THE AMAZING LABYRINTH OF ABUNDANCE

(originally posted in Spanish July 2016)

-Accept everything as it is so that it can change-.

Many friends, many people everywhere are simply very interested, very worried, and often very distressed about having more money than what they have. Everywhere in Latin America, for example, pyramid schemes like “Women's Gifting Circles” or “The Flower of Abundance” have become very popular (see post Regarding the'Flower of Abundance' by myself and Gifting Circles and the Monetization of Everything by Charles Eisenstein). There is an eagerness for abundance, for money in particular, which is not well directed.

I'm also interested in having more money than I have. In recent years, I would say that I have less and less money, less and less anguish about it, and I live more and more in abundance (one of so many paradoxes). But sometimes I still have anguish. How could I not have it, if the message I have to give is a tremendous paradox: on the one hand, the current system is necessarily mathematically incompatible with monetary wealth for everyone (what a depressing thing to hear, right?). And at the same time: the message that life IS abundance. Both truths coexist.

The message that money is associated with the destruction of beauty: IT IS TRUE! (in case you wondered). See posts Introduction to Sacred Economics and Understanding Money for an introductory understanding of the current money institution. It's natural to feel guilt, disgust or shame about money. Having felt the truth of all that money means, one is freed and can open oneself to receive all the abundance of life, including money, without guilt. That's right, today I'm going to talk about paradoxes.

I said I'm interested in having more money, but I wonder do I really want it? Do I really need it? What do I want it for? Questions that go long ways. Do I really love money? Well, the truth is that I don't love it right now. How can I love it if one fundamental part of the message I share is that the institution of money has to change... To love it would mean in my heart to love the narrative of progress that is extinguishing the Northern White Rhino (see In a Rhino, Everything), which is exhausting the Amazon Rainforest, which is leaving the Jaguar without habitat, which is leaving my children with fewer and fewer clean beaches, fewer moments of silence, less pure water springs... (See post When Do We Stop The Destruction of Nature?).

Or, can I accept money just as it is for it to change?

-Accept everything as it is so that it can change-.

To fully accept money is to me exactly the same as accepting everything as it is. And I declare strongly that I will make absolutely no effort to accept everything as it is. Trying to "improve myself" was what caused me the most suffering in my life. The only thing I want to "accept as it is" is myself. At this moment I embrace this paradox, this contradiction with much joy in my heart, without any need for solution. And, strangely enough, unintentionally, I feel a little closer to accepting everything as it is.

There are multiple reflexes of this collective yearning for more money. Several people who come to my sacred economy workshops have as their main motivation the question "How do I get more money? And I ask myself: how can I answer this question? That's exactly why I'm writing this essay.

That's how I found out about Mr. Fernando Blanco, very popular in California, who is basically teaching how to make more money. On his website "Curso Blanco Para Prosperar", he says that "every human being is obliged to have one of these two things: either he has money, or he has excuses why he has no money". In this kind of view, the lack of money is due to a lack of attitude (actually wanting it), and specifically to a lack of technical knowledge that one must have if one wants to earn money (knowledge that it is indeed possible to acquire by taking his course). Clearly, this view is part of the narrative of the Old Story, where it is knowledge, education, science, control over oneself and the forces of nature and adversity that solve our problems. That is clearly no longer the case.

If one really understands the current economic system, one understands that it is mathematically equivalent to the game of musical chairs, where every time music stops someone is left without a chair. And "music" is coming to a halt more and more often in these times: financial crises are becoming more frequent. Every time there is a financial crisis, someone (person, institution or country) falls into bankruptcy. For example, someone looses their home. The bank auctions it and another buys it. The result: fewer and fewer people now own their own homes (most of them rent and the proportion is increasing), and properties are accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. In other words, a few are getting richer. Problem of greed? NO!, the underlying problem is that money is issued as debt and this requires economic growth (see Understanding Money), and today it simply remains less and less possibility of economic growth on the planet.

It is true, poverty and inequality are endemic in the system. They cannot be solved with public policies, nor is it a matter of correcting intentions, attitude or knowledge.

And at the same time there is a magic of life, an abundance that is above the measure of linear logic. There is giving, giving from trust in the generosity of life. There is an openness to receive, which is to be filled with love for oneself. There is that mystery, I am living it myself with my family. As I said before, I have less and less money and I live with more and more abundance: I have new shoes, we have a car, we drink imported mate, and we share more and more without noticing the "justice" of our sharing, that is, each time a little more relaxed and unconditional in what we receive in return. It is my wife Javiera who has encouraged me to open myself up to give and receive with both hands, simply because as a woman she knows what is beautiful and what is ugly (thanks to my love).

A curiosity. While writing the previous paragraph, where I mention the abundance that little by little, day by day, we live in my family, I imagined the people who come to my workshops sometimes. I imagined them saying, "Oh well, Felipe already lives in abundance. What a relief. So that means I can make a smaller contribution to the sacred economics workshop". I almost deleted the previous paragraph for this reason. We tend to think that our personal abundance depends on giving less: that if I give less to others I have more left for myself. Do you see how the notion of abundance based on the conception of being separated is contrary to sharing? The separated being has a given credit available, and when he gives he is left with less. The notion of abundance in the conception of the inter being is not about what and how much I have, but what we co-have, what we all have and share. Deeper, I feel that our notions of abundance can change in many unimaginable ways.

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

I recently watched the video "Orders of Abundance", where Brigitte Champetier des Ribes is interviewed about abundance from the perspective of family constellations. Although the view of Sacred Economics is quite different from that of Brigitte Champetier des Ribes, I decided to listen, open up and ask myself what I can learn. I have realized that if I move to the place where someone else is looking, I can understand why they see things the way they do. Every human being has something very valuable to contribute. Brigitte's gaze and the constellations seem to me to be very interesting, very healing, and I also think that she is representative of a wide spectrum of looks at economics from consciousness. That's why I wanted to share some reflections, moving through my own internal searches.

Allow me to pick up some of the things that Brigitte Champetier des Ribes says. First of all, Brigitte says that money is an energy of gratitude, which comes to us when we serve others, when we give, when we love those who are difficult to love. Money represents for her an exchange that occurs in proportion to a service. Abundance comes in a climate of gratitude; if one is displeased with life there can be no response from the universe.

Problems with money or abundance are, in this view, a reflection of something from the past that has not been assumed. For example, a debt is a systemic way of paying for an unassumed fault of an ancestor (maybe ours). This generates an attitude that does not allow the universe to be generous with us.

She adds that people with money difficulties have abandoned gratitude to life, they have no respect or love for money, so money simply goes away. If, on the other hand, I accept life as it is and I am grateful for whatever it is that concerns me and be able to serve, then life itself is grateful to me: I am in the enjoyment of life.

Brigitte Champetier des Ribes acknowledges that there is a belief that "money is bad". However, from the viewpoint that money is simply an energy exchange, eliminating money does not mean eliminating energy exchange. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's called money or otherwise: it's still the energy of exchange.

Well, first of all, I feel that it has its importance, it has its place, to see money as Brigitte says, as an energy, from peace, from gratitude. The truth of the matter is it is worth looking at all things, including garbage, nuclear bombs and the ego itself, from pure peace and pure gratitude. I was touched deep down, being an activist for the radical change of our civilization and economic system, to hear the phrase: "Accept everything as it is so that it can change", as the fundamental paradox. A phrase that is not new, and generally applies to the very intimate. In my experience, when I have seen something of myself that I didn't like, and I wanted to change it with my will and effort, the result hasn't been as expected: the remedy is worse than the disease. Deep changes don't really happen through the effort to "get better," but through love, peace, acceptance.

So, dear Brigitte, thank you because from your words of your heart, I feel a call that reaches to my being, to accept money as it is. It's not a little call you make. Because for me it is the same call, without any difference, to accept the extinction of the White Rhinoceros of the North, to accept the destruction of the Amazon and a series of things that make me very sad. A series of things with which I am very attached, at the same time, like all my urgencies for the system to change, for our culture of separation to change. Imagine how absurd I am, when I unfold my flag that "we have to build a culture of inter being that replaces our culture of separation". What could be ‘more separate’ than trying to change a culture of separation?

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

Back to sacred economics, money is not just an energy or form of exchange. It is also a social institution, born from a narrative of progress. It is a reflection of an internal culture or collective neural arrangement. It is not only a form of exchange because every official currency is issued as debt, and as such, it forces economic growth. Therefore, stopping the destruction of the beauty of life is incompatible with the institution of money we have today. I will repeat it so that it will be heard well: Stopping the destruction of the beauty of life is incompatible with the institution of money that we have today (See the posts Introduction to sacred economics and when will we stop thedestruction of nature? to understand this fundamental point). This is the great paradox, which we must accept.

And, by the way, a different institution of exchange - a different kind of money: it is not an issue of improving the engineering of its design. It's not just about printing money without debt. First of all, a change of culture is needed, an internal arrangement of neurons, to replace the concept of "progress" as a permanent goal of humanity. It is necessary an expansion from the separated being to the inter being: an expansion of our mind and heart. A new money institution could only be born from such an expansion, an external reflection of a new internal reality. Because we are only capable of creating what we are on the inside. What we create reflects our inner state and not our intentions. That's why I insist so much that it is not an issue of improving our intentions.

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

In reality, I have often felt very absurd, very utopian, talking about the need for a new institution of money, which could only be born from a new internal reality. How convincing can it sound to speak of a reality that we have never lived as humanity? So, I am calling at this moment on the antipoetry: to love money and the current system as it is. A love that is born with little sincerity but with much need, with a lot of passion. With a sensual hug, yes.

Thank you to all the people who, from consciousness, are called to accept money as it is. I only ask you, I beg you then, to open up your acceptance to a future of cement and pig crap (see In The Rhino, Everything), because you cannot accept one without the other. For my children, so that what we accept can change, without asking it to change.

To all those who have difficulty with money, whether it makes them sick, rejected, ashamed or guilty. I would like to tell you that perhaps your sentiment is totally legitimate, and not a part of your being that needs to be "improved". [And why not? Check out what old patterns or issues in our past have not been taken up, which may be blocking us.]

To all those who feel inadequate or maladjusted because they cannot make enough money, I would like to say: "It is not a measure of health to be well adapted to a deeply ill system" (Krishnamurti). I would like to say to you: that IS the way it is, it is the reality that we are all living: it is easier to make money by participating in ugliness, in the commercial inertia that already exists, than by co-creating a new reality of beauty.

The natural movement that money should have at this moment in human history is to return to its origin. Money was born and accumulated for centuries from transforming forests into cellulose and human communities into networks of impersonal commercial transactions. In other words, the natural purpose of money today is to restore the Commons (our natural, social, cultural and spiritual heritage). It's very simple: it is not possible to make money by cleaning up a polluted river. Why do you think so many people who dream of a different world have so much difficulty making money?

And another question: do we really need more money? If one decides to accept money as it is, having as a goal that accepting it will bring more money, then there is a small trap: one is not in the acceptance that the collective reality is a reality of little money. That possibility must also be accepted.

It is assumed that if one speaks of economy and spirituality, the correct word is abundance. The possibility of scarcity, on the other hand, is like a taboo, as if it were a betrayal of the Divine towards creation... But in nature there have always been deserts and the little plants and animals that live in the desert do not seem to complain. In nature there have always been times of drought, for example. What if this stage in human history is a drought stage, in which there will be less money in our pockets? What if there is another abundance hidden within the apparent scarcity? By changing mindsets, our notions of abundance and scarcity can change completely, unthinkably. If I am prepared to accept money as it is, as well as the extinction of the Northern White Rhinoceros, why should I not accept the scarcity? In fact, it doesn't seem so hard to accept! In fact, I feel that by accepting it, it has already changed, and a new abundance has arisen behind the scarcity that is not measured with the same metric, which is not understood in the same words.

Dear friend Brigitte, thank you again. I dream the same as you do, a world where cooperation takes precedence over competition, so that we all improve and not just one. All my support and respect for your work. From this collaborative virtual meeting, I stay with 2 things. First of all, the call to accept everything as it is so that it can change. I will continue to open myself to this call that I sense is most valuable. And secondly, that improving does not necessarily mean having more money (or having more money does not necessarily mean improving). Perhaps improving means embracing what we thought was scarcity and in that embrace discovering a new, less linear, more mysterious abundance.

To avoid misunderstandings, I am not making an apology for scarcity. To improve also doesn't mean to have less money, nor does having less money mean to improve. Let's say things as they are. Whoever believes that having less money has the merit of participating less in the corruption of the system is living an illusion, because in the first place, he or she continues to participate just as much as anyone else. And secondly, he is living the trap of pseudo-loving himself through a story where he claims merit, but in the deepest truth while one rejects something external (the system), one is rejecting oneself.

The only improvement I can identify is the one that has to do with breaking down our concepts of improvement, our distinctions of scarcity and abundance, to let a new mentality emerge. Embrace the mystery.

Economics Nobel 2017 for Thaler

Returning from a workshop in Uruapan, I found this interesting news. Thaler, another professor at the university where I studied, receives the Nobel Prize in Economics, one of the founders of Behavioral Economics. The interesting thing is that this view emerges from allowing people's non-rational behaviour in economic models. According to the Royal Academy of Swedish Sciences, Thaler "has incorporated psychologically realistic assumptions into the analyses of economic decision-making".  And one of the main criticisms of conventional economics is the assumption of rationality! 

Is it a good sign that economists are finally opening up to another discipline like psychology?

Does the fact that these ideas reach the mainstream means a "breakthrough" in economic science?

NO! Not at all! In a fundamental sense, I am going to argue that it is not.

I recommend this link to anyone who wants to investigate a little more about this field. Thaler's award note at the University of Chicago here.

In a sense, it is an extremely attractive field because it invites you to reflect on the systematic ways in which human behavior tends to be non-rational; and at the same time it invites you to consider what exactly is rational behavior.

As an introduction to the subject, I briefly mention two examples of non-rational behaviour.

(1) People suffer more when they lose what they already have than what they enjoy gaining something of equal value that they did not have before. It may be called an aversion to losing, or a bias in the willingness to lose, versus the willingness to win. Hypothetically, if someone with an aversion to loss competes with someone who does not have this bias, the unbiased person will have a better chance of winning in the long run. That's why it's considered non-rational behavior.

(2) Inconsistencies between the long-term decisions one makes (e. g. quitting smoking), and short-term decisions. Neuroeconomic models, for example, explain that one part of the brain is responsible for long-term planning, and another different part faces immediate decisions, in the here and now. Mathematically, these models consider hyperbolic intertemporal discount rates, which in simple English means a disproportionate bias towards the immediate versus the distant future. So that decisions you plan ahead, when the time comes you change them systematically, generating inconsistencies of an irrational nature in behavior.

It is worth mentioning that whenever there is irrational behavior, within the narrative of our modern science, there is something to correct at the same time. That is to say, the look that if it were possible to rectify your behavior to the rational, you yourself would be happier. For example, in the second example above, if there were an external force, some authority that would compel you to maintain your long-term decisions so as not to succumb to the temptations of the short term, you would be happier. (Of course, that means that happiness has more to do with the mind that plans than with immediate satisfaction, something that is of course debatable).

A series of implications are very interesting to reflect on.

A first fundamental point is that non-rational behavior is seen, throughout this field of economics, as a weakness, as something to overcome; and that as humanity progresses in its intelligence, our behavior will become closer and closer to rational behavior. “R. Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for clarifying how human weaknesses such as lack of rationality and self-control can affect markets "(elfinanciero. com. mx, the bold is mine). Rational behaviour is therefore an ideal.

A second fundamental point is that rational behaviour is presumed to exist, which is at least questionable. If you pause a little, you realize that it's just an abstraction, something that is intellectually conversated while having a cup of coffee with cookies in a seminar, and that makes sense only within a narrative about reality. What narrative? The reductionist narrative that assumes that there is an objective reality. This is just a cultural belief. Extremely heavy indeed, but it's still a cultural belief. It's not a truth of life. The truth of life is far more elusive and irreducible to mere intellectual understanding. Just as objective reality does not exist, neither does fully rational behavior exist, not even as an ideal. (This topic is a big deal and I may have to write more about it later; for now I hope to express a panorama, a look that liberates. For a deeper understanding see the related post Human Reason).

Under the idealization of rational behaviour, it is justifiable to apply public policies that rectify people's behaviour. The logic would be that people need mechanisms to correct their behavior in order to bring them to their own greater happiness, which they do not achieve on their own because of their limited intelligence. Naturally, here is born the ethical suspicion (and further justified by the bad reputation of governments), of allowing a governing authority to "improve" the free decisions of people, no matter how much they may be against their own good. In any case, this is already happening! For example, in policies that require cigarette packets to show the terrifying effects on health. This may help people who actually decide not to smoke any more, but it is very difficult for them to maintain their decision.

Similarly, with or without specific knowledge of economics and psychology, private companies are already explicitly or implicitly addressing the irrational weaknesses of consumers with their marketing strategies. This is nothing new, the novelty would be that they now have more precise engineering for their marketing programs thanks to Thaler (I don't think this is his intention). Perhaps some reader is thinking at the moment: "we have to improve the rationality of people so that marketing strategists don't take advantage of their weakness". Nothing further from what I want to express!

In the example (1) I mentioned above, about the aversion to losing, I would like to make an interesting observation, which I hope will tear down schemes. If you have an aversion to losing, you have two possible routes. One is intensively studying the rational paradigm, and behavioral economics, (I "recommend" to enroll in a phd program in economics for it), so that you develop so much your understanding of your rationality and your irrationality that by exerting control over yourself you "overcome" all irrationality in yourself.

A second possible route is as follows. Perhaps you have an exaggerated longing for security, and therefore you miss opportunities to be happier. Maybe you have a low tolerance for change. You're just scared. You can choose to feel your fear, and release it through feeling. Which way do you prefer? The first of reason and control over yourself? Or the second of freedom and sincerity to feel what you feel? In my experience, the second route takes you further.

An even more profound and thought-provoking observation is the fact that scientists who observe and model the irrational behaviour of people are (ilusory) fully rational in their observation. Their observations, hypotheses, theories, their way of writing, their manner of conversation, their contemplation per se, are fully situated within the idealized rational paradigm. (While drinking coffee and eating cookies at seminars). Note the size of this contradiction: to observe the irrationality of the real world, from an abstract rational narrative, i. e. unreal. It would be more "reasonable" to observe the irrational from an irrational yet realistic narrative.

Thaler told the award committee (theguardian. com) that he "planned to spend the prize money irrationally". What an interesting joke. I don't know if Thaler really meant this, but anyone would be happy to receive a gift of a lot of money that was indeed so unexpected, that it would give you license to be irrational. Permission to not make any calculations, to relax, to rest. To celebrate life. Because, on the other hand, in the conventional culture we live under the weight, under the exigency of being rational. With our salary we have to be rational and plan for the long term, to ensure our old age and the future of our children, etc. Things that give you peace of mind, true, but that take such an effort of cold reason, that if we were honest with our human soul, we detest. If we "had permission," we would never want to live life rationally. I know this has many implications for discussion and reflection. I'd love to cover them all, but I'd have to write all week.

For this fundamental reason, the 2017 Swedish Academy economics Award is NOT good news: the idealization of rational behaviour has not been questioned, but rather strengthened. Recognizing the lack of rationality in people, is done only with the programming that someday human behavior becomes rational. At the cultural level, it only reinforces people's efforts to improve the rationality of their behaviour.  It is even attractive, thanks to the observations of behavioral economists like Thaler, to realize the various ways in which our behavior is weak, irrational, and devote ourselves to becoming more rational in life. A grave mistake for those who are interested in freedom and happiness.

Certain characteristics of behavioral economists as researchers are very interesting indeed. In this respect, yes, this Nobel Prize is good news. Characteristics typical of children, and very rare in conventional economists: their ability to distract themselves from the assigned task, a sense of wonder, a tendency to ask embarrassing questions, and a distrust of adults' ideas about which issues are worth thinking about and which are not (bloomberg. com). This is undoubtedly the way to enjoy the beauty of the mind, to think the unknown. The only problem with this is that when the thinker becomes very full of thoughts that fascinate him, he no longer admits a profound questioning. Rather, in the face of such fascination, he easily forgets what thoughts are at the base of all the rest of his thinking. So that it becomes very difficult for him to consider new understandings, new avenues of thought, new stories of life (truly new).

My deepest passion is to question the validity of the rational paradigm. Not just because of his falsehood or how absurd it is. But more than anything else because of the unhappiness that permeates our lives as we place our soul's trust in reason. On the other hand, I enjoy the beauty of thinking like everyone else, and the surprises that life has in store for us no matter what path we choose. For example, I hope that behavioral economics will help people quit smoking. It is welcome to include in electricity bills, the value of your neighbours' average electricity consumption, so that it induces people who consume a lot to consume less (this is an example of a positive idea from this field of economics).

It is also welcome that thinkers think too much, and become fascinated and glorified in their intelectual achievements. No problem and no criticism to them. Sooner or later, when your intellect has been satiated, your own soul will ask for a more sublime wisdom.

UNDERSTANDING MONEY

Money is generally understood as a means of exchange. In alternative contexts where the awakening of consciousness is known, it is common to understand money as an energy of exchange that has to do with our attitude of gratitude towards life and our mentality of abundance or scarcity. In the Post The Amazing Labyrinth of Abundance I reflect deeply on why understanding money solely as an energy of exchange is a limited understanding. Why should a child go hungry, because of his mentality of scarcity? Evidently that explanation is not sufficient. Nor is it enough to blame it all on the ambition and corruption of big corporations, politicians and businessmen: when you understand the economic system you realize that even if we were to eliminate all ambition and corruption the problem would remain. Moreover, it goes without saying that many people today are fully convinced of their intention to adopt a mentality of abundance and gratitude towards life, yet that does not produce the expected result in terms of money flow. Rather, those who do well with money are those who adapt well to the conventional economic system (such as Elsy Abundance in the Post Marriage Between Abundance and Sufficiency). 

In reality, money, more than an energy of exchange, is a social institution that (like all our institutions) reflects the cultural mentality of separation: a specific collective neurological organization. If what I have just said sounds very strange, don't worry, here is a very simple explanation that will help you understand this.

Consider the following story (original idea taken from Charles Eisenstein’s book Sacred Economics). Imagine a small village where there is no money. Let’s say people barter with basic goods. 20 families live in the village. Alice produces beans, Peter produces corn, Kimberley has some chickens, Steven is a carpenter. They all do what they with the most basic technologies, of course their agriculture is fully organic (in their world that word makes no sense). When Alice wants some corn and Peter wants some beans, things are very easy: Alice takes some corn from Peter, Peter takes some beans from Alice. Everybody is happy.

Another day Alice wants some corn but Peter doesn’t want any beans. Luckily, Peter does want some eggs, and Kimberley wants some beans. So the exchange goes: Alice gets her corn, Peter gets his eggs, and Kimberley gets her beans. Everybody happy.
Next week, Peter doesn’t want beans nor eggs, he wants to build his house. That would probably take a lot of corn, however Steven doesn’t want that much corn. He actually wants beans but today Alice doesn’t want any corn. So on and so forth. The point is, bartering without a currency can get complicated.
So, one sunny day a Banker arrives to the village. He is actually an honest banker, one who believes people in the village can do better and simply wants to help them. I am not being sarcastic here, I do not want the reader to get distracted by the stereotype of a greedy banker. Anyways, in the vision of sacred economics greed is not a problem but simply a symptom (and by the way a symptom that is present often but not always; there is in my opinion an exaggeration or an obsession in blaming greed or ambition for our civilization’s imminent collapse). Mr. Banker tells the villagers they can do better by having a currency. “You can exchange more efficiently if you have a currency. Not only that, but you can have your economy grow: produce more, and have access to new goods and services. Let me help you. Get me a cow hide and I will cut it in small pieces (standard size). Then I will give each family 10 pieces of hide. The only condition is when I come back next year, each family has to give me back 11 pieces of hide”. The villagers accept the proposal.

Dear reader, don’t jump to conclusions too fast. Let me guide you. First, a total of 200 hide pieces are circulating in the economy, so there is no way all 20 families can pay back 11 pieces because that will take 220 hide pieces. Thus, this would mean at least 2 families have to go bankrupt (unless Mr. Bank issues new hide pieces in the middle of the year). But let’s go step by step. First thing that happens is that indeed exchange is easier now (nothing at all wrong with that). The second thing that happens, is that together with this new technology of exchange something else came into the village: a new mentality of “we can do better”. A very healthy realization that one can improve upon whatever one is doing. For example, at a very low cost Kimberley can get some leftovers from Alice’s corn field and have her chickens produce more eggs. Likewise, Alice can get the chicken’s manure and improve corn yields. If Alice’s corn does better, she will be able to pay back her debt and presumably even keep a profit for herself. With the extra hide pieces, she can increase her family’s consumption, let’s say build a bigger house, perhaps buy a refrigerator, and/or make new investments, innovations in her corn field.

Now, one thing that is intuitive to see is that at the beginning of the monetization of the village, innovations are very easy to implement. At the very beginning, innovations have very low cost and very high payoff, generally speaking. So we can imagine the whole village doing better, innovating, having higher yields, producing more and new goods. When that is the case (increase in economic activity), simply what happens is that before the term is over, some villagers will be calling Mr. Banker to borrow more hide pieces. So physically that is what happens, basically more hide pieces are “printed by the central bank (federal reserve)”, and these are used to pay back the entire debt at the end of the first period. So the economy can in principle grow in a very healthy way, increasing consumption and wellbeing for all villagers and fully servicing the debt. In fact, what’s needed for a healthy economic growth is that the rate of increase in economic activity be the same or higher than the interest rate in the currency (in this example 10%).

A healthy growth like this can happen for several years indeed (maybe a couple centuries?). But the problem is that money (hide pieces) is always issued as debt. So no matter what you do economic activity must always increase. Put simply, no matter what yield you had last year, you have to improve it this year. Think about it biologically for the case of the corn field. When you add the first natural fertilizer yield will do much better. If you keep adding more and more the response in terms of higher yield is less and less to the point that it doesn’t make a difference. So you innovate again: you make a more detailed study of what nutrients the plant need and when, and you move to chemical fertilizers that allow you to provide the plant with the precise dosages that optimize yield (strictly speaking, that maximize profits). (And by the way, the crop is no longer organic as it used to be). Up to the point where you can’t do any better. So you innovate again: you bring in pesticides. Same process. So you innovate again: you get GMO seeds. So on and so forth. 

Economic growth can be sustained by increasing the profitability of what is already being produced, or by transforming some aspect of the gift of life into commercial activity. For example, a mountain that becomes a mining operation. For example, a social relationship such as childcare that was initially a free or reciprocal relationship, and becomes a business relationship.

More than anything the point I want to make is to reach a place in your heart that knows a few things: (1) growth cannot go on forever; (2) while it does go on, it does at an increasing cost for nature and for the wellbeing, health and beauty of all life; and (3) that we have already reached the point where further economic growth is disastrous for the wellbeing and for the beauty of life.

But let’s go back to the village. The economy grows in a healthy way for several years, while Mr. Banker issues more hide pieces. As soon as growing is no longer as easy and as common sense as it was at the beginning, competition naturally arises. That is, the force that leads you to try to do better than others. You can compete for supplies, for customers, for the property rights of new innovations, etc. From one point of view, competition can be healthy, if it is taken as a positive force that simply makes you do whatever you do better; for example if it leads you to healthy and harmless even costless innovations. But pretty soon we know this ceases to be the case. Competition and growth start hurting. Please notice that this is a truth in my heart, perhaps also a truth in your heart. But THIS IS NOT a scientific truth, an intellectual truth. Very legitimately, say an innovator in Silicon Valley might inhabit a different story, a story where healthy innovations can go on forever. All I am saying his is not my truth, and that alternate truths inhabit different stories and become true only in the heart, not in reasoning.

So, at this point, not every family is capable of paying back her debt. This means bankruptcy. This is the moment when the game of musical chairs begin. Every time the music stops, someone goes bankrupt – is left with no chair. The bank auctions the collateral property and the person that naturally buys it is the person that is already doing well, that has the capital for buying properties. So quite naturally economic inequality starts building up. Properties and money will begin accumulating in few hands while more and more families cease to be owners of their land and means of life, and become wage-earners and rent-payers. So you see, economic inequality is endemic to the system, it is not the result of right wing policies nor greedy rich people. As long as money is issued as debt, the pressure for economic growth continually produces inequality as a result.

Not only produces inequality, but it hurts the beauty of the very gift of life in many ways.

I might say this is where the vision of sacred economics begins. By that I am trying to say that there is so much more to be said, and if you’re feeling full of screaming questions inside, you are on the right track. (Many of such questions I can address on the workshops I facilitate, where the conditions are met to dive deeply into these issues with the heart).

The main and most obvious question is probably: why can’t we have an economic system where money is issued at zero interest rate? The answer is that such economic system is not compatible with our deep and not at all obvious culture of separation. Rather than figuring it out ("engineering the correct economic system"), a healthy economic system will arise naturally from a culture of interbeing. Again, this is only 1% of what there is to be said.

It is worth mentioning, if one were to decree the cessation of economic growth, we would necessarily have to accept bankruptcy (which hits the poor hardest), accept widespread unemployment, accept that many families are left on the street, accept a rise in the suicide rate (as happened in the case of Greece), accept that you do not have a budget for social programs such as health and education, etc. What I mean by this is that there is no political or intellectual solution, which is why being realistic means stepping into the mystery. "Let's be realistic: let's do the impossible." 

In a culture, in a collective neuronal arrangement of Separation, if all that surrounds me is Otherness, it is natural that I very easily adopt the (deep and perpetual) belief that it is necessary to improve upon the already existing. (I am referring to the improvement that has to do with control, with exerting the force of reductionist reasoning). We need to increase production, we need to store for the next year, we need to improve our technologies until we become independent of hostile or at best indifferent forces of nature. Note that this belief is present in part in the narrative of sustainable development, not only in the narrative of predatory capitalism (i. e., it is not an ethical or good intentions issue). The alternative by the way is an economy born of trust in life. In a culture of distrust in life, who would lend money without interest, knowing that the person who uses it can make it grow without you taking advantage of it? Which bank would lend money at a zero interest rate, as long as there is a risk of non-payment?

The alternative of believing in the perpetual controlled improvement of what already exists is to rediscover the multiple, elusive, uncontrollable mysteries of happiness in life that lie hidden, latent.


A personal note

In a system that endemically produces inequality and destroys nature, not by lack of good intentions but the very fact of the need of economic growth, it is very difficult to feel comfortable with money. If you want it and don’t want it at the same time how can the universe help you out? 

If I live and let die my emotions I know I am free of guilt and shame. I can make friends with the system, accept it, plan and control my monthly budget, charge for my services, do marketing to convince clients, turn ideas into opportunities to extract money....

But still, being free from all shame and guilt about money I still simply don’t want to reproduce scarcity and the lack of trust. I just can’t feel good doing that. How can I do marketing of my services if it is not from the generosity of actually serving? It is not an issue of reaching a higher standard of virtue, of improving myself to become a better person; it is a matter of feeling good! I want to live generosity. Am I getting it “wrong” still? Just let me know mystery of life, I am listening.

I want to share I have a need to clearly see the vision of an economic system trusted on the generosity of life, where naturally everybody is free. I can’t sleep at night so graciously without this complete vision in my heart. All I can barely see is the freedom to be generous, to trust in life, to know nobody is doing it wrong because they don’t fit or can’t adapt to the current system. After writing today I feel a step closer to live in such a way with the money institution just as it is now. However paradoxical it may be, I welcome it. Wondering over and over if that’s it…  I want to live generosity, and I want to open my eyes and realize there were always so many people already doing that, and I was never alone.

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.