-- *Mar*Below is an *edited and improved version* of your essay, preserving your core philosophy, imagery, and intensity while improving clarity, structure, flow, and precision. After that, I have added *my views*—engaging critically yet respectfully with your argument. ------------------------------ *The Fallacy Called Profit*
*Edited and Improved Version* When my income is your expenditure, the two must be equal. In such a system, there can be neither profit nor loss in aggregate. Yet business units consistently report profits and losses, and every business relentlessly strives for profit. This contradiction suggests that profit is achieved not by true creation of value, but by evading or externalizing certain costs that ought to be debited to the profit-and-loss account. These expenses do occur, but they are escaped, hidden, or transferred elsewhere. If accounting systems were to include not only the expenses immediately traceable to a business unit, but also the costs imposed on the environment, society, and ecological integrity, the debit side would exceed the credit side many times over. The result would not be profit, but a massive net loss—primarily a loss borne by nature. Ecology is the discipline that studies systems in which regeneration exceeds degeneration. In free, unhindered nature, regeneration is spontaneous and symbiotic. Nature, when left to itself, always operates at a surplus. In this sense, nature alone truly knows profit. Economics, however, appears capable only of loss, because economic activity is largely synonymous with the continuous degeneration of nature. The greater the ecological destruction, the higher the recorded economic profit. Mechanization and incessant technological “innovation” magnify this destruction, turning economic activity into a relentless assault on nature and the biosphere. This assault is not only accepted but glorified—an institutionalized sadism against the living world. Natural evolution itself is now being derailed. We induce mutations, birth defects, and systemic biological disorders, poisoning even soil bacteria—the very foundation of life—while misrepresenting this devastation as economic progress and profit. Across nations, there is a frenzy of mechanization and development pursued at the cost of natural ecology. Management gurus—the modern-day *Śukrācāryas*—teach sophisticated techniques for maximizing profit, often without even mentioning the environment, or offering it a token, superficial acknowledgment. In universities, the *Śukrācāryas* (gurus of monsters) have displaced the *Bṛhaspatis* (gurus of angels). Economics is revered, while ecology is marginalized, fragmented, or reduced through Cartesian abstraction. Ecology, a subject rooted in living nature, is perversely forced into mechanical frameworks, despite the fact that every machine harms nature. Emotion, empathy, and reverence have been systematically expelled from all disciplines. Even the word “profit” has been Cartesianized—stripped of life, meaning, and feeling. Imagine instead a university that establishes a *Free Nature Park*—a space without human tampering, where nature exists purely on its own terms. Students would learn directly through their *pañcendriyas*—by sensing, smelling, listening, and feeling. Perhaps the era of the *rhinencephalon*—the smelling and sensing brain—would return, where organisms communicate through subtle sensory exchanges. Students would escape the mechanical corrosion of their faculties. As nature’s fundamental logic reasserts itself, profit would be redefined as ecological flourishing. Education would free itself from mechanical blight. The age of a joyfully singing nature would return—not merely revived, but expanding into ever richer and more diverse compositions. Instead of instrumental music, we would experience environmental and tropospheric music, with every organism collaborating with the atmosphere. Evolution itself would become musical, and profit would be felt, not calculated—requiring no books of accountancy. In such a free nature park, students would sharpen their natural faculties as their primary education. Gradually, they would spark a revolution for ecological freedom, resisting Cartesian destruction. Animals would no longer be dissected to understand their mechanical construction; they would be studied as emotional beings, through empathetic interaction. The normalized brutality of animal torture in education would diminish. Profit would gain emotional meaning, while loss would finally be recognized as the loss of nature itself. Let us pray for the emergence of a university that dares to establish such a *Free Nature Park*—a sanctuary where nature is truly free, governed only by the laws of nature. *— Y. M. Sarma* ------------------------------ *My Views* Your essay is a *philosophical and ethical critique of modern economics*, not merely an environmental argument. Its greatest strength lies in exposing the *illusion of profit* by highlighting how externalized costs—ecological, social, and evolutionary—are erased from accounting systems. In that sense, your work aligns with ecological economics, deep ecology, and Gandhian critiques of industrial civilization, while going further into metaphysical and sensory realms. That said, I would offer a few reflections: 1. *Economics itself is not inherently destructive*, but the *dominant economic paradigm* is. An economics that internalizes ecological costs, limits scale, and values regeneration over extraction could, in theory, coexist with ecology. The tragedy is that mainstream economics refuses this transformation. 2. Your portrayal of *mechanization as universally harmful* is philosophically coherent but may be strategically limiting. Certain technologies—if subordinated to ecological goals rather than profit maximization—could reduce harm. The enemy may not be machines alone, but the *ideology that worships them*. 3. The idea of education through *sensory, emotional, and ecological immersion* is powerful and radical. It challenges the deepest assumptions of modern pedagogy. While such a university may seem utopian, small-scale embodiments—forest schools, nature immersion programs, ecological campuses—already hint that your vision is not impossible. 4. Your use of *mythological archetypes* (*Śukrācārya* and *Bṛhaspati*) is evocative and culturally rooted, but some readers unfamiliar with these symbols may need brief clarification for wider accessibility. Overall, your essay is not asking for reform—it is calling for a *civilizational reorientation*. It challenges the reader to choose between a world that merely calculates profit and one that *feels* it. Whether society is ready for such a shift is uncertain—but essays like yours are necessary seeds. If you wish, I can: - Condense this into a *manifesto* - Rewrite it in a *more academic tone* - Or shape it into a *speech or lecture* Just tell me. -- 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/CACDCHCJgTU61xrbeet4_fgcGD577fmH5_btC1%3D%3D9kBgZOMZvwg%40mail.gmail.com.
