schlafzimmer gestalten grau rot

schlafzimmer gestalten grau rot

in a decaying society,art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. and unless it wants to breakfaith with its social function, art must show theworld as changeable. and help to change it. -ernst fischer ... deadly riots overthe government's plan to avoid defaultingon its loans ... is that the unemploymentkeeps rising

and it has to keep rising just because we have anexcess supply of goods... this is all borrowed money... and that debt is owned bybanks in other countries... m-o-n-e-y, in the form of aconvenient personal loan... ... a filter cigarettethat delivers the taste... 45 malt liquor...are you hot?!... is the us planning to bomb iran?... ...america is sponsoringterror attacks in iran...

now, my grandmother wasa wonderful person. she taught me how toplay the game monopoly. she understood that the nameof the game is to acquire. she would accumulateeverything she could and eventually, she becamethe master of the board. and then she would alwayssay the same thing to me. she would look at meand she would say: “one day, you'll learnto play the game.” one summer, i played monopolyalmost every day, all day long.

and that summer, i learnedto play the game. i came to understandthe only way to win is to make a totalcommitment to acquisition. i came to understand thatmoney and possessions- that's the way thatyou keep score. and by the end of that summer, i wasmore ruthless than my grandmother. i was ready to bend the rulesif i had to, to win that game. and i sat down with herto play that fall. i took everything she had.

i watched her give her lastdollar and quit in utter defeat. and then she had onemore thing to teach me. then she said: “now it all goesback in the box. all those houses and hotels. all the railroads andutility companies... all that property and allthat wonderful money... now it all goes back in the box. none of it was really yours.

you got all heated upabout it for a while. but it was around a long timebefore you sat down at the board and it will be here after you'regone: players come, players go. houses and cars... titles and clothes... even your body.” because the fact is that everythingi clutch and consume and hoard is going to go back in the boxand i'm going to lose it all. so you have to ask yourself

when you finally getthe ultimate promotion when you have made theultimate purchase when you buy the ultimate home when you have storedup financial security and climbed theladder of success to the highest rung youcan possibly climb it... and the thrill wears off - and it will wear off - then what?

how far do you have towalk down that road before you see where it leads? surely you understand it will never be enough. so you have to askyourself the question: what matters? they're hot! they're rich! and they're spoiled!

america's #1 show is back! gentle machineproductions presents a peter joseph film when i was a young man growing up in new york city i refused to pledgeallegiance to the flag. of course i was sent tothe principal's office. and he asked me, 'why don't youwant to pledge allegiance? everybody does!'

i said, 'everybody oncebelieved the earth was flat but that doesn't make it so.' i explained that americaowed everything it has to other culturesand other nations and that i would ratherpledge allegiance to the earth and everyone on it. needless to say it wasn't longbefore i left school entirely ...and i set up alab in my bedroom. there i began to learnabout science and nature.

i realized then that theuniverse is governed by laws and that the human being,along with society itself, was not exempt from these laws. then came the crash of 1929 which began what we now call “the great depression”. i found it difficult tounderstand why millions were out of work,homeless, starving, while all the factorieswere sitting there;

the resources were unchanged. it was then that i realized that the rules ofthe economic game were inherently invalid. shortly after, came world war ii where various nations took turns systematicallydestroying each other. i later calculated thatall the destruction and wasted resourcesspent on that war

could have easilyprovided for every human need on the planet. since that time<ihave watched humanity set the stage forits own extinction. i have watched as theprecious finite resources are perpetuallywasted and destroyed in the name of profitand free markets. i have watched thesocial values of society be reduced into a baseartificiality of materialism

and mindless consumption. and i have watched asthe monetary powers control the political structure of supposedly free societies. i'm 94 years old now. and i'm afraid my dispositionis the same as it was 75 years ago. this shit's got to go. [ zeitgeist ]

[ zeitgeist: moving forward ] [ never doubt that a smallgroup of thoughtful committed citizens canchange the world. indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.-margaret mead ] [ part 1: human nature ] so you're a scientist, and ... somewhere along the way,hammered into your head is the inevitable“nature versus nurture” and that's at least up therewith coke versus pepsi

or greeks versus trojans. so, nature versusnurture: this, by now utterly over-simplifying view of where influences are- influences on howa cell deals with an energy crisis up to what makes us who we are onthe most individualistic levels of personality. and what you've got is thiscomplete false dichotomy

built around natureas deterministic at the very bottom ofall the causality. of 'life is dna' andthe 'code of codes' and the holy grail, andeverything is driven by it. at the other end is a much moresocial science perspective which is: we are'social organisms' and biology is for slime molds; humans are free of biology. and obviously bothviews are nonsense.

what you see instead is that it is virtually impossible tounderstand how biology works outside of the contextof environment. [ it's genetic ] one of the most crazymaking yet widespread and potentiallydangerous notions is: “oh, that behavior is genetic.” now what does that mean?it means all sorts of subtle stuff if you know modern biology, butfor most people out there

what it winds up meaning is: a deterministic view of life, one rooted in biologyand genetics. genes equal thingsthat can't be changed. genes equal things that are inevitable and thatyou might as well not waste resourcestrying to fix, might as well not put societalenergies into trying to improve because it's inevitableand it's unchangeable.

and that is sheer nonsense. [ disease ] it is widely thought that conditions like adhd aregenetically programmed, conditions like schizophreniaare genetically programmed. the truth is the opposite.nothing is genetically programmed. there are very rarediseases, a small handful, extremely sparsely representedin the population, that are trulygenetically determined.

most complex conditions might have a predispositionthat has a genetic component, but a predisposition is not thesame as a predetermination. the whole search for the sourceof diseases in the genome was doomed to failure beforeanybody even thought of it, because most diseases are notgenetically predetermined. heart disease, cancer, strokes, rheumatoid conditions, autoimmuneconditions in general, mental healthconditions, addictions-

none of them aregenetically determined. breast cancer, for example.out of 100 women with breast cancer only seven will carry thebreast cancer genes. 93 do not. and out of 100 womenwho do have the genes not all of them will get cancer. [ behavior ] genes are not just thingsthat make us behave in a particular way regardlessof our environment.

genes give us different ways ofresponding to our environment. and in fact it looks asif some of the early childhood influences andthe kind of child rearing, affect gene expression: actually turning on oroff different genes to put you on a differentdevelopmental track which may suit the kind ofworld you've got to deal with. so for example, a study done in montrealwith suicide victims

looked at autopsies of thebrains of these people. and it turned out thatif a suicide victim (these are usually young adults) had been abused as children,the abuse actually caused a geneticchange in the brain that was absent in the brains ofpeople who had not been abused. that's an epigenetic effect. “epi” means on top of, so that the epigenetic influenceis what happens

environmentally to either activateor deactivate certain genes. in new zealand,there was a study that was done in atown called dunedin, in which a fewthousand individuals were studied frombirth into their 20s. what they found was thatthey could identify a genetic mutation-an abnormal gene- which did have some relation to the predispositionto commit violence,

but only if theindividual had also been subjected tosevere child abuse. in other words, childrenwith this abnormal gene would be no more likely to beviolent than anybody else, and in fact, they actuallyhad a lower rate of violence than people with normal genes as long as they weren'tabused as children. great additionalexample of the ways in which genes are not“be all - end all.”

a fancy technique where you can take a specific geneout of a mouse, that mouse and its descendantswill not have that gene. you have ”knockedout” that gene. so there's this one genethat encodes for a protein that has something to dowith learning and memory. and with this fabulous demonstrationyou “knock out” that gene and you have a mouse thatdoesn't learn as well. “ooh! a genetic basisfor intelligence!”

what was much less appreciatedin that landmark study that got picked up by themedia left and right, is take those geneticallyimpaired mice and raise them in amuch more enriched stimulating environment thanyour normal mice in a lab cage, and they completelyovercame that deficit. so, when one says in acontemporary sense that “oh, this behavior is genetic” to the extent that that's evena valid sort of phrase to use,

what you're sayingis: there is a genetic contribution to how thisorganism responds to environment; genes may influence thereadiness with which an organism will deal with acertain environmental challenge. you know, that's not the versionmost people have in their minds. and not to be too 'soap-boxing' but run with the old versionof “it's genetic!” and it's not that far from the historyof eugenics and things of that sort. it's a widespread misconception

and it's a potentiallyfairly dangerous one. one reason that the biological explanationfor violence, one reason that hypothesisis potentially dangerous- it's not just misleadingit can really do harm- is because if you believe that,you could very easily say: “well, there's nothing we can do to change the predispositionpeople have to becoming violent. all we can do, if somebodybecomes violent is

punish them- lock themup or execute them- but we don't need toworry about changing the social environment or thesocial preconditions that may lead peopleto become violent because that's irrelevant.” the genetic argument allowsus the luxury of ignoring past and present historicaland social factors. and in the words of louis menand who wrote in the new yorker,very astutely he said:

“it's all in the genes, anexplanation for the way things are that does not threatenthe way things are. why should someonefeel unhappy or engage in antisocial behaviorwhen that person is living in the freest and mostprosperous nation on earth? it can't be the system. there must be a flaw inthe wiring somewhere.” which is a good wayof putting it. so, the genetic argumentis simply a cop-out

which allows us to ignore the social and economicand political factors that, in fact, underliemany troublesome behaviors. [ case study: addiction ] addictions are usually consideredto be a drug-related issue. but looking at it more broadly, idefine addiction as any behavior that is associated with craving,with temporary relief and with long-termnegative consequences along with an impairment of controlover it, so that the person

wishes to give it upor promises to do so but can't follow through. and when you understandthat, you see that there are many more addictions thansimply those related to drugs. there's workaholism,addiction to shopping, to the internet; to video games. there's the addiction to power.people that have power but they want more and more; nothingis ever enough for them. acquisition - corporationsthat must own more and more.

the addiction to oil, orat least to the wealth and to the products madeaccessible to us by oil. look at the negativeconsequences on the environment. we are destroying the veryearth that we inhabit for the sake of that, these addictions are far more devastating intheir social consequences than the cocaine or heroin habitsof my downtown eastside patients. yet, they are rewarded!and considered to be respectable. the tobacco company executivethat shows a higher profit

will get a much bigger reward. he doesn't face any negativeconsequences legally or otherwise. in fact he is a respected member of the board of severalother corporations. but, tobacco smokerelated diseases kill 5 â½ million peoplearound the world every year. in the united states theykill 400,000 people a year. and these people are addicted to what?to profit. to such a degree thatthey are addicted

that they are actually in denial about the impact oftheir activities which is typical foraddicts, is denial! and that's a respectable's respectable to be addicted to profit, nomatter what the cost. so, what is acceptableand what is respectable is a highly arbitraryphenomenon in our society. and it seems like thegreater the harm the more respectablethe addiction.

[ the myth ] there is a general myth that drugs,in themselves, are addictive. in fact, the war on drugsis predicated on the idea that if you interdictthe source of drugs you can deal withaddiction that way. now, if you understandaddiction in the broader sense we see that nothing initself is addictive. no substance, no drugis by itself addictive and no behavior isby itself addictive.

many people can go shoppingwithout becoming shopaholics. not everyone becomesa food addict. not everyone who drinks a glassof wine becomes an alcoholic. so the real issue is: whatmakes people susceptible? because it's the combinationof a susceptible individual and the potentially addictivesubstance or behavior that makes for the fullflowering of addiction. in short, it's not thedrug that's addictive, it's the question of thesusceptibility of the individual

to being addicted to a particularsubstance or behavior. [ environment ] if we wish tounderstand what then makes some people susceptible we actually have to lookat the life experience. the old idea- althoughit's old but it's still broadly held- that addictionsare due to some genetic cause is simply scientificallyuntenable. what the case isactually is that

certain life experiencesmake people susceptible. life experiences that notonly shape the person's personality andpsychological needs but also their verybrains in certain ways. and that processbegins in utero. [ prenatal ] it has been shown, for example, that if you stressmothers during pregnancy their children are morelikely to have traits

that predisposethem to addictions. and that's becausedevelopment is shaped by the psychological andsocial environment. so the biology of human beingsis very much affected by and programmed by the lifeexperiences beginning in utero. environment does notbegin at birth. environment begins as soonas you have an environment. as soon as you are a fetus,you are subject to whatever information is comingthrough mom's circulations.

hormones, levels of nutrients... a great landmarkexample of this is something called thedutch hongerwinter. in 1944, nazis occupying holland for a bunch of reasons, theydecide to take all the food and divert it to germany; for three months everybodythere was starving. tens of thousands ofpeople starve to death. what the dutch hungerwinter effect is:

if you were a second or thirdtrimester fetus during the starvation your body 'learned' somethingvery unique during that time. as it turns out, second andthird trimester is when your body is going about tryingto learn about the environment: how menacing of a placeis it out there? how plentiful?how much nutrients am i getting by way of mom's circulation? be a fetus who was starvingduring that time and your body programsforever after to be

really, really stingywith your sugar and fat and what you do is youstore every bit of it. be a dutch hunger winter fetusand half a century later, everything else being equal,you are more likely to have high blood pressure, obesityor metabolic syndrome. that is environment comingin a very unexpected place. you can stress animals in thelaboratory when they're pregnant and their offspring willbe more likely to use cocaine and alcohol as adults.

you can stress human mothers.for example, in a british study women who wereabused in pregnancy will have higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol intheir placenta at birth and their children are morelikely to have conditions that predispose them toaddictions by age 7 or 8. so in utero stressalready prepares the gun for all kinds ofmental health issues. an israeli studydone on children

born to motherswho were pregnant prior to the onsetof the 1967 war... these women, of course,were very stressed and their offspring have a higherincidence of schizophrenia than the average cohort. so, there is plenty of evidencenow that prenatal effects have a huge impact on thedeveloping human being. [ infancy ] the point about humandevelopment and specifically

human brain developmentis that it occurs mostly under the impact of the environmentand mostly after birth. now, if you compareus to a horse which can run on thefirst day of life we see that we arevery undeveloped. we can't muster that muchneurological coordination balance, musclestrength, visual acuity until a year and a half,two years of age. that's because the braindevelopment in the horse

happens in thesafety of the womb and in the human being, ithas to happen after birth, and that has to do withsimple evolutionary logic. as the head gets larger, which iswhat makes us into human beings- the burgeoning of the forebrain is what creates the humanspecies, actually. at the same time we walk on twolegs, so our pelvis narrows to accommodate that. so now we have anarrower pelvis, a larger head- ... bingo!we have to be born prematurely.

and that means the braindevelopment that in other animals occurs in utero, in us,occurs after birth and much of that under theimpact of the environment. the concept of neuraldarwinism simply means that the circuits that get theappropriate input from the environment will develop optimallyand the ones that don't will either not develop optimallyor perhaps not at all. if you take a child withperfectly good eyes at birth and you put him in adark room for five years

he will be blind thereafterfor the rest of his life because the circuits of vision requirelight waves for their development, and without that even therudimentary circuits present and active at birth will atrophy and die andnew ones will not develop. [ memory ] there is a significantway in which early experiencesshape adult behavior, and even and especially

early experiences for whichthere is no recall memory. it turns out that thereare two kinds of memory: there is explicitmemory which is recall; this is when you cancall back facts, details, episodes,circumstances. but the structure in the brainwhich is called the hippocampus which encodes recall memory doesn't even begin to developfully until a year and a half and it is not fullydeveloped until much later.

which is why hardly anybodyhas any recall memory prior to 18 months. but there is another kind of memorywhich is called implicit memory which is in fact,an emotional memory where the emotional impact and theinterpretation the child makes of those emotional experiencesare ingrained in the brain in the form of nerve circuits readyto fire without specific recall. so to give you a clear example,people who are adopted have a lifelong sense ofrejection very often.

they can't recall the adoption. they can't recall theseparation of the birth mother because there's nothingthere to recall with. but the emotional memory ofseparation and rejection is deeply embeddedin their brains. hence, they are much more likelyto experience a sense of rejection and a great emotional upset when they perceive themselves asbeing rejected by other people. that's not unique topeople who are adopted

but it is particularlystrong in them because of this functionof implicit memory. people who are addicted, given ... all the research literatureand in my experience, the hard-core addictsvirtually were all significantly abused as children or suffered severeemotional loss. their emotional orimplicit memories are those of a worldthat's not safe

and not helpful, caregiverswho were not to be trusted and relationships that are not safe enough to openup to vulnerably. and hence theirresponses tend to be to keep themselves separate fromreally intimate relationships; not to trust caregivers, doctors and other people who aretrying to help them and generally see theworld as an unsafe place. and that is strictly afunction of implicit memory

which sometimes has to do withincidents they don't even recall. [ touch ] infants who are born prematureare often in incubators and various types ofgadgetry and machinery for weeks and perhaps months. it's now known thatif these children are touched and stroked on theback for just 10 minutes a day, that promotes theirbrain development. so, human touch isessential for development

and in fact, infants who are neverpicked up will actually die. that is how much ofa fundamental need being held is to human beings. in our society, there isan unfortunate tendency to tell parents not to pick uptheir kids, not to hold them, not to pick up babies who arecrying for fear of spoiling them or to encourage them to sleep throughthe night- you don't pick them up- which is just the oppositeof what the child needs. and these children might go backto sleep because they give up

and their brains justshut down as a way of defending againstthe vulnerability of being abandonedreally by their parents. but their implicitmemories will be that of the world thatdoesn't give a damn. [ childhood ] a lot of these differences arestructured very early in life. in a way, the parentalexperience of adversity- how tough life is or how easyit is- is passed on to children

whether throughmaternal depression or parents being bad temperedwith their kids because they have had a hard day or just being tootired at the end of the day. and these have verypowerful effects programming children's development,which we know a lot about now. but that early sensitivity isn'tjust an evolutionary mistake. it exists again in manydifferent species. even in seedlings, there'san early adaptive process to the kind of environmentthey are growing up in.

but for humans, the adaptation isto the quality of social relations. and so, early life: how nurturing, how much conflict,how much attention you get- is a taster of the kind of worldyou may be growing up in. are you growing up in aworld where you have to fight for what you canget, watch your back, fend for yourself, learnnot to trust others? or are you growing up in asociety where you depend on reciprocity, mutuality, cooperation,where empathy is important,

where your security depends ongood relations with other people? and that needs a very differentemotional and cognitive development. and that's what the earlysensitivity is about. and parenting is almost-quite unconsciously- a system for passing on thatexperience to children, of the kind ofworld they are in. the great british child psychiatrist, d.w. winnicott, said that fundamentally, two thingscan go wrong in childhood. one is when things happenthat shouldn't happen

and then things thatshould happen but don't. in the first category, isthe traumatic and abusive and abandonmentexperiences of my downtown eastside patientsand of many addicts. that's what shouldn'thappen but did. but then there is thenon-stressed, attuned, non-distracted attention of theparent that every child needs that very oftenchildren don't get. they're not abused.they are not neglected

and they're not traumatized. but what should happen- the presence of the emotionallyavailable nurturing parent- just is not availableto them because of the stresses in our societyand the parenting environment. the psychologist allan schorecalls that "proximal abandonment" when the parent is physicallypresent but emotionally absent. i have spent roughly the last 40years of my life

working with the most violentof people our society produces: murderers, rapists and so on. in an attempt to understandwhat causes this violence, i discovered that the most violentof the criminals in our prisons had themselves been victims of a degree of child abusethat was beyond the scale of what i ever thought ofapplying the term child abuse to. i had no idea of the depth of the depravity with whichchildren in our society

are all too often treated. the most violent people i sawwere themselves the survivors of their own attempted murderoften at the hands of their parents or other people intheir social environment or were the survivors of familymembers who had been killed- their closest familymembers- by other people. the buddha argued that everythingdepends on everything else. he says 'the one contains the manyand the many contains the one.' that you can't understand anythingin isolation from its environment.

the leaf contains the sun, thesky and the earth, obviously. this has now been shown to betrue, of course all around and specifically when itcomes to human development. the modern scientificterm for it is the "bio-psycho-social"nature of human development which says that thebiology of human beings depends very much ontheir interaction with the social andpsychological environment. and specifically, thepsychiatrist and researcher

daniel siegel at the universityof california, los angeles, ucla has coined a phrase“interpersonal neurobiology” which means to say that the waythat our nervous system functions depends very much on ourpersonal relationships: in the first place withthe parenting caregivers, and in the second placewith other important attachment figures in our lives and in the third place,with our entire culture. so that you can't separate the

neurological functioningof a human being from the environment inwhich he or she grew up in and continues to exist in. and this is truethroughout the life cycle. it's particularlytrue when you are dependent and helpless whenyour brain is developing but it's true even in adultsand even at the end of life. [ culture ] human beings have lived inalmost every kind of society,

from the most egalitarian- hunting and gathering societiesseem to have been very egalitarian- for instance based on foodsharing, gift exchange... small bands of people living predominately off of foragingand a little bit of hunting, predominantly amongpeople you have at the least, knownyour entire life if not surrounded bythird cousins or closer, in a world in whichthere is a great deal

of fluidity betweendifferent groups, in a world which there is not a whole lot in termsof material culture... this is how humans have spentmost of their hominid history. and, no surprise, that makesfor a very different world. one of the things you get as aresult of that is far less violence. organized group violence is not something thatoccurred at that time of human history andthat seems quite clear.

so where did we go wrong? violence is not is not symmetrically distributed throughout the human race.there is a huge variation in the amount of violencein different societies. there are some societies thathave virtually no violence. there are others thatdestroy themselves! some of the anabaptistreligious groups that are completestrict pacifists like the amish, themennonites, the hutterites...

among some of thesegroups, the hutterites- there are no recordedcases of homicide. during our major wars,like world war ii where people were being drafted they would refuse toserve in the military. they would go to prison ratherthan serve in the military. in the kibbutzim in israel the level of violence is so lowthat the criminal courts there will often sendviolent offenders

-people who havecommitted crimes- to live on thekibbutzim in order to learn how to live anon-violent life. because that's the waypeople live there. so, we are amplyshaped by society. our societies, in the broadersense, including our theological, our metaphysical, ourlinguistic influences, etc., our societies help shape usas to whether or not we think life is basically aboutsin or about beauty;

whether the afterlifewill carry a price for how we live our livesor if it's irrelevant. in a broad sort of way,different large societies could be termed as individualisticor collectivist, and you get very different peopleand different mindsets and i suspect different brainscoming along with that. we, in america, are in one of themost individualistic of societies, with capitalism being asystem that allows you to go higher and higher up apotential pyramid and

the deal is that it comes withfewer and fewer safety nets. by definition, the morestratified a society is, the fewer people you have aspeers; the fewer people with whom you have symmetrical,reciprocal relationships and instead, all you have are differingspots and endless hierarchies. a world in which you havefew reciprocal partners is a world with alot less altruism. [human nature] so, this brings us to a totalimpossible juncture which is

to try to make sensein perspective science as to what that natureis of human nature. you know, on a certain level the nature of ournature is not to be particularly constrainedby our nature. we come up with more social variability than anyspecies out there. more systems of belief, ofstyles, of family structures, of ways of raising children.the capacity

for variety that wehave is extraordinary. in a society which ispredicated on competition and really, very often,the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another- the profiteering off ofother people's problems and very often thecreation of problems for the purpose of profiteering- the ruling ideology will veryoften justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamentaland unalterable human nature.

so the myth in our society is that people arecompetitive by nature and that they are individualisticand that they're selfish. the real reality isquite the opposite. we have certain human needs. the only way that you can talkabout human nature concretely is by recognizing that thereare certain human needs. we have a human need forcompanionship and for close contact, to be loved, to be attachedto, to be accepted,

to be seen, to bereceived for who we are. if those needs aremet, we develop into people who are compassionateand cooperative and who have empathyfor other people. so... the opposite, that weoften see in our society, is in fact, a distortionof human nature precisely because so fewpeople have their needs met. so, yes you can talkabout human nature

but only in the senseof basic human needs that are instinctively evoked or i should say,certain human needs that lead to certaintraits if they are met and a different set oftraits if they are denied. when we recognize the factthat the human organism, which has a great dealof adaptive flexibility allowing us to survive inmany different conditions, is also rigidly programmed forcertain environmental requirements

or human needs, a social imperativebegins to emerge. just as our bodies requirephysical nutrients, the human brain demands positiveforms of environmental stimulus at all stages of development, while also needingto be protected from other negativeforms of stimulus. and if things thatshould happen, do not... or if things thatshouldn't happen, do...

it is now apparent that thedoor can be opened for not only a cascade of mentaland physical diseases but many detrimentalhuman behaviors as well. so, as we turn ourperspective now outward and take account for thestate of affairs today, we must ask the question: is the condition we havecreated in the modern world actually supporting our health? is the bedrock of oursocioeconomic system

acting as a positive force for human and socialdevelopment and progress? or, is the foundationalgravitation of our society actually going against thecore evolutionary requirements needed to create and maintain our personal andsocial well-being? [part ii: social pathology] so, one might ask wheredid this all begin? what we have today...really a world in a state of

cumulative collapse. [the market] you get it startedwith john locke. and john lockeintroduces property. he has three provisos for justprivate right and property. and the three provisos are: there must be enoughleft over for others and that you mustnot let it spoil and that you, most of all,must mix your labor with it.

it seems justified- you mixyour labor with the world then you are entitledto the product. and as long as there'senough left over for others and as long as it doesn't spoil and you don't allow anything togo to waste then that's okay. he spends a long time on hisfamous treatises of government and it's since beenthe canonical text for economic and politicaland legal understanding. it is still the classictext that's studied.

well, ...after he gives the provisos and you're almostthinking at the time whether you are forprivate property or not- he has given a very good andplausible and powerful defense of private property here- well, he drops them! he drops them like that.right in one sentence. he says, 'well, oncethe introduction of money came in by men's tacit consent..." then it became-

and he doesn't say all theprovisos are canceled or erased- but that's what happens. so, now we have not product and your propertyearned by your own labor- oh no- money buys labor now. there is no longer consideration whether there is enoughleft over for others; there is no longer considerationof whether it spoils- because he says money is like silverand gold and gold can't spoil-

and therefore money can'tbe responsible for waste... which is ridiculous.we are not talking about money and silver, we are talking aboutwhat its effects are. it's one non sequiturafter another. just the most startling logical legerdemain thathe gets away with here. but it fits the interestsof capital owners. then adam smith comes along and what he adds is thereligion to this...

locke started with 'god made it allthis way- this is god's right...' and now we get also with smithsaying 'it's not only god's...' well, he's not actuallysaying this but this is what's happeningphilosophically, in principle- he's saying that 'it is not only aquestion of private property...' that's all now'presupposed'- it's given! and that there's 'money investorsthat buy labor' – given! there's no limit to how much theycan buy of other men's labor, how much they can accumulate,how much 'inequality'-

that's all given now. and so he comes along andwhat his big idea is- and again it's just introducedin parentheses, in passing... you know, when people put outgoods for sale- ... the supply- and other people buy them-the demand and so forth, how do we have supply equalingdemand or demand equaling supply? how can they comeinto equilibrium? and that is one of the centralnotions of economics, is how do they comeinto equilibrium.

and he says: it's the“invisible hand of the market” that brings theminto equilibrium. so, now we have "godis actually imminent”. he just didn't give therights to property and all its wherewithaland its "natural rights" regarding what locke said... now we have the systemitself as "god". in fact, smith says,when he talks and you'll never find this quote,and you have to read the whole of

the inquiry into the wealthof nations to find it. he says: 'the scantinessof subsistence sets limits to thereproduction of the poor and that nature can dealwith this in no other way than elimination oftheir children.' so he anticipated evolutionarytheory in the worst sense... this is well before darwin. and so he called themthe 'race of laborers'. so you can see: there wasinherent racism built in here,

there was an inherent life blindnessto kill innumerable children. and he thought: 'that's theinvisible hand making supply meet demand anddemand meet supply.' so, see- how wise "god" is? so you can see a lotof the really virulent life destructive,eco-genocidal things that are going onnow have, in a way, a 'thought gene'back in smith too. when we reflect on theoriginal concept of

the so-called freemarket capitalist system as initiated by earlyeconomic philosophers such as adam smith we see that the originalintent of a “market” was based around real, tangible,life supporting goods for trade. adam smith neverfathomed that the most profitable economicsector on the planet would eventually be in thearena of financial trading or so-called investment,where money itself is simply

gained by the movement of othermoney in an arbitrary game which holds zero productivemerit to society. yet, regardlessof smith's intent the door for such seeminglyanomalous advents was left wide open by onefundamental tenet of this theory: money is treated as acommodity, in and of itself. today, in everyeconomy of the world regardless of the socialsystem they claim money is pursued for the sakeof money and nothing else.

the underlying idea, whichwas mysteriously qualified by adam smith with his religiousdeclaration of the 'invisible hand' is that the narrow,self-interested pursuit of this fictionalcommodity will somehow magically manifest human andsocial well-being and progress. the reality is that themonetary incentive 'interest' or what some have termed the"money sequence of value” has now completely decoupledfrom the foundational 'life interest', whichcould be termed the

"life sequence of value". what has happened is thatthere is a complete confusion in economic doctrine betweenthose two sequences. they think that themoney sequence of value delivers the lifesequence of value. and that's why they sayif more goods are sold, if gdps rise and so forth... there would be moreenhanced well-being and we could take the gdp asbeing our basic layer indicator

of social health.well, there you see the confusion. it's talking about moneysequences of value- that is, all the receiptsand all the revenues that are derivedfrom selling goods- and they're confusing thatwith life reproduction. so, you have built right intothis thing from the beginning a complete conflationof the money and life sequences of value. so, we are dealing with a kindof structured delusion

which becomes moreand more deadly as the money sequencedecouples from producing anything at it's a system disorder. and the system disorderseems to be fatal. [welcome to the machine] in society today, youseldom hear anyone speak of the progress of theircountry or society in terms of their physicalwell-being, state of happiness, trust or social stability.

rather, the measuresare presented to us through economic abstractions. we have the gross domestic product,the consumer price index, the value of the stockmarket, rates of inflation, and so on. but does this tell usanything of real value as to the qualityof peoples' lives? no. all of thesemeasures have to do with the money sequenceitself and nothing more.

for example, the grossdomestic product of a country is a measure of the valueof goods and services sold. this measure is claimedto correlate to the “standard of living”of a country's people. in the united stateshealth care accounted for over 17% of gdp in 2009 amounting to over$2.5 trillion spent, hence creating a positive effecton this economic measure. and, based on this logic it wouldbe even better for the us economy

if health care servicesincreased more so... perhaps to $3 trillionor 5 trillion, since that wouldcreate more growth, more jobs and henceboasted by economists as a rise in their country'sstandard of living. but- ... wait a minute. what do health care servicesactually represent? well, sick and dying people. that's right: the more unhealthypeople there are in america

the better the economy. now, that is not an exaggerationor a cynical perspective. in fact, if we step back far enoughyou will realize that the gdp not only doesn't reflectreal public or social health on any tangible level, it is, in fact, mostly a measure of industrial inefficiencyand social degradation. and the more you see it rise,the worse things are becoming with respect to personal, social

and environmental integrity. you have to createproblems to create profit. there is no profit underthe current paradigm in saving lives, puttingbalance on this planet, having justice and peaceor anything else. there is just no profit there. there's an old saying: 'pass alaw and create a business.' whether you are creating abusiness for a lawyer or whatever. so, crime does create business

just like destructioncreates business in haiti. we have now roughly 2million people incarcerated in this country (usa) and of those many are in prisonsrun by private corporations: corrections corporationof america, wackenhut, who trade their stockon wall street based upon how manypeople are in jail. now that's sickness! but that is a reflection

of what this economicparadigm calls for. so what exactly does thiseconomic paradigm call for? what is it that keeps oureconomic system going? consumption. or more accurately-cyclical consumption. when we break down the foundationof classic market economics we are left with a patternof monetary exchange that simply cannotbe allowed to stop or even substantially slowed

if the society as we know itis to remain operational. there are three main actorson the economic stage: the employee, the employerand the consumer. the employee sells labor tothe employer for income. the employer sells its productionservices and hence goods, to the consumer for income. and the consumer, of course,is simply another role of the employer and employee, spending back into the system

to enable the cyclicalconsumption to continue. in other words, the globalmarket system is based on the assumption that therewill always be enough product demand in a societyto move enough money around at a rate which can keep theconsumption process going. and the faster therate of consumption the more so-calledeconomic growth is assumed and so the machine goes... but, hold on-

i thought an economy wasmeant to, i don't know... “economize”? doesn't the very term haveto do with preservation and efficiency and areduction of waste? so how does our system,which demands consumption and the more the better,efficiently preserve or “economize” at all? well... it doesn't. the intent of the market systemis, in fact, the exact opposite

of what a real economyis supposed to do, which is efficientlyand conservatively orient the materials forproduction and distribution of life supporting goods. we live on a finite planet,with finite resources where, for example,the oil we utilize took millions ofyears to develop... where the minerals we use tookbillions of years to develop. so...having a system thatdeliberately promotes

the acceleration of consumption for the sake of so-called“economic growth” is pure ecocidal insanity. absence of waste, that'swhat efficiency is. absence of waste? this system is morewasteful than all the other existing systems in thehistory of the planet. every level of lifeorganization and life system is in a state ofcrisis and challenge

and decay or collapse. no peer-reviewed journalin the last 30 years will tell youanything different: that is that every lifesystem is in decline as well as social well as our water access. try to name any means of life thatisn't threatened and endangered. you can't. there really isn't one andthat's very, very despairing. but we haven't even figuredout the causal mechanism.

we don't want to facethe causal mechanism. we just want to go know that's where insanity is where you keep doing the samething over and over again even though it clearlydoesn't work. so you're really dealing with notan economic system but i would go so far as tosay an anti-economic system. [the anti-economy] there is an old saying that thecompetitive market model seeks to

“create the best possible goodsat the lowest possible prices”. this statement is essentiallythe incentive concept which justifies market competition,based on the assumption that the result is the productionof higher quality goods. if i was going to buildmyself a table from scratch i would naturally buildit out of the best most durable materialspossible, right? with the intent for it tolast as long as possible. why would i want tomake something poor

knowing i would have toeventually do it again and expend more materialsand more energy? well, as rational as that mayseem in the physical world, when it comes tothe market world it is not onlyexplicitly irrational it is not even an option. it is technically impossible toproduce the best of anything if a company is to maintaina competitive edge and hence remain affordableto the consumer.

literally everythingcreated and set for sale in the global economyis immediately inferior the moment it is produced, for it is a mathematicalimpossibility to make the mostscientifically advanced efficient and strategicallysustainable products. this is due to the factthat the market system requires that “cost efficiency” or the need to reduce expenses

exists at every stageof production. from the cost of labor,to the cost of materials andpackaging and so on. this competitivestrategy, of course, is to make sure thepublic buys their goods rather than from acompeting producer ...which is doing theexact same thing to also make their goods bothcompetitive and affordable. this immutably wastefulconsequence of the system

could be termed"intrinsic obsolescence". however, this is only onepart of a larger problem. a fundamental governingprinciple of market economics, one you will not find in any textbookby the way, is the following: “nothing produced can be allowedto maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in orderto continue cyclical consumption.” in other words, it is criticalthat stuff break down, fail and expire within acertain amount of time. this is termed- “planned obsolescence”.

planned obsolescence is the backboneof the underlying market strategy of every goods producingcorporation in existence. while very few, of course wouldadmit to such a strategy outright what they do ismask it within the intrinsic obsolescencephenomenon just discussed, while often ignoring, or evensuppressing new advents in technology which might create a moresustainable, durable good. so, if it wasn't wasteful enough that the systeminherently cannot allow

the most durable and efficientgoods to be produced, planned obsolescencedeliberately recognizes that the longer anygood is in operation the worse it is for sustainingcyclical consumption and hence the marketsystem itself. in other words, productsustainability is actually inverseto economic growth and hence there is a direct,reinforced incentive to make sure life spans are shortof any given good produced.

and, in fact, the systemcannot operate any other way. one glance at the sea of landfillsnow spreading across the world show the obsolescence reality. there are now billions ofcheaply made cell phones, computers and other technology each full of precious,difficult to mine materials such as gold, coltan, copper, now rotting in vast piles usually due to the meremalfunction or obsolescence

of small parts which, ina conservative society could likely be fixed or updatedand the life of the good extended. unfortunately, as efficient as thatmay seem in our physical reality living on a finite planetwith finite resources, it is explicitly inefficientwith respect to the market. to put it into a phrase: “efficiency, sustainability,and preservation are the enemies of oureconomic system.” likewise, just as physical goodsneed to be constantly produced

and reproduced regardless oftheir environmental impact, the service industry operateswith an equal rationale. the fact is, there isno monetary benefit to resolving any problems which are currentlybeing serviced. at the end of the day the last thing the medicalestablishment really wants is the curing ofdiseases such as cancer, which would eliminate countlessjobs and trillions in revenue.

and since we are on the subject, crime and terrorism inthis system are good! well, at least economically. for it is employing police, generating high-valuecommodities for security, not to mention thevalue of prisons that are privatelyowned- for profit. and how about war? the war industry in americais a huge driver of gdp-

one of the mostprofitable industries- producing weapons ofdeath and destruction. the favorite game of thisindustry is to blow things up and then go and rebuild them!for profit. we saw this with the windfallbillion dollar contracts made from the iraq war. the bottom line is that sociallynegative attributes of society have become positively rewardedventures for industry. and any interest inproblem resolution

or environmental sustainabilityand conservation is intrinsically counter toeconomic sustainability. and this is why every time you see thegdp rise in any country you are witnessing anincrease in necessity whether real or contrived. and by definition, a necessityis rooted in inefficiency. hence, increased necessitymeans increased inefficiency. [ value system disorder ]

the american dream is basedon rampant consumerism. it is based upon the fact that mainstream media and especially commercialadvertising- all corporations who needthis infinite growth- have convinced us or brainwashed most people in americaand hence the world that we have to have x numberof material possessions and the possibility ofgaining infinitely more

material possessions,in order to be happy. that's just not true. so why do people continueto buy in this way which is ultimatelyeco-genocidal in its systemiceffects cumulatively? and it just is classicaloperand conditioning. you simply put inputs ofconditioning into the organism and you have outputsof desired behaviors or goals or objectives.

and it has all theresources of technology. and they boast about how theyget into the minds of infants; what they hear isalready making them conditioned to the brand. then you see, that's howpeople have been such fools. in a way, they have beentaught to be fools. it's a value system disorder. you know, if thereis any testament to the plasticityof the human mind;

if there is any proofto how malleable human thought is andhow easily conditioned and guided people can become based on the nature of theirenvironmental stimulus and what it reinforces: the world of commercialadvertising is the proof. you have to stand in awe at the level of brainwashing where these programmedrobots known as "consumers"

wander the landscape only to walk into astore and spend, say- $4000 on a handbag that likely cost $10 to make in a sweatshop overseas. only for the brand statusit supposedly represents in the culture. or perhaps the ancientcommunal traditions which increase trust andcohesiveness in society-

which have now been hijacked by acquisitive, materialisticvalues where now annually we exchange useless crapa few times a year. and we might wonderwhy so many today have a compulsion toshopping and acquisition, when it is clear that they havebeen conditioned from childhood to expect material goods as a sign of their statuswith friends and family. the fact is, thefoundation of any society

are the values thatsupport its operation. and our society, as it exists can only operate ifour values support the conspicuous consumption it requires to continuethe market system. 75 years agoconsumption in america and much of the firstworld was half of what we seetoday, per person. today's new consumer culture

has been manufacturedand imposed due to the very real need for higher and higherlevels of consumption. and this is why mostcorporations now spend more money on advertising than the actual process ofproduct creation itself. they work diligently to createa false need for you to fill. and it happens to work. [ the “economists” ]

you know economists, in fact,are not economists at all. they're propagandistsof money value. and you will find that allof their models basically get down to token exchangesthat are true to profit of one side or bothsides or whatever. but they are completelydisconnected from the actually existing world of reproduction. in ohio, an old man failedto pay his electric bill; you may be familiarwith the case.

and the electric company turnedoff the electricity and he died. the reason they turnedit off was because it wouldn't have beenprofitable for them to keep it on becausehe didn't pay his bill. do you believe that was right? the responsibilityreally lies not on the electric companyfor turning it off but on those of this man's neighborsand friends and associates who were not charitable enoughto enable him, as an individual

to meet the electric bill. hmmmmmm... did i hear that right? did he just say the death of aman caused by not having money was the responsibility of... other people... or, in effect, charity? well then, i guess we're gonnaneed a whole lot of infomercials, little miserable coin slotdonations for bodega counters

and a bunch of pickle jars for the billion people nowstarving to death on this planet because of the very systemmilton friedman promotes. whether you are dealing with thephilosophies of milton friedman, f.a. hyack, john maynardkeynes, ludwig von mises or any other majormarket economist the basis of rationale rarelyleaves the money sequence. it is like a religion. consumption analysis,stabilization policies,

deficit spending,aggregate demand... it exists as a neverending, self-referring self-rationalizingcircle of discourse where universal humanneed, natural resources and any form of physicallife supporting efficiency is ruled out by default, and replaced by thesingular notion that humans seeking advantage over eachother for money alone, motivated by their own,narrow self-interest,

will magically create a sustainable,healthy, balanced society. there is no life coordinate in thiswhole theory, this whole doctrine. what are they doing?what are they doing?? what they are doing istracking the money sequences. that's all it is, istracking money sequences presupposing everythingthat matters: one: there is nolife coordinates... whoa- ... no life coordinates! two: that all the agents areself-maximizing preferences seekers.

that is, they think of nothingother than themselves and what they can getmost for themselves. that's the ruling notion ofrationality: self-maximizing choice. and the only thing that they areinterested in self-maximizing is money or commodities. well, where does socialrelations come in? it doesn't, except in theexchange to self-maximize. where do our naturalresources come in? they don't, except to exploit.

where does the family comein as being able to survive? it doesn't. they have to have moneyin order to purchase any good. well, shouldn't an economy dealsomewhere with human need? isn't that what the fundamentalissue is: to satisfy human needs? oh, "need" isn't evenin your lexicon. you dissolve it into "wants". and what is a want?that means money demand that wants to buy. well, if it's moneydemand that wants to buy it has nothing to do with need

because maybe the personhas no money demand and desperately needs,say, water supply. or, it may be money demandwants a gold toilet seat. well, where does it all go?to the gold toilet seat. and you call this economics? really, when one thinks of it,it's got to be the most bizarre delusion in the historyof human thought! [ monetary system ] now- so far we have focusedon the market system.

but this system is actually only halfof the global economic paradigm. the other half is the“monetary system”. while the market system dealswith the interaction of people gaming for profit acrossthe spectrum of labor, production and distribution, the monetary system is anunderlying set of policies set by financial institutions which create conditions for themarket system, among other things. it includes terms we often hear

such as interestrates, loans, debt, the money supply,inflation, etc. and while you might want topull your hair out listening to the gibberish coming fromthe monetary economists: "modest preemptive actions,can obviate the need of more drastic actions,at a later date." ... the nature andeffect of this system is actually quite simple: our economy has- or theglobal economy has-

three basic things that govern is fractional reserve banking: the banks printingmoney out of nothing. [2nd] it's also basedupon compound interest. when you borrow money, youhave to pay back more than you borrowed whichmeans that you, in effect, create money out of thin air, again which has to be servicedby creating still more money. [3rd] we live in aninfinite growth paradigm. the economic paradigm we livein now is a ponzi scheme.

nothing grows's not possible. as a great psychologistjames hillman wrote: “the only thing thatgrows in the human body after a certain age is cancer.” it's not just the amount ofmoney that has to keep growing it's the amount of consumers.consumers to borrow money at interest togenerate more money and obviously, that's not possibleon a finite planet. people are basically vehiclesto just create money,

which must create more money to keep the whole thingfrom falling apart, which is what'shappening right now. there are really only twothings anyone needs to know about the monetary system: 1: all money iscreated out of debt. money is monetized debt whether it materializedfrom treasury bonds, home loan contractsor credit cards.

in other words, ifall outstanding debt was to be repaid right now there would not be onedollar in circulation. and 2: interest is chargedon virtually all loans made, and the money needed topay back this interest does not exist in themoney supply outright. only the principal iscreated by the loans and the principal isthe money supply. so, if all this debt wasto be repaid right now,

not only would there not be onedollar left in circulation, there would be a giganticamount of money owed that is literally impossible topay back, for it does not exist. the consequence of all of this isthat two things are inevitable: inflation and bankruptcy. as far as inflation, this canbe seen as a historical trend in virtually everycountry today, and easily tied to its cause, which is the perpetualincrease of the money supply

which is required to coverthe interest charges and keep the system going. as far as bankruptcy, it comes in the formof debt collapse. this collapse will inevitablyoccur with a person, a business or a country and typically happens whenthe interest payments are no longer possible to make. but there is a brightside to all of this...

well, at least in termsof the market system. because debt creates pressure. debt creates wage slaves. a person in debt is much morelikely to take a low wage than a person who isn't, hence becoming acheap commodity. so it's great for corporationsto have a pool of people that have no financial mobility. but hey - that same idea alsogoes for entire countries.

the world bank and theinternational monetary fund, which mostly serve as proxies fortransnational corporate interests, give gigantic loansto troubled countries at very high interest rates.and then, once the countries are deeplyin the hole and can't pay, austerity measures are applied,the corporations swoop in, set up sweatshops and taketheir natural resources. now that's market efficiency. but wait – there's more:

you see, there'sthis unique hybrid of the monetaryand market system called the stock market. which rather than, you know,actually produce anything real, they just buy andsell money itself. and when it comes to debt,you know what they do? that's right- they trade it! they actually buy andsell debt for profit. from credit default swaps and

collateralized debt obligationsfor consumer debt, to complex derivativeschemes used to mask the debt ofentire countries, such as the collusion of investmentbank goldman sachs and greece, which nearly collapsed theentire european economy. so when it comes to the stockmarket and wall street, we have an entirelynew level of insanity born out of the moneysequence of value. all you need toknow about markets

was written in an editorialin the wall street journal a couple years was called "lessons of thebrain-damaged investor". and in this editorial,they explained why people with slight braindamage do better as investors than people with normalbrain functionality. why? because the slightly brain-damaged personhas no empathy. that's the key.if you don't have any empathy

you do well as an investor. and so wall street breedspeople who have no empathy. to go in there andto make decisions and to make trades theyhave no compunction about and no thought whatsoever asto how what they are doing might affect theirfellow human being. so they breed these robots. these people who have no souls. and since they don't even wantto pay these people anymore-

they are now breedingrobots – real robots – real algorithmic traders. goldman sachs in the highfrequency trading scandal: they put a computer next tothe new york stock exchange. this computer, this “co-located”computer, as they call it: it front-runs all thetrades on the exchange and hits the exchange withvolumes of orders in ways that "scalp" pennies and nickelsaway from the exchange.

it's like they're siphoningmoney all day long. they went one quarter last year 30 or 60 straight dayswithout a single down day and made millions ofdollars every single day? that's statistically impossible! when i worked on wallstreet, the way it works is everyone kicksupstairs to bribes. the brokers bribe tothe office manager, the office manager bribes tothe regional sales manager,

the regional sales manager bribes to the nationalsales manager. it's a common understanding. at christmas, who gets thebiggest bonus at christmas in an average broker job?the compliance officer. the compliance officer sits thereall day long; he's supposed to be making sure you don'tviolate any of the margin rules and you're "complying"with the law. of course, yeah,to the extent that

you can bribe thecompliance officer- yeah, that's right, you arecomplying with the law! so how has fraudbecome the system? it's no longer a byproduct. it is the system. it's like that old woody allen joke.he says: “doctor, my brotherthinks he's a chicken.” and the doctorsays, “take a pill and that shouldcure the problem.”

and he says, “no don't understand. we need the eggs.” okay? so ... the trading of fraudulentclaims back and forth between banks, to generatefees, to generate bonuses, has become the gdp-producing growth engine of theunited states economy- even though they are essentiallytrading fraudulent claims that there is absolutely nohope of ever paying back.

they are processing, generatingand re-securitizing nothing. if i write $20 billionon a cocktail napkin and i sell it to j.p.morgan and j.p. morgan writes $20 billion on a cocktail napkin and we swap those twococktail napkins at a bar, and we each pay ourselvesa quarter of 1% in a fee, we make a lot of moneyfor our christmas bonus. we each have on our books a$20 billion cocktail napkin which has no real value,until such time as

the system is nolonger able to absorb bogus cocktail napkins, in whichcase we go to the government to get bailed out. and because of wall streetand the global stock market there are now conservativelyabout 700 trillion dollars of outstandingfraudulent claims, known as derivatives, still waiting to collapse. a value amounting to over

10 times the grossdomestic product of the entire planet. and while we haveseen the bailouts of corporations and banksby governments, which, of course, comicallyborrow their money from banks to begin with, we are now seeing attemptsto bailout whole countries by conglomeratesof other countries through the international banks.

but how do you bailout a planet? there is no country out therethat isn't now saturated in debt. the cascade of sovereigndebt defaults we have seen can only be the beginning, whenthe math is taken into account. it has been estimated inthe united states alone that income tax would need tobe raised to 65% per person just to cover the interestin the near future. economists are now foreshadowingthat within a few decades 60% of the countries on theplanet will be bankrupt.

but hold on-- let meget this straight. the world is going "bankrupt" whatever the hell that means because of thisidea called "debt" which doesn't even existin the physical reality. it's only part of agame we've invented... and yet the well beingof billions of people is now being compromised. extreme layoffs, tent cities,accelerating poverty,

austerity measures imposed,schools shutting down, child hunger and other levelsof familial deprivation- ... all because of thiselaborate fiction... what are we, fucking stupid?! hey! hey! mars- my man! help a brother out, uh? grow up, kid! saturn! what's up man? you remember that smokin'nebula i hooked you up with

a while back? uh- listen earth. we're getting reallytired of you. you've been given everythingand yet you waste it all. you've got plenty ofresources and you know it. why don't you grow up and learn someresponsibility for christ's sake! you're making yourmother miserable. you're on your own, pal. yeah, whatever.

[ public health ] now, all of this considered from the waste machineknown as the market system to the debt machine knownas the monetary system- hence creating themonetary-market paradigm which defines theglobal economy today- there is one consequencethat runs through the entire machine: inequality.

whether it is the marketsystem which creates a natural gravitation towardsmonopoly and power consolidation while also generating pocketsof wealthy industries that tower over othersregardless of utility- such as the fact that top hedgefund managers on wall street now take home over$300 million a year for contributingliterally nothing, while a scientist lookingfor a cure for a disease trying to help humanity

might make $60,000 ayear if they're lucky- or whether it is themonetary system, which has class division builtright into its structure. for example: if i have$1 million to spare and i put it into acd at 4% interest, i will make $40,000 a year. no social contribution-no nothing. however, if i'm a lower classperson and have to take loans to buy my car or home,

i am paying in interestwhich in abstraction is going to pay thatmillionaire with the 4% cd. this stealing from thepoor to pay the rich is a foundational, built-inaspect of the monetary system and it could be labeled“structural classism”. of course, historically,social stratification has always been deemed unfair,but obviously accepted overall, as now 1% of the population owns40% of the planet's wealth. but material fairness aside

there is something else going onunderneath the surface of inequality causing an incredible deteriorationin public health as a whole. well, i think people oftenare puzzled by the contrast between the materialsuccess of our societies - unprecedentedlevels of wealth - and the many social failings. if you look at the rates of drug abuse orviolence or self-harm amongst kids or mental illness

there is clearly somethinggoing deeply wrong with our societies. the data i have been describing simply shows that intuition that people have had forhundreds of years: that inequality is divisiveand socially corrosive. but that intuition is truerthan i think we ever imagined. there are very powerfulpsychological and social effects of inequality.more to do i suppose with feelings

of superiority and inferiority. that kind of division... maybe going with therespect or disrespect; people feeling lookeddown on at the bottom. which, by the way,is why violence is more common in moreunequal societies- the trigger to violence isso often people feeling looked down uponand disrespected. if there is one principlei could emphasize

that is, the mostimportant principle underlying theprevention of violence it would be “equality”. the single most significant factorthat affects the rate of violence is the degree of equalityversus the degree of inequality in that society. so, what we're lookingat is a sort of general social dysfunction. it's not just one or twothings that go wrong

as inequality increases. it seems to be everything,whether we are talking about crime or health or mentalillness or whatever. one of the really disturbing findingsout there in public health is: never ever make themistake of being poor. or being born poor. your health pays for itin endless sorts of ways: something known as the 'healthsocioeconomic gradient'. as you move down from thehighest strata in society

in terms of socioeconomicstatus, every step down, health gets worse forumpteen different diseases. life expectancy gets worse. infant mortality rate-everything you could look at. so, a huge issue has been: why is it that thisgradient exists? a totally simple obviousanswer which is 'if you're chronically sick, you'renot going to be very productive so health causes drivesocioeconomic differences.'

not that in the slightest- onthe very simple level that you could look at the socioeconomicstatus of a 10-year-old and that's going to predict somethingabout their health decades later. so, that's the directionof causality. next one- ...'oh, it's perfectly obvious: poor people can't afford to go to thedoctor; it's healthcare access.' it's got nothing to do with that,because you see these same gradients in countries with universal healthcare and socialized medicine. okay – next 'simpleexplanation':

'oh -on the average- the poorer youare the more likely you are to smoke, to drink and all sortsof lifestyle risk factors.' yeah, those contribute butcareful studies have shown that it explains maybe abouta third of the variability. so what's left? what's left is having a ton todo with the stress of poverty. so, the poorer you are-starting off being the person who is one dollarof income behind bill gates- the poorer you arein this country

on the average, theworse your health is. this tells us somethingreally important: the health connectionwith poverty it's not about being poor,it's about feeling poor. increasingly we recognize that chronic stress is an importantinfluence on health. but the most importantsources of stress are the quality ofsocial relations. and if there is anything that lowersthe quality of social relations,

it is the socioeconomicstratification of society. what science has now shown is thatregardless of material wealth the stress of simply livingin a stratified society leads to a vast spectrumof public health problems. and the greater the inequality,the worse they become. life expectancy: longerin more equal countries. drug abuse: less inmore equal countries. mental illness: less inmore equal countries. social capital - meaning the abilityof people to trust each other:

naturally greater inmore equal countries. educational scores: higherin more equal countries. homicide rates: less inmore equal countries. crime and rates of imprisonment:less in more equal countries. it goes on and on: infant mortality – obesity- teen birth rate: less in more equal countries. and perhaps most interesting: innovation: greater inmore equal countries.

which challenges the age oldnotion that a competitive stratified society is somehowmore creative and inventive. moreover, a study done in theuk called the whitehall study confirmed that there is asocial distribution of disease as you go from the top of thesocioeconomic ladder to the bottom. for example, it was found that thelowest rungs of the hierarchy had a 4-fold increase of heartdisease based mortality compared to the highest rungs. and this pattern exists, irrespectiveof access to health care.

hence, the worse a person'srelative financial status, the worse their health isgoing to be on average. this phenomenon is rootedin what could be termed 'psychosocial stress' and it is at the foundation ofthe greatest social distortions plaguing our society today. its cause? the monetary-market system. make no mistake:

the greatest destroyerof ecology, the greatest source of waste,depletion and pollution, the greatest purveyorof violence- war - crime - poverty -animal abuse and inhumanity, the greatest generator ofsocial and personal neurosis, mental disorders -depression, anxiety, not to mention, the greatestsource of social paralysis stopping us from movinginto new methodologies for personal health,global sustainability

and progress on this planet- is not some corruptgovernment or legislation, not some rogue corporationor banking cartel, not some flaw of human nature, and not some secret hiddencabal that controls the world. it is, in fact: thesocio-economic system itself at its very foundation. [ part 3: project earth ] let's imagine for amoment we had the option

to redesign human civilizationfrom the ground up. what if- hypotheticallyspeaking- we discovered an exactreplica of the planet earth and the only difference betweenthis new planet and our current one is that human evolution had not was an open palette. no countries, no cities, nopollution, no republicans... just a pristine,open environment. so- what would we do? well, first we needa “goal”, right?

and it's safe to say thatgoal would be to survive. and not to justsurvive, but to do so in an optimized, healthy,prosperous way. most people, indeed,desire to live and they would prefer todo so without suffering. therefore, the basis of thiscivilization needs to be as supportive and hence sustainablefor human life as possible- taking into account the materialneeds of all the world's people while trying to remove anything

that can could hurtus in the long run. with that goal of “maximumsustainability” understood the next questionregards our “method”. what kind ofapproach do we take? well, let's see- last i checked, politics was themethod of social operation on earth... so what do the doctrines ofthe republicans, liberals, conservatives or socialists haveto say about societal design? hmmm... not a damn thing.

okay then- what about religion? surely the great creator had to haveleft some blueprints somewhere... nope... nothing i can find. okay then- so what's left? it appears somethingcalled “science”. science is unique in thatits methods demand not only that ideas proposed betested and replicated, but everything science comes up withis also inherently falsifiable. in other words, unlikereligion and politics

science has no ego and everything it suggestsaccepts the possibility of being provenwrong eventually. it holds on to nothingand evolves constantly. well, that soundsnatural enough to me. so then: based on the currentstate of scientific knowledge in the early 21st century along with our goal of“maximum sustainability” for the human population,

how do we begin the actualprocess of construction? well, the firstquestion to ask is: what do we need to survive? the answer, of course,are planetary resources. whether it is the water wedrink, the energy we use or the raw materials we utilizeto create tools and shelter, the planet hosts aninventory of resources- many of which are demandedfor our survival. so, given that reality

it then becomes critical to figureout what we have and where it is. this means we needto conduct a survey. we simply locate and identify everyphysical resource on the planet we can, along with the amountavailable at each location. from the deposits of copper, tothe most potent locations for wind farms to produce energy, tothe natural fresh water springs to an assessment of theamount of fish in the ocean to the most prime arable landfor food cultivation, etc. but, since we humansare going to be

consuming theseresources over time we then realize that not only dowe need to locate and identify- we also need to track. we need to make surewe don't run out of any of this stuff;that would be bad. and this means not onlytracking our rates of use but the rates of earthlyregeneration as well such as how longit takes for say, a tree to grow or aspring to replenish.

this is called“dynamic equilibrium”. in other words, if we use up treesfaster than they can be grown back, we have a serious problem,for it is unsustainable. so then, how do wetrack this inventory especially whenwe recognize that all of this stuff isscattered everywhere? we have large mineral minesin what we call africa, energy concentrationsin the middle east, huge tidal power possibilities on theatlantic coast of north america,

the largest supply of freshwater in brazil, etc. well, once again, good oldscience has a suggestion: it's called “systems theory”. systems theory recognizes thatthe fabric of the natural world, from human biology tothe earthly biosphere to the gravitational pullof the solar system itself, is one huge synergistically connectedsystem - fully interlinked. just as human cells connectto form our organs and the organs connectto form our bodies

and since our bodies cannot livewithout the earthy resources of food, air and water, we areintrinsically connected to the earth. and so on. so, as nature suggests, wetake all of this inventory and tracking data, and createa “system” to manage it. a “global resourcemanagement system”, in fact, to account for every relevantresource on the planet. there is simply no logical alternative,if our goal as a species is survival in the long run.we have to keep track as a whole.

that understood, we cannow consider production. how do we use all this stuff? what will our process ofproduction be, and what do we need to consider to make sure itis as optimized as possible, to maximize our sustainability? well, the first thing that jumpsright out at us, is the fact that we need to constantlytry and preserve. the planet's resourcesare essentially finite. so it is important thatwe be “strategic”.

"strategic preservation" is key. the second thing we recognize,is that some resources are really not as good asothers in their performance. in fact, some of thisstuff when put into use has a terrible effecton the environment, which invariably hindersour own health. for example: oil and fossil fuels,no matter how you cut it, release some pretty destructiveagents into the environment. therefore, it is critical wedo our best to use such things

only when we reallyhave to- if at all. fortunately for us, we see a tonof solar – wind – tidal – wave – heat differential and geothermalpossibilities for energy production. so we can strategize objectively,about what we use and where, to avoid what could be called“negative retroactions”, or anything that resultsfrom production or use that damages the environmentand hence, ourselves. we will call this“strategic safety” to couple in with our"strategic preservation”.

but production strategiesdo not stop there. we are going to need an"efficiency strategy”, for the actual mechanicsof production itself. and what we find isthat there are roughly three specific protocolswe must adhere to: 1: every good we producemust be designed to last as long as possible. naturally, the morethings break down, the more resources we are goingto need to replace them,

and the more waste produced. 2: when things do break down, or are no longer usablefor whatever reason, it is critical that weharvest, or recycle as much as we possibly can. so the production design musttake this into account directly at the very earliest stages. 3: quickly evolving technologies,such as electronics, which are subject to the fastestrates of technological obsolescence,

would need to bedesigned to foreshadow and accommodatephysical updates. the last thing we want to do is throwaway an entire computer system just because it has only onebroken part, or is outdated. so we simply design thecomponents to be easily updated, part by part, standardized anduniversally interchangeable, foreshadowed by the currenttrend of technological change. and when we realize that the mechanismsof "strategic preservation”, “strategic safety” and“strategic efficiency”

are purely technicalconsiderations devoid of any humanopinion or bias, we simply program thesestrategies into a computer which can weigh and calculateall the relevant variables, allowing us to always arrive at the absolute best methodfor sustainable production based on current understandings. and while that mightsound complex all it is, is aglorified calculator,

not to mention thatsuch multi-varied decision making andmonitoring systems, are already used across the worldtoday for isolated purposes. it is simply a processof scaling it out. now, we not only have ourresource management system, but also a productionmanagement system, both of which are easilycomputer automated to maximize efficiency,preservation and safety. the informational realityis that the human mind

or even a group of humans, cannottrack what needs to be tracked. it must be done bycomputers, and it can be. and this bring us to thenext level: distribution. what sustainabilitystrategies make sense here? well, since we know thatthe shortest distance between two pointsis a straight line, and since energy is requiredto power transport machines, the less transport distance,the more efficient. producing goods in one continentand shipping them over to another

only makes sense ifthe goods in question simply cannot be producedin the target area. otherwise, it isnothing but wasteful. we must localize production,so distribution is simple, fast, and requires theleast amount of energy. we'll call this the“proximity strategy”, which simply means we reduce the travel of goodsas much as possible whether raw materials orfinished consumer products.

of course, it might alsobe important to know what goods we aretransporting and why. and this falls under thecategory of demand. and demand is simply whatpeople need to be healthy and to have a highquality of life. the spectrum ofmaterial human needs range from core lifesupporting necessities such as food, cleanwater and shelter, to social and recreational goodswhich allow for relaxation

and personal, social enjoyment: both important factors in humanand social health overall. so, very simply, wetake another survey. people describe their needs,demand is assessed, and production beginsbased on that demand. and since the level ofdemand of different goods will naturally fluctuate andchange around different regions, we need to create a “demand /distribution tracking system" so to avoid overrunsand shortages.

of course, thisidea is old news; it is used in everymajor store chain today to make sure they keepup with their inventory. only this time, we aretracking on a global scale. but, wait a minute.we really can't fully understand demand if we don't account for theactual usage of the good itself. is it logical and sustainablefor every single human to say, have one of everything made?regardless of their usage? no. that would be simplywasteful and inefficient.

if a person has a need for a goodbut that need is only for say, 45 minutes a day on average, itwould be much more efficient if that good was madeavailable to them and to others when needed. many forget that it isn'tthe good that they want, it is the purpose of that good. when we realize thatthe good itself is only as importantas its utility, we see that “externalrestriction”,

or what we might calltoday “ownership”, is extremely wasteful andenvironmentally illogical in a fundamental,economic sense. so, we need to devise a strategycalled: “strategic access”. this would be thefoundation of our "demand / distributiontracking system” which makes sure we can meet the demand of thepopulation's needs for access of whatever theyneed, when they need it.

and as far as physicallyobtaining the goods, centralized andregional access centers all make sense forthe most part, placed in close proximityto the population and a person would simplycome in, take the item, use it and when finished, returnit when it is no longer needed... sort of how a libraryworks today. in fact, these centers could notonly exist in the community in the way we seelocal stores today,

but specialized access centerswould exist in specific areas where often certaingoods are utilized, saving more energy withless repeat transport. and once this demandtracking system is in order, it is tied into ourproduction management system, and of course, into ourresource management system. hence creating a unified,dynamically updating, global economicmanagement machine, that simply makes surewe remain sustainable.

starting with securing theintegrity of our finite resources, moving to make sure weonly create the best, most strategic goods possible, while distributing everything in the most intelligentand efficient way. and the unique result of thispreservation-based approach, which is intuitivelycounter to many, is that this logical, ground up empirical process ofpreservation and efficiency

- which can only define true humansustainability on this planet - would likely enable something neverbefore seen in human history: access abundance. not just for a percentageof the global population, but the entire civilization. this economic model, aswas just generalized... this responsible,systems approach to total earth resourcemanagement and processes, designed, again,to do nothing less

than take care ofhumanity as a whole in the most efficientand sustainable way, could be termed: a “resource-based economy”. the idea was definedin the 1970s by structural engineerjacque fresco. he understood back then thatsociety was on a collision course with nature and itself,unsustainable on every level, and if things didn't change,

we would destroy ourselves,one way or another. are all of these thingsyou are saying jacque, could they be built withwhat we know today? or, ... are you guessing based on what we know today? no. all of these things can bebuilt with what we know today. it would take 10 years to changethe surface of the earth. to rebuild the world intoa second garden of eden. the choice lies with you.

the stupidity of anuclear arms race, the development of weapons, trying to solve yourproblems politically by electing this politicalparty or that political party, that all politics isimmersed in corruption. let me say it again: communism, socialism, fascism,the democrats, the liberals- we want to absorb human beings ... all organizations that believein a better life for man!

there are no negro problemsor polish problems or jewish problemsor greek problems or women's problems –there are human problems! i'm not afraid of anybody,i don't work for anyone; no one can discharge me. i have no boss. i am afraid to live in thesociety we live in today. our society cannot be maintainedby this type of incompetency. it was great- the freeenterprise system-

about 35 years ago.that was the last of its usefulness. now we have got to change ourway of thinking or perish. the horror movies of thefuture will be our society- the way it didn't work- and politics ... would be part of a horror movie. well, lots of people todayuse the term 'cold science' because it's analytical, and they don't even knowwhat analytical means.

science means: closerapproximations to the way the worldreally works. so, it's telling thetruth- is what it is. a scientist doesn't tryto get along with people. they tell them whattheir findings are. they have toquestion all things. and if some scientist comesup with an experiment that shows certain materialshave certain strengths, other scientists have to be ableto duplicate that experiment

and come up withthe same results. even if a scientist feelsthat an airplane wing due to mathematicsor calculations can hold up a givenamount of weight they still pile sandbags on it to see when itbreaks, and they say 'you know my calculations areright' or 'they are not correct.' i love that system becauseit's free of bias and free of thinking that mathcan solve all the problems.

you have to put yourmath to test also. i think that every systemthat can be put to test should be put to test. and that all decisions shouldbe based upon research. a resource-basedeconomy is simply the scientific methodapplied to social concern- an approach utterly absentin the world today. society is atechnical invention. and the most efficient methodsof optimized human health,

physical production, distribution,city infrastructure and the like reside in the field ofscience and technology- not politics ormonetary economics. it operates in the same systematicway as, say an airplane and there is no republican orliberal way to build an airplane. likewise, nature itself isthe physical referent we use to prove our science,and it is a set system- emerging only from ourincreased understanding of it. in fact, it has noregard for what you

subjectively think orbelieve to be true. rather, it gives you an option: you can learn and fall inline with its natural laws and conduct yourselfaccordingly- invariably creating goodhealth and sustainability, or you can go against thecurrent- to no avail. it doesn't matter how muchyou believe you can just stand up right now and walkon the wall next to you; the law of gravitywill not allow it.

if you do not eat- you will die. if you are not touched asan infant- you will die. as harsh as it may sound,nature is a dictatorship and we can either listen to itand come in harmony with it or suffer the inevitableadverse consequences. so, a resource-based economy is nothing more thana set of proven, life supporting understandings where all decisionsare based upon

optimized human andenvironmental sustainability. it takes into account theempirical “life ground” which every human beingshares as a need regardless, again, of theirpolitical or religious philosophy. there is no culturalrelativism to this approach. it isn't a matter of o human needs are human needs. and having access to the necessitiesof life, such as clean air, nutritious food and clean water,

along with a positivelyreinforcing, stable, nurturing, non-violentenvironment, is demanded for our mentaland physical health, our evolutionary fitness, and hence, the species'survival itself. a resource-based economy would be based uponavailable resources. you can't just bring a lotof people to an island or build a city of 50,000people without having access

to the necessities of life. so, when i use the term 'acomprehensive systems approach' i'm talking about doing aninventory of the area first and determining whatthat area can supply- not just architectural approach- not just design approach- but design must be basedon all of the requirements to enhance human life. and that's what i mean by anintegrated way of thinking.

food, clothing, shelter,warmth, love- all those things are necessary. and if you deprivepeople of any of them you have a lesser human being,less capable of functioning. as previously outlined, aresource-based economy's ground-up global, systems approach to extraction,production and distribution is based upon on a set of trueeconomic mechanisms, or 'strategies' which guarantee efficiencyand sustainability in every area of the economy.

so, continuing this train ofthought regarding logical design, what is next in our equation? where does all this materialize? cities. the advent of the city is a definingfeature of modern civilization. its role is to enable efficientaccess to the necessities of life along with increased social supportand community interaction. so how would we go aboutdesigning an ideal city? what shape should we make it?

square? trapezoid? well, given we are going tobe moving around the thing we might as well make it asequidistant as possible for ease, hence the circle. what should the city contain? well, naturally we need a residentialarea, a goods production area, a power generation area,an agricultural area. but we also need nurturingas human beings- hence culture, nature,recreation and education.

so lets include anice open park, an entertainment/events area forcultural purposes and socializing and educational andresearch facilities. and since we areworking with a circle it seems rational to placethese functions in belts based on the amount of landrequired for each goal along with ease of access. very good. now, let's getdown to specifics:

first we need the considerthe core infrastructure or intestines ofthe city organism. these would be the water, goods, waste and energytransport channels. just as we have water and sewagesystems under our cities today, we would extend thischanneling concept to integrate waste recyclingand delivery itself. no more mailmen or garbage men. it is built right in.we could even use

automated pneumatic tubesand similar technologies. same goes for transport. it needs to be integrated andstrategically designed to reduce or even remove the need forwasteful, independent automobiles. electric trams,conveyors, transveyors and maglevs- which cantake you virtually anywhere in the city,even up and down, along with connecting youto other cities as well. and of course, in theevent a car is required,

it is automated by satellitefor safety and integrity. in fact, this automation technologyis in working order right now. automobile accidents kill about 1.2million people every single year, injuring about 50 million. this is absurd anddoesn't have to occur. between efficient city designand automated, driverless cars this death toll can bevirtually eliminated. agriculture. today, through our haphazard,cost-cutting industrial methods-

using pesticides, excessivefertilizers and other means- we have successfully destroyed much of the the arableland on this planet, not to mention also extensivelypoisoning our bodies. in fact, industrial andagricultural chemical toxins now show up in virtually every humanbeing tested, including infants. fortunately, there is aglaring alternative: the soil-less mediums ofhydroponics and aeroponics, which also reduce nutrientand water requirements

by up to 75% of ourcurrent usage. food can now be organicallygrown on an industrial scale in enclosed vertical farms, such as in 50-story1-acre plots, virtually eliminating the need for pesticides andhydrocarbons in general. this is the future ofindustrial food cultivation: efficient, clean and abundant. so, such advanced systemswould be, in part,

what comprise ouragricultural belt, producing all the food requiredfor the entire city's population with no need to importanything from the outside, saving time, waste and energy. and speaking of energy, the energy belt would workin a systems approach to extract electricity from ourabundant renewable mediums- specifically wind, solar,geothermal and heat differentials- and if near water potentials-tidal and wave power.

to avoid intermittencyand make sure a positive net energyreturn occurs, these mediums would operatein an integrated system powering each other when needed, while storing excessive energyto large super capacitors under the ground, sonothing can go to waste. and not only does thecity power itself, particular structures willalso power independently and generate electricitythrough photovoltaic paints,

structural pressure transducers,the thermocouple effect, and other current butunderutilized technologies. but of course, thisbegs the question: how does this technology,and goods in general, get created in the first place? this bring us to production: the industrial belt, apart fromhaving hospitals and the like, would be the hub offactory production. completely localized overall,

it would, of course,obtain raw materials by way of the global resourcemanagement system just discussed, with demand being generated by thepopulation of the city itself. as far as the mechanicsof production, we need to discuss a new,powerful phenomenon which was sparked veryrecently in human history and is on pace tochanging everything. it's called mechanization or the automation of labor.

well, if you look around,you'll notice that almost everything that we usetoday is built automatically. your shoes, your clothes, your homeappliances, your car and so on... they are all built bymachines in an automatic way. can we say that the societyhas not been influenced by these major technologicaladvancements? of course not. these systems reallydictate new structures and new needs and they make alot of other things obsolete.

so, we have been goingup in the development and use of technologyin an exponential way. so, definitely automationis going to continue. you cannot stop technologiesthat just make sense. labor automation throughtechnology is at the bottom of every major socialtransformation in human history. from the agricultural revolutionand the invention of the plow, to the industrial revolution and theinvention of the powered machine, to the informationage we live in now,

through essentiallythe invention of advanced electronicsand computers. and with regard to advancedproduction methods today mechanization is nowevolving on its own: moving away from thetraditional method of assembling componentparts into a configuration, into an advancedmethod of creating entire products inone single process. like most engineers, i'm fascinatedby biology because it is

so full of examples of extraordinarypieces of engineering. what biology is - is the studyof things that copy themselves. as good a definitionof life as we've got. again, as an engineer, ihave always been intrigued by the idea of machinescopying themselves. reprap is athree-dimensional printer - that's to say it is a printer thatyou plug into your computer and instead of making 2-dimensionalsheets of paper with patterns on, it makes real, physical,3-dimensional objects.

now there's nothingnew about that. 3d printers have beenaround for about 30 years. the big thing about reprap is thatit prints most of its own parts. so, if you've got one, youcould make another one and give it to a friend aswell as being able to print lots of useful things. from the simple printing of basichousehold goods in your home to the printing of an entireautomobile body in one swoop, advanced, automated 3dprinting now has the potential

to transform virtuallyevery field of production, including home construction. contour crafting is actuallya fabrication technology- the so-called 3d printing-when you directly build 3d objects from acomputer model. using contour crafting,it will be possible to build a 2000 square-foot home entirely by themachine, in one day. the reason that people are interestedin automating construction

is that it really bringsa lot of benefits. for example, constructionis pretty labor-intensive. and although it provides jobsfor a sector of the society it also has issuesand complications. for example, construction is themost dangerous job that there is. it is worse than miningand agriculture, that has the highest level offatality in almost every country. another issue is the waste. an average home in the unitedstates has 3 to 7 tons of waste.

so this is huge if we look atthe impact of construction, and knowing about 40% ofall materials in the world are used in construction. so, a big waste ofenergy and resources and big damage to theenvironment as well. making homes using hammersand nails and wood with the state of our technologytoday, is really absurd and will go the wayof our labor class in regards to manufacturingin the united states.

recently, there was a study byeconomist david autor of mit, that states that ourmiddle class is obsolete and being replacedby automation. quite simply, mechanizationis more productive, efficient and sustainablethan human labor in virtually every sectorof the economy today. machines do not need vacations,breaks, insurance, pensions, and they can work 24hours a day, everyday. the output potentialand accuracy

compared to humanlabor, is unmatched. the bottom line: repetitive humanlabor is becoming obsolete and impracticalacross the world. and the unemployment you seearound you today is fundamentally the result of this evolutionof efficiency in technology. for years, market economists havedismissed this growing pattern which could be called“technological unemployment”, because of the fact thatnew sectors always seemed to emerge to re-absorbthe displaced workers.

today, the service sectoris the only real hub left and currently employs over 80%of the american workforce with most industrialized countriesmaintaining a similar proportion. however, this sector is nowbeing challenged increasingly by automated kiosks,automated restaurants, and even automated stores. economists today arefinally acknowledging what they had beendenying for years: not only is technologicalunemployment exacerbating

the current labor crisiswe see across the world due to the globaleconomic downturn, but the more therecession deepens the faster the industriesare mechanizing. the catch, whichis not realized, is that the faster theymechanize to save money- the more they displace people- the more they reducepublic purchasing power. this means that, whilethe corporation

can produce everythingmore cheaply, fewer and fewer people willactually have money to buy anything regardless of howcheap they become. the bottom line is that the“labor for income” game is slowly coming to an end. in fact, if you takea moment to reflect on the jobs which arein existence today which automation could takeover right now if applied, 75% of the global workforce

could be replaced bymechanization tomorrow. and this is why, in aresource-based economy, there is nomonetary-market system. no money at all... for there is no need. recognizes the efficiencyof mechanization and accepts it forwhat it offers. it doesn't fight it,like we do today. why? because it isirresponsible not to,

given any interest inefficiency and sustainability. and this brings us backto our city system. in the center is the centraldome, which not only houses the educational facilitiesand transportation hub, it also hosts the mainframe that runs the citiestechnical operations. the city is, in fact, onebig automated machine. it has sensors inall technical belts to track the progressof agriculture,

energy gathering, production,distribution and the like. now, would people be neededto oversee these operations in the event of amalfunction or the like? most probably: yes. but that number would decrease overtime as improvements continue. however, as of today, maybe3% of the city population would be needed for this jobwhen you break it down. and i can assure you: thatin an economic system which is actually designedto take care of you

and secure your well being,without you having to submit to a private dictatorshipon a daily basis usually to a job that iseither technically unnecessary or socially pointless, while often struggling withdebt that doesn't exist just to make ends meet... i guarantee you: people willvolunteer their time left and right to maintain and improve a systemthat actually takes care of them. and coupled with thisissue of 'incentive'

comes the common assumption that if there isn'tsome external pressure for one to “work for a living” people would just sitaround, do nothing and turn into fat lazy blobs. this is nonsense. the labor system we have today is in fact the generator oflaziness, not a resolver of it. if you think back towhen you were a child-

full of life, interested innew things to understand, likely creating and exploring... but as time went on,the system pushed you into the focus of figuringout how to make money. and from early education, to study at a university,you are narrowed. only to emerge as a creaturewhich serves as a cog in a wheel in a model that sends allthe fruits to the upper 1%. scientific studies have nowshown that people are, in fact,

not motivated by monetary reward when it comes toingenuity and creation. the creation itselfis the reward. money, in fact, appears onlyto serve as an incentive for repetitive, mundane actions a role we have just now showncan be replaced by machine. so when it comes to innovation-the actual use of the human mind- the monetary incentive hasproven to be a hindrance, interfering and detractingfrom creative thought.

and this might explain why nikolatesla, the wright brothers, and other inventors who contributedmassively to our current world never showed a monetaryincentive to do so. money is, in fact,a false incentive and causes 100 times more distortionthan it does contribution. good morning class.please settle down. the first thing i would liketo do is go around the room and ask what everyone wouldlike to be when they grow up. who would like to go first?

okay, how about you sarah? when i grow up i want to workat mcdonald's like my mom! oh, family tradition, eh? how about you, linda? when i grow up, i'm goingto be a prostitute on the streets of new york city! oh! glamour girl, huh?very ambitious. how about you, tommy? when i grow up, i'm going tobe a rich, elitist businessman

who works on wallstreet and profits off of the collapseof foreign economies. enterprising... and great to seesome multicultural interest! [victims of culture] as stated before, aresource-based economy applies the scientificmethod to social concern and this isn't limited tosimply technical efficiency. it also has theconsideration of human and social well-being directlyand what comprises it.

what good is a socialsystem if, in the end, it doesn't produce happinessand peaceful coexistence? so, it is important to point out that with the removalof the money system and the necessitiesof life provided we would see a globalreduction in crime by about 95% almost immediately- for there is nothing to steal,embezzle, scam, or the like. 95% of all people inprisons today are there

due to some monetary relatedcrime or drug abuse and drug abuse is adisorder- not a crime. so what about the other 5%?, the truly violent... often seeming to someas being violent for the sake of being violent... are they just “evil” people? the reason that i franklythink it's a waste of time to engage in moral value judgmentsabout people's violence is because it doesn'tadvance by one iota

our understanding ofeither the causes or the prevention ofthe violent behavior. people sometimes ask if i believein “forgiving” criminals. my answer to that is “no, i don't believein forgiveness anymore than i believein condemnation.” it's only if we, as a society, can take the same attitudeof treating violence as a problem in public healthand preventive medicine

rather than as a moral "evil"... it's only when wemake that change in our own attitudes andassumptions and values that we will actually succeed inreducing the level of violence rather than stimulating it,which is what we do now. the more justice you seek,the more hurt you become because there's nosuch thing as justice. there is whatever there is out there.that's it. in other words, if people areconditioned to be racist bigots-

if they are brought up in anenvironment that advocates that- why do you blamethe person for it? they are a victimof a subculture. therefore theyhave to be helped. the point is, we have toredesign the environment that produces aberrant behavior.that's the problem. not putting a person in jail. that's why judges, lawyers,“freedom of choice”- such concepts are dangerous!

because it gives youmis-information that the person is “bad”, or thatperson is a “serial killer”. serial killers are made just like soldiers become serialkillers with a machine gun. they become killing machines, but nobody looks at themas murderers or assassins because that's “natural”. so we blame people. we say, “well, this guy wasa nazi- he tortured jews.”

no, he was broughtup to torture jews. once you accept the fact thatpeople have individual choices and they are free tomake those choices- ... free to make choices meanswithout being influenced. and i can't understandthat at all. all of us are influencedin all of our choices by the culture we livein, by our parents and by the values that dominate. so we're influenced- so therecan't be “free” choices.

'what's the greatest country in the world?' - the true answer: 'i haven't been all over theworld and i don't know enough about different culturesto answer that question.' i don't know anybodythat speaks that way. they say, "it's the good old usa!the greatest country in the world!" there is no survey... 'have you been to india?'- 'no.' 'have you been to england?'- 'no.' 'have you been to france?' - 'no.' 'then what do you makeyour assumptions on?' they can't answer, they get mad at you.they say,

'god dammit! who the hell areyou to tell me what to think?!' you know... don't forget: you'redealing with aberrated people. they are not responsiblefor their answers; they're victims ofculture and that means they have been influencedby their culture. [ part 4: rise ] when we consider aresource-based economy there are often a number of argumentsthat tend to come up with... [ eh! ] (interrupted)

[ eh! hey! ] [ now hold on just a minute! ]- yes? [ i know what this is.this is called marxism, buddy! ] [ stalin killed 800 billion peoplebecause of ideas like this... ] [ my father died in the gulag! ]- all right, hold on, hold on ... [ communist! fascist! ] [you don't like americayou should just leave!] all right, everybodyjust calm down... [ death to the new world order! ]

and as the irrationalityof the audience grew, shocked and confused, suddenly the narrator suffereda fatal heart attack. and the seemingly communistpropaganda film was no more. [system error] [backup initiated - restored] but you know, i've said thatsort of thing to people in think-tank typeof situations, you know these club ofrome types and so forth...

they say 'marxist!' what? marxist?where did that come from? they just got this icon theyhold onto- it's their holy grail and it's such aneasy one, you know. people ask if i'm a socialistor a communist or capitalist. and i say i amnone of the above. and why do you think thatthose are the only options? all of those political constructswere created by writers who assumed we lived on aplanet of infinite resources.

not one of those politicalphilosophies even contemplates that there might be ashortage of anything! i believe that communism, socialism,free enterprise, fascism are part of social evolution. you can't take a giant stepfrom one culture to another- there are in-between systems. before there's any “ism”,we've got a life ground. and the life ground is as i'vejust described most easily as all the conditions requiredto take your next breath.

and that involves the air youbreathe, the water you get, the safety you have, theeducation you can access - all these thingsthat we share and use and that no life, in anyculture, can do without. so we've got to resetdown to the life ground and the life ground isno longer any “ism”. it's “life value analysis.” [ beyond the pale ] it's simply a matterof historical fact

that the dominantintellectual culture of any particular societyreflects the interests of the dominant groupin that society. in a slave owning society the beliefs about humanbeings and human rights and so on will reflect theneeds of the slave owners. in the society, whichagain is based on the power of certain peopleto control and profit from the lives and work ofmillions of others,

the dominantintellectual culture will reflect the needsof the dominant group. so, if you lookacross the board, the ideas that pervadepsychology and sociology and history and politicaleconomy and political science fundamentally reflectcertain elite interests. and the academics whoquestion that too much tend to get shunted to the side orto be seen as sort of “radicals”. the dominant values of a culture

tend to support and perpetuate what is rewardedby that culture. and in a society wheresuccess and status is measured by material wealth-not social contribution- it is easy to see why the stateof the world is what it is today. we are dealing with avalue system disorder - completely denatured - where the priority ofpersonal and social health have become secondary tothe detrimental notions

of artificial wealthand limitless growth. and, like a virus, this disordernow permeates every facet of government - news media -entertainment - and even academia. and built into its structureare mechanisms of protection from anything thatmight interfere. disciples of themonetary-market religion- the self-appointed guardiansof the status quo- constantly seek out ways toavoid any form of thought which might interferewith their beliefs,

the most common of whichare projected dualities. if you're not a republican,you must be a democrat. if you are not christian,you might be a satanist. and if you feel societycan be greatly improved to consider, perhaps- i don't know - taking care of everyone? you're just a “utopianist”. and the most insidiousof them all: if you are not forthe "free-market" you must be againstfreedom itself.

i'm a believer in freedom! every time you hear the word'freedom' being said anywhere or 'government interference' saidanywhere, it means, decoded: blocking maximizationof turning money into more money forprivate money possessors. that's it.every other thing they'll say: 'oh, we need morecommodities for people'; 'oh, this is freedom againsttyranny' and so forth, every time you see it, youcan decode it down to that.

and i think you'll find aone-to-one correlation with every time they use it. and this, in a sense, inwhich we might call- ... it's a syntax. a governing syntaxof understanding and of value. so it governs beneath theirown recognition of it. so they might say: 'oh, ididn't mean that at all!' but in fact, that'swhat they do. just like you mayspeak a grammar and you have rules ofgrammar you follow

without recognizingwhat the rules are... and so what we have is what icall the “ruling value syntax” that underlies, every time they use these words: 'government interference';'lack of freedom' or 'freedom' or 'progress' or 'development' you can decode them all tocome back to mean that. of course, when youhear the word 'freedom' it tends to be in same sentencewith something called 'democracy'. it's fascinating how peopletoday seem to believe

that they actually havea relevant influence on what their government does, forgetting that the verynature of our system offers everything for sale. the only vote that countsis the monetary vote and it doesn't matterhow much any activist yells about ethicsand accountability. in a market system, everypolitician, every legislation and hence, everygovernment- is for sale.

and even with the $20 trillionbank bailouts starting in 2007- an amount of money whichcould have changed say, the global energy infrastructureto fully renewable methods- instead going to aseries of institutions that literally do nothingto help society, institutions that could be removedtomorrow with no recourse... the blind conditioning thatpolitics and politicians exist for the publicwell-being still continues. the fact is, politicsis a business,

no different than anyother in a market system, and they care about theirself-interest before anything else. i don't really, honestly, deepdown believe in political action. i think the system contractsand expands as it wants to. it accommodates these changes. i think the civil rightsmovement was an accommodation on the part of thosewho own the country. i think they see wheretheir self-interest lies; they see a certain amountof freedom seems good

-an illusion of liberty- give thesepeople a voting day every year so that they will have theillusion of meaningless choice. meaningless choice- thatwe go, like slaves and say “oh, i voted.” the limits of debate in this country are established beforethe debate even begins and everyone else ismarginalized and made to seem either to be communist orsome sort of disloyal person- a “kook- there's a word... and now it's “conspiracy”.see- they made that

something that should not beeven entertained for a minute: that powerful people might gettogether and have a plan! doesn't happen! you're a “kook”!you're a “conspiracy buff”! and of all the mechanismsof defense of this system there are two thatrepeatedly come up. the first is this idea that thesystem has been the “cause” of the material progress wehave seen on this planet. there are basicallytwo root causes

which have created theincreased so-called “wealth” and populationgrowth we see today. one: the exponential advancementof production technology; hence scientific ingenuity. and two: the initial discoveryof abundant hydrocarbon energy- which is currently the foundation ofthe entire socio-economic system. the free-market / capitalist/ monetary market system - whatever you want to call it - has done nothing but ridethe wave of these advents

with a distorted incentivesystem and a haphazard grossly unequal method of utilizingand distributing those fruits. the second defense is abelligerent social bias generated from yearsof propaganda which sees any othersocial system as a route to socalled "tyranny” with various name droppingsof stalin, mao, hitler, and the death tollsthey generated. well, as despotic as thesemen might have been

along with the societalapproaches they perpetuated, when it comes tothe game of death- when comes to the systematic daily mass murderof human beings- nothing in history comparesto what we have today. famines- throughout at least thelast century of our history- have not been causedby a lack of food. they have been causedby relative poverty. the economic resources wereso inequitably distributed

that the poor simplydidn't have enough money with which to buy thefood that would've been available if they could haveafforded to pay for it. that would be an exampleof structural violence. another example: inafrica and other areas- i'll particularlyfocus on africa- tens of millions ofpeople are dying of aids. why are they dying? it's not because we don'tknow how to treat aids.

we have millions of peoplein the wealthy countries getting along remarkably well because they have themedicines that will treat it. the people in africawho are dying of aids are not dying becauseof the hiv virus. they are dying becausethey don't have the money with which to pay for the drugs that would keep them alive. gandhi saw this. he said:

“the deadliest form ofviolence is poverty.” and that's absolutely right. poverty kills far more peoplethan all the wars in history, more people than all themurderers in history, more than all thesuicides in history. not only does structuralviolence kill more people than all the behavioralviolence put together, structural violence is also themain cause of behavioral violence. [ beyond the peak ]

oil is the foundation of and is present throughout, theedifice of human civilization. there are 10 calories of hydrocarbonenergy– oil and natural gas– in every calorie of food you and ieat in the industrialized world. fertilizers are madefrom natural gas. pesticides are made from oil. you drive oil-poweredmachines to plant, plow, irrigate, harvest,transport, package. you wrap the food in plastic– that's oil.all plastic is oil.

there are 7 gallonsof oil in every tire. oil is everywhere; it's ubiquitous.and it's only because of oil that there are 7 billionpeople or almost 7 billion people onthis planet right now. the arrival of thischeap and easy energy which is equivalent, by the way, to billions of slavesworking around the clock, changed the world in such aradical way over the last century and the population hasgone up 10 times.

but by 2050, oil supplyis able to support less than half the presentworld's population in their present way of life. so, the scale of adjustment tolive differently is just enormous. the world is now using 6 barrelsof oil for every barrel it finds. five years ago it wasusing 4 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds. a year from now it is goingto be using 8 barrels of oil for every barrelof oil it finds.

what's disturbing to me isthe lack of any real effort from governments worldwide and industry leaders worldwideto do something different. we have these, sort of, attemptsto build more wind power and to maybe dosomething with tide... we've got attempts to make ourcars a little bit more efficient. but there's nothing which really lookslike a revolution coming along; these are all pretty minor, andthat i think is pretty frightening. and the governments who aredriven by these economists

who don't really appreciatewhat we're talking about are trying to stimulate consumerismto restore past prosperity in the hope that theycan restore the past. they're printing yet more moneylacking any collateral at all. so, if the economyimproves and recovers and the famous growth comes back,it will only be short-lived because within a shortperiod of time, counted in monthsrather than years, it will hit thesupply barrier again;

there will be another priceshock and a deeper recession. so i think we go into aseries of vicious circles. so you have the economicgrowth going up -price spike- everything shuts down.that's where we are now. then it starts to come up againbut what we have now is this area where there's no more abilityto produce cheap energy. we're at the peak- we're on thedown slope of oil production. no way you're going to get anymore out of the ground any faster which means that things shutdown, the price of oil drops

which it did in early 2009 butthen as you have a “recovery” the price of oilstarts to come back. it's recently been hoveringat about $80 a barrel and what we see is that ateven at $80 a barrel now, with the financial andeconomic collapse, people are having a hardtime affording that. world oil production right now isabout 86 million barrels a day. over 10 years, you're looking atroughly 14 million barrels a day having to be replaced.

there's nothing aroundwhich can come even within 1% of meetingthat sort of demand. if we don't do somethingpretty quickly there's going to be ahuge energy deficiency. i think the big mistake is in notrecognizing a decade or so ago that a concerted effortneeded to be made to develop these sustainableforms of energy. i think that's somethingour grandchildren will look back onwith total disbelief.

'you people knew you were dealingwith a finite commodity. how could you possiblyhave build your economy around something whichwas going to disappear?' for the first timein human history the species is now faced with thedepletion of a core resource central to our currentsystem of survival. and the punchlineof the whole thing is that even with oilbecoming more scarce the economic systemwill still blindly push

its cancerous growth model, so people can go out andbuy more oil powered cars to generate gdp and jobs,exacerbating the decline. are there solutions toreplace the edifice of the hydrocarbon economy?of course. but the path needed toaccomplish these changes will not manifest through themarket system protocols required since new solutions canonly be implemented through the profit mechanism.

people are not investingin renewable energies because there is no money in itin both long and short term. and the commitmentneeded to make it happen can only occur at asevere financial loss. therefore, there is no monetaryincentive and in this system, if there is no monetary incentive,things do not happen. and on top of it all, peak oil is just one ofmany surfacing consequences of the environmental-social trainwreck gaining speed today.

other declinesinclude fresh water -the very fabricof our existence- which is currently showingshortages for 2.8 billion people and those shortages are on paceto reach 4 billion by 2030. food production: the destruction ofarable crop land, from which 99.7% of allhuman food comes from today is occurring up to 40 times fasterthan it is being replenished. and over the last 40 years,30% of the arable land

has become unproductive. not to mention that hydrocarbons are the backbone ofagriculture today and, as it declines, sowill the food supply. as far as resources in general, at our current patternsof consumption, by 2030 we will need 2 planetsto continue our rates. not to mention thecontinual destruction of life supporting biodiversitycausing extinction spasms

and environmental destabilizationacross the globe. and with all of these declines we have the near exponentialpopulation growth where by 2030 there might be over8 billion people on this planet. energy production alonewould need to increase 44% by 2030 to meet such demand. and again- since money is theonly initiator of action, are we to expect that anycountry on the planet is going to be able toafford the massive changes

needed to revolutionizeagriculture water processing, energyproduction and the like? when the globaldebt pyramid scheme is slowly shutting theentire world down? not to mention the fact that theunemployment you currently see is going to becomenormality, due to the nature oftechnological unemployment. the jobs are not coming back. and finally, a broadsocial perspective:

from the 1970 to 2010,poverty on this planet doubled due to this system. and given our current state, do you honestly think we will seeanything less than more doubling, more suffering andmore mass starvation? [ the beginning ] there is not goingto be any recovery. this is not some long depression that we're some daygoing to pull out of.

i think the next phasethat we are going to see after the next round of economiccollapses is massive civil unrest. when unemploymentchecks stop being paid because the stateshave no money left. and when things get so badthat people lose confidence in their elected leaders,they will demand change if we don't kill eachother in the process or destroy the environment. i'm just afraid that we mightget to the point of no return

and that bothers me to no end. we do all we can toavoid that condition. it's clear that we're on the vergeof a great transition in human life. that what we face now isthis fundamental change of the life we've knownover the last century. there has to be a linkbetween the economy and the resourcesof this planet- the resources being of course,all animal and plant life, the health of the oceansand everything else.

this is a monetary paradigmthat will not let go until it's killed thelast human being. the "in" group will do allit can to stay in power and that's what you'vegot to keep in mind. they'll use the armyand navy and lies or whatever they have touse to keep in power. they're not about to give it up because they don't knowof any other system that will perpetuate their kind.

[ live from new york ] [global protests shutdown world economy] [ london - live ] [ china - live ] [ south africa - live ] [ live from spain ] [ live from russia ] [ canada - live ] [ saudi arabia - live ]

[ western crime rates soar ] [ un declares stateof global emergency ] [ global unemployment hits 65% ] [ fears of world war continue ] [ debt collapse nowcausing food shortages ] ♫ ♪ [ guitar strums ] ♫ ♪ ♫ take a straight and strongercourse to the corner of your life ♪ ♫ just remember that the goal ♪ ♫ is for us all tocapture all we want ♪

[ take it back ] ♫ don't surroundyourself with yourself ♪ ♫ move on back two squares ♪ ♫ send an instant karma to me ♪ initial it with loving care ...for yourself (don't surround yourself) ♫ 'cause it's time is time in time withyour time and its news is captured ♪ ♫ ...for the queen to use! ♪ [ while no violencehas been reported

as the unprecedentedprotests continue... it appears that the equivalentof trillions of dollars are being systematicallywithdrawn from bank accountsacross the world and in turn, evidentlynow being dumped in front of the world'scentral banks. ] [ world history ] ♫ i've seen all good people turn their headseach day so satisfied i'm on my way ♪ [ repeats ]

[ this is your world ] [ this is our world ] [ the revolution is now ] [ ]

Subscribe to receive free email updates: