominion": The biblical concept of "dominion" in Genesis has been critically re-examined. While historically interpreted by some as domination over nature, modern interpretations redefine it as a call for responsible care and stewardship, rather than ruthless exploitation.
Emphasis on creation: Eco-theology focuses on the concept of creation as a gift from God. This provides a religious basis for the conservation and protection of biodiversity, as a means of honoring the creator's handiwork.
Uses of the interconnection between ecology and theism
Ethical guidance and motivation
Moral framework: Theism provides a moral and ethical framework for environmental action. For believers, protecting the environment is not just a secular concern but a moral imperative guided by their faith.
Motivation for action: For many, the spiritual or theological dimensions of environmental problems can be a more powerful motivator for change than purely scientific or economic arguments. This can inspire believers to make lifestyle changes and engage in activism.
Community mobilization and education
Grassroots activism: Religious communities can serve as powerful platforms for mobilizing environmental action. Congregations and faith-based organizations can launch local initiatives for conservation, promote sustainable practices, and advocate for environmental justice.
Education and awareness: Faith leaders and educators can integrate ecological themes into religious teachings, sermons, and educational programs. This promotes ecological literacy and a deeper appreciation for nature from a faith perspective.
Influencing policy and advocacy
Interfaith dialogue: The urgent nature of environmental crises has led to increased interfaith dialogue and collaboration. Religious leaders from different traditions can unite around shared principles of environmental protection to advocate for policy changes at national and international levels.
Political engagement: Religious institutions and groups actively participate in political advocacy regarding environmental issues. This includes lobbying governments for climate action, protecting land rights for Indigenous communities, and promoting ecological justice.
Personal spiritual growth
Experiencing the sacred in nature: For individuals, spiritual ecology can deepen their faith through direct experience of nature, viewing landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystems as sacred spaces. This personal connection can anchor the soul and foster a sense of responsibility.
Mindful practice: Practices such as meditation and contemplation can be focused on ecological awareness, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life. This is prominent in Buddhist and other traditions, providing a spiritual path to ecological consciousness.
Thus, Ecology and theism has no direct relevance to Economic of Modern concept. Deeper the theism necessity of money might be reduced but the system is equal to all. Economics is just an outcome of the ecology.
K Rajaram IRS 241025
--
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/CACDCHCKNLC_p5DHkEVcW7PShbujHtQVFT_J5fcit8z%2Bt5WsHGg%40mail.gmail.com.