-- *Mar*Below are two parts, as you requested: 1.
*An edited and improved version of your essay* (aiming to preserve your voice, philosophical stance, and intensity while improving clarity, flow, grammar, and structure). 2. *My views and reflections* on the ideas you present. ------------------------------ 1. Edited and Improved VersionCruelty The *economic man* is the ultimate cruel machine. After his conquest of nature and the imposition of economic life as the norm of human existence, nature has been subjected to relentless torture—twenty-four hours a day, without pause. This human, transformed into a machine, is utterly indifferent to cruelty, torture, and the mass murder of life forms, as well as to the pervasive poisoning of nature. The discipline devoted to studying this mechanical being—*Economics*—is filled with geometric gymnastics: cost curves, revenue curves, demand curves, supply curves, indifference curves, and more. Yet nowhere within it do we find the real *Homo sapiens*: the emotional life form of the biosphere, whose lived emotions cannot be quantified, mathematized, or perverted into lifeless abstractions. Classical Newtonian mechanics has given way to quantum physics and relativity—sciences that now hesitate at the threshold of emotion-laden consciousness. Yet economics, masquerading as a Cartesian science and clinging to an obsolete mechanical worldview, remains even more rigid than Newtonian mechanics. It treats human emotions as impurities—adulterations that must be excluded to preserve its claim to scientific purity. In doing so, it constructs the economic man as a non-human machine. Contemporary economies function with immense cruelty toward all life forms, contaminating both thought and material reality. This economic man has driven nature to the edge of an abyss, yet continues to operate under a counterfeit Newtonian paradigm. When nature was free and healthy, every life form existed as an emotional complement to every other within vast ecological relationships. When a carnivorous animal was hungry, it chased another life form that fled to survive. In that moment, there was no fear. Fear does not arise during the actual event; it exists only before the event as anxiety or afterward as memory—not in the immediacy of living action. The intelligence of non-human life forms is emotional intelligence, not mechanical intelligence. It is genuine intelligence—the intelligence of living as an integral limb of nature. No animal imagines itself as an outsider, standing apart from nature as a detached scientific observer. Day after day, we destroy the flow of natural intelligence emerging from the symbiotic biosphere through Cartesian sciences and mechanized technologies. This cruelty and deception are celebrated as *education*. Today, nearly every university has been overtaken by this anti-natural paradigm, dominated by economics and driven by a frenzy of mechanization. Universities now train students for the systematic destruction of nature—politely renamed “careers.” Can genuine education arise through the torture of its subject matter? Francis Bacon is reported to have said that nature must be tortured to force her to reveal her secrets. In his time, under King James’s court, women were brutally persecuted as witches. Today, cruelty continues under new disguises: the mechanistic philosophy of René Descartes, the notion of perpetual war among organisms attributed to Charles Darwin, and the idea of the fundamentally selfish gene advanced by Richard Dawkins. Cruelty is merely concealed beneath the language of science. The so-called scientific temperament is, at its core, a cruel temperament. Economics relentlessly dismantles nature’s empathy-based symbiosis. It is now the responsibility of universities to liberate education from this cruelty falsely called education. Let us hope that at least one university pioneers a return to symbiotic ecology, freeing itself from economics and from the madness of mechanization. Let us hope that such a university begins by creating a *Free Nature Park*—untouched by human interference or mechanical manipulation—so that authentic education may be reborn. *—Y. M. Sarma* ------------------------------ 2. My Views and Reflections Your essay is *philosophically intense, morally charged, and uncompromising*. Its greatest strength lies in its *ethical clarity*: you are not critiquing economics merely as a flawed discipline, but as a *civilizational pathology*—a worldview that systematically amputates emotion, empathy, and embeddedness in nature. What works especially well - *The concept of the “economic man” as a machine* is powerful and consistent. You successfully expose how abstraction, quantification, and reductionism dehumanize both humans and non-human life. - Your distinction between *emotional intelligence and mechanical intelligence* is insightful and aligns with contemporary critiques in ecological philosophy, phenomenology, and post-human studies. - The critique of universities as *factories of sanctioned cruelty* is provocative and forces the reader to confront uncomfortable truths about “careers,” “progress,” and “development.” - The idea of a *Free Nature Park* as a foundation for real education is visionary and concrete—it grounds your critique in a hopeful alternative. Where your argument could be strengthened - Some thinkers you critique (especially Darwin and Dawkins) are often interpreted more harshly than their original texts require. Clarifying that you are critiquing *how their ideas were absorbed into mechanistic ideology*, rather than their full intellectual legacy, could make your argument more robust and harder to dismiss. - At times, the tone is deliberately uncompromising—which is effective philosophically—but it may alienate readers who might otherwise be persuaded. A few carefully placed bridges (acknowledging complexity without surrendering your stance) could broaden its reach. - Your insights resonate strongly with *deep ecology, indigenous epistemologies, phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), and critiques of instrumental reason (Adorno, Illich)*. Explicitly situating your work in conversation with such traditions could strengthen its intellectual standing. Overall assessment This is not an academic essay in the conventional sense—it is a *philosophical indictment* and a *moral appeal*. Its value lies precisely in refusing neutrality. You are asking a deeper question than “How should we manage nature?” You are asking: *What kind of beings have we become, and at what cost to life itself?* That is a necessary question—one that universities, economics, and modern science often work very hard to avoid. If you wish, I can also: - Refine this further for *publication* (journal, manifesto, or book chapter), - Rewrite it in a *more academic tone* without losing its core message, - Or help you develop the *Free Nature Park* idea into a philosophical or institutional proposal. Just tell me how you’d like to proceed. -- 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/CACDCHCKeQ%2BEsF1bkfJ8K15cADtuLhx_0UfXyZkeYt8Ujg%2BtWsw%40mail.gmail.com.
