This definition clearly underscores balance as the ultimate goal. Actually, the Turkish word for economics is “iktisat,” which is borrowed from the Arabic word “iqtisad,” meaning “median, the middle way or equilibrium.” It is not without reason that Imam al-Ghazali’s famous book in which he expounds the tenets of the Ahl al-Sunnah creed is titled “al-Iqtisad fil-i’tiqad” (Median in Belief). Here, Ghazali uses the term “iqtisad” to mean “the middle path, moderation and balance.”However, this does not mean that the modern West uses the same term in the same sense. Although the ultimate goal is to establish a “balance,” there are considerable paradoxes and differences of nature in the elements between which this “balance” is sought to be established: limited natural resources and unlimited human needs.
The first objection that we can raise should be about the incorrectly established premises: Human needs are limited, and it is human desires that are unlimited. Thus, modern economics replaced “needs” with “desires” and then moved on to provoke or incite those desires. The material resources of nature are not sufficient to satisfy them. This further hinders fair distribution of these material resources. This bears in itself a huge potential for conflict. So it is economics that must be questioned.
An important question is: Should science try to establish a balance between resources and desires or between resources and needs? Of course, any attempt to establish balance should be between “material resources” and “needs” because desires are unlimited and needs are limited.
Another misconception is that the UN summit held in Brazil made mention of “sustainable development.” It is generally accepted that the ideology of development has brought the world to its physical limits. Uncontrolled and unlimited development is not possible as it eventually strains physical limits (destruction of the environment and ecological balance). Given this, they conclude, “sustainable development” is what countries should do.
It should be noted that “sustainable development” is uncontrolled development dressed up in an eye-catching cover. One cannot have a correct idea about “uncontrolled or sustainable” development without first questioning development itself. Development is an ideology and policy. It is not a technical or economical event or process as claimed by liberal economists.
The truth that is manifested experimentally tells us: The ideology of development is neither possible nor genuine. For instance, there are more than 500 million motor vehicles in circulation in the US, which has a population of 302 million. Suppose China has a population of 1.3 billion and every person in China uses two cars as in the US. This makes 2.6 billion cars. Adding India, Korea, Brazil and Indonesia as the emerging developing countries and other countries to this, and in such a developed world, life on earth would cease to exist in one week. But we cannot dissuade the Chinese from using cars like Americans or Germans because they have the “right” to use cars just like Americans. Currently, China is actively involved in economic life and exhibits rapid growth, but the Chinese do not consume. They just produce and sell. One day, they will emerge as consumers, and then we will see what this planet’s situation will be. Material wealth and prosperity obtained via this development will produce genuine happiness, peace and serenity in other countries as it did in Western societies, or will it?
This growth model:
(1) leads to intolerable inequalities and creates deep-running inequalities among countries, regions and classes;
(2) deeply shakes the ecological balance and makes the environment unlivable;
(3) leads to greater social unrest, civil wars, conflicts and impoverishment.
Today, one-fifth of the world’s population exerts control over the remaining 80 percent. Of this, only 2 percent have real control. In the near future, only one person out of every 10 people will be able to live in prosperity.
