My vision for the future

Based on a request received, I’ve spent a week to prepare this mid-length document which summarises hundreds of pages of my writings. PDF here.

===THE TEXT ===

When I joined India’s senior civil service in 1982, I was deeply ignorant of how the society and economy works, given my science background. But I had great hopes of contributing to the wellbeing of Indians. These were soon dashed as I saw the deeply entrenched corruption in India’s governance system. I began studying economics to try to figure out what was happening. By 1990, I concluded that socialism was responsible for the mess. In 2020, it became clear that socialism has many forms. Western nations, notionally not socialist, imposed totalitarian restrictions and mandates without the slightest regard for the harms caused. The big government disease is more widespread than I had thought.

I don’t think any of us wants our children and progeny to experience mass-scale criminal events of this kind, in which their life and happiness is at the mercy of hideously corrupt, totalitarian governments. So, what’s the world we should try to build for them? I offer some of my observations on this below, as food for thought for your consideration. I first lay out my assumptions (one family) and understandings of how we got here (economic and political freedom). Then I discuss the obstacles to a better world and how we might overcome them. Finally, I subject my vision to a reality check.

1. We are one family

We are the progeny of one common ancestor, the first human (or most likely, a humanoid such as Lucy) – whose traits are encoded in each cell in our body. As a result, biologically “any two peoples’ genomes are, on average, ~99.6% identical and ~0.4% different”[1]. Our commonality far exceeds our differences. That’s why a medicinal drug has more or less the same effect on us as it has on any other human. That’s why we all experience broadly similar emotions when we read a great novel or watch a great movie. Not just physically, we are virtually identical mentally, with similar hopes and dreams.

It is therefore fair to claim that we are one big family. By implication, we ought to treat each other as such. This foundational equality among humans leads us to the imperative of equal freedom in which no one has a claim of superiority over others, and definitely no one has a “divine right” to boss over others. In this world of equal humans, only our work and contributions distinguish us.

Many false concepts, however, breach this foundational equality. Eugenics and racism (including reverse racism, i.e. affirmative action) are based on the mythical idea of “race”. Although this myth was exploded a long time ago (such as in anthropologist Ashley Montagu’s 1942 book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race), many people still believe it. They probably don’t know that “[i]t is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are Black, Caucasian or Asian.”^[2]

2. Amazing improvements since c.1750

We are fortunate to live in a world where the risk of death from disease and war is much smaller than it has ever been. While nothing spectacular happened specifically in 1750, that year is a useful marker to delineate the commencement of the industrial revolution.

2.1. Life expectancy, per capita income

It was from around 1750 that Western countries, starting with the Netherlands and England, exploded from poverty into wealth, from high mortality into high longevity.“[B]ack before the industrial revolution it would take millennia for living standards to double, yet today we have grown used to our material prosperity doubling every thirty years.”^[3] As a result, “the average participant in the British economy in 2000 was fifteen times better supplied with food and clothing and housing and education than her remote ancestors”[4].

At some risk of over-simplification, we can say that before 1750, it was mainly the politically powerful class that could aspire to wealth. But now even ordinary people can achieve living conditions better than what the wealthiest could, in the past. People in the West now earn over fifteen times more on average, than they did 275 years ago. And have access to goods and technologies that couldn’t have been even imagined, then.

Likewise for health. An associated boost to agriculture and animal husbandry from around 1750 dramatically increased food availability, leading to improved health outcomes for mothers and children. For thousands of years before the industrial revolution, the average human life expectancy at birth was around 30 years, mainly because around half the children born died before reaching the age of five. In contrast, in developed countries today, children can expect to live almost three times longer (85.63 years in Hong Kong[5]).

There is a belief that the increase in human life expectancy has come about mainly from medical advances. Far from it. Vaccines and medicines have contributed very little. I recently found that estimates of lives saved by vaccines are grossly exaggerated, possibly in the order of 50 times[6]. Thomas McKeown was a keen student of life expectancy in the West. John Bunker summarised McKeown’s findings, thus: “Life expectancy had increased by 23 years during the first half [of the 20th] century, but McKeown was able to attribute no more than a year or two to advances in medical care”[7]. The improvements in life expectancy that have arisen across the world (not just in the West) have come about mainly from improvements in nutrition (including clean milk) and sanitation.

2.2 Vastly greater political and religious freedom

Underpinning the industrial revolution was a change in mindset and greatly improved individual dignity, liberty and agency. From a feudal system, with power concentrated at the top, the society now had a democratic system in which power arose from, and was authenticated by, the people.

The changes that led to the industrial revolution took a long time. Around 600 BC, traces of free thought and democracy had emerged in India and in Greece. But there was much regression to the system of kings and emperors, leading to the “divine right” of kings – the claim that kings act on behalf of God.  But at least since the Magna Carta of 1215, kings’ powers were under interrogation, with many lives lost in the process. Even King Charles I lost his, in 1649. Only with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the democratic principle institutionalised, with the parliament being becoming an equal of the king, and more powerful in some ways. These events led to the modern system of checks and balances which informs the American constitution with limited powers for the legislature and executive. In the UK, where constitutional principles are less codified, the parliament has greater autonomy. Along the way, property rights and the rule of law were greatly boosted. In my manuscript, The Discovery of Freedom[8], I provide a detailed account of the evolution of the free society.

It was not merely political freedom that emerged from centuries of resistance and civil war, but religious freedom. The vice-like grip of the Church over the lives and thought of the people loosened. The need for the two major branches of Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) to tolerate each other led to free thought and scientific discovery. The Church and state were also separated. Summarising Pierre Manent’s work, Peter Berkowitz explained that modern civilisation was “born in a political struggle …to escape from the political authority exercised by the Church. To win this emancipation …it was necessary … to neutralize the Church’s tendency to intervene in political life.”[9]

The freedom to think and express opinions without fear of being killed by the Church or the king also engendered ethical reform. As Andrew McIntyre points out, modern civilisation “has been not only a material triumph … but an ethical triumph as well.”^[10] Free societies not only forbid slavery, they do not condone racism and oppression of women, or even the mistreatment of animals.

2.3 Economic freedom

How exactly does per capita income and improved life expectancy arise from increased dignity and freedom? Adam Smith asked this question – of how the wealth of nations is created – and in his 1776 book that bears that name, showed that once arbitrary “systems of preference or restraint” (feudal) are taken away, “the … simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord”. F.A. Hayek called this the “spontaneous order”. In this natural order, everyone’s private optimisation – subject to their private constraints (budgetary, skills, knowledge of local circumstances), leads to society-wide optimisation.

Freedom drives an inquisitive mind, willing to try risky projects. Out of a thousand attempts to make a bulb filament, one might succeed. The right to private property provides the incentive to produce goods and services that society needs, in the assurance that any profit so generated will not be stolen. Free trade across domestic and international borders deepens markets and strengthens competition. And global competition to serve customers better, through cheaper and better goods and services, leads to relentless innovation.

In this manner, free societies churn out literally infinite amounts of wealth. Of course, while free societies necessarily become wealthy, not all wealthy societies are free. Some people in shackled societies might enrich themselves by grabbing hold of the country’s natural resources. But natural resources can’t create long lasting wealth. As Julian Simon explained, it is people who are the ultimate resource. Unless people are free, no society can consistently prosper.

It is important to note that the underlying self-interest that drives prosperity is not “selfish” in its typical usage but often other-regarding. Vernon Smith has summarised Adam Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, thus: “being self-interested is distinct from acting self-interestedly”. And this is how the free society also becomes an ethical society.

2.4 Capitalism and Western civilisation

On looking inside a free society, we find bustling markets and institutions like the free press and an accountable government. These institutions – democratic government, free press and free markets, allow people to influence the choices that society makes. Free markets give individual choice the greatest possible consideration. Even the richest man can’t force me to buy his products or work in his company. The customer is indeed king. Free markets are truly democratic.

One can summarise these mechanisms of freedom, taken together, by the word, “capitalism”. The term is more typically applied, however, only to the free market economic system. Instead, the broader term “Western civilisation” combines all these ideas, events and institutions, such as capitalism, democracy, equal tolerance for all religions, and a commitment to free speech. The philosophy that gives primacy to life and freedom and underpins the Western civilisation, is called classical liberalism. As Ayn Rand noted, “[c]ivilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”^[11] Figure 1 summarises the evolution from society-centric regimes towards the contractual, classical liberal state, which is centred around the individual.

Figure 1: Schematic depiction of the evolution of free society from collectivist frameworks

Classical liberalism is neither conservative nor libertarian. It neither seeks to conserve most aspects of the past (as conservatives do), nor is it focused on any single principle (e.g. non-aggression) to determine societal outcomes. Instead, it involves respectful, open-minded debate and analysis which balances real-life imperatives, typically also informed by a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The socialists, conservatives and libertarians dislike transparent analysis that includes a CBA, claiming to find their answers through “ethics” or other mysterious hocus-pocus. But even a bad CBA is better than no CBA, for it exposes one’s assumptions and allows improvements in the future. Black-box approaches like “ethics” are, in comparison, a dead-end, a mere theological assertion. As a result, while a libertarian would want no government at all (a purely fictitious goal), the classical liberal is happy to have a strong but limited government, a night-watchman.

2.5 Homogenisation of cultures (reduction of differences)

There is much angst across the world these days because young people are ignoring tradition and “copying the West”. Not only has English become the world’s lingua franca, but English language songs, movies and TV shows have captured a significant share of the attention span of the young. This homogenization of language and culture has been further boosted through social media and smartphones, with parents finding it hard to supervise what their children are absorbing from the digital world which lives inside their phones.

The tendency for world-wide homogenisation of culture, which accelerated after telephony and broadcast TV in the mid-20^th century, has now escalated to unprecedented levels. My son carried a heavy backpack of books to school and got his laptop only towards the end. A few years later, my daughter not only passed her school but university without a single physical book in her room. All she carried around was a laptop.

It is hard to say whether this change has been for the better, for we are rapidly losing many languages, religions and cultures. But one must note that this change is partly being driven by parents themselves. Most poor parents in India are desperate to provide their children with English language education, which they see as the foundation for upward mobility. If a majority of people want these changes, then it must be beneficial for them in some way. Some nations such as Japan pay particular attention to preserving their culture. But in the end, this is a call each of us must make. We can preserve (if we wish) our native language and culture, all the while being aware that the forces driving a global mono-culture are unstoppable.

3. Many problems remain

Even today, much of humanity is not free. The West has also regressed, particularly on free speech – the primary pillar of the free society. And many Third World countries have rejected outright the idea of freedom and democracy. Further, bureaucracies and political leaders worldwide are misusing the TV and internet to propagate big lies. As Lord Acton said, “[p]ower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It seems at times that the world described by George Orwell in 1984 is close at hand.

3.1 Increasing attacks on speech

It is now common in some Western countries for police to arrest people for merely expressing opinions on social media don’t match the opinions of governments and profiteers. Governments now insist that everyone must believe their version of the truth. And profiteers promote questionable medical and “climate” remedies through well-funded propaganda campaigns and pay off corrupt governments to censor views that might threaten their profits.

3.2 Socialist ideology and the Big State

Even as representative parliaments rose to prominence from c.1688 and freedom of thought, along with property rights, boosted agricultural and industrial productivity, some philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later Karl Marx, were not happy. Apparently, those who become rich from their own efforts are actually “exploiting” the workers. These philosophers offered a solution – socialism (some versions of which are called communism), in which power is exercised centrally on behalf of workers by those who ostensibly know what’s best for everyone. In extreme forms, the state takes over all productive activity – in which everyone is forced to participate “according to his ability” and receives back “according to his need”; thus magically maximising production and eliminating economic inequality.

While classical liberals fought for equal treatment under the law (the rule of law), socialists fought for unequal treatment, in which those who were more talented would work at a low, government-determined wage for the rest of society. John Rawls claimed that “natural talents [are] in some respects a common asset”. Like any other “common asset”, these could therefore be confiscated for public use by the state. Those without talent would get the same wage as the talented – because of their need.

There are many versions of socialism. One of these insists on “social justice”, which involves “affirmative action” or reverse discrimination, with lower standards being accepted from “lower” races or “castes”. But as Thomas Sowell and Water Williams showed, such approaches only end up harming those who are supposed to benefit.

That socialism is entirely illogical: a delusion, was flagged by Frédéric Bastiat and John Stuart Mill in the 19^th century and later – more powerfully – by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Julian Simon. While socialism (its communist version) overpowered Russia from 1917, Europe and the USA were influenced by milder versions (Fabian socialism in the UK and progressivism in the USA). These milder versions are equally harmful. They, too, destroy the system of natural liberty, which is the goose that lays the golden egg.

The goose of capitalism is not perfect and sometimes needs regulatory oversight but one can’t kill it and replace it with the socialist goose and still expect golden eggs. Perhaps because the concepts involved are complex, the academia has largely failed to see this inevitability. Even economics, otherwise supportive of capitalism, often promotes big government. Almost all economists, using concepts like public goods and negative externalities (which have many questionable aspects), supported totalitarian covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates which caused far greater harm than good. They forgot the basic concept of trade-offs and failed to demand a CBA. Nor did they undertake any empirical validation. The field of public health, in particular, is so fully captured by socialists that there is no longer even a pretence of empiricism and rational analysis in that discipline. Entirely cooked up data, claims and policies underpinned the tyranny of 2020.

It is only by ridding society of the delusion of socialism that billions of people can be lifted from poverty into wealth, and from poor health to good health. So the project to eradicate the last vestiges of socialism must rank high in our priorities.

3.3 Religion (mainly Islam, now)

While religion has some benefits when practiced in moderation, extreme positions cause great harm. It was not religious belief but the end of compulsory religious belief and considerable increase in doubt, that led to Western civilisation. Doubt had been widely prevalent in ancient India with the Charvakas – among the greatest agnostics and atheists. Two major atheists founded the “religions” of Buddhism and Jainism, and even today, one can be an atheist and a Hindu.

However, the religions of Christianity and Islam, which came later, did not entertain doubt. Doubt did finally emerge in the West, first as an argument for tolerance and later as pantheism. Fortunately, after bloody battles and much debate, Christianity has given up its coercive approaches. But Islam has not even started down that path, and often poses a serious threat to human wellbeing, including (and perhaps mainly) to its own – the Muslims. Islam is clearly stuck in a medieval time warp or limbo. Polite attempts to distinguish Islam and “Islamism” are unproductive (the scriptures for both are the same). Instead, the world needs an enlightened Islam. Islam needs to find a way to encourage free speech and critical analysis of its beliefs.

Instead of dividing ourselves into religions, claiming certainty for our own and the falsehood of others, it will be more productive to engage in philosophical contemplation of the idea of God and our insignificant place in the cosmos. Overall, the good news is that religion is fading out and is therefore less likely to pose problems in the future. In the USA, nearly 30% had no religion in 2021 according to Pew Research[12].

3.4 The blind spot of the specialist

Division of labour, or specialisation, underpins global prosperity. However, specialisation comes at a cost: of tunnel vision. The specialist interacts with many non-specialists but doesn’t pay attention to the motivations and logic of these interactions. He is entirely ignorant of how wealth and wellbeing is generated by markets and institutions. This blind spot and failure to see the invisible (which is what economics is mostly about) leads him to mechanical concepts about society, with simplistic generalisations. For example, he is likely to oppose big business, support big government and centralised decision-making, generalise about people’s religious beliefs and imagine himself to be superior to “the rabble”. These delusions cause no one any harm until, at some point in his career, he is promoted to guide the whole society, such as in the role of a chief health officer. It is then, in his ignorance, that he causes great harm.

3.5 Other barriers

Other barriers to a free and prosperous future include ultra-nationalism (jingoism), which is now thankfully restricted only to a few pockets. Then, there are mass-panics of the kind seen during covid. Since time immemorial, such pandemic panics typically start with panicked doctors; we need to find ways to ease medical panic. Another big barrier is the strong tendency, as predicted by public choice theory, for empire building and corruption in bureaucracies. Having worked in the bureaucracies of two countries, I can confirm that the corrupt almost invariably rise to the top. The global bureaucracy such as the UN and WHO, is far worse – these bureaucracies never pay the price (political or otherwise) for their endless misdemeanours.

4. Possible solutions

Our focus is to create the conditions of freedom for all people, to facilitate freedom. It is not our business to prescribe what people should do with that freedom. Once the institutions of freedom are in place, laissez faire should prevail. People should be free to think for themselves, experiment with new forms of living, create new goods and services, and generate new ideas without being afraid that the local policeman will come knocking at their door. It is not our business whether people have more or fewer children, whether they practice religion, whether they undertake community work or isolate themselves in their private world.

I emphasise this distinction between institutional frameworks for freedom and a hands-off approach after that, because even allegedly freedom-loving people try to prescribe to others how they should live. But not prescribing anything is precisely the point of it all.

Anyway, how are we to create or support institutional frameworks to liberate people from social and government tyranny? I outline possible ways, or solutions, below.

4.1 Education and debate to change people’s minds

The obstacles we face relate mainly to the mind: the way people think. Given limited availability of time, most people tend to adopt broad-based ideologies, general perspectives about society. Problems arise from ideologies which deny freedom to others.

Under the socialist ideology the government is considered to be the farmer and the people, livestock. The socialist is sure that he knows better for others than they know for themselves. The religious or nationalist ideology is equally sure of its superior wisdom. These ideologies, in which there is no space for others to think for themselves, are capable of resorting to violence to “persuade” others. In all cases we find hubris: over-confidence in one’s own beliefs coupled with disdain for those of others. The remedy is to foster the Enlightenment values of tolerance, open-mindedness and reason. And much humility.

Isn’t that easier said than done? It is, but we do have platforms through which such change can be progressed: a culture of debate, and education of children.

A culture of debate

Democratic debate and deliberation are vital instruments of change. While persuading people one person at a time is laborious, it is better than compulsion. We should encourage public forums for debate. And the press should make it a point to publish alternative viewpoints on topics on which experts have differing opinions. Social media platforms should resist the urge to censor debate.

An education system that imbibes Enlightenment values

Our schools typically don’t teach children to think critically; instead, they tend to bias children towards big government. Education must fortify our minds and develop in us a capacity to question everyone, including ourselves. Without deep questioning – deemed by some to be disrespectful of established “authority” – the totalitarian tendencies of fanatic believers in socialism, religion and nationalism cannot be defused.

Religion is particularly challenging. School teachers are unlikely to keep their job if they ask children to question their own religion. Any reform in religions such as Islam will therefore have come from within, or through public debates. But we have a better chance of defusing socialist and nationalist mythologies through schools. I have written books for children on critical thinking[13] and basic economics[14]. We need to teach children that letting people interact freely, subject to the rule of law, will yield better outcomes for society than central management. As F.A. Hayek noted, “[t]he curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”.

4.2 Institutionalizing a transparent CBA approach for compulsion

While the golden goose of capitalism thrives on freedom, it can sometimes require regulatory oversight. Any such regulation (compulsion) needs to be fully justified and transparent. We should institutionalise, through the laws, a cost-benefit analysis requirement for all regulatory policy to assess whether compulsion is for the greater good.

4.3 First-principles reviews and continuous improvement of public policy

My recent (and currently ongoing) first-principles review of public health[15] confirms why the discipline, once a saviour of lives, now mainly causes harm. Public health abandoned its empirical, scientific roots over a hundred years ago and adopted socialist ideology. As a result, it has ignored the comprehensive empirical proofs against quarantine of healthy people, and imposed vaccine mandates that are not justified in any way. It also refuses to undertake a CBA of its policies, despite the founders of public health using CBA to justify sanitary regulations. As a result – at least in my view – most of public health needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch.

Similar first-principles reviews are needed across all public policy areas, such as education, health, town planning and public funding of research. Each of these reviews needs to ask probing questions about the role of government. If any government intervention is found to be justified, then the review should identify the most cost-effective way to do so. It is particularly important during such reviews to consider widely differing opinions. For example, all “settled science” should be up for review from scratch, with all proofs re-verified.

4.4 Institutional reform to reduce concentration of power

Emergencies (real or imagined) have turned out be a great enemy of human wellbeing by empowering governments excessively. Such powers are rarely reversed when the motivating situation normalises. Powers available to governments during emergencies need to be curtailed – ideally by incorporating these limits in the constitution of the nation. Only full-blown war should be excuse enough to allow governments a temporarily increase in powers.

A related institutional reform would be to review and where possible, to disband as much as possible of the global bureaucracies.  And since nations are created for people, not people for nations, we must embed the right to secede (with due process) in every national constitution.

5. How realistic are these solutions?

The solutions I am suggesting are likely to shatter into pieces as they dash onto the rocks of human nature. The tendency of bureaucracies to focus on empire building is not going away. Ugly power struggles in the political field will also remain. And vested interests that stand to lose from reforms will resist change.

Combined with these anti-reform forces (or “rocks”), is the weak demand for reform from consumers who can only expect small and incremental benefits from reform. The general public doesn’t have the headspace to think diligently about reforms. Most people seem to dislike intellectual work outside of their chosen occupation, they don’t even undertake elementary arithmetic to confirm whether their government is lying to them. And they have a naïve faith in government-appointed “experts”. Human beings, as the only irrational animal (in my view), are also hugely susceptible to panics and propaganda (Big lies). In brief, the demand for reforms is weak and dispersed.

The proposed solutions aren’t going to succeed easily. Change at the society-wide level is not only painfully slow, but any gains made are also easily reversed. For comparison, we can look back at enormous time and effort (and much suffering) it took to achieve what we can call “Phase I reforms”, that led to the industrial revolution. These new reforms, which we can call “Phase 2 reforms”, are even more challenging. We must prepare for the long haul.

Conclusion

While we are surely pleased with our high living standards and life expectancy today, there’s much work ahead to achieve a peaceful, happy, prosperous society for our future generations – in which freedom of thought and action prevails.

We can contribute to this goal by advocating for reforms and joining in public debates. Perhaps most importantly, we can educate our own children in critical thinking and enable them also to think more broadly about society. At each step, also, we can commit to the right action, dispassionate action: i.e. action without regard for consequences. This can involve resisting forces of corruption even at some personal cost.

[1] National Human Genome Research Institute (2023). “Human Genomic Variation”, Fact Sheet. February 1, 2023. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genomic-variation

[2] Henderson, Mark (2004). “Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin” in Times Online, October 27, 2004. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article499598.ece

[3] DeLong, J. Bradford (1998). “Review of Richard Easterlin’s Growth Triumphant: The Twenty-First Century in Historical Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997)” in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 278-280.

[4] McCloskey, Deirdre (2008). “The Industrial Revolution”. https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/articles/revolution.php

[5] https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#google_vignette

[6] Sabhlok, Sanjeev (2025). “Does the estimate of 154 million lives saved by vaccines since 1974 stack up?”, Times of India blogs, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/does-the-estimate-of-154-million-lives-saved-by-vaccines-since-1974-stack-up/

[7] Bunker, John P (2001). “The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies” in  International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 30, Issue 6, December 2001, Pages 1260-1263. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.6.1260

[8] Sabhlok, Sanjeev (2012). Discovery of Freedom (manuscript). https://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book2/discovery.pdf

[9] Berkowitz, Peter (1995). Book review of Pierre Manent’s An Intellectual History of Liberalism, Princeton University, 1996 in The Boston Book Review, March 1995. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/rediscoveringliberalism.htm

[10] McIntyre, Andrew (2005). “The Modern Imperative” in Australian Financial Review, 14 January 2005.

[11] Rand, Ayn (1943). The Fountainhead.

[12] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/12/21/key-findings-from-the-global-religious-futures-project/

[13] Sabhlok, Sanjeev (2023). I Question, Therefore I am. http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/BookOfQuestions.pdf

[14] Sabhlok, Sanjeev (2018). Seeing the Invisible. https://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Public/Science-economics/Economics%20for%20children.pdf

[15] At ph.sabhlokcity.com.