Measuring the HEIT of Humankind

     I am quite sure most of you have heard the whole 'war=peace' spiel before. For the record, my country is Earth—and so is yours. And, the true heroes are those who find ways to bridge the differences between people and nations; not those who kill for any rationalization you would like to propose.
     Let me ask you something: Have you ever thought about the statement when someone says, "War is necessary to maintain...peace"? Being diametrical opposites, it may be tempting to equate this relationship with that of a concept such as magnetism. Based on scientific observation, no monopole has yet been discovered anywhere in the Universe from our relatively miniscule geocentric perspective. Insofar as we currently understand Laws of physics, a magnet will always have what we refer to as a North and South magnetic pole; even if a magnet is broken in half.
     Similarly, no peace has ever been observed without war as a referential example; and vice versa. Thus, peace=war, and war=peace; whether or not a nation is divided or United is irrelevant. However, to prove this assumed parallel erroneous, as it most assuredly is, let us examine the ideas in such an argument further:

     Considering the fact that Education becomes the cornerstone of global society in the particular Federation I have outlined, we can irrefutably take into account the outcome of an unconditional (meaning money-free) Education contributing to a global understanding of carrying-capacity through an unprecedented, global resource evaluation; again, money-free. This evaluation, which has yet to be conducted, will give us the most definitive answer to the question of carrying-capacity we have ever attempted to calculate. Only then will we be able to state whether or not that carrying-capacity has not yet been reached, has been reached, or has been exceeded. Until then, all that I can say is this: Doubtless, with the intelligent application of Technology and global sharing of evaluated resources, it is quite possible for the Human population to stretch into the tens of billions and coexist in a symbiotic relationship with the environment which sustains us as well as all other life on Earth.
     Such a society would abandon the fallacious, exploitative, destructive means of war and find a better way to the end of interdependent development WITH the environment; not in spite of the environment. Perhaps this is what can be equated to an idea of genuine “peace.” If so, then peace definitely does not equal war. It becomes apparent that the terms peace and war are simply in a linguistic relationship as such; not necessarily in a real-world application as such. For, ALL language is subject to interpretation. Our interpretation of war is relative to our interpretation of peace; and our interpretation of peace is relative to that interpretation of war; so on and so forth.
     In English, it is similar to asking, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” and focusing solely on the idea of a chicken or the idea of an egg elucidated by our ever-evolving, modern English lexicon; ignoring in whole the fact that the terms “chicken” and “egg” have no meaning to any person with no understanding of the English language. It is partly why some cannot think of one of these ideas without the other and complacently claim each as equals; or, at the very least, equally necessary. This particular mindset boasts of what is falsely perpetuated as an inescapable direct proportion of one idea to the other. Again, this is simply conceptually represented through linguistic composition, and is not necessarily real-world applicable.
     If one truly thinks about this situation objectively, without an observational guide, such as an actual chicken in this particular illustration, communication through words is but the result of extremely sophisticated evolutionary features, Human vocal chords, being coordinated by what is perhaps the most sophisticated evolutionary feature on Earth—the Human brain.
     Back to the language experiment: Let us now substitute peace and war in an attempt to form an analogous interpretation ourselves. We should also keep good and evil in mind as well, since these two terms seem to be linked to the former two terms, respectively:
     In English, it is similar to asking, “What came first, war or peace?” and focusing solely on the idea of war or the idea of peace. Again, both are subject to and have relative interpretations as well as no meaning to any person without understanding of the language spoken. And, of course, language undergoes perpetual evolution; most cannot think of one without the other; claim each as equals, or equally necessary; and then cease the pursuit of intellectual stimuli that could potentially support or disprove such underdeveloped claims. The resultant ignorant interpretation is then transmitted by unread people through social networks, like this one, to other people that thrive on propaganda, drama, and fake or edited news spun by corporate conglomerate media outlets.
   Again, without an observational guide, such as an actual war, communicating interpretations of these terms is but the result of sophisticated evolutionary features being coordinated by a much more sophisticated evolutionary feature. This time, however, the Human brain is coordinating a perpetuation of potentially hazardous ideas which fundamentally mainspring resentment towards others—religions, governments, and money.
     It is called SOCIAL CONDITIONING; and we all are subject to it. Those of us that do a little critical thinking will come to the more appropriate conclusion, despite this conditioning: If we are collectively misinterpreting these ideas of peace and war, or good and evil, to the point that we believe one cannot exist without the other, and essentially use this rationalization to find justification for war, then it becomes necessary to redesign global society entirely. When we shift focus from money to the cynosure of intellectual and technological equilibrium and sustainability, the idea of living in a synergetic relationship with each other and the environment manifests by measuring the HEIT (Human-Environmental Interdependent Trade) of our collective existence. Allow me to explain:
     For millennia, Humans have found solace in the systematic trade of scarce resources in order to form a comparative advantage which can be used as an influential means to potentially exploitative, economically powerful, yet intrinsically destructive ends. Scarcity, whether actual or pretended, has been the prime factor in the consideration of “value” being placed on objects or resources for the largest portion of Human history. Demand is in a linguistically proportional relationship with supply. Scarcity inevitably dictates that supply in that there must INITIALLY be a known desirable commodity, scarce or abundant, to be demanded. Therefore, scarcity ultimately establishes “value.” Technological advancements have proven, however, that scarcity is no longer a viable option for such consideration. An example is hydroponic agriculture.
     From bartering, to coining money, to the present-day printing of paper/fabric money with colorful ink and misunderstood symbols, we seem to have been continuously running like mice on the outside of a giant ball that used to be thought of as flat. Admittedly, it is only to Human ingenuity in an attempt to enhance the Human standard of living that Humankind can attribute the current understandings of the Laws of the Universe, which obviously encompass those “natural” Laws here on Earth. Dollar signs were not flashing in Einstein’s eyes when he discovered the powerhouse of energy pent up inside the nuclei of atoms. No doubt, his vision was unlimited, costless energy for all of Humankind; not vaporization of other Humans for militaristic advantages. Money did not switch the proverbial light on over Edison’s head. He utilized Maxwell’s equations to bring light to people all around the globe; not to hoard this innovation for his home alone while the rest of the world sat alone in the dark. Exemplifications are nearly endless.
     All of the electronic gadgets—televisions, batteries, cameras, computers, cell-phones with all of the above plus internet—which so many take for granted on a minute-to-minute basis can be ascribed to exponential innovation, not money. Sure, money may be one particular driving factor for businesses to strive for improvement, which may or may not, in some indirect way, lead to technological advancements; however, a pile of cash, or bits of information somehow being given “value” from nothing, WILL NOT and CAN NOT tell one how to utilize the experimentally verifiable Laws which govern Electromagnetism here on Earth.
     A businessperson is scarcely familiar with laws of physics; if at all. Nor does a businessperson diverge from the path of profit by any means necessary. Likewise, political “leaders” are just as ignorant and show blatant disregard for the environment to see economically advantageous policies implemented which are influenced financially by businesspeople. So, where is the sensibility in allowing those with no understanding of technology to appropriate the application of technology for self-interested aggrandizement at the expense of the majority of global Human population and the environment? This virtually uncontested complacence can no longer continue if we are to provide a remarkably feasible, globally United, beneficial future for our Posterity—GLOBAL POSTERITY. It becomes evident just how nearly impossible it is for Humankind to be sustainable if mass-ignorance is maintained by multi-national corporate conglomerations spoon-feeding the public scripted news and propaganda through news-media outlets run by their inescapably greedy “representatives.”
     The current system of economic trade is undeniably situated on the foundation of the monetary system, upheld by other “representatives” placed in charge of the World Bank and the IMF—both based in Washington, DC. Global Trade is so interlocked with the fractional reserve banking system that it is confirmable as valid to say the entire Human population of Earth is in debt to this system, because of this system. The twisted part is that no one seems to notice; and those that notice either don’t care, or are bankers. The primary focus has been and continues to be “what’s in it for me?” But, shouldn’t we be asking, “What’s in it for ALL OF US—Environment included?” For, the only REAL trade takes place between Humans and the environment which sustains us and all other living things on Earth. And, for nearly two centuries, we have not been trading fairly at all.
     To maintain stable conditions, which allow sustainable living for Humankind and the environment, we must maintain a balance or equilibrium in our trade. The Human-Environmental Interdependent Trade begins when we peer beyond oppressive means, exploitation, pretended scarcity and rationalization for war, in an attempt to discover a better way. The HEIT of our existence is paramount to understanding how best to accommodate, and perhaps produce massive surpluses of energy, resources and sustenance for, EVERY PERSON ON EARTH. To deem it impossible with no global resource-evaluation is absent-minded and serves only those self-interested persons in economic hegemony. How about we try something new—a GLOBAL economy based on RESOURCES? The transitional phase could take place simultaneously with the global resource evaluation mentioned earlier.
     In order to achieve new HEITs, abolishment of the inherently corrupt monetary system means we become capable of unconditionally forging an unprecedented foundation upon which a future of nearly limitless, global intellectual and technological equilibrium can be built. Sound impossible? If so, then why? Because pretended scarcity has conditioned us to believe that money is a resource or a necessity? Well, IT IS NOT! Is it because it sounds like scary-Mary socialism? IT’S NOT! This is an entirely new concept that has NEVER been attempted. Let me ask you, do you know anything comparative about current understandings of capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, “any-ism”, free trade, or any other economic system at all? How about multinational corporations, profiteering, the Wall Street gambling institutions, the World Bank, IMF, government manipulation by economic Hit men, exploitation, monopolies, etcetera? Or is what you know simply opinion or hear-say?
     Here’s a fact: The latest trend, especially for the United States, has been for the CIA to send into resource-abundant countries economic hit men with multi-million dollar bribes for political leaders. If the foreign leaders decline, Jackals are sent in for an assassination attempt and to aid in a coup. The last resort, if the hit men and Jackals fail, is to send in the military. Jaime Roldos in Ecuador; Omar Torrijos in Panama; and Suddam Hussein in Iraq are just a few of the many examples. Even if you do know some things about the abovementioned topics, have you ever asked yourself whether there may be a better way? Socialism, capitalism, free trade, businesses, governments, etc., are ALL based on money. As a result, ALL are fundamentally corrupt as well. When this understanding becomes globally understood, doubtless, Humankind will seek a better way. Despite what some may believe or speculate, in an economy based on global resource-sharing, with money no longer in existence, individuality would soar into entirely new realms Humankind has never before witnessed through the intelligent application of technology. Utilizing the scientific method to solve social and environmental problems is part of a concept designed by social engineer Jacque Fresco. Sociocyberneering is perhaps the premier proposal to ensure the most beneficial future for every single person on Earth.
    Again, when Education becomes paramount, a reasonable outlook provides us with a vision of practically ALL other issues eventually aligning on a path to resolve in the most logical, beneficial manner centered on global Unity and sustainability. Knowledge is not property at all; public nor private. Knowledge is not a physical object upon which a price tag can be stamped or an individuals’ name can be carved to declare possession. Nay; knowledge is that which is intangible, yet exists as everything that is. Knowledge is not the things we observe; it is the IDEAS we form and accept from observations and interpretations of phenomena that occur in every-day life. Knowledge is for ALL OF US to discover. Education, acknowledged as a global, life-long learning experience, teaches us all personal as well as social responsibilities and of the consequences that potentially could result from our individual or collective actions (such as population growth).
     So, with a global comprehension of Earth’s evaluated carrying-capacity, perhaps the population really will double. But, if one is willing to present us with a slippery-slope situation like, “the sad thing about exponential growth is that it will likely kill most of us in the end,” that person has to actually take us down the slippery-slope. Otherwise, these are just hollow words sung by an ignorant fool. Furthermore, if one considers a statement such as “It has become clear to me, through a more objective perspective, that death is necessary” truly objective, this turns out to be quite subjective in content. Think about the context in which this statement is framed—This is not objective at all. Rather, this is an opinion and represents a simple misunderstanding of what objectivity is. To be truly objective, one would ask, “Does death, being what is currently understood as an inescapable consequence of Human life, facilitate in any interpretation whatever, an implication of justifiable necessity for war in what has the potential to be a GLOBAL, intellectually and technologically advanced society absent war altogether?” Wrap your underused brain around that.
     Please refrain from attempting to base any point of your sad argument on misconstrued, scientific concepts. It is quite obvious when one knows nothing of astronomy, physics, or any other science for that matter. How do I know? Physics is my major. Now, “floating” implies an object conforming to the Laws which govern gravity-influenced fluidity and pressure here on Earth—Archimedes’ principle, Bernoulli’s principle, the Venturi Effect, etc. If a person knows anything of the Cosmos, that person would know that on average there are only a few (perhaps ten) atoms of Hydrogen per cubic meter in space. Objects follow Newton’s Laws in a near-perfect, frictionless environment (a vacuum) and are subject only to the gravitational attraction of other objects as well as the application of outside forces. The path an object takes through space depends entirely upon such forces —no deviation from the original velocity (magnitude and direction) will take place unless acted upon by an outside force, such as gravity or a collision with another object, according to Newton’s First Law of Motion. So, again; objects do not “float” in space.
     As for the many misunderstandings involving the formation of the moon, this is but ONE of the many possible theories. Although this particular theory, much more comprehensive than most seem to be capable of conveying, is perhaps the most accepted, it must be acknowledged that the subject is still an open question. Scientists believe life did not begin proliferation on Earth until an estimated 1-billion years after the chaotic turbulence surrounding the Sun coalesced into the planets in our Solar System. The cataclysmic event that potentially created the moon is estimated to have happened very early on in Earth’s formation; perhaps a million years after our presently majestic planet collected most of its surrounding dust, ice, debris and gas left in the wake of a supernova. More than likely, this was a massive First Generation star from which the Sun and all the orbiting planets were formed. Stating that the impact killed “a ton of life” is plain nonsensical. Even if life was present, which is doubtful at best: 1. Life at this stage of Earth’s formation would have been comprised of unicellular, microscopic organisms; 2. Very few multi-cellular organisms, if any at all, would have had sufficient time to evolve; and 3. An impact of this magnitude (a Mars-sized object slamming into Earth) would result in what is known as an Extinction-Level Event—meaning ALL life is extinguished.
   Finally we arrive at a most unoriginal conclusion: war is necessary to maintain population balance; and peace, in turn, eventually makes war necessary. Is it really THAT difficult to pose instead the most obvious question that arises from this assumption; “Is there a better way to maintain balance between a growing global Human population and the environment which sustains all life we currently know of?” Seemingly, one is only concerned with maintaining a supposed necessity of war when referencing the appropriation of resources on a global scale; ignoring technological capability and intellectual potential being applied to the appropriation of resources on a global scale through the scientific method. Burning of so-called “natural” resources derived from fossil fuels is undeniably wreaking havoc on the environment. “ALTERNATIVE” resources already exist; but Multinational Corporations rooted in the oil and natural gas industries are blocking large-scale production of all-electric vehicles, photovoltaic cell research, geothermal research, and wave-energy research and push propaganda to make the public in industrially developed countries believe in some form of supposed inefficacy of these technologies. To what end?—Money, of course. Planned obsolescence is profitable. Technically speaking, however, these so-called “alternative” forms of energy are the only TRUE “natural” resources; for, no pollution would result from the extraction and conversion of sunlight, or geothermal-, or wave-energy. No fuel would need to be refined and no burning of such fuels would be necessary to extract the unimaginably vast storehouses of potential energy all around us.-----Fact: The sun produces almost 4x10^26 Watts of energy. The amount of this energy which actually reaches Earth’s surface is more than 20,000 times the amount used ANNUALLY by all of Humankind. In other words, innovation in the field of solar cell research alone could potentially solve the energy problem on a global scale—FOREVER. Well, at least for the next 5.5-billion years. But, just imagine the combination of these truly natural sources of energy providing the entire globe with practically unlimited, money-free energy. This is possible TODAY. Not in fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand years—RIGHT NOW. So we can continue to rationalize exploitative practices, promote self-interest, perpetuate hostility towards new approaches, or we can find A BETTER WAY by pursuing new HEITs in our collective existence, rooted in sustainability and global advancement of Humankind. This is The Human Endeavor, and we are ALL on this journey together. We are ONE species sharing ONE planet with millions of others. And that is what we must remember. We already are not alone.

A Better Way

   How can it be that perhaps only a relative handful of people around the globe make the connection? Instead, it seems as though all too often the rest of us perpetuate imagined, misunderstood ideas of freedom, patriotism, and “democracy," among many others, that we find ourselves at an impasse of confounding delusion. What is it that truly makes a country and its people what we excogitate as being “great”? Can anyone answer that question with honest conviction or does interpretation distort our individual realities? Is it politics and government? Is it religion or secularism? Is it jobs; education; military; commerce? Is it money? All of these apparently perform an integral role in the play called “Life”; however, when we examine the entire ecosystem on Earth in terms of interdependence, the true scope of Humankind’s connection to not only each other but also to the environment becomes extraordinarily recognized.

     We view choices as if a coin is needed and only two ideas present us with every available option. This proves, however, to be one of the biggest hindrances Humankind has continuously subjected itself to through millennia of monetary conditioning. When we talk about countries, ideas, people, etc…, being flip sides of the same coin, it severely constrains our ability to make a truly discerning, rational decision as to whether or not we agree with those countries, ideas or people. For, history exposes the results of making irrational decisions based on false information, misinterpretation, greed, religious indifference and indoctrination, and the prospect of profit by any means necessary—countless millions raped, pillaged, enslaved, exploited, murdered, divided and conquered along the way. One might ask—“When will this cycle of bereavement end; with the advent of technology?” It very well could; but, of course, technology itself has been exploited to simply make achievement of these insidious ends easier. Without a doubt, however, the intelligent application of technology will enable us to peer through the haze of profit motivation and observe the true source of Human Beings’ propensities—the environment (which includes each other.)

     If there is a single idea that we can all agree on, it is that we are directly influenced most by our environment; even if that environment serves to inculcate the idea of money. If one is taught to believe certain ideals, he or she will live a life based in whole or at least in part by those ideals. Similarly, if one is taught nothing of life or language and is deprived of interaction with other Humans, he or she will live a life based on sensual interaction with environment alone; however, the capability to learn remains. In any case, not only what one is taught but also how one is taught play the most prominent roles in shaping individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, etc. As one advances throughout his or her life, acquiring knowledge by means of education, observation, interaction and hypothesizing, the ideals that were once taught will always have to evolve. For, knowledge is the key to understanding the Universe, the purpose of Human life, and our relationship with the environment. As such, constantly updating knowledge bases require the evolution of ideas. If someone states that one thing cannot exist without another, whether in reference to countries, ideas, people, the environment (the list is almost endless), we need to take an unprecedented step back and look at this question from an all-encompassing aspect.

     Let us not illusion ourselves with arbitrariness or negligence: the bottom line is that all life on Earth, every plant and every animal, is inevitably linked to the environment. In essence, we are products of the environment which sustains us. Only since the advent of exponential technological progression can it be said that the environment is now the product of our sustaining it, or the lack thereof. Earth formed nearly 5.5-billion years ago; Human Beings have only been evolving for perhaps a million years—the environment was here long before any of us ever stepped foot on degrading topsoil, desecrated the atmosphere with the burning of plundered fossil fuels, or dumped millions of tons of planned obsolescence into landfills, lakes and even the ocean. So, can the environment exist without us?—most definitely. Can we live without the environment?—not a chance. Whether you believe global warming, the question you should be asking is this: Is there a better way for us to coexist with each other and the environment?

    The truth is that we all have a responsibility to look beyond frivolous debate over simple patchwork for problems and find prudent, effective, long-term solutions that benefit the entire web of life. We can continue training people to become killers-on-command and send in military units in an attempt at pretended amelioration from the same old oppressive institutions and governments, or we can try to find a better way—perhaps train people as problem-solvers and send them in to solve problems. We can persist commending each other for fighting in wars and killing each other or we can try to find a better way—perhaps commending each other for applying viable solutions to social problems which benefit all of Humankind and the environment. We can maintain overlooking the fact that it takes Unity in order to achieve victory in war, or we can apply the concept of Unity at a global, societal level and find a better way—perhaps a sharing of all the world’s resources, as Jacque Fresco, the visionary behind The Venus Project, advocates. Wars simply give the illusion of Unity for those on the winning side; for it is always at the expense of disunion of those on the losing side. Thus, war is never a solution to disunion if war causes disunion. If we continue to believe that the means to peaceful ends come in the form of destruction, plunder, disenfranchisement, forced religious indoctrination, or a plethora of other ways which most rarely think about, then it is absolute failure on a grandiose scale for the Human species to not find a better way. How can citizens of any country boast about the absolute greatness of that country yet at the same instant scoff at the thought of giving a homeless person a precious piece of fabric/paper with misunderstood symbols printed all over it, given value only by our collective imagination, so that person can be provided the most basic necessity of sustenance? How can people continue overlooking entirely the fact that homelessness even exists in their most wonderful country; or that, in general, healthcare, education, poverty and disease all are subject to this invidious concept of money?

     It is amazing that the ultimate answer to all of these questions has not manifested itself on a global scale yet. Honestly, it is quite simple: abolish the monetary system. I can hear already the ceaseless cries of how impossible it would be; how money makes the world go around; money this, money that; money, money, money. But, how can any of that be true when is it resources which provide us with subsistence and sustainability; not money? We persistently overlook the fact that money is simply an imagined impediment to the acquirement of truly significant resources—a veritable toll booth charging a fee for profit, regardless of underlying resource necessity. As Peter Joseph, a proponent for The Zeitgeist Movement, has said, “You cannot eat money and you cannot stuff money into your gas tank.” Money is futile; and when the digital history books with holographic playback are written (or rather encoded) by our Posterity, clinging to such a primitive, disuniting concept, will prove to be the utmost failure of eight generations since the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain. “How is it possible the entire planet couldn’t see past money?” they will ask. Technology is the future; no matter how one looks at it. And it is up to each and every one of us to decide how best to utilize the advancements made in Technology towards the betterment, stagnation or total destruction of Humankind.

     The question that we can never seem to answer is “Where do we begin?” If we are to look toward a remarkably feasible betterment of global society, then a great place to start would be public sharing, not private hoarding and pretended scarcity, of the world’s resources, knowledge, and technology. Of course, this initially requires the monetary system becoming obsolete in its entirety. Concurrently, a worldwide expansion of the educational system would soon after provide and ensure global intellectual equilibrium. Only then can we revisit problems like homelessness, starvation, disease and deprivation with an unconditional approach and actually procure effective results. It may sound impossible because we are so conditioned to believe money is a resource that it stifles our ability to think outside the inherently oppressive walls barricading the foundation upon which the monetary system is built. To prove this, just take a moment and think about your day today; or yesterday; or any day for that matter. Name a single activity that did not involve money in some direct or indirect way. Even reading this essay, you have already committed yourself to the monetary system by purchasing the computer you are using and then connecting to the internet which you are probably paying a monthly fee for. Still thinking? The entanglement is nearly endless. And I am no expert in regards to your personal life, but this mind-numbing exercise will undoubtedly lead you to the conclusion shared by most others reading this line—it is remarkably scary how this institution has grown to such proportions and is so engrained in society that it distorts the collective perspective of purpose in life and leaves us at a loss to advance a single instant of our day which excludes money.

     Every day that goes by, thousands die; disease, hunger. Every day that goes by, countless millions are exploited; wage slavery, corporate growth. Every day that goes by, governments, politicians, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, teachers, students, friends, families; all aspects of all people on Earth are deeply, almost unconsciously connected to and subjugated by this system—even those in so-called “underdeveloped countries.” For, a systematic expansionist cycle of minority proliferation through majority exploitation has “afforded” millions of unfortunate people none of the essential resources which are requisite for development—despite the fact of overabundance and downright improvident waste of resources in industrialized nations; especially the United States. Thus, I must return to an understanding earlier stated in this essay—that money is simply an imagined impediment to the acquirement of significant, plentiful resources; regardless of resource necessity. With this knowledge I am confident that within the next decade an overwhelming global realization of the monetary system’s innate inefficiency to sustain Humankind as well as the environment will become increasingly prevalent.

     A truly prosperous future awaits all of Humankind—not just an offensively small proportion of us. But it will take all of Humankind to break this relentless cycle; to break free from the chains which confine us all to reliving yesterday over and over again. We must all step into tomorrow with unconditional kindness, compassion, encouragement, and willingness to help each other live more luxurious lives. Doing such enables us to actually become ever more unique individuals. Thus, contrary to popular belief, individuality is not lost or suppressed. Nor are we to become automatons like some eccentric science fiction novelists claim—wearing exactly the same clothes, stepping in an almost militaristic march everywhere we go, same haircuts, same houses, same everything. In fact, it is quite possible that we have never before witnessed the magnitude of individuality which this proposed future provides Humankind. As always, though, only time will tell if we will see this future together in our lifetimes. In the meantime, the metronome of the Universe endlessly oscillates, and together we complacently dance to the rhythm of its clicks—tick-tock; tick-tock; tick-tock.

Rubber is Death

     The latter half of the 19th century was a remarkable time for global expansion of colonial powers. From the outset of the Industrial Revolution, technological advancements bolstered by colonial nations simply meant that plundering, indoctrination, and exploitation of underdeveloped nations was easier than ever before. Marked by an explosion of violence and scourging, the Congolese people of Zaire suffered a more devastating, intentional fate than perhaps any collection of people ever before. The sheer number of crimes committed against the Congolese is almost unimaginable. From the kidnapping of wives for slave ransom to mutilation and decapitation, such heinousness was carried out in the name of King Leopold II and his quest for a monopoly of the rubber supply recently discovered in the region. However, it was not only Belgium, but also a host of other colonial nations and corporate entities playing key roles in the pillaging of newfound minerals and resources that have scarred the history books of this region of the world. An agreement between France and Britain in the mid-1880s allotted to Leopold II of Belgium an area of the Congo nearly eighty times the size of his mother country, known as the Congo Free State. Freedom for the Congolese, however, was soon realized to be only a word with hollow meaning. For, over the next two decades, some of the most gruesome atrocities were committed by colonizers over what continues to be a prominent figment of Humankind’s collective imagination—profit.

     In July of 1885, the Congolese leaders were delusively coerced into signing a treaty declaring all resources in the area the property of the so-called “Free” State. In other words, the treaty recognized Leopold as the authoritarian figure in charge of colonization and extraction of resources, which now essentially all belonged to him. Realizing the potential for unimaginable wealth, Leopold became entrenched within the concept that the end (money) always justifies any means necessary. For those colonizing, this meant only one thing: practically unrestricted systematic methods of exploitation—the result of which saw thousands of severed hands delivered to the city of Antwerp in Belgium. The stories are nearly endless and it is said the worst atrocities were committed in Equator Province, where Leon Fievre was appointed district official. “I ended 100 lives,” Fievre proudly boasted, “but that allowed 800 others to live.” With this mindset it is difficult to imagine boundaries which could contain even the most nefarious acts of incivility. Charles Stokes, a trader in the state territory, was sentenced to death by a military style tribunal with questionable standing for trying to help the natives. Stokes’ death, paired with the fact that Leopold was strongly enforcing the monopoly by paying commission to the officials extracting the most rubber, meant that European powers were growing increasingly wary of the King’s aberrant behavior. Official hostage licenses were even issued by the State that allowed for women to be detained at will. Every fifteen days districts would turn in acquired rubber to the State. This process was simple: if the demand was not met by those enslaved, the officials would see a reduction in commission, which constituted a reduction in appendages and even lives. With far inferior weapons technology, the Congolese stood virtually no chance at defending the land from these ruthless invaders. By forced labor alone, more than 720,000 pounds of rubber were extracted in just six years. Crimes of this magnitude are difficult to maintain in secrecy and the world would inevitably learn of the violence taking place in Africa. Edmund Dene Morel would soon reveal the range of devastation in a series of brochures and letters written and released to the public in London.

    Morel once worked as the Chief Clerk of Trade for the shipping company in Liverpool that received Leopold’s rubber. When “The West African Mail” was released, Charles Banks along with many others would eventually follow in coming out against Leopold and the truly oppressive, but supposedly “Free,” State. In the beginning of the 20th century, Roger Caseman became the new consulate to Africa. He openly liked the Africans and treated such with kindness and gentility. Caseman spent two months travelling in 1903 recording testimonies from every place that he visited. Joseph Clark supplied evidence of the State’s atrocities explaining the district officials’ orders were to extract ten kilos per person per day or lives and hands would be taken. A boy’s hands were even beaten off by rifles against a tree. Despite such mounting accounts being written at this time, Leopold’s commission aimed to defend his regime absolutely.

     In all, Leopold’s profit was a staggering sum even by today’s standards; 231-million Euros. But, all that money could never buy any of the lives carelessly taken by this corporate stronghold and pressure was building from around the world to end the violent reign of terror. With the release of Roger Caseman’s 50-page report on the activities he witnessed, Leopold’s days were numbered. An international commission was formed to investigate and collect accounts which abruptly led to the demise of the King’s reign. After the commission’s report was released to the international community, Leopold ordered all State records burned in an attempt to wash his hands of the thousands of gallons of blood which passed through his fingers. A year later he died and his cortege was booed as it passed through the streets. In Belgium, however, statues were built to honor Leopold as a “civilizer” and a “benefactor” and remain to this day.

     Today, the Congo is still the site of corporate plunder for diamonds, gold and a host of other minerals necessary for the expansion of private companies. Leopold represented what was supposed to be a shift towards the education and “civilization” of the Congolese people. Now it is clear, however, that this was only a mask covering the true reason for occupation—the mineral exploitation industry. Still in place today, this industry has yet to provide for the betterment of, or higher standards of living for, the Congolese, as well as many other inhabitants around Africa. Instead, profiteering has taken a giant leap into the 21st century and threatens practically any semblance of global continuity. The story of Leopold’s conquest of the Congo is but one of countless instances throughout the history of Humankind which should teach us exactly how not to approach resource extraction. Even if a single life is subjugated, exploited or lost, it is equal to failure for the global community to not find a better way.