[ralfy]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

Those external shocks and their consequences should be considered, though.

[americandream]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

Those external shocks and their consequences should be considered, though.

Climate is the blind spot.

[vtsnowedin]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

A new kind of human being? Doubt it. A new body of human knowledge and understanding, maybe, or some devolution into cult religions but a new kind of human? No.

[onlooker]

I think a more correct nomenclature would be a more "evolved" human being. Maybe call him Homo Evolved.

[americandream]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

A new kind of human being? Doubt it. A new body of human knowledge and understanding, maybe, or some devolution into cult religions but a new kind of human? No.

A new understanding is a pretty good assessment and pretty darned close to what the article is contemplating.

[americandream]

I think a more correct nomenclature would be a more "evolved" human being. Maybe call him Homo Evolved.

Im not sure about the evolved bit as the capacity is in all of us. But culture and accident of birth is probably closer to what distinguishes one from another. It is more likely that the intelligensia will be led by those who are better fed but the end result is all that matters...birthing the fully conscious society.

You would be surprised at the sorts of issues traders are cogniscent with. You would probably find a more open mind to these matters in your average trading room than in these places on the net. For some bizarre reason, the middle to less well off seem to think that this system offers them the best deal and liberating them of that misconception is the challenge.

[onlooker]

birthing the fully conscious society.

Yes that it what I meant by evolved. The goal being having all humans realize this potential. The culture and the individual working in a symbiotic manner to realize the full potential of humanity. I would think that a big part of a well functioning society has been and will always be universal education. The molding of minds is a science now well studied and we can take utilize this knowledge to better educate all.

[onlooker]

I think we can safely say that individuals together form a culture and in turn the culture helps form individuals.

[americandream]

birthing the fully conscious society.

Yes that it what I meant by evolved. The goal being having all humans realize this potential. The culture and the individual working in a symbiotic manner to realize the full potential of humanity. I would think that a big part of a well functioning society has been and will always be universal education. The molding of minds is a science now well studied and we can take utilize this knowledge to better educate all.

Exactly. I guess I am very careful in the words I use and will be using. As you know, some softer boiled specimens are quick to leap on these words and before you know it, lots of hard slog gets swilled down the drains in a flash.

[vtsnowedin]

birthing the fully conscious society.

Yes that it what I meant by evolved. The goal being having all humans realize this potential. The culture and the individual working in a symbiotic manner to realize the full potential of humanity. I would think that a big part of a well functioning society has been and will always be universal education. The molding of minds is a science now well studied and we can take utilize this knowledge to better educate all.

I would prefer that minds were "Opened" not crammed into a mold designed by other imperfect humans.

[americandream]

birthing the fully conscious society.

Yes that it what I meant by evolved. The goal being having all humans realize this potential. The culture and the individual working in a symbiotic manner to realize the full potential of humanity. I would think that a big part of a well functioning society has been and will always be universal education. The molding of minds is a science now well studied and we can take utilize this knowledge to better educate all.

I would prefer that minds were "Opened" not crammed into a mold designed by other imperfect humans.

Yes, but the key to any civil benchmark is the reasonableness standard which encircles the judicial process and ensures that consensus always prevails. So we judge by fairly accessible and majority standards which ensures that whilst we dot not arbitrarily deny freedoms, we hold ourselves to a desirable standard and do not fall prey to inconsistency.

[onlooker]

Or in other words, we are not forcing minds but we are instructing, so opening and molding can be construed as one and the same in so much as we are transmitting the correct information or conclusions rather then just allowing people to discern what is the correct way of thinking or the right conclusions to reach. This really is an age old debate revolving around who can arbitrarily claim to have absolute wisdom or truth. Again molding means guiding in that context but ultimately the logic and reasonableness of any idea must be arrived at in the individual mind.

[vtsnowedin]

Must I remind you of Copernicus and Galileo?

During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books. A type of war between science and religion was in play but there would be more casualties on the side of science.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. As the contents of the Bible were taken literally, the publishing of these books proved, to the Church, that Copernicus and Galileo were sinners; they preached, through their writing, that the Bible was wrong.

[Ibon]

I would prefer that minds were "Opened" not crammed into a mold designed by other imperfect humans.

We would all prefer that, unfortunately there is quite a high percentage of our population that prefers following a script and a dogmatic road map rather than opening their minds with reason.

This is one of those, let's say, "rational and logical reasons" why I sometimes mention that cultural evolution toward living within carrying capacity requires the nurturing of a certain religiosity and sense of the sacred. Simply because this is the architect of thought that many humans follow.

AD will say this is because those that believe thus are not yet fully conscious. I make the claim that there is a certain percentage of the population that may never really want that level of consciousness and prefer following a moral and ethical architecture devised by others.

There is something of a nightmare as well imagining a global population that becomes one huge homogenized population of cerebral rational beings.

[Tanada]

Must I remind you of Copernicus and Galileo?

During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books. A type of war between science and religion was in play but there would be more casualties on the side of science.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. As the contents of the Bible were taken literally, the publishing of these books proved, to the Church, that Copernicus and Galileo were sinners; they preached, through their writing, that the Bible was wrong.

While the facts are often reported this way it really is a false view of events. Galileo was investigated because he published a pamphlet mocking the Pope and the Church for not accepting his theory as revealed truth. If he had not chosen to target the Pope and the heirarchy of the church they were perfectly happy to let his science go through uncontested. Copernicus was an employee of the Catholic Church in the position of Canon, a 'lay' position that required a lot of background work to help the church function not needing a Priest.

Upon graduating from Cracow in 1494, Copernicus returned to Torun, where he took a canon's position—arranged by his uncle—at Frombork's cathedral. Though the opportunity was only typically available to priests, Copernicus was able to hold onto the job for the rest of his life. It was a fortunate stroke for Copernicus: The canon's position afforded him the opportunity to fund the continuation of his studies for as long as he liked. Still, the job demanded much of his schedule; he was only able to pursue his academic interests intermittently, during his free time.

Though his book was 'banned' shortly after his death the well educated upper echelon of the church acknowledged it was probably true but they did not know how to reconcile it with Biblical principals. They didn't order the books destroyed, they ordered then to be banned which meant no new copies could be printed, however the monasteries and church officials still had access to copies. My understanding is considerable correspondence took place between officials for years trying to figure out a way to reconcile the scientific observations with the beliefs held at the time. Many issues that arose during the Renaissance went through the same process, the church bureaucracy would take many years debating new ideas back and forth until an acceptable way of presenting them to the population at large were decided upon. There was always great fear that if the Church was seen to change its mind on something people would lose faith in the rest of the doctrines of the church.

[Ibon]

but we do give it a competitor which also has an easily understood value at any given point in time which can be found in the context of that time, not at length.

How de we call these new shares?

Happiness shares
Sustainability shares
Wellbeing shares

I know it's a terrible marketing opportunity lost, but God let Adam name the animals for a reason...

OK, today while talking an early morning walk in south Florida sultry heat, trees dripping with mangoes, I had an insight inspired by Evil Geniuses suggestion of a new class of long term of sustainable shares. Everyone whose net worth exceeds 5 million dollars would convert a percentage of their net worth on a rated scale to these shares, maybe something as follows:

Net worth $ % conversion wealth to new shares


10 million 50%
50 million 70%
100 million 75%
500 million 78%
1 billion 85%
10 billion 90%
40 billion 95%

These new shares would be publicly recorded and would award the share holder with a certain celebrity status and enable certain privileges that would be high profile and enhance the share holders status along with certain security privileges, In this sense status and security, the driving force behind the quest for money, would be maintained with these shares. The shares would symbolize status just like a yacht does today.

The percentage of wealth paid for these shares would be used to pay off the global debt, provide health and social services and infrastructure investments for a zero carbon future.

The uber wealthy on the planet today, that 1%, has their wealth today largely in stocks anyway so there will be no real loss since the monetary wealth they are left with exceeds by far all their needs for comfort and security.

The shareholders can themselves elect to be on the board of directors of the corporations where they own the shares so they can direct the corporation toward long term goals or they can delegate and give power of attorney to specialists.

In this way we immediately remove the global debt, maintain status and security of the ueber wealthy, and we direct huge resources toward building out a sustainable infrastructure along with mitigating some of the social instabilities.

The catalyst to get this rolling are the consequences of human overshoot in the form of climate change events that are so destabilizing that even those in power will capitulate, for this represents an organized way for them to maintain their status and power as we redirect resources away from consumption and towards sustainability.

We are so far away from something like this being feasible that it seems kind of idealistic but I actually think we will have disruptive events strong enough to consider some radical alternatives to BAU in the decades ahead.

[kanon]

The Fed and other Central banks did not arise to counter boom bust cycles they create them. For it is they who profit most from them. Ever since the first one arose the Bank of England they are in the business of loaning out money with interest in a practically unlimited manner . . . .
Banks like Corporations now have NO allegiance to anybody but to their insatiable desire for money and power.

I agree, but I am not satisfied with listing the evils of the FED. IMHO, the FED and other central banks provide some very useful lessons relevant to this thread. For example, the activity of our entire society revolves around FED created credit and debt. Possessions that confer social status are regulated by credit -- prices are inflated to the point that credit is required to acquire the objects. After the status objects are acquired they must be retained, which requires making payments, which requires a job, which requires ... and so the wheel turns. So the FED provides a means of organizing the activities of the society in a way that appears voluntary and independent of political or governmental regulation. I believe this appearance is a fiction, that political control is more subtle and deceptive than most would think, and that government has many similarities to organized crime, with the FED as the godfather. But when one compares the FED regime to the communism, I think the conclusion would be that the FED regime has more vitality and power.

What I am trying to get at is a system that achieves most objectives by voluntary participation, whether or not the participants know what they are doing.

[onlooker]

Well whatever the qualities of the Fed it is but a cog in the wheel of Capitalism and it is Capitalism which has bought us to this point. The vitality and power which you speak of K, is precisely what has become the enemy of Earth and of the future. We have continued in this insatiable and all out pursuit of growth and status and wealth. Look at China what did they do once they could adopted the car culture. Their venture into capitalism like an exclamation point on the victory of Capitalism over Communism. Yet this victory being a A Pyrrhic victory (definition= is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.) Because the losers are the generations to come and this beautiful planet. I do not now for sure that Communism would have been better but I am pretty sure it would not have been worse. As Communism does not stress the accumulation of wealth and monetary gain the way Capitalism does.

[vtsnowedin]

Must I remind you of Copernicus and Galileo?

During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books. A type of war between science and religion was in play but there would be more casualties on the side of science.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. As the contents of the Bible were taken literally, the publishing of these books proved, to the Church, that Copernicus and Galileo were sinners; they preached, through their writing, that the Bible was wrong.

While the facts are often reported this way it really is a false view of events. Galileo was investigated because he published a pamphlet mocking the Pope and the Church for not accepting his theory as revealed truth. If he had not chosen to target the Pope and the heirarchy of the church they were perfectly happy to let his science go through uncontested. Copernicus was an employee of the Catholic Church in the position of Canon, a 'lay' position that required a lot of background work to help the church function not needing a Priest.

Upon graduating from Cracow in 1494, Copernicus returned to Torun, where he took a canon's position—arranged by his uncle—at Frombork's cathedral. Though the opportunity was only typically available to priests, Copernicus was able to hold onto the job for the rest of his life. It was a fortunate stroke for Copernicus: The canon's position afforded him the opportunity to fund the continuation of his studies for as long as he liked. Still, the job demanded much of his schedule; he was only able to pursue his academic interests intermittently, during his free time.

Though his book was 'banned' shortly after his death the well educated upper echelon of the church acknowledged it was probably true but they did not know how to reconcile it with Biblical principals. They didn't order the books destroyed, they ordered then to be banned which meant no new copies could be printed, however the monasteries and church officials still had access to copies. My understanding is considerable correspondence took place between officials for years trying to figure out a way to reconcile the scientific observations with the beliefs held at the time. Many issues that arose during the Renaissance went through the same process, the church bureaucracy would take many years debating new ideas back and forth until an acceptable way of presenting them to the population at large were decided upon. There was always great fear that if the Church was seen to change its mind on something people would lose faith in the rest of the doctrines of the church.

I find your defense of church actions during this time period inexplicable and out of character for you. The church's dithering on the issue that they could easily have affirmed by honest observation delayed human progress for decades. The dark ages were dark because the church routinely burned or otherwise destroyed anything that conflicted with a soon to happen second coming or challenged the authority and position of the priesthood.

[onlooker]

There was always great fear that if the Church was seen to change its mind on something people would lose faith in the rest of the doctrines of the church.

Sorry to interject in your exchange, but I think Tanada is not defending the actions of the Church rather giving a slightly different version of events. With the same conclusion that the Church was very wary of allowing information into the public that in any way undermined their interpretation of the Bible. Remember at that time not too many people could read and relied upon the Church to interpret and spread the word of God.