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.