The taboo associated with challenging what others think, under the still
convenient notion that all values are equal, is simply not tenable. You are
in fact partially responsible for the thoughts and values of others; and they
are in fact responsible for yours. The most dangerous value we can have
floating around the culture today (and I hope everyone can really listen
carefully to this) the most dangerous value we have floating around the culture today
is the idea that any of us have freedom of choice or 'the right to our own opinion',
especially when it comes to issues of human survival and sustainability.
We cannot choose, we can only align if we wish to survive and prosper.
Period. There is simply no such thing as freedom when the benchmark of scientific
causality is brought into the equation with respect to any action or goal.
The only caveat is the emergent uncertainty of the evolution of knowledge. How could we possibly be
so arrogant to assume at any point in time in human history that we have ever been
empirically right? It simply hasn't happened yet if you take the broad view.
It wasn't until the past couple hundred years that the scientific method has barely
been taken seriously with respect to human affairs and society. It's a
benchmark. The self correction attribute of science is what enables its
evolution. There does seem to be a pre-existing logic (and this is important to note
because people take this for granted) a logic in fact which dictates our reality
it doesn't give a damn what we think of it and impose upon it. It appears we can
either be vulnerable and align as best we can and engage this harmony; or we can walk
against it - fight it - to our personal and social disadvantage. Is there really any
freedom to how we organize our economy on a finite planet if the goal is to
create the most efficient sustainable means of production, distribution and
regeneration? No there isn't. Industry is a technical process - a calculation
problem - where the variables of human needs, physical science and earthly resources are
brought into a single regulatory equation , if you will. The properties of our resources
can be scientific quantified now - strategically assessed as far as their purpose;
strategically oriented as far as the design in the most logical manner
distributed through the exact same logic of pure efficiency.
We have globalization on this planet - what the hell are we doing? We're taking stuff from all
over the world, exploiting labor, moving it around - wasting tons of energy - when we
could easily develop production methods in local communities where you save
x-fold amount of energy
the distance between elements moving is x-fold less - it's insane, but yet the
system perpetuates that. That's for a larger order subject that I've not enough time to go into.
We could strategically orient industry and it's self-evident as we do based on the
physics of our reality and where things are. We could enable an efficiency never known
before - it becomes self-evident. And why would be possibly, with regard to
sustainability, want to do anything less? As counterintuitive and culturally obtuse
as it may seem, there is no freedom or opinion in our technical reality. There is
only the most efficient way up until now. And the rest is simply inefficient.
The definition of economy in Greek means management of a household. A reduction of waste
and maximized efficiency is inherent in this premise. Is this the way our current
free-market system is operating? What drives the global economy? Consumption.
And the more the better.
More consumption means more jobs - better GDP and hence enabling more consumption
(through purchasing power that's enabled). Is that efficient? Shouldn't preservation
and reducing waste be the basis of an economy on a finite planet by definition?
How can an economy based on the need for constant growth and turnover - and even
an economy based on the constant need for employment - be 'economizing' anything at all?
Then there's this thing called cost efficiency. Cost efficiency demands cutting expenses to remain competitive
in the marketplace. Every single product created by any corporation today (without
exception) is immediately inferior by design - for the market requirement to cut
creation costs in favor of lowering the output purchasing price to maintain a
competitive edge - automatically reduces the quality of any given item by default.
It is impossible to create the strategically best, long-lasting
'anything' in our society. And this translates into outrageous amounts of wasted resources.
Likewise, the same mechanism is also reinforcing environmental disregard, depletion and
pollution. Everyone's trying to save money - why do you think they're really going to care about the environment?
The logic is against it. We see this constant in the world today among many
many other issues l could list. In fact, if you take a moment to really step back and
think about this - not only is this inefficiency a characteristic of the
market model - it's actually the fundamental driver. Having clean unpolluted
water in your home might seem like a nice thing in gesture. But the fact that
money is not being exchanged for that is anathema to the economic sustainability
that we've come to understand. So more pollution means more profit. More disease
means more jobs. Ad infinitum. In fact, I would go so far to say as pointed out here that
sustainability, efficiency and preservation empirically are the enemies
of our economic system - and that's unfortunately the firm reality. Those out
there who talk about a 'green economy' or the like - as though there's such a
thing that could possibly exist in this system - posing solutions within this
structural order such as renewable energies, energy credits, carbon footprint
stuff or the like - they are not understanding what's actually at work
here. You cannot have a true green or even close to whatever you could consider a
sustainable economy in the market model of economics. It is technically
impossible. The system would fail if we ever wanted to operate on a truly technical
sustainable level - for the system is in fact fueled by the exact opposite
set of mechanics. I would even go so far to challenge for those out there that
basically at this stage are not in favour of the complete abolition of
the market economy as the solution to the destruction of our environment - not
to mention the collapse of the social order itself we are seeing - while working
to replace this system with a truly technical approach for resource management,
proper scientific allocation, seeking the highest level of efficiency possible at
every turn in production and distribution, for maximum sustainability
(which is a technical distinction) including proper allocation of labour and
everything else - you're really just engaging in patchwork.
It's not going to do anything in the long run and we're wasting time
because time is literally running out.
We have based our economy on outdated notions of human bahaviour and
convoluted notions of supposed freedom and ignored the true technical reality -
the true environmental reality that actually supports and sustains our
lives and creates good public health.
This realisation - that are true economic benchmark is science
and hence the self-evident calculation requirement needed to
streamline our efficiency - inherently voids the entire basis, again,
of free-market economics itself - I can't reiterate that enough. For it simply makes zero
technical sense scientifically
and is in fact provably now working against our survival and accelerating.
Let's take a quantum leap outside of our traditional assumptions for a moment.
What does the the political institution and hence government really do? Why do we even have it?
They work to compensate for the inefficiency of the economy. That's it.
That's the only reason they're there. When people are not getting their needs met they
often resort to so-called 'crime', so government invents 'laws' to silence those victims of
the economic efficiency. Likewise, if we need resources being held in another
'sovereign nation' aka region of the planet and we are not economically
getting along with them, we engage in war to steal those resources not to mention
protect ourselves from others who might want to steal ours. There is no war in
history that has not been based upon resource acquisition or protection. Likewise the
world's divided into gangs, you ever notice that? We still have these things called 'countries' ?
We still assume a socially Darwinistic pretense with the very
existence of these nation states not to mention the divisive patriotic
value-distortions that are born out of it.
Are countries relevant in technical terms? How could we possibly define them
outside of our opinions? a) all humans share the same basic needs, and
b) the resources that we all need have no idea what a country is
And they are dispersed everywhere on this planet in one single unified ecosystem.
If there's anything positive that came out of the US and Russian
cold war that almost triggered complete nuclear disaster decades ago it was
the realisation that radiation fallout and nuclear winter never heard of
countries, flags or sovereignty. Just as the pollution from the Japanese power plants
that melted down a while back - it didn't need passports to cross over to other
country's atomospheres. I hope my point is clear. The fact is, there is only and can
only be one global economy and hence there is only one and can only be one
global society - for our economic premise is what defines us and that's what our
survival is. The socio-economic system of our time is
as archaic, dogmatically religious and pseudoscientific as any dogmatic religious
belief. They are completely decoupled from the benchmark of our scientific
emergent reality which is being denied - held in place by traditional non
emergent institutions which - mark my words - will be what destroys life
on this planet as we know it
if the multi-dimensional reality that is springing up is not realised and brought
to the surface quickly.
The central problem we face is that the economic system is actually
still systematically reinforcing itself - continuing to hold this paradigm in
place by the ongoing values and actions of the masses - who do not see the true
source of the problem because they're trapped inside of it and they are
accelerating its effects. For example, if anyone out there frames their sense of
leadership or success based on money or acclaim - you have a rude awakening coming to you.
I don't blame them and don't put them down but I hope - I hope this definition can
eventually change. What is true success? Is success how well you manage your
company? Sell a book? Gain a profit? or anything that engages the current socio-economic
paradigm? If you agree with what I have just described with respect to the economic system,
those focusing on short-term material success might very well be
assisting in their own long-term failure and demise, for they are only
perpetuating a detrimental social system in the end that (as I said before) will get
the best of all of us if it isn't stopped. Shouldn't true success
be your ability to adapt to the emergence of new information?
Improving your relationship with the natural order benchmark that we've
spoken of? Is there really anything else that could possibly define success in
the broadest possible terms? Proper alignment with whatever reality happens
to be. Advancing itself and you being with it? Do our relationships and
marriages and bank accounts and even our children, our status, our acclaim
really mean anything when it's stepped back to the larger order
of what it means to relate to the world that you live in? All acts of commerce are inherently
corrupt. If you define corruption as deprivation, exploitation or abuse - every
time you mark up the value on a good you sell or cut corners to save money you are
engaging in deprivation, exploitation and abuse by its systemic causal effect and
intrinsic rationale. That is the behavior our social system requires
to continue and that distortion is currently masked as normality.
When I look at the world today with, say, one person dying every three seconds
unnecessarily; when I look at the fact that there are, in truth - based on UN
distinctions of human trafficking and what slavery means, there are today more slaves in the
world than ever before in human history. When I speak to the truth of the fact that every single
life-support system is in decline due to resource exploitation
equal exploitation that goes on the human side, applied to the abuse of the top soil -
abuse to everything that we're doing, to destruction of water resources -
This is a dramatic failure that were seeing across the board,
destroying public health and destroying ecological health.