Carl
Sagan once stated, “The old
appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and rabid nationalist fervor
are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the
earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is
doomed. We are one planet.” Considered by ourselves as “the most advanced
species on the planet,” we humans have reached a critical period in our
development. Recognizing the fact that every decision we make on all levels of
social organization affects every other species on the planet, we must decide
what type of culture is most advantageous for the ecological synergy of Earth.
Cultures are behavioral manifestations of bio-psychosocial pressures on
organisms. These behavioral attributes can be examined on the individual,
local, regional, national, international and global scales. Humans show perhaps
the most diverse set of behavioral traits of any species on the planet. The
burgeoning of the forebrain—our highly developed frontal lobe—is what sets us apart
from the millions of other species we share Earth with. It is responsible for
the vast array of cultural distinctions present in our societies and has
allowed us to cumulatively expand our knowledge base regarding our connection
to the universe. And, despite having a majority of our physical and mental
development occur after birth, our associative memory systems are the most
advanced we have thus far encountered. Yet, we choose to destroy the very
environment which sustains us; we choose to destroy each other and justify it
all with trinkets and paper proclamations. Then, we call ourselves
“intelligent”—on a hierarchy that we
created.
We learn culture through our interactions with the environment throughout our lives. Everything we’ve ever heard, seen, tasted, smelled, felt or sensed in any other way possible culminates in something called now. In other words, you…sitting there reading this from a screen are currently experiencing this thing called now with almost unparalleled precision. And as you read, certain words may generate associations in your mind which seem to transport you temporarily to a memory—perhaps of a conversation with an old friend—stored in the aforementioned associative memory system. Perhaps you pause for a moment to reflect on a past experience. Or, an idea may explode in your mind and an entire future unfolds within it in a matter of seconds. Yet, it all takes place now—the most important time of all. What a breathtaking realization! So, what does it all mean for us?
Well, we have a series of choices to make in order to efficiently and sustainably live within the carrying capacity of the planet. In order to understand how to do this, we must examine what exactly inhibits us from this type of social and environmental interaction. We must understand this: The greatest purveyor of environmental devastation and unnecessary human suffering is our socioeconomic system itself. The current paradigm thrives on and actually generates scarcity and inefficiency. Millions of people around the world starve to death every year—not because we do not have the technical means to feed them; but because those people simply do not have the money to pay for the food.
Money is a figment of our collective imagination. It has absolutely no physical referent and has forced us to become utterly detached from any sense of interdependence with Nature and each other. For example, money is created out of debt—a fiction. And this debt can never be repaid due to interest—charged on virtually every loan—which doesn’t exist in the money supply outright. This process of money/debt creation, known as fractional reserve banking, has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a high standard of living for humans or recognizing and living within the carrying capacity of the environment. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these realizations are unknown, severely misunderstood or simply neglected. In fact, we are perpetually trying to shape our environment in an attempt to satisfy some artificial notion of aesthetics by using ever-decreasingly excellent methods. All this, of course, instigated by the meaningless transfer of money between those willing to do literally anything to acquire it—from intentionally poisoning fresh water supplies to creating a society of economic slaves. For, in a monetary system, everything is up for sale. Everything.—which is why we are constantly declaring war on those ideologies that do not fit well within the established monetary structure as dictated by the ruling institutions and their representatives. In a socioeconomic system based upon differential advantage, wealth accumulation, social prominence and self-aggrandizement, the social values will reflect those of the wealthiest, most famous people. Dr. Gabor Mate has this to say regarding social values:
We learn culture through our interactions with the environment throughout our lives. Everything we’ve ever heard, seen, tasted, smelled, felt or sensed in any other way possible culminates in something called now. In other words, you…sitting there reading this from a screen are currently experiencing this thing called now with almost unparalleled precision. And as you read, certain words may generate associations in your mind which seem to transport you temporarily to a memory—perhaps of a conversation with an old friend—stored in the aforementioned associative memory system. Perhaps you pause for a moment to reflect on a past experience. Or, an idea may explode in your mind and an entire future unfolds within it in a matter of seconds. Yet, it all takes place now—the most important time of all. What a breathtaking realization! So, what does it all mean for us?
Well, we have a series of choices to make in order to efficiently and sustainably live within the carrying capacity of the planet. In order to understand how to do this, we must examine what exactly inhibits us from this type of social and environmental interaction. We must understand this: The greatest purveyor of environmental devastation and unnecessary human suffering is our socioeconomic system itself. The current paradigm thrives on and actually generates scarcity and inefficiency. Millions of people around the world starve to death every year—not because we do not have the technical means to feed them; but because those people simply do not have the money to pay for the food.
Money is a figment of our collective imagination. It has absolutely no physical referent and has forced us to become utterly detached from any sense of interdependence with Nature and each other. For example, money is created out of debt—a fiction. And this debt can never be repaid due to interest—charged on virtually every loan—which doesn’t exist in the money supply outright. This process of money/debt creation, known as fractional reserve banking, has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a high standard of living for humans or recognizing and living within the carrying capacity of the environment. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these realizations are unknown, severely misunderstood or simply neglected. In fact, we are perpetually trying to shape our environment in an attempt to satisfy some artificial notion of aesthetics by using ever-decreasingly excellent methods. All this, of course, instigated by the meaningless transfer of money between those willing to do literally anything to acquire it—from intentionally poisoning fresh water supplies to creating a society of economic slaves. For, in a monetary system, everything is up for sale. Everything.—which is why we are constantly declaring war on those ideologies that do not fit well within the established monetary structure as dictated by the ruling institutions and their representatives. In a socioeconomic system based upon differential advantage, wealth accumulation, social prominence and self-aggrandizement, the social values will reflect those of the wealthiest, most famous people. Dr. Gabor Mate has this to say regarding social values:
It is simply a matter of
historical fact that the dominant intellectual culture of any particular
society reflects the interest of the dominant group in that society. In a
slave-owning society the beliefs about human beings and human rights and so on
will reflect the needs of the slave owners.
In the society, which…is based
on the power of certain people to control and profit from the lives and work of
millions of others, the dominant intellectual culture will reflect the needs of
the dominant group. So, if you look across the board, the ideas that pervade
psychology, sociology, history, political economy and political science
fundamentally reflect certain elite interests.
And the academics who question
that too much tend to get shunted to the side or to be seen as sort of
‘radicals’ (Mate, 2011).
And so, it becomes clear that if sustainability, efficiency
and abundance are virtual enemies of the very foundation of our economic
system, the system simply cannot afford to satisfy at least the basic needs of
every human being on the planet and continue to generate massive profits.
Again, it is not our lack of technology and know-how; it is lack of empathy and
scientific literacy.
Another example would be our inexcusably destructive method of so-called “energy production” through the use of fossil fuels—the most prominent being oil. A Resource Based Economy—an idea developed over the course of 75+ years by industrial designer/social engineer, Jacque Fresco—addresses our addiction to oil with a very simple process of phasing it out entirely as an energy source. Earth is nothing but abundant in resources and energy. From solar to heat differential; wind to tidal; and especially geothermal—which, by the way, trumps them all—the energy needs of humankind are capable of being satisfied many, many times over with little or no environmental degradation and no human suffering. So if we are to design a system that achieves the ends of access abundance, sustainability and efficiency, technology is paramount. The manufacturing and use of advancing technology requires massive amount of on-going energy. And, through the use of these mediums of energy extraction, there will undoubtedly be no shortage of renewable, pollution-free energy for billions of years to come. But, in order to ensure that this rational, synergistic approach to energy extraction continues to become more and more refined and sustainable through machine automation, we must utilize a method of evaluation that allows for constant change as new information is discovered. So, do we have such a method? We do. It is called the scientific method.
Throughout our daily lives, whether or not we realize it, each and every one of us uses The Scientific Method. From brushing our teeth all the way to choosing a life-altering decision, our complex associative memory is hard at work deciphering the endless streams of information coming through our sensual receptors and thus are interpreted based upon the information we have been given and exposed to up until now. To understand the information, we utilize this particular method which can be summed up in three fundamental steps: 1. Arrive at a problem or make an observation of a certain phenomenon. 2. Formulate a hypothesis to explain and predict the problem or phenomenon. 3. Test and re-test the hypothesis rigorously.
To some certain extent, this method is consistently used by Humans on a daily basis—even if we have never heard of these three steps. However, we have never actually applied this method intelligently to designing society. As Jacque Fresco explains, “We have never given scientists the problem of ‘how do you bridge the differences between people and nations?’” Unfortunately, this is a sad reality. And so, according to Dr. Robert Sapolsky, we now have soldiers sitting at computers at Nellis Air Force Base flying drones on the other side of the planet dropping bombs on whom they have been taught are our ‘enemies’ and that what they are doing is something we call ‘patriotic’—which is really just a euphemism for ‘we murder you to keep us all safe from you before you ever do anything because you are a terrorist. And after we indiscriminately blow the shit out of your pitiful, little country, we are going to have our central banks forcefully loan you money so that you can use that money to pay our corporations to come in and rebuild the infrastructure while installing a bourgeoisie comprador oil cartel as president of the new so-called “democracy.”’ This all, of course, is the result of a supreme failure at the second level of this method; for, when our hypotheses do not contain an alternative to our current monetary-based, socioeconomic system, we are depriving ourselves of a well-rounded series of possible solutions—namely, that of a world without money. A world without money could and very likely would translate into a never-before-seen spike in the already-exponential increase in machine automation technology—given that we no longer would have to submit ourselves to employment that contributes nothing to society or ourselves and would be free to pursue self-fulfillment in life anywhere on the planet; anytime; no money; no debt; no barter; no servitude. Everywhere you go you have access to the necessities of life.
Now, if we step back and examine our level of understanding in regards to Natural processes, as well as our rapid technical innovation, we see a new phenomenon arising over the past few years known as technological unemployment. Simply stated, technological unemployment occurs when advancements in technology allow Humans to be displaced by more reliable, more productive, and more cost-efficient machines. The logic is sound: Machines do not require wages, pensions, breaks, or insurance and can be programmed to extract, manufacture and distribute goods and services all day, every day. But, there is one key element that breaks the logic and causes this house of cards to collapse: If workers are continually displaced by automation, so too will their purchasing power. And, soon the entire economic structure—which is predicated on the perpetual transfer of wealth—will reach a stalemate, halt and fold on itself. But, what if we allowed and encouraged automation to happen in as many different job sectors as are possible? Couldn’t it be considered socially offensive not to automate? We are clinging onto a wage-slave system that is literally thousands of years old. To sum it up in one sentence: I am talking about the intelligent management of the Earth’s resources through the liberal application of technology.
A common assumption is something to the extent of “This sounds like communism.” The problem with this assumption is that communism has banks, prisons, police, armies, navies and social stratification; a Resource Based Economy has none of these. Another assumption is “We don’t have enough money to feed everyone on the planet.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth. In fact, the UN estimates that it would cost around $30-billion to provide universal access to basic necessities. Sadly, perhaps the most common assumption is this: “What if once we automate everything, machines decide that Earth would be better off without Humans and start massacring us?” First of all, this is a Hollywood projection. Secondly, and I am using another Fresco quote here, “If I took your laptop and smashed it in front of 50 other laptops, trust me, none of them would care.” Lastly, this is just another personification being utilized as a rationalization for us to keep working our useless slave-jobs to perpetuate cyclical consumption and not question so-called ‘authority’. And so, I leave you with a quote from Egyptologist Gerald Massey, “They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.”
Another example would be our inexcusably destructive method of so-called “energy production” through the use of fossil fuels—the most prominent being oil. A Resource Based Economy—an idea developed over the course of 75+ years by industrial designer/social engineer, Jacque Fresco—addresses our addiction to oil with a very simple process of phasing it out entirely as an energy source. Earth is nothing but abundant in resources and energy. From solar to heat differential; wind to tidal; and especially geothermal—which, by the way, trumps them all—the energy needs of humankind are capable of being satisfied many, many times over with little or no environmental degradation and no human suffering. So if we are to design a system that achieves the ends of access abundance, sustainability and efficiency, technology is paramount. The manufacturing and use of advancing technology requires massive amount of on-going energy. And, through the use of these mediums of energy extraction, there will undoubtedly be no shortage of renewable, pollution-free energy for billions of years to come. But, in order to ensure that this rational, synergistic approach to energy extraction continues to become more and more refined and sustainable through machine automation, we must utilize a method of evaluation that allows for constant change as new information is discovered. So, do we have such a method? We do. It is called the scientific method.
Throughout our daily lives, whether or not we realize it, each and every one of us uses The Scientific Method. From brushing our teeth all the way to choosing a life-altering decision, our complex associative memory is hard at work deciphering the endless streams of information coming through our sensual receptors and thus are interpreted based upon the information we have been given and exposed to up until now. To understand the information, we utilize this particular method which can be summed up in three fundamental steps: 1. Arrive at a problem or make an observation of a certain phenomenon. 2. Formulate a hypothesis to explain and predict the problem or phenomenon. 3. Test and re-test the hypothesis rigorously.
To some certain extent, this method is consistently used by Humans on a daily basis—even if we have never heard of these three steps. However, we have never actually applied this method intelligently to designing society. As Jacque Fresco explains, “We have never given scientists the problem of ‘how do you bridge the differences between people and nations?’” Unfortunately, this is a sad reality. And so, according to Dr. Robert Sapolsky, we now have soldiers sitting at computers at Nellis Air Force Base flying drones on the other side of the planet dropping bombs on whom they have been taught are our ‘enemies’ and that what they are doing is something we call ‘patriotic’—which is really just a euphemism for ‘we murder you to keep us all safe from you before you ever do anything because you are a terrorist. And after we indiscriminately blow the shit out of your pitiful, little country, we are going to have our central banks forcefully loan you money so that you can use that money to pay our corporations to come in and rebuild the infrastructure while installing a bourgeoisie comprador oil cartel as president of the new so-called “democracy.”’ This all, of course, is the result of a supreme failure at the second level of this method; for, when our hypotheses do not contain an alternative to our current monetary-based, socioeconomic system, we are depriving ourselves of a well-rounded series of possible solutions—namely, that of a world without money. A world without money could and very likely would translate into a never-before-seen spike in the already-exponential increase in machine automation technology—given that we no longer would have to submit ourselves to employment that contributes nothing to society or ourselves and would be free to pursue self-fulfillment in life anywhere on the planet; anytime; no money; no debt; no barter; no servitude. Everywhere you go you have access to the necessities of life.
Now, if we step back and examine our level of understanding in regards to Natural processes, as well as our rapid technical innovation, we see a new phenomenon arising over the past few years known as technological unemployment. Simply stated, technological unemployment occurs when advancements in technology allow Humans to be displaced by more reliable, more productive, and more cost-efficient machines. The logic is sound: Machines do not require wages, pensions, breaks, or insurance and can be programmed to extract, manufacture and distribute goods and services all day, every day. But, there is one key element that breaks the logic and causes this house of cards to collapse: If workers are continually displaced by automation, so too will their purchasing power. And, soon the entire economic structure—which is predicated on the perpetual transfer of wealth—will reach a stalemate, halt and fold on itself. But, what if we allowed and encouraged automation to happen in as many different job sectors as are possible? Couldn’t it be considered socially offensive not to automate? We are clinging onto a wage-slave system that is literally thousands of years old. To sum it up in one sentence: I am talking about the intelligent management of the Earth’s resources through the liberal application of technology.
A common assumption is something to the extent of “This sounds like communism.” The problem with this assumption is that communism has banks, prisons, police, armies, navies and social stratification; a Resource Based Economy has none of these. Another assumption is “We don’t have enough money to feed everyone on the planet.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth. In fact, the UN estimates that it would cost around $30-billion to provide universal access to basic necessities. Sadly, perhaps the most common assumption is this: “What if once we automate everything, machines decide that Earth would be better off without Humans and start massacring us?” First of all, this is a Hollywood projection. Secondly, and I am using another Fresco quote here, “If I took your laptop and smashed it in front of 50 other laptops, trust me, none of them would care.” Lastly, this is just another personification being utilized as a rationalization for us to keep working our useless slave-jobs to perpetuate cyclical consumption and not question so-called ‘authority’. And so, I leave you with a quote from Egyptologist Gerald Massey, “They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.”
