Firstly, I am a proponent of the Zeitgeist movement, I preach the ideas wherever I can and am absolutely convinced that a resource-based economy is the way to go, contrarily to the existing monetary one, however, I would like to discuss a number of issues that are left outside the focus of the movies, specifically the third, Moving Forward installment (which I found to be brilliant, made me cry a couple of times how beautiful it was).
The trouble is with transition between the existing and desired economies, perhaps even insurmountably huge trouble. If a resource-based economy is to become a reality, these issues will have to be addressed: Initiation of the economic shift, nature of the transition period, the optimal sustainable number of people, nature of government and civic involvement in a resource-based economy.
"Little Johnny, what do you want to be in life?" asked a teacher.
He thought a little and said: "Happy..."
"Oh, Little Johnny, you must have misunderstood the question!" sighed the teacher.
"No, miss, you must have misunderstood life," concluded Little Johnny.
-Latvian anecdote
It seems to me that the peoples of the world are incredibly far from doing the right thing, for a number of reasons: lack of basic education and life necessities i.e. freedom; lack of moral judgement and ethics i.e. reason; greed - considerable vested interest in preventing a change in the status quo to safeguard economic, societal or political privileges of select, limited amount of individuals; fear, apathy and anxietal uncertainty - all associated with being on the threshold of doing something bold and risky.
Education is one of the most prominent reason, which is closely tied to poverty. For an academic like myself it might be relatively simple to comprehend the dead-endness of the existing socio-economics, however, for people at the "bottom billion", scraping by with less than a dollar a day, with no access to clean water or electricity, it is probably a little for fetched to aspire to a world where grimy work will be done for people by robots and food will be aplenty, to say the least. Thus it lies on the shoulders of the well educated and economically resourceful to spread the word, to share the bounty of this planet. How odd it is, that a whole continent - Africa - with it's diverse climate, mountains of resources and plenty of workforce is mired in ethnic hatred, corruption, masochistic religiosity and military instability, while it could stand united and easily seize dominance in clean energy and hi-tech electronics production. I contend that the vast majority of the world's population, given enough education, would come to the realization that monetary system is at the heart of their impoverishment and the immeasurable wealth of select few and would gladly support re-building of the world for a better future.
Another all too widespread reason that prevents the most good-hearted people from acting on the injustice in the society is lack of basic reason, which comes about due to religion. Religion is the most powerful organized detrimental factor that will have to be taken into account if economic paradigm shift is to begin. Difficulties religion produces are manifold and I will describe a few. One, deities plan, promotes the absurd notion that the universe is somehow self-correcting and, in the sense that it is created specifically for humans, will always revert to being perfectly inhabitable, all according to a loving god. None of Christian commandments, for example, deal with enlightened use or distribution of resources, no "Thou shalt not chop down all rainforests thus condemning yourself to the horrors of global warming and oxygen starvation," in the Bible, I'm guessing it's because there are no trees in the Near east. Two, afterlife, gives a skewed perspective on the importance of preserving this lifespace. It makes it more acceptable to degrade the soil of this planet, since the eternity of bliss will be spent in the heavens and god will probably take care of whatever we leave behind. Third, irrationality, that is promoted throughout the religious conduct to ease the brain pain of constantly having to realize that what one believes just ain't so, administered for decades makes it practically impossible for a religious person to look at data, facts and react as a sane person would - with indignation to the inequality, not a mild-mannered "god has a plan" BS.
Greed... is good. And Gecko got it wrong. Greed is, most definitely, the most widespread detrimental quality humans possess. Oddly enough, though, it is a direct product of the money-governed society we live in. Kids are thought (or, rather, they see it everywhere they turn) that money equals happiness, and it does; it is beyond stupid to keep claiming that "money can't buy everything" when the only things it can't buy are the things no-one needs or wants. Then we shouldn't be surprised at all when a banker (or any person in a position of power, really) opts for the action that will bring him the greatest personal profit, no matter the cost to society. There just is no sense in doing the right thing, no profit, no acclaim, no luxury and status, just "moral integrity", a term that rings empty in the ears of money-zealots. This is a self-similarity problem, not just limited to individuals. Same as a building made of bad bricks crumbles, countries and governments of greedy men are doomed to make corrupt decisions. It is perfectly logical, that the country most obsessed with money - USA - is also the most morally bankrupt; schools failing, banks bailed out, rural population ignorant beyond belief, CO2 emissions a grandiose 19.9% of the whole world's, but only 4.5% of the world's population - appalling! Then again, China, the supposed pinnacle of conformity and sameness (no, not equality), keeps close to USA CO2 emission wise, but the emissions/person ratio is vastly different, especially due to China being the biggest industrial manufacturer on the planet (18.9 tonns per US citizen, 4.9 for Chinese). I wonder if China is only following the monetary system masochism only to use it as a means to achieve "economic victory" (Civ terminology) and then convert to global resource-management and if they have begun seriously looking at sustainable, renewable energy, since oil will be gone in two decades and that may bring China's oil-reliant and low-tech economic growth to a sudden and violent end.
Lastly, cold feet. It might sound silly, but this has to be addressed. How did it feel for AAmericans to abolish slavery and come to grips with the changed economy? I don't know, hopefully they were too exhilarated to be doing the right thing to fret much about, basically, minor details. This is what faces us, if we intend to abolish money - it has served us for some time, but now we have become slaves to it, let us abolish this slavery bravely and expediently!
Nature of the transition period
It is, of course, in everyone's best interest that the transition be peaceful, without loss of life and resources, sadly, chances of that happening are slim. The critical areas would be food supply and healthcare, crime and maraudering, deprivatization of production capacity and genocide. Now, the fundamental question is how the transition will take place in terms of speed, is it gonna be a gradual and slow process where transition areas will be established, similar to Hong-Kong, or is it gonna be a spontaneous ad-hoc revolution type of movement across the globe, each region setting in motion their own set of "resourcefication", or, perhaps, it will come to a dreary year 2050 deadline, which all countries will supposedly have to strive to and reach, but will abstinently ignore. Seeing how I rely on absolutely no hard data, my guess is as good as any other, but it is clear that those with wealth and social privilege will oppose the abandonment of money and it is important that their issues are addressed. Firstly, people have to be reminded that money is just a means. And means to what? We would hope to an enlightened and excellent life, not private jets and mansions. Heck, as long as monetary claim does not stand in the way of sustainable and free flow of resources, no objections should be raised to a few people owning solitary dwellings of their own choosing. Weapons of mass destruction are a concern, to say the least. It is not inconceivable that a group of people might find it auspicious to launch a nuclear attack while the target is undergoing major structural reform and is preoccupied elsewhere, thinking that the potential attackers ale likewise busy. Scary! I suspect that hysterical mass movements of people will also occur, the greatest movement of life on Earth since, well, ever.
Optimal sustainable number of people
It is not six billion, ok. It might not even be four. What if it is hundred million? The fact is that an inconceivable amount of people are living on burrowed time, young people that will be paying for the crimes, or just plain stupidity of their parents. The fact is, that a lot of people will die painfully slow or violent deaths in the near decades, there is a good chance it will be you, reader. It would be greatly preferable that birth rates are brought under control, and by that I mean one child per five families. Or no children whatsoever, only genetically engineered healthy and bright vat-humans, offspring of the human race, not just a nation, race or creed. Personally, I don't care how the math resolves itself. Genetically we are all basically identical, so my genes are covered, not that reproduction has ever interested me. I would be perfectly fine if Chinese people would be the ones remaining after *hit hits the fan, and this is coming from a person who's first language, Latvian, is spoken only by meagre two million hominids. On the other hand, it might not be so bad, if we would develop a type of ascetic enlightenment-type of life, where one is content with clean water (a growing concern on our planet, but, perhaps, in the future a part of energy we capture from the Sun might be utilized to distillate water), fresh, healthy food (with proper techniques and mechanization food output just might be sustainable and large) and unlimited access to a virtual reality module (surely, advances in brain study, electronics and cybernetics will allow future, scarcely-clad, cave-dwelling humans to access high-speed internet with just their on-board computers, implanted at birth).
Nature of government and civic involvement in a resource-based economy
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt in my mind that people will generously volunteer their time to the worthwhile task of betterment of life on Earth, but what if they don't? I sure hope someone will have designed an AI that is at least as smart as me and cares for the human race more than we do. How would disputes be solved? Like going into space, for example, Yes or No, what design to use, who to send. What happens if a stalemate is reached? How would novel solutions be implemented, who would be responsible for overseeing the process? Basically, I contend that there will always be pressure for resources that are not available yet, if ever and that will be the prime societal pressure. Perhaps this will be mediated by reducing the population by a couple million for a few decades, which will free up enough electricity, water and ice-cream quota to launch a space probe etc. Somehow I would like the available renewable resources to be allocated to each citizen as not just a token vote, but a real one, one of importance. It could play out in such a way that a project needs a certain amount of resources to be committed, say a robot puppy factory. The instigator would post on ExExTwitter and gather voters, a sort of ad-hoc movement. Once the needed resources are committed, they are subtracted from the respective ID accounts and the global automated infrastructure development bureau takes over to actually build the robot puppy factory and supply the population with adorable mechanic pets.
Closing thought
A resource-based economy is not and/or situation, it is a better one that the one we have. People might be reluctant to accept the changed "way of life", a phrase I hear a lot from Americans, but we must understand that by burning fossil fuels we are utilizing energy ancient plants stored in their trunks as cellulose over what appears to be millions of years, and we have exhausted that venue in mere two hundred years. DOUBLE FACEPALM!
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru