believe, only rather help us sort out costs and benefits of various arrangements, as those costs and benefits are defined by ethical value systems that we bring economics; and further that scholar works for only coin worth having?our own applause, seems longer satisfactory.1 Renewed reproof of these norms, which came initially only from liberal and radical sources, has now begun filter out even general public.2 Liberal economists have tended identify problem as inefficacy of conventional discipline to depict accurately structure or tendencies of modern econom ic and to guide reliably efforts im prove due the thralldom of technique; plus, importantly, the intellectual mistake of first wrenching 'economy' from 'society' and thereafter treating abstractions of eco nomics without regard for their inextricably linked noneconomic causes and consequences.3 Radical economists have argued that sterile procedures used make contemporary economics more elegant have also insured the perpetuation of professionalism, elitism, and petty irrelevance.4 Moreover, they have contested axioms of discipline by charging that econo mists have postulated a rotten world and have set about see under what circumstances it might be good, subject unchallenged contraining pos tulate which makes it rotten begin with.5 The reaction of profession as a whole ap pears be that while discipline may have become too involved with arcane niceties easily amenable esoteric notation, this lapse from so cial significance can be overcome by redirecting attention towards the quality of life, thus, re turning to economics as a moral science.6 With some effort, economics can be newly extended consider virtually all diverse pressing concerns such as crime, health, and air pollution.7 Even ves tiges of Institutionalism appear confident that eco nomics is redeemable if greater scientific attention is provided people's wants or goals rather than considerations of economic efficiency.8 However, my primary concern is not whether economics is or can be made relevant topical issues, but instead, whether ethical premises upon which it is predicted are sufficient sus tain a Promethean transposition of society over threshold of scarcity toward millennial goal of disalienation wherein no one will feel or be excluded or alien and in which all will have equal rights and equal privileges.9 It will be contend ed that economics has been based upon an un specified sanguine expectation that future would bring both a quantitative and a qualitative improvement in character of human life and relationships, in sharp contrast with traditional metaphysical concept of worldly life as merely a prelude for salvation of spirit.10 Economics was an outgrowth of a new philosophy of human potential which dared conceive of man lifting burden of scarcity and developing his own un limited capacity and latent humanity. In its Anglo-Saxon form, economics, and its derivative type of economic organization?capital ism, embodied bases of a new faith in secular salvation.11 Yet it was also premised upon as sumption that consideration of what Keynes later called the permanent problem of human race . . . how live wisely, and agreeably, and well12 could be put off successfully until after general affluence without endangering future prospects for a worldly millennium. In this sense, Anglo Saxon economics made destiny of mankind in a Great Gamble. Meanwhile, evidence has been mounting that this gamble is likely fail. While mod ern economy, organized in accord with tenets of Anglo-Saxon economics, has become a vast pro ductive machine, it has yielded only a crude and crass material culture rather than a genuine civilization.13 The acquisitive, competitive be havior required of a human factor of production