+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

  1. Link to Post #1
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    16,155
    Thanked 10,017 times in 1,506 posts

    Default How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

    How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

    I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

    So what's the point in even writing it. Humanity, as a whole, has no interest in being saved. Sad but true. I believe the planet, as is, is a baptism of fire to promote spiritual growth, and the small pay-off, (percentage-wise of rapid awakening,) is worth the cost. What reason/cause for (spiritual) growth if we live in comfort and bliss wanting for nothing?

    Why did I post this here, in The Depopulation Plan thread? The last chapter of the book would have been a description how the future would actually look in a capitalist free world. In that chapter I explained that the human population would almost certainly stabilise at around 8 billion, fluctuating between 7.5 and 8.5 over the decades with 96% of beings very content with life.

    That is not why we are here, in 3-dimensional form, it is not where we belong. Bliss cannot be found in circumstances, only in the mind, and mind is not to be confined to such a 3-dimensional existence.

    I'm not sure, ultimately, how that helps humanities real intention of awakening, so the book will never be written.
    Last edited by Ewan; 8th December 2020 at 19:50.

  2. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (8th December 2020), Brigantia (7th March 2021), Constance (11th December 2020), DeDukshyn (8th December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (8th December 2020), Harmony (8th December 2020), Intranuclear (20th December 2020), justntime2learn (9th December 2020), kfm27917 (21st December 2020), Mare (12th February 2021), Mashika (7th March 2021), Miha (8th December 2020), Mike (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021), Sadieblue (10th December 2020), Tintin (11th December 2020), wondering (9th December 2020)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    27,025
    Thanks
    120,584
    Thanked 346,541 times in 25,509 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

    How Capitalism Will Destroy The World
    Yes, we should have a Capitalism thread as well.

    Here's the problem. For the last 200,000 years (and maybe much longer), people anatomically identical to modern humans have been working incredibly hard from dawn to dusk to improve their levels of comfort and chances of survival. It was even a Darwinian survival characteristic: a lazy caveman was unlikely to do very well back then.

    But now the simple equation of work harder = do better has become corrupted. There's a nasty bug in the system.

    Greed, often accompanied by sometimes insatiable hunger for power and control, has entered the equation. I doubt our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to cope with very much of that. (A greedy caveman would quickly be punished by his or her companions.)

    So what's needed are ways of decoupling greed, and the selfish (or psychopathic) desire to diminish others, from capitalism. This does connect with the population question, because it's psychopathic greed that impacts the environment and all living things the most, and also (to a great extent) keeps the poorest and weakest in the world in their place.

    It's capitalism that has allowed all that to flourish — like a pandemic of its own.

  4. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bodhicee (11th December 2020), Brigantia (7th March 2021), Chris Gilbert (8th December 2020), Constance (16th February 2021), DeDukshyn (8th December 2020), Ewan (8th December 2020), Harmony (8th December 2020), Johan (Keyholder) (8th December 2020), justntime2learn (9th December 2020), kfm27917 (21st December 2020), Mare (12th February 2021), Mashika (7th March 2021), Miha (8th December 2020), Mike (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021), Sadieblue (10th December 2020), Sue (Ayt) (8th December 2020), thepainterdoug (8th December 2020), Tintin (11th December 2020), wondering (9th December 2020), Yoda (8th December 2020)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Scotland Avalon Member panpravda's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th March 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Language
    English
    Age
    66
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    226
    Thanked 247 times in 49 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Ewan ... I'd respectfully encourage you to think again about writing your book. I'll explain below why I say that ...

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

    How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

    I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.
    I also had no qualifications to write the book that I did after many years of what might be called my attendance at the Layman's University, studying the particular subject I eventually wrote about.

    My energies back then when I began to see clearly the mistakes and misinterpretations that had been made within theoretical science, as it relates to how our universe actually works, were such that I felt that I simply had no option but to dedicate my time to ensure that for laypeople like myself who are not schooled as part of their earlier life in the basics of physics and cosmology, there would at least exist something of a translation from the often obfuscated language worlds of theoretical cosmology and physics that stood a chance of being understood and appreciated by others.

    This reply to you is not about my book, but ... the controversial subject of how our universe really works has been and remains very important to me, for it is not the story we have been given for many decades by mainstream science. The reasons for this are close to the same reasons you touch on in your own post; i.e. the explanation for this is too big and will never be taken seriously. That, however, didn't stop me.

    I do sympathise, but if you feel in your soul that you are meant to *tell things as you see them*, then please do that, for there is something of an invisible nature (a spiritual companion if you like) that helps us operate beyond the impression of such things as *qualifications are required* that is there to guide us when are truly motivated do what we feel in our hearts is the right thing to do.

    I remember the day very clearly in 2010 when I decided to begin putting fingers to keyboard on my book ... I sat down that morning and never left my chair in front of my computer till around 30,000 words had been typed ... now, this was not only me doing that ... I swear I had help.

    Tom.
    "We should not surrender our judgement to others, we must reclaim our ability to doubt and think for ourselves."

  6. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to panpravda For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th December 2020), Blastolabs (10th December 2020), Brigantia (7th March 2021), Constance (11th December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (11th December 2020), Ewan (11th December 2020), Gwin Ru (10th December 2020), Harmony (11th December 2020), Icare (22nd December 2020), kfm27917 (21st December 2020), Mare (12th February 2021), Mashika (7th March 2021), Miha (21st December 2020), Nasu (12th March 2021), pueblo (11th December 2020), Sue (Ayt) (10th December 2020), Tintin (11th December 2020), wondering (10th December 2020)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Australia Avalon Member Constance's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,393
    Thanks
    20,537
    Thanked 24,552 times in 3,259 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

    How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

    I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

    So what's the point in even writing it. Humanity, as a whole, has no interest in being saved. Sad but true. I believe the planet, as is, is a baptism of fire to promote spiritual growth, and the small pay-off, (percentage-wise of rapid awakening,) is worth the cost. What reason/cause for (spiritual) growth if we live in comfort and bliss wanting for nothing?

    Why did I post this here, in The Depopulation Plan thread? The last chapter of the book would have been a description how the future would actually look in a capitalist free world. In that chapter I explained that the human population would almost certainly stabilise at around 8 billion, fluctuating between 7.5 and 8.5 over the decades with 96% of beings very content with life.

    That is not why we are here, in 3-dimensional form, it is not where we belong. Bliss cannot be found in circumstances, only in the mind, and mind is not to be confined to such a 3-dimensional existence.

    I'm not sure, ultimately, how that helps humanities real intention of awakening, so the book will never be written.
    I wholeheartedly agree with Panpravda I encourage you to reconsider.

    There will never be another you in the entire universe Ewan. Your unique contribution to the world will be felt and heard throughout the universe if this is a soul element that your highest self wishes to fulfill.

    Our future self is always beckoning us on and I've got a feeling that there is no mistake that you felt passionate enough to write about it here.

    My gut tells me that there would be more than enough people interested in reading your book. I know I'd read it.

    Like yourself, I've contemplated everything around money for the longest time. I've attended all kinds of seminars over the years and read as many books as I could stomach to educate myself on the subject of money. I wanted to explore money from every conceivable angle I could to make sure that I was not missing the point somewhere.
    I've come to the conclusion that if we are to be sovereign beings, living a heaven on earth, money has no place in our lives.

    A few people who have inspired myself around moneyless living: Mark Boyle, Rob Greenfield and Colin R Turner.



    And I have found Paul Piffs experiments and the research he has done to be quite compelling regarding how money changes the way we behave.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_...an?language=en

  8. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Anka (13th December 2020), Bill Ryan (11th December 2020), Brigantia (7th March 2021), Ewan (11th December 2020), Harmony (11th December 2020), Icare (22nd December 2020), justntime2learn (11th December 2020), kfm27917 (21st December 2020), Mare (12th February 2021), Mashika (7th March 2021), Miha (11th December 2020), Nasu (12th March 2021), pueblo (11th December 2020), Tintin (11th December 2020)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    16,155
    Thanked 10,017 times in 1,506 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

    Here's the problem. For the last 200,000 years (and maybe much longer), people anatomically identical to modern humans have been working incredibly hard from dawn to dusk to improve their levels of comfort and chances of survival. It was even a Darwinian survival characteristic: a lazy caveman was unlikely to do very well back then.

    But now the simple equation of work harder = do better has become corrupted. There's a nasty bug in the system.

    Greed, often accompanied by sometimes insatiable hunger for power and control, has entered the equation. I doubt our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to cope with very much of that. (A greedy caveman would quickly be punished by his or her companions.)

    So what's needed are ways of decoupling greed, and the selfish (or psychopathic) desire to diminish others, from capitalism. This does connect with the population question, because it's psychopathic greed that impacts the environment and all living things the most, and also (to a great extent) keeps the poorest and weakest in the world in their place.

    It's capitalism that has allowed all that to flourish — like a pandemic of its own.
    I don't think our ancestors thought of it as work, it was just life and they were living it. It would have had many peaceful, idyllic moments interspersed among the hunting and gathering.

    Where work came into being, and perhaps the moment the capitalism bug entered the system, was the Agricultural Revolution. Now they really did have to work hard, ploughing, tilling, watering, winnowing. Praying for rain, for no insects, no rats in the barns. And the goatherders, they had to watch their flocks all day to protect from predators. That's more like a prison sentence compared to the freedom they'd had as hunter/gatherers.

    Meanwhile actual hunter gatherers would look on in bewilderment at what these crazy people were doing as they, themselves, were forced into smaller and smaller areas. More and more land needed for crops, livestock, building. Population would flourish in such times as successful harvests* and the consequences meant more resources were needed to feed and house such expansions.

    It was also here that trades entered the equation. Bakers, millers, leatherworkers and tanners, carpenters etc and as wealth began to accumulate, assuming they'd avoided drought and plague, a new class emerged, poets and artists, songsters and entertainers. Alongside all that came fledgling bankers in the shape of exchange markets and moneylenders. A wealthy elite was mere generations away.

    The toilers still toiled though, they'd given up their freedom in exchange for what looked like a potentially easier more secure way of living. It wasn't, not for them. Now they truly did work from dawn to dusk, much the same as farmers today, seven days a week.

    But some part of humanity found the conditions very acceptable. The greedy caveman had found a way to survive very well indeed.

    Edit:
    * An interesting fact about humanities population expansion during the various Agricultural Revolutions around the world..



    ..our diet became much less nutritional and..
    Quote Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped discs, arthritis and hernias.

    Source: Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind
    Last edited by Ewan; 21st December 2020 at 09:17.

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th February 2021), Constance (16th February 2021), Icare (22nd December 2020), kfm27917 (21st December 2020), Mare (12th February 2021), Mashika (7th March 2021), Miha (11th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Avalon Member lunaflare's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2010
    Posts
    489
    Thanks
    459
    Thanked 1,642 times in 375 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
    Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

    At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
    It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
    So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
    How Humans Will Destroy the World.
    Last edited by lunaflare; 21st December 2020 at 09:39.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lunaflare For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (16th February 2021), Ewan (21st December 2020), Icare (22nd December 2020), Mashika (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    16,155
    Thanked 10,017 times in 1,506 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by lunaflare (here)
    I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
    Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

    At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
    It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
    So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
    How Humans Will Destroy the World.
    Creative minds exist whether Capitalism does or doesn't. The Soviets had some of the best creative minds at work on Vostok I when Yuri Gargarin became the first man to complete an earth orbit in 1961. Profit was not the goal. A creative mind does not have to be entrepreneurial and would probably be more effective when financial returns were never considered. Supply and demand is part and parcel of economics in today's world and is ever so easy to manipulate, free will is manipulated on a daily basis at this level through marketing and misinformation.

    I agree there is increasing demand for organic foods, cleaner air, alternative power etc. It is still a small percentage of people though (most don't give it a second thought) and unfortuantely all the solutions are severely hampered by the need for profit. This is a simple enough thing to understand. No-one will be effective or efficient in any of the preceding ventures as long as profit is the primary goal of any venture.

    Humans, given an appropriate education would never destroy the world. Contrary to the common premise of a mad, mad world humans are not insane. Undoubtedly a few of them are and unfortunately many of those are in high position amassing wealth in an insane Capitalist world. Those people do not actually care for money per se, they care for what money gives them. Power.

    Capitalism is an insane premise, there can be no argument about that once one thinks it through to an inevitable conclusion. No system can be maintained on perpetual growth as resources are finite. There may be an argument raised if everything ever manufactured could be recycled effectively and re-used indefinitely. It seems unlikely to reach such a point as long as profit is the goal.

    Earlier in the thread I pointed out how Capitalism began with the advent of the various Agricultural Revolutions that took place in the world at different times. In actual fact the roots of Capitalism began the moment human beings attached value to a thing. Shells, dyes and stones have all been used as bartering exchange commodites. Some individuals would have certainly capitalised on this. If I can travel three days to the coast and pick up shells from beaches then travel a further five days in the opposite direction to barter for things that previously I had to work quite hard to acquire then it seems an easier (dare I say more profitable?) solution.

    Avarice is not a sin, it is just naive. Enlightened humans would not even entertain the idea of Capitalism, it is utter madness leading to every inequality you can think of and ending in disaster*.

    * Literally - stars out of alignment.
    Synonyms: Catastrophe, cataclysm, apocalypse.

    So, quite serious then.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (16th February 2021), Constance (16th February 2021), Ernie Nemeth (7th March 2021), Mare (12th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    1,832
    Thanks
    7,759
    Thanked 14,968 times in 1,800 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (17th February 2021), Bill Ryan (16th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021), Strat (17th February 2021)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    16,155
    Thanked 10,017 times in 1,506 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.
    It wasn't meant literally. Capitalism won't create the Milky Way Mk II. Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren though.

    Humans can destroy themselves in any number of ways, Capitalism being one which isn't considered but it certainly is one of those numerous ways.

    I'll repeat my earlier statement for good measure. Capitalism is an insane premise - (profitting the few at the expense of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else).

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (16th February 2021), Constance (16th February 2021), DeDukshyn (16th February 2021), Ernie Nemeth (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    1,832
    Thanks
    7,759
    Thanked 14,968 times in 1,800 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.
    It wasn't meant literally. Capitalism won't create the Milky Way Mk II. Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren though.

    Humans can destroy themselves in any number of ways, Capitalism being one which isn't considered but it certainly is one of those numerous ways.

    I'll repeat my earlier statement for good measure. Capitalism is an insane premise - (profitting the few at the expense of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else).
    It is my view that, in general, the "ism" is not the problem. The problem is the people/entities operating under and pursuant to a particular "ism." G. Edward Griffin does a good job at addressing this issue. For instance, he has an interesting lecture on the paradox of "the rich socialist" (socialism); people amassing great wealth and power through the control of governments and ruling over the masses. He discusses how it is that a group of people, ostensibly interested in pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number, amass great fortunes and are typically totalitarian in their approach to government and rule over us all.

    May I urge you to put "G. Edward Griffin" or "Reality Zone" and "The Myth and Meaning of Monopoly Capitalism" into a search engine and listen to his presentation? It is only about 45 minutes long. Griffin is an outstanding speaker.

    It will be well worth your time.

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Constance (7th March 2021), Ewan (20th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021), Strat (17th February 2021)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Australia Avalon Member Constance's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,393
    Thanks
    20,537
    Thanked 24,552 times in 3,259 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    Enlightened humans would not even entertain the idea of Capitalism, it is utter madness leading to every inequality you can think of and ending in disaster*.
    *The Buddha holding wealth seminars.*

    Tony Wright has a great theory about how we wound up in the place we are in. It challenges all the mainstream theories about our basic biology (and in particular, our neurology), what has contributed to the degeneration of humanity and how we can restore humanity.

    Ewan, keep up the great work

    @ Lunaflare - Technology is great for the interim whilst we transition to the new new world (one that loves and serves all ) but I can foresee a time when we won't need it at all.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Ernie Nemeth (7th March 2021), Ewan (20th February 2021), Miha (17th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  23. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Language
    English
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks
    3,613
    Thanked 10,180 times in 1,475 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    What would be yalls alternative to capitalism? I don't mean to be a party pooper here but I appreciate capitalism. I know it's not 'the answer' but I don't know what is and if someone knows then I'd like to hear it.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Ewan (20th February 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    1,552
    Thanks
    16,155
    Thanked 10,017 times in 1,506 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)
    What would be yalls alternative to capitalism? I don't mean to be a party pooper here but I appreciate capitalism. I know it's not 'the answer' but I don't know what is and if someone knows then I'd like to hear it.
    Hi Strat, that would be a whole new topic I feel, I do have several thoughts on that but nothing that could be construed as a blueprint for a better future. My intention was simply to demonstrate how capitalism cannot function indefinitely without collapse, which, personally, I believe should be apparent to all if enough consideration is given to the mechanisms and beliefs behind the concept.

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)

    It is my view that, in general, the "ism" is not the problem. The problem is the people/entities operating under and pursuant to a particular "ism." G. Edward Griffin does a good job at addressing this issue. For instance, he has an interesting lecture on the paradox of "the rich socialist" (socialism); people amassing great wealth and power through the control of governments and ruling over the masses. He discusses how it is that a group of people, ostensibly interested in pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number, amass great fortunes and are typically totalitarian in their approach to government and rule over us all.

    May I urge you to put "G. Edward Griffin" or "Reality Zone" and "The Myth and Meaning of Monopoly Capitalism" into a search engine and listen to his presentation? It is only about 45 minutes long. Griffin is an outstanding speaker.

    It will be well worth your time.
    Thank you Satori for reminding me of Griffin's lectures, it had been so long I'd almost forgotten them. (I would also apologies for such a late response but my father (94 years) is in end of life stages and I have been otherwise occupied.)

    Griffin speaks with absolute accuracy in the talk you mention, but he does not go deep enough. I do not know if that means he simply hadn't continued his line of reasoning or he was fearful of going further. The crux of his presentation is perhaps the worst of the corruption that can become entwined with this particular "ism". If you water those thoughts down, making them perhaps innocuous, do they not still fit many of our current economic practices that are regarded as normal? I note also that you made no response to my statement that Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren - is that not true in your opinion?

    [END QUOTE REPONSES]

    General response to all. I did inform Bill I was loathe to start this thread beacause I knew what a burden it would become to me personally. Presenting an idea so alien to many was never going to be easy, it requires a dissolution of some core beliefs that the vast majority do not even realise they hold to be true. The thread is clearly not generating much interest, (fine by me ), but I will endeavour to reply to any future responses as and when I am available.

    PS: Constance.
    We are totally on the same page.
    Quote Posted by Constance (here)
    I've come to the conclusion that if we are to be sovereign beings, living a heaven on earth, money has no place in our lives.
    Last edited by Ewan; 7th March 2021 at 20:47. Reason: Correction

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    AutumnW (7th March 2021), Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Constance (7th March 2021), Ernie Nemeth (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  27. Link to Post #14
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,643
    Thanks
    19,783
    Thanked 27,809 times in 4,377 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    It is hard to imagine another way.

    The reason is always the same. Pick any topic. It does not matter what topic that might be. It comes down to the same thing every time.

    We value this material world and our short time in this place. The shackles of fear and pain and the biological overlay to propagate force us to value our continuance, both individually and more importantly collectively. We are hard wired in this regard.

    'Life' is hard. And there is no guarantee for any of us. Is it true? Or is it false? Since we are here we can only arrive at the obvious conclusion.

    There is a reason why the finite can never arrive at infinity - it is the same reason why all 'life' is finite.

    *****

    It is 'fun' to play in the mud. But eventually is irritates the cracks and crevices, the folds and creases, of our physical forms and it becomes imperative to bathe. No one remains clean in this world forever. Eventually the fun wears thin.

    The moment we are free of these mortal coils is the moment we realize we are other than this body and we are more than this puny 'life'. It is often fun for a time but for most it becomes a burden and death a welcome relief.

    *****

    There are two strategies: immediate selfish gratification or selfless service. The first is our world. The second is God's. If sophistication and technology is the means to the first, then what of the second?

    In our world it is obvious where technological prowess is prominent because it is stark and intrusive; and rigid.
    The second goes unseen.
    And when we do see the second we often miss its significance and wonder.
    Why would a group of devotees imagine their prayers uphold the world.
    What good comes of living in a cave forever staring at a shadow on the wall?


    We love these bodies of dirt and dust, of water and mud. We wish to possess it, forever to cling to its fragile form. To clean it and preen it and satisfy its desires. And still it putrefies, decays, and ceases to function. Our obsession always disappoints. All possessions always disappoint. It is never enough and it never will be. No matter how clever the ploy, no matter how complicated the effort, the body will always eventually return to the dust from which it was made.


    *****

    This is the premise, the conclusion, the wisdom...we never want to admit.

    To possess anything is futile; It is impossible to possess. It is antithetic to the human experience. And yet it is the basic, most fundamental tenet of the modern world.

    To possess is to protect.
    To protect is to defend.
    To defend is to deprive.
    To deprive is to despise.
    To despise is to hate.
    To hate is to kill.
    To kill is to war.
    To war is to possess.

    It is a never ending chain reaction of despair. A circle that continues in a cycle. It is a poor facsimile, a comical charade, this attempt to mimic the eternal. But it is mistaken.


    *****

    Now imagine what selfless service, implemented on a world-wide scale, would accomplish...Imagine what love could do - what it cannot do is all those pointless words above.

    Imagine the spiralling heights to which LOVE could take us!

    that has never been tried before

    come on, let's try


    Let's build an economy on selfless, boundless, eternal love.
    !!!for that is what we are!!!
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Constance (7th March 2021), Ewan (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  29. Link to Post #15
    Avalon Member Mashika's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,407
    Thanks
    3,654
    Thanked 8,861 times in 1,352 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

    How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

    I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

    So what's the point in even writing it. Humanity, as a whole, has no interest in being saved. Sad but true. I believe the planet, as is, is a baptism of fire to promote spiritual growth, and the small pay-off, (percentage-wise of rapid awakening,) is worth the cost. What reason/cause for (spiritual) growth if we live in comfort and bliss wanting for nothing?

    Why did I post this here, in The Depopulation Plan thread? The last chapter of the book would have been a description how the future would actually look in a capitalist free world. In that chapter I explained that the human population would almost certainly stabilise at around 8 billion, fluctuating between 7.5 and 8.5 over the decades with 96% of beings very content with life.

    That is not why we are here, in 3-dimensional form, it is not where we belong. Bliss cannot be found in circumstances, only in the mind, and mind is not to be confined to such a 3-dimensional existence.

    I'm not sure, ultimately, how that helps humanities real intention of awakening, so the book will never be written.
    Quote My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety
    Probably best reason to start writing it
    A sword, swung out of fear, can't ever be used to protect anyone.
    Bona Terra, Bona Gens, Aqua Clara, Clarum Coelum

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), Constance (7th March 2021), Ewan (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  31. Link to Post #16
    Avalon Member Mashika's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th September 2019
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,407
    Thanks
    3,654
    Thanked 8,861 times in 1,352 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Quote Posted by lunaflare (here)
    I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
    Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

    At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
    It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
    So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
    How Humans Will Destroy the World.
    In the USSR, there was a video call system like way back in the 70's or so, even before computers. I know this because my grand father told me all about it

    NASA used similar tech, but it was not really available to normal people i think, yet in the USSR you could just walk into a room and make your video call

    You went into a booth and place a coin or something like that, then it would use TV channels to create the connection between two people on different parts of Russia, and they would talk while watching their faces on a tv screen. This had nothing to do with Capitalism, yet it was beyond anything else other countries had at that time


    "How humans will destroy the world they created for themselves" is a better one
    Last edited by Mashika; 7th March 2021 at 22:53.
    A sword, swung out of fear, can't ever be used to protect anyone.
    Bona Terra, Bona Gens, Aqua Clara, Clarum Coelum

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mashika For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th March 2021), East Sun (7th March 2021), Ewan (7th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  33. Link to Post #17
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    2,083
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 9,668 times in 1,855 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Well, capitalism without capital is called a market economy. It's capital that corrupts the market. Or rather, people with capital.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th April 2021), Ewan (8th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  35. Link to Post #18
    Switzerland Avalon Member Nasu's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th April 2011
    Location
    Lost in the woods
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    47,217
    Thanked 5,969 times in 990 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    Hi Ewan

    Reading through this thread makes me think two things, firstly that in it's entirety it is a very good argument for you writing the book and secondly, you've already started, just keep going. What better way to present a concept in the round than via the use of opposing avatars with opposing views, Plato's stuff springs to mind. If it flopps it says something about society. If it succeeds it says something else about society.

    Or it could metastasis into something else entirely, the creator of the game Monopoly a lady called Elizabeth Magie, belonged to a group set against unfair landlords and their capitalistic ways. She made the game to highlight the intrinsically futile way that within the capitalist model in any given market ultimately one or two or three big fish will end up owning everything and everyone, at the total economic and societal destruction of everyone else.

    Unfortunately the game was a huge failure in showing the failings of the system but instead was a huge success because so many people loved trying to be the one, two or three big fish. People love an opportunity to play with greed, especially when cloaked in a family game. People also love to build empires, even when the outcome is binary, either total victory or complete defeat. One thing can become another, but nothing or no thing has no chance of changing any thing.

    For want of a nail the horse shoe was lost, for want of a horse shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the messenger was lost, for want of a message the battle was lost, for want of a battle the war was lost, for want of a war the empire was lost. For want of a nail.

    Don't be for want of a nail. Don't be THAT guy. Be the nail you wish to see change the world. So what's the worst that could happen if you wrote the book? Sell the capitalists the book or rope to hang them with?

    From what little I can glean from our short digital time together, I would say you are rebellious at heart. Surely creating a best selling book about How Capitalism will Destroy the World is at worst profiting from irony and at best a huge moon at the system as a whole. I say hold up your sporran and pull up your kilt and bend over and show them what you've got to say!

    I'll buy your book. They say the first sale is always the hardest.......x....... N
    Last edited by Nasu; 12th March 2021 at 03:43.

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nasu For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th April 2021), Constance (12th March 2021), Ewan (16th March 2021), Hym (12th March 2021)

  37. Link to Post #19
    Australia Avalon Member Constance's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,393
    Thanks
    20,537
    Thanked 24,552 times in 3,259 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    You might have already seen this Ewan but it is always worth a repost. It is very telling...


    https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_...an?language=en

    Transcript

    I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that other player?


    00:46
    So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money; when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more.


    01:13
    (Laughter)


    01:15
    And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardon the sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles.


    01:31
    [Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?


    01:33
    Poor Player: Just one.


    01:34
    RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.


    01:36
    RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.


    01:39
    Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around.


    02:02
    (Game piece smacks board)


    02:04
    We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.


    02:15
    We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.


    02:27
    [Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?


    02:29
    PP: I don't know.


    02:31
    Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.


    02:50
    (Laughter)


    02:55
    [Video] RP: I love pretzels.


    02:57
    (Laughter)


    03:01
    Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing.


    03:27
    [Video] RP: I have money ...


    03:29
    (Laughs) I have money for everything.


    03:31
    PP: How much is that?


    03:33
    RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever.


    03:43
    RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.


    03:45
    RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.


    03:50
    (Laughter)


    03:51
    Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly ...


    04:07
    (Laughter)


    04:12
    They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game.


    04:21
    (Laughter)


    04:22
    And they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin -- that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.


    04:43
    Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't; they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.


    05:59
    Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who's more likely to offer help to another person: someone who's rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.


    06:54
    We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times as much.


    07:24
    We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children --


    07:34
    (Laughter)


    07:38
    I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.


    08:01
    We've even studied cars. Not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.


    08:44
    (Laughter)


    08:45
    Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...


    09:08
    (Laughter)


    09:10
    the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.


    09:44
    Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable, because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. And a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you.


    10:38
    Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.


    11:12
    We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.


    12:03
    Now inequality -- economic inequality -- is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.


    13:05
    So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people.


    13:58
    In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.


    14:44
    And beyond the walls of our lab, we're even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like "We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or "Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values and changes in people's behavior that work against their own economic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.


    16:14
    Thank you.


    16:16
    (Applause)

  38. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th April 2021), Ewan (16th March 2021), Gracy May (12th March 2021), Mike (12th March 2021), Nasu (12th March 2021)

  39. Link to Post #20
    Australia Avalon Member Constance's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,393
    Thanks
    20,537
    Thanked 24,552 times in 3,259 posts

    Default Re: How Capitalism will Destroy the World

    I'm aware that this thread is devoted to the subject of how capitalism will destroy the world but it seemed fitting to add Peter's work here. It's a ray of light

    In this episode, Peter points a finger at Systems Based Activism.

    The three main areas of focus are:
    1. Understanding our current system of economics.
    2. Understanding what an idealized system would be based on inference drawn from nature, and hence fundamental sustainability principles and public health principles
    3. How to transition from the current system into a new system.



    Revolution Now! with Peter Joseph | Ep #21| April 7th 2021



    Transcript:
    Peter Senge:
    Well, it seems to me, there's one problem in the world and all the problems in the world arise out of this one problem. And the problem was interdependence. I often think it's important for us in this systems field. Just to remember that systems is just a word to say something which people have understood as long as people have understood anything. We do not live alone. We have never lived alone. We live in a world of extraordinary interdependence. This is a sensibility which defines in many ways native awareness. And by native I mean before the industrial revolution, of course, but really before the agricultural revolution. As many people who have reflected on the evolution of culture would probably say that was the first fundamental break. And of course it's embodied in almost all of our axial age religions, not all, but most of them sometimes very explicit because those religions had their roots in a time period very similar to the beginnings of organized agriculture.

    During which time human beings go through this profound shift. There was no word for nature. Most native communities have no word for nature. You do not need a word for something that is you. Life is interdependence. There is no such thing as living separate. That we inherit that all species inherit. How many of us want to destroy species? You wake up in the morning and go, "Ah, what a beautiful day to destabilize the climate a bit more." Of course, we don't think that way. No one wants to produce the systemic outcomes that we consistently produce. And what I started to realize is that is, almost to me, the archetypal definition of systems intelligence, or let's just say, systems ignorance.

    Peter Joseph:
    Good afternoon, good evening, good morning everybody. This is Peter Joseph, and welcome to the Revolution Now! Podcast episode 21, April 7th, 2021. For those new the focus of this podcast is on system change. The term or ism I generally use to embrace this change is called structuralism. Structuralism may be an ism, but it's not an ideology. It's a method, a method of analysis and worldview based on systems theory. And it's about observing and respecting the holistic inter-relational nature of sociological phenomenon, highlighting the structures that underscore system level behavior, and hence patterns of repeated events that we see all around us every day- system level outcomes. It poses the question, what are the levels of organization in society and how do they influence the unfolding of civilization systemically for better or for worse? And in this panarchy, meaning the synergy or link between systems at different scales of operation, there's a kind of hierarchy of influence, even though that word hierarchy isn't exactly the right idea.

    What we find is some levels of organization, some layers will have more power than others. The example I commonly use is you have a system of a boat. This machine of a boat designed to transport someone across the ocean. It's a system; it's there to stay buoyant and operate as best it can until a larger order system influence such as an enormous storm comes in and smashes that boat removing its function. But we don't see these kinds of relationships properly. We understand laws of nature and the ecosystem and sustainability, at least more than ever, because of the crises that we're experiencing. But we don't think about this sociologically or at least very rarely do we. We tend not to recognize that no matter what we do on one level, another more powerful level of system organization can override such behaviors. And that is critically important to activism.


    The importance of structuralism to activism is the recognition that there are structures that are influencing everything. And if you want to change things for the better, you must be aware of those structures and ultimately change those structures. The basic thesis here is that until we have a true understanding of our social system as it exists, -- getting to the root of negative social patterns by tracking systemic causes, while at the same time working to build far more sustainable systems; sustainable approaches, new structures that have to be introduced, through, of course, the same kind of scientific reasoning, the systemic reasoning -- unfortunately, the social and ecological declines we see accelerate today will only increase creating further imbalance and destabilization. Put more simply and in real world terms, we can have an economic system predominantly based on market trade.


    It's run its course. It isn't salvageable today. From a system level analysis, there is no defense of it. Scientifically, irrespective of what you believe about society, human nature and the like, our system of economics does not hold up to the changing needs of our environment. We have hit a wall in regard to the range of adaptation the market economy can work with, and there's nowhere else to go. We are there. And either the system devolves into some kind of nastier version of itself, just to maintain itself, to preserve the basic structure, or we do a phase transition out of this thing, building on the good properties of the system, emerging into a new system. So if you're a human being that wishes to see future generations flourish, finding balance to the ecosystem; improving a condition of peace and justice and human rights equality, you can't possibly support any known version of capitalism.


    Doesn't matter what blockchain does. It doesn't matter what the new legislation anticipates. It doesn't matter how much you tax the wealthy. The structure itself is simply antithetical to those values and goals. And that is the first thing that has to be admitted like drug addicts in an addiction rehab group. The first thing they have to admit is they have a problem and we have a serious problem on this planet. And just because solutions are not clear and obvious and simple to most, doesn't alter the existence of the problem. The question is not what is right and what is wrong, the question is always what works and what doesn't. We as a species, either conform to the laws of nature revealed to us through system science, or we die at the hands of those very same laws, it's that simple. And the root mechanism that will lead to our demise will not be some malicious group or conspiracy or criminal oppression or general social breakdown. It will be by way of a deeply toxic, outdated religious tradition, in fact. A system of economic organization that we Orwellianly call: the free market.


    Now, subtle opening contemptuous rant aside. The opening audio excerpt was from a lecture by a system's theorist, Peter Senge. It was taken from a 2014 talk titled, Systems Thinking for a Better World. And while of course like most academic types, he's not explicit in criticizing the system-level flaws of trade based economics. The framework and groundedness of his overall analysis of things is actually very educational and thoughtful. At the end, you may have noticed he used this phrase "systems ignorance," and that is an excellent term. Needless to say, the framework of science itself is about understanding cause and effect. And it's no surprise that the more we learn, the more we realize there is to learn because of the emergent, nonlinear complexity of the natural world. And contemporary society with all of our claimed sophistication continues to fail miserably at attempting to understand this complexity: systems ignorance. As talked about at length before in this program, in other podcasts, whether it's hardwired into our brain or it's a cultural consequence, we in society appear to have a very difficult time understanding the nature of systems.


    In fact, we tend to see the world in the same way we have structured it, as static hierarchies. We see a word we begin to reduce the word into more words; component parts, categorical reductionism. Our inference is primarily deductive, when just as much weight needs to be given to connectivity across all scales. When you look at our educational system, it's clear because of the fragmentation of it, we're not trained to really think about relationships. Imagine a photo of a sunset over a common house, we see the house, a car in the driveway, a tree, there's grass, there's flowers, there's a horizon, there's a little bit of moisture and dew in the air. We see those objects and that's how we would describe the picture. But we don't see the interrelationships of those things. Try this next time you walk down the street, look at the category of things that you see and make a willful attempt to draw relationships between those things, as opposed to just observing the things. It's a very unique exercise.


    On that and as an aside, some may be familiar with David Bohm and his experimental idea of Rheomode. Peter Senge has actually spoken about this quite a bit. I think he was influenced by Bohm's work as well. Rheomode is an idea for a different kind of language, one based on the verb, not the noun. Bohm got the idea from the Blackfoot Indians. The Blackfoot language is very unique indeed with a large focus on action, verb and connection; holism. More of a process language, less focused on static nouns. A verb based language if you will. We're all generally confident that we can describe the world we see around us with the language and linguistic tools that we have; that we've inherited. And yet different languages actually have different inherent worldviews within them. The Blackfoot language, as a kind of verb based process language, has a completely different implication than, say, common English. In a way it's kind of a Marshall McLuhan, "medium is the message," observation. Which again relates back to this concept of structuralism, because the language structure we use actually has bias, implicit bias. There's a kind of emphasis in our language.


    In the same way the structure of our economy has bias and implications built in regardless of how people use the tool of our economy. Which also speaks to an extremely ubiquitous myth in society, the idea that systems are neutral. People myopically conclude that, "Oh, we just have to change human behavior, be more moral and ethical. And the system outcomes will hence be different." Well, as Peter Senge stated in that opening, people don't want to harm others with the environment, but yet it keeps happening. And that's the disconnect. So there's this illusion, this myth. How many times have you heard people refer to our economy as neutral, and it's not neutral.


    The market game is not decided by the players, it's decided by the rules and the structure. This is that ever common, weak, moral argument that's just everywhere out there. Arguing for improved social conditions based on human behavior. Markets are just fine. We have an ethical problem. The structure is biased. The structure is violent. The structure is criminal. The structure is incentivizing and creating the dynamics of all of these negative patterns. It's also creating positive patterns too. So let's not just dismiss the whole thing. The question is when you weigh them together, are we getting more positive than negative? Ah, not anymore, not anymore. Far more negative holistically is emerging than any of the positives we can claim at this time. And one final thing that just popped in my mind before we move on to the main content of this episode is the notion of hypocrisy.


    And I don't mean in the context of ridicule. I get emails all day long accusing me of hypocrisy because I sell things in the system, a system I'm opposed to. Well, obviously it's not really hypocrisy when there's no other option. When you're trapped in the system you want to change, sadly, for survival, you need to utilize the same system. And obviously it's up to one's moral judgment, as subjective as it is sad to say, about how far you go in that degree of exploitation for your own self-interest, as the system demands, as literally every human being on the planet is operating.


    But the hypocrisy, I think, creates an emotional stigma with people when they start to get closer and closer to the truth. Hence the activist industrial complex. Why are all of these scientists, and career activists, and sociologists, and systems theorists still not willing to confront the core structural flaw of our economy? When as far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely right in front of you. It's transparent, it's obvious, it's the elephant orgy in the living room. And the reason they don't is because of the hypocrisy they feel, because they're not willing to sacrifice their method of survival because they've probably achieved some level of sustainability finally for themselves and their family. It's completely anathema to the mind to engage that kind of thinking. And that is a deep emotional inhibition for lack of a better expression that continues to serve as a kind of feedback loop, preserving our current system as I'm going to talk about more so as we delve into again, the main subject today which is, Systems Based Activism.


    However, before we jump into that, I did have an event planned as some may know, on March 28th, that had to be canceled the day of, I'm very sorry about that. And I was planning to rebook this for mid April, but things have changed in my life, in my domestic family life. Unfortunately I have an immediate family member that's in hospice; terminal, so it's been very difficult. And obviously that is priority needless to say. So I'm going to wait on creating the new event date because I don't want to cancel it again and we'll play it by ear for the moment. But in the meantime, what I'd like to start doing today is cover some of these ideas as best I can without the visual aids or the simulations that I was going to show in the event. So on my website, peterjoseph.info, you can see a synopsis and outline of the event and its current form though I think it's going to change by the time the event happens.


    But there will be three basic areas of focus, understanding our current system of economics, understanding what an idealized system would be based on inference drawn from nature, and hence fundamental sustainability principles and public health principles, and third and the core purpose of this talk, how to transition from the current system into a new system. Now for clarity, let me better summarize those three issues, and then we'll focus a little bit more on the third for the rest of this podcast. Modeling market behavior. We have to create a representative market model as it's important for not only understanding the system dynamics, but to remove this lure and pollution of ideology and presupposition. This isn't about historical forms. It's not about Marxism or socialism or communism or whatever. It's not about some theory of human interaction, moral theory, laborers versus workers, class dynamics, or beyond. All it's about is understanding what the system is doing, what it does based on its structure, identifying the actors, the institutions, incentives, feedback loops, and the synergies that keep the pattern unfolding and contained.


    It's also about discovering what the natural gravitation are, which is extremely important; that violate the neutrality I just talked about prior. One of the more interesting things about the way people think about the market economy today, is that they accept the good things, but they kind of dismiss the bad things as if the system somehow isn't creating those bad things just as consistently as the good things. In the words of famed cybernetician Stafford Beer, "The purpose of a system is what it does." Sounds like a silly statement, right? The purpose of a system is what it does. What the hell does that mean? Well, the observation is that people are biased and hence unable to really identify what a system does. Pretending certain negative things are actually the result of something else. Something interfering with the system. The classic argument of course, is the false duality between state power and business enterprise. The entire economic libertarian belief system is based around this duality, in fact.


    We superficially perceive the institution of government as somehow antagonistic and separate from business. When the truth is government is an evolutionary outgrowth, an emergent outgrowth of the market economy and not the other way around. The very features of government are defined and set in motion by the practice of business, and the values of business, and the incentives of business. Do you ever stop to wonder why we call that dickhead at the top of the pyramid, the "president?" Government and business mirror the same hierarchies. And even more importantly, all governments in the world to one degree or another are influenced by money and groups with money, hence business interests by default, hence the free market once again. Government and business may appear to be antagonistic to each other, but really they are part of the same system and they have a negative - positive feedback relationship.


    Anyway, back to my point about the negative outcomes specifically. This is where the term negative externality comes in, which I hope everyone is familiar with. Notice that concept of externality in the term. This term of course, has particular context related to costs which are externalized in common use. So an oil company does its business, creates pollution and it doesn't factor in the pollution and the cost to clean up that pollution or the negative medical costs of other people that are absorbing the pollution and so on and so on. It's not built into the sale price, so hence the cost becomes what we call externalized. It's external to the myopic market-based method of accounting. And I might be stretching things a little here, but I think it's odd that we have this word external so consistent in economic literature when it talks about these things. It has a deeper symbolic meaning is my point. As intuitively, no one really thinks that pollution is actually an output aspect of the system by design, so to speak.


    When I say design, I don't necessarily mean intent. It feels unintended, a side effect. But those can only be subjective qualifications if we see such patterns consistently, right? I'll put it this way, if an objective alien came down to analyze what human society is doing in this social system, this economic system, the alien would only be able to conclude that we willfully and purposefully generate poverty. We willfully and purposefully generate vast socioeconomic inequality, and cultural elitism by extension. That we willfully and purposefully want to destroy our habitat and hence ourselves. That we willfully and purposefully want to pit human groups against others in conflict. We willfully and purposefully oppress, we pollute our environment and effectively we are willfully and purposefully suicidal as a civilization. That is what the objective alien would perceive, because it would watch what the system is actually doing, not what we think or want it to do.


    So the purpose of the system is what it does. The patterns that you see repeating, the institutions that are reinforced, the culture that is created. Market capitalism is just as much about creating billionaires as it is about creating people in poverty. And again, as Peter Senge pointed out earlier, nobody wants to see others get hurt or the ecosystem decline. Nobody wants to see the structural violence or the systemic racism that is also economically consequential, in the longterm, as I've argued. And all the negatives so-called side effects we continue to see. But they are not side effects, if they create repeating patterns. They have to be seen as system functions. It seems strange to say something like the purpose of a combustion engine is not only to propel a car, but to release toxic exhaust damaging the ecosystem. It's odd and awkward to think about it that way. We associate purpose with the intent of the people behind the design of something. But those are all simply subjective ideas we're superimposing. Human intent isn't relevant to what the system is actually doing.


    Moving on to the second goal of the talk. The goal is to model what an ideal economic system would look like. How do we arrive at a new structure? What is the reasoning? This approach will be from a technical and scientific perspective based around known principles of public health and earthly sustainability. Again, the logic will be completely independent from historical concepts. As far as socialism and communism, there's no purpose to using any of those old ideas or any of the old historical information unless they add to the model, to the inference of public health and sustainability protocols, so to speak. So this analysis will be abstracted in a kind of valueless way. Aside from the goals just mentioned, hence a chain of thought. We can't look at new proposals for the future, from the standpoint of what you and I may feel comfortable with superficially right now. We have to remind ourselves that the comforts we enjoy are temporary in the specificity of the tools used.


    I was in an argument, not that long ago with a guy that said they didn't like public transit because they liked to drive their own car. The implication was, he objected to the idea of mass efficient transit with greater efficiency, savings of energy and beyond because of his self interest to want to drive a car; the pleasure that comes from that person to drive the car. And they're willing to not participate in a more efficient and sustainable system because of that interest. You hear this kind of argument all the time. People often don't even realize that they're saying it. They don't realize the stupidity of what they're saying or the indifference and apathy and selfishness of what they're actually saying, not to sound harsh. And I've come up with a term for this phenomenon and I call it, temporal value interference. Temporal value interference. It's kind of synonymous with "But I don't wanna!"


    What if someone said they want to go back to riding horses and buggies? What about rickshaws? See, every culture and every generation is going to have certain patterns of behavior they latch onto and become identified with. They're comfortable with it. And we all know this, but it has to be stated. And I'm sorry, there's nothing more immature than reacting to new proposals for future organization, just because of your own selfish gravitations. You have to have some kind of consideration for the world you live in and the society you live in, needless to say. Another example of this very quickly is people's obsession with heavy animal agriculture today in terms of nutrition. We've seen a pretty tremendous increase in animal product production per capita over the past 50 years, hence a culture of such consumption.


    And by the way, I'm not judging people that choose to eat meat or not. I want to point this out from a sustainability and public health standpoint. As there are plenty of reasons to think about a more sustainable food system with less reliance on animal agriculture, by design. But of course, you can't say that to someone because they get pissed off, they think you're trying to control them and tell them what to eat. And that reaction, of course, is very common. Hence, once again, the need to take a valueless approach to describing a new sustainable architecture focused on public health, not just the very top of economic organization, but also the institutions and subsystems that come out of it, such as food systems and healthcare systems and transport systems. All of those need massive revision simultaneously in concern with the total economic revision. In the end, the point here in this second part of the talk is to focus on a system that is actually in homeostatic balance with nature. All from an epidemiological, public health perspective.


    We are solving for pollution. We're solving for disease. We're solving for living longer and being more healthy. We're increasing the sanctity of peace and mutual coexistence between groups. And as an aside, I think it's worth touching upon the fact that, our moral sensibility, our gravitation towards how the world should work is not going to come from our own belief system. What is the point of all this philosophical **** over the years: writings religion. It's all about telling people how to be, right? And yet we never think about how to be from a sustainability and public health standpoint. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the true root of philosophical orientation in our society - morality and ethics - can only be derived from these basic life ground, natural law principles. If you listen to the earth and you listen to the science that tells you how you are supposed to behave. And if you conflict with that, well, "**** you." Ha ha. Sorry excuse me.


    I'm in one of those super tired states where I just feel semi insane, so hopefully all of this makes some sense. But I think it's an important distinction to make when it comes to how we navigate our philosophical, moral and ethical understandings. Why can't we derive those beliefs from the natural order of the world as best we can understand it? Moving on and the third and final and most important section, which I'm not going to go into too much detail today because of the brevity of it, has to do with transition. So the first two sections set up the current system understanding, right? The model of market dynamics, market behavior, capitalism, as we know it. The second part talks about what an idealized structure would look like. And then we have to figure out how we move from structure A to structure B. Ultimately we look for leverage points.


    We have to find a way to attack, so to speak, multiple angles of the systems strategically in a systemic approach. Not singular, you're not going after one thing. You're not demanding something. It's about activism that destabilizes through these leverage points. Taking with us those emergent properties that are good, good meaning that they have arisen because of human ingenuity in a context that is not necessarily system specific. And hence going back to my book, The New Human Rights Movement, there are those five transitions I talk about. I'm going to go far beyond those five transitions in the lecture, but it's important to point this out for the sake of consistency for this particular conversation. You have access, localization, open source, digitized network feedback, and automation. All five of those aspects have emerged as technological system phenomenon within the confines of the capitalist structure; within the incentive system. We have a natural logic with these kinds of approaches, and rather than dismiss them and rebuild them - we grab them.


    They are our leverage points and we work to emphasize those systems, building new systems in a small scale, in a community network. And we work to build out and scale out as more people begin to participate in what is ultimately a process of demarketization, which is ultimately a process of starving the beast as it were. The most powerful thing you can do to this system is not to attack it, but to drain its energy. As many other systems theorists have talked about in many other contexts that don't relate to economics or social theory. Systems in nature do the very same thing. So we have to embrace that emergent property that we see in nature and devise strategies as an activist community to build on what we can and reincorporate as much as we can into the new paradigm. Now I'm not going to go any farther with all of that today because I'm running out of time.


    But I hope that gives a little bit of an introduction. And I would like to leave you all with a quote by M.K Hubbert and it's from his work, Two Intellectual Systems: Matter-energy and the Monetary Culture. "The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping and incompatible intellectual systems. The accumulated knowledge of the past four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy and the associated monetary culture, which has evolved from folk ways of prehistoric origin. The first of these two systems has been responsible for the spectacular rise, principally during the last two centuries, of the present industrial system and is essential for its continuance. The second, an inheritance from our pre-scientific past, operates by rules of its own having little in common with those of the matter-energy system. Nevertheless, the monetary system by means of a loose coupling, exercises a general control over the matter-energy system upon which it is superimposed.


    Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems, during the last two centuries, have had one fundamental characteristic in common namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings. And this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints. And according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest." All right, folks that does it for me today. I hope this was helpful and we will continue the next podcast talking about, out-system activism in the context of transition as I mentioned prior. This program is brought to you by Patreon and I really appreciate everybody and yeah, everybody stay safe out there talk to you soon.

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th April 2021), Ewan (16th April 2021), Nasu (15th April 2021)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts