Discovering a Philosophy of Science

            Growing up in rural Ohio and being the youngest of three children, I was exposed to a set of rather unique circumstances that has in at least some ways led to my current philosophical purview. I can remember spending much of my time either at my grandmother’s house—she lived right next door—working on puzzles; playing scrabble; watching Matlock, MacGyver, and Murder She Wrote; or being outdoors exploring the seemingly endless woods. The neighbors on the other side had a dog kennel while the neighbors across the road were an older couple named the Kovach’s. Mr. Kovach was a veteran and what could likely be considered a master craftsman. He was almost always working on something in his garage that was set up for woodworking. My father worked for the telephone company and was also frequently working on or building something. One of the things I helped with for most of my life was baling hay. My family was heavily involved in the 4H program and the county fair so I was generally around hard-working people that cared about teaching young people how to self-sustain. I was never forced to attend church so my thought processes weren’t restricted to unnecessary, untenable claims and unquestionable truths. It left my mind mostly open to explore the workings of the world free from the threat of eternal damnation—something I find utterly ridiculous now. But, it wasn’t until I began my college endeavor almost 8 years ago that I realized I knew very little about the world and that the philosophy I had grown up with—certainly worthwhile in several aspects—was still rather flawed. Interestingly, it was outside of school where I was introduced to the lifework of a man that quickly piqued my interest: Jacque Fresco. And it was then, in 2009, that I began to seriously consider examining a philosophical outlook by which to live. Much of my general decision-making since that time has been influenced by the countless hours I spent watching interviews of and listening to lectures given by Fresco. Therefore, it is safe to say that I have arrived at a philosophy, which I will attempt to explain below, by aligning my values, as far as I have been capable, with those of Mr. Fresco.

            Perhaps the most controversial concept that I have grown to embrace—the one that is certainly most difficult for people to even consider as plausible—is that of a global society that transcends the supposed necessity of an economic model based upon money. I’ve come to realize that the immediate rejection of this idea is easily understood as normal to us since everyone currently living on the planet, regardless of social status or geographic location, has known only a monetary based economic system and others like it. (Of course, it’s ridiculous because there can only be a system based upon money…right?!) But history is replete with instances proving that normal isn’t always correct. As Fresco states₁, “Everybody once believed the Earth was flat, but that didn’t make it so.” However, it should be noted that taking the idea of going against the norm to one extreme can also lead to the pockets of people nowadays that still believe the Earth is flat despite having an abundance of readily-accessible evidence and the ability to easily produce even more by performing their own version of an experiment Eratosthenes developed over 2000 years ago! And just as those people staunchly believe the Earth is flat and NASA is just a conspiracy mill churning out endless streams of CGI videos and pictures made in Photoshop, virtually the entire human population of Earth staunchly believes that economies are just not possible without some form of money or bartering. Lest we forget our massive technological achievements! Lest we forget that we were exposed to no other types of systems! To me, this is utterly bad science. But, what would a good philosophy of science say of such concepts as money? How would such a philosophy address several key issues such as experimentation, ethics, and asking the right questions?

            I feel that a good philosophy of science should become completely detached from the idea of monetary economics. While I admit that money is in some ways a motivator of human behavior in our current society, it certainly is not the only possible one; nor can it be called the best since we haven’t fully and exclusively implemented any others to test outcomes. In today’s economy, nothing happens unless the movement of money occurs. Nothing! This means that any type of scientific exploration must survive a gauntlet of investment-related inquiry to be even remotely considered a worthy endeavor. In other words, funding, in a significant, perhaps unsettling, way, now dictates the direction of discovery. In my opinion, science should lead the economy—not the other way around. That is, anything that can be automated should be automated as quickly as possible. This has not been the case since displacing workers through automation without a replacement for income would cause the house of cards that is the current economic model to collapse. And if something is designed to better our lives, through mechanisms of the current economic model, such as intrinsic obsolescence, it is technically impossible for the final product to be the best, most efficient, most reliable product. The system itself will not allow it since a company must remain competitive and cannot do so by utilizing the most state-of-the-art designs, technology, and materials. Frankly, it would cost too much to be profitable—which, by the way, is the only real motivation of the current economic model. Irrespective of the amount of resources we have available on this planet, the motivation for companies has been to continually grow and produce more. But how can infinite growth happen on a finite planet? Simply, it cannot. So, the practice of monetary exchange is far more inhibitive, wasteful, and dangerous than it is motivating. Without the constraints of an unnecessary exchange medium, we could be freed from pointless, mundane “occupations”—most of which only exist as a direct consequence of a monetary system itself.

Fig. 1: A graphic from the site www.thevenusproject.com₂.

Sparing a long exploration of the transition to a moneyless society, which is far beyond the scope of this paper, the underlying philosophy of what Fresco calls a Resource Based Economy is based upon ideas and technologies we already have available to us today. In fact, we’ve had most of the technology required to manage such a society for about half a century. And that technology was developed through ongoing experimentation and improvement in design. But without money to influence the direction of research, as was undeniably the case up to now, how would we choose which experimental endeavors are worthwhile? The short answer is that no one chooses.

One of the most fascinating concepts that I learned from Fresco is that of arriving at solutions₃. Expanding on the concept of Figure 1, imagine that, rather than starting completely from scratch, we had all the knowledge and technology of our current society, but for one reason or another we also had the opportunity to develop a new method of social organization. What kinds of questions would we examine when money is no longer the dominant factor affecting all our decisions? First, the questions would shift from financial to practical concerns. For example, we might ask, “Do we have the resources and technical know-how?”, rather than, “Do we have the money?”, as Fresco has often suggested. Second, the questions regarding the ethics of scientific inquiry, discovery, and experimentation would be reexamined through a lens focusing on maintaining the environment which sustains us and the betterment of humankind (Figure 2). By reorienting our values in a manner that aligns with natural processes—for example, by recognizing factors such as carrying capacity before developing residential or industrial areas—we have the highest probability of maintaining a sustainable economic system for countless generations to come.

Fig. 2: Another graphic from The Venus Project website.

            In any economic model that embraces scientific discovery, a method of theoretical development and confirmation must be accepted for cumulative progress to occur. While some might argue that science, at least in some areas, fails to present a complete picture of the workings of the universe, this is easily dismissible both as a logical fallacy, i.e. argument from ignorance, and by the crucial aspects that set science apart from every other discipline, i.e. two requirements that must be fulfilled in order for something to be considered a valid and sound scientific theory: 1. The theory must present reproducible evidence; and, 2. The theory must be falsifiable. So, science doesn't strive to discover and present us "the truth". ("The truth" tends to be un-falsifiable so it begs the question, is there such a thing?) Science can only give us close approximations to what we understand about the universe at a given time. As we refine the apparatus we use to probe the events of our world and the universe, our understanding, of course, is also refined₄. However, we can never reach a state of 100% understanding about a given phenomenon. The result is an arguably irrelevant epistemological/linguistic quagmire—one I can accept and move on from since it is abundantly clear to me that the methods of modern science, which have built the world around us and expanded our knowledgebase exponentially, works. The question people get hung up on is whether it will continue to work tomorrow; and the next day; and so on. My answer? Who the hell cares? The questions we should be asking deal with feeding the population of Earth; providing energy to everyone; curing diseases; reducing unnecessary human suffering; things that matter here and now. Philosophy is a wonderful endeavor, but as with any intellectual pursuit, even the whole subject runs the risk of extremes stifling progress. A good philosophy of science would teach experimenters to recognize this danger and develop ways to avoid it.

            A good philosophy of science would teach us to immediately implement all current technology capable of feeding and providing clean, fresh drinking water to the entire human population; and do all we can to reduce human suffering across the globe as quickly as possible. This can begin today if we truly wanted. While theoretical models are beautiful and should be given credit when due, we have to test those theories. According to www.worldhunger.org₅, “the world produces enough food to feed everyone.” But, we don’t feed everyone. Poverty.com tells us that roughly 21,000 people starve to death daily₆. So, what’s the problem? Why aren’t we testing these data that tell us we can feed everyone? Clearly, our economic models and our general philosophy of science are experiencing some sort of disconnect. A good philosophy of science would recognize this and work to improve the system or reject it and develop a new system based upon all refined knowledge up to that point. (Knowledge, as I describe it, consists of aggregate data—all things that are and can be known.) It’s simply a matter of applying knowledge and technology that we already have. In my opinion, the defining characteristic of a good philosophy of science is that it, as Fresco says, enhances all human life.

I truly feel that we are living in the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. This is a bold statement that I will continue to make for the rest of my life since the range I have chosen to define as pivotal begins in the mid-1800s with the Second Industrial Revolution and will continue until around the mid-2100s. Three hundred years of exponential technological development; yet, what have we to say of our social values now that we are at the halfway point? We have so much potential as a species to build a truly magnificent civilization. Every great transition in the history of human thought was accompanied and possibly influenced by a technological revolution; that is, until the 20^th Century. Our technology quickly outpaced an evolution in social values and left us stuck in a sort of paradigm limbo. The clash of mostly-stagnant, traditional values with rapidly-updating technology has culminated in this extremely tumultuous, weird time that is the year 2017. We have more technical capabilities than ever before; yet, cling to outmoded and unnecessary concepts because they “make us feel good or special”. A final point a good philosophy of science addresses is that when dealing with evidence arrived at through repeated experimentation that may contradict our current understanding, our personal feelings toward the matter are mostly irrelevant. Unfortunately, this is perhaps the most difficult part to accept about what I feel is a good philosophy of science.  But, with time and through the application of known technologies by those that currently have the economic standing to do so (a long stretch, I admit), perhaps I will live to see the day that we at least lay the groundwork for a Resource Based Economy.

           

           

           

Works Cited

1.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

2.     https://www.thevenusproject.com/

3.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa45LRPJXG0

4.     This is from the first email I sent you dated January 18, 2017.

5.     http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

6.     http://www.poverty.com/

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.

Irons in the Fire

     I envision a future in which the terms classified and top secret have no meaning; one in which unwavering social relations exist worldwide in the form of a United Federation that governs globally in a strictly non-classified fashion, and wars between separate nations are known only in history books. The United Federation umbrellas the once-separate nations (States) with a purpose that serves to promote unbiased education for absolutely every single person worldwide; to provide global services such as communication networks, green transportation, green energy, water, and emergency relief; to ensure the finest health care is provided to every single Citizen worldwide, unconditionally and to secure Human and Civil Rights and Liberties, Animal Rights and environmental protection in addition to overall well-being through positive intellectual and technological progression.

     The Federation Code Alliance (FCA)—elected officials from each state—comprises the Federation Code making (Legislative) body of the Federation. To form a government that truly represents the interests of all Citizens, every party has a seat guaranteed by Federation Code. There are no presidents or prime ministers because, logically, no single person should be granted power to make decisions on behalf of the entire world. Instead, through a global public election, a Federation Council will be the established Authority of the Executive branch, consiting of one representative from each populated continent, but shall not be limited to already-elected officials of the FCA. Nor shall limits with regard to race, creed, color or political party be placed on Citizens' rights to candidacy. The only restrictions require Citizens running for a Council position to have attained the age of thirty, have a two-thirds majority consent of FCA members, and must procure a fifty-one percent approval by a global vote. Maintained as a measure to prevent corruption, this gives Citizens immediate access to being a critical part of government. As for the Judicial branch, the Global Prevailing Court (GPC) takes precedence in the United Federation. A State Prevailing Court (SPC) will have jurisdiction in each State, unless the GPC finds that any SPC acts against Federation Code. In such a case, the GPC takes full authority and holds a hearing to determine whether any actions taken by SPCs were in violation of Federation Code.

     The United Federation Peace Corps (UFPC) takes the place of military and establishes an umbrella Department of Code Enforcement (DCE) that promotes peace through logical reasoning under the direct supervision of the Federation Council. Under the DCE umbrella, states retain strictly provisioned autonomy through a States’ Council congruent with Federation Code and provide Code interpretation designed to be an effective crime-prevention system. State autonomy is also for census and other limited purposes that include residency and drivers’ licenses. Code enforcement at States’ level is the duty of UFPC officers stationed at DEC locations throughout each State. These Departments are dutied with training and promoting County and City UFPC officers.

     The monetary system, which is probably the largest inhibitor of worldwide unification, is abolished, eliminating greed, power and class structure, and a system of reasoning that accelerates the advancement of society through logic and creative encouragement is adopted. It is understood that there is no separation of class; for, we all belong to the Human class. The Human class no longer views employment as a means for monetary gain. Jobs such as bankers, loan agents, real-estate agents, other powerhouse corporate structures, etc., no longer exist in the way that we once knew. People work simply for the collective benefit of society. With no monetary system or class structure, “success” is briefly measured by how beneficial a person has been to the positive progression of society. Encouragement prevails in terms of success. People worldwide become inevitably beneficial due to constant encouragement of others to become more beneficial. As a result, eventually every person in the world becomes a success and the term is no longer used as a staple of society. (But even if the monetary system is not altogether dissolved, which will probably be the case, all of the separate monetary systems of our world will have to coalesce into a singular unit. Implementing this solitary idea quite possibly could be the end-all to wars, separation of nations, and the notion that "money makes the world go around." It could perhaps sound the beginning of this proposed future of unity and advancement.)

     The educational system becomes the cornerstone of society. Teachers are the societal backbone in that they provide detailed understanding through specialized curriculum geared at encouragement by means of a totally constructive support system. This system administers a carefully designed balance of recreational activities, such as athletics that promote critical thinking, exercise and overall well-being, and an intellectually intensive, positively reinforced system of teaching that is an integration of state-of-the-art technology and Human instructors. Students are urged to perform at a pace they find most comfortable while setting goals to constantly improve. Curriculum is based on creative encouragement, music, language, science, mathematics, technology, communication and history and provides a clear understanding of Federation Code. Religions, and the histories, interpretations and applications of, are taught unambiguously and objectively, not portrayed as conformities to which we must subject ourselves in order to fulfill conflicting ideas of creation, life, death and afterlife.

     Technology is no longer abused for destructive purposes or control. We strive for the most discerning understanding of the fundamental structures of the universe; from quantum mechanics, the study of sub-atomic particles, to cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole; from preventive medicine to the most state-of-the-art life-saving medical technology; from sustainable energy to environmental protection and beyond. This allows us to provide evidence for, or disprove, the existence of other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, improve health and life expectancy of Humans, and enables us to advance intellectually as a societal whole with absolute regard for the environment. It might even permit our contacting other life forms if they just so happen to be intelligent, as we so arrogantly define ourselves as. Technology inevitably leads us to answers for questions concerning existence, hyperspace, time travel, intergalactic travel and parallel universes with experimental data to confirm theories on such matters. With this framework in place, both technological and intellectual progressions happen simultaneously. Technological progression now takes place for global societal benefits only, now that money is no longer a factor.

     Is it possible to coordinate such a vast undertaking? Can people really let go of the concept of money without failing economically? Why not? The power of togetherness has proven to be quite influential in terms of making realizations out of dreams. Such challenges should be met with optimistic envisioning and conviction. An extremely comprehensive undertaking is required to present such large, drastic economic and governmental revisions to a population of nearly seven billion. It begins with global assimilation under the FCA. This will introduce technological and intellectual opportunities to impoverished areas of the world that UFPC officers systematically free from the influence of tyranny, oppression and human trafficking. The FCA will build a clearly understandable foundation of logical guidelines through reasoning and constructive debate. It will provide assistance to the immediate facilitation of teachers and doctors, in addition to all necessary supplies, to less advanced parts of the globe. Environmental protection and sustainability also become top priority, as a plan to eliminate usage of at least fifty percent of all fossil fuels by 2015 is implemented. With such a large number of proven and proposed “alternative” energy sources already at our disposal, what is stopping us from a full integration into the power grid? Imagine the carbon emission savings within only the first year. Virtually all possible environmental crises can be diverted simply by taking advantage of these shrinking windows of opportunity. The technologies to harness nearly free energy already exist and innovations can only mean that more energy is on its way. So what exactly are we waiting for?

     The bottom line is that we have the means and ability to look beyond race, creed, color and even government, if necessary, and Unite as a societal whole for the Cause of Global Advancement. No matter how much we say that there is not enough time in one day; no matter how wrapped up in the distractions of modernization we become, one thing must never be forgotten--that we must have the time to stop and think about life and how fortunate we are in comparison to a large portion of people around the globe that literally starve to death, are forced into slavery, and stripped of all Civil Rights and Liberties by tyrants. These are Human Beings. Can anyone really say that they do not have time to think about the influence that we all could have if we could truly become Unified? When I look into the mirror, what I see is a product of an incomprehensibly long chain of cosmic events that somehow led to me standing there looking at myself, wondering, "Why am I standing here?" My mind sort of soars off to journey through the Realm of Possiblities. Then I realize something: the very reason that I am able to comprehend or even establish that insight is Education and that all too often taken for granted, easy access to information called the Internet. The action necessary to achieve such a visionary future rests with Education through either one of these means and is in no way limited to only the two. For it is Education, in any positive form, that will put an end to tyranny and oppresion; Education that will give people the ability to have a voice; Education that will propel us into a future of Unity, Freedom and Peace; and Education that ensures this future is both attained and retained by our Posterity. It is critical for the Human race to come together in Unity for advancement. So let us rise together and settle for nothing less.

On the Exposition of Critical Thinking

     Nothing… Nada … Zip…Zilch… At least that is the song some would sing when referring to the scale of one’s existence on planet Earth, inhabited by nearly seven billion other Human Beings. At first this may seem quite an astonishing number; however, the fact is when we take into consideration the number of vastly different life forms that also indwell our world (an estimated 1.5-2 million species), along with the inconceivable multitude of undiscovered others, the true scope of our negligibility becomes evident. Nevertheless, ignoring for now the possibility of beings inhabiting other planets, we can come to the realization that we have evolved into a species capable of self-awareness, technological progression and, almost inevitably, making globally intertwining consequential decisions. So can we really sum ourselves up to nothingness? Is it enough to say that the culmination of each of our lives means nothing? Maybe, but what most fail to envisage—and this is due to a considerable number of different reasons, such as modern social preoccupations, among others—is: each of us seems to exist innately unimpeded to observe, theorize and experiment to become knowledgeable and sometimes muse the wonders of our so-called reality. In other words, we are born to think critically—to analyze and learn through logical reasoning from the passage of, what we understand to be, time. And, although our brains are considerably misunderstood, we can certainly entertain the idea that critical thinking has been a major factor in the development of our species. For it is this particular attribute that sets us apart from all other species we have encountered on Earth.

     From the earliest forms of communication to modern linguistics, the journey to understanding has been guided by critical thinking. Advancements were rather stagnant in the first few hundred thousand years of the Human species’ evolution. Survival was at the forefront of all thinking while technology remained crude at best. Only in the last few millennia—when civilizations began to flourish around the world and philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato tried to explain the foundational workings of reality, and more recently within the past four centuries, through the work of some of the greatest minds in history (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Heisenberg and many, many more)—has the potential of thinking “outside the box” been realized and technology skyrocketed—literally. Every theory, invention and innovation finds its roots firmly planted in this notion of thinking critically. The computer that I used to type this essay; the recycled paper that it was printed on; the mode of transportation I used to get to school and turn it in; the school itself; all of these things are resultants of someone that was determined to examine better ways of achieving respectively pertaining goals. And it is this ever-expanding curiosity that will surely propel Humankind into a future of advancement both technologically and intellectually; that is if we can manage to not extinguish ourselves during the transition to global unification. Critical thinking is a foundation on which we as a civilization should build upon to peer beyond the walls of oppression, tyranny, and greed. It has become my understanding that the particular period of time in which we live is perhaps the most important, if not the most pivotal, period of time in Humankind's history. There may be two ways which our civilization can go: up or down. It could now be either the beginning of the end, or the epoch in global unity. The best part of it all is that the fate of Humankind rests in our hands. We decide. So what will it be?