No, that's the problem. Strange isn't being clear. I know he supports communism, so it doesn't makes sense for him to reject economics outright. But why would one want to reject science? I can't see how any society could prosper over the long term without some sense of technological advancement.
Strange, are you suggesting that a communist hunger-gatherer society is ideal? I think it's improbable at this state in humanity. Maybe even impossible with our numbers. Though if you reject most technologies, I'm sure our life expectancy would drop to around thirty- or forty-something. So there's that.
Not all science is bad, neither is all economy.
I don't buy your arguments, Strange. Actually, I wouldn't consider them arguments at all. You don't even offer any alternatives. You seem to rather just tear things down.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|