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.