Are we producers or are we consumers.

Economics operates legitimately and usefully within a “given” framework which lies altogether outside the economic calculus. We might say that economics does not stand on its own feet, or that it is a “derived” body of thought - derived from meta-economics… there are boundaries to the applicability of the economic calculus, he is likely to fall into a similar kind of error as that of certain medieval theologians who tried to settle questions of physics by means of biblical quotations.” Edward Copleston pointed to the danger of economics usurping the rest of science 200?? years ago. Economics has the tendency due to its relevance to certain strong drivers of human nature - envy and greed. Meta-economics is then the study of two parts: man and his environment (economics being study of man in his environment). Economics must derive its aims and objectives from the study of man and a large part of its methodology from the study of nature!! Important distinction between primary and secondary goods because secondary goods presuppose the existence of primary goods. An expansion of man’s ability to generate secondary goods is of no good unless it is prefaced by an increased ability to extract primary goods from the earth. “We produce in order to be able to afford certain amenities and comforts as ‘consumers’. If, however, somebody demanded these same amenities and comforts while he was engaged in ‘production’, he would be told that this would be uneconomic, that it would be inefficient, and that society could not afford such inefficiency. In other words, everything depends on whether it is done by man-as-producer or by man-as-consumer. If man-as- producer travels first-class or uses a luxurious car, this is called a waste of money: but if the same man in his other incarnation of man-as-consumer does the same, this is called a sign of a high standard of life. Nowhere is this dichotomy more noticeable than in connection with the use of the land. The farmer is considered simply as a producer who must cut his costs and raise his efficiency by every possible device, even if he thereby destroys - for man-as-consumer - the health of the soil and beauty of the landscape, and even if the end effect is the depopulation of the land and the overcrowding of cities. There are large-scale farmers, horticulturists, food manufacturers and fruit growers today who would never think of consuming any of their own products. ‘luckily, they say, ’we have enough money to be able to afford to buy products which have been organically grown, without the use of poisons.’ When-they are asked why they themselves do not adhere to organic methods and avoid the use of poisonous substances, they reply that they could not afford to do so. What man-as-producer can afford is one thing; what man-as-consumer can afford is quite another thing. But since the two are the same man, the question of what man - or society - can really afford gives rise to endless confusion…. The higher animals have an economic value because of their utility; but they have a meta-economic value in themselves. If I have a car, a man-made thing, I might quite legitimately argue that the best way to use it is never to bother about maintenance and simply run it to ruin. I may indeed have calculated that this is the most economical method of use. If the calculation is correct, nobody can criticise me for acting accordingly, for there is nothing sacred about a man-made thing like a car. But if I have an animal - be it only a calf or a hen - a living, sensitive creature, am I allowed to treat it as nothing but a utility?”