{"id":88665,"date":"2025-12-24T08:14:02","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T08:14:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=88665"},"modified":"2025-12-24T10:35:06","modified_gmt":"2025-12-24T10:35:06","slug":"economic-questions-the-schrodinger-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2025\/12\/24\/economic-questions-the-schrodinger-question\/","title":{"rendered":"Economic questions: the Schr\u00f6dinger question"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of\u00a0political economy<\/a>\u00a0might 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\u00a0origin of this series is noted here.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Why have I included Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger<\/a>? 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<\/a>, 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<\/a>, which starts today. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger was a physicist, and not an economist.\u00a0<\/span><\/em>But in his book,\u00a0<\/span><\/em>What Is Life?,\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/a>he showed himself to be a multidisciplinary thinker, creating ideas that crossed boundaries because of the universality of their application.<\/span><\/em><\/span> 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.\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger is best known as one of the founders of quantum mechanics, but in What Is Life?<\/i><\/a> (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 \u201cnegative entropy\u201d. This means that life can be maintained only by continuously expending energy to resist decay.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This insight has profound implications far beyond biology. Schr\u00f6dinger 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Economics, however, largely ignores this truth. It treats growth as automatic, equilibrium as usual, and maintenance as secondary. Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s work exposes this as a fundamental error.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, the <\/span>Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger Question: <\/b>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?<\/i><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Entropy as the default condition<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

This overturns any worldview that assumes stability is natural.\u00a0Order is, when thermodynamics is understood correctly, achieved; it is not a given.<\/span> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Economics, by contrast, often models systems as if they naturally tend toward balance. Schr\u00f6dinger shows this is a fantasy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Life as a process, not a state<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In Chapter 6 of What Is Life?<\/em>, Schr\u00f6dinger 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger reveals the absurdity of this distinction. In reality, maintenance is the primary economic activity of any mature system.<\/span><\/p>\n

Energy, not money, sustains order<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger reminds us that economies are thermodynamic systems<\/span>, not abstract machines.<\/span><\/p>\n

The invisibility of care and maintenance<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

One of the most striking implications of Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet this is the work that keeps systems alive. Without it, collapse follows. Schr\u00f6dinger gives this insight a physical foundation: care is not sentimental. It is thermodynamically necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n

An economics that ignores care is not incomplete \u2014 it is wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

Growth as a temporary victory over decay<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger provides the underlying physical logic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Institutions as living systems<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Seen through Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s lens, institutions behave like living organisms. They require constant renewal. Rules must be updated. Norms reinforced. Trust rebuilt. Skills refreshed. Infrastructure repaired.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schr\u00f6dinger helps us see that institutional failure is not mysterious. It is entropic.<\/span><\/p>\n

What answering the Schr\u00f6dinger Question would require<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

To take Schr\u00f6dinger seriously would require a profound reorientation of political economy. At minimum, it would mean:<\/span><\/p>\n