Oikos, the Greek word for home, refers to Earth, our planetary home, and to the particular places and spaces to which we live our daily lives.
Oikos is the root of both ecology and economy. Ecology is the science of the household or home, of ecosystems and species, of ecological processes that renew life on Earth. Economy is supposed to be the management of the ecology, of the household. However, economy has lost its way and become separated from oikos in its dual meaning of Earth and household. Worse, it has become the reason for the destruction of both.
Economy became anti-oikos because of two artificially created boundaries, which I refer to as the “creation boundary” and the “production boundary”.
The “creation boundary” falsely assumes that creation begins with technology and the market. It assumes that nature is dead, inert matter, valueless in itself. That its only value is as raw material for the industrial process which gives it value. The “creation boundary” also assumes that women and non-industrial cultures have no intelligence, no capacity to create and innovate. In its contemporary form, the “creation boundary” is instituted through patents on seeds and what I call “biopiracy”. A patent is granted for an invention; patents on seeds amount to denying the creativity of nature and species. When such patents are established on indigenous knowledge, the creativity of women and of diverse cultures is denied.
The falsely constructed “creation boundary” achieves two things simultaneously. By denying the intelligence and creativity of the Earth, her diverse species and diverse cultures, it makes it easy to appropriate rights and resources. This is how property is created, including intellectual property, and new forms of ownership over seeds and lifeforms.
British philosopher John Locke said nature on its own provides little of value to society, and that labour expended in the creation of goods gives them their value. Locke also believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labour. But this “creative labour” does not include the labour of women, the serf, the work animal, since they too are mere property and not creative agents. Denying the creative agency of nature and non-property-owning humans further allows the destructive tools of appropriation to be interpreted as creative acts. Destruction becomes creation, and real creation and creativity that maintains and renews life disappears.
The “production boundary” is intimately related to the “creation boundary”. It is based on the false assumption that if you produce what you consume, you do not produce. Since nature recycles everything, which in effect is consuming what it processes, nature’s productive capacities are nil. Since all sustenance economies consume what they produce, their productivity is, thus, zero. Since women’s work in the household is based on the household consuming what they produce, women are not productive. So often I hear women saying, “I am just a housewife, I do not work” even though they slog to cook, clean and look after their families.
Economic growth is based on this artificially constructed “production boundary”. Each time a forest is cut and transformed into timber, the forest dies, but the economy grows. Each time a self-reliant community is made dependent on the market to sell what they grow and buy what they need, children start dying of hunger and malnutrition, but the economy grows. This explains why one billion people are hungry globally, why every fourth Indian is hungry, and why every second Indian child is malnourished. When the production of nutrition by biodiversity is counted as non-production, biodiversity is destroyed and malnutrition is created. When self-reliant food communities are treated as non-productive and deliberately destroyed by the Green Revolution and the second Green Revolution in the name of producing more food, we witness the emergence of farmers’ suicide.
Several national economies lie outside globalisation’s “production boundary”. If a country produces only what it needs to consume, it is not producing. So we sell our iron ore and bauxite, and import everything we need. No wonder India’s manufacturing growth rates are in the negative. Our natural wealth is being plundered, while our people’s livelihoods are being destroyed. And since production in nature or domestic economies is not counted to begin with, its destruction is not counted either.
Both the “creation boundary” and the “production boundary” are false, artificial constructs that are at the root of the ecological and economic crisis. They are convenient tools to control economy and knowledge, to grab resources, privatise the commons, sell a false story of progress. But they are highly destructive to our ecological survival and our wellbeing. We need to bring the economy home, to oikos, to address both crises.
To address the ecological crisis, we need to bring the economy home, that is, recognise the creativity and productivity of the Earth. This implies getting rid of the false “creation boundary” and “production boundary” that deny nature’s creativity and production. Valuation of ecosystems makes us aware of nature’s worth, work and creativity. But this should be used to stop destroying nature, not to commodify her functions.
When Navdanya did the study on the environmental impact of limestone mining in Doon Valley for the ministry of environment, we valued the functions of the limestone as an aquifer and a source of water. This was used by the Supreme Court to stop the mining. So, for example, if we know that pollinators contribute $50 billion to food production, we should ban the pesticides and genetically engineered Bt crops which are killing our pollinators — the bees and the butterflies.
To address the economic crisis, we need to get rid of the artificial “production boundary” which blinds us to the living economies that provide healthy sustenance. We need to bring the economy home to recognise the creativity and productivity at the level of the household, sustenance economies. We need to bring it home from the global casino which has created a financial economy that is 70 times bigger than the real economy. We need to bring it home to the 99 per cent who are being excluded by the one per cent whose greed drives it.

The writer is the executive director of the Navdanya Trust