Transitional Methodologies

I have been thinking about a basic framework on how to transition society to a new paradigm.  The first obvious method, would be to get the overall population backing a certain ideal, and then create a revolution, by overthrowing the people in power.  This is probably one of the most improbable possibilities, because people for the most part are not susceptible to new ideas that conflict with their values and identification.  This first evidence I see of this is just participating in political debate forums.  People blindly stick to their ideals, to the point that no matter how much evidence you throw their way, they refuse to acknowledge a conflicting idea.  When they are utterly defeated through debating, they will just devalue the evidence presented which is a central component to the conflicting stance.  Part of it has to do with dominance and competitiveness.  Individuals want to become superior than their counterparts to feel better about themselves.  But there is more to it.  All people identify with a group of people in their community.  There are people that tend to identify with the minority because they want to behave in an acceptable way.  A common explanation for this, is that people who were the first born in their family when they find acceptable characteristics of their parents, will try and establish a connection with those values.  They follow the rules and regulation of the parents, which makes them susceptible to identifying with the majority.  This means, that no matter what the evidence of certain ideas that conflict with their identification or values, these ideas will be rejected.  And, part of the component to this idea has to do with majority, therefore the majority of the populace would tend to not accept these new ideals.  Not to mention, the perceived fear of drastic change.  This, and other concepts of human psychology and sociology that I have not learned about, are the reason why I do not think the majority of the populace can be convinced of a new idea or ideal.  Therefore, another method should be implemented in transitioning society to a Resource Based Economy.

The transition must coincide with the values of the populace.  One common drive of the human race, is the drive to survive.  This is apparent in various works of art, where it is theorized that humanity would bond together to defeat the obstacle at hand.  And, in our current society, things are only changed when the lives of the majority are affected.  Therefore, I think the best method would be to implement this idea after the collapse of society’s systems.

The obvious target that comes to my mind, is the global economic system.  The distribution and consumption of resources is dependent upon a monetary system.  If this is removed, people would not know what to do with regards to the distribution of resources.  One idea that I will touch based on, is that the men in power now want to create a worldwide government once the economic system collapses (which maybe happening right now.  I will touch base on this in a second.)  But this would be a prime time to put into place The Resource Based Economy.

The easiest way to collapse the economic system is by ruining the banking sector:

  1. Everyone would request a complete withdrawal of their money.  Fractional reserve banking is dependent upon the assumption that not all of their reserves is required for withdrawals.  This is how they accrue their wealth.  Because of the reasons outlined above, this is near to impossible from happening.
  2. The confidence of Treasury Bonds are lost coupled with hyper-inflation.  This is the method that I think is being used today.  The increase of governmental deficit spending forces banks to increase interest rates to remove money from the overall money supply.  This is to increase the value of the dollar.  The deficit spending also essentially increases demand because there is more money available.  Therefore, prices go up while jobs are not created because for the most part, supply of goods and services are adequate as well as the advent of automation systems and outsourcing.  Wages also do not increase in concordance to inflation.  Combined with increased interest rates on loans, people cannot afford necessities.  They then turn to the government, which would be forced to increase deficit spending.  This induces a feedback process.  Additionally, the increase in interest rates decreases the rate at which loans are taken out.  This means there is less small businesses and the like being established.  Less jobs are being created.  Furthermore, with people losing money in addition to the value of the dollar being decreased, confidence of the currency dwindles.  Once the confidence of the established currency is lost, the economy collapses (because money’s value is fundamentally dependent upon the confidence in it.)  With no system present to distribute scarce resources, not only will there be upheaval and anger over lost wealth, everyone will be fearing for themselves and freedoms because those are the values of dominant economical cultures.  With no system to distribute scarce resources, another economy must be put into place.  The people in power now I believe want to implement a world-wide government, but this would be a prime time to implement and put into action The Resource Based Economy.
  3. By halting the cycle of money.  Money is borrowed from The Fed by the government, and then is spent on various governmental programs.  Money is then taken out of the system by banks by enforcing interest, whereby they use that money to create more money by contributing that money to financial instruments.  One way to halt the system, would be to break the physical process of The Fed issuing money to the government.  There could be multiple ways of doing this, by disrupting their electronic systems by cyber attacks or physical destruction etc., or by altering the ability of the government to be able to withdraw loans from The Fed.  This would be by eliminating the confidence in Treasury Bonds.  I need to research more on how this could be accomplished.

I must admit, I am for forcing this if need be.  I believe there are people that just do not grasp or educate themselves about the essence of the world around them.  Therefore, they do not adequately have the information to make an accurate decision.  Linked together with the reasons I put forth, the only way I see a new economy put into place is if the current one is of no use.  This would unite all of humanity because an economy is necessary for survival to distribute resources to all the people on the planet.  I would love it if we could transition from people just turning their minds towards a new idea, and have the new economy be put in place peacefully and without conflict, and with the approval with the vast majority of the people.  I think in the real world however, this is not possible.  Jaque Fresco is trying to show the world that his idea is practical and could work by physically building a small establishment with the various designs he has in place.  I think this is essentially going to add to the evidence that this idea could work, but I do not think it will convince the majority of the people.

I wish there was another way, but as of right now, I do not think there is.  Life tends to be harsh and not what you hoped for at times.

I hope I am wrong.  But I do believe that this system would bring a better satisfaction of life to everyone, while decreasing a substantial amount of suffering.

I am not going to hold it against you, the reader, if you disagree with what I have written.  But I hope you think it through.  I hope you keep reading.


Thoughts on Beyond Utopia by Jacque Fresco

Beyond Utopia

Beyond Utopia is an essay written by the founder of The Venus Project.  The Venus Project is an organization devoted to a direction of sociological reform.  It is a vision that for me not only makes a lot of sense, but that I support.  I have written about some of its concepts on this forum, more of which I will discuss soon.  This I believe is a revolutionary idea.  I remember I set a goal to create an ideal for the progression of humanity.  I do not think I have to do it anymore, because this new system not only sounds appealing, but it is very possible.  I can tell he put a lot of years research into this idea, because a lot of his statements coincide with what science is learning through my own personal research.  For example, I have raved about the Humanist approach and the advancement of the study of human development.  Jacque Fresco talks about how if a new paradigm would be put into place, a new moral and incentive system would be in place.  This of course, through my readings, would change the development quite literally of the physical brain.  Hereby, coinciding with the change in development of thoughts and perceptions.  In essence, there would be new people.  People that would be foreign to greed, corruption, scarcity, and exploitation.  And, from the author Erich Fromm, humanity would be free to find their essence of man.  Being able to focus on this journey, life would seem to be more fulfilled.  Instead of worshiping man-made products, humanity would cultivate their own creativity and individuality.

The economical ideology of a given society has a great impact on how humans develop.  As Jacque Fresco has written about, a monetary system is in place to divide available resources.  People that do not have the buying power to posses resources that they need, not only feel marginalized by the overall society, but are in a constant state of a flight-or-fight response.  More fear is induced to the individual because we are talking about survival.  The fight-or-flight pathways in the brain actually become more sensitized.  This means that literally the distance of the synapses of the neurons in these pathways decrease.  Meaning, it takes less stimuli to initiate a response.  This leads to increased anxiety, and changed thinking that is geared towards fearing the worst outcome.  Anxiety disorders might emerge, ranging from social anxiety to general anxiety disorders.  Plus, anxiety is a central component to depression.  Anxiety can cause depression, and depression can cause anxiety, probably due to the lack of serotonin in the brain.  This means, that if a different economy was in place, there would be a different development of the human brain.  If scarcity would be eliminated, less people would resort to crime, because it would not be necessary to survive.  There would still be crime, simply because there are known cases where criminals have a genetic make-up that makes them more prone to violent acts.  (This is known by looking at the lives of severely violent criminals.  There are cases where prisoners were born in families that did not have known previous history of violent crimes, and grew up in a nurturing, caring, and affluent homes.  Yet, they had a history of violent acts.  The hypothesis is that their genetics brought about temperamental biases that created a certain response to their environment that resulted in violent behavior.)

So, with a different moral and value system that can be developed, the vision can succeed.  There is an old view, one that I have touched upon, that says it is human nature to be selfish, greedy, and corrupt.  If there was an economical system that promoted the well being of humanity and the planet as a whole, the acts of selfishness, greed, and corruption would not be the norm.  This is backed by science.

The Resource Based Economy takes the middle man out of the equation.  Money, or currency, is removed.  And no, the economy is not centralized around bartering.  Humanity has the know how to transport the world’s resources across the globe.  The access to resources is what dictates action.  Money is just a system to disperse those resources.  If we make the assumption that all the world’s resources belong to every human being on this planet, then the transportation of these various resources could meet the demands of the world.  Technology can and automation can easily make this feasible.  To maximize the usage of these resources, and with the elimination of the monetary system, products would be designed to maximize lifetime, eliminating planned obsolescence.  And I have touched based on this concept, and how this economy would be implemented.  Satellites with GPS tracking systems could easily monitor the world’s resources in real time.  They could record the consumption of these resources, and relay it to automated systems on the ground.  To ensure the availability of these resources in the future, restrictions on resources could be made in real time to everyone around the planet.  With scarcity removed through technology, humanity could deal with the world’s resources directly.  As Jacque Fresco has stated in his essay, it is resources that are the determining factor on getting things done.  When there are recessions, there are still phones, clothes, books, TV’s, you name it, that are still in the shopping windows.  People do not have enough money to buy those resources, even though they are still present.

Without scarcity, there wouldn’t be wars.  Why have wars?  Resources are provided to everyone.  With an automated global transportation system, renewable energy (to maximize resource consumption, after all, this energy source is renewable) and anything else that humanity could put their minds to, a more fulfilled life would be experienced.  With the advent of robotics and automated systems ranging from manufacturing to hydroponic farming, an increased standard of living with minimization of physical labor would be experienced.

One criticism I have with this paper, however Jacque has done so much with authoring and leading this initiative, is it does not provide a plan on how to transition to this system from the old monetary based systems.  This maybe my one of my next intellectual endeavors.  Hopefully I do it well.

In all, I enjoyed the read.  It was written very well too.  This is a life that makes a whole lot of more sense to me, as it is more humane.  With humanity caring and being closer to mother nature, and individuals finding their essence of man because they are able to not participate in physical labor, happiness, peace, and tranquility would be accomplished.  I really hope humanity opens up their minds to this idea.  It is in my experience, that people are not willing to change their ideals, no matter the mounds of evidence you put forth to them.  And this, I fear, means that a revolution of this magnitude must be forced.  But I will consider other options, of course.

Enlightening read!  I hope my readers take time to read up on The Venus Project and actually read this essay!  And I hope it is received well, for if there is enough backing a better life could be lived by everyone.

Thoughts from Watching Pacific Rim


As the title suggests, I had the opportunity to watch Pacific Rim, a movie that I have been looking forward to watching.  The movie is essentially Hollywood tackling an anime with CG and live action.  The plot takes place in the future, where there is a portal to another dimension in the Pacific Rim.  Through this portal, large monsters are sent to devastate human cities, in hopes to annihilate the human race.  The defense to this, are huge robots that are controlled by two specially trained pilots that fight these large behemoths of alien flesh.  Not only are all aliens eliminated, but the portal is eventually destroyed.

This plot is a lot like current Japanese anime.  There are certain cities that are attacked by an alien race, and humanity fights against them using mech warriors, or a combination of mech and biological weapons.  The main characters are the pilots, and the various dynamics and struggles that takes place with the other human characters.  There is usually a love story.  Just like in Pacific Rim, there are camera shots of the pilots strapping in the robots, and creating a neural link with the machine.  The nature of this link, and limitations of this link varies from anime to anime, but basically it creates an intimate connection between pilot and robot, increasing combat effectiveness.  This movie really was an anime.

But, there is a theme that came up in this movie that I have been ranting about in this blog.

As usual, the world leaders in this movie combined their resources for the common good in order to combat these aliens.  That is the only way these robots were able to be constructed.  The necessity of survival, of the imminent apocalypse, seems to be the only possible motivating factor that can create humanity to unite themselves for the common good.  Also, these aliens that the humans are fighting, are parasites to planets for they consume resources and then move to the next planet.

The first brief point I want to make, is the fact that currently the human race is consuming the world’s resources at a rate in which the world will not be able to sustain.  Population growth, coupled with the advancements of economies around the world, is speeding the consumption of resources.  With our current view of how to handle things, and the necessity for economic growth, the only way to keep this growth continuing is to consume resources from other planets.  Does that sound familiar?  To me it is strange, that we create stories that we enjoy where the antagonist of these stories that are viewed to be evil, are sharing qualities of our current behavior as a society.  I am willing to bet that the majority of people that watch these movies do not make this connection.

I want to make things clear.  I am totally for the use of resources that are available to us.  I see no problem with mastering the material world (however I do have a problem with it being a central value to all things), but when these consumption of resources not only threatens the livelihood of the planet and inhabitants as a whole, by not only the byproducts of consumption but the depletion of these resources entirely, that is when I see our way of life being counter productive.  It is not in the best interest for the human race to deplete resources entirely, especially when various resources replenish naturally.  This is why I think we should move to a value where we consume resources at or less than the rate of replenishment.  Only then, would sustainability be guaranteed.  This statement would force humanity to really think and prioritize how they will use the various resources that are available to them.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  It would also force humanity to design technology to last as long as possible, and when repair is needed, to be the most resource efficient as possible.  This would have great implications.  For one, the amount of waste that is being disposed of on a continual basis would decrease, allowing for more input per unit of resource.  The bottom line is this would allow for more things to be produced while decreasing the pollution to the environment.

But why is it that humanity has to be threatened with annihilation that we unite?  Is it because the necessity of survival benefits individual interests and freedoms, which is perceived to be the underlying factor that drives humanity to act?  Can humanity unite for a cause, and work for the common good when conditions other than survival are present?  Could a vision exist where people would work for the common good while humanity is in a state of peace and tranquility (for the most part)?

Why do people believe that working for the common good is not possible?

I have some thoughts on this question, but I am sure I will not address all statements.  But the obvious arguments to me would be the record of communism, and that working for the common good is not in our human nature.

I am not an expert on what communism is or how it collapsed.  Although it is something that I think I need to read more about, I do not believe that this philosophy is not the only possible philosophy out there on how to manage the disbursement of resources and wealth.  Also, could different policies been in place to prevent the collapse of the government while still maintaining communism?  I just don’t know.  But these possibilities provide a point that I think people give up on the notion to work for the common good of man too early, because there might be other possible philosophies that have not been authored or attracted the mainstream, and to the possibility that different regulations could of been in place.

I also think that self-gratification and maximization is our human nature is entirely false.  There is mounds of evidence to suggest that humans can develop in an infinite amount of ways.  Temperamental biases (biology), culture, and historic era shape the development of the human mind.  Scientists have done longitudinal studies on infants from various cultures, ranging from the Western cultures to remote villages around the world.  The extreme variety on how these minds develop suggests that the human mind can is completely malleable.  Consider the United States.  When individuals were being stripped of their freedom, they created a national vision that centers around the maximization of individual freedom.  It makes sense.  It was a vision that so many people followed and were passionate about, many people lost their lives for the establishment of this nation.  But to me this is evidence of a few things.  For one, that society can change and unite for a singular cause.  Secondly, that values can change.  I am not a historical buff, but I am sure there were postulates and values in England that were vastly different from the eventual birth of the United States.  Look at different civilizations throughout the history of the world.  Things have constantly evolved, resulting in vastly different people.

This is evidence to the idea that once a civilization or nation state is established, the culture that is produced will alter the development of human individuals.  It is very possible for people to work for the common good, for the motivation for honor.  It is possible for humanity to value the pursuit of knowledge, peace, mastery, and the like over material gratification and consumerism.  I believe if a proposition were introduced and refined over time, and enough support was behind this philosophy, human behavior could change in whichever kind of way.  I think the science of human development strongly supports this claim.

I’m sorry, I am saying the same things again.  I need to stop.  But I really think it is possible for humanity to work for the common good without a comet, or an alien race working towards the extinction of the human race.  I think this could greatly benefit the lives of many people on this planet.  And I am wondering what could be done to make this vision into a reality.  I think the obvious part would be to collaborate with people across the globe on a vision that would benefit the lives of everyone.  What would have to be done in order to make this vision a reality, a vision that is supported by people across the globe?  Secondly, I think a leader has to step up to the plate.  I think this is necessary to guide the people into a direction and due course that shares this vision.

I’m thinking.  One day, I might start a website and forum, collaborating with people across the internet to determine what this could be.

This post was all over the place.  But I am writing what is coming from my mind and my heart.  Maybe one day I will post formal essays, but that is at a later time.

Thanks for reading.

Debt as Central Tool for Control —> Using our Money

So I wanted to apologize right off the bat.  First, the title to this post is pretty pathetic but I am too eager to get started.  Second, I am somewhat weary for posting more personal material on this blog, as it is not consistent with the rest of the material.  So far, I have had positive and negative responses, so maybe I will do it again in the future.  Now onto the rest of this post.

I am starting to read an entire 700 page book solely about The Fed.  I can’t wait to get into it further, because already it is an eye opening experience and I have only read the introduction.  But I am starting to piece together a more complete picture as to how banks and the central bank work, and how asinine the amount of wealth banks accrue.  To recap a little bit (you can find a more complete explanation here) banks bet on the fact that not everybody are going to withdraw all of their money at one time.  Therefore, they set aside a fraction of their total sum of money to satisfy demand, while they use the rest for loans.  I didn’t realize, that this means the loans that we owe to the banks is really the money of the consumers.  Money is literally borrowed from people to issue loans out to the people, where money is literally created to establish more power for the banks, control over the people to force them to work, and keeps control of inflation by removing money from the overall money supply because money in possession of the banks is not being circulated.  Thanks to this book I am reading, I also realized that when Modern Money Mechanics (a document published by banks explaining how banks work) stated that money from smaller banks send money to The Fed, they are actually paying for the FDIC insurance on accounts larger than $250,000.  The Fed then repeats the process.  Taking a fraction of all that money to satisfy the withdraw demands from banks, they use the remaining sum to accrue more wealth continually.  The banks are able to invest money they make from interest, because it is money that they created.  Anything from trading currency to stocks and bonds, and derivatives are fair game (banks also pay really smart people to fabricate more financial instruments, or in other words, methods to make more money).

Money is created from thin air because the banks are collecting cash flow from the continual money flow that is being injected into the economy.  Money has to be continually put back into the economy (either by printing or in other words from The Fed) to satisfy overall demand of money.  However, not too much money should be released because this affects the value of money, obviously.  Bottom line, The Fed can create money on an electric spreadsheet because it is the central bank to the United States.

The first obvious implication to this is the debt that is put on the shoulders on the public from money of the public, is to motivate or force people to work.  This is necessary to ensure a higher percent of the population contribute to the economy, which in turn increases standard of living, power, and control.  This is probably necessary to be honest, but in a progressive view of society, does not have to be required.  I know that was a drastic transition, but it is a message that I want to get through.

With the robotic revolution within our grasp, which was made possible by our current system, we as a human race can eventually rid the planet of a vast percentage of physical labor.  Everything from manufacturing to having a robot in a personal home.  We could even create robots to repair robots.  This would be advantageous to humanity, for we could focus on other endeavors other than tasks that require minimal intellectual effort.  This would minimize the demand for a currency.  However, scarce resources still have to be distributed.  I have an idea on how that would work (Resource Based Economy).  It must be noted, that the banks in control would not want this to happen, as they lust for power over the entire globe.

Thanks to the ideas of Erich Fromm (here) and Freud (here), a different view of society would result in different expressions of behavior.  I believe that if group-gratification is valued, it would take priority over the self, because the group can just as well be a tool of survival.  I believe that genes determine how we react to our environment; the environment being the most influential component to our development.

I know this is a recap of previous messages, but the slight and subtle clearer vision of how our banking system works is so enlightening to me that I must write it down, even if that entails writing most of it down again.  I firmly believe and am hopeful, that humanity will see past our current system, and create a life of a more humane and easy coexistence.

Humanity’s, or this Nation’s, Common Goal

“Egypt didn’t build the pyramids, the pyramids built Egypt.”  -Unknown

I bring this up, because I think taking Egypt’s strategy of having a common societal goal would not only unite humanity for a common good, but would force humanity to progress in ways that would otherwise not be possible if we did not have this goal to begin with.  I am not sure what that goal would be, but I do not think humanity would follow it completely unless it was utterly necessary.  Simply because self-gratification brings forth more pleasure than group-gratification.  This means that if the common goal satisfied the needs of the individual first and then the group, the goal would be feasible.  And necessity definitely satisfies the conditions of self-gratification.

What brought this idea was a little documentary that I watched on the National Geographic Channel.  It was a thought experiment.  If scientists detected an apocalyptic asteroid heading towards a collision course to Earth, what would the world do?  What baffled me was the required cooperation of the world essentially.  What could be accomplished if the world could cooperate on a basic level now, when there is no asteroid heading for the Earth?  I’m thinking the options would be endless.

What I would love to see would be space exploration and the colonization of Mars.  Of course, there are probably other more necessary tasks that need to be done, but it is still fun to fantasize.  But that will be a necessity relatively soon.  As the population of the planet continually increase, the resources of the planet will not be sufficient for the said population.  So, people are going to have to migrate to another planet, and some ideological barriers are going to have to be broken (reproduction control) unless we want large amounts of people to die a suffering death.  Who knows what will happen.  Or we build farms and residences in the sky.  That also makes sense.

What else could be the goal?  One goal that would bring good fortune to economies around the world would be connecting the world by more efficient means.  Maglev trains!  These trains travel with electromagnetic propulsion and not chemical, and can reach hundreds of miles per hour.  I read a statistic, that if there was a maglev train network in place, someone from New York could go on a one hour lunch break to Beijing and back to each Chinese food.  Of course, these networks wouldn’t just be used for buying food.  Trade routes would dramatically be affected, increasing efficiency and most likely economic growth.

I honestly starting to think economic growth is going to be the deciding factor.  What else could the world accomplish that would increase the standard of living for all?  Let’s not forget humanitarian.  Would ending hunger across the globe be something society would be willing to tackle?  Probably not, because that costs money and doesn’t really make money.  But again, it is nice to think about.

If the reader wants, reply with some ideas of your own.  What common goal that would unite our nation, or our globe, would you like to see enacted?

If I had all the money in the world, I would probably launch a website asking this question, sort of like a survey, and see what gets mentioned the most.  Who knows, maybe it would start something great.

Video Game Addiction


I’m trying to go asleep around midnight, and my neighbors are setting off ridiculous amounts of extremely loud fireworks.  So I figure I would write on my blog, simply because I haven’t written on it for a little while it seems.  The topic I’d like to talk about, is video game addiction.

I have it pretty bad.  I pretty much fit all the known symptoms, ranging from irritability if I am not playing games to not being able to focus on other activities.  This is probably due to the intense stimulation I feel (another symptom) playing games compared to other activities, which makes me not want to really spend energy on whatever task it may be.  I’ve played video games hardcore since middle school, which means I’ve been playing them for about 15 years.  I love video games with a passion that is so intense I cannot describe.  It isn’t just the complete escape, rather the extremely quick decisions and strategizing that has to be made successfully.  The artistic appeal to plots, visuals, and not to mention great sound effects (which I really think ties a good game together) adds to the constant intense stimulation that I feel.

I would have to say though that it has definitely interfered with my goals in life.  I feel these goals would allow me to reach my full potential, while video games is constant mental masturbation that doesn’t really get me anywhere.  But I can’t stop.  The love for them is really intense, to the point that I would not spend my time furthering my education and potential for a life of constant video game playing.

I’ve tried putting time limits on the gaming but it never works.  So if I need to reduce the game time, I pretty much have to stop it all together.  Which is going to be insanely difficult.  The only way I see getting off of it would be to go to some kind of rehab (which gaming addiction rehab from what I gather is rarely in this country) or to somehow force myself to quit, by somehow physically taking away my computer.  I know so much about computers I can’t really put policies in place to prevent me from gaming, because I could just reverse them.  So I’m thinking about ways I can accomplish this.

But I’m torn.  I don’t want to quit but then I do.  But part of the problem is real life isn’t nearly as stimulating as video games.  So I am in this constant limbo on what to do.

Moral of the story:  If you have kids, really enforce a limit to video game playing when they are young.  My parents kind of let me play a ridiculous amounts of games when I was a child, which started the addiction.  Teaching children to balance their life accordingly is a skill set that will bring them a better quality of life.  And, video game addiction is real.  It can happen, and it can be a consequence of other video games besides the infamous World of Warcraft.

Thanks for reading.