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.
In this passage the author is trying to
Options:
A . differentiate between renewable and non-renewable materials
B . show that the modern economist is only concerned with costs
C . underline the need for conserving natural resources
D . different between two economic philosophies
Answer: Option D The main focus of the passage is to highlight the differences between the perspective of modern economists and that of Buddhist economists regarding the use of natural resources, particularly fuels. The passage contrasts the approach of measuring everything by money price and automatically preferring the cheapest option (modern economics) with the Buddhist perspective that emphasizes the essential difference between renewable and non-renewable fuels and the need for careful and conservative use of non-renewable resources. Therefore, option (D) "differentiate between two economic philosophies" best captures the author's intent in the passage.
Submit Comment/FeedBack