Modern economies does not differentiate between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its method is to measures everything by means of a money price. Thus, taking various alternatives fuels, like coal, oil, wood or water power: the only difference between them recognised by modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The cheapest is automatically the one to be preferred, as to do otherwise would be irrational and 'uneconomic'. From a Buddhist point of view of course this will not do, the essential difference between non-renewable fuels like coal and oil on the one hand and renewable fuels like wood and water power on the other cannot be simply overlooked. Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indespensible, and then only with the greatest care and the highest concern for conservation. To use them carelessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be possible on earth, it is nonetheless the duty of man to aim at deal of non-violence in all he does.
According to the passage, Buddhist economists are not in favour of
Options:
A . measuring everything in terms of money
B . using non-renewable sources
C . economic development
D . applying non-violence to every sphere of life
Answer: Option A
Reason:
The passage indicates that Buddhist economists do not agree with the modern economic approach of measuring everything in terms of money. It emphasizes the essential difference between renewable and non-renewable fuels, suggesting that the sole consideration of relative cost per equivalent unit, as done by modern economics, is not aligned with the Buddhist point of view. Therefore, option (A) is the correct choice.
Submit Comment/FeedBack