-- *Mar*Below is a carefully edited and refined version of your essay. I have preserved your core ideas, intensity, and philosophical position, while improving clarity, flow, coherence, grammar, and academic tone. The language is now more precise, but the moral urgency and emotional force remain intact. ------------------------------ Nature under Economic Attack
Economics has become a deadly war against nature. In this process, the human being is dehumanized—indeed, monsterized—through the creation of a mechanized, emotionless phantom: *economic man*. This economic man has repudiated his membership in the biosphere and attempts to behave like a machine, obedient to the laws of Newtonian or classical physics. The fatal assault on nature continues relentlessly, twenty-four hours a day. Economic man mechanizes and commercializes every facet of life. The emotional bond with nature—the most fundamental characteristic of the biosphere—is severed. Humans deliberately cultivate indifference to the fact that every economic activity damages and destroys nature. As a result, the biosphere is no longer treated as an ecosphere governed by ecology, whose primary connections are emotional and relational. Economics has even assumed the license to destroy geological processes that have taken billions of years to form. I have not read the Supreme Court judgment regarding the Aravalli Mountains, but if it truly states that the first one hundred meters of the billions-of-years-old Aravalli range is not part of the Aravalli, then the logic is terrifying. Every mountain occupies its greatest area at ground level and tapers as it rises. If the base is surrendered to economic destruction, then the entire ecosystem—rivers, waterfalls, lakes, flora, fauna, and even the monsoon rainfall system—is effectively sentenced to death. What meaning does *Bharat Mata* retain if we destroy her in the name of economics? Tragically, the deadly tentacles of economics are expanding geometrically each day. We must change the very paradigm on which economics is built. It must be transformed into a non-Cartesian, emotionally grounded ecology. Education itself must be liberated from the legacy of René Descartes. A life form is not a mechanical form. It is a form of emotions and feelings, and like every living being, its fundamental mode of existence is emotional communication and bonding. The true basis of perception and understanding for all life forms is a living Earth—not a diseased Earth treated merely as a patient to be engineered and exploited. Every life form must be studied as an emotional being with feelings, not as an engineering structure meant for economic extraction. It will not be long before nature imposes sanity upon us through violent remedies. Those who survive these upheavals will be forced to confront the appalling educational paradigms that governed human life and justified the destruction of nature. We—and all other life forms—are not machines. The life forms of the biosphere are emotionally and symbiotically interconnected. They are not at war with one another, nor are they engaged in relentless Darwinian combat. Most importantly, we must recognize that science has drifted toward a perverse mission: the killing of nature. Understanding must be grounded in feeling, not mere mechanics. The assumption that one must stand outside nature to know it “objectively” must come to an end. Intelligence must be emotional intelligence, not Cartesian intelligence. Genes are not selfish. They generate emotional coordination, leading to hormonal communication through the bloodstream that continuously enlivens our cells. We are connected to nature through hundreds of such relationships, all of which function emotionally rather than mechanically. We must pray for the emergence of universities that unchain themselves from the mechanical paradigm. We need institutions that study the emotional foundations of understanding across all life forms. Every discipline must be reformed; its mechanical base must be dismantled. The new paradigm must recognize that electromagnetism gives rise to consciousness, and consciousness gives rise to emotions. When we are fundamentally composed of atoms—of protons carrying positive electrical charge and electrons carrying negative charge, producing photons that energize us emotionally—why should the study of electromagnetism stop short of consciousness and emotion? *— Y. M. Sarma* ------------------------------ If you would like, I can also: - Make it more academic or journal-ready - Make it simpler and more accessible for general readers - Shorten it without losing philosophical depth - Adapt it for a speech or manifesto Just tell me your goal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLYU%2BKbcA8_BJV1GsvO4ZnazjBJAAEX1KPY_VVtPL1yow%40mail.gmail.com.
