This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The origin of this series is noted here.
After the first two posts in this series, the topics have been chosen by me, and this is one of those. This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication.
Why have I included Erwin Schrödinger? That is because his work underpins three things that have been of significance for me this year. One is the work I have been doing with Jacquieline on quantum economics, which should restart in the new year. The second is that his thinking directly contributes to and informs my concept of the politics (and economics) of care. The third is that this informs my Christmas video series, which starts today.
Schrödinger was a physicist, and not an economist. But in his book, What Is Life?, he showed himself to be a multidisciplinary thinker, creating ideas that crossed boundaries because of the universality of their application. They most certainly belong in the sphere of political economy, and it would be very much richer, more appropriate, and focused on human needs if that were the case. That is why he belongs in this series.
Erwin Schrödinger is best known as one of the founders of quantum mechanics, but in What Is Life? (1944), he did something quietly revolutionary. He asked how living systems maintain order in a universe governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or disorder, always increases. In the pivotal sixth chapter of that book, he offered an answer that should have transformed not only biology, but economics: life survives by feeding on “negative entropy”. This means that life can be maintained only by continuously expending energy to resist decay.
This insight has profound implications far beyond biology. Schrödinger showed that order is not natural or free. It is costly, fragile, and temporary. It must be actively sustained. Decay is the default. Maintenance is not optional. And without continual energy and care, all systems, whether biological, social, or institutional, fall apart.
Economics, however, largely ignores this truth. It treats growth as automatic, equilibrium as usual, and maintenance as secondary. Schrödinger's work exposes this as a fundamental error.
Hence, the Erwin Schrödinger Question: If life persists by resisting entropy through care, maintenance and the continual input of energy, why does economics still treat decay, depletion and disorder as externalities rather than central facts of social organisation?
Entropy as the default condition
Schrödinger's starting point is stark: the universe tends toward disorder. Structures do not persist by chance. They persist only by consuming energy and exporting entropy elsewhere. Living organisms survive by maintaining internal order at the expense of increased disorder in their surroundings.
This overturns any worldview that assumes stability is natural. Order is, when thermodynamics is understood correctly, achieved; it is not a given. The same applies to societies. Infrastructure crumbles. Institutions decay. Trust erodes. Skills atrophy. Ecosystems and cultures collapse. Without continual investment of energy, attention and care, decline is inevitable.
Economics, by contrast, often models systems as if they naturally tend toward balance. Schrödinger shows this is a fantasy.
Life as a process, not a state
In Chapter 6 of What Is Life?, Schrödinger emphasises that life is not a thing but a process. It is a continuous struggle against entropy. To live is to work constantly to preserve structure. The moment that work stops, decay begins.
This insight directly contradicts economic models that treat capital, infrastructure, skills and institutions as durable stocks rather than fragile processes. Maintenance, in such models, is often invisible. Only new production counts. GDP rises when something is built, not when something is cared for, repaired or preserved.
Schrödinger reveals the absurdity of this distinction. In reality, maintenance is the primary economic activity of any mature system.
Energy, not money, sustains order
Schrödinger was explicit: life feeds on energy. No amount of information, coordination or cleverness can substitute for the physical requirement of energy input. This has direct relevance for economics, which frequently treats energy as just another input, interchangeable, substitutable, and secondary.
But without energy, there is no production, no maintenance, no life. Economic growth has always been tied to increased energy throughput. Ignoring this leads to fantasies of dematerialised growth, frictionless digital economies, and limitless expansion detached from physical reality.
Schrödinger reminds us that economies are thermodynamic systems, not abstract machines.
The invisibility of care and maintenance
One of the most striking implications of Schrödinger's argument is how closely it aligns with feminist economics and the politics of care. The work that resists entropy, whether it be cleaning, repairing, caring, teaching, healing, or maintaining, is systematically undervalued or ignored in economic accounting.
Yet this is the work that keeps systems alive. Without it, collapse follows. Schrödinger gives this insight a physical foundation: care is not sentimental. It is thermodynamically necessary.
An economics that ignores care is not incomplete — it is wrong.
Growth as a temporary victory over decay
Schrödinger does not deny that order can increase locally. Life does it all the time. But it does so by drawing down energy and exporting disorder. Growth, therefore, is always conditional and temporary.
This directly challenges the economic obsession with perpetual growth. Growth is not the natural state of a system; it is a phase. Mature systems must prioritise stability, resilience and maintenance over expansion. Failure to do so leads to overshoot and collapse, a point echoed by the Club of Rome in the 1970s, Herman Daly, and ecological economists.
Schrödinger provides the underlying physical logic.
Institutions as living systems
Seen through Schrödinger's lens, institutions behave like living organisms. They require constant renewal. Rules must be updated. Norms reinforced. Trust rebuilt. Skills refreshed. Infrastructure repaired.
When maintenance is cut, whether through austerity, neglect or ideological hostility to the public realm, entropy accelerates. Services fail. Legitimacy erodes. Systems become brittle. Collapse appears sudden, but it is always the result of long-term neglect.
Schrödinger helps us see that institutional failure is not mysterious. It is entropic.
What answering the Schrödinger Question would require
To take Schrödinger seriously would require a profound reorientation of political economy. At minimum, it would mean:
-
Recognising entropy as central to economics, meaning that we treat decay, depletion and disorder as core realities, not side issues.
-
Valuing maintenance as productive work, requiring that infrastructure be repaired and that care, education, health, and ecological restoration be seen as central economic functions.
-
Re-centring energy and ecology, which means that we acknowledge that economic activity is constrained by physical energy flows and planetary limits.
-
Abandoning equilibrium fantasies, requiring that we replace static models with dynamic, open-system thinking.
-
Designing economies for resilience, not maximum throughput, meaning that we prioritise stability over growth.
-
Embedding care at the heart of economic design, because care is how systems resist collapse.
These are not ideological choices. They are physical necessities.
Inference
The Erwin Schrödinger Question exposes a foundational blind spot in modern economics. Life does not persist by optimisation, equilibrium or price signals. It persists through continuous work against decay. Schrödinger showed that order is costly, fragile and temporary, and that ignoring this reality guarantees collapse.
An economics that treats maintenance as secondary, care as unproductive, and energy as interchangeable is not merely incomplete. It is incompatible with life itself.
To answer Schrödinger's question is to accept a humbling truth, which is that the central economic problem is not scarcity, but entropy, and that the central economic activity is care.
That insight belongs at the heart of any political economy worthy of the name.
Previous posts in this series:
- The economic questions
- Economic questions: The Henry Ford Question
- Economic questions: The Mark Carney Question
- Economics questions: The Keynes question
- Economics questions: The Karl Marx question
- Economics questions: the Milton Friedman question
- Economic questions: The Hayek question
- Economic questions: The James Buchanan question
- Economic questions: The J K Galbraith question
- Economic questions: the Hyman Minsky question
- Economic questions: the Joseph Schumpeter question
- Economic questions: The E F Schumacher question
- Economics questions: the John Rawls question
- Economic questions: the Thomas Piketty question
- Economic questions: the Gary Becker question
- Economics questions: The Greg Mankiw question
- Economic questions: The Paul Krugman
- Economic question: the Tony Judt question
- Economic questions: The Nancy MacLean question
- Economic questions: The David Graeber question
- The economic questions: the Amartya Sen question
- Economic questions: the Jesus of Nazareth question
- Economic questions: the Adam Smith question
- Economic questions: (one of) the Steve Keen question(s)
- Economic questions: the Stephanie Kelton question
- Economic questions: the Thomas Paine question
- Economic questions: the John Christensen question
- Economic questions: the Eugene Fama question
- Economic questions: the Thomas Hobbes Question
- Economic questions: the James Tobin question
- Economic questions: the William Beveridge question
- Economic questions: the William Nordhaus question
Tickets are now on sale for the Funding the Future live event in Cambridge on 28 February. Tickets and details are available here.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Can I give this piece 5 stars? I have felt for some time that maitenance is both necessary and undervalued, but this piece connecting it with entropy, and making its necessity central, has moved my thinking on. Thank you.
And happy Christmas.
Thank you
And happy Christmas
Cracking! Hurrah for all who do the work, unpaid or paid, which economics sees as ‘unproductive’ – cleaning, caring, nurturing, doctoring, teaching, rubbish collecting, wildlife protection, cutting the grass and planting flowers in the park. Wake up Wes and employ some more doctors – and maybe visit a hospital and just look, not talk.
Much to agree with!
Again, thanks to all!
Might it be that “externalities”, both in theory and practices, is one of the outstanding deceits of recorded history?
Yes
The world has obtained it’s primary energy from fossil fuels and continues to do so. But much of that in the post war period and before had an EROI (Energy Return On Investment) of 30:1 or greater. So the world had a plentiful supply. But those sources have now largely gone, been used as if there is no tomorrow. Now much has an EROI of less than 20:1 so the percentage of available energy is declining as a greater percentage of the energy needed has to be used in the production processes.
Also, the quality is declining. Tar sands provide oil but the energy it provides is less than that of the sweet crude. It’s useful to know the exergy, which is a measure of the actual available energy in a fuel or anything else; like food from which humans get their energy to maintain life and live.
It’s been estimated that the EROI needs to be ~10:1 or greater to maintain modern life. But herein lies a measurement problem; EROI depends on what’s included and where in the overall chain you make the measurement. So it pays to ask questions about any EROI figures you read, it can be grossly misleading.
THanks
Eg:
Reservoirs, water mains, sewage systems, canals.
Power stations, solar, wind and other generating infrastructure, national and local transmission grids.
Railway tracks, signals, rolling stock.
Roads, bridges, tunnels, traffic lights, private and public vehicles.
Hospitals, Factories, Offices, Schools, Homes,
Community cohesion, relationships, hope, politics, economics, moral consciousness.
Our own human bodies…
The planet, air, seas, lakes, rivers, soil, forests, ecosystems.
Our current crop of leaders have let entropy rip through all of these for the last 45 years, and arguably, for some of them, for a lot longer than that, without apparent thought for the consequences.
As to where all this energy to resist entropy comes from, my aching little brain hopes the ultimate answer lies somewhere in the unexplored distant “event horizons” of either quantum physics or theology or quite possibly, both. If you want something to read on Boxing Day, and have a supply of entropy, sorry, I meant to say, Paracetamol, handy, try here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#Negative_entropy
If you are a real masochist (or a quantum physicist) try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
(I didn’t understand a single word of that one)
Meanwhile, we already have enough understanding to prompt immediate radical change before it is too late. Which makes the status quo intolerable.
Anyone seen the cat?
🙂
Negentropy is key
As ‘What is Life?’ explains.
I think that you are right about this – this is why ‘sustainability’ has never been at the heart of the capitalist model since financialisation came on the scene – ‘maximization’ is just a term for short term greed – grab as much as you can and damn the consequences.
I’d like to note my thanks to Mike Parr this year if I may Richard – the generous info he shared about the locally empowered set up and management of utility power infrastructure was very helpful to my student son sitting down and leading discussions with fellow Southern hemisphere students whilst in Japan in August.
Have a cool yule everyone.
How did I not have him in the list? Added now…
And have a good one, PSR. You are appreciated here.
I meant to add:
A Happy Christmas to you and all your family.
And thank you for all you write and do.
Thanks, Rich
And to you
Reading this mini essay of yours reminded me, as a young teenager, reading JBS Haldane.
What a year of outputs for the Murphy family.
Thank you. I know of his reputation. That is a compliment.
Haldane said the world is not only queerer (stranger ) than we suppose but queerer than we can suppose.
I suppose we would need a different state of consciousness to do -like Buddha and others have said/
BTW I noticed this today. New scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2504149-a-new-understanding-of-causality-could-fix-quantum-theorys-fatal-flaw/?tpcc=conversionarticle25_paidsocial_meta&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=psc&utm_campaign=rm_bau_uk_meta_subscription_asc_v2&utm_content=asc_sales_quantum_theory_fatal_flaw_Facebook_Desktop_Feed&audience_type=new_audience&utm_id=120217060690790776_v2_s04_e360&utm_term=120217060690790776&fbclid=IwY2xjawO4wkxhZGlkAassMfBHtChzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeae4Tn9r8WqE7yDl3nUXKIEx-gbgJoBMMrVh-AbfLWv8b0OyIxWTCBjWqs7M&brid=Bq39oNPQpVxSeepsEiRXYw
it may be relevance.
Happy Christmas to you and family
I think he was/is right.
It was a conversation we had this morning.
For me human beings lack the words to better describe Schrodinger’s thinking. I think we need to be more inventive like the 19th century French sociologist Auguste Comte who made up the word “altruistic.” For me the words “intruistic” (to seek true balance) and “extruistic” (not to seek it) work.
Brilliant.
I think this is the most profound and most beautiful essay I’ve ever read.
This really is what it all must be about.
Thank you.
Go well.
Sorry to come back again but I remembered the other Haldane quote -which is from memory.
Someone asked him ‘from your study of evolution, what do you deduce about the mind of the Creator?’
I think Haldane was an atheist but he replied, ‘The Lord seems to have in inordinate liking for beetles. There are over 200,000 species ( even more discovered since then)’.
🙂
It’s a reprise of Quantum of Bollocks, this time with entropy? “Let’s take two things that aren’t connected. Nobody has written about the connection between them therefore I am a genius.”
Alternatively …
You know that is what they said of Schrödinger at the time? Maybe you should read the book.
Thank you Richard – such a ‘care full’ piece and so profound. You are always thought provoking and I often sigh wistfully wishing that ignorant politicians would chunter less and think and read more, ideally this blog.
Have a super Christmas. KUTGW.
Many thanks, Sue.
Happy Christmas.
I enjoy your blogs, Richard. This for me, as an engineer by profession (and accordingly someone who enjoys physics, maths, thermodynamics, etc.) was one of your best. Taking Schrödinger‘s writings to highlight that continuous growth is unobtainable, stasis not being a natural state and entropy requiring maintenance, care, etc., brilliantly articulates why classical economic teaching is so flawed. Fundamentally, economics needs to recognise that it doesn’t operate in the imagined, simplified and stable environment it postulates but rather it should be largely about people (complicated and not standard) and the need to nurture and care for our environment in the widest sense (to address entropy) if we are to sustain ourselves in a fair, equitable, sustainable and responsible way.
Slainte Mhor, Richard
Thank you
And nollaig shona