I don’t know what economies are for, ultimately, other than to enable us to partake, in our own fashion, in a great universal flow.
And here’s another:
I have two thoughts on the question. First, beware of drift into ideology. Economic ideologies are a curse. Carts before horses, tails wagging dogs, self-imposed blinders! I prefer the dry proposal to look factually into import-stretching ratios.
Second, it seems to me that economies have a lot in common with language—a lot besides unpredictably making themselves up. What is language for? The glib answer is communication, which you could say of the yips of coyotes and pheromones of termites. Not an answer that does justice to the functions of language. Language is also for learning and to pass along learning, in the process permitting us to develop cultures and multitudes of purposes. Just so, economies are to fill material needs, which you could also say of the foraging of deer and the scavenging of buzzards. Not an answer that does justice to the functions of economies. Like language, economic life permits us to develop cultures and multitudes of purposes, and in my opinion, that’s its function which is most meaningful for us.
***
And while we're at it, what is nature for?
You put me in mind of how my grandfather thought about nature. He’d have said, “It’s to supply the needs of mankind.” Being a pious man, he’d have added, “So that mankind may bear witness to the abounding mercy of God.” Being a lawyer and a humanist, he’d have added, “So that people may evince justice and fairness to one another.”
Is that what nature is for? No, of course not. Nature has value and integrity in its own right, regardless of human needs.
