In praise of the Small : Introduction to EF Schumacher

Lately I have been in the midst of all this busy-ness. In the past I used to think its all right. In fact, I pretty much used to welcome these phases. Perhaps somewher in my mind I thought it provided a welcome break from the existential angst. But strangely enough, now I have begun to look upon it as an unwelcome diversion from things that I really want to do - writing this blog, for instance. I have had the opportunity to spend more time doing something I really love, reading. Recently I was introduced to the wiritngs of E F Schumaker, an Brtitish economist of the sixties and seventies whose ideas look and sound remarkably like Mahatma Gandhi's.

My stay in the UK has made me more acutely aware of the issues surrounding climate change. As I delve deeper into the science behind climate change I realize that there are so many different disciplines that tie into it-geology, volcanology, seismology, glaciology, palaentology, marine biology, astronomy and obviously, climatology. All these sciences have been coming together to explain what the climate has been like in the past and how it has slowly changed over the aeons and disturbingly enough, how that pace of change appears to have speeded up in the more recent past.

The most important medium of my ongoing education has been, quite amazingly, the idiot box itself. In the UK particulalry, climate change is an issue of concern and nowhere is this more obvious than in the popular media. Television channels like Natgeo, UK TV and BBC dedicate a lot of airtime to programs that explore the climate change issue and the underlying science. Most of these program, I feel, do a pretty good job of examining and presenting the issue as objectively as possible.

But the more I get familiar with the science, I feel its not the science that is central to the ongoing debate but the more fundamental issue of what has been called 'sustainable living'. Hearing about ongoings in the climate change conferences, etc one may be forgiven for thinking that sustainable living is an invention, more as an outcome of the ongoing climate change debate. But the wiritings of the likes of Gandhi and Schumacher suggest otherwise. Its not hard to realize that from the beginning of the 20th century as human knowldege of the sciences virtually exploded and manifested itself very explicitly in the in the form of modern technology, sustainable living has been a strong concern for most modern day thinkers. And these were not people who felt morally obligated to retaliate because their conventional beliefs were being threatened by the 'age of reason'. They were, in fact, much more articulate and rational thinkers and they presented their arguements after much in depth objective thinking.

I had read about quite a few of the arguments in favour of sustainable living presented from the ethical / metaphysical standpoint but none so far from an economist's point of view. At least not before, I started reading E F Schumacher in the form of one of his more well known works 'Small is Beautiful', a compilation of some of his essays on technology, sustainable living and economics. I am only half wa through the book. But what strikes me is the clarity and conciseness with which wide ranging issues like energy security, education, ethics, science & technology and urban development have been addressed as issues so central to sustainable living. There are two essays in particular that stand out in my memory-one on education and another on Buddhist economics. I like the idea that the primary objective of education should be to familiarize the student with this huge repository of 'ideas' in the human knowldge base that will help him make sense of the apparently chaotic world around him. Its important to understand the difference between an idea and objective Truth. More often than not we fool ourselves into believing that what we learn in our 'insitutions of learning' are objective, unchanging truths. In reality, they are just theories that may survive till a better one comes along and dethrones them. So the objective of education must be to learn about these ideas and then test them in the crucible of life to see which ones are worth embracing and which ones need to be 'dethroned'.

As I read more of Schumacher I realize that the one of the idea that is gradually getting dethroned in my mind'e eye is about technology being the ultimate panacea for human suffering. Another idea that is taking a severe beating is the one about modern economics being a perfect tool for cost-benefit analysis for all technology related endeavours. The fact that it provides tools for quantitative measurements and looks down on qualitative evaluations seems to provide a great endorsement in terms of its objectivity but schumacher turns this arguement on its head and says that it is the qualitative aspect of cost-benefit analysis that provides a holistic and objective outlook. The over -emphasis in modern economics on 'quantification' has been at the cost of objectivity. He has used the term 'meta-economics' while referring to the qualitative aspect of the cost-benefit analysis just as we use the term 'metaphysics' in relation to physics and appears to suggest that quantitative analysis alone is not sufficient to produce a decision in favour or against a proposed economic activity but the qualititative analysis that also evaluates the impact on the environment, individuals and the society also needs to be considered