The Possible Decrease of Poverty

There are many solutions to a problem.  It just it seems to me that my idea seems sound, not just by me being biased that it is me, but I see the evidence of it around me where I live.  Poverty is a problem, and when people are faced with survival, they will break the law in order to get the things they need in order to survive.  This is not the case with all crime, but a large portion, it is the case.  I firmly believe that with the money that this country has, there should absolutely be no person living on the streets.  Not only should one consider the entire budget of The United States, but consider as well the printing power that this country has.  People don’t like the idea of paying for someone else to live; they would rather have their tax money go towards other things, especially considering how little reading people do on poverty.  People figure that you can just take things into your own hands, and just get out of poverty.  Since the majority of people in poverty stay in poverty, they are perceived to deserve to be there because they do not have the ability to get out.  The whole premise of our economy, our philosophy of it, is that people with more ability should be paid more.  So if people don’t have the ability to get out of poverty, then they should stay there.

But I just argue it is the decent thing to do, and we have the money to do it.  People don’t trust the government, as they should, but I think this would be a key point to use the power of the government.  Church’s do wonderful work, but they don’t have the capital to do what I am proposing needs to be done.  Private charities I just do not trust for the life of me.  The profit incentive is just too much with those organizations, and exploit their message to make more money for themselves at the expense of the people they were paid to help.  This is why I think the government is the only entity that can really pull this off on a national level.

I have found a basic relationship where I live.  There are extremes in income levels throughout the city and county.  What I have found, is that the neighborhoods seem to be in conditions accordance with different schools, and the better the schools create better neighborhoods.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.  Meaning, both entities influence one another in either a positive or negative way.  Considering that most schools, not all, are funded by property taxes, it makes sense that better schools create better neighborhoods and vise versa.  However, it is in my belief, that with this system comes a feedback loop in either the positive or negative way.

In regards to a positive feedback loop, good academic performance creates good test scores, good funding, and good advertisement for the school.  It puts the district or neighborhood in demand.  Raising prices, which increases funding for the school.  There is even a district where I live, that actually volunteered to raise prices for the school district.  The community recognizes the strength of education, and wants good education for their families.

On the negative side of things, poor test scores or academic performance, lowers the demand of the district in general.  This decreases the price of the real estate in the area.  With less money being funded to the schools, cuts have to be made, making learning conditions worse for the students, increasing the likelihood of poor test scores.  This makes property values go down, which further impacts the school.

There are other variables that impact property values.  The big one for me that comes to mind is crime.  The problem is crime would be alleviated if people were more educated, because they would decrease some if not most of poverty, by creating people that can land higher paying jobs, which again would decrease crime.  It’s all interconnected.

In short, by increasing the quality of education in all areas, people would be prepared to not only make better decisions, but to go to college, get a degree, and land a higher paying job.  This would create better communities to be apart of.

What is this idea?

It’s really basic.  I think what makes the most sense, if you the reader, were to read my posts on government debt, to print the money required to fund schools in need, and schools that are the center of poverty.  The funds would initially be used to modernize the facilities of the school.  Good electrical, plumping, good gyms, technological science labs, I mean the works.  There would also be money allocated, to hire better quality teachers.  Hopefully there would be enough funds available, to try and keep class size low.  With better facilities, and better teaching staff, it is up to the staff to provide favorable test scores.  I will note, that I think it would be better to teach multiple subjects, rather than just a test.  If you were to teach the kids well, the ACT or SAT would be just another test to study for.  To take the entire year to teach this test, you rob the student’s potential of learning important aspects of our world and society.

Tax payers are going to want the money to be paid back.  Essentially the school should be run like a business.  If a teacher is under performing, make warnings, but then don’t be afraid to fire.  All expenses, including the salaries of administration, should be termed “expenses.”  The profits are then sent back to the government to be paid back in full over time.  The incentive to pay back the government at a decent rate, is to have that money paid back into the school.  Once the government is paid back, (yes there will be instances where schools will fail and should be learned from) the government can take a database of statistics on the program, and ultimately can be used to learn how to attack the issue of poverty further.

It’s a really basic idea, founded upon a basic relationship I have found in my community.  At the very least, I would hope this idea could start a conversation on how to infuse government capital into education.  We spend trillions of dollars for wars, yet we refuse to educate our own people.  And honestly, I think that it is intentional.  As a Rockefellar was caught saying, “I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.”

The only thing we can really do, is express our voice to the people in power.  Honestly, I have lost hope there, but I am going to write to my representatives about this issue.  Ultimately I think what gets a voice in Washington is money, but at least I will have the ease of mind knowing I did what I could to bring an idea that I have to fruition for America.


The Revolutionary Theme in Film

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

There are two movies that I have recently watched, and it has been awhile since I have enjoyed movies.  The first movie, is The Hunger Games:  Mockingjay Part 1 and then Exodus Gods and Kings.  And really, the main theme that I keep seeing in these movies is some sort of revolution.  Exodus has been redone by Hollywood I don’t know how many times, and it makes me wonder why they focus on that one story so much.  What my theory is, is it has to do with revolution.  Mazerunner was another example.  The game essentially forced these kids to risk their lives to exit the maze, a sense of rebellion/revolution.  I want to explore as to why this theme keeps recurring throughout movies over the years.

First, since the first movies of this kind have been successful, it is a recipe to be repeated by Hollywood to maximize their profits.  But why do we like them?  We like to see the oppressed to be free of their bondage.  All throughout human history, there have been revolutions because living conditions were so poor, or their treatment was so unjust, there had to be something done.  However, with the repetition that this movie theme is used, it makes me wonder, is there another purpose to this?  When the revolution is successfully fulfilled, there is a better life for many.  Seeing that moment, feels good, and maybe why these movies are so successful.  However, I think the action of putting revolutions on the big screen, undermines actual revolution.  What I mean is, when people watch something fictional on the big screen, and see the loss of life and risk involved, mixed with current contentment in their lives, people don’t even think about enacting a new government forcefully.  When I say contentment, is our way of life is decent enough to not risk for many, even though the quality of life for everyone could greatly improve if our government was forcefully abolished.  So since we have large amounts of things to consume, and we are programmed to consume at a young age, we don’t think about the possibilities of other lives.

And just as fictional stories show, there is risk involved, including one’s life.

I suppose peoples’ standards of living are at the point they aren’t willing to risk their lives for the possible betterment of humanity.  After all, things in theory may end up being practiced completely differently.  But I see so many problems with our economy, our government, and our way of life.  I suppose my life right now is fine.  I get to watch movies, play video games, listen to an insane amount of music, and have libraries full of databases and books.  However, as one example of so many I could list, The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a verdict that basically says if the owner of the property is not present, cops have the legal authority to search the property.  That basically undermines the fourth amendment.  I’m saying this, because ever so slightly, our Constitution is degrading.  We as a people revere it so much, but are not educated about it.  And our way of life is moving further and further from the intentions of our forefathers, allowing greed and apathy to consume our population.

And these movies?  In a way I think it is a defense for the establishment towards the idea of the masses revolting over what is going on.  Because the people in power, and the people making all the money, feel it too.  They dehumanize, just like any moment in history, people making less money than them, to justify their exploitation.  But they know it isn’t right.  There was a UN study done on social stratification, and it found that countries with the most social stratification had the least quality of health among all classes of that population.  When Donald Trump sees a homeless man, two things occur.  There is a pyschosocial stress experienced between the homeless man and Donald Trump.  This stress, leads to failing health.  Donald Trump, to deal with the psychosocial stress, dehumanizes the homeless man.  The homeless man, probably feels the stigma associated with being homeless, and feels worse about themselves when they see affluence.  Both parties experience stress, and both parties have less health because of it.

I also see these movies as an expression of a fantasy.  I think it in a way, because it is enjoyable to all of us, we desire a better life.  It speaks to us.  But because it is on the big screen, it is undermined.  “Because it is a movie.”  Nevertheless, I feel there is a desire in people for a better life.  For example, what the band MGMT feels.

They are giving up on life, because they don’t want to work the 9-5 life.  They don’t feel like they are living if they live that life.

So will America keep consuming movies about revolutions, or will they one day do something about the state of this country?  Time will tell.

I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.  -John D Rockefeller


Further Evidence of the Failure of the Public School System

I just recently read a short article in Scientific American that is making me feel more concerned about the state of our educational system.  A venture capitalist wrote the article, and he focuses on educational projects for the firm.  Essentially, data is showing more and more immigrants are getting higher percentage of bachelors, masters, and doctorates.  In many cases these foreign students fly back to their home country, because there is better opportunity for them there than in the states.  First, the private sector is not hiring, and if they are, a masters will lead the life most are looking for.  The amount of people with college degrees working a minimum wage job has increased, and the average amount of money one can earn with a college degree has decreased.  It seems that if a person commits to going to college, they must commit to getting a masters.  So why are all these foreign students consuming a larger portion of the degree pie?  It is simple.  The public school system of the United States are not preparing students for college level work.  Considering the numbers involved, it is apparent that it is a systemic failure rather than the students’.  Sure there are students that put their failure in their own hands, but the drastic changes in the numbers can allow for the assumption that there are systemic issues at play.

There are multiple ways in which we could reform our education.  A TED talk that I will never forget, talked about the fundamental changes we should make towards education.  The first that comes to mind was recognizing how a certain child learns.  Do they learn best in a group, or by themselves?  If the child interacts in a group, how big of a group does the child learn best?  Teachers should be tailored and trained to identify, and it may just require asking some questions, on how the child responded to a given activity.  Eventually, activities would be tailored to how the children learn best.  I would of been the loner.  I would of loved to be able to pick from a collection of books which one to read, and then to just sit at a desk and read.  When it came to science and math, they were my strong suits but I needed a teacher to explain key concepts that other ideas were founded upon.  Excellent teachers are priceless, and I think we should put into place incentives for teachers to have their students perform better on exams.  If their students are performing well, then they systematically get a raise in pay.  If the performance of students are declining over time, then pay should be removed.  This idea was expressed in the Washington D.C. city schools, and the teacher lobby voted against it.  A lot of the teachers don’t teach anything if at all, while students are in the back smoking crack or weed.  The teachers are there to earn money and do nothing, while the students burn their time with drugs and gangs.

Those schools we need to help the most.  Their community doesn’t have the tax revenue to provide for good community schools.  And, where there is bad schools, there is bad neighborhoods and crime.  Simply, if a student drops out or figures there is no point into trying in school because their school performs so poorly, then they will resort to living on the streets.  And in order to survive, people turn to crime.  It is a vicious cycle.  The poor performing schools don’t have the financial resources to improve their facilities and faculty, and more students end their educational journey.  They don’t work a high paying job.  So therefore there isn’t substantial tax money to help the school out.  And so people continue getting in trouble and populate our prison systems.  It costs about $44,000 a year to sustain an inmate.  I think it is money worth spending to decrease the amount of people we have to sustain at a given time in the prison system.  That is a solid investment.  But that means helping some very poor people.  And frankly many American’s don’t like it, especially after the Welfare system.  The Welfare system was a fluke, but that just means that methodology didn’t work.  I firmly believe there are solutions out there that would benefit the poorest of schools into making them a thriving institution.  We would have to monitor the schools like an investment, and figure out where more money should be spent or saved.  There should be reforms on how teachers get paid, as well as administrators.  Schools should embrace technology and promote the usage of it.  Finally, schools should have a set plan to eventually seeing their students reach the goal of college and beyond.

Recently there has been a new curriculum pushed to some public schools across the country for grades K-12.  It provides a full plan on how to get students ready for the college scene.  I honestly think there should be a core curriculum required by all schools to follow, so that the public education system is in touch with higher education.  There is a danger to this methodology however.  Putting forth federal regulations on what people should know – if under the wrong hands – will create an educational system that is used as a barrier to revolution of an oppressive government.  Honestly though, I find no alternative in getting our schools out of such a dire spot.  I think tax money needs to be poured into education with nation wide reform.  I think better schools would be a stepping stone to ridding this country of poverty.  With a decrease in poverty, there would be a decrease in crime, which is money saved for everyone on many levels.  Plus, there would be more tax paying citizens, providing funds to not only the government but consuming goods and services.

Currently Washington is battling healthcare.  That is a battle that needs to be fought.  But I hope after things stabilize a leader will take aim for education.  We should be investing in ourselves, not dishing out our knowledge to other countries.  Better education not only produces revenue, but decreases the costs of crime and dependency.  Finally, it fights poverty.  It is just a humane thing to do to try and deter this problem of poverty.  The current welfare system doesn’t work.  We all know this, and we all should learn from it.  But that doesn’t mean we should give up!  If we could provide transitional housing for people on the streets to either further educate/certify themselves, or for aid in finding work, we should provide it.  It is a good thing to do for a fellow human being, and it benefits society as a whole.

With that said, it is apparent that our educational system is failing us.  I just hope enough people care to reform our public school system.

Weep for Day by Indrapramit Das

I decided to venture out of my comfort zone, and read a sci-fi short story.  I did so because I don’t have the brain muscle right now to read my next book, and I still want to improve my writing.  I have recently purchased a membership on a writing website and there is so much that I find myself wanting to write.  After my previous post, one of the things I want to try for the first time is write a short story based off some of the ideas of Enslaved:  Odyssey to the West .  After reading this story, I have so much to learn, and I even got a brand new idea!  But I won’t bore you, my blog readers, with a detail review of the work.  I wanted to talk about some of the messages that was portrayed in this story.

One of the core concepts is the idea of ally and enemy.  Basically, the person that feels righteous for their war is fighting their enemy, and the organization opposed of this stance, their enemy is the righteous one.  I know that maybe confusing, and I know that maybe obvious.  But I think it has huge implications with the war on terror.

Simply, as I understand Jihadism, the United States is evil.  And, they must use force to abolish us.  Muslim extremists is just one interpretation of the Islam religion.  But I feel this war will never end.  Considering that this war is based upon religious interpretation, as well as the fact that there are deaths from both sides, we are undoubtedly going to fuel the fire by killing militants and civilians.  The only way to really resolve this conflict, which maybe way too late, is to reason and hopefully make compromises from both sides.  If we can stop the motivation by ideology, we can ensure that the war could stop.

What I am trying to say, is extinguishing the opposition is never the right strategy.  Put simply, during the killing of human beings, other human beings who witness the killing will want to rise and take their place.  Killing doesn’t solve anything, and it only brings more heartfelt pain to both sides.  It is true that Al-Qaeda struck first on 9/11, and that day should never be forgotten.  But I would also argue, that the United States are doing practices around the world that set them up for an attack out of anger.  I would advise watching Confessions of an Economic Hitman.  Considering our ways of lives of the west, and the ways of lives of others, it is true that some responsibility bears on them, but I would argue, on us as well.  By forcing countries to sell their resources below market price to the western corpocracy, we have milked areas dry for our way of life.  It was just a matter of time before the US was attacked in my opinion.

And, since killing is never going to solve the dilemma because more people are going to see America as their enemy, this war on terror is never going to end.  Which I believe, is exactly what the rich and powerful want.  They want a war that never ends, because it is a good stimulant to the economy.  War is good business.  I do believe that capitalism has gotten that evil and greedy.  I believe people want people to die so their pockets get more full.  And to me, it is sick.  This decay of morals is more evidence that we are in the age of decadence.

I know this maybe hard to read.  I know this may offend.  But I hope this forces you, the reader, to examine what you think is going on with this “War on Terror.”  Will it ever truly end?

Another message that this great short story hit home is that knowledge is the better solution to conflict.  The main character was understanding the enemy of her race, and was realizing that her race were purging their enemy; their enemy is just trying to survive.

Again, this hatred against The United States is other peoples’ way of trying to survive.  Their resources are too scarce or communities are too violent, and in some areas, we directly affect that.

But again, we have to show empathy to our enemy, and use knowledge from their vantage point to be able to solve our differences.  They must be willing to reason too, and be willing to show empathy as well.  I am saddened to think that this will only happen until so many people have died, that it forces a side to come to a resolution out of desperation.  And, a central requirement for the negotiations to work, is that both sides show humility.  When both sides acknowledge that they killed many people, and they are sorry, can a resolution take fruit.

But this is hard.  Our enemies hate us on an ideological level, and we are reinforcing that by killing brothers and innocents.  I seriously think the method of making radical Islam extinct is flawed, and I think our leaders knew this and wanted to fight this for their money and power.  I’m sorry of this is hard to hear or I offend, I am just sharing what I am thinking after reading that story, and I hope this post will make you think as well.

Hyperinflation Might Happen in the Near Future (Theory)

The Fed has been buying treasury bonds at an exceeding rate.  The national debt is a testimony to this.  I do not think the printing of money to pay off this debt contributes to inflation simply because the money is being sent to the banking sector.  However, when the financial crisis hit in 2008 the government had to infuse 780 billion dollars into the economy to keep the system from failing.  This increase in the money supply results in prices to increase because there is more available money to buy things.  The increase in prices slows the rate of expenditure for some people, because their income remains stagnate.  This decrease of currency velocity is inflationary in nature because in order for businesses to get the same amount of profit with less transactions, they must increase their prices.  In order to battle this inflation, The Fed has to increase interest rates.  Interest rates contract the money supply, because money is taken out from the public sector into the banking sector.  This does two things.  First, in theory, banks hope to obtain more money because people need loans to purchase certain things.  With this extra money, more money will eventually be sent to The Fed, whereby The Fed will be able to purchase treasury bonds at an inflationary rate (which is required in theory).  It also removes available income to the people who purchase those loans.  With less income, prices will rise because there will be less transactions.  Eventually however, in theory, businesses will be forced to lower prices to obtain more income.  Thus, the decrease of prices is due to higher interest rates.  This may or may not happen, but The Fed has to do this to try and contract the supply as much as they can, otherwise the shift of the extra money to the more “fortunate” from the increase in prices will alienate people who do not have the money to purchase goods or services.

The problem is a good percentage of people are not going to be able to purchase loans with an increase in interest rates as well as inflationary prices.  This means money will not be contracted from the overall money supply.  The added supply of money is inevitably going to initially shift money to businesses, while average workers won’t see their wages changed.  In order to keep the same or more profits, prices rise to combat slow transaction velocity.  Again, this shift of money requires a more percentage of people to not buy certain things, while more and more people can’t compete with the prices.  Eventually the value of money is going to be completely shifted to a select portion of the economy.  Less and less people are going to be able to deal with such high prices.  Eventually confidence in the currency is lost; the economy collapses.

This is the road that I think our future brings.  I think there are solutions to this problem:

  1. Enforce a regulation that transfers money from solvent companies to their employees.
  2. Reduce the cost of certain sectors of the economy that correlate to a large portion of average Americans’ debt (healthcare, education, etc.).
  3. Reform education.
  4. Tax the rich.

Forcing companies to invest back into their workforce will allow average workers to have more money to spend, which is a core problem to this debacle of money supply, interest rates, and transaction velocity.

The same concept applies to reducing debt.  This will create more money which will not only allow the purchase of loans with higher interest rates, but will speed the velocity of transactions which combats inflation.

If we can improve the quality and efficiency of education, more people will be able to work higher paying jobs, which thus allows for more loans to be purchased in combination with goods and services.

Putting ideology aside, taxing the rich is an effective way to shift the money supply back to the other classes, because the expenditure of more government aid gives people more money to purchase things, including loans.


I think a core problem with how Washington works is they are not transparent with not only the American people, but with the representatives themselves.  I think this mostly has to do with the idea that more knowledge is power.  If we put the situation on paper and out there, I think people would be willing to compromise with the other side in order to keep the system from collapsing.  Of course, if people knew the complete story there could be an uprising as I have stated before in previous posts.  Plus the schism of Congress is exactly what happens in The Age of Decadence; we are scheduled to collapse soon and the current state of the economy is evidence of this.  Honestly I am scared.  The uncertainty of what will happen is frightening.  However this is what I want.  This fear is what is required for drastic change for humanity.  In every case that I know in history, drastic change brings about fear in peoples’ lives.  I hope that one day humanity will learn the lessons of The Fate of Empires, and try to stop the cycle of empire death.  I hope humanity will progress to an economical system that removes money, the true reason for the decline of empires.

So now that I think about it, I am excited.  Who knows, maybe the people in power can figure things out to keep the boat from sinking.  But I am still hopeful.  I am hopeful that a new system will be put into place that is more humane and reduces the suffering of everyone.



Space Based Solar Power is Entirely Feasible

I am going to quote a forum post on this topic.  It does a good job summarizing what I have found out and my thoughts on the issue.  In it I was wondering how the government program of the Space Based Solar Network could be transferred to the private sector.


I have been ranting about this engineering idea recently because frankly it is a great idea. During the 70’s I believe engineers first conceptualized the Space Based Solar Network. What is exciting is it is completely feasible, and I just recently read a business plan on a design for such a network. It laid out the finances quite nicely, and with a safety net of double the required budget, the entire project would cost around 200 billion dollars.

First let me say this could solve our energy problem completely. With the expansion of developing countries like India and China, the world is projected to consume about 50TW (terawatts) of power. A Space Based Solar Network (SBSN) could provide up to 155TW of power. It could satisfy an expansion of energy consumption three times over! Plus, it could provide power at half the cost of fossil fuels at about 1-2 cents/kWh. This really is a no brainer economically because we could easily provide power demand across the world at a fraction of the cost.

Now the project wouldn’t have to be paid for all at once. In a span of about 20 years, we would have to front 10 billion dollars. (Consider the current Depart of Defense budget is about 526 billion) If we wanted to put the SBSN in half the time we would have to double the money at 20 billion which is completely possible. Of course, the better option would be the private sector building this project. This is exponentially more difficult but it is still feasible in the future. The cost will continually decrease while economic growth (hopefully) would eventually make this project feasible. However, if the government were to get involved directly this project could be enacted now. What I think would be the best option would to have the government build the SBSN and then transfer the network to private companies. Notice companies, not company. This would promote competition which would in theory increase the efficiency of the network. What is beautiful about the NASA design is that it is completely compartmentalized. Meaning not only is it easy to repair and construct, but you can completely scale the project to add more power if necessary. I am trying to work out a procedure to hand over network to the private sector. This is where I am open to ideas.

My initial idea doesn’t cut the bill, but I haven’t come up with any other way. We could divide the network into X amount of shares. The cost of the shares equal a little more than the total cost of the entire network so the government gets a profit. Multiple organizations in theory would purchase shares. The percentages of the entire share pool will correlate ownership to the network. This is the initial ownership of the network to the private sector.

This is so feasible it isn’t even funny. Keep in mind that the way the money flow works, is as long as banks are issuing out loans The Fed can loan money to the government at an inflationary rate. This is why every single department has a growth of funds per year. There has to be, because the expenditure of money through government programs expands the overall money supply which is absolutely necessary for economic growth. I honestly don’t have the numbers in front of me, but this entire project could be paid for outright by government deficit spending. The overall government debt does not matter, because if there was no debt there would be no money in the economy. If the government were to pay back The Fed, they are essentially destroying that money because it is going back to the banking sector.

Honestly, this is amazing. I can’t believe it. I am ranting about this because I am too excited about the possibilities. Here is the business plan that I read:

Henson, Keith H. “Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power.” n.pag. Academic OneFile. Database. 4 Sep 2013.

Not to mention this would probably create jobs.

Do you guys have any other ideas on the transition of the network from the government to the private sector? What do you guys think of this idea?

This to me is extremely exciting.  We could solve our energy issues!  But knowing our system the fossil fuel companies and their lobbying interests will halt this program from launching.  This is another prime example of the failure of our system.  But I have hope that if enough people learn of this they will enact change relatively soon.  The world energy problem solved would free humanity to pursue other projects that will increase our quality of life.  I really hope this goes through.  I am definitely writing to my representatives in congress.

The Current State of Renewable Energy

Delucchi, Mark A., and Mark Z. Jacobson. "Meeting the World's Energy Needs Entirely with Wind, Water, and Solar Power." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013): 30-40. Academic ONEFile Elite. Database. 28 Aug 2013.

This report confirms and reinforces my stance on renewable energy.  In my educated opinion there is absolutely no reason to not transition to renewable energy besides political and social reasons.  Obviously big interests do not want the transition to renewable energy because there is a lot of money to be made if there was still a demand for fossil fuel energy.  There is also a false belief that renewable energy with current standards would not be able to satisfy energy demands, while the cost to install and maintain such technology would be more expensive compared to currently installed systems.  There is no economical reason why we should not transition.  Regardless of the climate change debate (which there is none in my opinion), by switching our primary energy grid to renewables we could save fossil fuel resources for other uses.  The cost per watt of energy would be about half the cost of our current grid due to the low maintenance cost of this grid.  Wind, water, and solar power would not only satisfy current demand but access power would be generated.  This could be stored in a multitude of ways including the hydrolysis of water.  The remaining hydrogen could be used as fuel for other technologies, such as transportation systems.  The byproduct of heating hydrogen is only water vapor.

There is also another method being developed and that is space solar energy.  As I presently understand it, satellites in space capture the sun’s energy and then relay that energy to power stations on Earth.  This method by itself could completely satisfy energy demands of the planet.

With all of these ideas on renewable energy and the present trend of increased efficiencies of energy consuming items, we could provide energy to everyone at a fraction of the cost with zero planetary emissions.  The money is there.  The report talks about different incentives the government can put into place to promote the development of renewable energy.  Also, past human accomplishments like the space program in the 60’s, the interstate highway system in the 50’s, and insane production during World War II shows that it is easily possible for America to install a renewable power grid that is completely sustainable.  This could bypass risks of nuclear methods while providing energy at a fraction of the cost.  But false public perception coupled with power financial interests keeps Washington from doing extensive work on this plan.  Once again, it is apparent to me how lobbying has undermined the entire system.  However nothing is done about it.  Personally I have written to my representatives in Congress, but I do not think any action would be taken unless there is a huge public backing.  And once again I feel contentment with current life hinders people from caring and creating a better life for everyone.  This is the purpose of entertainment.

This to me is another failure of our system.  This is why I am so passionate about The Resource Based Economy.  There would be no bribery of governments simply because there is no money to deal with.  Resources would be allocated to sustain city states ranging from renewable energy to completely automated hydroponic farms.  Poverty would be eliminated reducing crime and various human aliments.  But this religious backing of how things are not only does not make sense, but hinders the possibilities of humanity.  Financial reasons must be the underlying factor of why change isn’t put into place.  This is why I think the collapse of our nation’s currency and thus economy would only bring the change that would clearly benefit all of humanity.

And as history has shown, the transition to renewables will only be fully pursued if we are running out of carbon based fuels.  It will probably be too late.  Feedback warming would get worse that inevitably results in a drastic dip in temperature.

But I guess making money is more important.

Gun Control, and Feeling Uncomfortable

I must say, I feel pretty uncomfortable when it comes to this issue.  It is one of those very strong issues, meaning people are very strong on both sides.  And well, for the longest time I didn’t really know how I stood on the issue.  Then I came to a conclusion, and then I just came to a realization that is inspiring me to write about it.

What I eventually concluded was that there should be the right to bear arms simply because there has to be a means for the people to overthrow a repressive government.  Even though there is senseless violence, I still think it is vital for the people to have this avenue.  I do think there will be violent offenders regardless of what is out there, but guns in my opinion makes the difficulty of killing not existent.  As we see, since so many people have access to guns it is pretty easy for anybody to get their hands on it.  And so, I was willing to have my every day life more dangerous (the whole idea that people are more safe with everyone holding compared to no one holding, is dumb assuming that there is no guns allowed in the picture) so that the people can buy firearms when the government starts ordering drone after drone on the populace, or any other questionable act.

But what makes me uneasy is the state of the Federal Government and the United States Military.  We obviously pump so much money in our defense budget that we would understandably have a large armed forces.  To put it into perspective, I read the other day that The United States has ordered a certain number of super carriers, to the point that we will have ten super carriers.  Some might be decommissioned, and some are in maintenance while others are at sea.  These bohemiaths are a city at sea, with an arsenal of weapons at their disposal.  The main reason that I believe we have these many carriers, is to ensure smooth trade for our economy.  We need to sustain that economic growth.

It costs like 10 billion a carrier.  Compound with this massive fleet other aspects of our armed forces, ranging from man power to sheer technology, let’s just say The United States is not going anywhere.  To fuel economic growth, the United States will slowly expand their presence in any way to keep our way of life.  And so, back to gun control.

If we had the right to purchase weapons, we would not stand a damn chance against The United States Armed Forces.  We may have numbers, they have tanks, and helicopters.  And other stuff that I don’t even know of.  Even if older men and children held a rifle and got into a gun fight, the sheer strength of these forces are too high.  And I think that is part of the purpose a really strong military offers.  Not only can it flex to other countries, but is a force to be reckoned with internally, if things became too oppressive.  The people in power are staying in power to make more power.  It is just the way it comes to world history.  And so, I do not think it would really make a difference if we had access to firearms, to the point I would want killing to be more difficult for the criminal.  If we could just rid society of firearms, dismantle the NRA, and dismantle any firearm that gets possessed, I strongly believe over some time there would be a lot less killing.  It is true that killing could still be accomplished with blades, fists and the such, but wouldn’t that be much more easily guarded against?  Why not for physical education self defense is taught?  Being regular with self defense would increase physical activity and be actually helpful in a society with no guns.  To me, that makes more sense then allowing everyone to buy handguns.  Guns makes killing so easy, and we have already passed the point of being able to rebel against this government even if we wanted to.  If we were to rid society of all guns except for certain individuals (military) , there would be a lot less killing compared to giving every possible person a hand gun.  Just the option of being able to kill someone makes the situation more dangerous.  People are going to still get access to firearms illegally, especially with a still functioning NRA.  But we need to focus on not only the supply issue, but the demand issue as well.  (Which I might write about with the drug war)

And I am going to say it.  Maximizing individual freedom when you have millions upon millions of people does not mean it is the best option in all options.  I can’t stand when people do that.  X takes away from individual freedom Y, so we shouldn’t do it!  That is not what our country was founded upon!

What I don’t understand, is why people cling to certain ideas when they were fabricated as long ago as they have.  Yes, some of ideas we should keep.  Thomas Jefferson wrote law about Human Rights.  But America in 1776 has different circumstances, and this should be considered when following The Constitution so blindly.  I think obviously The Constitution was a memorable document, America has come a long way.  However I find it impossible that that document can guide us through life no matter the era without some revisions.  Hell, with the different way the constitution has been interpreted different ways in The Supreme Court, we aren’t following the document as it is.

As long as the people work and are able to pay taxes and keep this economy moving, there is an incentive to keep the masses happy.  Look at it that way.  And, I think generally people do love this country.  I love living in this country, it isn’t perfect, and I am thankful.  But there are things that I find that what our country does is downright evil, but that is another discussion entirely.  But the government in my opinion will violate “rights” and win to get what they want, regardless of what is written on an old piece of paper.

My point?

I would read The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution with a grain of salt.  Realize what it has accomplished at the time, realize what it has accomplished, but when it comes to getting something in the agenda of those who are powerful, they will not hesitate to violate laws and rights to get what they desire.  And, that certain postulates will not pertain to all times of humanity.  Things change.  There is no possible way that everything from The Constitution applies to our way of life.

I know that was a rant, and I know it was political.  It isn’t my usual format, but I had to write down my new stance on Gun Control, I was excited.  Nonetheless, I hope you will continue reading my blog if you disagree with my views.

Till next time!

An Attempt

I have always proposed the idea that someone should open up their minds and attempt to lay out a new economic philosophy for the future.  It is in my belief, that even though our current economic paradigm got us to where we are today, there have been many instances in time where morality was thrown out the window in response to more quarterly profits.  It is also in my belief, that the vast majority of the world’s population live a life of unnecessary struggle simply to indulge the unquenchable appetites of a select few.  Most people continue living their lives, always assuming, “Well, that is just the way it is.”  The problem with that mentality, is that if everyone refuses to acknowledge the problems and possible solutions to our current economic paradigm, then no change will be enacted.  For some, this is fine.  Especially if financial resources are not an issue.  For most, I am willing to bet a system that brings about a better quality of life to everyone makes a whole lot more sense.  There are two key objectives to this model.  They are:

  1. To provide all necessities of life to everyone.
  2. To encourage or promote an intimate relationship with nature.

To me, these are two key fundamental statements that have to be made in order to create a more happy and satisfied populace.  The first avenue that needs to be accomplished, is a revolution of the human mind.  I have been trying to talk about this, but I termed this whole idea as Unity.  Instead of people only thinking of themselves and exploitation, people need to start thinking about the needs and well-being of other fellow human beings.  Once we start not only identifying ourselves with other people, we will all start to identify ourselves by what planet we belong to.  It is strange to me, how some people will value having a clean home, home being defined as a building, yet when it comes to the planet, this value does not travel to our natural space.  I think part of that has to do with our individualistic culture, a value practice that avoids pain, as well as humanity’s contamination of nature.  Let me explain.

During our most recent financial crisis, a select few jeopardized the livelihoods of millions of workers for more profits.  Need I say more?

Also, valuing oneself only actually saves pain.  If on the news there was an environment catastrophe, who cares?  That person only feels internal turmoil when it has to do with themselves more directly.  An oil spill that kills hundreds of birds has nothing to do with his or her paycheck that comes at the end of the week.  However, if this person did empathize with this story, there would be internal turmoil.  In fact, I believe that some people sense how atrocious we are being to the planet, that they subconsciously decide to have other people worry about those events, so to speak.

Finally, humanity does not value nature as much because the beauty of nature is constantly contaminated with concrete and pavement.  There are plenty of instances where there are buildings that are pleasing to the eye because of their architecture, however there is nothing like a clear night sky with only the milky way to see.  Or a sunset setting on the rocks of The Grand Canyon.  Why?  Because that is our true home.

We have separated ourselves so much from nature, we refuse to see ourselves as a part of nature and her properties.  Nature is our natural habitat.  It was not until the agricultural revolution that we started to experiment with settlements and small cities.  Until then, we were nomads, wondering the landscape and learning the ways of nature.  Because if those humans did not, then well, they would be in for a quick surprise.

Therefore, it is in my belief that when humans have an intimate relationship with nature the overall well-being of him or herself increases.  This is why it is essential and important to have a healthy Earth.  Furthermore (as I will write about it when I have finished the book), The Gaia Hypothesis states that the conditions of life would not exist without life.  Life promotes the conditions of life, and everyone and everything is intricately interconnected.  When the conditions of the planet get unbalanced so to speak, the Earth will re-stabilize itself, most notably, an ice age will bring the Earth back to homeostasis (temperature equilibrium) in the least amount of time.  Once this is established, the conditions of life can continue.  A healthy Earth is a healthy home, and the planet will promote conditions that promote healthy life if we allow her to.

With all of this considered, the first step in this economic model would be to consume resources at or less than the rate at which these resources are replenished naturally.  That, in my mind, would be the first fundamental rule for this new society.  This first restricts humanity from extinguishing a resource, and possibly interrupting the biosphere.  Also, these resources if not consumed too rapidly, would always be present for our use.  Lastly, this will increase the time experienced of a healthy equilibrium between the biota and the planet.  Does that mean we, the human race, would have to change how we consume certain resources?  Absolutely.

So here are the steps that are coming to my mind first:

  1. Catalogue all resources on the planet.
  2. Measure the rate of replenishment of all resources.
  3. Measure an approximation of a satisfied consumption rate for a person.
  4. Create a distribution system to distribute the said resources within the allowed consumption rate.

And, once we all realize life is about loving life, not things, this whole drive to obtain the most material wealth will cease.  What brings about fulfillment to people are different to themselves, but there are some big things that everyone has in common.  There are many people in this world that strive to help other people, be it by medical endeavors or otherwise.  Other men and women strive to protect the innocent and apply justice to the guilty.  While others, their fulfillment is in expression or obtaining more knowledge and creeping ever closer to Truth.  All of these things, really have nothing to do with constant material gratification.

In order for any of this to work, society has to stop using people and loving things, and start loving people and using things.  Until that is accomplished, there is going to be constant poverty, hunger, disease, and struggle.  Humanity has the know how if we worked towards a common goal, to end all physical labor (manufacturing robotics, robotics) for all, while also providing a high quality and standard of living for everyone.  If people valued the conditions of the whole, people would not horde resources, especially if currency was thrown out the window.  (How could someone sell those resources?)  The only reason why currency was enacted, was to deal with scarce resources.  Now, humanity has the know-how to bring almost any resource to any part of the planet.  There really is no need.  Once people started sharing responsibility to the state of their community, they would not horde resources for they valued the lives of other people.

It is our constant lust for individualism that keeps humanity going through the volatile blood pressures of the business cycle.  It is in my view, it does not have to be this way.  Here is an idea, a start, and I hope it sparks some others to think along these lines.  Capitalism does not have to be the school of thought for eternity.  It obviously is not perfect.  I also think Communism and Socialism are flawed, they all assume our environment’s resources are infinite.  But we all need to start thinking about ways to create a better society for everyone.  I’m tired of filling the bellies of the corporate and bank elites.

Unity –> Not Individualism

I remember watching an anime that really captivated me.  Heroic Age was a story of fantastic lore with truly powerful heroes and battles.  It was a story where humanity was on the verge of survival, with The Tribe of Silver constantly trying to eliminate all of humanity.

And well, it seems that the only time humanity unites is when their very existence is put into question.  At least, that is how various artists interpret the whole issue.  Another example would be the infamous Independence Day, where Will Smith is the hero that saves humanity from the invading aliens.

What is interesting to me, is that humanity faces some serious issues (not necessarily another alien race wanting our extinction) and yet we refuse to unite.  I have talked about many issues in the past, like Peak Oil and Global Warming.  But I suppose I will start talking about over population.

Soon, it is expected that humanity’s population will reach about 7.5 billion people.  To make things even worse, it has been estimated that about 1 million people are migrating to U.S. cities per day.  The true sagnificance of this, is that our population curve is exponentially getting out of control.  And, it is a known relationship in nature that when a population gets, well, over populated, nature will naturally induce conditions to balance the population problem.  There is a general trend however, as Gaia as well as humanity both struggle for survivability.  As Gaia (Earth) puts forth conditions that would start to contract the human population, humanity has created an innovation to keep our infinite growth paradigm alive.  The catch is, the rate at which these innovations are taking place, has to steadily increase in order to keep our way of life.  Eventually, humanity will not be able to keep up.

With that said, we would all benefit if we all worked together.  Yes, there are other more immediate issues presented in front of us.  But this population problem is going to induce a population dip.  How is humanity going to handle this event?  With our individualistic culture, it is my hypothesis that at least in The United States, for the most part, people would put their interests first followed by the interests of the community.  As, it would be nice to survive, I suppose through my spiritual endeavors, I am opposite.  I would put the needs of the group before the needs of my own.

This in my opinion, is the intellectual revolution that I think we need to start thinking about.  It is true, through individual financial interests, coupled with the industrial revolution sparked growth that has been unprecedented in the past 200 some odd years.  But, that does not justify that we use this model, or framework of thinking, for eternity.

There is a fascinating relationship between science fiction writers and science.  It seems that for humanity to progress to a world where we would be able to conquer the stars, and be at homeostasis with our planet, we would all have to work together for the common good.  Another frightening aspect of this, is having one world government.  Now, we immediately are fearful of this as this government could very potentially do very evil things for their own individual self-interests.  The answer, is if humanity truly believes in the idea of putting the community first, then themselves, there could very well be a worldwide government, and it could be possible.

A world wide government provides some advantages and disadvantages obviously.  A disadvantage to many Americans, would be that it could be very possible that million dollar mansions would not be in the grand scheme of things.  In my opinion, sacrificing material wealth for quality of life is a no brainer, especially because material wealth does not correlate to quality of life.  A world wide government would oversee the economic model that the citizenship (humanity) would vote to enact.  And inevitably, if everyone is thinking about the betterment of other people than themselves, the less fortunate would be able to enjoy a life of fresh water and shelter.  To me, that world makes a whole lot more sense.  I heard a statistic one day that made my heart plummet.  About 35,000 children starve to death in Africa per second.  I guess our sports cars are more valuable than other peoples’ lives.

It is easy for us to blame other people for their outcome for various reasons, instead of realizing that the responsibility partially has to do with America’s foreign policy.  And well, America’s culture in general allows these atrocities to happen because it is so individualistic.  It is the children’s fault that they are starving to death!  That is a very quick and easy thought, because in The American scheme of things, everything is about individual freedom.  I believe however, we have taken this to an unhealthy extreme.  We have taken it to the point that we are unempathetic about our common man.  Of course, being empathetic towards other people is hard to do when you hear certain things in the news, or watch certain events on a public transit system.  If anything, we should view this as a sick society.  A society that does need some serious revamp.  Afterall, all one has to do is look at the depression and anxiety epidemic in America!  We are not necessarily happy, yet we “enjoy” some of the highest standards of living.

Instead of exploiting people for individual gain, we should practice empathy and start working to help people, all around the world regardless of race or creed.  Both sides, America’s Allies and enemies, have done atrocious things to one another.  I feel it is time that we start working together!  We have so many challenges approaching us, that the last thing humanity needs is conflict within ourselves.  Everyone refers to the early humans practicing Tribalism.  It is in my view, that we are still practicing it!  Our tribes are our countries, even though 7.5 billion people share about 99.999 percent of their DNA.  If humanity just practiced humility and realized that their side messed up, as well as acknowledging that the other side messed up too, tried their best to make amends and move forward, we have the knowledge and capabilities to provide representation to the entire globe.  A worldwide computer network, a world wide economy, and a world wide space agency, are just some of the things that we would enjoy.  It is easy for an individualistic culture, especially with our media, to see this as an opportunity for exploitation.  And it is true, that this government could exploit the masses.  It is very possible.  However, if we construct a system to hopefully prevent that behavior, as well as promote a culture that favors another human being, quality of life would greatly increase for everyone.

As social stratification decreased (income inequality) the overall health of the entire world population would increase.  Higher life expectancy, as well as fewer disorders.  The works.  Finally, crime would decrease, as there is a huge correlation between crime and poverty.  Drugs are known to have a huge influence in impoverished environments, and, we as a people should treat drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one.  There should be good quality education for everyone.  And I know what most people are thinking.  How are we going to pay for this?

Why can’t this culture get past this question?  First of all, The Fed just recently released due to a partial audit, that they issues a 17.x trillion, that is right trillion, dollar bailout to various institutions across the globe.  It is in my view, with fiat currency, that you can really just create money out of thin air to satisfy the needs.  But, maybe we as a human race do not follow the current economic paradigms.  The paradigm that makes the most sense to me, would be a paradigm that not only serves humanity, but nature as well.  You can give me a negative connotation of being a tree huger all you want, but we only have one home, and ontop of that, if humanity does find another planet to colonize, this is our native home.  Why not take care of it?

That is why I believe that we should base our economic decisions on the rate at which Earth can replenish said resources.  That way, we can ensure a healthy Earth, and therefore a healthy biosphere (The Gaia Hypothesis).  Also, a huge factor in this is population.  Regardless of ideology, the human population is getting out of control.  We need to start limiting how large a single family unit can or can’t be, simply because humanity’s population is such that we are consuming faster than the Earth can replenish.  This is the stepping stones for something disastrous.

But in order for any of this to start working, and going in a certain direction, every single human being has to have some caring, some empathy, some understanding of the other human being.  Some people, while going through some very troublesome times, do some very troublesome things.  They should take responsibility for those actions, but in either case, that does not justify us from ceasing to care about that person.  Only through Unity, can humanity face some of the most serious issues that have confronted us.  It is true, that our current ideology of individualism fueled the growth that got us here.  However, that does not necessarily mean that this concept of self-maximization can fix all of the problems that it created.

« Older entries