Home > Uncategorized > The slogan should be, “Save Sapiens.”

The slogan should be, “Save Sapiens.”

from Ken Zimmerman

First, let’s get the story about climate change right before we look to the Amazon. Climate change will certainly impact the planet in dozens of ways. But it is extremely unlikely it will destroy the planet. So the slogan should be, “Save Sapiens.” Climate change impacts will make human life on the planet more difficult, perhaps even impossible. By fighting climate change, humans are fighting to save themselves.

For us today, it’s sometimes difficult to comprehend just how valueless “undeveloped” resources, including forests, fields, mountains, and valleys were to Americans beginning even before the USA existed. These extreme right-wingers rearing their heads again around the world are throw-backs to that era. If it can’t be monetized, then it worthless. So, before we attempt any other changes to save the Amazon, or Yellowstone, or the great forests, we need to change the culture that takes these as worthless till they “show a profit.” And once you begin to look closely, you’ll be surprised by folks you meet everyday who take this culture as unquestionable. Sometimes human greed and stupidity seem to know no bounds.


  1. Craig
    September 2, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    Correct. Exactly why we need a Wisdomics-Gracenomics instead of “eco”nomics.

  2. September 3, 2019 at 7:24 am

    There is a lot of irony here — Sapiens means WISE — you are asking to save a species whose greed and stupidity knows no bounds! We should talk about trying to save homo insipiens!

    • Rob
      September 3, 2019 at 8:44 am

      Irony indeed Asad.

      For a cultured and civilized man, as Jacobsson was, it was necessary to believe that sound money was not only efficient, but also benign, that is, to believe in the privileges of management and capital, and of the workings of a benign invisible hand. The winning formula for Jacobsson, as for the economic right more generally, was that freedom came before compassion. But sound money was moral too—it was the morality of contracts and debt—promises must be kept, however extracted: ‘sound monetary relations with a return to freedom in payments, which is a prerequisite for freedom of trade, and, maybe, for freedom also in a more spiritual sense’. (Offer, Avner. The Nobel Factor (p. 87). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.)
      Where do such self-regarding doctrines come from? They are not objective truth. Although they are captive to worldly interests and subservient to their needs, they are not entirely special pleading, no more than the doctrines of the established religions. That comparison is often made, and may provide a clue. Economics is not like a religion or a church, despite some similarities. It does not invoke transcendence and it despises spirituality. Rather, religious movements, institutions, and theologies are visions of social order which (like economics) can capture the imagination. The world religions used to be like that, but also conviction movements like the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment, Nationalism, Socialism, and Fascism. Market liberalism is a conviction movement too. We have no understanding of these great waves of certitude apart from historical contemplation. ‘There are seasons in history, but they seem to have a mysterious, implacable dynamism that mere humans can only hope to ride like great waves, hoping to not get crushed.’ Whatever they were really about, all these movements had Just World Theories at their core, visions of inclusion and exclusion, of salvation and punishment. In retrospect, and from the outside, it is sometimes difficult to understand what the issues were about. Take the Reformation: whatever the theological issues, five hundred years later we are still none the wiser. But the burning of witches and heretics on both sides was real enough. Likewise, the metaphysics of economics can drive individuals like Friedman, Stigler, and Hayek with a conviction and passion which is quite baffling for those outside the faith. (Offer, Avner. The Nobel Factor (pp. 274-275). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.)
      (….) If economics were abolished by decree, something would soon take its place. So the question is where to look for a more constructive form of inquiry. The first step is to accept the limitations of knowledge. This is not to forbid flights of fancy, but to accept them for the fancies that they are. In other words, to underpin desirable policies with secure knowledge, and if not, to state what values are driving policy. The justification then has to come out of politics, ethics, conviction, advantage, even temperament and biology. This is legitimate. There is not enough that we know for sure, action is necessary, and we differ in our interests and objectives. Value-transparency was advocated early on by Gunnar Myrdal. If economics is to live up to its aspirations as a science, it needs to acknowledge the limitations of its grasp. If it is something other than science, then the scientistic pretence only muddies the water. (Offer, Avner. The Nobel Factor (pp. 275-276). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. )
      (….) Textbook economics, like textbook science more generally, implies a finality which is belied by the value placed on research. If you don’t know that theory in the past was different, it is hard to imagine that future theory will be different as well. A modest implication of the present study, and of the history of economic thought, is to show how much variety there continues to be. The discipline might take more guidance from earth sciences and biology, both of which deal with irreversible movement through time. In the discipline of historical narrative, a system of causes rarely persists for long, changes follow a unique and unrepeatable course, and the future is unlike the past. To mine history for samples of regularity may have its uses, but to exclude the intellectual discipline of history is to exclude a vast amount of knowledge. (Offer, Avner. The Nobel Factor (pp. 277-278). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.)

      Humility is the soil in which wisdom can take root and blossom.

      • Craig
        September 3, 2019 at 9:28 pm

        Correct both Asad and Rob. The problem is the current zeitgeist/ethic of the age is Power-Data. Awakening to the mega-paradigm change of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting would be the greatest leap forward for humanity since the mega-paradigm change from Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture, Homesteading and Urbanization. It would build an everyday infrastructure that would be able to secure the lower needs of Maslow’s triangle so that much more of humanity would be able to ascend toward the wisdom of his correctly identified needs of self actualization and self transcendence.

        The pinnacle concept of wisdom is love and love’s active individual and policy form is grace/graciousness. The new zeitgeist/ethic of the age, when it occurs to enough individuals, will be grace/graciousness. Let us take the most urgently needed step toward that goal with the new monetary, economic and financial paradigm.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.