Modern economies does not differentiate between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its method is to measures everything by means of a money price. Thus, taking various alternatives fuels, like coal, oil, wood or water power: the only difference between them recognised by modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The cheapest is automatically the one to be preferred, as to do otherwise would be irrational and 'uneconomic'. From a Buddhist point of view of course this will not do, the essential difference between non-renewable fuels like coal and oil on the one hand and renewable fuels like wood and water power on the other cannot be simply overlooked. Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indespensible, and then only with the greatest care and the highest concern for conservation. To use them carelessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be possible on earth, it is nonetheless the duty of man to aim at deal of non-violence in all he does.
Which of the following statements may be assumed to be false from the information in the passage?
1.The writer finds the attitude of modern economists towards natural resources to be uneconomic.
2.Buddhist economists are in different to the cost of fuels
3.To use oil on non-essentials is contrary to the Buddhist economic philosophy
4.To fell a tree is an act of violence not permitted by Buddhist economists