Journeyman Philosopher

Continued from my ‘Lifeboat or Spaceship? pt.2′ post.

Deep Economics is a theory that is very similar to Deep Ecology (if that reference helps you at all). It is the theory that our economic system in somehow misrepresents the world as we see it, and in a sense falsifies our conclusions that we make based on the systems validity.

To understand how this supposedly happens we must first understand the basics of an economic system. An economic system, as defined by a philosopher such as myself, is simply a self fabricated value system. It observes various variables making judgement calls on the value of such variables, that it thereafter expresses to us. The system metaphorically would be the ‘working hand’ of a core economic theory, such as Capitalism/Communism/etc, that determines fair/true value.

In todays standards you often hear the talk of the system expresses concepts similar to ‘We must do what’s good for the economy’ ‘ The bad economy affects the happiness of middle class workers’ ‘Local economy booming due to oil tariff exemptions’ economy, economy, economy, blah blah blah! The overall gist of the average economic talk is that ‘good economy’ is good for us, and ‘bad economy’ is bad for us. But is it really this simple?

I believe something has happened somewhere along the line, there has been a disconnection between what we as humans value and what the economic system values. The problem with this disconnection is that the economic system was suppose to represent our values initially. Yet now it seemingly expresses ideas of its own, that then motivate us to value the ideas in light of them being of our own values (ie. it tricks us).

I bring to reference an example expressed by, I believe, the founder of Deep Economics’ who I can’t remember her name but is a politician in New Zealand if I remember correctly (I apologies for the vagueness). There was a case in New Zealand in which an Oil Tanker ruptured spewing oil all over an inlet that caused the destruction of vast amounts of wildlife and the nearby forest due to the contamination of the water. The strange thing is that although people looked at this event and said ‘What a horrible disaster.’ the result was considered good for the economy. This was as the accident caused more work and jobs in the area.

How though can something be good for the economy that is seen as bad for people and bad by people? After all our economic system is suppose to represent our values. If not there would, clearly, be no reason to adopt it. After all the only reason to apply the system would be for our well being, unless of course we are some form of theory based masochists!

Richard Layard in his book entitled ‘Happiness’ addresses the theory that our economic system was based on the idea that more money equals more happiness, but believes that modern science has proven this theory flawed (he proves this through studies of happiness in different financial states). I quote P-Diddy when I say “Mo’ money, mo’ problems” (I just can never quote that line enough for some strange reason). Perhaps this is where this issue arises?

Monetary gain is not the only happiness. After all we can be poor and happy (as many philosophers I’m sure will contest :D). I believe as such it is very important to re-examine our economic system in order to determine what truly makes us happy. Although I do acknowledge that our current system may be considered good for the past as a stepping stone for the future I think its time for a change.

But what can you do? Its simple. Don’t associate so simply what is good for the economy as what is good for you. Although many times it will be its not so simple. Motivate yourself to find your own happiness, with the heavy influence of our system aside.

?