A Brief History of Capitalism
I have lately come to realize that capitalism has been collapsing virtually since its birth. That's because the main premise of capitalism, which is that in order to succeed every human being must take out more from our economic system than he or she puts into it (i.e. earn a profit) is flawed at its very core.
In nature, all living systems are created such that wholes must always be greater than the sum of their parts. This is particularly true if they hope to be self-sustaining. A system in which the whole is perennially bled dry for the benefit of a few individuals cannot sustain itself indefinitely. It must continually draw in new energy from new sources if it hopes to rejuvenate itself. Capitalism, with its for-profit formula, is therefore the opposite of a self-sustaining system. If everyone puts in X and tries to take out X + 1 (or X + 12, 15 or 3000!) we can never evolve into a system that works for everyone, because there can never be enough to go around. History supports this; so we must learn from our past so we're equipped to shift our system into something intentionally supportive rather than unwittingly exploitive of life.
Capitalism emerged to replace an ancient, agrarian form of economics that depended on class privilege by dividing people into nobility (the haves) and serfs (the have-nots.) The birth of a merchant middle class appeared to be a good thing, because by exchanging creativity through barter, people were able to lift themselves out of the endless cycle of poverty that had been caused by those "birthright" systems.
The problem with capitalism, however, was that the invention of paper money to facilitate barter generated the added incentive to extract more money from each other than was fair, setting up win-lose exchanges rather than win-win exchanges. Once we notice that the makers of products (labor) have only their wages, less taxes, to purchase the very same products they've just produced at their now marked-up for profit prices, we realize the labor force in its totality will never have enough cash to purchase all the products available for sale in their totality without constantly borrowing cash to keep them afloat. If laborer and consumer are one and the same, how can labor EVER afford to consume what it makes AND pay a profit to business, using only its own wages as its means?
Slavery and colonialism supported capitalism during the 1800's by enabling wealthy merchants to exploit cheap labor and ship foreign goods back to Europe, where enough money already existed to buy them. The end of both colonialism and slavery however, led to shortages and poverty in Europe. Poverty triggered social unrest and revolution abroad, and eventually led us into WWI. The various national war machines and their ensuing national debts created massive cash infusions for the various economies that jump-started capitalism for a time, culminating once again in the concentrated prosperity we observed in the Roaring 20's. That was followed by the Great Depression because wealth concentration led to massive poverty in the U.S. WWII and its federal debts conveniently eased us through the depression era, though at a terrible price.
The 50's were again a time of general prosperity as the U.S. reaped the benefits of all the added technology and industry generated by WWII, and Europe reaped the benefits of rebuilding its shattered cities and infrastructures. When family budgets once again began to grow strained toward the end of that happy decade, we abruptly inserted women en mass into the workplace. Suddenly families could sell 80 hours a week instead of 40! That new spurt of family prosperity held for a time, until prices caught up to the rise in wages by the late '70's, which is when foreign competition came knocking at our door and "stagflation" became a household word. Cheaper wages overseas meant cheaper products competing with US goods. We couldn't afford to buy what we were making here anymore, but we could still afford to buy what less developed countries produced for our sake.
U.S. companies then made a huge push for labor productivity gains, which meant people had to do more in less time so our price per unit could fall to match those of overseas competitors. Unfortunately for us, our technological improvements could be imitated by our overseas competitors, so our ability to improve our productivity wasn't enough to hold our competitive edge over their consistently lower wages. Since we couldn't beat them at the lower price game, the '90's and 2000's brought a period of increased foreign exploitation as we began to ship US jobs overseas to those same low wage workers. Meanwhile, Americans lost buying power when we lost the ability to negotiate living wages from companies that needed to earn a profit more than they needed to support their local labor force. (That business seems to have forgotten that labor and consumer are one and the same is the delicious irony of that decision.)
What happened next was predictable. Debt skyrocketed as Americans were induced to continue to consume ever more, even as their buying power plunged and their jobs disappeared overseas. When we ran out of room on our credit cards and out of equity in our homes, the banks belatedly discovered they could no longer squeeze us for profits on that debt and the whole mess began to unravel. Our government then wound up inserting a massive amount of cash into the banking system to support the debt crash and burn that was triggered by our loss of buying power, to ensure people could continue to borrow more and continue to consume - never mind that no one can pay any of it back! (Don't even get me started on the corruptive influence of inflation, because that's a whole different blog for another day.)
Sooner or later we're going to run out of new people to exploit, new hours to sell and new sources of money with which to save a totally flawed system that deserves to fail. It deserves to fail because it is designed - however unintentionally - to endlessly exploit human life for the sake of money, rather than support all life for the sake of love and joy.
In nature, all living systems are created such that wholes must always be greater than the sum of their parts. This is particularly true if they hope to be self-sustaining. A system in which the whole is perennially bled dry for the benefit of a few individuals cannot sustain itself indefinitely. It must continually draw in new energy from new sources if it hopes to rejuvenate itself. Capitalism, with its for-profit formula, is therefore the opposite of a self-sustaining system. If everyone puts in X and tries to take out X + 1 (or X + 12, 15 or 3000!) we can never evolve into a system that works for everyone, because there can never be enough to go around. History supports this; so we must learn from our past so we're equipped to shift our system into something intentionally supportive rather than unwittingly exploitive of life.
Capitalism emerged to replace an ancient, agrarian form of economics that depended on class privilege by dividing people into nobility (the haves) and serfs (the have-nots.) The birth of a merchant middle class appeared to be a good thing, because by exchanging creativity through barter, people were able to lift themselves out of the endless cycle of poverty that had been caused by those "birthright" systems.
The problem with capitalism, however, was that the invention of paper money to facilitate barter generated the added incentive to extract more money from each other than was fair, setting up win-lose exchanges rather than win-win exchanges. Once we notice that the makers of products (labor) have only their wages, less taxes, to purchase the very same products they've just produced at their now marked-up for profit prices, we realize the labor force in its totality will never have enough cash to purchase all the products available for sale in their totality without constantly borrowing cash to keep them afloat. If laborer and consumer are one and the same, how can labor EVER afford to consume what it makes AND pay a profit to business, using only its own wages as its means?
Slavery and colonialism supported capitalism during the 1800's by enabling wealthy merchants to exploit cheap labor and ship foreign goods back to Europe, where enough money already existed to buy them. The end of both colonialism and slavery however, led to shortages and poverty in Europe. Poverty triggered social unrest and revolution abroad, and eventually led us into WWI. The various national war machines and their ensuing national debts created massive cash infusions for the various economies that jump-started capitalism for a time, culminating once again in the concentrated prosperity we observed in the Roaring 20's. That was followed by the Great Depression because wealth concentration led to massive poverty in the U.S. WWII and its federal debts conveniently eased us through the depression era, though at a terrible price.
The 50's were again a time of general prosperity as the U.S. reaped the benefits of all the added technology and industry generated by WWII, and Europe reaped the benefits of rebuilding its shattered cities and infrastructures. When family budgets once again began to grow strained toward the end of that happy decade, we abruptly inserted women en mass into the workplace. Suddenly families could sell 80 hours a week instead of 40! That new spurt of family prosperity held for a time, until prices caught up to the rise in wages by the late '70's, which is when foreign competition came knocking at our door and "stagflation" became a household word. Cheaper wages overseas meant cheaper products competing with US goods. We couldn't afford to buy what we were making here anymore, but we could still afford to buy what less developed countries produced for our sake.
U.S. companies then made a huge push for labor productivity gains, which meant people had to do more in less time so our price per unit could fall to match those of overseas competitors. Unfortunately for us, our technological improvements could be imitated by our overseas competitors, so our ability to improve our productivity wasn't enough to hold our competitive edge over their consistently lower wages. Since we couldn't beat them at the lower price game, the '90's and 2000's brought a period of increased foreign exploitation as we began to ship US jobs overseas to those same low wage workers. Meanwhile, Americans lost buying power when we lost the ability to negotiate living wages from companies that needed to earn a profit more than they needed to support their local labor force. (That business seems to have forgotten that labor and consumer are one and the same is the delicious irony of that decision.)
What happened next was predictable. Debt skyrocketed as Americans were induced to continue to consume ever more, even as their buying power plunged and their jobs disappeared overseas. When we ran out of room on our credit cards and out of equity in our homes, the banks belatedly discovered they could no longer squeeze us for profits on that debt and the whole mess began to unravel. Our government then wound up inserting a massive amount of cash into the banking system to support the debt crash and burn that was triggered by our loss of buying power, to ensure people could continue to borrow more and continue to consume - never mind that no one can pay any of it back! (Don't even get me started on the corruptive influence of inflation, because that's a whole different blog for another day.)
Sooner or later we're going to run out of new people to exploit, new hours to sell and new sources of money with which to save a totally flawed system that deserves to fail. It deserves to fail because it is designed - however unintentionally - to endlessly exploit human life for the sake of money, rather than support all life for the sake of love and joy.
Views: 2
Comment
-
Comment by Eileen Workman on August 20, 2009 at 10:14am -
Dear Lucifer,
Welcome to the light....!
I look forward to continuing our discussion at Hummingbird, and value your input and critiques.
-
Comment by Darrell Laham on August 20, 2009 at 9:03am -
Eileen,
Lucifer is beaten. You've given me nothing to argue against, I am in agreement. I like the Go card and of course see many potential problems and issues but will wait till we have higher bandwidth to discuss. If we can just call it the '666 to Go' card or maybe the 'Market of the Beast', I will be happy. ;-}
Much love, D
-
Comment by Eileen Workman on August 20, 2009 at 7:47am
-
Hi again Darrell,
Good points all. However, I never suggested selflessness was the antidote to selfishness. Swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction is never the solution - such action always causes an opposite reaction. The antidote, as I've suggested, is to step into the balanced center of enlightened self-interest, which is a shift in one's thinking to a deeper awareness that what is good for the whole must be good for the self, and that what is good for the self must also be good for the whole. When the whole grows in a healthy way, it contains more for the parts to share. When the self grows in a healthy way, it has more to offer the whole. In short, does what we're doing (either individually or collectively) support and affirm life, or does it exploit it for short-term or personal gain?
To become MORE generous is therefore a good thing, but not to the point of self-deprivation. That's where effective self-governance comes in handy. We must develop the skill to learn how to check ourselves with personal integrity - do I need this for my own comfort and self-actualization, as opposed to what is simply a desire that might be postponed for the benefit of the whole? Learning to self-ration is the same process as learning what, how much and how often to eat as we mature. It's a feedback loop and we don't always get it right, but paying attention to the signals we're receiving is usually helpful!
On the whole financial issue, well...I'm fairly certain the dollar as we know it will be gone in a relatively short period of time. There is no end to the "musical chairs" game of debt; the entire structure of our monetary system depends upon growing debt to keep it fed and alive. Since there's no way to pay off debt while interest remains attached to it (interest means more money must always be created in order to service the growing debt, and the creation of new money involves a debt creation process that keeps the game going) eventually our nation will have to default. What happens next is anybody's guess; I'm just hoping we've done enough infrastructure repair and social re-engineering before that day comes so that we don't have to suffer too much as we restructure our exchange processes.
As for your reiterated concern about the planetary stewards, remember we're all planetary stewards, so there would be no power hierarchy, only active and integral self-governance along with constant information and feedback loops to enable us to continually up-level our choices. Still, as we make that kind of transition we'll need to reach some sort of consensus about how we wish to self-govern. If group consensus suggests that it would be good for all people to contribute a few hours of labor per week toward the good of the whole, that's no different than expecting children to attend school until they turn 16, or requiring people to take lessons and get driving licenses if they wish to use public roads. It becomes a health and safety issue - if you wish to partake in the social system and have it provide for you, it's mandatory that you put something in so long as you're able.
What participants would receive in exchange - housing, food, clothing, health care, durable goods, infrastructure, education, travel, creative support - is hugely beneficial and would come without the present level of stress that comes from purchasing and paying for such items, so I don't imagine many of us will complain. Those who are ill, incapacitated or handicapped in some fashion would of course be exempted from social service. The kind of service to be donated would be up to the individual. What needs to be done could be posted on the internet, and people would be asked to sign up for various programs in their neighborhood. Moving toward this kind of social volunteerism is the first major step in social self-governance.
My larger idea - which may or may not work - is that every person would receive a "go" card on the first of the year, simply for being alive. As in, "You've just passed go - collect your $200!" The "go" card entitles each person to say, 3000 calories of food per day (x 365), 30 new items of clothing, 10 durable goods items, 5 weeks of free vacation anywhere in the world, 20 weeks of advanced education, 1000 square feet of living space and a reasonable allotment of energy and water per person. Health services would be readily accessible and free, with a focus on wellness rather than treating the symptoms of illness. Of course, all these numbers would have to be determined based on what the system has available to distribute, but it then behooves all of us to enrich the system for the following year. (Nice incentive to participate as fully as possible, no?) The items on the card could be swapped in a free exchange, so someone who didn't want vacations and didn't need durable goods but wanted more education could swap credits with someone who didn't want more schooling but wished to travel more. In short, we'd try to create an "average" allotment and then let people customize their own needs through an internet swapping program.
Note that since there's a limit on things like durable goods and price would no longer be a factor in our decision making, the system would swiftly retool itself to manufacture only quality goods that are in demand, are designed to last and make the best use of our collective limited natural resources. People wouldn't want to "waste" their credits on garbage products, so would avoid the acquisition of junk. Our present cultural emphasis on changing clothing styles each year - which profits the clothing industry but wastes tons of natural resources - would vanish. Instead of society "cheapening" itself and/or rapidly turning over goods that are perfectly fine in the name of higher profits, the overall quality of our products would be life enhancing and would upgrade society rather than cheapen it. Beauty would become important too - if I'm spending my limited credits on new furniture I want it to last, and I certainly want it to be aesthetically pleasing as well! Less garbage, less waste, greater sustainability, higher aesthetics. Even better foods, as "fast food" cheap junk calories would likely become a product of the past.
Each year we'd take inventory of what was still available and what we needed more of, and that would become the focus of creative endeavor for the following year. Meanwhile, so much creative energy would be freed up from people no longer working long hours in dumb jobs for minimum wages, or stressing over how to get what we need (not to mention the elimination of most crime!) that we'd have more time to explore the cosmos, invent true labor saving and energy saving devices and revamp our presently inefficient systems.
That's my suggestion anyway - to shift from a debt society to a genuine credit society, with the proper incentives to create a world in which beauty, sustainability and durability become our focus, and humanity's creative genius can be properly unleashed.
I'm sure we can come up with lots of reasons why it might not work or problems that would need to be addressed, but I don't think there's much argument that - assuming we're shifting human consciousness toward Oneness at the same time - it's going to be a better system than the one we're using now. Not perfect, but a movement toward genuine self-governance with a love of life and the nurturing of the whole at its core.
-
Comment by Darrell Laham on August 19, 2009 at 3:18pm
-
So, I'll let my angels speak for a moment... You hit the mark when you identify the culprits as 'unbridled consumerism' and 'unproductive distribution of wealth'. This is greed over need. This is seeking happiness through external command and control and it interferes with the internal quest for freedom. It is the gilded cage. You miss the mark when you identify selflessness as the beginning. Selflessness is the end. As long as you are incarnate, you are right and just to consider your own needs and accept the gifts that bring you physical strength and mental well-being. Financial insecurity limits your productivity and thus limits your capacity for fulfilling your mission. Beauty is not to be ignored. Wealth is not a shame when it is achieved with compassion. Symbiotic relationships between people that together create profit should together share in the profit. Profit is evolutionary success. Thank God for profit!
OK, now back to me... you say "We can then effectively redistribute that manpower toward work that genuinely needs to be done in such a way that the tasks are not burdensome on any one group of people." That sounds like the job of 'planetary stewards' to me. It is now done by 'the unseen hand of the market'. How do you plan on accomplishing it?
I once had the idea of moving Palestine to Wyoming. Everybody would be happy and hardly anyone would notice. My Lebanese family did move to Kansas in 1912 to escape oppression. We did well.
-
Comment by Eileen Workman on August 19, 2009 at 11:09am
-
Thanks Attila - glad to know someone's reading! And Darrell, I love your Lucifer side and embrace the opportunity to explore these ideas with you more fully.
Let's try to take your questions one at a time, Darrell:
1) the path from "here" to "there" isn't fully articulated as yet. It's a visionary destination, but the path may take an unlimited number of directions before we ever arrive, assuming we will! Part of what we hope to accomplish at Hummingbird Living School in September is to take a hard look at what we can individually begin to do to embody the new consciousness. Relinquishing our personal attachment to the old power/dominator paradigm is a beginning. Doing whatever we can to support the dreams and goals of others is a beginning. Embodying compassionate loving kindness is a beginning. Sharing what we have to give without thought of personal gain is a beginning...
2) what people may want to do as opposed to what needs doing. Frankly, I believe much of what we're presently doing is busy work to support the capitalist marketing structure, and that it can be eliminated without much fuss or anybody really missing it. (Who's going to weep from loss if we close down all the Gucci, Pucci and Fendi manufacturing plants?) We can then effectively redistribute that manpower toward work that genuinely needs to be done in such a way that the task are not burdensome on any one group of people. For example, instead of working 40 hours a week at a job you don't much like, what if you were given the opportunity to work 5 or 10 hours a week doing something highly necessary to support humanity, and in exchange were free to do whatever you wished with the balance of your time? Might you be willing to scrub a toilet now and again, or might you even design a new system so no one ever had to scrub a toilet again? if we freed up much of the labor that now goes into making cheap goods for consumption, imagine how much human creativity would be freed up to provide the world with beautiful goods that last and that use sustainable processes in their manufacture?
3) property values and so-called locale desirability. I presently live near the coast in Southern California. You'd be amazed how many of those multi-million dollar beach houses sit empty for most of the year, because they're actually vacation homes owned by the uber-wealthy. Change the mindset of ownership and the availability of beach houses would rise dramatically, if only for regular vacations. Sharing vacation properties rather than holding them empty with an attitude of "mine" would be a fine solution to the problem of too many people wanting to spend time in a limited space. I actually suspect you'd find that many people wouldn't want to live by the beach year-round anyway. It's often crowded, far from workplaces, foggy, salty and occasionally at risk of high tide and storms that do serious structural damage to the properties there. Additionally, climate change may make coastal living much less desirable for all of us very soon! As for nobody wanting to live in Kansas, I can think of lots of Latin Americans, Iraqis and Palestinians who would likely jump at the chance...
4) the use of incentives to encourage people to do what needs to be done. This is an individual growth path that can be accomplished through each of us changing what motivates us from greed and selfishness to love and desire to heal and support the whole. As Attila said, there is a critical mass for inner change that, when we reach it, will likely trigger an avalanche effect. One highly enlightened being has the power to spark millions of others into self-actualization.
I believe...I trust...I aim for the highest good for humankind.
-
Comment by Attila Sule-Szigeti on August 19, 2009 at 10:35am -
I truly enjoy your discussion here! It is really covering all the issues that myself was thinking of when lamenting about how the 'new planetary consciuosness' will spread throughout the world and how people are willing to change their habits.
The answer which momentary is giving me some 'relief' is the critical mass version, that Ervin is refering to. That reaching a certain level in awareness will 'push' others towards looking more deeply into themselves promoting kind of a self-development. For sure, no force will make people to change, only personal realization will. Please continue, your conversation is rather educative, if I can say so! Thanks! Attila
-
Comment by Darrell Laham on August 19, 2009 at 8:59am
-
Eileen, you know how I like to play the role of Lucifer's lawyer to make sure that ideology is backed by sound thinking. What I am hearing from you is that once someone has made the shift to unity consciousness they will behave in accord with the greater good. I buy that. What I don't see articulated is the path from here to there for 7 billion souls at various levels of conscious development. I don't see 'first everybody gets enlightened' as an actionable path forward. I would LOVE it to happen, and we can sit back in our relatively higher states of consciousness, drink our fair trade coffee, and chat about how great it will be after it happens, but I want to build things now that make life better now.
Cells have a certain level of consciousness, but except for stem cells that can become any type of cell that is needed, the analogy with humans breaks down a bit. A blood cell is born a blood cell and cannot become a neuron. A person has a choice of what they want to become. People don't have equal opportunities to become that which they want to become however. In general, I would imagine you will find that many more people want to become artists, actors, musicians and film makers than are actually needed by society, and far fewer people want to become street sweepers, toilet cleaners, ditch diggers, and trash haulers than are actually needed. I know this is 'old thinking', but tell me how we get to the point that we don't have to use incentives to get basic services taken care of.
Also, about location... let's look at what drives property value in this our backward society. Property value is a direct result of its desirability by people. The more people who want that land, the more it is valued. Why do you think that beachfront property is valued at thousands of dollars per square foot, and Ellsburg, Kansas will give 40 acres free to anyone who will move there and live for 5 years? How will removing the boundaries of property change the variable desirability of land? Won't it just cause more problems when we remove the boundaries?
-
Comment by Eileen Workman on August 19, 2009 at 6:51am
-
On your questions regarding the innate inequality of cells, let me respond in this way:
human beings are NOT created equal. We have different body sizes and types, skills and talents. We are of different sexes. We have different genetic gifts as well as problems. Some of us love farming, others love being on the water, while halfway across the world still others are dying to protect their rights to live in desert sands.
Some of our bones and joints can't tolerate moisture, while others thrive in lush, rainy climates. Some of us enjoy street sweeping so we can occupy our minds with other things - or not think at all. Others enjoy labors that require constant, heavy thinking. Some are drawn to math, others to the arts. In short, we are as variable at birth as are the cells of the human body.
Those variances, ASSUMING we trust in the universe to know what it's doing as it creates them, should assure that we won't have too many people doing too much of the same thing, at the expense of what needs to be done. The very delicious uniqueness of every human being means no two of us will desire the exact same outcome in our lives. If we embrace that, while ever honoring the fact that, AT HEART, we are all the same, living embodiment of the totality expressing itself creatively in this world, I imagine we'll be okay while we explore how best to be.
-
Comment by Eileen Workman on August 19, 2009 at 6:34am
-
Hi Darrell,
What makes you think anyone would be assigned anywhere against their desire or will by "planetary stewards?" That, my friend, is the antithesis of what I'm suggesting we might wish to evolve into! If no one owns the land, no one holds the right to assign anyone anywhere at all. We each get to choose. That's the entire point of a self-governing world that works for everyone. TRUE freedom.
The notion of people being told how to live or what they will be permitted to become is old, separation consciousness thinking. By the way, it's no different from what we already have today, with our present birth nation border limitations and our restrictions on what people can or can't do being dependent upon what they can afford to achieve for themselves. Our present way of life embraces a pyramid hierarchy of power, in which a select group of "haves" get to determine the future of the "have nots," all the while protecting their own right to remain a "have" as well as guarantee their own birth children will continue to be "haves."
In a living organism, cells do what they are called to do, not what they have been forced to do by other, dictator cells. Their innate qualities, abilities, gifts etc. determine which is a blood cell and which is a brain cell. All of it is done freely in service to the larger living organism, whose survival is in the enlightened self-interest of each cell.
I imagine that if the human race moves into deeper alignment with the living organism model, all people will be encouraged to pursue their passions, follow their desires to self-actualize and be offered boundless opportunities to explore to their highest creative abilities and skills. It is in the enlightened self-interest of each of us to encourage all others to be happy, fulfilled and highly contributing members of the larger human body. Using force, oppression and fear to control the behavior and break the will of other living beings doesn't fit with that model.
I am constantly reminding myself that we can't solve the problems of society with the consciousness that created them. It's rather a chicken/egg conundrum to change our behaviors though. The old models were created by separation consciousness. Any new social models we design to replace the models that no longer work for us as we step individually into our realization of Oneness consciousness must be born of, interpreted and embodied by Oneness consciousness on a social level - otherwise nothing changes except the surface appearances! That's why communism and socialism couldn't successfully replace capitalism - they were implemented by (and forcibly imposed upon) people who were still living in separation consciousness, so they still required fear, domination and brutality to make them "work." Ultimately they merely led to a new group of "haves" determining the destiny of a new group of "have nots."
So yes - to answer your question, I AM living the new world paradigm I'm suggesting we all consider. I've quit my job in the financial services industry and am living financially month to month these days. I don't live in fear that I'll lose my house, even though it's a constant and very real possibility. If it happens, I accept it was meant to happen as part of my spiritual growth. Meanwhile I am still offering shelter, food, loving advice and life experiences to others (who are not my blood relatives.) I'm giving away all I can to assist whomever I can in their quest to become the best they dream of becoming. I'm writing my truths passionately, with no concern for personal financial gain. My driver is my hope that something I say might trigger something in someone else that inspires them to investigate their own unexplored assumptions, so they might discover the truth about who they are inside themselves.
Try that on and get back to me....! I believe we're closer on this than we realize, because it has to do with shifting personal consciousness alongside social behavior. You can't have the chicken without the egg, nor the egg without the chicken. They're inextricably linked.
-
Comment by Darrell Laham on August 19, 2009 at 3:11am
-
Just read your Ownerership vs Stewardship blog, so I think I have your answer to my 'property' question. Do you practice what you preach? A fair question here I think. Do you actually think your human potential would be equally satisfied if you were assigned by the planetary stewards the role of growing potatoes in Idaho instead of your chosen role of writing books in California? If you do then that is great. I think it would be a waste of talent.
© 2012 Created by David Woolfson.
You need to be a member of WorldShift 2012 to add comments!
Join WorldShift 2012