SACRED ECONOMICS WORKSHOP PRESENTATION

WHEN DO WE STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF NATURE?

How easy is today walking along a beach at sunset, and be with the sea, with the breeze, the sand and the sound of the waves, free from commerce, urbanization, tourism and garbage? How easy it was 30 years ago? How easy will it be in 10 years?

How easy is today walking in the mountains with my children, find a clear spring –so transparent that the stones under it are wonderfully crisp-, and have my children drink from its fresh water? How easy it was 30 years ago? How easy will it be in 10 years?

What chance of survival has a species like the Jaguar, when her habitat is destroyed and transformed into agro-industrial use at high speed? It is not only big businessmen who seek economic development, also the poorest people legitimately aim to succeed economically, for example cutting down another acre of rain forest to use it for livestock. This economic pressure for progress (for some), or for subsistence (for others), how intense was it 30 years ago? How intense will it be 10 years from now?

Obviously, the pressure to transform what remains in commercial activities will increase exponentially. Do you think that it will stop with better laws? With better politicians and businessmen? With better technology?

Serious, honest and well - intentioned intellectual reasoning can lead to decisions and actions that are destructive. Being rigorous, having ethical integrity and good intentions does not guarantee a healthy use of the human mind.

Even with the best of intentions and with an honest concern for the welfare of all life, it is possible to reason and conclude again and again that a little bit more destruction of nature is acceptable in order to promote economic development.

Conventional thinking says that economic progress is going to solve our economic problems. It is difficult to find in the mainstream anyone who questions that economic growth is desirable, and that using nature for this purpose is reasonable. I have never heard a political candidate do it, for example.

Perhaps many of my readers here would like that with the force of reason we convince others of their mistake to think economic progress must continue. The problem is that this is not possible: They are right!! It is not lack of intelligence that makes them think so, nor, in the end, is the problem a lack of honesty or ethics. Perhaps many readers are disturbed to read this; surely some think it is unacceptable that I say it. We are so accustomed to the narrative of "good against evil". So hard and intolerable our current reality, the self-destructive course of our civilization, that our very legitimate response is indignation.

The narrative of "them", the ambitious, corrupt politicians, the elite who abuse us, all that is trite. It is simply no longer useful, even if it were true. "Super heroes, LET’S FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!" said some cartoons I saw as a child (actually it is full of movies with the same narrative, a clear reflection of our inner state). Not long ago I realized the absurdity, and all the energy I wasted "fighting for justice", and the little or nothing that I achieved. There, in that realization, another intelligence begins to appear, another justice, which is not what one expects.

Let us change the narrative. The narrative of separation, where some of us are "good" and others are "bad", is precisely the narrative of contemporary culture, where a child is rewarded for behaving "good" and punished for behaving "badly". As much as the intention is to change the system, if we do it from its own narrative, we only strengthen the status quo, the existing narrative.

If we organize a protest where our speech is against a large company and the government that supports it, obviously those others are invited to participate in the event as adversaries. That is what they will do: be adversaries. The police will repress the protest, and the company will strengthen its speech in his favor, rather than review it. While it is true that some beautiful battles have been won by way of the solidarity of the people, the current state of affairs speaks for itself: battles abound where nobody really wins, everyone loses and what is worse the status quo not only remains but is intensified. (Incidentally, can there be a battle where someone loses and someone really wins?). What if activism made a different invitation, born from the recognition that all are part of our being and that no one is separated?

Using exclusively masculine intelligence, certainly it is very possible to argue seriously and honestly that a little more destruction of nature is desirable to promote economic progress. I know economists who think so; they are serious and good people, concerned about the environment, concerned about future generations, by poverty, by inequality. People like them are tired of being ignorantly accused of lack of intelligence or lack of ethics. You cannot dismantle the system using the same tools the system. You cannot dismantle the current economic system using as a means the power of reason.

I invite you to consider as an example the hypothetical case of a hydroelectric project, planned for a river located in a virgin forest. To make the point of my argument, suppose that all participants in this example are honest and well-meaning, and use exclusively masculine logic intelligence to argue and make decisions.

Environmental activists want to stop the project. To defend their position, they present rational arguments supported by scientific evidence. Proponents of the project do the same: use rational arguments and science to base their position. (In the post HUMAN REASON I argued that the intellect can seriously be used to defend any position you propose). The essential argument between the proponents of the project is that "our cities are growing and people need electricity. We have to produce it one way or the other. This project would produce a lot of electricity for a large population, at the lowest cost among all alternatives, with a relatively limited environmental impact."

Environmental activists dispute that the environmental costs of the project are actually high. They argue that a unique ecosystem will be destroyed and that a number of species will be affected by habitat loss.

A government authority is to make an impartial decision, comparing the advantages with the disadvantages, seeking the greatest possible benefit for society. Finally the project is approved under some observations in its design, specifically say that a certain portion of the forest must be preserved. In short, a ‘midpoint-type’ solution, typical of linear logical intelligence, where an argument is counterbalanced with another on the same scale. What you lose on one hand you make up with the biggest gain on the other side.

I'm talking about a completely idealized process in order to make myself understood. Are we supposed to be satisfied with this final outcome? I say no! And here there was no lack of logical intelligence, nor there was any corruption, nor the motive was ambition. Do you realize what I'm saying? We will not stop this system using the same tools of the system. We will not stop the destruction of nature no matter how many victories we attain in the "war against evil". It does not matter if this ‘war’ exterminates corruption, dishonesty, ambition, and stupidity: the destruction of nature would continue.

This final result implies that a volume of destruction of nature is acceptable to the extent that the benefits for the people are sufficiently large. And the point is not to argue the benefits of destruction are not sufficiently large, because they actually are. Imagine you are the president of a country like Brazil, are you aware of what it takes to really stop the destruction of the amazon’s jungle? Are you willing to cut down your poverty alleviation programs, your education and public health programs, your hopes of economic development in general?

But how many native forests do we have still available to continue destroying? If the destruction of nature does not stop now, when will it end? You realize that this is not an issue of numbers or logical arguments. It is a feeling of the heart.

Of course someone might insist that other sources of energy should be developed. However, the point is to realize that this argument can be as reasonable as the argument supporting the project. Indeed, all known forms of producing electricity are costly, both environmentally and financially. Therefore it is always possible, even with good intentions and taking this issue very seriously, to conclude that a step further in destruction is acceptable.  Consequently, this discussion could never achieve a comprehensive and long-term solution. This is the limitation of linear, separate thought.

When do we stop the destruction? Logical reasoning can forever accept to destroy one more forest as long as the expected benefits for society are high enough. I'm not talking about a dishonest use of this argument. It is the honest use of this argument that interests me. If the beneficiaries were a large population of people of low social strata, with a great need, is it then acceptable the destruction of nature? The answer that comes from the exclusive use of masculine intelligence can be yes, even if it is an ethical use. So why waste energy using linear masculine intelligence to stop the destruction? It is not reason that makes us feel that destruction must be stopped now.

In the center of the spirit of any human being there is a profound capacity for compassion that allows people to simply feel the reality and magnitude of destruction. People who are disconnected from the center of their spirit cannot access this capability. They can observe, analyze and evaluate the facts as best they can, but do not know to what extent nature has already been destroyed.

The spirit of a human being can easily distinguish between that which leads to destruction from that which leads to life and creation. These two things cannot be traded-off. For example, you cannot "mitigate" the destruction of the Amazon rainforest by planting a forest elsewhere.

It is time to speak the simple truth of the heart. Myself being a scientist, I wonder why should I waste energy on endless logical arguments to say "I love life", to say "I do not accept any more destruction"? Why should I scientifically prove something that is absolutely obvious in the heart? We cannot continue destroying the planet, period.

Sacred economics is the vision of a utopia, a dream. It cannot be controlled. To describe it in a model is like trying to cram the divine within a box. I think the only model is to expand the Self. Transform the conception of the separated being to the being that has everyone and everything within her, and all that she is able to create is a reflection of her interior.

HUMAN REASON

The human intellect works with two very healthy attributes. One is curiosity, our innate attraction to the unknown. The other is skepticism, our natural attraction to certainty. Surely, being the intellect in love with certainty, when we engage in reasoning our intellect asks us to be rigorous, clear, authentic. That is why a passionate scientist has a serious commitment to truth. I think one of the greatest virtues in a scientist is the honesty to repeatedly ask himself what is it that he truly understands, and what not.

It amazes me how sometimes science can be so beautiful, so elegant and sophisticated, when it is born from this place within the human being who is deeply in love with the unknown and certainty. There is nothing wrong with science or the human mind. However, there is something severely ill in putting all our trust in the human intellect. This equates to a diminishment of the human being.

First, science has weaknesses. Intellectual knowledge and science in general are based on debatable assumptions and interpretations. If you are willing to investigate profoundly, you can see that in most arguments of economic science, for example, there is a gray area, subject to ambiguity.

The intellectual foundation that underlies the organization of our society is based on debatable beliefs rather than scientific facts. A rigorous truth-seeker is aware that, without exception, scientific reasoning always contains a willingness to believe in something.

Why is this so? First, logical reasoning can only be applied to a separate part of reality at a time, but never to the whole. So to investigate any object, science explicitly or implicitly assumes a series of beliefs about everything else, to which the object is without a doubt related.

In fact, the unknown is always part of reasoning, whether we like it or not. In conventional science, there is a belief that the unknown can be set aside so that intellectual reasoning can stand by itself. But in truth the known and the unknown are always dancing together. They cannot be separated. Indeed, the mystery of life is such that, as soon as we realize something we did not know before, simultaneously we recognize that the unknown is more immense than we thought. The unknown is like a giant and wild ocean floating in the universe that could never be conquered by our understanding.

Reasoning is inherently imperfect and inevitably incomplete because it is linear, and the universe is not. Science or reason can be used to defend any truth you want. I am not trying to be derogatory when I say "any truth". What I mean is that it really is possible to use science or reason seriously, honestly, with sophistication to defend any position. That is why intellectual discussions rarely manage to change the positions of participants. A serious and ethical use of reason does not guarantee a healthy use.

 
No matter how brilliant or well - intentioned, intellectual understanding always reduces Truth. Being aware of this makes reasoning a more beautiful and less pretentious experience. Complete truth cannot be reached solely by reason. Complete truth can only be experienced with the mind of the spirit. In the mind of the spirit, understanding is without language and complete.

By opening the human mind to a higher source of wisdom, while maintaining the rigor and seriousness to seek the truth, an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the human mind is possible. For this purpose, it is useful to consider two forms of intelligence, masculine and feminine -both present in men and women alike.

It is difficult to define the different forms of intelligence: masculine, feminine and the intelligence in the mind of the spirit. By defining them -a typical trend of male intelligence itself- the risk is to separate them into different objects and put them into rigid boxes. In reality, these are not absolutely separable and rather are supposed to work together. I hope that the reader may realize, in a place in your mind that is beyond logical reason, the meaning of these forms of intelligence.

Masculine intelligence refers to the logical, analytical and linear use of our mind. Feminine intelligence refers to the mysterious, circular and intuitive use of our mind. Beyond the human mind there is a higher mind (but within us!) that can be called the mind of the spirit, whose intelligence has no limits and does not require the use of words. Any human being has the opportunity to access the mind of the spirit at times. 

A healthy use of the human mind requires knowing the strengths and limitations of different forms of intelligence. But these virtues and limitations are largely ignored in our society. Consequently there is an imbalance in the use of the human mind, with an overwhelming bias towards masculine logical intelligence.

Masculine intelligence tends to separate the parts of the whole. Although this way of understanding can be useful in many cases, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. In other words, when understanding becomes linear, the essence can be lost. Sometimes it is wiser to look at the "Whole in its Wholeness". The ability to do this is feminine.

The power of reasoning expands when the masculine and feminine minds are used in balance. We are closer to the truth when the unknown is recognized as such, and integrated into the reasoning process. Integrating the unknown really means to integrate the sacred. Rather than being an isolated individual reasoning about "otherness", be a neuron connected to the millions of neurons in the mind of the universe.

INTRODUCTION TO SACRED ECONOMICS

To be able to talk about a healthy economy firstly it is necessary to clarify the true sickness in our current economy. The sickness is not capitalism, not materialism, not selfishness, not ambition, not inequality. All these are painful symptoms of a deeper illness: Separation. Really all our culture is profoundly sick of Separation.

While we mistake the symptom for the real disease, our attempts at healing it fail just like conventional medicine fails when focused on eliminating symptoms.

“You cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools”. The system cannot be dismantled using for this purpose the same tools of the system. Peace cannot be built using war as a means. Solidarity cannot be built by accusing the lack of solidarity in others. So what is this Separation about?

More than an ethical failure or a defect in our civilization, Separation is a story, a narrative, even an organizational arrangement in our neurons, which implies that we perceive the Everything through the lens of separation, that is, separated. In this story, mater and spirit are separated, domestic and wild are separated, city and nature are separated, and a long list of etceteras.

Fundamentally, the human is conceived as a being separated from all other beings and separated from the universe. If everything that surrounds me is “otherness”, obviously the more you have the less there is for me. Therefore, I might want to make sure you don’t take my part. If we think there is scarcity, you and I will have to compete, no matter how much we dislike capitalism, and one of us will not be able to fulfill his/her necessities.

Crucially, our intelligence, our rationality has evolved for millennia through the story of Separation. For example, when we want to understand the physiology of an animal, we dissect its corpse (notice the word dissect), and we observe part by part. When we want to understand food, we display the list of ingredients. To complete the information we can include the exact recipe of its preparation: a list of separated objects, in this case a list of ingredients and procedures. However, the soup that your grandmother made you when you were a child, is it really replicable exclusively by a recipe with a list of ingredients and procedures?

The intelligence based on Separation is the logical, linear form of intelligence and it corresponds to masculine intelligence (present in men and women alike). Of course nothing is wrong with it in itself. There is a healthy way of using it; the key is not to ignore that there exist essential aspects of the Everything that are lost when we observe it separated. The problem is that today masculine intelligence is considered as the only form of legitimate intelligence. That is to say, there is an unbalance in the use of our human intelligence. Feminine intelligence, in contrast, is circular. It is about observing the Everything just as it is. Modern science, for example, is specially centered on masculine intelligence. There is no room for feminine intelligence in science. Suffices to note that the conventional scientific method has as a fundamental premise that the observer (the scientist) and the object being observed are separated. In other words, that there exists an objective reality out there (separated from the observer) which one can observe impartially, with the appropriate tools.

Our current economic system is an exclusive expression of masculine intelligence, in fact an immensely sophisticated expression of this type of intelligence. It is not stupid at all, as many conclude in despair when facing its devastating consequences. Being economics and money the priority number one of our civilization, the brightest minds have been dedicated to answer its questions. But these questions have always been addressed under the view of separation and the exclusive use of linear logic. As I said before (and will repeat several times as this is the main issue to be understood), the system cannot be dismantled using the tools of the very same system. Our awful economic system, clearly leading to self-destruction, cannot be changed using only linear, logical, masculine intelligence. By attempting to do that the best one could achieve would be a recreation of essentially the same, perhaps a tiny bit better. The problems we as humanity face today will not be solved in a system that is a tiny bit better.

That is why there is no political solution; it is not about left versus right. The issue is not: “get rid of all the corrupted politicians, and then we will reach an harmonious life”. This is a key absurd feature deeply rooted in our culture: we need to succeed in the battle against ‘otherness’. Same thing in agriculture: “when we exterminate all weeds, all unwanted bugs, when we dominate all forces of nature even the weather, then yes, we will be able to feed the entire population”. In medicine: "when we have all vaccines, when we exterminate all germs, then we will have health". “When we eliminate all terrorists, all dictators, then we will have peace”. Can’t you see it? It is not going to happen, ever. That mentality is typical of the Separated Being. In reality, even if magically one day would come when all businessmen and corporate executives were honest, compassionate, respectful of the environment, -listen to me well!- even if that day arrives, our planetary and economic disaster would not stop!

When we ‘other’ the universe around us, we really ‘other’ part of ourselves. Any battle with the ouside is an agression perpetrated at oneself.

That is why we need to talk about a Sacred Economy: an economy that is not built with the tools of the narrative of Separation. Not built with control, not built with linear logic (although it is fully logic nonetheless), not built conquering or dominating the opposing forces. It is built including. It is built expanding the Being, remembering our true nature.

Growth and Debt in Current Economic System

Allow me to explain briefly, introductorily, the nature of our current economic system (see a more complete discussion of money in Understanding Money). Every time a central bank prints money, it is issued as debt, that is, at the end of the term it has to come back to the central bank increased by the rate of interest. All existing money, in this very moment and in any given moment, is subject to paying interests. There is no official currency (that I know of) that escapes this reality.

Economic growth is the increase in monetary economic activity, measured by the growth of GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the monetary value of all final goods and services produced in a period. In few words, the only way in which existing money can pay back its interest rate is by printing more money, which is again issued as debt. The only way in which this process can subsist over time is that the rate of economic growth be equal or superior to the interest rate. If there is not enough economic growth, it means debt cannot be repaid in its totality, which means somebody goes bankrupt, be it individuals, institutions or entire countries.

Why are financial crises so common nowadays? Because it is becoming harder and harder to find some resource or some human activity that can be transformed into monetary activity. An intact forest does not show up in GDP, it is not an economic activity that helps service the debt; if harvested, now it is. Any human activity, as long as it is within gratuity, or reciprocity, does not show up in GDP. But if transformed in monetary activity, now it does help to repay the debt.

Economic growth is in reality the transformation of our natural, cultural, social and spiritual capital into monetary commercial activities. When for the most part our capital has been already monetarized, it is ever harder, more costly and more painful to transform into money that which should not belong to anyone, and at the same time it belongs to everybody. That is why the financial crisis coexists with the environmental crisis and the crisis of the human soul.

How much longer can an economy go with exponentially growing debt and economic activity virtually stagnant? How much longer can nature endure the growing pressure to exhaust what remains? How much longer can the heart of each one of us put up with the destruction of beauty and the growing ugliness, the alienation, the heaviness of having to “earn your life”, to “make a living”, and sacrifice your dreams? No doubt, not much longer.

Be it right or left wing the government in office, be it a big and rich country, or a small and poor country, none escapes the necessity of growing economically. As the pressure of debt keeps rising, the smaller ones (people, institutions, corporations and countries) go bankrupt and the bigger ones absorb them, one way or the other. (This is why inequality is endemic to the system). But evidently this cannot go on like this, not even for the most advantaged.

Sacred Economics

Economics is in its essence the care-taking of our home, the EARTH (‘Eco’ means home). That is why we all are a bit economists: we are all interested in the care-taking of our home. We all care in which way we satisfy our necessities and in which way we express our talents and our gifts that we have to share.

Sacred is that which holds two characteristics: (1) unique, and therefore irreplaceable and of infinity value; and (2) connected, related (as opposed to isolated). For example, an industrial egg bought in a supermarket is not irreplaceable at all (it is surrounded by thousands identical eggs); and at the same time it is totally anonymous, it has no connection with the land where it comes from nor with the people that worked so that it could end up in the supermarket. Apparently it has no especial story to tell. A free-range non-industrial egg, which was gifted to me by a neighbor, is clearly the opposite. It has another value in every sense.

A Sacred Economy takes care of our home, the Earth, in a way that fosters, rather than suppresses, the presence of the sacred in everything we experience –in particular, in the way in which we satisfy our needs, and in the way we express our individual talents.

Money tends to do exactly the opposite: (1) it homogenizes because almost everything can be transformed into a price, and (2) it disconnects because as long as I pay it does not matter who is selling it to me nor what story the object has.

The natural essence of life is the Gift. At the origin of life itself there was the Gift. Our life started as a gift, the existence of the planet is a gift, the light and heat of the Sun are a gift, water is a gift, lemons are a gift from the lemon tree. Our deepest state of being, the moment in which we feel the happiest and when we are the most powerful is the moment when we feel with our very guts and all our being the Gratitude of being alive. From this gratitude arises the unstoppable, unbreakable wish to do the most beautiful service to Life, sharing our most precious gift in exchange for what we have received.

If this is the true essence of life, there is no reason why all our human necessities can’t be satisfied, and all our talents expressed, in the spirit of the gift. A Sacred Economy is the Economy of the Gift.

A monetary transaction is closed: when the object and its price are exchanged, the relationship ends. A gift transaction is open: by generating gratitude, the relationship starts or is nourished. Because a gift always carries a subtle part of the person that gives it, the object is not easily replaceable. Certainly, gifting builds community, integration, and union among the people.

An old partner in my life is the anguish in the face of the possibility of scarcity, the fear to be left without. It eases me to observe it as a pattern, which is not my essence, which is not what I know in my heart. I believe many of us share this anguish. Just like we share the pain from the destruction of nature, or the anguish in millions and millions of people in the world of having to do something they don’t love in order to “make a living” (and see how it is less and less sufficient to actually make a living).

In the heart there is the trust that Life already is a gift, that there is no need to “make it”. “Do I realize?” ¡I ask myself! That scarcity, that apparent need of money, how real it is? In the heart there is the generosity, the enthusiasm and the inspiration of doing whatever it takes to be able to serve the beauty of life. In the face of the unavoidable fact that the financial system is headed to collapse, there is no need to be crazy or to be a hero to trust in life, to stand firmly in our deepest dream.

Every wisdom tradition expresses the same knowledge about the essence of life: everything is connected, we are all one, everything is related, we are all family. This is not a moral principle or a superior standard of merit: ¡It is a reality of Life! If you are part of my being, then when you receive more I also receive more. There is no way I can loose.

Sacred Economics is about remembering that one came to this life with a sacred, unique, special purpose. As long as I’m not delivering my highest gift to life, the life I am living is someone else’s life -the life of a character- not my real life.

WELCOME TO ECONOMIA SAGRADA IN ENGLISH

This space is the translation to English of the original blog www.economiasagrada.com 

Its purpose is to share reflections about an Economy of a New Story, where the distinctions of known and unknown crumble and we accompany the birth of a new narrative.

 

My name is Felipe Mardones, PhD Economist University of Chicago. I write based on my experience, on the feelings of my deepest self. What I write is at the same time immensely influenced by the wonderful work of Charles Eisenstein (www.sacred-economics.com, http://charleseisenstein.net/), who gave life, and gave words, to a vision that is not easy to express.

You will find in these posts things exactly said as Charles Eisenstein has said them before, and new things, new flavors, different insights that are the personal contributions of my experience. All of them I feel true to my heart. 

The original blog in Spanish www.economiasagrada.com was born also with the purpose of helping these ideas and this vision to reach Latin America and all Spanish speakers.

Thanks for all the support received to realize this dream, to be able to express the passion of my soul.