Is there a profound economy? Although it is not the dominant economy, I believe it exists, and should exist. In the early 1970s, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, recently deceased, introduced a distinction, now widely accepted in environmentalist circles, between the superficial ecology and the profound ecology. The superficial one is that which separates the human being from nature, and places humans outside of and above nature, assuming that things have meaning only so long as they are useful to human beings. The profound one sees the linkage between humans and nature, affirms the intrinsic value of every being and understands that everything is encompassed by the network of relationships that form the community of life. There is an organic Whole filled with purpose, and the human being is capable of identifying the thread that links and re-links everything. He calls it the Original Source of all being, the basis of the infinite values (veneration, love, justice), that give meaning to human existence. The profound economy helps the superficial one impose internal limits and to not be destructive.

Let us apply these reflections to the field of economics. The superficial economy would be that which is centered only in itself, in capital, the markets, investments, profits: in a word – in the GNP – with no concern for the degradation of nature, or the rupture of the Earth’s self regulatory mechanisms, or for the increasing gap between rich and poor. Those are externalities, factors which do not enter into that economic calculus.

Its logic is that of a closed system, as if economics were everything in society. Effectively, as it was roundly criticized by the School of Frankfurt, especially by Polaniy, advanced capitalism has swallowed all the social fields (politics, ethics, esthetics, science…), turning everything into merchandise, opportunities for profit. It has established itself as the articulating axis of everything social. And that has resulted in an unhealthy excess of the drive to be wealthy at all costs, and has brought us to the present socio-economic chaos. It is the madness of the superficial economic rationale.  

What would a profound economy be? It would be a return to the original meaning of economy, as “the technique and art of attending to the needs of the house” – now, of the Common House, the living Earth, with respect for her cycles and her capacity to endure. It would be inscribed in all that constitutes society. There it would be a basis that, in the final analysis, would assure material life: the economy. There would be a form of organization, of distribution of power, and laws, that would allow us all to live together with few conflicts. There would be a collection of moral, ethical and transcendental values that give meaning to social life and which would humanize the always tense relation between their differences. And, finally, there would be a horizon of greater meaning, which would link history with a higher ideal and would design the final framework of the universe: spirituality.

Thus, ideally, we would have a society which we could consider truly human, because it would have an integrating vision of human complexity.

Thus would emerge the profound economy, that which respects its place in the totality of the social structure, and which answers the question: how can we produce enough, in a decent way, taking care of the natural capital and in harmony with the whole community of life?

The profound economist, facing the present crisis, would think: How can we solve humanity’s problems? – and not: how can save the economic system that is in crisis?

Changing the question implies changing the answer. And this will only come if we break out of the old paradigm -the dictatorship of the economy- and put the economy back in its proper place, in the whole of society. That would be a new paradigm, sustainable over the long term. Then, economics would be part of politics, part of the ethics that would also be part of spirituality. The superficial economy would be incorporated within the profound. And the future would be different.