The New Economics – The Optimized Economy

Introduction

Human activity can be called by various terms: economics, economy, behaviourism, herd logistics, etc. This is a secondary issue, essentially limited to semantics. What is at the heart of the issue is that, as intelligent beings, we are not condemned solely to spontaneous mechanisms (e.g. the free market), but we can (and do so with increasing success) create reality. Creation can be qualitatively different. It can be a strictly economic creation (understood as an intentional and planned action), which does not work out well for us as humanity, but it can also be a creation relating to the greatest natural attribute of humans, which is our cognitive functions, namely intelligence.
For this reason, however, it is better to call humans Homo sapiens instead of Homo oeconomicus.

It is the widespread development of education and investment in science in the broadest sense as fully intentional and planned actions that have brought exponential growth in civilisational development and prosperity to humanity. They have done so to a greater extent than the spontaneous free market process, without detracting anything from it. Moreover, man, being an intelligent being who acts consciously, is ultimately condemned to act intentionally to a greater extent than spontaneous processes, because intentionality, especially with technological development, can increasingly harm these processes (including the free market). Man is ultimately condemned to an almost fully technologised and created reality, which he will not only be able to, but above all have to, correct himself.

As we know very well, spontaneous processes do not like correction. It can paradoxically be said that man, thanks to his intentional nature, is increasingly distorting the free market, which is a spontaneous mechanism, and this is an irreversible process. Therefore, in the future, we will necessarily have less and less free market in the free market (in fact, this is already happening today) and more and more technologised creation. Rather, the free market as such will not annihilate, but will most likely become a marginal phenomenon.

The fact that economic processes are highly complex and emergent phenomena, difficult or impossible for humans to replicate, does not mean that we must be condemned to this process or to its duplication by, for example, artificial intelligence. Thanks to our cognitive abilities as beings with sufficiently highly developed intelligence, we are able to create substitute processes, often even better from the point of view of our utility than the source/natural processes.

Thanks to air transport, we are able to travel great distances at high speed. This was made possible by the aeroplane – the result of human cognitive abilities. Although the construction of the aeroplane's components responsible for the lifting force is a major simplification of the evolutionary work with which birds have been equipped, the human invention beats this evolutionary invention by its utility value (covering great distances in a relatively short time).

The complexity of economic processes, despite their simple idea of a flow of goods and services from the producer to the consumer, is largely due, among other things, to the complex system of supply chains. This is because the production of goods is currently still a multi-stage process, dependent on the cooperation of numerous actors specialising in the production of a relatively narrow range of products even within a single industry. The production of more complex goods, e.g. an aeroplane or a car, is often dispersed over a large geographical area and this inevitably causes major logistical challenges, also for the economy.

The point is that this does not have to be the case in the future, and that the increase in the universal manufacturing capacity of individual economic players, together with the advances in robotisation and automation, will significantly reduce the supply chain and free production processes from logistical nuisances. It should even be stated that the more modern the economy is, the more inherently less complex the organisational and logistical aspects become, which are the main cause of the complexity and emergent nature of its processes.

This is just one example of how previously considered unsolvable problems are becoming solvable thanks to the progress of science and human cognitive abilities. Using this analogy, at a high level of generality, one can conclude that these regularities apply to virtually all complex issues. The prerequisite for this is, of course, that not profit, but science in the broadest sense, with its optimum use thanks to intellectual potential, is placed at the centre.

If we look around carefully, we can see that most things, although obvious, are no longer natural to us – general living conditions e.g. housing (buildings instead of caves) or food (agricultural cultivation), the settlement of high latitudes, complex medical treatments, transport, high technology, computing, artificial intelligence and countless aspects related to the development of our civilisation. Along the way, we inevitably create new emergent processes even without being fully aware of them, often surpassing in complexity those that are a 'product' of nature. A good example of this is the aforementioned artificial intelligence, certain aspects of which, related to its learning, are a mystery to its creators themselves!

Extrapolating the above examples to economic issues, the effects will be similar.
The conundrum is not a question of 'if' but 'when'. Keeping all things in proportion to the scale of the challenge of harnessing the economy (including globally) through our cognitive abilities using new technologies, it is clear that this is not some qualitative exception. It is more of a quantitative issue, the solution of which will simply require more time in proportion to the other challenges. Besides, an immanent feature of the structure of the human psyche is scepticism and a lack of imagination and faith in the capabilities of the human mind, which often surprises us, probably because of our limited knowledge of it. Man's historical and eternal desire to rise above the earth into the air, being a classic example of utopia through the ages, best illustrates this.

Contrary to various opinions based on the selfish gene and the principle guided by pure egoism, man as a very complex structure is also capable of altruistic behaviour in the emotional field, and not only at the individual level, but also at the herd level, moreover in a systemic manner. Examples of such social behaviour are the tax system or the awareness of the common good, and many other more or less abstract attitudes that have no counterparts in the natural world. Our level of development also makes it possible to understand that the world is a very complex structure and that many of these systemic, altruistic behaviours are capable of producing an overall benefit in the long term.

Without the use of cognitive abilities, the economic processes themselves
(or, if you prefer, the economics of human behaviour in general), in the context of civilisational development and well-being, would essentially be a zero-sum equation. We can see this in the example of all other species, which, deprived of our level of development and only retaining their own behaviourism, have not been able to improve their own well-being since the beginning of their existence for millions of years. They do not evolve in a functional sense as fast as humans, the exception in nature.

Therefore, we need an approach that is more focused on optimized and maximized use of the potential of our cognitive abilities, rather than focusing solely on strictly economic and economic solutions. The economy and economics cannot be an end in themselves, but one of the means leading to the goal, which should be the development of civilisation and human well-being in the broadest sense. Nothing is better suited to achieving this goal than our cognitive abilities and the broad engagement of science.

A key principle to understand about the economy is that although the free market is a natural and spontaneous phenomenon, it is not compatible with human nature.
Man, although undoubtedly derived from nature, as a general rule, his behavior and the decisions he makes of all kinds, in statistical terms, stand in complete contrast to the rest of the species. Being an intelligent being, he is not guided by instincts, but takes intentional, i.e. unspontaneous actions. In the economic context, the consequences of such functioning are fundamental! This is the key to realizing one of the most significant, if not the most significant, cognitive error with regard to an economy founded on the free market paradigm.

This principle reads:The natural asymmetric nature of human actions (intentionality), which stands in contrast to the linear nature of economic assumptions (predictability of the algorithms that govern these assumptions), including the free market, necessitates the need to apply control over certain economic processes in a coordinated manner (using technology, emerging through science, i.e. the highly developed cognitive functions of man), in order to reduce the undesirable inertia that characterises classical economics (unpredictability of the negative effects of, among other things, the free market).

Capitalist, feudal or socialist/communist concepts are all more or less irrational and oppressive in their own way, and as such are emanations of the culture of different eras and human emotions. All these concepts, although strongly antagonised with each other, have one thing in common – they are first and foremost ends in themselves, focused on the distribution of the final element of the economy, which is the good produced, instead of using a holistic and consequently more efficient strategy. Therefore, a more fundamental change is needed than at the level of the production of goods and their distribution. What is needed is a change at the level of the strategy of producing these goods, focusing on the benefits of civilisation.

Man, as a rational being, possessing in nature the greatest asset necessary for the development of the well-being of his species, i.e. intelligence, both individually and socially, should primarily focus on the development of civilisation without the use of intermediate tools, wasting energy, time and resources. If we focus more exclusively on the distribution of wealth and individual gains, the more we will all lose out. By failing to make optimal use of intellectual resources already at the level of the strategy of producing these goods – analysing their quality, general availability or the rationality of using the resources necessary for their production – we create developmental limitations for ourselves as a community.

If we do not have a proper strategy, we become hostage to economic development, environmental degradation, the waste of precious natural resources or the production of goods with a deadline, because we have to produce and sell more and more in order to guarantee financial profit and employment. In the long run, this is a road to nowhere.

The overriding value should be the development of civilisation as a whole and its well-being, because this is simply rational and most profitable for everyone – most importantly, also in the long term. If we put the matter this way, it can be seen that all the three socio-economic orders mentioned are closer to each other than to a position that focuses on intellectual/scientific potential for the sake of the good
and interest of all.

Economies focusing on the mere production of goods, their distribution and the profit from their sale, will necessarily not be committed to their easy availability, as this will clearly conflict with their purpose and interests.

As living beings and 'consumers' of oxygen, we are not interested in whether the air is capitalist, communist or feudal. For humans, the most important value is the very fact that it simply is. There is enough of it for everyone and, fortunately, none of the
above-mentioned socio-economic orders need to involve themselves in its distribution. This state of affairs serves everyone, because we can exist peacefully. We do not have to pay to consume it as part of a capitalist business licensed to do so. Nor is it forbidden to breathe fully under ideological tyranny. And there are also no restrictions by virtue of servitude to a feudal who has usurped ownership of all natural goods.

Of course, air is an example of a good available in unlimited quantity, which is a gift to us from nature, but on the other hand it symbolises true, unconditional freedom.
This example is just a signpost for us in which direction we can and should go.
For short-term gains of dubious quality for our entire species, it is not worthwhile to move towards systems that primarily feed themselves.

It is in the interest of each of us as well as the community as a whole to use man's greatest asset – reason – in a coordinated, most efficient and optimal way.

Sylwester Fiet