Planck E PressCenter Articles

• Home
• Articles
• Press Releases
• Reports

---

The Epiconomy and the Future of Employment

“Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Epiconomy starts with the marriage of ideas conceived by Adam Smith and Richard Dawkins. In the bible of the Economy, “The Wealth of the Nations”, Smith honors us with a profound study of human nature, almost as if our justification for existence is the act of negotiation.

It is very interesting to observe the coherency of Smith’s approach: if the generation of wealth has as its base a productive cycle, then it also bears a natural cost. Already in the XVIII century, Smith treats the environmental impact caused by a productive cycle as a diseconomy. Specifically, he deals with the scarcity of hunting and fishing as a consequence of rampant exploitation. A great portion of Smith’s monumental work refers to equilibrium: between demand and supply, price and cost, needs and desires.

Thanks to Aristoteles, we occidentals think in terms of lines, being logic the tool of this linear thought. And, logically, Smith can attribute a cost to every stage of a productive cycle. However, he humbly recognizes his incapacity of doing the same relative to the impact on nature caused by this cycle, for there are so many variables, factors, and co-factors that we have no lines of action, and if there are no lines, logic cannot serve us, and without logic, there is no effective thinking. In other words, the “Wealth of the Nations” establishes the Economy, but it is impotent concerning the Diseconomy.

In our proposition, this is where Dawkins enters. “The Selfish Gene” is a delicious book. It was published exactly 200 years after the “Wealth of the Nations”, in 1976. Fundamentally, it is a young man’s book, and as so, delivers a reinvigorating crunchiness and freshness. The surprising pleasure extracted from Dawkin’s first book lies in its coarseness: we are animals. We´re not superior primates, we´re not special because we have opposing thumbs, we´re not excellent because we think. After all, some animals fly, shine in the deepness of the sea, and produce glass and polymers at ambient temperature. There are even animals that produce glue underwater. And my dog dreams.

It is amazing to be human. However, it´s not special. I can´t affirm the totality, but a grand majority of animal species live in neutral productive cycles since the waste of one cycle is food for the next. In other words, I think I can affirm that the human being is the only animal that produces garbage, and that gives me the certainty that, in the chain of evolution, we are more or less, in the middle of the way.

Of everything that I have studied in life, where I really learned was in Switzerland. I only reached so far because I had a fantastic mathematics teacher in the seventh grade, wonderful biology, and chemistry teachers during middle school and an illuminated history professor in high school. I started university at the age of 16 and I´m eternally grateful to all those teachers that made me discover the pleasure of learning. But my mentor, the master that gave me the vision was Valentine Telegdi, owner of a Wolf Prize in Physics, and my advisor during my university extension in quantum mechanics at the ETH.

During the two years, I spent with him, I never received one answer. Every time I asked something, he would respond with a “what do you think?”, because, for him, the great answers in physics would come from the young, without professional vices, without absolute certainties, without ego problems or careers to defend.

It is however good to remember that beyond learning a lot about life, Telegdi also taught me one or two things about physics.

Within quantum mechanics, we work with enormous quantities of data and uncertainty. In his book “Physics and Philosophy”, Heisenberg brilliantly expounds his despair and that of his no less brilliant colleagues Planck, Bohr, and Schrodinger, when confronted with the incongruences of quantum mechanics. I imagine that the meetings they had would resemble -in much- group therapy sessions. It is starting with Heisenberg’s “Principle of Uncertainty” that a heterodox method begins to delineate the treatment of these data and uncertainties. This method is contextualization. So that we can establish a common ground of action: analysis is the direct descendent of Aristoteles, being defined as the process of decomposition of a complex topic in its most elementary parts, in a specialized form; whereas contextualization is the assessment of the interrelation of patterns, in a generalized form.

Revisiting Adam Smith, it becomes easy to understand the deepness of his analytical work that originates the Economy as the base of human association; but only from the context can we substantiate the Diseconomy.

Let´s take glyphosate as an example, which is the most widely used agricultural pesticide on the planet.

According to data from the chemical industry, in 2011, 650,000 tons of glyphosate were commercialized worldwide, generating a revenue of US$6.8 billion. The three major producers of herbicides based on glyphosate are Monsanto, with a 22% market share, Bayer, with a 19% market share, and Syngenta, with a 16% market share. In a direct approach, solely with the sales of glyphosate-based products, in the year 2011, Monsanto grossed US$1,5 billion, Bayer, US$1,3 billion, and Syngenta, US$1,1 billion. That is, 370,500 tons of glyphosate-based products responded to revenues in the order of US$4 billion.

But what is the value of the diseconomy caused by 650,000 tons of glyphosate?

Based on what has been written above, we move along Adam Smith´s distress: for 650,000 tons of glyphosate to have been produced, was there the use of any ore? If yes, what is the quantity of this ore left on the planet? What is the annual depletion rate? What is the reference used to determine the price of that ore? What does its production cost? If not, being it a chemical product, how is it produced? What are the prime materials used? Is there a system to measure the harm caused by this product? In truth, there are so many possible approaches to determine the environmental impact that it is not possible to -analytically- attribute a given value to the resulting diseconomy.

However, if we adopt contextualization instead of analysis, a whole new framework opens up to our comprehension.

When we deal with measurements related to global warming, it has become a convention to use CO2 as the reference factor, with its global warming potential (GWP) being equal to I. From there, the GWP for all other greenhouse gases is calculated.

The same principle is used when we deal with the negative environmental impact caused by human beings. In doing so, we adopt the Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the compound in question and calculate its corresponding Environmental Impact Potential (EIP). Through the fantastic job done by the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, we find the LCAs of more than 2000 compounds and their impact according to 141 possible scenarios.

In practice, let us take for example 1kg of glyphosate. This compound causes negative impacts on air, freshwater, marine water, agricultural soil, and industrial soil.

In the air, we can measure negative emissions of 1kg of glyphosate in the following scenarios:

• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Human Toxicity (HTP inf) - HTP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg. of glyphosate is equal to 0.003099kg equivalent (kgeq) of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP inf) FAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 22.932838kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAETP inf) - MAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 16.808816kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP inf) - TETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.0465913kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.

In freshwater reserves, we can measure the negative emissions of 1kg. of glyphosate in the following scenarios:

• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Human Toxicity (HTP inf) - HTP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg. of glyphosate is equal to 0.066238 kg equivalent (kgeq) of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP inf) - FAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 1,368.227175kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAETP inf) - MAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 4.157106kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP inf) - TETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 2.247040kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.

In marine water, we can measure negative emissions related to 1kg of glyphosate in the following scenarios:

• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Human Toxicity (HTP inf) - HTP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.000015kg. equivalent (kgeq) of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP inf) - FAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.00000kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAETP inf) - MAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 33.484579kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP inf) - TETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.000000kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.

In agricultural soil, we can measure the negative emissions of 1kg of glyphosate in the following scenarios:

• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Human Toxicity (HTP inf) - HTP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg. of glyphosate is equal to 0.014873kg equivalent (kgeq) of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP inf) - FAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.921647kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAETP inf) - MAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.002800kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP inf) - TETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.096342kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.

In industrial soil, we can measure the negative emissions of 1kg of glyphosate in the following scenarios:

• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Human Toxicity (HTP inf) - HTP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.000649kg equivalent (kgeq) of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP inf) - FAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 3.671884kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAETP inf) - MAETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.011156kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.
• Problem-oriented approach: baseline (CML, 1999) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP inf) - TETP inf. (Huijbregts, 1999&2000). In this scenario, the EIP of 1kg of glyphosate is equal to 0.09kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. In this case, 1,4-dichlorobenzene is adopted as the equivalent factor, analogous to what occurs with CO2, which is taken as the reference for global warming.

This very tedious presentation of all possible perspectives (negative emissions in air, freshwater reserves, marine water, agricultural soil, and industrial soil) and scenarios (human toxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity) relative to glyphosate objectifies reaching the following conclusions:

• From the point of view of negative emissions caused by 1kg of glyphosate in suspension (air), the diseconomies within the impact scenarios- amount to 39.79134409kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• From the point of view of negative emissions caused by 1kg of glyphosate released in freshwater reserves, the diseconomies within the impact scenarios- amount to 1,374.697559kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• From the point of view of negative emissions caused by 1kg of glyphosate released in marine water reserves, the diseconomies within the impact scenarios- amount to 33.484594kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• From the point of view of negative emissions caused by 1kg of glyphosate released in agricultural soil, the diseconomies within the impact scenarios- amount to 1.035662kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• From the point of view of negative emissions caused by 1kg of glyphosate released in industrial soil, the diseconomies within the impact scenarios- amount to 3.779647kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;

As stated before, when we approach a complex issue contextually, instead of analytically, we can reach diverse conclusions, however, always apply the same unit of measurement. Specifically, in terms of glyphosate, we can conclude that the greatest negative impact is caused by its release in freshwater reserves, while its natural application in agricultural soil, causes the smallest environmental impact.

The contextual vision, albeit its difficult initial application, allows for the organization of complex systems and the apprehension of totalities that unveil the interrelationship of patterns. The amalgamation resulting from the reading of “The Wealth of the Nations” and “The Selfish Gene” added to my personal and professional experience led to the proposition that follows.

Continuing from where we left off, where I place the human being at more-or-less half of his state-of-the-art potential, in terms of presence on the planet, I would say that the Economy is at the same time the propeller shaft of this civilization and the endpoint for all possibilities related to this half of the human state-of-the-art potential.

We´re living on a planet with 7.5 billion people. Only today, 145 billion emails will be sent, among the 3.6 billion internet users. The world´s armed forces spend around US$3 billion per day while 743 million people are undernourished and of those, 25,000 die of hunger every day. Per year, we lose 1.8 million hectares of forest; 2.5 million hectares of land erodes; 4.2 million hectares of land desertifies; 2 quadrillion liters of water will be consumed this year, while 610 million people have no access to potable water. In addition, with current technology, we have oil for another 38 years and natural gas for 150 more years.

By the end of 2017, 5.8% of the world´s workforce will be unemployed. This corresponds to 200 million people. The vulnerability rate of employment by the end of 2017 will be 46% and 65% of the children entering primary school will be getting jobs that still don´t exist today.

All these numbers refer to the Economy, half of the way through our production cycle.

The world´s GDP in 2015 was US$73 trillion and the diseconomies generated by the productive cycles that originated the GDP amounted to US$50 trillion.

Well, if we´re introducing the monetization of diseconomies, the pertinent question at hand is, “How did you arrive at US$50 trillion?” Easy. Laborious, but easy. Let´s take our glyphosate example again: we know that in 2011, 650,000 tons were commercialized, which corresponded to gross revenue of US$6.8 billion. Parting from the principle that glyphosate is a pesticide, let´s assume that 1% impacts the air, 95% agricultural soil, 3% industrial soil, 0.2% freshwater reserves, and 0.8% marine water. With calculations based on the Environmental Impact Potential (EIP), we have:

• Air: 6,500,000kg x 39.791344 = 258,643,736kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• Freshwater reserves: 1,300,000kg x 1,374.697559 = 1,787,106,827kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• Marine water: 5,200,000 x 33.484594 = 174,119,889kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• Agricultural soil: 617,500,000 x 1,035662 = 639,521,285kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;
• Industrial soil: 19,500,000 x 3.779647 = 73,703,116kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene;

We have been able to accomplish the first part of the diseconomy process as proposed by Adam Smith by quantifying the environmental impact caused by an anthropic productive cycle -in this specific case- of glyphosate. Let´s now continue to the second stage.

If the proposed scenario for the assessment of environmental impact caused by glyphosate uses 1,4-dichlorobenzene as the reference factor and this product has its roots solidly fixed in the universe of the Economy, then why not adopt the same factor as a price reference? Considering that the price of 1,4-dichlorobenzene orbits around US$2/kg (may/2017), the volume of environmental impact summed up as 2,933,094,853 kgeq of 1,4-dichlorobenzene, represents a diseconomy of US$5,9 billion. With this line of reasoning, within Aristotelian logic, we arrive at the calculation of world diseconomies of the order of US$50 trillion/year, as a counterpoint to the global GDP of 73 trillion/year (2015).

It´s very important to highlight the “mirror” condition of the Diseconomy. If in the Economy we have a GNP of US$73 trillion (2015) tending towards the infinite, in the Diseconomy we have ?let´s call it- a Gross Environmental Impact (GEI) of US$50 trillion (2015) that tends to zero. In the Economy, the cost is always inferior to the price, while in the Diseconomy, the cost (to the environment) is always greater than the price paid to remove the negative impact. 

At last, we arrive at the interrelation of patterns. Considering the Economy as the first stage of the human productive cycle and the Diseconomy as the second stage, that will lead us to the completeness of the process of ideal removal of all environmental liabilities, likening us to the grand majority of organisms inhabiting Earth, there´s a whole new market to be explored. For a long time, we´ve known about petroleum reserves in the North Sea, however, its exploration only commenced with the quadruplication of prices in 1973. If we have now found the way that leads us to the commercial exploration of diseconomies of our productive cycles, in an annual potential market of US$50 trillion, then it seems to me that the future of employment is assured.

Epiconomics and the future of employment
During the end of the XIX century, the Economy of petroleum begins. In 2016 the world produced and consumed 98 million barrels of crude oil per day. During the same year, the markets traded circa 480 million barrels daily. The product is bought and sold, numerous times, by people that have never seen a barrel of oil in their lifetime. We live in the petroleum era because this is the strongest commodity in the Economy. At NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange), future oil contracts are negotiated until 2032. Obviously, this market only exists because every day there´s a minimum availability of 700 thousand barrels of crude oil of the WTI type in Cushing, Oklahoma; at the port of Rotterdam, Netherlands, minimum availability of 300 thousand barrels of the Brent Blend; the port of Fateh, United Arab Emirates, disposes of 200 thousand barrels of crude; while 80 thousand barrels of crude are available at the terminal of Kerteh, Malaysia. WTI, Brent, Dubai, and Fateh are the principal petroleum references in the oil market and all the other 35 types of crude produced in the world, have their prices established according to those four. But when we return to the foundation of Adam Smith´s work, where he affirms that production is the base of the country´s wealth, we can understand the philosophical solidity of the Economy. It’s the existence and real possibility of physical use of these reference oils, their potential benefit, resulting in products of human utility, and -above all- our blind faith in these facts, that allows for the transformation of a Smithian economic scenario, where the generation of wealth involves the sales of 98 million barrels/day, into a Croesian economic scenario, where the generated wealth is the offspring of 480 million barrels/day.
Nonetheless, this quintuplication of economic wealth charges its price. Directly, Production causes the depletion of ore, pollution, and soil impoverishment; indirectly and ironically, it is the technological advancement that promotes the end of employment through the obsolescence of the human being.
The flourishment of the Diseconomy is the way that will allow humans to complete their production cycle. With the monetization of diseconomies, the negative emissions of one productive cycle cease to become waste and become raw materials for another cycle, uncurtaining infinite possibilities.

Analogous to the way in which companies began producing oil in the North Sea, once the cost-benefit relationship becomes favorable, diseconomies with absolute attributable market values will demand studies, transformative ideas, new technologies, and manpower. The completeness of the productive cycle of man on the planet will result in an Economy and a Diseconomy integrating into an Epiconomy, with a world GDP easily surpassing US$120 trillion/year.

---

---

For further information about Planck E PressCenter, please contact us.