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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment