看 BBC 學英文
The title of this presentation is "Where Are We Going?"
This is actually the second part in a two-part series.
The first one was done in London, called "Where Are We Now?"
which dealt with the financial system and other attributes you might be familiar with
if you follow the work that I do with The Zeitgeist Movement
which is the activist and communication arm
of another organization called The Venus Project.
More on these organisations as we go along.
Part 1: Evolutionary Baggage
Roughly 10,000 years ago the human species
stumbled into a new social paradigm
which is now referred to as the "Neolithic Revolution".
During this time, it appears we began a transition
from predominantly egalitarian societies
consisting of hunters and gatherers
to an agricultural revolution where deliberate cultivation of food
replaced the more passive finding of food sources
hence allowing for much more control over production.
At the same time, there also seems to be a major push
in the advancement of what we call "technology" today.
Stone tools were advancing which eventually set the trend for the Bronze Age
which used the forging of more malleable copper.
And then [came] the Iron Age which enabled more strength
and so on. I think we know all these patterns.
Since this period, we can look back and recognize
a constantly increasing rate of technological development.
In fact, it appears to be an exponential increase.
This graph here, made by Ray Kurzweil
shows an exponential increase in the mass use of inventions
specifically communication and computer technology.
Next to it is another chart which shows a history of technological invention
and the amazing rate of progress in general.
I think it is safe to say that this evolution of technology
and hence science itself has been and continues to be
the fundamental catalyst for progress and change.
It is by far the primary factor driving the development of human civilization
not only in the facilitation of achieving specific ends
but also in the more subtle manifestation of our belief systems, philosophy
frames of reference and essentially how we interpret the world around us.
The scientific method itself is a form of technological tool
and its application has continually advanced our understanding
of the world around us, facilitating constant change.
Unfortunately, cultural beliefs (beliefs that we all share
traditions) are very rarely in tandem
with the socially progressive nature of science and technology.
This is termed "culture lag".
This stems from social identifications with existing traditional values
and established institutional practices.
These emotional identifications
and I apologize for this graphic, but I couldn't resist.
These emotional identifications are a source of comfort for us.
In fact, I have an anecdote. When I was coming here from the airport
I saw the Amish. They evidently live near by
and they were driving on the street. It was night time. What did they have?
They had electric lights on their horse and buggy.
I'm like "Hey! That's cheating!"
The thing is that it's really difficult for any traditional establishment
to really keep moving forward without eventually giving in
to the beauty of the advancement of technology and what it can do for us.
As a classic example of this phenomenon
which I'm sure many of you have heard before
was when the Italian physicist/astronomer Galileo
first presented evidence to the political institution of his time and region
regarding the earth revolving around the sun.
He was met with deep threat and deep opposition by the political
religious establishment, for it was very much contrary
to their religious texts and hence traditional identifications.
In fact the Inquisition banned the reprinting of Galileo's works
for 76 years after his death.
The reality is, institutional establishments
meaning institutions of both traditional codified thought
and institutions with societal influence and power
meaning philosophy dogmas on one hand
and corporations and governments on the other
each have a high propensity to engage in denial
dishonesty and corruption to maintain self-preservation
The result is a continuous culture lag
where social progress by way of incorporating new
socially helpful scientific advancements is constantly inhibited.
It is like walking through a brick wall
as the established power orthodoxies continue to perpetuate themselves
for their own interests and comforts.
To illustrate this phenomenon in a modern context
let's examine one of the oldest established orders still in use today
the monetary system.
When I say the monetary system, I don't mean native monetary policy
interest rates, the fractional reserve policy
central banks or any other component attribute.
I refer to the absolute foundation of the concept
being a system of incentive, aquisition, and exchange.
So first, let's ask the most fundamental question.
Why did we invent money?
Contrary to the attitudes of most of the world's population today
money is not a natural resource
nor does it represent resources.
Money is actually a social convention for managing scarcity
and rewarding creation.
If a person grows a food product on a plot of land
that product is given a value:
1) Based on how scarce the product is in the region
hence the level of demand versus supply.
2) Along with the amount of labor and time spent to produce that product.
Generally speaking, if a product is rare in this society
then its value is raised.
If the skill set needed by a person to cultivate that product
is also rare in the community, then the value is increased as well.
This is the basic theory of value, which you'll hear in Economics 101.
As innocuous as this may seem on the surface
let's now consider some of the unspoken
negative retroactions of this system; namely, the profit mechanism
and its relationship to establishment preservation.
Very simply, problems and scarcity equals profit.
Socially negative attributes of society
become positively rewarded ventures for industry.
The more problems and scarcity there is the more money
that can be made off of attempts at solutions.
The more efficiency created in society
the less opportunities for monetary acquisition.
Think about this. In other words
and this might sound rather pessimistic and abrupt
but there is very little intrinsic reward, and hence motivation
to solve any currently profitable problem in existence.
The very nature of monetary reinforcement condones
the perpetuation of problems.
For example, energy is the corner stone of our society.
You would think that scarce
and depleted oil supplies which is a common speculation
at this point in time, "peak oil"
would be a dire concern, given our current social dependence
posing nothing but negative connotations.
No, not in the short term.
There is nothing the oil companies want more than consistant scarcity.
The 2007/2008 speculative bubble in oil which shut down schools
school buses and caused immense hardship for the lower classes
for both home heating and transportation, is a classic example.
If oil companies know that they can make more money
by having their items scarce, the propensity
to deliberately limit production and disregard social concern
or simply be dishonest outright about available resources
is very high.
The same goes, unfortunately, for every other socially dire problem
such as environmental pollution.
The more polluted our water tables and taps become
the more industry can compensate by offering profitable solutions.
This creates a perverse reinforcement of indifference
to environmental concern by industry
for the more damage there is, the more money that can be made.
It is simply how the game is set up.
And the psychological ramifications are sick and profound.
Let's consider the medical industry
which should be one of the most altruistic
and progressive institutions we have
as our quality of life often depends on it.
However, we need to realize the simple reality
that the medical establishment with its millions of employees
thrives off of the sickness of the population.
The more problems solved in the realm of disease
the less money that can be generated.
For example, [there's] the cancer industry.
This is a massive, multi-billion dollar a year industry
a trillion dollar industry with a very large number of people in employment.
Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a cure for all cancers
was somehow achieved, and the method of treatment
was simple and easy. In other words, there was no longer a way
to make all this money off of the illness by the medical establishment.
Do you realize what would happen to the economy
to the medical institutions, if that particular problem
was actually given a viable solution?
And, when you realize that, do you really think that the intent
is to cure this illness?
It's something to think about.
And it would also lay off tens of thousands of people.
I mean, keep in mind it's an establishment.
The moment you have employees and everything
and even if you're working initially for an altruistic cause
the moment you're in the position of supporting a group
and the group relying on the institution
suddenly, motivations change.
As another example, what if a company made a car
that could last 80 years without service
and also runs without the need for perpetual refueling
through battery technology?
The after-market value of that car would be virtually zero
and billions of dollars would be lost due to the now obsolete
consumer oil and auto service market industries.
I'm sure many of you know that we have the technology now
to create electric cars
that can go 80 mph for a thousand miles on one charge.
You might also know as a case in point that the White House
during the Bush administration which was, in fact, the oil cartel in power
made sure their corporate constituents in the oil industry
were safeguarded against this new reality
by helping to just get rid of the idea itself, squashing it.
In fact, there is no reason why every single car sold
could not be electric right now. They aren't
because social progress and human well-being
is always second to monetary gain.
I'll say that again. Social progress and human well-being
is always second to monetary gain.
Also, if people cannot make money off of solving social problems
they simply will not be done.
Take a look at the horrid, dire destitution in Africa
or simply the rampant and growing homelessness across the world.
I think George Carlin actually put it best.
"Have you ever noticed that the only metaphor we have
in our public discourse for solving problems is to declare war on it?
We have the war on crime, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.
But did you ever notice that we have no war on homelessness?
You know why? Because there's no money in that problem.
No money to be made off of the homeless.
If you can find a solution to homelessness where the corporations
and politicians can make a few million dollars each
you will see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty damn quick!"
Most when they think about these kinds of things
the word "corruption" comes to mind.
Most feel that these are ethical issues.
But, it is really corrupt for an energy establishment
to want to limit supply, artificially so they can make money?
Is it really corrupt for a company to seek
indifferent self-preservation at the expense of social progress?
Actually no, it isn't. It is simply "business as usual".
And this is what I'm trying to point out.
And you should expect nothing less than this tendency.
The profit mechanism creates established orders
which constitute the survival and wealth of large groups of people.
The fact is, no matter how socially beneficial new advents may be
they will be viewed in hostility if they threaten an established
meaning social progress can actually be a threat to the establishment.
To put it into a sentence: Abundance
sustainability and efficiency are the enemies of profit.
Progressive advancement in science and technology which can solve
problems of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all are, in effect
making the prior establishment's servicing of those issues obsolete.
Therefore, in a monetary system
corporations are not just in competition with other corporations
they are in competition with progress itself.
That is why social change is so difficult within a monetary system.
In other words, the established monetary system
refuses free flowing change.
You really cannot have a social convention
where money is made off of inefficiency and scarcity
and expect a quick incorporation of new advents
which can relieve those problems.
I know I'm drilling this in, but most do not see this
and I want to make sure it is perfectly clear.
I don't want to spend too much time on the monetary system
because as I mentioned, it was the focus of a prior presentation.
However, I would like to quickly point out two important issues.
The first is the economic reality that the entire global economic system
is based on what I call "cyclical consumption".
The only way the system can work is if money is perpetually circulating.
Money must be continuously transferred from one party to another
in order to sustain the so-called "economic growth".
This is done through constant or cyclical consumption
by virtually everyone in society.
Jobs are entirely contingent upon demand for production in some form.
If there was no demand for goods and services then there would be no demand
for labor and financial circulation would hence stop.
What this translates into again is that inefficiency equals profit.
The entire system demands problems for it to work.
This is not only paralyzing as we have discussed
but it also creates outrageous amounts of resource waste
irrelevancy and extremity.
The second point I would like to make on this issue, which is much more broad
has to do with the holistic nature of the monetary game
in historical practice and the fundamental intent.
All societies today, whether termed capitalist or socialist
or even communist are fundamentally based on money.
Money is the enabler of possibility within the system itself.
Free market capitalism as it is often called
is now the dominant economic religion of the day.
I say religion, because when it comes to the cultural perception
of this methodology, few today seem to have the ability
to even ponder any other options for social operation.
They are fully indoctrinated. The free market in practice
can be defined as: A market in which supply and demand
are unregulated except by a country's competition policy
and rights and physical and intellectual property are upheld.
You'll notice it says "Unregulated, except
by the country's competition policy."
In other words, there is no such thing as a pure free market.
I know most of us know this, but I want to make the point
for nor could there ever be such a thing as a pure free market
without the system despotically self-destructing beyond repair.
Why? Because the basis of the free market pursuit
meaning the self-interest based pursuit
and strategic acquisition of market share
(the gaming strategy) can only lead to monopolies and cartels.
That is the basis of the entire motivation
and it's funny how economists today will deny that up and down.
For example, let's say I want to open an electronics store
in a relatively small town. Say here in Fairfield, Iowa
and at that time there are three other stores in this same area
and therefore, I have to compete with them.
As time moves forward, I work to streamline my competitive strategies
and reduce overhead in such a way that my store becomes the dominant
most affordable distributor of a certain set of items.
And everyone in the town flocks to my store, over the others, for such items.
Due to this, two of the other three stores
go out of business and leave town.
So at that point it's just my store
and the other competitor in the region: dual competition.
Since my profits have been so good, I make an executive decision.
I decide to attempt to acquire or buy
the other competing store in town.
Seems reasonable, right? Acquisitions happen all the time.
And they agree. So I purchase that store
put my logo on it and boom! I have a regional monopoly.
Likewise, let's assume I didn't purchase the other store
but rather just become friends and in turn partners with them
and we figure out a way to work together and flourish
in a non-competitive way. Seems logical, right?
Well, guess what? Now I have a cartel.
In other words, business is based, in part, on a gaming strategy
to win market share and hence profit;
therefore, it is a natural gravitation
to seek dominance in your sector or industry
and the highest level is monopoly and cartel.
It is a natural progression of the free market system
to become as dominant and powerful as possible
but it doesn't stop there. And I'm sure most in this room
understand the practice of congressional lobbying by corporations
considered absolutely normal. What is financial lobbying?
Lobbying is the prostitution of the state
to grant further powers or positions of ease to corporate industries.
In other words, if you pay off a few congressmen to support
your company's agenda, then you have further secured
your position economically. The same thing goes for campaign contributions.
Now people say that's corruption.
No, it's not. It's the free market at work.
What else do you expect? There is no such thing
as an objective government in a monetary system.
It is impossible. The whole society
is based on money and income, so why do you think
any lines would ever be drawn and respected?
We see this BS ethic argument all day long, and guess what
it has never worked, it never will work.
Influence and hence corruption is a natural by-product of our system.
It should be expected.
In fact, let's take this train of thought even further.
Throughout history there has been one empire after another
each working to secure global land and resource domination.
The central reason for war is for resources
profit, empire power and trade monopolies.
Governments are fundamentally no different in function
than corporations when it comes to self-interest.
The United States' invasion of Iraq could be considered
a hostile corporate take-over in effect
for even the most naive individuals today know
it had nothing to do with weapons, freedom or democracy for the people.
I don't even want to belabor that issue for it's just considered passe
to even talk about it. It's not even in style.
We're so used to this level of corruption
that we just look the other way these days.
However, I do want to clearly point out what war really
has to do with, if you have any inhibitions.
It is for the conquering of resources, industrial profit
and empire expansion fundamentally.
In the words of two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient
Major General Smedley D. Butler "War is a racket.
It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.
And it is the only one where the profits are reckoned in dollars
and the losses in lives."
It's important to point out
that today the pursuit of profit in the market system
is generating a different form of empire
a corporate empire
based on merging economies through trade agreements.
It's called "Globalisation".
I think Jim Garrison, President of the State of the World Forum
put it quite succinctly
"Taken cumulatively, the integration of the world as a whole
particularly in terms of economic globalization
and the mythic qualities of "free market" capitalism
represents a veritable "empire" in its own right.
Few have been able to escape the "structural adjustments"
and "conditionalities" of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
or the arbitrations of the World Trade Organization
those international financial institutions that, however inadequate
still determine what economic globalization means.
Such is the power of globalization that within our lifetime
we are likely to see the integration, even if unevenly
of all national economies in the world into a single global
free market system. " Hence empire.
To put it gesturally, the propensity of this system
is to create world monopoly.
That is the gestural, natural gravitation
of the methodology and philosophy of the free market ideology itself.
That is what the psychology sets up. I hope that's clear.
It is based on strategic domination and I think it's time
people finally awakened to this. It isn't based on freedom.
It's based on conquering.
The core basis of social functionality in our society is inherently despotic.
There is no such thing as an ethical transaction.
Ethics and competition are incompatible
for the basis of seeking differential advantage for personal gain
is wholly unethical in any civilization
leading perpetually to conflict and exploitation.
Dishonesty is the mode of operation at every level
whether you realize it or not. And frankly
how anyone in their right mind could ever rationalize
that a balanced, peaceful, sustainable and productive world
could ever come out of open competition, hence open warfare
from individuals competing against each other for work
to corporations battling against each other for market share
to governments competing against each other for global economic dominance
is beyond me.
We live in a paralizing, detachment-promoting
self-serving system which generates parasites and prostitutes.
Each one of us, due to the very nature of the monetary game
is forced into a position of submission
either to an employer or a client.
The basic goal is monetary acquisition
not service to social progress.
We leech and exploit. Sadly, the only cooperation
you'll tend to find these days
or actually ever since the system was created
was when there was a common enemy
meaning when a particular group works to fight against another.
hence one corporation working to fight against another corporation.
Advantage is dishonesty.
I hope everyone thoroughly understands that.
I would like to address some other culturally common attributes
of modern society both institutional and ideological
which are rarely thought about in a holistic sense.
This is going to be a little bit abstract, but I would like to show
how the integrity of these current conventions are either outdated
polluted by the monetary system and self-interest
or are simply ignoring the root causes of the problems
which these conventions are attempting to solve.
The 4 points are:
1) Laws, rights and paper proclamations
3) Government as we know it today, and
4) Activism and so-called "ethics"
Laws, rights and paper proclamations
In society today, government attempts to control human behavior
by way of threat in the form of laws.
Little regard is given to the reasoning behind causes
for these so-called criminal acts or socially offensive acts.
If a person is arrested for stealing, very little regard is given
to the environmental conditions that generated
the interest to steal to begin with, the motivation.
Is a mother who steals food to feed her starving family a criminal?
No, she's simply doing what she has to do.
When we reflect on this reality, that we as human beings
are really nothing more and nothing less than animals
and operate with the same basic behavioral reinforcement
(sorry for this graphic, but I had to use it to make the comparison)
the fact is we operate with the same basic behavioral reinforcements
survival tendencies as most other species.
We see then that it is illogical and irresponsable
to consider any human behavior outside of the realm
of the social condition.
In the early 90's, a study was done called "The Merva Fowles" study
which found that a 1% rise in unemployment in major US cities
resulted in a relatively substantial increase in crime.
This shows how so-called "criminal" behavior
is directly related to the socio-economic circumstances.
It should be no surprise that the great majority of people in prisons
come from deprived socio-economic positions.
Society is producing the behavior
particularly scarcity, if you pay attention.
And year after year, the number of people in prison rises
along with the number of laws on the books.
Therefore, obviously something isn't working right.
Something is not working. Something is wrong.
If society was progressively managed with the intent
of collective human well-being
then we should be seeing a constant decrease
in crime and prison populations, a decrease in laws.
In fact, the goal of a productive, stabilizing society
would be the intent to eliminate the need for prisons, police
and everything we have just mentioned altogether.
I think Lisa Simpson put it best.
- And that's the drunk tank. And this is Mommy's desk.
- Mom, I know your intentions are good but aren't the police
a protective force that maintains the status quo for the wealthy elite?
Don't you think we ought to attack the roots of social problems
instead of jamming people into overcrowded prisons?
-Look Lisa! It's McGriff, the crime dog!
This brings us to the concept of security now.
Since 9/11, security measures across the world
have gone berserk with irrationality.
The public at large, especially in America, is now neurotically obsessed
The solution to violent human behavior is evidently more police
more cameras and less freedom and liberty.
I hate to break it to everybody
but if somebody really wants to kill you
or blow up an airplane, blow up a shopping mall
or do anything they want, essentially in the form of violence
release toxic gas in the subway
they will find a way to do it.
No form of security will ever stop that
therefore the logic is wrong.
It is impossible, and the whole basis of security as we know it
is the absolute reverse of the application
that's required to solve these types of issues.
True security comes from solving social problems
addressing the environment, the reasons
for the neuroses and distortion of the human being.
This is a chart covering the last 200 years.
The Y-axis shows life expectancy
and the X-axis shows income adjusted for inflation.
Each bubble is a country.
The size shows the population and the color shows the continent.
The key is in the top right-hand corner.
You will notice that in 1800, life expectancy
was under 40 years of age in all countries
and income was less than $3000.
Now, what I want you to pay attention to is the trend of disparity
particularly in income as we view this chart through time.
You will notice that life expectancy has basically risen
along with wealth in general, but what do we see mostly?
What do we see, what stands out?
We see a tremendous and growing economic disparity.
Africa, for example, is just left in the dust
by the Western nations.
We went from this, to this.
Economic disparity is obviously growing. Now why am I bringing this up?
There is some research that's been done by a few parties.
One being Richard Wilkinson, of the University of Nottingham in the UK
which has shown a strong correlation between crime and income inequality
not absolute income, but inequality itself.
It's psychological. For example, in the United States
which has the largest income gap in the world.
(Of course, we're also the wealthiest in the world.)
I wonder why we have the largest prison population in the world.
Why is there so much distortion?
It's possibly because of this tremendous, economic stratification.
Here is the chart showing the growing disparity
divided into the upper and lower classes.
While the lower classes stay poor on average
the gap between them and the upper middle classes
continues to grow extensively.
I believe this is the basic source of the increase
in crime across this planet holistically.
There seems to be a correlation between growing disparity
and prison population and hence crime.
The more income inequality, the more crime.
It comes from what some people refer to as "psycho-social stress".
Coming back to my original point, when it comes
to the concept of security, I think one of the most important things
we should be considering is reducing the global income gap.
In other words, I think that the more this inequality in the world grows
the more world conflicts that will arise on multiple levels.
Now we're going to move on to paper proclamations.
Today we use paper proclamations, as we call them
to denote a person's so-called rights.
And just like laws, they are culturally biased
artificial concoctions, which attempt to solve reoccurring problems
by simply declaring something with words on paper usually.
Rights, infact, have been invented to protect ourselves
from the negative by-products of the social system itself.
And once again, instead of seeking a true solution to a problem
we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations
in an attempt to resolve them.
This does not work. It has never worked.
There is really no such thing as an unalienable right
outside of the culture in which it is assumed.
We are making this up!
Therefore, liberties need to be inherent in a social system by design
not alluded to ambiguously on paper.
As a classic example of this, let's take the notion of divine law
the famed Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not murder". Why?
These are surface notion cop-outs
created by men who didn't have any real information
who did not understand that we live in a cause-and-effect reality.
Telling people this does virtually nothing, as history has proven.
Morality is an empty idea that has no empirical referent.
An intelligent commandment would be something like:
"Thou shalt continually re-orient thyself and society
to reduce reactionary propensities that lead to aberrated consequences
such as stealing and murder."
(The gospel of Peter Joseph)
The same surface irrelevancy applies to any Constitution
or Bill of Rights of any country on this planet.
In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure
certain freedoms and protections by way again of mere text on paper.
Now, while I understand the value of this document
and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation
that does not excuse the fact that it is a product
of social inefficiency and nothing more.
In other words, declarations of laws and rights
are actually an acknowledgment of failures of the social design.
There are many people today in the so-called "Patriot" and "Liberty" movements.
I know many people like this. I'm a fan of many people
who are proponents of this, in part, because I think there's a place for it.
But this document is not the "savior" of America.
Some people seem to believe that
the United States had some magical position at one point or another
perhaps where we slaughtered all the Mexicans and Indians to steal the land
or the fact that when the Constitution was written, only white
property owning males which was about 10% of the whole population
of the nation, could actually vote.
This is government by the people?
Moving on. Let me demonstrate what I'm talking about here.
The Fourth Amendment details how people have
"Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures".
This statement is basically qualified by the termed notion
of "probable cause" in the amendment.
What is "probable cause"?
The only way to figure this out is to find a legal working definition
that is culturally accepted.
A common definiton of probable cause in this context is:
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime.
So the qualifier is now reasonable, right?
Reasonable: This is often defined as "fair"
not excessive or extreme.
Then I guess we have to move on to the word "excessive".
You see my point, I hope.
It is meaningless semantically, therefore it cannot be trusted.
None of them can.
In other words, legal definitions are not empirical.
All the amendments are subject to the whims of interpretation
which is why they are abused by the police
Homeland Security and the IRS on a daily basis.
Therefore, back to my original point:
There is no such thing as rights
as the reference can be altered at will.
The Fourth Amendment is an attempt to protect people
from State power abuse. That is clear.
But it avoids the real issue, and that is:
Why would the state have an interest to search and seize to begin with?
How do you remove the mechanisms that generate such behavior?
We need to focus on the real cause.
To be clear again, I'm not saying that laws, rights
are not needed at this time. They certainly are
but we need to hone our focus to resolving the actual problem.
And by the way, for all the nationalists out there
I am not attacking the US Constitution once again.
However, it is not the answer and it's naive to think
that this document really has that much relevance.
Again, I am a fan of people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
I believe there's a place for the work that they do
but it's not the answer.
The history of America is just like the history of any other country
on this planet. It is a history of deception, fraud and corruption.
There is nothing to return to
for the integrity was never there to begin with.
We must move forward, not backwards.
And this brings us to government.
All governments in existence today, whether you recognize it or not
are institutional dictatorships.
They are publicly sanctioned power monopolies
and democracy as it is practiced today is simply a game that is played.
I'm sorry, but it's simply a game that's played
to give the public the illusion of control.
People think they have choice in our current system
because they can press a button on a voting machine
and put a pre-selected person into power.
However, once that person is in power
the public then has virtually no say.
Did you vote for the bank bailout? [No]
Did you vote for the cabinet of a new president?
Did you vote for the tax increase?
Do you vote for where highways, power grids or any infrastructure goes?
Did you vote for the wars in Afganistan and Iraq? [No, we didn't]
So where is your real participation?
In Part Three, we will discuss how a true democracy actually would work
and it's not the election of people. It's the election of ideas.
We have to understand the government as we know it today
is not in place for the well-being of the public
but rather for the perpetuation of their establishment and their power
just like every other institution within a monetary system.
Government is a monetary invention for the sake of economic
and social control. Its methods are based
on self-preservation, first and foremost.
All the government can really do is create laws to compensate
for an inherent lack of integrity in the social order.
It's also worth pointing out that most politicians are lawyers.
Most players in goverment come from the world of law.
And in reality they have absolutely no real education
or understanding about the true foundation of social operation.
Can a lawyer come fix your home heating system?
Can a lawyer go and organize a power grid for a particular area? No.
Lawyers and hence polititians, are simply not trained
in any tangible way to solve real problems.
They're trained to solve artificial, nonsensical problems
that are culminated by-products of our nonsensical society.
In other words, society is in fact a technical creation.
I'll say that again. Society is a technical creation
consisting of infrastructure, resources and management.
Society is a technological construct.
Republican, Democrat, it doesn't mean a damn thing.
If you really want to see a society that works
you have to begin to realize that science and technology
is the overarching element that governs
the entire mechanism of social organization
and therefore, those who study those attributes should be given
not control, but should be given the forefront to participation.
Forefront of influence to say "We can feed and clothe
all the impoverished people in Africa and in the third world".
We can technically do it". But unfortunately
they go to their corporate bureaucracy, and hence, government bureaucracy
and the governments say "We don't have the money for that."
The question has never been "Do we have the money?"
The question has always been "Do we have the resources
and technological know-how?"
Now, the final issue I would like to cover in this section
has to do with activism and the traditional patterns of activism
we have seen historically across the world.
In the world today, there are countless well-intentioned people
and activist organizations making a lot of noise about the rampant problems
and injustices in our world.
Yet unfortunately, as you tend to find
very few offer any real, tangible long-term solutions.
Those that do offer solutions, however
almost universally frame those solutions
within the pre-existing social establishment.
Their tactics tend to involve new legislation, and of course
they always demand ethics and accountability.
Very little regard is given to the root structure of our system.
Battling and protesting
corrupt corporate organizations and seeking money from society
in an attempt to curtail such trends is a typical path that is taken.
It is a very respectable path in general.
However, it is not going to create long-term change.
I'm nothing but pleased to see something like this
but does that really do anything?
When it comes to social corruption, poverty, environmental disregard
human exploitation and most personal and social turmoil in the world today
the great realization is that most of these problems
are not the result of a particular company
some nefarious elite group or some government legislation.
These are symptoms of the foundational problem.
The real issue is human behavior
and human behavior is largely created and reinforced
by the social patterns required for survival
as necessitated by the social system of that period in time.
We are products of our society, and the fact of the matter is
it is the very foundation of our socio-economic system
and hence our environmental condition
which has created the sick cultural climate you see around you.
Very rarely do any activist organizations today consider the possibility
that maybe it is the social system itself that is the problem.
The bottom line is that we can spend the rest of our existences
attempting to stomp on the ants that mysteriously
wander out from underneath our refrigerator, setting traps, or laws
or we can get rid of the spoiled food behind it
which is causing the infestation to begin with.
Part 2: Project Earth
There is a concept in electrical engineering called
the signal to noise ratio
which has to do with the ratio of a signal power
to a noise power which corrupts the signal.
It's like listening the music on the radio in a car
which is receiving a great deal of interference
and the music is becoming clouded and distorted.
I think this is a great metaphor for our current social practices
the signal being the foundational aspects of importance
and relevance to a given field with the noise being the outdated
traditionalized, inefficient methods
which cloud, confuse, delay and distort
our intents and abilities.
I want everyone to forget
pretty much everything I've just talked about. Take a massive step back
and consider a very simple thought exercise that I want to walk through
in regard to how we conduct our operations on this planet.
Let's assume for a moment that we are interstellar travelers
originating from Earth, as it is known today;
and in our journey we stumble upon, amazingly enough
an exact replica of our planet.
The only difference between the current state of this new planet
versus our own is that there are no human beings.
Human evolution has not occurred.
Hence, there is no establishment orders, no social arrogance
no money of course, nothing to limit our possibility.
Given the advanced scientific knowledge we have today
how would we go about redesigning
our social infrastructure from the ground up
with the goal to create nothing less than the most efficient
conscientious and sustainable society as possible.
What is the first step?
A full survey of Earth's natural resources would make sense, correct?
I think it would be illogical to begin any other way.
We must first understand the full range and capacity
of the earthly components in order to derive inference
as to our capabilities.
Natural resources come in many classifications:
just biotic, meaning those obtained from the biosphere
such as forests, maritime organisms, mineral fuels
and then there is abiotic, such as arable land, water
gold, iron ore, and other such raw materials.
There are many natural resources to be considered, of course
but for the sake of simplicity we're going to consider just one area
and this will serve as the prototype for all the others
and this area is energy.
Energy is the fuel of society, I think most people would agree.
Energy appears to be the lowest common denominator of modern civilization
and it has been the basic facilitator of progress
and the expansions of our standards of living
so I think it's a good place to begin. OK, so what do we do?
We simply scan the Earth and analyze it
listing all relevant energy locations and potentials.
Of course, the potentials, to clarify a little bit
is always going to be based on the current state of technology
For example, solar energy today has a dramatic potential
but it is still greatly underutilized as the technology
has been inefficient so far
but with the advent of nanotechnology we are seeing
a possible exponential increase in this potential.
So it's contingent upon the quality of our methods is my point.
Also, I don't want to spend much time on the issue of nanotechnology
but if you research these trends as applied to solar radiation harnessing
it becomes clear that solar energy alone in time
could power the entire world a thousand times over.
Unfortunately, you are not going to see this anytime soon. Why?
Because it is too efficient for the market system
and the absorption process would take many, many years
if seriously pursued.
So, back to our original thought exercise.
Once we have this raw data of energy sources
we need to rate each source based on its renewability
pollution output and everything that factors in
to decide the degree of sustainability.
Those sources that have the most negative retroactions
are given the least priority of utilization, and by the way
this is an arbitrary chart. Don't take it too seriously obviously.
For example, fossil fuels are mostly non-renewable
and can pollute the environment.
Given the tremendous power of geothermal
wave, wind, and solar combined
I would say that there is absolutely no reason to even bother
with fossil fuels at all.
And to clarify this, I would like to run down these renewable mediums.
According to a 2005 Stanford University study
if 20% of the known potential of wind energy was harnessed
it would power all the world's needs.
We already mentioned solar energy. The radiation hitting the Earth's surface
is about 10,000 times the planet's usage, in fact.
This issue comes down to technology, nanotechnology, as we denoted.
Lesser known is tidal power. As a regional example, in a recent study
it has been found that 34% of all of the United Kingdom's energy
could come from tidal power alone.
But more effectively, as far as the ocean, is wave power
which has been found to have a global potential
of 80,000 terawatt hours a year
meaning 50% of the entire planet's energy usage
could come from tidal power alone.
However, most effectively, is geothermal energy
which, according to a recent MIT analysis, contains enough energy
to meet the world's needs for the next 4,000 years.
In other words, energy is nothing but abundant
on this planet and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Back to our exercise. Once this data is established
we compare the potentials to consumption and adjust accordingly.
Fortunately, as we've just analyzed we do have more than enough energy
to meet our needs, so we can eliminate
the least efficient sources, such as oil and everything else
and there we have our pool of supportive energy resources to utilize.
Step 3: Distribution and Monitoring
Energy distribution would be logically formulated
based on technological possibility and proximity to sources.
In other words, if we had wind energy utilized in Asia
we're not going to deliver that energy to Latin America.
Distribution parameters will be self-evident
based on the current state of distribution technology
and proximity practicality.
Likewise, active resource monitoring done through earth sensors
and computers, would allow for a constant awareness
of the rate of use, the rate of depletion, the rate of renewal
and any other parameter relevant to know
in order to maintain, of course, a balanced load.