Opinion – Mutual Responsibility

November 18, 2012

Can The US Economy Be Fixed?

Newly Re-Elected President Obama Is Expected To Fix The Multiple Problems Ailing The US Economy

Jeffrey Sachs, American Economist and Director of the Earth Institute writes in The Economist in his article “Obama has four years to fix the economy:”

The modern president must therefore not be the overseer of aggregate demand but the conductor of deep-seated structural changes. He should be the convener of governors, mayors, university presidents, CEOs, healthcare providers and scientists to clear the obstacles from investment programmes in energy, education, infrastructure, health and skills.

Mr Obama’s legacy should be to foster the overhaul of the US economy.”

It is widely accepted that the newly re-elected President should be presiding over a structural reform of the economy, but most probably not in the way the writer suggests.

What Is The Main Problem With The US Economy?

As the global crisis exemplifies, despite occasional revivals, the constant quantitative growth economic model is unsustainable, as it is unnatural.

This model is built on excessive overproduction and over consumption of mostly unnecessary (by certain statistics over 90% of what is produced is obsolete), and many times harmful products.

This model is progressively exhausting both the natural and human resources, causing increasing social inequality and tension, jeopardizing food and water supplies within the very short future. As a result, human beings themselves are becoming increasing sick and depressed, the family unit and the social network is breaking, basically all human built institutions are in crisis.

The human society within nations and internationally is strained and threatened with conflicts all over the globe, and humanity in general is at war with the natural ecosystem around.

A viable structural change for the economic model is to first make sure that everyone’s basic needs are met, i.e. that people have a home, food, health care, and all the necessities in place to provide them with a comfortable life. Secondly, people would need to develop their awareness about how to live comfortably in today’s new globally interdependent conditions. In other words, where the constant quantitative economic growth model, together with its inherent individualism and competitiveness, leads to the increasing problems mentioned above, a new model embracing mutual responsibility and cooperation would literally need to be “taught” to people regularly in order for the economy to truly become fixed.

On top of that, such change cannot happen nationally in isolation. Since humanity is an interdependent network, any planning, decision and action needs to happen in conjunction with the rest of the network. As such, any plan or action people make should be in line with the whole system’s well being, otherwise it cannot work. It would cause harm, and that harm would return to the initiator as a boomerang with multiple force.

Any Solution To The US Economy Needs To Consider Global Interdependence

Only taking the above mentioned into consideration can the President or any other leader hope for a true legacy and a place in history.

Image: “tools3” by tigrre from Flickr

November 12, 2012

The Need For The Development Of Analog/Integral Education

Linear:

involving a single dimension.”

Analog:

of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities.”

Integral:

essential to completeness.”

– Merriam-Webster

The Problems Of The Modern World

When we think about the modern problems that afflict man, whether it be in regards to the individual or to society, we have a modern affliction. It is the product of poor education which has not kept up with a continually changing world. Fundamentally, the world has gradually switched from a linear path of development to an analog path of development.

For instance, on the level of resource production, it was once that a town or village was self-sustaining. It produced the goods and services which were needed in order for it to continue its survival. Now, it can be argued that even this is not linear, since a community needs the input of all of its members, in one form or another, for it to continue its existence.

Nevertheless, this type of development is relatively linear when compared to global society today which requires the input of the entire world in order for existence to be maintained.

The development of cities was a significant indicator of this direction because cities, due to the nature of their construction, are not self-sustaining. They need to have outside resources continually imported in order for the city to continue to function. For instance, the city of New York, a heightened example of this structure, practically consumes the amount of food that is imported to her on a daily basis. Therefore if imports were to somehow be halted, the city of New York, the most populated city in the U.S., would easily be put into immediate chaos if outside food were not to be imported for one day.

Increasing Interconnection & Interdependence Is A Natural Phenomenon

The degree to which interdependence has gradually increased in the world is a natural phenomenon. It is because by combining forces, life can be made simpler for everyone. However, interdependence, in order for it to be sustainable, requires mutual responsibility. Otherwise ties that were once not needed to be so closely regulated now become very much needed to be regulated in order for balance to exist.

Therefore when it comes to the modern afflictions of human society, it is no wonder that such things as depression, drug use, the breakdown of communities, unemployment, class inequality, narcissism, climate change, economic problems, and tense international relations become increasingly problematic issues. It is because education continues to teach the mindset of linear development for the individual and society.

Since education does not format itself to be in relation with the structure of human relations which now exists, it creates a paradigm of thought and behavior which is not conducive to solving the fundamental problem of modern society: The individual’s relation to others.

As A Result Of Linear Education, Modern Problems Are Misunderstood

Myriad crises, which today combine into one overarching global crisis, are increasingly appearing to be unsolvable and more problematic because of their roots in an interconnected and interdependent global framework, without its inhabitants having had the learning or upbringing necessary for dealing with such conditions.

Therefore, today all problems are chiefly rooted in how the individual, and all individuals together, relate to one another the world over. As a result, any crises that span worldwide today, such as the global economic crisis, would need to first address human relationships, the ways in which people interrelate with one another in an analog system, because if our relationships remain corrupted, then we will have no chance of being able to successfully deal with these problems.

To Properly Operate In An Analog System, Analog Education Is Needed

Due to the persistence of modern problems and their escalation, the development of “analog” or “integral” education can be a proper remedy. Therefore two paths currently exist for global society:

1. Eventually coming to develop analog/integral education as a result of continually worsening conditions in the future.

2. Properly analyzing this trend based on current and past suffering and starting the development of this new education today.

As a result, the development of an analog education is inevitable. The question that remains unanswered is when and how will it occur?

Image: “Worldcentric” by Stephen Lark on Flickr.

November 9, 2012

The Movie Prometheus Meets Hurricane Sandy

The recent hurricane causing havoc in New Jersey, New York and the rest of the East Coast of the US generated significant media interest, and also ignited discussions about human responsibility, direct or indirect involvement in natural catastrophes and weather pattern changes. The relatively recently released film Prometheus also tries to find answers to questions on the relationship in between humanity and the natural environment. Is it possible to draw conclusions, parallels between the two?

The Movie: Prometheus

In the film Prometheus a group of scientists, bankrolled by a dying billionaire trying to find answers to eternity, trace the origins of prototype humanoids to a faraway planet, which was identified from thousands of years old cave wall paintings from many different cultures. The scientists suspect that these prototype humanoids “engineered” the present humanity, and are anxious to meet them to get answers to questions like “What is the purpose of life?” “How can we make life better?” and so on.

As they arrive to the suspected location they truly find a base where the prototype humanoids are stationed, but they find that almost all died with signs of a horrible and violent death. They also find huge quantities of a biological weapons, used to colonize planets by wiping them clean first and then terraforming on them later. But what comes to light is that the biological weapon as a result of accident was released on themselves causing their violent demise. There are also signs that before their unexpected end the prototype humanoids were ready to head for the Earth again, planning to wipe it clean and start again. Indeed as soon as the research team revived the last live humanoid in hibernation, he immediately activated his spaceship to start his flight towards Earth with his fateful mission, but the self sacrificing heroics of the research team stopped him before he could leave. The last remaining human researcher, with a partially damaged android, then started on an adventure of finding the original planet of the prototype humanoids in order to find the still missing answers…

One possible message from the movie is that the prototype humanoids, by their aggressive action of colonization, i.e. by clearing out past life-forms and then repopulating them with their own DNA, found their own violent demise as their own biological weapon of mass destruction exterminated them.

The Hurricane: Sandy

The recent devastating storm cutting a trail into the East Coast of the US is the latest presentation of an unusual and intensifying weather phenomenon, together with other natural catastrophes like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Of course whenever human responsibility is mentioned related to these natural changes, immediately there is counter-claim that much worse and more frequent such changes happened before, or that the changes are cyclical, and within the emotional debates the point is lost.

But looking at the way of life, and the general attitude humanity has been functioning with for most of its history, especially what happened in the last decades, and placing it in the context of the general living ecosystem, it is clear that humans are acting outside of the laws and principles of the vast system.

The general human attitude, the purpose and driving force of any research and exploration, is about how people can exploit the natural environment, how they can reshape it to suit their own needs. At the same time the “needs” of humanity have changed as a life of surplus and luxury has become a culturally valued norm.

Unlike other species on this planet, people are each other’s predators, exploiting, using each other for self gain, the behavior of which led to the extermination of entire cultures throughout human history… the behavior of which continues today.

The above two problems have led humanity to a crossroad: a peak point has been crossed. Today’s continued development according to past paradigms has become self destructive. This destructiveness presents itself as the increasing personal, social, economic and ecological problems taking place the world over. Today, humanity has reached the state where even without natural catastrophes, imbalances such as mass scale famine, water shortages, scarcity of natural and energy resources or even world-wide conflicts can threaten the survival of the human species.

Where Does Prometheus Meet Sandy?

The present humanity does not have the luxury of colonizing other planets as the movie Prometheus shows with regard to the prototype humanoids. But as the movie suggests, even colonizing other planets, exploiting more and more galaxies, would not save a humanity that leaves its attitudes, interrelationships and paradigms unchanged. A cancer kills the whole system and itself at the end, regardless of the size and strength of the body. In an ecosystem thriving for balance, a humanity thriving in overproduction and overconsumption is a guarantee for a violent ending.

Humanity even today possesses all the necessary information necessary for the awareness of its problem: the self centered, subjective, greedy inherent human nature driving humanity into a near dead-end. If people are wise, the present, relatively moderate crisis and natural catastrophes will be enough to initiate a self examination and a resulting self adjustment necessary for the adaptation to the natural system. If not, then Prometheus’ tale about the prototype humanoids exterminating themselves might be a prophecy that humans will realize.

Image: “Prometheus” by Lyon & Pan from Flickr

November 5, 2012November 4, 2012

Hurricane Sandy’s Wake Up Call: What Will It Take To Bring People Into Balance With Nature?

Instinctive Human Nature Tries To Exploit Even The Most Horrendous Catastrophes For Self Gain

The article “The politics of Hurricane Sandy” on the pages of The Economist, analyzes the election campaign consequences of the devastating Hurricane sweeping the US East Coast:

Is Hurricane Sandy capable of altering the election result? The presidential candidates are hunkering down and trying to avoid looking partisan as this big, wet storm heads for the eastern seaboard. But any number of calculations are being made by the campaigns. Plausible arguments are flying, explaining why this storm is bad news, or is it good news, for both sides.”

The instinctive behavior of politicians immediately thinking how they can benefit or lose as a result of a natural catastrophe is a very typical human reaction, since people’s subjective perception assesses things from the “What is in it for me?” vantage point.

In truth this behavior is completely the opposite to how we should be looking at the current events. Many people would say that humans have nothing to do with these storms, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. Every time there is a debate about global warming, or other man-made affects on the environment, many people, including leaders and scientists try everything they can do to prove that humanity, human behavior has nothing to do with these “cyclical natural” changes.

Instead Of The Subjective Examination & The Denial Of Human Involvement In Natural, Environmental Changes, People Need To Examine The “Human Effect” In The Earth’s Living Ecosystem

A step by step examination, looking at the world in terms of the dynamics of living ecosystems, might suggest a different picture, where perhaps even such changes as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have relation to how human beings behave.

It is widely accepted that the whole Earth (possibly the whole Universe) is a single, interconnected, living ecosystem.
This ecosystem as any other living system thrives for overall harmony and homeostasis as this is the foundation of life, and the whole evolutionary process is progressing towards more and more evolved and stable lifeforms.
There is no question that human beings are also part of this ecosystem. The biological human body, even the human psyche, is based on the same laws of general balance and homeostasis, and when this balance is broken people become sick, even die.
Despite all this, humanity as a species is totally out of balance with the rest of nature, while any other living creature lives in balance with its environment, only consuming and taking what is necessary for its existence. Humans take much more than is necessary, and especially in the last century humanity created a completely artificial bubble with the constant quantitative growth economy, with its overproduction and overconsumption of unnecessary and mostly harmful products. In the process, as proven by the deepening global crisis, a global humanity exhausted both the natural and the human resources driving into a dead end.
Humanity at present behaves as a cancer in the vast surrounding natural system.
The natural, living ecosystem around is not “mindless,” its laws are fine tuned towards preserving life, the general harmony and homeostasis as the foundation of life.
Concluding from all the above, it is not far fetched to conclude that the vast surrounding natural system that is infinitely larger then the human species would react against humans as a healthy body would react against a disease or a foreign body, i.e. in a way that tries to reject it.

If humanity wants to “pacify” nature, moreover wants to survive as a species within the evolutionary process there is no other choice but to reveal and follow the basic principles of the natural system, principles people all know very well from their own body’s biology and physiology.

Humanity Needs To Accept & Understand That As Any Other Living Species, It Is Part Of A Vast “Self Adjusting” Natural System, Infinitely Greater Than The Human Species

Humanity has to give up the misunderstanding that people are above nature and can control it, or that natural laws do not apply to humans, or that evolution has stopped by the emergence of a modern humanity. Hurricane Sandy as well as the many other natural disasters where people can neither properly predict or defend themselves, are timely reminders of this fact.

A Predictable And Sustainable Future Is Possible If Humanity Settles Into The Interconnected Natural System As Its Partner, Adapting To Its Laws & Principles

The superiority of human beings above other animals comes from the fact that humans are capable of changing themselves. To be more precise, to change their inherent self centered nature in order to achieve balance in human society and between humanity and the environment. Animals, on the other hand, are instinctively balanced with nature. This conscious change and adaption, if it were to happen, would give people total control over the whole system, to the extent that they remain benevolent partners with it.

Image: “Hurricane Bud” by NASA Earth Observatory from Flickr

November 4, 2012November 11, 2012

In Response To Natural Catastrophes: Self Examination & Decision Time

A natural catastrophe always raises the uncomfortable question about human involvement.

Some will say that such horrible events have nothing to do with human behavior, while others will link them to climate change and our effect on the planet.

In a recent Project Syndicate article titled “Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change,” Professors J. Marshall Shepherd (Director of the Atmospheric Sciences program) and John Knox (receiver of the National Weather Association’s highest research award) of Georgia University, write the following:

There is growing evidence of links between climate change and sea-level rise, heat waves, droughts, and rainfall intensity, and, although scientific research on hurricanes and tornadoes is not as conclusive, that may be changing.

Indeed, recent reports by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific literature suggest that the intensity of hurricanes will increase as a result of warmer waters. And our atmosphere and oceans are, indeed, warming…”

Thinking we might be contributors to the devastation brought upon us by Sandy is indeed startling, and as the professors say, “the scientific research needed to prove or disprove such a connection must still be conducted.”

But while scientists are hesitant to give us a definite answer, Sandy serves as a grim reminder that regardless of how well we understand it, we are all little pieces within the bigger puzzle of nature. And we all depend on nature.

In modern times, we have grown accustomed to seeing ourselves as a separate and superior part of nature. We feel we are entitled to use, consume and manipulate natural systems to satisfy our needs and serve our desires.

Those natural systems, on the other hand, operate in harmony, where all the elements follow the law of homeostasis through interdependence and interconnection.

Our human society, while being a part of nature, is following opposite rules. “Every man for himself,” “it’s none of my business,” “whatever,” “who cares” and “me, me, me” have become standard, acceptable ways of thinking in modern society. So our contrast to nature starts at the most fundamental level. “Nature’s ideology,” if you will, is opposite to ours. But it doesn’t end there.

Human Society Vs. Nature: 5 Things To Consider

1 Many scientists today accept the Earth is a single, interconnected, living ecosystem.

2 This ecosystem, as any other living system, thrives on harmony and homeostasis which is the foundation of life. Evolution is also characterized by creating greater and more intricate ties that can maintain balance.

3 There is no question that human beings are a vital part of this ecosystem, with even our biological bodies being governed by the same laws of balance and homeostasis. When this balance is broken, we get sick or even die.

4 Despite the above knowledge, we, as a species, are in discord with the rest of nature. While other creatures and organisms are in balance with their environment, consuming and taking only what is necessary for their existence, we take a lot more than we need.

5 Within the last century in particular, we have created the artificial bubble of “the growth economy,” which creates an ever increasing overproduction and overconsumption of unnecessary and mostly harmful products. By doing so, we are exhausting both the natural and human resources, and are now driving ourselves into a dead end.

So at present, our behavior could be compared to that of a cancerous organism within the vast surrounding natural system. And that natural ecosystem around us has fine tuned laws that work to preserve life.

Undoubtedly, nature is a nourishing, harmonious system, which is infinitely greater than us – a human species existing within it and completely dependent on it. And quite possibly, the earth can react toward imbalance as a healthy body would react to a disease or a foreign organism within it.

Therefore, if we want to appease nature, and if we want to thrive as a species, we should start by learning how to follow the basic laws of nature, and its homeostatic inter-relations.

We should promote the understanding that as any other living species, we are part of a vast self-regulating natural system, infinitely greater than the human species. We ought to discard the misunderstanding that we are above nature and have the power to manipulate it as we wish.

It is time for us to grow out of the irresponsible perspective that natural laws do not apply to us or that we could override them with technological advancement.

Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters, when people can neither properly predict nor defend themselves, are timely reminders of our imbalance with nature’s laws. A more predictable and sustainable future is possible if we settle into the interconnected natural system as its partner, adapting to its laws and principles.

The Change Starts Between Us

“The world will need more cooperation in the coming years, as climate change begins to interact with and exacerbate extreme weather events, in order to gain the lead-time needed to prepare for disasters. We will also need the collaboration among governments, the private sector, and academia that often leads to improvements in forecasting.” (Professors Shepherd and Knox)

As part of our connection with nature, we are also connected to each other and dependent on each other. And there is no doubt that disasters like Sandy stress the need for better human connection and cooperation.

It seems that while animals are balanced with nature by instinct, we humans have to exercise our unique capacity for conscious adaptation. We have to do it of our own accord.

How do we align our actions and relations with nature? By consciously adjusting our social values so as to achieve balance in human society and balance with the natural environment.

The natural system is not going to change its homeostatic laws. It has to maintain its integrity and balance.

But we can choose to embrace these laws and assume responsibility for each other and for the environment. The question is whether we will choose to do it as a result of more disasters, or through a pleasant, healing process of inspiring social change.

Image: “Question Mark Phoenix” by Roy Blumenthal from Flickr

October 27, 2012October 24, 2012

The Court Jester Cannot Solve The Kingdom’s Problem

Today The Central Bankers Seem To Be The Main Players In Trying To Solve The Global Crisis

Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business assesses the role of the central banks in solving the global crisis in the article “The Only Game In Town.” He writes:

What should central banks do when politicians seem incapable of acting? Thus far, they have been willing to step into the breach, finding new and increasingly unconventional ways to try to influence the direction of troubled economies. But how can we determine when central banks overstep their limits? When does boldness turn to foolhardiness?

Central bankers nowadays enjoy the popularity of rock stars, and deservedly so: their response to the difficult and uncertain environment during and after the financial crisis has been largely impeccable. But they must be able to admit when they are out of bullets. After all, the transformation from hero to zero can be swift.”

But In Reality Banks Are Powerless In Assisting A True Solution As The Troubled Economies Are Not Only Financial Problems, But Part Of A Larger Human System Failure

Unfortunately, the whole situation is upside down.

The central banks, or any bank in fact, should not play any role in what is happening. The banks simply got into their prominent positions as a result of the excessive, constant growth economy forcing everybody into overspending, relying more and more on credit.

But these financial institutions, with their inflated and imminently bursting bubbles have no real bullets at all, they have absolutely no capacity to solve the crisis. It is the opposite. By pouring virtual money into the tanks of the broken system, all the banks are doing is delaying the inevitable recognition of the true problem: the foundation of the whole economic model and its serving cast. The troubled economies are not just financial problems, but a system failure as humanity is stubbornly pushing on with the wrong system at the wrong time.

The “rock star” bankers are just as real as other reality TV stars: they grab the headlines but provide no positive contribution.

A ‘True Solution’ Can Only Come From Dealing With The ‘True Problem’: The Globally Interdependent Human Network & How Its Members Should Behave In It

The banks should gradually withdraw from the arena leaving leaders and public to examine and understand how a global, interdependent human network works in a closed and finite natural system, and what new socio-economic model is suitable to provide a predictable and sustainable future.

Image: “all in jest” by Will Montague from Flickr

October 25, 2012October 24, 2012

Europe’s Nobel Wake-Up Call

The European Union Was Awarded The Nobel Peace Prize For The Work It Has Down In The Last 6o Years, While Its Present And Future Is Very Much In Balance

Ana Palacio, a former Spanish foreign minister and former Senior Vice President of the World Bank writes in her article “Europe’s Nobel Wake-Up Call:”

In a decision criticized and praised in equal measure, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s Peace Prize to the European Union in recognition of its contributions ‘to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe’ over the past six decades. But, to what extent is Europe preoccupied with ‘perpetual peace’ at the expense of its current, vastly different ailments? Is this award a swan song – confirmation of the moribund state of the European project, as the 2001 Nobel Prize was for the United Nations?”

The Full Potential Of A United Europe Has Not Blossomed Due To Self Interest And Lack Of True Vision

People should consider the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the EU as an award given to the potential of what Europe could become in case of taking on the full measure of the structure that was originally planned.

It is not true that Europeans are rejecting the European Union (as the article suggests). It is the politicians and main interest groups that have abandoned, or decided against full union due to individual or group interests. They are stopping the pursuit of a deeper integration that could have fulfilled the original potential. There are multiple examples in life proving that the simple people on the street are only interested in a secure life, predictable future, fulfilling their necessities according to their desires and following their usual customs. If they receive it from a supra-national governing body instead of a national one they would have no problem with it, as long as they perceive the system fair and democratic.

Unfortunately today, the same politicians and interest groups are swaying the public against this full integration again. In the meantime it becomes increasingly clear that partial unions have absolutely no chance of surviving. Thus, the present “united” economical structure, the single currency or the planned banking union, are just futile attempts. They are so illogical that one has to wonder if those at the top are doing it on purpose to prove that a full union is impossible, that it is better to fully abandon the project, because they themselves are not willing to go for it as it does not serve their own interest.

The Move Toward Full Integration & Mutual Cooperation

After all the past and present failures, and with the very obvious threats of national and international breakups and violent confrontations in case of a collapse, there is clearly no other solution but to move for a full integration, the creation of a single, united socio-economic system all over Europe, which later on can provide an example for humanity.

Instead of pointing fingers in all directions, politicians would become more beneficial to people if they explained, based on countless scientific examples and daily events of the crisis, that today’s globally interconnected and interdependent reality demands an equally connected and cooperative human network in order to survive and build a sustainable future.

This would be the united Europe that should be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Image: “Occupy Frankfurt” by Wolfgang Sterneck from Flickr

October 25, 2012October 24, 2012

Mutual, Round Table Discussion Instead Of Exaggerated Scare Tactics

Today The Most Frequently Used Way Of Expressing Opinion Publicly, In Hoping To Gather Support Is Through Exaggerated Scare Tactics

In his article “Scary Pictures” Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, who founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center describes the practice of people exaggerating their findings, claims in order to make greater impact on their target audience, many times scaring them, but by doing so losing their credibility achieving the opposite effect they hoped for.

Campaigners on important but complex issues, annoyed by the length of time required for public deliberations, often react by exaggerating their claims, hoping to force a single solution to the forefront of public debate. But, however well intentioned, scaring the public into a predetermined solution often backfires: when people eventually realize that they have been misled, they lose confidence and interest.”

In truth the practice described in the article is the accepted norm today for politicians, the marketing industry and basically any issue discussed when people try to prove their right.

As the article suggests, most of the time it is based on “good intentions” the exaggerating party usually truly believes in its truth, that it wants the best for others, to the public.

Still it does not change the fact that most of the time these efforts cause more harm than good.

Trying To Convince Others In A Forceful Way, Being Completely Convinced About Our Own ‘Truth’ Originates From Basic Human Nature

This practice originates from the inherent basic human nature, where each and every human being perceives a very limited segment of the whole reality, a segment which is fully filtered by the person’s self-serving calculations, how people always justify their own behavior. People consider this limited picture their truth

Human beings simply cannot behave in any other way, thus any time a single person, or even a group of people on the same opinion express a view, disclose their opinion, it comes out as a very narrow, subjective picture, many times in opposition to other peoples “truth.”

So is there no solution, and humanity will keep stumbling from one fiasco to another as people can simply not trust each other, believe other’s opinion, with 7 billion different “truths” all clashing with each other?

The Solution In Order To Arrive To A Common ‘Truth’ Is Through Mutual, Round Table Discussions

The only solution is mutuality.

Any planning, decision making and action has to be a result of mutual, round table like collaboration between people, which might slow down the process, but at the same time has a much better chance of success, as when people discuss things around a round table as equals, representing all relevant opinions, even the most contrasting, most opposite opinions on the subject, in between them they yield a common point that is the actual truth. By letting their opinions mingle with each other, and by focusing on reaching a mutual consensus, what remains as the collective opinion, above all subjective opinions, is the actual solution to the problem discussed.

In today’s globally interconnected world there is simply no other way of decision making and problem solving.

October 24, 2012October 24, 2012

Living As Cancer Does Not Lead To Happiness

As Humanity In General Feels More Depressed, Emptier And More Afraid Of The Future Than Ever, The Search For The Right Definition Of ‘Happiness’ Is On

Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics writes in his article “Happiness Is Equality“:

…The king of Bhutan wants to make us all happier. Governments, he says, should aim to maximize their people’s Gross National Happiness rather than their Gross National Product. Does this new emphasis on happiness represent a shift or just a passing fad?

It is easy to see why governments should de-emphasize economic growth when it is proving so elusive. The eurozone is not expected to grow at all this year. The British economy is contracting. Greece’s economy has been shrinking for years. Even China is expected to slow down. Why not give up growth and enjoy what we have?

No doubt this mood will pass when growth revives, as it is bound to. Nevertheless, a deeper shift in attitude toward growth has occurred, which is likely to make it a less important lodestar in the future – especially in rich countries…

…More equality would not only produce the contentment that flows from more security and better health, but also the satisfaction that flows from having more leisure, more time with family and friends, more respect from one’s fellows, and more lifestyle choices. Great inequality makes us hungrier for goods than we would otherwise be, by constantly reminding us that we have less than the next person. We live in a pushy society with turbo-charged fathers and “tiger” mothers, constantly goading themselves and their children to “get ahead.”…”

The Greatest Mistake People Make When Assessing Themselves Is Separating Themselves From The Surrounding Natural System, As If Humans Were Above, Separate of The Natural Environment

The situation is more simple than people think.

People tend to forget who they are. Humans are not some special aliens, disconnected from the rest of living creatures or the natural system they live in, but they are part of it.

Humans still belong to the group of mammals, the biological human body does not differ from other sophisticated mammals apart from small differences, the whole body and even the psyche is working based on the same laws and principles.

And what is called “happiness” in biological terms is an overall balance, homeostasis within the actual ecosystem, and in this case this ecosystem exists within a single human being, within human society and between human society and the rest of the vast surrounding natural system.

Happiness, the feeling of balance, the ease people can settle in life depends on how optimally they take part in the system with harmony.

Problems Humanity Experiences Today Stems From The Fact That The Present Human Socio-Economic System Is In Direct Opposition To Nature’s Law Of Balance

The constant quantitative growth lifestyle stubbornly pressed on despite it obviously collapsing is unnatural, it is going completely against the natural laws in the surrounding environment.

At the moment humans behave like cancer within the natural system. With the present system humans harm themselves, we have the human induced disease statistics – depression, divorce, substance abuse statistics and the collapse of basically – all human institutions as proof. Besides humans harm the general human society witnessed through social inequalities, growing national and international tensions, future-less and jobless youth, and humans harm the environment where again the proof is obvious from global warming to countless species extinction, ocean and air pollution, and so on.

Growth In A Closed And Finite, Interconnected System Has To Be Qualitative, Optimizing, Refining The Interconnections Aimed At The Well-Being Of The Whole System

The article claims that “growth is bound to return” but the return of quantitative growth is impossible. The laws surrounding humanity are unbreakable and if the human species is planning to survive with the evolutionary process, humanity has to adapt to the natural system instead of trying to bend it to match its selfish and greedy desires. The growth that is possible from now on is qualitative, like the maturing biological body after growth has finished.

As the whole global human network has evolved into the interconnected and interdependent state, from now on the processes should concentrate on changing our attitudes and relationships according to this interdependence. In other words, how to use interconnections in the most optimal way for the benefit of the whole organism, how to refine the whole system primed for overall harmony and balance.

We do not stand a chance, as the awesome natural forces during natural catastrophes show us we are no match for them: nature around us will not change, only we can.

Equality Within Human Society Has To Be Coupled With An Attitude And Approach That Is Based On The Unbreakable Laws Of The Natural, Living Ecosystem

Returning to the main theme of the quoted article, equality in itself does not lead to happiness. If we are equal in our tendency to exploit everything and everyone for our own favor, that would just lead to further destruction. This attitude led to the global crisis humanity is sinking in at the moment.

Thus social equality has to be coupled with the right attitude, an inclination towards a mutually benevolent relationships among people on a global scale.

Humanity has to climb down from the high pedestal and start researching and understanding the surrounding natural system from a new viewpoint. Not from the point of exploitation – how people can use nature for their own “misunderstood well-being” – but how they can learn nature’s laws so humanity can become a partner in the system, helping in the maintenance of the general balance and homoeostasis, and enjoying unprecedented quality of life through this approach.

Image: “55. cancer-information” by Tips Times from Flickr

October 21, 2012October 21, 2012

What Would A Mutually Responsible Economy Look Like?

i love you and i care for you brother ^_^

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis in our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society.

The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence.

Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate.

All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.”

– Albert Einstein, 1949

A Mutually Responsible Economy?

In essence, we already know what a mutually responsible economy looks like. It is the economy that exists within the family. In the family, each person operates according to need and merit. There is the mother, father, children, and the extended family. Each operates according to a particular role: The baby, the mother, the father, grandparent, etc.

These roles then are further broken down. The baby is, “helpless,” “precious,” “in need of protection.” The father is perhaps the “bread winner,” the mother, “the caregiver,” etc. To contemplate what form an economy based on mutually responsibility would look like, where each seeks to provide for others, it is probably best to start with something we know.

Obviously, all families don’t act in a mutually responsible way. And an economy based on mutual responsibility doesn’t mean, “Shangri-La.” After all, a family can provide each other with what they need and still have disagreements. But a family that operates cohesively is a family that operates with mutual responsibility, where each contributes to the family and is supported by the family.

According To Need And Merit

The family operates according to need and merit. For instance, everyone in the family needs shelter, food, and socialization. But if the son, 15, goes to the father and says, “Dad, I’m about to turn 16. Will you buy me a car when I get my driver’s license?” then the father has a calculation to make: “Is buying my son a car according to need?” After all, the family has a car, possibly multiple cars. Does the son really need a car?

But then there is merit. The father could see that a car is a status symbol, a rite of passage, etc. and then place a condition: “I will give you a car if you do X and Y.” So the family operates according to need but also according to merit in order to provide each other what is needed.

But how can this example of the family apply towards the creation of an economy that exists in relation to everyone, and not just the family which is naturally tied together, where each member from birth or through desire wants to be together?

The Need For A Mutually Responsible Economy

As the above quote from Einstein says, each person in society is tied to all the others. However, although we are tied to one another, each needing all the others in order to receive his or her needs; we do not view these ties as beneficial. Therefore, our economy is structured around the pursuit of the individual and not the pursuit of society as a whole.

But if each did perform their role, their self-calculating role, where each provided for others only in order to acquire one’s needs—and this worked—who would complain? The problem is that this path no longer produces gain. Today economic hardships are increasing. The economic system we have built, according to personal benefit, no longer operates in a way where each generation can build upon the accomplishments of the last, where equality grows, and inequality fades.

Applying Need And Merit To The Economy

When it comes to need and merit in relation to the general economy (i.e., everyone), it should be becoming increasingly more apparent why such a system should hold great possibility. It has been reported, for instance, that nearly 1/3 of all food produced today is thrown away. In correlation, nearly 600 million die a year due to malnutrition and hunger.

If an economy operated like a family, according to need and merit, then no one would go hungry. After all, each person has the need for food, for shelter, for healthcare, etc. so excess food would be given to those who have the need for it. But then what would happen to such things like competition? Wouldn’t competition shrink to nonexistence if such a system were to be put into place? With mutual responsibility, what is to become of those who are stronger, smarter, perhaps more privileged; are they to simply now receive everything the same as those who are perhaps weaker, lazier, not as smart, etc.?

This is where merit can be applied. However, before merit can be accurately applied, first the need for an integral view, to view the economy, the global economy, as a system, as parts in a chain or cogs in a wheel, is first needed.

The Need For New Education

If everyone in society were taught about their natural reliance upon others, that labor is divided so that goods and services can be made available more easily, that society works best when work is done for the benefit of society, then the idea of mutual responsibility would seem like a natural necessary conclusion. Moreover, the need to develop a mutually responsible global economy would also be apparent given the reliance that each nation has upon all the others or their daily survival.

In regards to equality, need, and merit, a mutually responsible society would treat all members of society equally. For instance, given that each role in society is needed, from janitors to politicians; each role would be treated equally because each role would be seen as pivotal for society’s continued operation.

Equality then could be achieved through merit being applied in a new way. For example, instead of paying certain members of society more for doing more skilled work, social merits could be given instead. After all, the one who does more skilled work than one who does less skilled work still has the same needs and the extra merit that this more detailed work demands could easily come through societal honors, thereby creating economic equality while still providing merit for such work.

Also, in regards to competition, in a mutually responsible economy it would still exist. The form would only change: Instead of competing to profit for oneself, a person would compete in order to best benefit society. Equality then could be achieved rapidly and competition would be a driving force for it and the creation of a continually more cohesive and sustainable society.

Image: “i love you and i care for you brother ^_^” by ๑۩۞۩๑~OTH~๑۩۞۩๑ on Flickr.