Factory of The Mind

The fundamental subject, which makes a very compelling case to promote the adoption of farm living is economics. To understand how, we need to revisit our understanding of economics. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics defines economics as a study of managing ‘wealth’. Though not explicitly defined, wealth is considered as all that satisfies the human want, but excludes abundantly available resources like air, water, land, etc. Arthashastra, an ancient Indian text on state administration touches upon macro economics as an important component. It gives a lot of importance to agricultural land, forest land, cattle, rivers, mountains and other natural resources, not only as a means to fulfil the material needs but also security of the state and its people. The modern view of economics may have been relevant during the 18th century, but not in the 21st century. Water scarcity is the biggest crisis.  Pollution of air and water and soil health are formidable challenges. The scope ...

If a noticeable percentage of city residents, say 5%, decide to transition to farm living, it may usher in significant positive social and ecological changes. However, ‘making a positive social and/or ecological change’ can hardly be the trigger for an average urban resident to consider such transition. People adopt changes in the hope or conviction that their personal needs will be better served in the changed circumstances. This hope can get average people to work hard, bear pain and navigate through significant discomfort. The challenge, therefore is to establish a causal relationship between farm living and this hope. This task is an onerous one, particularly because after much effort, over decades of reinforcement, we, as a society, have almost unanimously bought into the idea that city is the place for a better life. Also, there aren’t enough people leading from the front. Many warriors of ecology and social change live in cities. Even if they live in villages, their lifestyle ha...

It may be quite frustrating to be a good professionals or service providers. A good doctor, teacher, business consultant, farmer, you name the profession - all of them are faced with too many customers who want quick fixes, prefer cheaper options, unwilling to pay for expertise and extract the best (most exploitative) deal. The larger good - ecology, social justice, fairness are macro concerns - they have no place at micro or transaction level. The service provider cares for the well-being of his client and also for the overall well-being. He knows how both can be achieved, but feels helpless. His dissonance leads him to being a failure and he too becomes a bad customer. We can do better than this. In every transaction we know who has an upper hand. Wherever I have an upper hand it is up to me to be a good customer. The goodness will catch on. Let that belief live on. Behaviour change at micro level is the only way to change the overall picture. The government, the spiritual guru or th...

Social change is caused by behaviour change or action taken by a large section of the population within a short time (3-5 years) and the action is not reversed in the short term. Such magnitude of action or behaviour change can either be self driven or enforced by an authoritative institution/legislation. Self driven action or change in behaviour, for most people, can happen for a reason that is deeply personal and intense. Most people almost never take sustained action or change behaviour for larger causes; for example, very few people take action for environment or social justice but most people would take action for better earning opportunity. It may be said that people take arms or cause riots for a larger cause. But such actions don't bring about a social change because they aren't sustained long enough.  Thus, it may be inferred that any social change (at macro level) is incidental and not intended. If that be the case, how can an organisation working for a larger social ...