Like our global energy crises there must be economically sustainable as well. We assume that because a dollar circulates from your hand to Wal-Mart’s stockholders hands that our economic system is sustainable - but it is not.
The problem is not money - money is merely as unit of measure. Blaming a unit of measure for what drives the heart of man, well is the nature of man. Therefore the first problem of a unit of money is the human heart. The second and real problem with a unit of money is in the growth calculation used for compound interest. Compound interest is based upon the mathematical rule of 72. The rule of 72: the interest rate is divided in the number 72 and the result of the number of years required for the unit of money to double in value. For example: 5% interest divided into 72 results with 12, therefore every 12 years the principal amount doubles in value meaning 1 becomes 2 and 100 becomes 200 but in trillions such as our deficit - well you do the math but realize that the interest will certainly change significantly by the time you completed a single calculation.
The challenge presented is that in a futuristic society such non-sustainable rules would be restricted from education and healthcare.
If this program was from the World Bank - what would be your response?
Any ideas or comments?
i call it: "holistic
it could also be called
"conscious capitalism," or,
"collective capitalism." dr. chopra calls it
taking shape through a
social movement called:
BE THE 100%.
have a look, and let us know what you think:)
These are all fine labels or slogans but they merely lend a social brand that identifies a collective. Although labels pull the attention of collectives, labels are not frameworks that can mechanize a results oriented initiative. Such initiatives must mechanize in order to establish change and manifest a social resilience that maintains the change into the future.
We all strive to articulate a method to unify our system systemically in exploration to resolve our most dramatic needs as a human race; this is good as a growing awareness needs to reach a critical mass; meaning the strife should not result in creating the challenge, those are already provided, but rather focusing the challenge to creating the result oriented solutions.
My research supports the exploration of models that require top-down solutions such as - what would a sustainable global banking system look like! What if compound interest was no longer calculated by the rule of 72 as part of a new global banking system for financing certain life sciences?
I would like to suggest the the best way to economically sustain Humanity is by shifting the economy away from money, an accounting of meaningful energy expended in an energy-scarce society, to one of abundance with "accounting" in the social realms.
Please read My blog entries for more on this:
As long as We retain an energy-scarce society, We will see poverty, hunger, power elite, exploitation, solutions based on profit and not betterment, wage-slavery (if not outright slavery), corruption, war incitement (for profit), erosion of Human principles, and the LOVE of money which is, as You know, the root of all evil.
It would have to be based on interactions that produce a balance of energy and resources, on some human spacetime scale. But before even looking at sustainable economics, we need to look at the infrastructure that any economic system is based on. That infrastructure is technological and ecological:
1. How is food produced and distributed?
2. How are resources and energy (metals, wood, plastic, glass, petroleum, sunlight, wind, etc) produced and distributed?
Some technologies are intrinsically more conducive to balance, and more resilient to greed and theft--local ones (which mostly means pre-industrial, but not necessarily). Global technologies (dependent on global resources and labor) are intrinsically more conducive to imbalance, especially when combined with greed and theft. Both of these produce imbalance (unsustainability) when combined with the meme network of empire (the local one is unstable in that case and drifts towards the global technology attractor), which can be simplistically reduced to greed+global ways of organization. Money is somewhat of a red herring. It's easier to cheat and produce imbalance with money on a global scale, but not so easy on a local scale. So constraining technology to be local, while at the same time encouraging consciousness (which by its nature strives for expansion and globality) would create sustainable economies. What kind of economies? Many different kinds--forms of capitalism, gift economies, forms of village-scale socialism, other kinds.
With free energy supplanting the need for money, abundance will flow to all of Us. Capitalism, communism, gift economies, socialism, are all scarcity paradigm solutions. Even "resource-based economy" is a misnomer. (See http://worldshift2012.org/profiles/blogs/why-venus-and-zeitgeist-do... for a look at why.)
In energy abundance, the tag line is: From Each according to BLISS; to Each according to DESIRE.
Do check out the rest of My blog.
The only free energy I'm aware of is human energy freely given. I'm a physicist, so you'd have to work really hard to convince me that there is another kind that is not a fantasy. All free energy schemes I've looked at I consider fantasies, but maybe you have something new.
Well, You may have Your own opinions on that, but My father worked as one of the top electrical engineers at one of the top aerospace companies in the 1950's. He would come home from work and try to teach Me about electrogravitics. He would tell Me about His successful experiments in flying discs, floating objects, and overunity. I would pester Him to tell Me, over and over like most kids ask for a favorite book to be read, to describe the world I would be growing up in because of His work.
Cars would fly, cities would float, and We would have all the energy We can use.
One night He came home late from work and woke Me up to tell Me that We couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating cities, the free energy - We couldn't even say the word, "electrogravitics," anymore - beacuse, "They want it secret for now."
So that, and work such as Dr. Paul A. Laviolette's, is what I go by in assessing whether We can extract energy from the "dark" (zero point, radiant, orgone, vacuum, plenum, etc.) energy We swim in.
I am curious... How do You explain in Einsteinian physics, the Biefeld-Brown Effect?
It has a standard explanation in terms of ion winds. Look it up in wikipedia. When I was an undergrad, my advisor, John King, used to get all the claims to new physics (like new forces) from refereed journals. We were never able to verify any of those claims. Free energy is not going to save us. Jesus isn't going to save us. The government isn't going to save us. We have to save ourselves. Even if free energy were true, there is still the question of a finite planet with finite resources. Not scarce, but not infinite either. Even if it were infinite, people need to produce what they need, not have robots or slaves do it for them.
Except... It works without ion wind...:
Oh, another point... Wikipedia is NOT the defining authority...
As to these resources... Food:
1. Because We distribute by profit - and not need - supermarkets ALONE (never mind restaurants and other food institutions) throw out hundreds of thousands of TONS of food a MONTH
2. Because agribusiness has ties with petroleum interests, We petro-"fertilize" Our fields, yet organic farming produces the same or, in many cases far better yields, with much higher nutrition, and no carcinogens
3. We pay corporate "farmers" to NOT grow food to keep the prices high
4. New farming methods, such as vertical farming, have the potential to add tremendously to the food availability
If We distributed by need, farmed organically, and used all Our farmland, We could feed 10 times the present population on this planet. Add the new methods, and We could see that go up to 20, 50, maybe even 100 times Our present population.
As far as population goes... If You gave every One of Us, from birth to just hanging on, 1/4 acre of land in Australia - which is 4% of the earth's land mass EXcluding Antacrtica - You would still have a chunk of Australia left over. And the whole rest of the planet.
If You packed the volume of all Humans into the Grand Canyon, You wouldn't even fill one side canyon.
If You put all of Us in the state of Texas, there's still be more room in Texas.
Whether You were successful or not in pursuing overunity claims has nothing to do with My full awareness that overunity does exist, and that money = meaningful energy expended. Adding abundant free energy would FREE Us from having to slave over the creation of what We need.
*I* want leisure. I am not alone. *I* have a black thumb, arthritis, and zero desire to to eke out a living. I am not alone. *I* want to follow My bliss. I am surely not alone. Humankind will flourish if each of Us could not worry about what We need and focus on what gives Us bliss, with a Betterment Ethic in place...
Think it won't work? Look at Linux. Look at volunteerism. Look at the many whose bliss it is to solve problems. To create better ways. To help Others. To create art. To research. To program. To build. With no money for the root of all evil to grow in (the LOVE of money), little to no crime will be seen. People will take pride in Their personal contributions. Human-crated goods will be valued, gifted, paid for in appreciation, thanks, gratitude, lauds, reputation, Self-satisfaction. With robots to do the necessary work no One WANTS to do (or not enough), We will be free to follow Our bliss.
I was just wondering, you said if all humans were in the grand canyon? Well, that would work fine if YOU WERE BURYING THEM ...but what about the increase in population, what we've been doing, doubling our population? We should live longer and have less babies...just because babies are adorable and cute doesn't mean they're not really just full grown humans temporarily in teeny bodies.
It turns out that the more One is able to pursue One's bliss, the fewer children One has... The rich, as a rule, have FAR fewer children than the poor, who are confined to TV and sex for entertainment in between any wage-slaving They must do to support Themselves. Already there is a decline in population growth in the "1st world" countries, with the poorest of the "3rd world" countries having the highest birth rate.
Your comment about "burying them..." leaves me shaking My head. This was merely to put a perspective on the Human/planet picture. [sigh]