Sacred Economics

I attended a Skype discussion with Charles Eisenstein last night (March 7th) on Chico State campus.  While the "panel" hosting the event was disgracefully unprepared and wasteful of Mr. Eisenstein's time (which he was "gifting" to us), I still walked away from the discussion fully inspired by a powerful intellect who fully understands what we have lost as a species and how we might take it back.

You can read Eisentein's entire book, 'Sacred Economics', online for FREE.  It is an important and relevant work that, unfortunately, will go unheeded by most.

The Most Important Art You May Never See

I realize that this will be difficult to believe.

I would go so far as to say… for many of you, the reality expressed below will be more easily labeled as delusional than intellectually accepted, and I cannot blame anyone who (consciously or subconsciously) chooses to lock themselves into that position.

Writers Charlie Brooker and Konnie Huq have presented the human species with the ultimate reflection of our current cultural existence.  They achieved this with their contribution to a UK television mini-series ‘Black Mirror’, specifically Season 1, Episode 2 entitled ‘15 Million Merits’. 

I must emphasize now that to view Brooker and Huq’s art as a “television show” in the pop-culture sense would be committing a crime against the artists and, perhaps more importantly, inflicting serious psychological damage upon yourself.  The most relevant art of our time is no longer produced with a pencil or paint brush.  The cultural impact of such artworks has nearly been nullified by recorded images and audio.  Film, television, photography, music… these are the artworks that drive our culture, and in turn, drive the future of our civilization.  If you do not understand that culture is the dominant force shaping humanity’s future, it is time to open your mind’s eye and look more closely at the history of our world.

The story ’15 Million Merits” is one of those rare works of art that expresses the truth of our time with such unflinching honesty that few allow themselves to recognize it as the reality in which they daily participate.  The reason for this unwillingness to view a television show as anything more than a fantasy constructed for entertainment and profit is simple:  It hurts.  The truth of humanity’s current condition creates in us pain of a magnitude that we are unequipped to deal with.  This causes most of us to psychologically reject this valid work of art as a mere “T.V. show”, a medium which has produced an ocean of drivel and only a few isolated ripples of brilliance. 

Do not make the mistake of invalidating the philosophical value of ’15 Million Merits’ simply because it happens to be a television show.  Brooker and Huq’s story transcends its medium in every way, as all culturally relevant art tends to do.

Set aside 1 hour of your life and view this story.  Watch it not as a throw-away television show that has been produced to kill sixty minutes of your time, but as a work of art offering up a highly sophisticated mirror.

CONCLUSION

If you are unable to recognize the reality depicted in this artwork as metaphorically identical to the reality you currently exist in, it is because you are not mentally prepared to see it.  Give it time.  Wait a few days.  Think through it from different internal perspectives.  Watch the show again. 

I will be deconstructing ’15 Million Merits’ in a future blAHg, analyzing it as best as I can given the limitations of my own culturally conditioned perspective.  While I do recognize this as an important and highly relevant work of art, I have myself been a prisoner of this American culture for nearly 37 years.  My process of demanding reality rather than a fabricated distortion of it is still very much in progress—though I will say that once a particular psychological breakthrough has been made, the process shifts from painfully slow to uncomfortably fast.

I would appreciate hearing from you in regards to your interpretation of ’15 Million Merits’.  One of the most important aspects of advancing human knowledge is opening the mind to as many cultural perspectives as possible.  The more perspectives a mind gains access to and understanding of, the greater that mind’s ability to arrive at innovative and insightful conclusions about the reality of their world.

Please share this page with others, or encourage others to view this incredible piece of art.  

The Future of Language = The Future of Humanity

In the future, you will not be you and I will not be I.

In the future, nothing will be the same.

Wait for it….

There!

Did you feel it?

Everything just changed.

There!

Again.

That’s the thing about the future, it happens every passing moment.

Measured from the instant your eyes first began reading this blAHg entry, you have become your future self, measurably different in countless ways at the molecular, microscopic level, but perhaps in other ways more difficult to quantify in scientific terms. 

Keep that in mind while you are holding a grudge against someone.  That person is not the person they were ten years ago, ten minutes ago… ten seconds ago.  You are holding a grudge against your imperfect memory of a person that no longer exists.

We are prisoners of our primitive language.  The language I am attempting to leverage at this very moment cannot possibly express its own inherent shortcomings… which is what we’d call ironic.  I prefer calling it tragic. 

If the human species continues to define its perception of reality with this primitive language, we are doomed to repeat the same cycle of self destruction until 1) We consciously formulate a new method of communication that parallels reality rather than contradict it or 2) We wipe out every last scrap of our own genetic existence.

In order to transcend our completely medieval systems of money as debt, politics, and control via militant force, etc., we must first evolve our language beyond the medieval comprehension of reality’s structure. 

A future truly defined by freedom, liberty, and abundance for all is possible.  The first step is admitting that we cannot get there by clinging to primitive languages and highly destructive notions of good vs. evil and the permanence of any idea. 

If words define who we are and what we believe in, should not those words resonate with the same truth as the universe itself?

Is That An Uprising In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?

Have you noticed the high number of entertainment titles that have made use of the word “rise” in one form or another?  Below are some examples:

300: Rise of an Empire

The Dark Knight Rises

TRON: Uprising

Rise of the Guardians

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Rise of the Foot Soldier

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

Hannibal Rising

Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj

Carlito’s Way: Rise to Power

And on and on and on…. There are quite a few more.

Is it possible that the ever compassionate and creative minds at the helm of the entertainment industry are trying to convey a message of some kind?  Keep in mind that the vast majority of mainstream entertainment is funded by a surprisingly small number of influential individuals and/or corporate entities.  Consider how often the name Harvey Weinstein shows up in film credits… the man is listed on the IMDB website as having 264 producer credits.

Of course, to imply that our corporate funded “art” is actually a vehicle for rather ominous forecasts of a post-apocalyptic future would be utterly insane, I suppose.  After all, art is nothing more than a distraction, right?  It couldn’t possibly be relevant to our, I don’t know, reality.  It’s not as though we look to the artistic creations of our ancestors in order to determine what was important to them or to understand how they viewed themselves and the world…  OH.  Wait.  That’s exactly what we do.  Well, no matter, I’m sure our present day art is meaningless drivel meant only to turn a profit and nothing more.  Certainly these projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and distribute have nothing to tell us about ourselves or the reality we are blindly racing toward.

By the way, here are some other things on the rise:

Civil unrest around the globe

Extreme inequality

Inflation

Religious fanaticism

Global water levels

Ignorance

And…drum roll please…

The “New World Order!”

Gasp.  Yep.  I went there.  I know, I know, it’s that conspiracy-theory-paranoid-fear-that-elitist-douchebags-are-attempting-to-control-the-entire-globe nonsense…another mind bites the dust!  Admit it, that’s your well conditioned, knee-jerk response to the term “New World Order”.  Never mind the reality of global events.  Never mind the painfully obvious push toward a one world government with military power as its core component of control.  Never mind the world’s absolute subservience to a monetary system of debt gone completely insane.  In fact, never mind the entire ocean of reality swimming right outside your front door.  I’m sure there’s another movie about the end of the world you could be watching rather than reading this delusional blAHg.

I am continually amazed that—no matter how many times throughout history governments are caught red handed with their hands in the cookie jar stealing from and/or manipulating “the people”—we still cling to a childish trust in our “leaders”.  When I use the term “leaders”, I also refer to those individuals who shape and drive our culture via mass media etc., because in the end it is our culture that defines how we view our world and react to any given situation.  It is your culture that is shaping your reaction to this essay right now.  Human beings are incapable of thinking beyond what they have had access to in terms of knowledge and awareness.  You think exactly the way all the inputs you have absorbed over the course of your lifetime direct you to think. 

So… the word “RISE”…

What is Hollywood’s obsession with it?

If you really want to know, it is important that you go back to the first film that defined the concept of a powerful elitist orchestrating an uprising of the people in order to be justified in destroying them: The 1927 cult classic Metropolis.  You watch that 85 year-old movie and tell me it is not a blueprint for a great many of the films we have seen since, especially in recent years.

Feel free to disregard this as you no doubt disregard everything that doesn’t remain nicely wrapped up in the bow provided by mainstream culture. 

I’m sure the economy is fine and that our peace-loving, fair-minded “leaders” are working around the clock to ensure we all enjoy long, meaningful lives.

Happy Rising!

Trained For Submission?

“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!”

It occurred to me recently that my brain has absorbed this life “lesson” thousands of times thanks to the brain-dead characters from the Looney Tunes pantheon. 

When confronted with challenging opposition, the wise advice of Porky Pig or Daffy Duck (or whichever moronic representation of human incompetence it may be) is to simply join our “enemies” rather than continue the struggle.

I’m not sure how this “philosophy” coincides with the win-at-all-costs competitive spirit that exists at every level within our culture, but apparently it is of crucial importance that a human child believes it is best to join the “winning” team rather than continue to pursue personal victory.  I suppose the obvious connection is... it is better to "win" even when that means changing sides, though this is clearly contradictory to the idea that competition and earning victory is supposed to "build character". 

I’m sure this attitude of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!” is ideal for Wall Street trading and backroom deals in which a select few win while the vast majority lose.  Sadly, when a motto as pathetic as this forms the pinnacle of wisdom offered by our childhood “entertainment”, we all lose in the end.

When are we going to wake-up to the fact that we’ve been conditioned for submission our entire lives?  It started with mind-numbing cartoons and continued through our entire educational process. 

Sit down.  Shut-up.  Memorize this fake history.  Eat your num-nums.  And whatever you do, make sure you’re on the winning side, even when the winners hate everything you stand for.

Treat Yourself To A Moment of SANITY

OK, let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

More than likely, you will need to engage and process some vital information before enjoying even a single moment of actual sanity.  After all, the odds are quite overwhelming that you’ve been trained to be pathological since birth, especially if you are an American citizen.

That moment of sanity isn’t going to create itself!  Let’s get started:

1) Purchase and read Selections from Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski.  In fact, read it twice.  Better yet, read it periodically for the rest of your natural life.  The book deals with General Semantics, revealing that human beings—mostly due to the unnatural Aristotelian approach to knowledge, thought, perception, and language—still react to the world via our primitive and animalistic nervous systems.  The good news is, we can overcome this with a bit of knowledge and conscious effort.

NOTE: Most of you will not purchase and read Korzybski’s work, and will therefore never enjoy the aforementioned moment of sanity.  Bummer for you.

2) Everything you believe about America, to one degree or another, is completely false.  As an absurdly brief introduction to this concept, listen to this interview with Antony C. Sutton, a professor at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973. 

NOTE: Even if a mere 25% of his statements are true, the history taught in American schools is a total distortion of reality.

3) Jacque Fresco is the originator of the term “Resource-based Economy”, a completely reimagined global system in which the resources of Earth become the common heritage of every human being alive and are scientifically managed to provide abundance for all.  The video below is a brief lecture Fresco gave at Nichols College on February 02, 1999.  In terms of length and concentration of ideas, it is a powerful place to start in terms of understanding why human beings find themselves in such dire straits and how we can “design the future” to do away with nearly every socio-political problem we face today.

4) Watch the BBC documentary The Century of Self, which will give you a strong background regarding the psychological warfare that corporations and governments have used against you and everyone you know.

NOTE: Below is Part 1 of the series.  Parts 2 through 4 are available online if you are interested in viewing the entire documentary.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, many of you are so reliant on the false reality that has been fabricated to keep you ignorant and easily manipulated that—even if you make an effort to understand the wealth of information contained in the suggestions above—your nervous systems will reject it as a threat to your very survival.  I know this because I was one of you just a handful of months ago.  I had no intention of “waking up” to reality… I assumed that I had been a part of reality my entire life.  It came as quite a shock to my system to realize that the culture I perceived as reality is, in truth, nothing more than an elaborate and (sadly) malicious fantasy designed for one thing: Control.  If this sounds ridiculously similar to the science-fiction trilogy The Matrix, well, all I can say about that is… “Duh.” 

The truth is most definitely out there. 

That moment of sanity… followed by many, many more… is yours for the taking.

The question is, are you content being the victim of a false reality designed to keep you ignorant and controllable?  Or do you demand MORE for yourself?

As always, the choice is yours to make.

We Got A Dollar, Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

Hypothetical:

An adult gives $1 to a young child.

The only rule: Do not buy candy.

If the child takes the dollar, buys a candy bar, eats it, and then asks for another $1, how do you respond?

Easy enough: If the child buys the one thing they were told not to buy with the $1, their request for another $1 will be denied.  More than likely, in order to teach a lasting lesson, the $1 will be withheld for an extended period of time until the adult is convinced that the child will not spend the money on candy again.

What would happen if, upon buying candy, the adult simply repeated the rule, “Do not buy candy,” but gave the child another $1 upon request?  There is a good chance the child will buy more candy since there didn’t seem to be any real-world repercussion for their disobedience.  The adult could verbally repeat the rule over and over and over, but if the child keeps receiving a $1 despite breaking the one and only rule of how to spend it, their behavior is unlikely to change. 

“We The People” Are Powerless

In order for “the people” to wield any measurable power over the American political machine, we must possess more than the ability to “voice” our disapproval regarding political decisions.

We The People lack any meaningful rebuff when it comes to politicians and their behavior.  We can march in designated areas, hold up words that represent our outrage, sign petitions, etc. etc., but it all amounts to so much noise without any real-world “teeth” to back it up.

We can say, “Do not buy candy,” as many times as we like, so long as the child keeps receiving their $1, there is no reason for them to stop buying candy. 

If you are an American citizen and you have a job, up to 40% of your income is being paid in taxes.  Those tax dollars are being spent in whichever way your elected politicians deem appropriate.  You cannot legally opt out of paying these taxes, and you cannot attach any rules regarding how you want your contribution allotted.  If you do not believe that a human being should be tortured under any circumstances, for example, you cannot withhold any portion of your taxes because your government actively tortures human beings and does so using money you have earned. 

“We The People” are the parents of our nation.  We are supposed to have power over our elected public servants to ensure that the vast sums of money they have access to is being used in ways that we philosophically agree with.  As parents of our nation, we must have a method of delivering a real-world repercussion to our “children”.  Without it, those children will take advantage of the realization that all we can do is make a lot of noise while being unable to “withhold the $1” as a disciplinary action. 

Conclusion

Until “We The People” develop a method for withholding money from our elected officials when they spend it inappropriately, we will forever be parents lacking the ability to discipline our political “children”.  We must find a way to “withhold the $1” to back up our verbal appeals for sensible political action.  If we fail to do this, the responsibility for our system’s continued exploitation of human beings and our planet is as much ours as our political leaders. 

NOTE: The best solution is doing away with the $1 outright and replacing money with a Resource-based economy.  However, in order to bring about such a transition, it is imperative that “the people” take real-world control over how their tax dollars are being spent.  More on this later.

Contradictory Road: Altruism vs. The Invisible Hand

al·tru·ism

noun

the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

in·vis·i·ble hand

noun

(in the economics of Adam Smith) an unseen force or mechanism that guides individuals to unwittingly benefit society through the pursuit of their private interests.

An Unstoppable Force Meets An Immovable Object

A more fierce contradiction is difficult to imagine than the one that exists between altruism and the “invisible hand”. 

Altruism is viewed by many to be the most righteous behavior a human being can engage in.  An altruistic act is one by which an individual aids another individual or group without any expectation of reciprocation or thanks.  The altruistic act is purely unselfish in motivation or it cannot be defined as such.  This does not mean that a rewarded act of altruism ceases to be altruistic; it is the unselfish nature of the initial motivation that matters.

The “invisible hand” is a term credited to the father of economics, Adam Smith.  He proposed that government must leave the free market alone entirely.  According to Smith, individuals acting solely for their own benefit within a free money-market system would inadvertently benefit others and society as a whole; government interference only serves as a hindrance to prosperity.  The force guiding this phenomenon is referred to as an “invisible hand”, which can be thought of as “greed” so long as it is understood that the full psychology that powers the “invisible hand” is much more intricate than a single word can embody.

Side by side, “altruism” and the “invisible hand” stand in perfect opposition to each other.

One advocates selflessness to benefit humanity, and the other advocates selfishness to do the same job.

Somehow, our culture holds both of them as vital components of its philosophical ideology.  It is an unavoidable ethical train wreck.

How, as an American citizen, am I to know which ideal is appropriate for any given situation in my life?  When do I run with the “invisible hand” and seek only my own gain as an individual?  When do I put the needs of others before my own and act altruistically?  Is there some kind of in depth guidebook available that helps me determine which ideology is correct given a specific set of circumstances?  Or am I just to decide as I go along?

It is absurd for a culture to embrace opposing philosophical ideologies simultaneously.  Doing so produces a citizenry that fails no matter which philosophy they attempt to adopt.  If they are predominantly altruistic, they are failing to benefit society by chasing their own private interests.  If they are predominantly motivated by the “invisible hand”, they are failing to be a “good” person by benefiting society selflessly.

How, exactly, is one meant to balance out these two contradictory forces in their life?  Is it a 50/50 deal?  Or is it handled strictly on a case by case basis? 

Conclusion

Which is it America?

Are we supposed to strive to be altruistic above all else?

Or are we supposed to be in it to win it for ourselves?

The sad fact is, Western culture is ripe with ideological contradictions that are impossible to reconcile.  Our entire for profit monetary system is fueled by the “invisible hand” of devoted self-interest.  In stark contrast, we are constantly reminded that altruism is a noble trait we should strive to personify.  Is this some kind of sick joke?  How can we possibly embody both of these concepts?  It is impossible, and yet both philosophies exist with equal cultural force, ensuring a lifetime of mental turmoil for every participant in the system. 

When are we going to realize as a species that our cultural philosophy must work with our vision of the future, not against it.  We cannot present altruism as a noble ideal while allowing an opposite force (the invisible hand) to drive our global economic system (a system we are reliant upon in every way).  By participating in this blatant duality, we reduce the altruistic ideal to meaningless lip service.  We all know, despite the flowery words we often throw around, that the force truly shaping our future is the “invisible hand” of the monetary system.  Because money is a requirement of survival, the vast majority will adopt the philosophy that results in money.  Politicians and activists and preachers (etc.) can passionately voice the need for a more altruistic world, but so long as the accepted framework of our governing system is constructed from self interest, all such appeals amount to empty rhetoric. 

It is imperative that human beings move beyond this game of holding noble concepts high while actively participating in the opposite behavior when it comes to day to day life. 

How much stronger would we be if our culture was a direct reflection of the nobility we talk about in speeches?  How much further could we progress as a species if we stopped putting so much energy into convincing each other of our nobility and simply designed a system that embodied it?

Contradictions as blatant as “altruism vs. the invisible hand” are a symptom of a cultural-wide ideological tug-of-war.  We cannot run by sitting down and we cannot be altruistic by submitting to the “invisible hand” of the for profit monetary system.  A choice must be made.

War As a Political Plaything

Greeting me this morning on CNN was a photo montage of the conflict in Syria.

Here are the highlights:

Headline: Showdown in Syria

 Image #1

CAPTION: Free Syrian Army fighters enter a Syrian army base during heavy fighting in the Arabeen neighborhood of Damascus on Sunday, February 3.

Image #2

CAPTION: Aleppo residents pulled at least 80 bodies from the nearby Queiq River on Tuesday, January 29. Opposition activists blame the regime forces for the killings. Video and photos show rows of bodies with head wounds and bound hands, some of which show signs of torture, witnesses say.

Image #3

CAPTION: Rebels place weapons in the back of a truck as they prepare to engage the Syrian regime forces in the village of Kurnaz on January 27. More than a dozen rebel fighters took up defensive positions in Kurnaz with light weapons against Syrian army tanks sending shells toward the village.

Blatant Propoganda

Let’s approach this presentation as though we know nothing about the conflict in Syria.  If this photo montage was our first introduction to the situation, what conclusions might we arrive at (assuming we take the provided information at face value)?

First, there is the headline: “Showdown in Syria”.  Directly out of the gate the subject matter is treated like a poster advertising a new Hollywood action film.  This violent conflict has already cost more than 60,000 people their lives.  The word “showdown” psychologically shrinks the perceived scope of this increasingly destructive war.  It also suggests that the photos we are seeing are part of a “decisive” battle.  Showdown is defined as “a conclusive settlement of an issue, difference, etc., in which all resources, power, or the like, are used”.  So the use of the word in the headline is informing us that this conflict is nearly over, which may be completely contrary to the reality of the situation.

Image #1

This is the first photograph in the presentation.  The standout component is the first word of the photo’s caption: Free.  “Free Syrian Army fighters” is a carefully crafted phrase leaving zero room for interpretation.  These are the “free” soldiers, and they are fighting on behalf of their country to win freedom for all.  “Free Syrian Army” is the name chosen by the rebel forces in Syria.  The use of the word “free” to describe the fighters does not suggest to the reader who the “good guys” are, it tells the reader point blank: These people are fighting for freedom and you are on their side. 

Image #2

The only visual representation of death is offered in this photo of corpses already in body bags.  We are told in the caption that “Opposition activists blame the regime for the killings”.  We are also told that there are “signs of torture”.  Take note that none of the information is offered as factual, and all of it comes from “opposition activists” without an attempt to verify the information or present a response from the government.  Compare “opposition activists” to “regime”.  Again, there can be no mistaking the default “good guys” in this scenario.  The hero of every story stands in “opposition” to evil.  Evil does not “oppose” goodness, it violently attacks it.  “Activists” are typically underdogs fighting the corruption/evil of a much larger entity.  The word “regime” is also loaded.  Any government referred to as a “regime” is to be considered fascist, genocidal, and beyond redemption.  An American would never call their government a regime unless they intended a controversial accusation.  So we have “activists” standing in “opposition” to a “regime”.  The clarity of the message is absolute.

Image #3

I could not help feeling as though the conflict was being presented as a video game.  There is a strong overtone of gun-toting machismo and an alarming lack of focus on the horrific reality of a civil war, a conflict in which neighbors are killing neighbors. 

A recent video game, Far Cry 3, places the protagonist on a lush jungle island overrun by pirates.  You join with the local rebel forces to win back the freedom of your kidnapped friends.  It is the overall “tone” of the video game that creates an association with this “news” presentation of the Syrian conflict.  The portrayal of the Free Syrian Army is that of men (and boys) almost relishing their role as rebels fighting the regime.  It becomes difficult to know which inspires which; are video games reflecting the real world or is the real world being presented to us as though it were a video game?  I believe the latter is true.  The conflict is being simplified for mass consumption the same way violence in a video game is (typically) treated with ethical ambiguity: It’s OK, you are killing “bad guys”.

There is a bloody civil war taking place in Syria.  In a civil war, friends find themselves enemies and brothers kill each other.  This conflict is not a political game of media spin.  People in the tens of thousands are being torn apart by bullets and bombs.  This is not a “showdown”.  These are real lives being destroyed while the United States massages media propaganda and plans the future exploitation of the next era of Syrian government. 

The current Syrian government may very well be “evil” to the core.  The Free Syrian Army may very well be fighting for their people’s freedom against a fascist regime.  But let me ask you this:  If another civil war occurs in America, which side will be labeled the “Freedom Fighters” and which side will be condemned as the “Evil Regime”?  Imagine the reality of Americans killing Americans in the tens of thousands.  Who will be the “good guys” then?  What picture will the media paint for us when it’s our civil war?  War is almost entirely made up of ethical gray area.  Black and white truths are impossible when human beings are willing to kill each other to achieve their goals.  Why then is the civil war in Syria being presented to us like a “good guy vs. bad guy” video game?

Conclusion

How long are we going to allow our media infrastructure to get away with such blatant propaganda?  This is not news.  This is advertising and the market is war.  When can I buy my “Showdown in Syria” T-shirt?  This is a mockery of the agony inherent in ANY civil war, wherever it may take place.

If the conflict in Syria were so easy to frame, if it really were a matter of freedom fighters against a purely evil regime, why doesn’t the United Nations commit the resources to decisively end the conflict?  Why allow such violence to continue?  If the world agrees by consensus who the “good guys” are and they also agree that they should ultimately be victorious… what’s the hold up?  What is all this military power for if not to help the righteous good guys kick the evil regime’s ass?  According to this photo presentation, the Syrian conflict is a slam dunk case of “Good vs. Evil”.  So why haven’t the world superpowers simply applied the necessary force to remove the evil regime?  Why watch from the sidelines offering the bare minimum of support, ensuring a high death toll and prolonged suffering?

What is this sad game being played with human lives?

Where are we headed when something as disgraceful, polarizing and horrifying as a civil war can be presented like a video game “showdown” between good and evil? 

To view the full photo presentation on CNN: CLICK HERE

NOTE: CNN often changes its headlines.  As of the time of this writing, the headline to this photo presentation was “Showdown in Syria”, which may change to something else over time.  

Flip The Switch ON Winning

Introduction to “Flip The Switch”

Whenever you come across a “WTF?” aspect of the world or the particular culture you are a part of, simply “flipping the switch” on your own assumptions about the issue can offer great insight.  In other words, when you hit a mental barrier to making sense of a specific human behavior, try approaching it from the opposite perspective.

To demonstrate how this works, I want to analyze the concept of “winning” as it exists in Western culture (and much of the world). 

Start the process by defining the most widely accepted (mainstream) understanding of the issue:

1.      Winning as viewed by my culture:  Human beings compete in nearly every aspect of life.  Each competitor’s desire to win acts as an incentive to perform at the highest level.  The high rewards for winning combined with the fear and cost of losing drives people to become the best they can be.  When people lose, it motivates them to work more diligently and try again until they become victorious.

Next, ask yourself a series of questions about the definition you developed in Step #1:

2.       Question the validity of the culturally accepted stance. 

a.      Does the real-world behavior of human beings match the culturally accepted assumptions?

b.      How has this aspect of your culture impacted your own life over the years?

c.       How has it impacted the life of those close to you?

d.      Is there any scientific data available that is relevant to this issue?

Note: These questions will change depending on the issue you are analyzing.  The main objective with Step #2 is to determine whether or not the culturally accepted ideas regarding the issue match the real-world behavior and/or scientific data. 

Now we Flip The Switch:

3.       By “flipping the switch”, you are forcibly approaching the issue from the opposite perspective of mainstream culture.  Think of yourself as a lawyer who must argue the unpopular side of a case; the lawyer must succeed in making members of the jury see the situation from a completely different perspective.  Even if you agree with the accepted cultural assumption, attack it as though you find it appalling and ignorant.

Example: Flip The Switch ON Winning

What is winning if not the creation of losers?

For every one winner created, many losers are created by default.

This idea is just one more pyramid scheme built into the fabric of our culture.  It mathematically creates a tiny winner’s circle at the top and a huge pit of losers at the bottom.  Our entire world is fueled by competition and history is defined by its winners.

Life as a human being should be a collaboration, not a competition.  I have no desire to compete with other people. I want to create with them, not against them.  Without constant collaboration, civilization would fail within hours.  Each and every day around the globe, hundreds of millions of people collaborate in billions of ways, some small and some epic.  Without this foundation of global cooperation, life as we know it would be impossible. 

Despite the obvious necessity and benefit of collaboration that exists around every corner, we are told that it is “competition” that drives the world.  We are taught that it is competition that motivates us.  Winning in life, we are to assume, is the incentive that keeps the human species hard at work.  In fact, the notion of competition as the primary motivating force of our culture is so pervasive, many of us believe that a world without competition would be a world of lazy, unproductive, uninspired people.

It is not a difficult task to shred this false assumption about competition.  Competition in which winning is the only motivation breeds corruption.  The problem of doping in professional sports is a blatant example of this.  The legends of yesterday are the losers of today, none more high profile than cyclist Lance Armstrong, a man who is systematically being stripped of all his achievements.  The issue is not doping.  As with most public dialogue about the problems we face, America refuses to dig down to the core cause.  The absolute need for victory as a philosophical way of life is the problem.  The overwhelming importance of being #1 inspires the worst in human behavior. 

Not so long ago, a figure skater named Tonya Harding was involved in planning an attack on her fellow teammate (and competitor) Nancy Kerrigan.  This farce unfolded on the world stage of the Olympic Games.  The Olympics should not be about winners and losers, but rather a global celebration of human achievement.  Every athlete who reaches that level of skill should be honored at the Games equally, despite who ultimately “wins” or “loses”. 

The ethical dilemma created by placing value solely on victory is clearly not limited to professional sports.  The corruption inspired by the “win at all costs” credo permeates every aspect of our current systems, from politics to business to elementary school playgrounds.

In truth, the greatest moments in human history are the result of collaboration, not competition. 

Within a culture that embraces the ideology of “winning at all costs” it is a mathematical certainty that the majority will be “losers”.  Therefore, we live in a society of losers. 

Why do human beings insist on participating in social constructs that guarantee the majority will lose so that a few might win? 

How might our world be changed if we viewed collaboration as the pinnacle of human achievement rather than winning?

Should we not develop systems that allow the majority to “win” rather than the minority?

Winning is a pyramid scheme ideology that inspires more harm than good.  The “us vs. them” mentality is a primitive concept that is incapable of finding solutions to the challenges humanity now faces.  Collaboration is the future.  Competition in its current form is a childish embarrassment to our civilization.

Conclusion

For me, “flipping the switch” is a valuable tool in developing a new perspective on troubling cultural issues.  And make no mistake, the problems we face are all culturally inspired.  It is our conditioned assumptions about the world and the systems we participate in that shape the future.  If we do not challenge those cultural assumptions, we will never transcend the destructive cycles which they inevitably produce.

The Joke Is On Us

We live in a culture that exploits the needs of human beings for profit.  Worse still, we have turned this exploitation into a competition to see who can get their needs met in the most luxurious way possible.

We call this civilization.

Somewhere in the future, they can’t stop laughing.

It's only funny in hindsight...

A Civilization of Busy Work

The entire concept of “work” has been abstracted by our present culture. 

Consider this: If the money-motivator was removed from our culture tomorrow, how many people would continue going to work?  In other words, if money suddenly lost its buying power, how many businesses in your community would continue to operate solely because they are vital to every day life?  If your community/town/city is anything like mine, the moment money ceases to be a motivating factor, nearly all of the daily “business” activity would stop… instantly. 

What does this tell us about the nature of work the majority of human beings are engaged in?

We exist as part of a global monetary system.  The majority of people no longer work to directly produce the resources and services required for survival.  Instead, people work in exchange for money which can then be used to purchase both what is needed and what is desired.  Over time, money itself has become more sought after than the resources it was created to buy.  This shift toward money as the end goal of trade (rather than resources) has caused an ironic abstraction regarding the relationship between human labor (work) and the resources required for prosperity.

In truth, almost none of the “jobs” Americans engage every day of their lives are associated with producing a necessary resource or service for survival.  The vast majority of jobs within our current money-market system only exist to perpetuate the system itself.  The moment you remove money’s value from the equation, all of these jobs become pointless because they have nothing to do with reality.  Most money-market jobs exist only within the invented framework of the for profit monetary system, a system that has become unhinged from reality. 

Politicians exist to create new laws.  Judges exist to interpret the laws.  Lawyers exist to manipulate the laws.  Laws exist to protect property.  Property exists to generate wealth.  Wealth exists to generate jobs.  Jobs exist to fuel buying power.  Buying power exists to generate wealth.  Wealth exist to generate jobs.  Jobs exist…. On and on and on.

Despite all of our progress in science and technology, what kind of civilization have we created for ourselves?

We live in a civilization of busy work.

Work for the sake of work.

Read it again:

Work for the sake of work.

Pointless repetition.  Tedium year after year, decade after decade.

Why?

Because jobs create buying power.  Because buying power creates wealth.  Because wealth creates jobs.  Blah blah blah.

As a species, we need to stop for a moment.  We need to stop charging ahead like a half-blind, raging bull chasing a bit of red cloth.  The red cloth we are chasing is money, and even if we manage to catch that target with a horn, our reward will still be a steel blade pushed through our vital organs.  We are chasing a figment of our imagination for a reward that does not exist.

This is not a game being played out on Earth.  Each and every human being alive today is participating in shaping the future of our species.  The decisions we make today and the systems we contribute to are literally shaping the future of our world. 

Why, then, are most of us spending 40+ hours a week doing busy work?

Not only have human beings been reduced to lifetimes filled with unnecessary busy work, the reason we have been so trivialized is to uphold a monetary system that produces corruption, extreme inequalities, violent conflict, environmental destruction, and immeasurable human suffering.  Simply stated, human beings are being forced into a lifetime of meaningless busy work in order to fuel a system that makes a mockery of everything we claim to hold sacred.

Human labor has become irrelevant to survival. 

The full comprehension of this truth is of vital importance if we are going to progress positively as a species. 

What do I mean when I say human labor has become irrelevant to survival?  Leveraging current science and technology, all areas of resource production could be fully automated.  From agriculture to electronics to the building of homes, every aspect of the production of goods and services can be automated by computers and machines.  Yes, this infrastructure would need to be built by human minds and human hands.  Yes, it would need to be maintained and updated, etc.  Once achieved, however, a fully automated and self-sustaining system of production would render nearly all human labor irrelevant to survival.

Accomplishing this would be the greatest evolutionary step forward humanity has ever taken.

Unfortunately, because our minds have been conditioned toward the for-profit monetary system, we have been made blind to the universal benefits of such an achievement.  Human beings are actually fighting against automation rather than embracing it as progress.  Why?  Automation represents a threat to “jobs”.  This is where the ironic abstraction between human labor and resources within the monetary system becomes highly visible:  Automation is a threat to “jobs”.  As members of our money driven culture, “jobs” that pay us money (regardless of their real-world contribution) have become our top priority. 

Anything that threatens our money paying jobs, even when it represents a clear improvement at the real-world level, is viewed as the enemy. 

There are countless examples of this phenomenon.  In the healthcare industry, look at the profitability of Cancer.  Treating cancer is a multi-billion dollar market.  It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates massive growth in Gross Domestic Product for our nation.  Conversely, a cure to cancer would eliminate all of those jobs and all of that lovely GDP.  Is a cure for cancer beneficial to humanity?  Does it end the suffering of countless millions?  Does it save millions of lives a year?   Yes.  Is it beneficial from the perspective of the for-profit monetary system?  No.  Curing cancer would hurt our money-market system. 

In the automotive industry, we must be aware as consumers by now that the technology being harnessed in our vehicles is hopelessly inefficient and outdated.  The combustible engine is an absurd choice given advancements in technology in the past 40 years.  In truth, highly efficient automobiles requiring almost zero maintenance could be manufactured today.  Why does the industry prefer the combustible engine?  Look at the infrastructure surrounding combustible engine automobiles.  How many auto repair shops exist?  Gas stations?  The smog check sector alone contributes huge dollars to GDP in the United States.  If the automotive industry produced highly reliable, clean and efficient vehicles, how many jobs would be lost?  Tens of millions of jobs would vanish without a trace. 

We must recognize that the for profit monetary system is causing the progress of our species to stagnate in highly destructive ways.  The motivation to protect pointless “busy work” jobs (jobs that should be made obsolete by science and technology) in order to sustain our monetary system’s need for cyclical consumption is turning the greatest advancements of our time into threats to our so-called “way of life”. 

This absurdity must end.

Do we really want to exist in a civilization of busy work?  Work for the sake of work?

Collectively as human beings, we have the ability to remove tedious busy work from our lives and replace it with work that inspires us and makes a real-world contribution.

Let us stop feeding this insatiable money-machine our valuable human hours.  It will never be enough to sustain the system because our monetary system does not adhere to reality.  It exists on its own terms and serves only its own need for infinite growth.  The for profit model views any threat to profit as a threat to humanity even when the opposite is true.  This is a distortion that, if allowed to continue, will destroy our planet and our species.

Let us stop feeding this insatiable money-machine our human hours.

We deserve more than a lifetime of busy work.

We deserve to embrace the technological advancements of our time for what they are: progress.  We should be moving toward a world in which equality and abundance are the norm rather than the exception.  Science and automation are not the enemy… if we allow them to develop free of the destructive for-profit motive, they can end our servitude to busy work and unite our species in prosperous purpose.

We are All Poor

The moment money fails us, most of us will be destitute.

If you woke up tomorrow and the monetary system had collapsed overnight, what would you really have access to?  You might have a refrigerator, but without money you will be unable to fill it.  You might have a car, but no way to fuel it.  You might have central heating and air, but no means of powering it.  Even if you "own" your home, what good will it do you without food, heat, electricity, running water, etc.?  How long before you are reduced to the fearful life of a nomadic hunter/gatherer roaming the countryside on foot?  How long before we are living in foul tent cities like those being erected all across America even now: " ... Tent cities have sprung up in and around at least 55 American cities - they represent the bleak reality of America's poverty crisis.”  For more information, read: U.S. 'TentCities,' Sharp Increase in Homelessness Ignored by Almost Everyone Except theBBC

Human beings have placed their survival in the hands of a highly unstable for profit monetary system, a system that regards "boom and bust" cycles to be the norm... even beneficial in terms of generating and manipulating the illusion of wealth. 

Why have we so blindly surrendered our evolutionary potential--our very survival--to the whim of a monetary system that regards human suffering as positive so long as it generates Gross Domestic Product?

Goods and resources are wealth.  All the money in the world is so much worthless paper if it cannot buy you the goods and services you require to survive and prosper. 

Should we not transition to a system that guarantees every human being access to the goods and services required for life?  Are we so ignorant as to believe that those of us “benefiting” from our current system of exploitation and false scarcity will be immune to the economic "bust" cycle that brings about the next great depression? 

In our current culture, we are all poor.  Whatever tenuous access to goods and services money provides us, it is one economic disaster away from vanishing.  Without money, the vast majority of us would have next to zero access to the necessities of life because we are wholly reliant on the current for profit infrastructure to deliver them to us.  Why have we agreed to a system that makes us completely vulnerable to an unpredictable, uncontrollable force of our own invention: Money?

In our culture, wealth is an illusion and poverty is only a day away.

Technology is Not a Product: Looking Beyond Cultural Conditioning

Even with a deepening awareness about the destructive force money has been on nearly every aspect of my existence, I cannot help but see certain things exactly the way I have been conditioned by my culture to see them.  Technology is a prime example.

When I see or hear the word "technology", images of products instantly materialize in my mind: Computer, smart phone, video game console--Dell, Apple, Sony etc., etc..

Because I have been conditioned from birth to be a "consumer" participating in a system that requires cyclical consumption, many aspects of human progress have been reduced to nothing more than "product" associated with a certain monetary value.  I cannot emphasize enough how disgusted this makes me, and for this reason: I know intellectually that technology coupled with science is the key to humanity’s next step forward, and yet, I have been so thoroughly conditioned toward consumerism that it is difficult to keep the idea of technology as mere “product” silent.

There is a psychological sickness at work here.  Technology, in our culture, is only impressive when it makes someone rich.  Let me repeat that so it can sink in: Technology, in our culture, is only impressive when it makes someone rich.  Consider the absurdity of that.  There are brilliant people all over the world developing technologies that would be life-improving if not life-saving for tens of millions of human beings.  Are they being mass manufactured?  Are these technologies being distributed to the people?  No.  Because many of the technologies developed today do not fit into the for-profit model of the money-market system, they shrivel up and fade away.  Without an end result of profit, technology capable of reshaping our civilization is left rotting on the vine.  This is a disgrace to our species and a testament to the sickness money has inspired in our minds.

Here is just one example of an incredible technology with the potential to improve life for billions of people: Engineer Michael Pritchard invented the portable Lifesaver filter, which can turn the most revolting water drinkable in seconds.  Watch the video below for a full demonstration:

The for-profit motive has distorted our view of human progress.  Profit is not progress.  Gross Domestic Product is not a measure of human contentment.  The monetary system is as indifferent to human suffering as the robot HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Money does not favor a positive human outcome.  Money favors more money, and whether that growth stems from a universal benefit to humans or a universal catastrophe, the for-profit system regards all monetary growth as a victory.

As individuals and collectively, we have allowed the most vital component of our future evolution to become a window display with neon signs and price tags hanging off of shiny status symbols.  Technology is not a trendy gadget available from Apple in the 1^st Quarter of next year.  Technology is the stepping stone to a new civilization in which human needs are universally met and equality is more than cheap rhetoric for political speeches. 

Leveraging current science and technology, we have the ability to create abundance for the entire human population.  By intelligently managing resources, leveraging automation across all sectors of production, and planning self-sustaining cities that exist in equilibrium with the environment, we have the opportunity to achieve something never before seen on our planet:  Species-wide equality, peace, and abundance.  We have the chance to be the first in our recorded history to reach this milestone in evolution. 

How can we trade away such a monumental opportunity in exchange for music playing trinkets and shallow social networks? 

Technology is not a product.  Technology is the vehicle, science is the road, and we have a long way to go and a short time… well, you know the rest.  Maybe we should stop shopping for digital toys and invest in a future that doesn’t suck for billions of people.

Inequality Is Required In Order To Measure Wealth

How, exactly, does one measure "wealth" within a system of equality?

If 10 people each possess $100,000,000, who of the 10 people is "wealthy"?

Doesn't quite work, does it?

Without differing levels of income which, once measured, can then be compared to each other, it is impossible for "wealth" to exist.  Essentially, the concept of wealth can only exist in so far as inequality exists between those being compared to each other.

Is it not safe to conclude that wealth can only exist so long as poverty exists?

Wealth is a measurement of relativity.  Wealth requires poverty in order to be defined as such.  The money-market system requires inequality in order to measure wealth of any kind.  Therefor, as human beings, we participate in and knowingly support a system that creates inequality as a necessary component of "creating wealth" (or the illusion of wealth).

The Global Delusion: Money As Savior

The one dollar bill.

What is it?

Once you strip away everything you’ve been taught by your culture about the nature of money and the value it represents, what are you left holding?

The one dollar bill in your hand is a piece of paper.  Nothing more.  The value it represents within society is no longer backed up by a tangible commodity.  The gold standard was abandoned by the United States in 1933.  The question is, if paper promissory notes no longer represent the inherent value of a tangible commodity (such as gold), how does it continue to represent real-world value? 

Many recent documentaries and thinkers erroneously suggest that the value a one dollar bill represents within society is backed up by our collective imagination.  In other words, blind faith in the system acts as the sole perpetuating force behind monetary value.  While this perspective certainly wields shock value, it completely overlooks the oldest commodity of civilization: The Human Hours Commodity (HHC) or, simply put, human labor. 

Human labor is a real world commodity.  In the same way that the power in falling water can be harnessed by turbines in a dam to produce electricity, a human being’s time can be harnessed to produce a wide range of valuable resources.  In this way, the Human Hours Commodity (HHC) is the same as any other natural resource on the planet; it has inherent value.  When a human being enters a contract with an employer, they are agreeing to exchange HHC for a fixed dollar amount measured either in hours or successfully achieving the goals of an ongoing position.  It is this act, the free will exchange of HHC for money, that fuels the value of the dollar.  How?  Because HHC is a real world commodity, a natural resource no different than gold itself, HHC has become the new “gold standard”.  In other words, HHC serves as a tool for measuring the value of the dollar in much the same way that gold did in the past.

Unfortunately, this transition to HHC as the new gold standard has created a highly destructive paradox with only one outcome: Total system failure.

First, we must recognize that our leaders had no choice in terms of abandoning the gold standard.  It is possible that it could have been postponed, but there was always going to come a day when more money was needed circulating in the global money-market than the gold standard could represent.  In a system that requires perpetual growth to survive, a finite resource like gold will inevitably be exhausted as a measuring stick for value.  In order to create infinite growth potential, the money-market economy requires a tool for measuring value that is equally infinite.  The human population itself (and the HHC it stands for) is the only commodity with infinite growth potential (at least so long as the Earth can sustain such shortsighted growth). 

HHC can initially be viewed as the savior of the global monetary system.  On the surface, it is difficult to argue with.  The more people who agree to exchange HHC for money, the more it bolsters the notion that money has real world value.  Why else would a human being sacrifice their life hours for paper money?  If a real world commodity (HHC) is being traded for money, that money must have value.  The more total human hours worked, the more value the dollar holds in the collective trust.  More jobs, more hours, more value in the dollar… at the outset you could almost believe that the infinite growth potential of this new gold standard could eradicate poverty and usher in an era of prosperity for all. 

Sadly, not only is our for profit monetary system failing to bring prosperity to the majority of human beings alive today, it is aggressively creating poverty in order to sustain itself.

It is difficult to grasp the correlation between HHC and the value of the dollar when looking at the intricacy of the global system as a whole.  Let’s break it down into its simplest form using manageable numbers (NOTE: The thought experiment below is in no way meant to emulate the complexity of the current economy.  It merely illustrates, using basic math, why universal equality is impossible within any for profit monetary system):

Thought Experiment: The Price of Goods

Let’s set our total human population at 110.

For the sake of this thought experiment, we’ll use the price of a loaf of bread as a reference point.

Model #1

10 people earn $100 an hour.

100 people earn $1 an hour.

The price of a loaf of bread: Must remain affordable enough for the people receiving $1 an hour. In this model, a loaf of bread might cost $0.50 - $1.  To keep things simple, we'll use $1 (1 hour of work for the bottom paid 100 people who make up the vast majority of the total population).  While 10 people could buy 100 loaves for 1 hour of work, the majority (100 people) can only buy one loaf for 1 hour of work.  This balances out the equation and enables the business of selling bread to remain profitable.  Further, this model allows for a small number of the population to possess extraordinary buying power within the system.  Because the vast majority make far less then they do (broken down as an hourly average), their surplus of money still retains its value.  Take note that the only reason the top 10 people being paid more actually have greater buying power is because the bottom 100 are paid so much less by comparison, which keeps the price of goods down.

Model #2

110 people earn $100 an hour.

The price of a loaf of bread: If the entire population earned $100 an hour, the price of bread must reflect that.  If bread were to cost only $1 per loaf as it did in model #1, every individual could buy 100 loaves for every 1 hour worked.  In other words, there would be no profit in producing and selling bread for $1 a loaf (because the human hours of labor needed to produce it would cost more than the product is being sold for).  In this model, bread would need to cost $50 - $100 per loaf.  Anything less, and the business of selling bread becomes insolvent.  Ultimately, because the price of bread must rise to reflect the universal hourly income of the entire population, NONE of the people would benefit from the wage increase.  All goods, whether needed for survival or desired for enjoyment, would become far more expensive in relation to the universal hourly wage.  In a for profit monetary system in which true equality existed between all participants, no matter how large an amount each individual received in exchange for HHC, poverty (rather than wealth) would be universal. 

Conclusion

Even if it is only at a subconscious level, each and every one of us trapped in the money system knows that we cannot universally earn $100 per hour (Or whatever arbitrary amount you want to assign as being a large “improvement” over current wages).  The moment every worker in the world earned $100 per hour minimum wage, the price of goods would rise to balance out that universal gain in hourly income.  There is no other way for the monetary system to perpetuate but to continuously raise the price of goods to balance with the global average income.  

Understand that this is the paradox we have unleashed (or, more concisely, the paradox that has naturally emerged as a mathematical certainty within the for profit monetary system). 

Human beings are in a constant tug of war with ourselves.  We are collectively fighting against our own forward momentum, killing ourselves and our planet in the process.  Once you understand that the Human Hours Commodity (HHC) is locked in a zero-gain relationship with the value of the dollar, you become fully aware that poverty is not an avoidable byproduct of the monetary system, it is a vital pillar holding up an unsustainable model for civilization. 

The only means the dollar has of maintaining meaningful value is by forcing a large percentage of the population to work for as little as possible.  In other words, the actual goal of the dollar is to pay as little as possible for HHC in order to buoy the value of the dollar.  For this reason, American companies outsourcing jobs to countries with vastly lower hourly wage requirements is not merely a scheme to increase profits, it is a necessary component for maintaining the dollar’s value.  If outsourcing jobs hurt the dollar’s value rather than bolster it, politicians would already have passed concrete laws against the practice.   

Just as the thought experiment above showed, the price of bread can only remain low when the vast majority of the population earns a low hourly wage.  Broken down in this way, it becomes a matter of simple mathematics.  The global monetary system, by its very nature, can only sustain a small number of highly prosperous individuals.  The moment too many individuals within the system become highly prosperous, prosperity itself is devalued.  Is it not clear that humanity has entered itself into a highly destructive feedback loop by submitting to such a self-defeating system?

There will never be enough human hours to sustain the debt created by the financial machine.  Entire countries are collapsing beneath the weight of debt.  Debt is not money.  Now that computer networks have become the standard for the banking sector, most money in circulation is no longer printed, it is merely a number on a screen; nothing more than information fabricated at will.  This means that money is twice separated from the “real world” (in which value is measured by actual commodities with inherent value).  The first separation is 1. the printed dollar which is only a representation of real-world value (typically HHC) and 2. the digital dollar which is only a representation of a printed promissory note. 

Every dollar created by our current system represents a dollar of debt and, remember, the debt owed is in human hours (HHC), not money.  The real world commodity backing the entire system is HHC.  Our trillions of dollars of debt represents human labor, human labor for generations of people not yet born.  Are we really going to ride this train to its final stop?  Are human beings going to allow our own invented system of money to dictate the course of our evolution as a species?  We truly are a snake eating its own tail.

The Rise of Automation

As a species, we have placed all of our eggs into the for-profit-monetary-system-basket.  Our future as human beings is currently locked into a relationship with a system that produces extreme inequality by default, which in turn creates tremendous instability (conflict) between individuals, groups, and countries. 

The advent of automation via technological advances has already impacted the global job market, and this sector is still in its infancy.  The truth is, 80% of all current jobs available to human beings could be successfully automated via computers and machines.  Take a moment to absorb that fact.  80% of all jobs earning individuals an hourly wage could be fully automated using today’s technology, and that technology is advancing rapidly. 

From a wholly rational (scientific) perspective, automation is beneficial in every way.  It greatly reduces waste within the production process of goods, lowers the chance of error to nearly zero, and removes human beings from positions that are highly tedious, unfulfilling, and/or unsafe.  As an example, let’s analyze the construction process for homes today.  Despite incredible advances in technology, human beings are still constructing modern homes using nails and hammers.  This is an archaic approach given available technology.  40% of the materials used in traditional construction work winds up as throw-away waste.  Construction’s carbon footprint is massive in the United States, making up a third of the country’s total footprint.  This includes the production of raw materials used, the transportation of those materials, the machines and tools needed to manipulate those materials, the waste inherent in the process, etc.  For an extremely detailed look at construction’s carbon footprint, read “Efficiency and Equity Implications of Carbon Tax in the Construction Industry” (PDF).

Nearly 6 million Americans work in the construction industry and the average pay is roughly $40,000 a year.  Where does automation fit in?  3D printing may be viewed by many as a novelty suitable for nothing more than producing simple trinkets using a small desktop printing device.  However, there is an incredibly strong push to leverage 3D printing for the construction of ultra-modern buildings.  There are countless benefits at all levels when creating a home as a single molded piece using a 3D printer as opposed to the ancient methods and tools being utilized today.  3D printing, by default, creates zero waste.  In a world of finite resources, reducing construction waste to 0% from 40% is a huge step forward in efficiency.  Designs can be much more organic, functional, and pleasing… not to mention far more safe (100% fire retardant materials can be used, no sharp edges, stronger, more weather resistant, etc.).

There are countless articles available regarding the move toward 3D printing in construction.  Below are only a couple:

Printing 3D Buildings: Five tenets of a new kind of architecture

Dutch architect to build house with 3D printer

The question is, when (not if) 3D printing takes over the industry of construction, how do you replace the 6 million jobs that will be lost?  Keep in mind, those 6 million jobs only represent individuals who work directly at construction sites.  This does not reflect the jobs that would be lost across other reliant sectors, like the production of raw materials (lumber, concrete, nails, hammers, etc.), the transportation of those materials, and the hauling away of waste leftover from tradition construction techniques.  How many millions of relatively high paying jobs will be liquidated by this move toward automation in construction?  Where will these millions find work?  How much less will they earn on average for their hours worked?  Additionally, 3D printing technology is poised to impact many industries in a similar way.

The Inevitable Decline in the Inherent Value of HHC

When it comes to automation and the for profit monetary system, it must be recognized that the value of HHC (Human Hours Commodity) is being directly threatened.  If 80% of all existing jobs can already be automated by current technologies, are we not moving toward a time when HHC’s inherent value may cease to exist at all?  There will (likely) always need to be some measure of human involvement overseeing any automated system, but the number of people required for such a task is completely irrelevant when compared to the jobs lost by automating an industry.  

The truly disturbing thing to understand is that the monetary system itself views any decrease of value in HHC as a positive outcome.  Why?  As the value of HHC decreases (as human beings are paid lower hourly wages), the value of the dollar is actually bolstered because the price of goods decrease.  This of course means that the number of people near or below the poverty line increases (as HHC is devalued) while the buying power of those already wealthy greatly increases. 

Our for profit monetary system leverages HHC to drive the value of the dollar.  As entire sectors transition toward automation, the demand for HHC goes down and this works to degrade the inherent value of HHC as a whole.  In a world in which human hours of labor or less and less vital to the production of goods, it is a mathematical certainty that the value of human labor will fall dramatically.  Given this truth, is it not clear that human beings have anchored themselves to a system that is rapidly rendering human involvement and compensation obsolete?   

Automation should be viewed as a giant step forward for humanity.  It reduces waste, removes human beings from tedious and/or unsafe tasks, lowers the price of goods (both in the real-world sense of fewer commodities being used and in the monetary sense), and increases efficiency across the board.  And yet, because humanity has locked itself in a relationship with the monetary system, automation is largely seen as “the enemy” by the average worker because it threatens jobs and will ultimately render HHC valueless.  This is a contradiction that we can no longer afford to ignore.

Ending the Global Delusion of Money as Savior

While our scientific knowledge and technologies have advanced greatly and continue to do so, our social systems remain absurdly archaic.  If we fail to bring our governing systems into alignment with reality, the world will become increasingly unstable and it will require an unsustainable expenditure of resources to uphold our civilization.  In contrast, once we transition to a scientifically grounded system (such as a Resource-based economy being developed by The Venus Project), the advancements made in technology would become beneficial to all humankind rather than representing a threat to an antiquated system.

We are quickly moving toward a future in which the Human Hours Commodity will cease to have any value within our monetary system.  If we insist on clinging to such a system, we are literally fueling our own obsolescence (which will result in human suffering on a massive scale).

We no longer have the luxury of planning a lengthy transition to a new system.   If we are to avoid the inevitable planetary genocide our current money-market system is racing toward, we must take immediate action.  At some point, a large percentage of the world’s population must stand and reject money as a viable form of exchange.  The monetary system is clearly working against human progress on many levels, and that truth has never been more apparent than it is now. 

Human history is at a crossroads and the choices you make today will determine which road we travel.  Each and every one of us is responsible for our own complicity with a highly destructive monetary system.  In our defense, no alternatives exist within our culture.  Survival and also individual success can only be obtained by way of earning money in our current system.  This fact does nothing to change the reality of the situation, however.  If we are to transcend the self-destructive certainty of the for profit monetary system, many of us are going to have to sacrifice the lives we know in order to bring about a cultural shift in ideology.