Chapter 3 – Synthesis of economic and scientific activities 1/2
3.1 Historical stages of welfare creation
Since prehistoric times, man has engaged in various activities to improve his material situation and general well-being. In different eras, different activities functioned as main or accompanying activities, ranging from a hunter-gatherer society through agriculture, to an era in which trade flourished with the development of civilisation, to modern times with the Industrial Revolution and widespread industrialisation. What they have in common is the extensive economy and management of natural resources.
Each of these eras has left its mark on human civilisation. Some did so less, others to a greater extent. Some activities have been replaced by others, and still others have remained with us to this day.
If we analyse today's times and look at human activity, its characteristics, habits, mental sphere, the priorities set to improve our well-being, etc., we can see that mentally we are strongly linked to the paradigms of commercial activity. We can therefore conclude that we are still strongly influenced by merchant culture, being more or less aware of this fact.
On the one hand, we are aware of the power of science, but on the other, we are more attached to mercantile solutions, as we have mainly been shaped by them.
Another common feature of the activities mentioned is their unreliability, transience, and the fact that they are being replaced by those of greater complexity and involvement of intellectual potential. We conclude that they do not represent universal solutions, but are merely the product of our intellect, representing a certain level at a certain time, just like the whole development of civilisation.
Just as at the time of the transition between the feudal system and free market capitalism, it was hard for many people to realise that there could be any better world order than the monarchy with its hierarchical structure, so today we fall into an analogous cognitive trap, axiomatically recognising one or another current model as non-alternative and being the best possible guarantor of prosperity and civilisational development.
Meanwhile, we are dealing with the opposite process, in which our cognitive functions play a central role. They are the source giving rise to different eras, social, economic and political orders and, most significantly, technological ones.
From historical examples, we can observe quite close correlations between openness to cognitive processes: educational, exploratory or related to the exchange of information between different cultural circles and faster civilisational development. It was, among other things, the great geographical discoveries at the end of the 15th century that provided a huge developmental impulse and a milestone towards the Renaissance and the flowering of many fields, including science, and then the Age of Enlightenment.
It is very difficult to imagine the social, philosophical, political, economic, scientific, technological and, above all, mental changes in the Age of Enlightenment without the influence of the Renaissance on the development of Europe. Furthermore, it is above all thanks to this cause-and-effect relationship that the idea of liberalism, free-market capitalism or the Industrial Revolution could have emerged. This cause-and-effect relationship is incomparably more important than the direct correlation between free market capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.
While the link between free market capitalism and the Industrial Revolution is natural, the more significant and necessary condition for the emergence of both and each separately was the fundamental intellectual change that had previously taken place in European society and the Western world as a whole.
The free market of the 18th and 19th centuries therefore did not arise in isolation from reality, but was a natural consequence of earlier processes.
Various forms of capitalism arose much earlier, as early as the 13th and 14th centuries in Italy and even in ancient times. However, they did not record such a development as the capitalism of the nineteenth century for various reasons, but above all because they lacked a sufficiently high technological level, which, thanks to the development of science, could only materialise five hundred years later in the form of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, the main cause and source of development in the broadest sense of the term and the methods for creating wealth should not be sought in such or such a different economic system, but in man's natural creative abilities and the creation of optimal conditions for their maximum possible use. Of course, models may differ in their effectiveness in unleashing human intellectual potential, but as a general rule, the source of progress remains the cognitive functions with which nature has endowed us through evolution.
Merchant culture was so firmly entrenched in human consciousness that even the rival economic systems of the 20th century – capitalism and socialism/communism – despite their many differences, were strongly influenced by it, basing their doctrines on the production of goods without much reflection on the exploitation of natural resources, environmental or social factors or the overall strategy of their production in the context of optimising civilisational development. In the case of communist states, the role of merchant/trader was played by their authoritarian central authorities.
As a species, however, we tend to overestimate the status quo, which we have often mischaracterised throughout history as the end state, or even the perfect state. The reason for this is probably a lack of sufficient cognitive capacity and anticipation beyond our own era. Although, when viewed from a statistical point of view and historical experience, the belief in the uniqueness of one's own era and the universality of the characteristics of the various elements within it is unlikely and very naïve.
Of course, new solutions are not always the right ones. Examples from history in the form of communism or fascism best demonstrate this. However, the nature of pathological cases reveals its face quite quickly. Fascism, as a caricature of the state and republicanism, and communism, as a caricature of community, social solidarity and constructive socialist demands, appeared already in their beginnings as phenomena of suspicion and horror. Their bloody totalitarianisms, brutally combating all expressions of freedom, became the ultimate confirmation of this.
3.2 The key role of intellectual capacity
The only element, distinguished by universal characteristics, that we can observe in these processes is the human intellect. It is the human cognitive function that is the true engine of progress, which nothing else has been able to replace so far, and certainly not this simple algorithm of the law of supply and demand. Lessons from history should be learned, no less, nowadays, science should be our natural choice as a means of achieving our goals, especially as the existing ones in the form of the classical economy are increasingly starting to fail and generate negativity.
Naturally, pathological economic mechanisms have an impact on very practical aspects affecting each of us: the use of cheaper components for products such as cars at the expense of human safety, the planned mass ageing of products by most manufacturers, price collusion, or the mass production of unhealthy, highly processed food. These examples are just a drop in the ocean of all phenomena in the market. These are not extreme cases, but rules applied by economic operators.
There are many examples of pathological behaviour in the market that are derived from human actions, but which the free market alone cannot prevent. It is possible to envisage a situation where several powerful players in the market, who should theoretically be competing with each other, will in reality be more inclined towards tacit cooperation or at least mutual neutrality.
This is because these players are human beings – conscious, intentional beings, limited by their own behaviourism – who make calculations. They may come to the conclusion that, from a certain point onwards, it will be more comfortable for them to maintain their position in the market, and that an assurance action is more beneficial, providing a sense of stability and security as opposed to risky competition and the uncertainty that comes with it.
The entry of new players into the market in such a situation more often ends in theoretical considerations than in practice. Examples are sometimes given of powerful new companies in the IT industry, among others, which until recently were insignificant players. At the same time, it is forgotten that the IT domain is a relatively young industry and has already been dominated by a few, which only confirms the general trend towards monopolisation in the market.
Large economic players exploiting their position and power in the market are also becoming a threat to freedom and democracy more broadly.
One can be critical of this state of affairs, or one can look at it realistically and conclude that it is an immanent and natural feature of the market, occurring according to the principle that if it is possible to achieve a superior goal through the path of least resistance, this is the path that will be taken. It is possible to defend and explain such processes with arguments of economic viability, or even social benefits, associated with the labour market. However, this will always just be a defence of the irrational status quo while ignoring the attempt to apply any alternative.
It is always the case that major changes bring side effects and accompanying social unrest, but we cannot stop the inevitable processes, led by the robotisation and automation of many industries. It would even be detrimental to do so. On the other hand, avoiding solving problems in advance, which will happen anyway, is all the more irrational.
Such phenomena on a broader scale result in the economy taking two steps forward and one step backwards in the context of civilisation. The point is that all steps should be steps taken forward.
If a comparison is made between a model in which an entity makes an investment with a greater commitment to scientific potential in the development of, for example, medicine, rather than an investment geared towards a quick rate of return, it will most often become apparent that the former investment model will be more favourable to the entity in the long term. The credibility of the entity will also become an important factor. The price will be a longer time to wait for the final result, but the bonus of using scientific solutions will bring disproportionately greater economic, but also civilisational benefits compared to the classical model.
The values derived from such a model, also on a wider scale, will prove to be disproportionately greater for all than in the traditional model, the more they are implemented en masse and in many domains simultaneously. The scientific factor is many times a more effective means of arriving at more advanced and satisfying solutions and overall well-being in all aspects of our lives than the traditional model, which aims almost exclusively at financial gain.
The economic model supported by scientific achievements is so effective that it will ultimately prove to be more beneficial even to wealthy individuals, as the increased quality of human existence on a macro scale will surpass that achieved by classical methods and financial engineering by the large market players.
It is not difficult to imagine many examples of this type, where, for example, a newly developed cure for a hitherto incurable disease, the general level of medicine, new technologies to facilitate a comfortable life, or the production of healthy food and a general increase in quality of life using a science-supported model, will be incomparably more important to these people than the financial fortunes gained with which goods can be acquired, but of limited capacity and quality.
The quick rate of return and the culture associated with the classic model, the mental issues and the business decisions taken, although short-sighted, may seem more attractive and safer for business ventures. Much, therefore, depends on the successive implementation of comprehensive systemic solutions, statutory legal regulations – e.g. liberalisation of patent law – social issues, while activation, motivation and support mechanisms from the public sector at all levels.
Multidimensional cooperation at the international level, while respecting the sovereign decisions of all political actors, is also desirable.
There is a need for serious public sector participation in these processes, both from the scientific and logistical base, as well as from the many complex economic activities linking many industries. Finally, a lot of information, organisational and also educational work is needed on the culture of exploiting scientific potential and the many sociological aspects in this area.
When creating an adequate research base, particular care should be taken to create motivational factors. In addition to various financial aspects such as offers of preferential loans for this type of activity or taxation of large economic entities, attractive conditions must be created for better quality and faster career development of scientific personnel.
The activity of the public sector, in cooperation with private entities, should become a very important factor in the form of competitiveness in relation to the rest of the market in the production of goods and services in the context of their civilisational values, and not only commercial ones. Over time, science-based projects will, thanks to their efficiency, also start to compensate for the investment costs associated with the slower rate of return and the problems inherent in processes at an early stage of their development, compared to the classic model.
With the right organisation and synergies between the various economic activities and the scientific base, these ventures will be able to positively address the financing of their own ongoing development at an increasingly rapid pace.
In very many cases, it is not so much the specific amount of investment that matters as the methodology used. It is very important to make optimum use of the creative factor, and not just the reproductive one, at man's disposal, and to replace quantity with quality in action. It is, after all, reason that is the greatest attribute of our species, not coincidentally called Homo Sapiens by ourselves, which should oblige humanity all the more strongly to use it effectively.
Such a model will better benefit both the individual and the public, across the spectrum of quality of life. This is supported by the rationality implicit in the effectiveness of scientific solutions and the stability implicit in the more structured nature of this model.
The graphic below indicatively shows how, over the centuries, science, thanks to man's natural cognitive functions, in addition to strictly economic activities, has gained increasing influence on the development of civilisation over the last millennium.
Graphic 4 – Impact of economy and science on the development of civilisation
Graphic 4 for preview and download as PNG, SVG and TXT file