The Science of Demand (13) - Unofficial Translation of Steven Cheung's 经济解释 - 科学说需求

Section 5.  Conclusion

Though there are reasons to believe selfish is human nature, is truth, is unalterable, from the viewpoint of economics, this truth is not significant. Of significance is treating selfishness as a dialectic postulate, disallowing any argument on this starting point. How commendable is this postulate in explaining human behavior depends on whether this or other additional postulates could derive certain refutable implication, which can then be objectively tested against facts. In this game of scientific dialectics, due to logical restrictions, we cannot say mankind is sometimes selfish and sometimes unselfish, which would otherwise render us logically unable to derive any refutable implication.

With this approach, the selfish postulate does have amazing explanatory power. In the future some genius may devise a more useful postulate to replace selfishness. We currently, however, do not have a better choice, thus have to stick rigidly to this selfish postulate. This is not stubborn, but a rule set by the methodology of science.

Supposing human nature is selfish (only God knows if it is right or wrong) and unalterable, then the system and policies set by an “ideology” based on alterable selfishness are doomed to fail. This is the past experience of China. Less and less people in the world today believe in this “unselfish ideology”, though that is still being exploited by some selfish people to further their own power and personal gain.

There is yet another interesting question. Assuming the selfish nature of mankind is indeed alterable, and the transformer has God’s capability, how will mankind be transformed? Saying that mankind can be altered to being unselfish does not say how mankind ought to be. Like a cucumber? Like a computer? Like Frankenstein? I am not sure if our readers have any brilliant ideas. My intuition is even if a person were like an angel with no selfish genes, that person might be more horrifying than a selfish person.

“Self” or “private” in Chinese culture has none commendable implication: “packing belongings away and fleeing privately”, “deals done privately”, “self-interest”, etc., all carry derogatory connotation, while “caring about the public good without thinking about oneself” carries positive connotation. After opening up to reforms for more than thirty years, China has experienced unbelievable growth. “Private” enterprises are called enterprises operated by “ordinary citizens”, since “self” and “private” are still inappropriate. What about in the West? “Private” is valued. I have not investigated why there is such a big difference from Chinese culture. As earlier said, “selfish” here is an abbreviation of “constrained maximization” which is a postulate. No value judgment is involved, hence whether selfish is good or bad is irrelevant.