We are a non-profit organization Humanity Integrated that is comprised of people who find themselves in the most interesting yet trying times of human evolution – the time of global crisis, which is the first stage of a profound change.
Economy
Economist Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus suggests how businesses can put the creativity and innovation of capitalism to uses other than making money. He talks about how his model of social business has worked in Bangladesh and looks forward to a world where no one will be known as ‘an unemployed person’
It is becoming increasingly clear that no economic program or transaction can be successful without taking humanity into consideration. Today, if I want to make a successful deal with someone, my new thinking should be: “What would be good for my business in the “round”, integrated, common world? Perhaps I should make sure my business is good for everybody…”
A business can be successful on a condition that I am concerned about other people and their families as much as I am care about my own. If we realize that to live well means to “feed each other”, that I wouldn’t be able to find a piece of bread unless you brought it to me and you would not be able to feed yourself unless I gave you a piece of cake, then we would gladly agree to stat doing just that – caring for all as we care of ourselves.
We need to acknowledge that the world has changed and requires for us to re-consider our egoistic ways; we have to take into consideration that we must contribute to the world and prepare ourselves for this new world through global education. A new economy will not work unless its aim is global and integrative, in line with producing goods and services for the benefit of the whole world.
The words “Economy” and “Ecology” both come from the Greek word “Ecos,” meaning “household.” In other words, Ecology is the science about how to arrange our household on the planet Earth, and Economy sets forth the rules by which this household should operate. Therefore, we shouldn’t separate ecology from economy.
Economy and ecology both have their own natural laws. And if we’re building an artificial economy, one that’s based on our own invented rules instead of the rules embedded in nature, then we’re leading ourselves to bankruptcy. Nature is a massive, complex, harmoniously designed, living household. By meddling in it and violating its laws, we induce the crisis. The entire economy must be reconstructed from being an economy of consumption to an ecologically correct economy – an economy of sensible consumption.
Opinion: (N. Moiseev, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences): “I hope that in the near future our teachers will have the need for the propaedeutic [preparatory study or instruction] course “Contemporary Understanding of the World.” This is due to the fact that the crisis in the relations between nature and society is growing, and the social demand for education, which is far beyond the narrow professionalism, is increasing as well.
“A modern person must see the world in its entirety. Only the understanding of a general logic of the development of the world in which we live will help overcome the disastrous consequences of the relentlessly approaching crisis and perhaps even avoid it!
“Such a course should precede the studying of social sciences and philosophy, for which it is a necessary introduction. It is particularly necessary to the future experts in the humanities and social sciences, for whom the natural sciences and ecology are on the periphery of their interests.
“Future engineers and physicists also need it because the natural sciences and engineering departments lack the general knowledge about the processes of development of the contemporary world and the processes of cognition, although these professionals will have to solve many problems of modern ecology, politics, and ethics.”
What Thomas L. Friedman predicted a year ago in his article, we are living today. He was then expressing his view on America’s transition from being the world’s superpower to becoming a “frugal superpower” whose frugality would impact the world even more. He claimed that since the Great Recession of 2008, “the nature of being a leader, political and corporate, has been changing in America,” and now its leaders have been taking things away rather than giving to people. Freedman said America’s leaders, while depriving their voters, were not going to save money on foreign policy and wars. Yet, sooner or later, they would have to. He cited the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had been warning that the cuts are coming, which would affect the globe.
The journalist referred to the book (America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era), written by Michael Mandelbaum, the John Hopkins University foreign policy expert, to emphasize that by 2050, all forms of government supplied pensions and health care would account for an 18% of everything the United States produces. He wrote: “This… will fundamentally transform the public life in the United States and therefore the country’s foreign policy” and added that our defining watchword “more” was being replaced with “less”.
Friedman continued to build his analysis on the information provided by Mandelbaum, who states that when the world’s only superpower is burdened with heavy debt, it will reflect on everyone. He also remarked that for the past century, the US foreign policy provided global public with many benefits – from open trade and containment to counterterrorism, and that US power had been the key to maintaining global stability. Although Mandelbaum is confident that it will not disappear, he thinks that role will certainly shrink and concludes that “no country stands ready to replace the United States.”
Looking at the possibilities of who might, he labels Europe as rich but wimpy and China as “rich nationally but still dirt poor on a per capita basis”, which will not allow them to remain focused inwardly and regionally. As to Russia, he claims “drunk on oil, it can cause trouble but not project power.” Thus, Mandelbaum predicts for the world to become a more disorderly and dangerous place.
To mitigate this trend, he suggests:
1. To get ourselves back on a sustainable path to economic growth and reindustrialization, with whatever sacrifices, hard work and political consensus that requires, which implies considering common interests.
2. To set priorities: even though the US desires to succeed in Afghanistan, it is not vital; therefore, the war must cease.
3. Finally, we need to cut our balance sheet and the best way to do that in one move is with a much higher gasoline tax.
Friedman summarizes that America is about to learn a very hard lesson: You can borrow your way to prosperity over the short run but not to geopolitical power over the long run.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05friedman.html