Hypothetical: humour me for a minute

What if I’m right?

I’ve been saying for some time now, that no viable ecological and social solution exists to simultaneously solve the root cause of all world problems, without:

  1. The absence of property, trade & currency based economics, or;
  2. The consensus of a majority of people, willing to sacrifice much, or;
  3. A dystopian future in which we suffer loss of social liberties (or similar).

Now … the first of these is ideal, we get rid of the cause of the problem at the root of it, by skipping consensus and just creating a solution that functions without it; the second is highly unlikely, as people can be stubborn and getting them to agree to anything at all is damn near impossible, especially on a global scale, and; the third set of possibilities is just ugly.

What won’t happen either way, no matter what technologies we invent, is that we won’t solve all these problems in a completely ecologically and socially friendly and sustainable manner, while keeping the cause of the problems intact.

So … humour me for a minute with this hypothetical … what if I’m right?

Well … first of all, if I’m right, we should do something about it yeah?

  • I’m doing something about it … for a great chunk of my life starting before I even knew what I was doing, I’ve been analysing these and other questions … and to this point where (to my own satisfaction, and that of several others whom are also brilliant thinkers), I’m able to say with extreme certainty that I’m speaking the truth … because I have a great deal of solid valid sound and correct reasoning, based on well established science and evidence;
  • Others are doing what they can, because they’ve offered me assistance with various things from time to time, including the donations to crowdfunding, which may not have solved even a bare minimum level of issues, but have nonetheless taken some pressure of my back;
  • But none of us can afford the significant resources to push this to where it needs to go … and those I really need on board full time, cannot afford to quit their day jobs.

Now … IF I’M RIGHT … isn’t this a problem?

Isn’t this something that should have (by now) attracted the attention of someone with $ to say to me (something like):

“I understand your concerns about not wanting to sabotage your objectives, that makes sense … especially given the consequences of failure if you’re right … so convince me, and I’ll give you everything you need, on whatever terms you say … if it comes to it, I’m prepared to lose the money, I can afford it”

… especially given the fact that the usual channels for acquisition of finance have me utterly excluded at the outset, and many of the alternative channels (every singe one I’ve investigated, dozens of them), exclude me by similar principles of the existing economic paradigm … how is that anything but an insane situation, if I’m right?

The Problem:

The world’s economic system is trying to solve problems that it is itself the cause of, by applying the flawed principles that caused the problems in the first place. At best they reduce some damage here and there, but which doesn’t last long in many cases, before the problem is back again full-force … and look at the rest of the reality:

  • the damage is still accelerating;
  • people are still in poverty, and;
  • no other species has any say in their own needs, taken completely independently of human values;

… we’re running out of time and resources, yet it refuses to accept (or even seriously consider) that the problem is itself.

Making matters worse:

  • It places stupid selfish people in power;
  • It controls the majority of the world’s resources;
  • It encourages people to reactionary short term decision making;
  • The more resources dwindle, the more reactionary the decisions;
  • The conversation (when it happens) tends to be in economic rather than ecological terms;
  • Decisions made are subjected to economic criteria which override ecological considerations;
  • … and the last thing it has any interest in doing, is supporting its own demise and replacement.

With all this being true, it’s amazing I’ve been able to get as far as I have, especially given my own personal circumstances … but those who know me best, know how obsessive I can be when I’m asked a complex question.

You’d think if people were serious about solving these problems, especially those with money and power, they’d at least be capable of the following (extremely simple) piece of reasoning:

  • IF all our efforts to date have failed to find an adequate solution which ends war, poverty, social injustice & ecological damage … thus returning the Earth to a balanced state, and providing abundance for all;
  • THEN is there a common ground to our “solutions” so far, that might itself be the problem?
  • SOLUTION: oh wow, look here! We’ve been doing things under the same economic framework, which motivates people to maximise “profit” from the maximum amount of resources they can produce, and to take the minimum amount of responsibility for consequences … and even if we found a way to enforce responsibility, we’d still have no way to stop motivating them to maximise profit from production and consumption, as that’s the very core of this motivational framework, and it cannot be removed … which means our only solution would be to attempt to enforce people to ignore the motivations of the system that is motivating them, which is an invalid argument.

Why? Because you’re looking at it … open your eyes and look around, it has already happened. We are already in this situation where the system is trying to solve the problems it causes, by applying its own flaws … and it’s not working.

Our situation is very much like the euphemisms of war:

  • Collateral damage
  • Acceptable losses
  • Casualties of war

… where the assumption is that no other possibility is viable, such consequences are acceptable to “the management”, and no one else gets a say (especially not those on the receiving end of the consequences).

Hypothetical Conclusions:

If I am right:

  • Even cryptocurrencies won’t work, they’re still based on the same flawed paradigm … they may achieve some benefits, but they’re nonetheless still just a motivational framework built on property, trade, currency, and the maximisation of resource consumption and production … where (without consensus or enforcement otherwise) power goes to those who control the greatest asset base, thus creating a disincentive for following any rules or taking any responsibility for ecological or social consequences … the problem remains the same;
  • We could cross a critical threshold of resource depletion, whereby and after which, no solution will have much chance of success without extreme and draconian measures to reduce consumption, because you’ll need to reserve some significant portion of any remaining resources for the solution project … but the people making the decisions are brainwashed by the status quo (unwilling to seriously consider its faults), and everyone else is desperate to feed themselves, their families, and have a better life … many of whom are also still brainwashed by a cultural or religious paradigm telling them that having big families is a good idea;
  • The person who has come up with a viable answer to everything, is 45, with spinal damage, struggling to keep a roof over his head, desperately trying to pull together the resources to do some very basic things (that all totalled amount to only 10% of his personal needs only over the next 3 years to push this forward, not including ANY of the resources required to get others working on it full time, travel when necessary, purchase other equipment and services etc.), and; because he is financially poor, the status quo believes he cannot possibly have the solution, because it believes (incorrectly) that anyone of significant merit will automatically be found by the system itself and given the resources required to express their potential, because it doesn’t want to believe that its decision making criteria are fucked.

… what if I’m right?

You may not have the scientific literacy to assess what I’m working on, and I’ve only published a small fraction of it … much of which publishing has been done under very trying circumstances, with no significant resources at my disposal, and has taken me ages to find a way to dumb it down without losing its real information value (not to mention without losing its accuracy and correctness) … BUT … I’m doing the best I can with what I’ve got to stave off my own personal problems while I work on this, and believe me, it’s not easy … especially not with the standards I hold myself to.

Assuming I’m right:

  • IF you agree the consequences of inaction or inadequate action are dire;
  • AND IF you agree I’ve put forward at least a case worthy of investigation given those dire consequences;
  • THEN you must also agree that the lack of any such conversation, is further evidence (as has happened many times before in history), that the system is probably fucked, based on flawed criteria, and has no idea what it’s doing;
  • THEN ALSO you must agree this is not a good situation, and it needs to change.

In all probability, our civilisation has missed way more opportunities than it has successfully exploited … and if I’m right, it’s tended to exploit the lesser ideas which support the flawed status quo, and to corrupt the better ideas, in order to make them support the status quo (even at the partial or complete loss of the original intentions of the inventor).

Leave a Reply