The Emergence of new Economic Paradigms: Specifically Ecological Economics

Introduction:

Starting from the prehistoric ages of primitive tool-making to our era of complex technology, humanity has used the earth and its resources to ensure its survival and provide itself with a sense of well-being and comfort through material means. However, as our capacity for technological development continues to advance, so does our ability to exploit and harness the planet’s natural resources to satisfy our growing social and economic demands. This trend has been going on for centuries and even millenniums but in the recent years has it begun to jeopardize our livelihood; and if uncontrolled it is likely to threaten our very existence. The environmental and natural sciences have long ago revealed the potential vulnerability of our planet and forewarned us of the dire consequences of the burdens we continue to subject the earth to with our reckless pursuit of economic growth. Today the planet seems to be validating claims of a limit to its resilience and a threshold after which irreversible natural events may come into manifestation. While ignorance of the extent of the burden we subject the planet to has hitherto provided leeway for our actions to persist. The escalation in frequency and magnitude of natural disasters such as tsunamis, hurricanes and earth quakes, as well as the alarming rate at which arctic glaciers are melting, testify to the immediacy of the environmental crisis that looms upon us. Faced with this global exigency, neoclassical economists have been forced to reevaluate their original models representing the economy’s relationship with the ecosystem. Indeed, in light of our realization of the detrimental effects that human activities can have on the environment, a new economic paradigm has also emerged and is gaining an increasing level of popularity amongst scholars in both the economics discipline and the ecology discipline. This philosophy, as it is has occasionally been described, is called ecological economics.
In addition, to dealing with its weaknesses as far as its relationship with the environment is concerned, neoclassical economics may also benefit from clarifying the ultimate goal of its science and redirecting its efforts towards reaching its stated purpose. In this paper, we will begin by:
1. Explaining the generally accepted aims and concepts of neoclassical economics, and discussing its efforts to approach the problem of environmental pollution.
3. We describe the field of ecological economics and contrast it with neoclassical economics
4. We then go on to briefly discuss a few other economic paradigms and illustrate their potential contributions to mainstream economics to aid it in achieving its goals.

Neoclassical Economics:

The discipline of economics itself emerged from a need to deal with the problem of producing goods for the maximum of consumers, given a limited amount of available resources. It concerns itself with providing an optimal standard of living for both our generation and the ones to come. Neoclassical economics has used a plethora of mathematical and statistical tools as well as developed complex models to aid it in this endeavor. Today it finds itself a prisoner of its own tools and assumptions whose role of simplifying complex economic realities into models has reduced the potential of its prediction capabilities. Ironically, Neoclassical Economics was born in light of the lack of educated foresight of its predecessor Classical Economics. Its predecessor’s lack of foresight was epitomized by Thomas Malthus’ dismal theory concerning the fate of the world’s future living standards. He predicted that due to the fact that food supply was subject to an arithmetic rate of growth while the population’s rate of growth was exponential, humans were bound to reach a point where standards of living would be reduced to deplorable conditions. Basing itself on Malthus’ theory, classical economists widely held the view that the environment set a limit to economic growth. The progress of technological advances and its effect on the development of a more productive agriculture dismantled Malthus’ theory and classical economics itself with it. From its ruins emerged a new economics known today as Neo-classical economics; which is considered nowadays as the mainstream economics. Being a social science ostensibly dependent on interdisciplinary knowledge, neoclassical economics has been lead to many sound economic conclusions based on general wisdom born from other disciplines. However, it is clear that its current resistance to the input of the natural sciences, for example, has also resulted in incomplete or erroneous assumptions concerning ecological systems that have and will lead to economic decisions that fail to be optimal in the long run. Indeed neoclassical economics’ theory of the rational “economic man” has been shown to be lacking soundness, for it is frequently the case that man has overexploited the earth’s resources in the search for economic gain to the point of losing his very source of income. Of course this does not make the discipline itself invalid but it does argue for its inevitable imperfection and thus a need for improvement. Fortunately economists are aware of the disciplines’ weaknesses and have given birth to a few sub-disciplines to resolve some of these issues. Environmental Economics and Resource Economics are the offspring that have come about as an academic means to address mainstream economics’ failure to properly deal with the negative externalities that are pollution and a lack of sustainability. However, as subfields of the discipline, they mostly utilize the same tools and rest within the same paradigm as mainstream economics. Consequently their approach to environmental issues remains roughly the same as Neoclassical Economics. As described by (Daly and Farley 2004) “…conventional economics sees the economy, the entire macro-economy as a whole. To the extent that nature or the environment is considered at all, they are thought as parts or sectors of the macro-economy.” Ecological economics, however views the economy with a whole new perspective.

Ecological Economics and its contrasts with Neoclassical Economics:

Departing from the prevailing economic way of viewing the environment, Ecological economics offers a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the relationship between the economy and the environment. Again as put by (Daly and Farley 2004) “ Ecological economics, by contrast, envisions the macro-economy as part of a larger enveloping and sustaining whole—namely, the Earth, its atmosphere, and its ecosystem. The economy is seen as an open subsystem of that larger Ecosystem”. As opposed to Neoclassical Economics, Ecological economics strives to adopt an economic development path that does not lead to an eventual transgression of the earth’s resilience threshold. The discipline utilizes the knowledge that is generated from the natural sciences in its endeavor to reconcile economic growth with ecological sustainability. It acknowledges the uncertainty that is characteristic of the risks involved in our manipulation and transformation of the earth. While Neoclassical Economics naively postulates that future technological advances will have the ability to undo the consequences of our uninformed and environmentally pernicious activities, Ecological economics approaches uncertainty with prudence and astuteness. The latter discipline is aware of the dangerous repercussions of running blindly into the obscurity of unknown possibilities and outcomes that may turn out to be harmful and even irreversible. Therefore it relies on the guidance of the natural sciences whose expertise and understanding of the ecological system give it a better assessment of the possibilities for economic growth that run the least environmental risks possible. Though mainstream economics has begun to work with the concept of sustainability it still lags behind ecological economics’ broad focus on maintaining the integrity of the environment and its resources for the benefit of future generations; this is because it believes that future generation’s quality of life should not be largely discounted in favor of overconsumption in the present generation. Ecological Economics recognizes that there are three elements of sustainability that need to be attained in any community; that is economic sustainability but also social sustainability and ecological sustainability. The Economy, the ecology and society are complex systems that are intertwined and interconnected. When one of these systems is left uncontrolled and does not seek to advance for the benefit of the rest of the systems, it inevitably finds itself affected. In fact, veritable economic efficiency, considers the costs and benefits across all the systems that affect the economy. It seeks to obtain the true costs of such activities that cause a depletion of natural resources. It concerns itself with the effect that certain economic activities may have on society itself and the integrity of social capital. It captures the environmental and health costs of activities that produce large quantities of waste, air pollution, water pollution etc… The realization of all these costs should naturally bring the economy towards efficiency and sustainability. Value is another concept where neoclassical economists and ecological economists diverge in perspective. To the first, value is narrowly defined and totally determined by either the market price or an individual’s stated willingness to pay. The latter suggests that the theory of value should be represented in all its complexity by incorporating the intrinsic value, aesthetic value, intrinsic value, socio-cultural value as well as the economic value of a good or service, whether it be provided by nature of by human labor.

Other Emerging Economic Paradigms:

As mentioned earlier, Neoclassical Economics’ failure to address many of its weaknesses adequately has opened the door for new economic paradigms to emerge through the umbrella of a few disciplines including that of economics itself. In this section of the paper we discuss these new economic approaches and their potential contributions to creating sustainability driven and comprehensive field of economics.

Schumacher’s Economics (Dubbed “Buddhist Economics”):

“Buddhist economics” as it is called today, was made popular in the west by author Ernest Friedrich Schumacher through his book “Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered”. In his book Schumacher argues that conventional economics’ blind pursuit of profit should not be at the expense of the very people’s quality of life that the discipline is intended to preserve and enhance. He not only envisions changing the conventional economic paradigm but also the type of society it is producing. Buddhist economics views the trend of consumerism started by the prevailing economic ideology as phenomena that inevitably ends in the overconsumption and depletion of our finite resources. It seeks to change the sort of economic environment that promotes such behavior. Inspired by spiritual values offered by the Buddhist religion; Buddhist economics goes even deeper than merely attempting to change economic concepts and assumptions. It seeks to change the way of life of the actors that make the economy, thus creating a different economic dynamic from its roots; by changing the people’s approach to fulfilling their individual lives. Buddhist economics aims at the very core of neoclassical economics ultimate goal; which is to increase people’s well being or standards of living. However it does not see material acquisitions as the principal solution to increasing well-being. Though it concedes that material possessions are important it does not abide to the slogan “more is better” but more so “small is beautiful”. Buddhist economists are similar to ecological economists in their belief that the ecosystem, the human species and the rest of the species in the planet are interconnected and their vision of the economy both includes sustainability that transcends continents and generations.

Anthropological Economics:

Anthropological economics, notably its culturalist position, is a nascent field born from the discipline of anthropology. It observes that mainstream economics is does not adequately approach different cultures in its endeavor to promote economic development. It criticizes conventional economics for its universal application of western economic models in culturally different communities around the world. It attributes many of neoclassical economics’ failure to implement sound policies in developing countries to the fact that their models are not indicative of the socio-cultural realities that are inextricably connected to the economy. Anthropological economics believes that every society has its “local model” that must be understood before any economic changes can take place through the making of policies. These local models carry with them assumptions that are sensitive to local psychology and society of a given community. Concepts such as value, exchange property and even profit are occasionally different from that of the west and must be studied if those countries are to benefit for any foreign economic advice.

Conclusion:

This paper is not meant to claim that neoclassical economics is an invalid science, incapable of contributing to the advancement of human affairs in the world. It has definitely played a great role in the great economies that have emerged in our times, such as that of the United States and even China. However, the survival of neoclassical economics depends on its ability to address contemporary issues and accurately predict and obviate future obstacles to economic prosperity. It is undoubtedly paramount that economic growth which hinders the ecology be adequately accounted for within the economic field, especially given the knowledge that we have of the dangers of ignoring human activities harmful effects to the environment and ultimately to ourselves. Ecological economics as well as Buddhist economics and even Anthropological economics have a lot to offer in insight concerning the transformation of mainstream economics into one that is sustainable, efficient and applicable across the globe as diverse as it is.

The Individuation Process (An essay)

I’m sure psychologists have already come up with an interpretation of the psyche and the self such as the one I am explaining in this essay; probably using all sorts of psycho-lingo. Or maybe they haven’t… However, I felt like sharing my interpretation of some aspects of our psyche and what we call the self and its interactions with the psyche in my own words. “Who am I?” is probably the most popular philosophical question known to mankind, maybe right after “What is the meaning of life?” I’m going to go start by trying to answer the first question, while trying to be the least presumptuous possible. Within the complexity of our psyche and the personality it brings into manifestation for the world to see, is a governing part of ourselves. It could be called “our awareness”, “the observing self”, “The man in the machine” or what I will call here “the self”. The self is influenced by impulses of various strengths springing from a various number of internal and external stimuli. But really, the internal stimuli are the most important and are ultimately the factors that influence us the most. If we use the metaphor of the man in the machine, the psyche would be the operating system and the various software it works with, the brain would be the computer hardware, the body is the machine and the self would be the man in the machine. We go about our business every day, using our minds to tend to our daily activities and occasionally to solve a inner or outer conflict, but all the while I think most of us are aware that there are other forces within our psyche that influence the way we conduct our lives. We may glimpse at these forces if we shed some light on them, that is to say that we observe and pay attention to them. We (the self) are actually very simple in our functions, or what we can do. It helps if you regard the psyche as a psychic body in analogy to our physical (biological) body. Only this body is far more complex and we can actually live the rest of our lives without ever noticing the existence of “organs” and “members” that constitute it. What are the abilities of the self (you)?
1. We can illuminate. That is to say you can pay attention without altering or entertaining a process we are observing. We are therefore aware of the process. Example: You may catch yourself thinking about something and watch your mind engaged into a process of free association. It is important to realize that we are not our thoughts and our mind is a thought generating machine.
2. Or we can alter a process, but first you would illuminate it which is a prerequisite to all conscious actions that we can make. Example: the mind generates thoughts such as “I wonder how I’m going to pay my student loans” But then you decide “I don’t want to think about that right now” and so you consciously decide to think about something else, such as “I love my significant other… I wonder what he or she is doing right now” and hence the free associating machine that is your mind begins its thought generating process in a different direction. Of course it isn’t always this easy and there is a reason for this but explaining that would make my own free associating machine drift in a different direction than the one pertaining to this subject. (Maybe later)
3. We can entertain a process. Or one could say that we can fuel the process. This particular action gives energy to the process in addition to the initial momentum it received from mere awareness when it first started. Example: When we dwell on a thought process. “Why did he act like that with me?” “What a jerk!” “what is his problem anyway” and usually after a few more thought associations the mind runs out of ideas and returns to “Why did he act like that with me?” or it cleverly shifts in another similar direction like “My dad acted like that towards me too, what a jerk he is” then maybe the association about the dad is exhausted and the mind may turn to generalizing “All men are jerks” (now let’s talk about that for a few hours). The trouble here is that once the mind is ordered to fuel a process it gets so carried away and it takes a tremendous amount of willpower to stop it. This willpower is used not by ordering the process to stop which, ironically, will fuel it even more but by refusing to entertain it any further. This means going through the ordeal of being patient as a train of now undesired thoughts pass by and eventually become moribund.
4. We can actually block a process. The mind is the best artificial intelligence ever. When a process is entertained a significant number of times it begins to give rise to this process on its own; if caught early enough the process can be interrupted right away. But one must understand what process they are blocking so as not to avoid one that is painful or uncomfortable yet necessary. (This is another subject that if I commented more on, would distract us from the main topic).
As explained earlier the psyche can be compared to the body and its various organs and members but in a far more complex way. Sometimes the body does its own thing, such as when you scratch your head without being conscious of it. This is more the body organ which is the brain doing its own thing though. The psyche has been well explained by known psychologists such as Freud and Jung; however we must remember that these are but models of the psyche, because the psyche is so complex that we can only explain it through the use of models. A few components of these models include the super-ego, the collective consciousness, the anima, the animus and the persona, which are all aspects of the psyche. Here I don’t really introduce any new components or models, but more so make an interpretation based on these psychologists concepts of the psyche. You (the self) are, metaphorically, are endowed with a torch and supply of energy with which to allocate energy wherever you please. The catch is that few of us, and dare I say none of us, have total control over this energy. Through unconscious processes and habits that we developed since childhood our mind (maybe I can call it the ego) automatically allocates the energy to processes that we have decided to entertain time and again in the past. These automatic processes create tendencies or proclivities and eventually form a great part of our personality. Now I must explain a little about the personality. Many of us, especially those with very intelligent, curious and explorative minds end up having such complex personalities that, inevitably, conflicting processes begin to form and clash against each other. Not only does this cause a tremendous waste of energy but it results in an overwhelming feeling of unease and is the source of many intelligent people’s eventual neurosis. The thing about personalities is that they are not us though they use the ego to try to make us believe this. They become self preserving entities, if you will. (Now you probably think I’m crazy, but just stay with me please). There are not any sentient and independent entities hanging around in the psyche. That is not what I’m saying. But a personality is basically an artificial intelligence programmed by us, through the years. Of course their programming was not entirely our doing but that is especially because at a young age we are not aware of ourselves enough to deliberately shape the direction of our personality. They are mostly shaped by our environment, and biological peculiarities; so by nature and nurture. However when one reaches a certain level of awareness, he is then able to alter and create different parts of the personality, but it requires energy. One must not mistake this to mean that you can be whoever you want. It is practically impossible to completely form a whole new personality. But one can alter and reform a personality that is already programmed. The goal is to have as few clashing aspects of our personality as possible, so as to use our limited amount of psychic energy efficiently. Also I am not saying that we all have multi-personality disorders, although I suspect that this happens when the mind pathologically decides to organize each conflicting aspect of our personality and branch them out into two separate personalities that take their turn at controlling the ego; which I believe is extremely rare (Kind of like Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) . But how does one change their personality to one that works for them instead of against them? Because sometimes we can become prisoners of our personalities and become unable to do things we feel we need or want to, due to its influence on us.
First one must understand, once again, that we are not our personality. We are our “soul”, “the observing self”, or simply “the self”. By identifying ourselves with the personality, which is a major part of our ego, we provide it with too much energy which it uses for self preservation purposes. When in danger of losing energy it uses all the energy it has for its survival and influences the ego’s thought production capability to produce thoughts in that endeavor. This is when thoughts such as “I won’t be myself anymore” which instills the fear of the loss of self arise. But it is untrue that we will no longer be “ourselves” because we cannot completely rid ourselves of a personality anyway, we can only take away the energy it uses to control our actions unconsciously. Besides, we need a personality to function in this world but when its programs have aspects that we find undesirable we should be able to alter them. I am not speaking of “the persona” here, by the way, which is actually a part of our personality that is meant to temporarily suppress the aspects of our personality that are undesirable in specific social settings and also acts like artificial intelligence (acting out the way it has been programmed, but unconsciously as well). Second, when dealing with conflicting aspects of our personalities, we need to make a choice as to which conflicting aspect we want to entertain. Usually our unconscious with its self healing properties takes this task upon itself. Our idea of personalities have come to include likes and dislikes in addition to habits, this is why people begin to become afraid when their strong interests, likes or dislikes change. They feel like they are losing who they are. But a personality is ever changing; it is part of psychological growth. We usually accept this until the change is too dramatic to our liking. Sometimes knowledge that has been organized by the unconscious and is ready for delivery to the conscious mind is halted because it is incompatible with the person’s current personality. In this situation the unconscious which functions using emotions first and then dreams and then neurosis begins to actively attempt to coerce us to change. It uses emotions by making us feel uneasy about the aspects of our personality it seeks to change. If that doesn’t work it sends hints in the form of dreams to point us to the change we should be working towards. And finally it may push us into a neurosis which basically means it has decided to take the changing of the personality in its own hands and hence clashes with the resisting conscious mind. Of course at this point one feels gradually very uncomfortable with themselves until either they give in, or the overcome this desperate move of the unconscious.
The purpose of this is what Jung called “individuation” which is basically our individual path to self-realization, our own version of perfection and ultimate self-fulfillment. It is possible to resist this process and the ego will help in this endeavor. The consequences will be a stunted psyche however; one that has not reached the maturity that it was destined to. The problem is that once one has begun resisting the unconscious’ request for change, giving in becomes just as uncomfortable as resisting. Once the ego has been given a chance to take part in this “battle” It will not easily relinquish its role. It will begin to use various tricks and strategies to remain a factor. One of these strategies is projection. By projection I mean that it will target a person one is close to, usually a parent or authority figure with similar characteristics to the direction of this change in the personality, on which to project this desire for change. One begins to think and feel as if this parent, for example, is coercing them to change and hence reinforce their aversion to the process. Resistance becomes easier if it seems like one is resisting an exterior force as suppose to an inner urge. The ego will, of course, reinforce the fear of change and come up with rationalizations that support this fear. One may then either remains in conflict with oneself, causing all sorts of psychological nuisances, or actually succeed in suppressing the inchoate aspect of the personality that the unconscious seeks to bring about. In this case one is found, as mentioned earlier, stunted in their psyche’s development or at the very least slowed down until this aspect is reactivated somehow. If however one gives in to the unconscious’ signal to change, energy eventually becomes freed up once the personality’s integrity has been reestablished, and one finds himself or herself with more energy left for creative endeavors and other activities. Also the knowledge and the possibilities that were blocked become available and the person finds themselves with an increased level of peace and greater confidence and psychic integrity. All this will however follow the ordeal, which one is better of going through deliberately.

Disclaimer and Acknowledgments: I’m not a psychologist, but I am very interested in the subject. So this essay can simply be seen as an opinion of which some parts are subject to change in the future, given new information. I believe that the discipline is the most important field in academia, because it concerns the minds of people which are the foundation of everything created or that can be potentially created in this world. My ideas are based on my reading of a few of the many great minds of our time; that is Carl Gustav Jung, Sigmund Freud, Victor Franz, Arthur Deikman, Eckhart Tolle, etc…

Thoughts of a Neo-Patriot

I thought i coined this term, but you know what they say " Nothing is new under the sun"
Here is the definition of a Neo patriot according to someone's post on www.punkbands.com's forum.

"One might ask what a Neo Patriot is. That's easy: someone who is dedicated and committed to the liberation of one's self, society, government, environment and world. They are those who are not blinded behind racist barriers of national pride and superiority, but instead fighting for real change and progress! A Neo Patriot is one who is so deeply concerned with true justice that he or she will never stop to see truth and liberation prevail. Tired of listening to the same fascist fucks speak of "freedom", yet beat your ass for questioning their system? - SO ARE WE!!!"

Wow! I could not have defined it better. Power to the people!

I Wrote this on 7/22/2005. Probably inspired by my disaproval of our foreign policy.

Sometimes when I reflect on the state of the world, I think about how far we have advanced scientifically and technologically. I mean the technology that we have available to us today is amazing! And the magnitude of its possibilities would bewilder our ancestors of only a century away. Some of the knowledge today's common people have in all domains of life, including psychology, medicine and physics among others, eluded even the greatest the geniuses of the past. But what I really wondered and am struggling to figure out is whether we were advancing socially, ethically and morally.For example, I honestly believe that it is every American’s wish is that one day we will attain World Peace. But so many of us are misguided in how we should achieve this dream. We vote for a president who believes war is the solution to achieving peace (though some may argue that we didnt vote for him), who believes that we should sacrifice the environment we live and depend on just so we can get technological and economic benefits that future generations may not even be able to take advantage of. It’s like someone whose house is falling apart but whom instead of investing in its maintenance, insists on investing in new furniture and electronic products that will soon be ruined with the house.Also, our president doesn’t even care about providing aid to the poorest people in continents like Africa. Why would he? After all he ignores the poor in his own country.Instead we whine about the upcoming prosperity of self developed countries such as China and the effect of their affluence on our economy. It’s funny how China’s blooming economy seems to have become “l’Ordre du jour”, an imminent threat to our way of life and financial security. Maybe some wonder how God can bless America and then also bless another country. Is it that our greatness may be diminished by another’s success? "But we are leaders in the world! Maybe our place as leaders will be in jeopardy", some may remark.Leaders of what? Maybe leaders of a nation to whom no rules apply but at the same time to whom the enforcement of rules that are to their advantage is a primary concern. We are providers of aid with strings attached to those in need. Protectors of the weak and oppressed if they happen to have some way to pay us back, or if they provide us with a chance to exercise our secret vendetta against their oppressor. This is a few of the many reasons why sometimes I couldn’t help but to scoff at the futility of praying for world peace.Evidently we are not the only country responsible for the world as a whole, though when convenient we seem to act like we are. But we are indeed that most powerful nation in the world and with power does come responsibility. And sure there are other great nations who are even more insensitive to rest of the world's problems. But personally, those countries' approach to foreign policy is not of any concern to me. I am American and I love my country. And I feel that the best way to express the love you have for your country is to want to make it better, Matter of fact I believe it is my right and duty as a citizen.Today, however, I read an article that revived my optimism. The author stated a few things that sparked in me a realization that we just might be moving forward as a world consciousness. He reminded me that there was a time when the enslavement of another being was viewed as normal, when people felt no remorse in wiping out an entire race of human being just because they liked their land. And diseases were intentionally disseminated in attempt to achieve that goal. When atomic bombs whose incidental damages would expose millions of innocent human beings to radiations and would affect their future generations, were dropped… twice.So I guess there still is hope. But somehow I still feel like a utopian fool when I think about the possibility of World Peace…

"Amazing Grace... I was once blind, now i can see" (with one eye)

For the past few years, I can’t even recall how many, my vision has been dismally poor. It turns out that I had cataract. How could anyone have guessed? Even the doctors were surprised. They had been accustomed to having patients over the age of 70; I’m not even a third of that age. It was like I was seeing through a cloud or an extremely dirty window. Much of the richness of life’s visual beauty was hidden from me. But even worst, things such as the subtle smile on a person’s face when they enjoy your company, or subtle signs of sadness shown by someone when they feel hurt almost totally went unnoticed by me. It’s sad to think that I may have inadvertently been callous with people around me because I ignored the cues of their discontentment and sorrow. Turns out that facial impressions and the noticing of their cues are crucial to building deeper relationships with people, especially with those who are less vocally expressive than they are with their body language. And then there was the challenge of being able to read and study. Graduate school is challenging enough as it is, notwithstanding the inability to read without enormous strain. Some may ask “Well why didn’t you do anything about it earlier?” Well first of all, a gradual loss of vision can be so subtle that one does not even notice it is happening to them. All of a sudden one just realizes that their life has become extremely difficult and that things they know should be enjoyable or at least easy to do become chores. The psychological repercussions of the ignorance of the extent of a handicap can also take a toll on one’s self-confidence and esteem. A few of my classmates and some professors believed that I was just making excuses and being lazy, but I was resolved not to let it affect me. Additionally, surgery is expensive and scary. I had to get to the point where I felt like I had nothing to lose, in order to go ahead and take the surgery regardless of its potential financial consequence and what I viewed to be its potential risks. My grades were horrible. With the help of what could only be god, as well as some sympathetic professors, I had lifted myself out of academic probation but I could foresee that I would never be able to finish my thesis with my condition. So I went ahead and planned the surgery for my worst eye; the left one. The good news, however, is that I underwent the surgery and not only everything turned out fine but I immediately saw a huge difference as soon as the patch was removed the next day. The nurse’s blouse was so bright and colorful. I was entertained for that whole entire day and the next, re-appreciating everything around me. I must have seemed like a tourist to the other auburn students on campus, the way I was looking around at all the things I hadn’t noticed on campus. Sometimes just for fun, I’ll alternate blinking my left eye then my right just to remember and laugh about how blind I was. Now I can’t wait to get the next eye done in about a month. If anyone has a grandma or grandpa (ha ha…) that has cataract, encourage them to get the surgery done, its relatively painless, it’s as dangerous as crossing the street when the walking sign is on, and will change their life. The only side-effect is that your near sightedness is affected to the advantage of your farsightedness, but that is nothing a good pair of glasses can’t fix ;)