Does Capitalism have any business in a New World Order?

[Cedars]

How can an ethic of global stewardship and responsible custodianship be construed as oppressive?

 

Could you describe in some detail what this means? What exactly do you propose to do to achieve this, on a global level?

[TheBigDog]

I hardly think this is a fair analysis of what I have said so far. Why would I ask for change for the worse? How worse? How can an ethic of global stewardship and responsible custodianship be construed as oppressive? You are simply twisting this thread to serve your own purpose.

Yes, I am using this thread for my own purpose - and that purpose is truth. I have given razor accurate ananlysis of what you have said, and what you mean no matter how cleverly you do not say it (example below).

 

I would also suggest reading the conversations on this thread...

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3799&highlight=moneyless+society

We covered the benefits of free market pretty thoroughly.

If everybody on the planet chose to be a millionaire, how is that going to happen? America by itself consumes over 25% of global resources and we have less than 6% in the top income bracket despite that. Where then is the choice? A middle class life yes. - with most at the bottom and a few elite at the top. I dont like bowing to anybody. Nor do I sleep easy when I see or hear of children going hungry to bed each night. Thus I prefer and pray for an egalitarian society. That is what my forefathers fought and died for. They never wanted me to live and die on the production line just so that another borgoise royalty can rise and lord it on the top of a monopolized pile. In the long term capitalism is every much in line with that Monopoly board game. Eventually only one person wins and owns everything - via a combination of luck and shrewd investements. Our laws are supposed to keep monopolies in check - but in the end, special interests win. Money buys and corrupts everything - just as all our wise old sages stated. As I said, Capitalism had its rightful place in human evolution, but like all things, it is time for change. Trying to make me sound unpatriotic because I seek a better system of human management does you little credit.

It would be very difficult for everyone to be a millionaire and that is not the point of freedom. In a free society people have the ability to rise to their potential. But it must still be earned. And it sometimes involves luck, but it is primarliy competition. And like any competition there are winners, and losers, and people who keep at it, and people who quit. Some people fail and life is hard, but they have choice to try again, even if they don't choose to try. Unfair?

If you mean Marxist communism, I am not. All forms of human government are communist/socialist. Capitalism is no exception. Every capitalist enjoying his newly earned billions, rests on the accumulated effort of past generations of sweat, blood and tears. He pays ten cents for a phone call that cost trillions to install. He rides on a highway system that he never built with his money and hawks his wares in an educated market place that took centuries to evolve.. On top of all this, he empolys clever tax lawyers to find every loop-hole. The commie bogeyman label never scared me. I am a humanist. I grow rich in the giving, not in the taking.

Bunk. This is the example I mention from above. You are a communist preaching communism, but you just don't have the hutzpah to come right out and say it. Instead you say everything is communism, which is supposed to make it better I guess.

I am busy doing that, as considerately as I can. I have no ulterior objective, other than general enlightement in my heart. The happiness of others is my ultimate selfishness - for then I can play golf in peace and improve my stroke with an easier swing.

Communism, communism, communism. Like a broken record. It brings happiness to the theorist, and merciless oppression to the practitioner. I don't expect to ever change your opinion. I am not writing any of this for your benfit. I am writing it to the benefit of the random person I have never met who will read this thread and understand the difference between your preachings and the truth. That quote under my name is there for a reason.

 

Enjoy the links. Are they part of the new world order too?

 

Bill

[MagnetMan]

Could you describe in some detail what this means? What exactly do you propose to do to achieve this, on a global level?

 

Right now most of the world exists in a system based on private ownership. I am not challenging the validity of the evolutionary progressions that installed that system. In a sense it is primeval and is based on territorial integrity - especially among carnivorous species. Animals go out and mark the extent of their boundaries in one way or another and defend their rights to keep it. Man does it with political borders, fences etc - and then guards its ownership with moats, castle walls, armies etc. We do it legally via a vast system of laws and regulations and employ huge government bureaucracies to oversee and administer to it. This includes police and laws courts and prisons to secure its integrity.

 

What I am saying is that our capitalist system has patently outlived its usefulness. The sheer cost of keeping it up is bankrupting us - and we are already bankrupt internationally after the massive arms race that we have been through - and if we look ahead, all that will happen is even more laws, more bureaucratic oversight and ever more debt. So how do we correct it? The questions I had to ask myself were: If we remove private ownership, who will take responsibility for anything? If we take away the incentive of money, who will work? If we take away capital investment, who will be motivated to invent new and better technologies. How will we trade goods and services? How will the world work?

 

So I stood back from all of this and asked myself a basic question? Why is all this costing us so much? The answer was basic. Loss of Trust. It costs us an arm and a leg to exist because we do not trust each other not to trespass across our boundaries. Mainly because a small minority of us criminally abuse the system. If we fully trusted each other, and found a way to fully rehabilitate that small minority, then everything would be sacred ground. We would be careful not to offend each other by trespassing in any way. So that answered the ownership policing problem. But what about personal motivation? Who would work? Well the fact is that most of like working. Our brain has grown far too big and too busy with thoughts and ideas to just sit around like chimps, doing nothing as soon our bellies were full. The problem with work in our present system is that most of us are not employed in the kind of work we like or are best suited for. 600 generations of agricultural; disciplines has imprinted a sound work ethic in the human gene pool. So, if we brought up our kids with the right motivation, they would work automatically. What about creative insight - new invention? Again, our brains are designed for that. Insight happens on the right side of the cortex. Roger Sperry proved that and got the Nobel Prize for it. That intuitive side of the brain is also guided by ethical principles. We all have a conscience - and we automatically now when we have crossed the line and trespassed. These ethics are also imprinted in our gene pool. But our current education system does not educate that ethical inspirational side of the brain. It spends all its money and most of the time educating the analytical half of our psyche. Consequently most of us have very little personal inspiration about new ideas. Most are mediocre students, only 1% get high marks, half drop out and cheating at exams has become endemic.

 

So to cut a long story short. I came up with the idea of a whole new way of educating and bringing up a new generation of kids in a dual brain system that keeps them motivated, creative and ethical. Cynics - even inside my own family, laughed at my ideas. So, twenty years ago, I put the ideas into practice and reared my eight kids in a dual brain system that I called Heartstart.

 

Even though each is a uniquely different personality, every one of them responded to the new system exactly the same way. Academically they are up with the top 10% in the country. They are all creative, they are all ethical behaved. And all have the ambition to become global stewards and stewardesses. People have said that my results are unusual. That one size does not fit all. They may be right, but I do not believe that. I think every family on the planet has the same potential of producing the same results.

 

So what I am saying is if we remove the artificial barrier of money, and educate our kids so that the full creative potential of each of them comes to the surface, the massive global engineering challenges of the future will automatically motivate them all into a concerted effort to get this planet running like a top. Global management technology already exists -and we can keep improving on it. So does the raw material. There is enough renewable energy in gravity, tides, waves and atmospheric differentials to provide all the power we need. And we have a huge labor force of 6 billion souls just itching to get to do the kind of work that inspires them.

 

Sound like a utopian pipe dream? Sure. I also see it as an evolutionary imperative. We make the change and move on - or remain where we are and stagnate in debt. I have written a book called Psyxhe-Genetics. It gives the long answer.

[CraigD]

You love America enough to sacrifice her glory to those who would rape her resources for the enrichment of others. …You have a great hatred of freedom. … I hope you don't teach school. … "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Although I bet you paraphrase into something less recognizable.

;) These and similar defenses of capitalism are ad hominem and ideological, characteristics that are not conducive to civil discourse or the pursuit of truth, either consensual or absolute.

 

I believe MagnetMan, Racoon, and others are correct in asserting that capitalism has both merits and faults. I also agree that pure capitalism, in the sense described by Adam Smith, is not to be found in any human society, which appears to seek a balance of socialism, capitalism, and a host of other ideologies in an effort to govern in a way agreeable to most of the people.

 

I must confess a paucity of formal education in politics and economics (3 and 6 academic hours), and the lack of an informed opinion of what society in the coming decades will be like. I am confident, however, that societies characterized both as capitalist and as communist have both suffered from corruption, and succeeded in providing desired social benefits to their citizens. History contains examples of repressive capitalism, enlightened communism, and vice versa.

 

:D In my opinion, the most crucial distinction between the capitalist and socialist ideologies, and the distinction that accounts for the effective victory of capitalism over socialism, is that most communisms seek to understand and control the totality of factors effecting society, while capitalism explicitly does not. A central tenant of capitalism is that it is controlled by an “invisible hand” – in more current term, that it is emergent from a society of agents, none of which, individually or collectively, have an accurate understanding of how or why it works. An pivotal question when considering what form future society will follow is, I think, whether it will be guided by individuals or collections of individuals who attempt to understand the whole system, or by those who explicitly reject that such an understanding is possible, and attempt to facilitate, based on empirically derived guidelines, the emergent system.

[Cedars]

OK that was alot of general information that may partially answer the question I asked. A significant portion of your response was what you dont like about the current system and not much substance on what/how change should occur. It is sometimes hard to put an idea into a forum format, and I would think this would be especially difficult for someone who has written a book.

 

Here is what I understand, in relation to my question:

 

You believe that the struggles in the world for equality are due to 3 factors: Moral/ethical dilema, property/capital and national/cultural lines drawn on the topography.

 

Your idea for moral/ethical dilema is reworking of the education system to instill a global value system, one that everyone adheres to regardless of culture, location, and resources, and value/availability/need for those resources.

 

You have not explained how you will redistribute this property/capital but I would have to guess it wouldnt be voluntary.

 

How are you going to take down national/cultural lines equally to ensure that globally, one culture/country doesnt move in and take over the utopian society next door?

 

I have some additional questions and need some clarification on the original question.

 

What exactly do you mean by "an ethic of global stewardship and responsible custodianship"? What is your vision of global stewardship / responsible custodianship? What is your idea of a global value system?

 

What is this: Global management technology

 

Define your vision of this planet running like a top.

[Biochemist]

...What I am saying is that our capitalist system has patently outlived its usefulness. The sheer cost of keeping it up is bankrupting us - and we are already bankrupt internationally after the massive arms race that we have been through - and if we look ahead, all that will happen is even more laws, more bureaucratic oversight and ever more debt. ...

Before we get around to discussing ideas, it would probably be useful to get to some definitions and some facts.

 

1) Capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic one. It means that individuals own the "means of production". Communism is the opposite, where in the state owns the means of production.

2) Both capitalism and communism have political effects. Communist societies tend (although are not obligated) to be totalitarian. That is why all historical large communist governments had strong central authority. This authority made macro-economic decisions to allocate assets for the good of the "state". A side effect of strong central authority is that the leaders are flawed and also tend to control people, not just assets. But that is totalitarianism (a political system) not an economic issue.

3) Capitalism tends to favor democratic institutions. If I own my own grocery store, I can decide what to sell, and what hours to keep the doors open. If I work more, I probably make more. I aslo get rewarded (or penalized) for accepting risk. Then I have more money, and I can choose to open another grocery store. Or design computers. Or retire.

4) Capitalism has grossly outperformed communism in the last 100 years. The Soviets did not lose a war against the US. Their GDP was less than the US for decades, hence they lost economic position. They could no longer afford to pay the military. Even the Soviets knew that communism was ineffective. The Soviets allowed families to own small private plots for subsistence farming. This land comprised perhaps 10% of the farmed land in the USSR. By their own data, it produced over half of the agricultural output. That is, the small proportion of capitalistic activity within the Soviet union outperformed the state that had nine-fold the assets.

5) Capitalism does not "cost" anything. The return on investment is capitalistic countries is far higher than the return on investment in communist countries. That is why the countries that are capitalistic longest have the highest standards of living. Income per capita is high in the US because our capitalistic experiment has been in place longest. There are otheer factors as well (like a coherent national banking system) but those are topics for other threads.

6) The debt service in the US is about 3.5% of GDP. This is about the average for the period since 1960. It is absolutely untrue that Capitalism is expensive. Communism (by far) the most "expensive" in the long run, since the return on investment is so poor.

 

 

I don't have any idea how you could suggest that Capitalism has outlived its usefulness. Quite the contrary, capitalism (and free markets) have demonstrated themselves to be the most productive use of assets, and hence have begun to invade even the most totalitarian of regimes.

[questor]

critics of capitalism would do well to study monetary systems more closely.

the most beneficial aspects of capitalism are freedom( to become your best),

and competition in the marketplace, which keeps prices lower. the usual critics of capitalism seem to be those who don't want to put forth the effort necessary to educate themselves, think that society owes them something, have a mistaken idea of their own worth, and don't really understand the system.

[HydrogenBond]

Capitalism only works if there is a proper ratio of sellers to buyers. If there are too many sellers supply gets too high causing the price to drop. This is bad for the seller but good for the buyer. If there are too many buyers demand gets too high causing the price to increase. This good for the seller but bad for the buyer. This is good capitalism.

 

Where things depart from good capitalism is when the sellers fix prices high to simulate high demand. Sometimes this can cause panic buying, creating a self forfilling supply side illusion of high demand to justify high price. Marketing does sort of the same thing. It attempts to increase demand using psychology. The hope is limited supply and a chance to raise prices.

 

What is not usually done is the demand/buyer side playing tricks to get the price down. Maybe the collective demand can boycot something until they get the price they want. It is an artifical lowering of demand to create the illusion of too much supply so the price will fall. Instead of marketing we could have anti-marketing, where certain products are lowered in subjective value to increase supply and drive the price down.

 

This seedy side of demand side capitalism is not put into practice because most people care about other people's jobs and they are trying to get and give a fair shake. Maybe the seedy side of demand side capitalism should be used to level the playing field until virgin capitialism results.

[Biochemist]

Capitalism only works if there is a proper ratio of sellers to buyers. If there are too many sellers supply gets too high causing the price to drop. This is bad for the seller but good for the buyer. If there are too many buyers demand gets too high causing the price to increase. This good for the seller but bad for the buyer....

Capitalism is the only known mechanism to match the volume of sellers to the volume of buyers. This is why capitalism works, not why it doesn't work.

[kennth hickford]

Whatever System Is Employed, It Will Always Be Hi-jacked, Perverted And Used By The Few To The Detriment Of The Many!

 

( A Pervertion Of Winson Churchills "never Before In The Field Of Human Conflict Was So Much Owed By So Many To So Few")!

 

The Really Clever Politicians, Give Us Enough To Get By On, Just Enough To Stop A Revolution, And Always Dangling The Carrot That "tomorrow" Will Be Better!

 

When You Get A Chance,....watch The Film "cromwell" With Richard Harris As Cromwell,.....in It, There Is A Scene Where Lord Manchester, (eric Morley) States In The House Of Parliament, " If We Here Can't Make A Few Quid,.....what Is The Point Of Us Being Here"? Or Words To That Effect!......yeah,......right!

 

So, As You Can See,....nothing Has Changed! Just The Power Mad Greedy Politicians And International Corporations!

[MagnetMan]

Here is what I understand, in relation to my question:

You believe that the struggles in the world for equality are due to 3 factors: Moral/ethical dilemma property/capital and national/cultural lines drawn on the topography.

Yes. And even more importantly, Religious argumentation. All of them are primitive and based on exclusive interpretations. Until the entire world is in agreement that there is only one supreme source of Consciousness, and can define exactly who That/She/He is, our emotional turmoil will continue. Science is beginning to give us that consensus. My argument for spiritual unity is based on the metaphysical potential inherent within the nuclear theorem. Particle physicists are already using esoteric terms, like charm, and beauty and strangeness in order to describe sub-atomic behavior. They are now confronted by the mystery of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. I believe that a hundred generations of empirical research that began with Aristotle's Protest of Plato's injunction, Know Thyself , will finally come up with the answer he originally rejected. Man is intrinsically Go(o)d. God is the Consciousness in all Atomic associations

 

Your idea for moral/ethical dilemma is reworking of the education system to instill a global value system, one that everyone adheres to regardless of culture, location, and resources, and value/availability/need for those resources.

All cultures are based on identical ethical values. Sharing. Caring. Craftsmanship. Courage. Heart. Creative Vision. Intellect. An holistic education system that evokes these imprinted instincts and not just the mechanical side of our nature will change are general attitude to each other inside a generation. The sharing ethic takes care of location and resources. Each according to his needs.....

 

You have not explained how you will redistribute this property/capital but I would have to guess it wouldn’t be voluntary.

Instilling an ethic of custodianship is the challenge and purpose of the Nuclear Age - just as each previous Age instilled the ethics already mentioned. As we work on that indoctrination with a new generation of children, who have their hearts and minds in the right place, the exact details of who takes care of what, will work itself out in time.

 

How are you going to take down national/cultural lines equally to ensure that globally, one culture/country doesn’t move in and take over the utopian society next door?

 

As stated this argument is based on a belief in the essential goodness of human nature. Our current warring dysfunction is due to a lop-sided education system that encourages greed and not altruism. Once we have introduced a dual brain system that evokes both the analytical and intuitive side of our nature, the problem of greed will gradually go away. From that moment, we will have to begin from the platform we already stand on. Mass change cannot happen over-night. The point is that there is precedent. We have undergone four mass changes of the collective consciousness four times in the past. This will be the 5th. I believe that there will be two more mass shifts after this one - before we arrive at our collective sagehood and this bring an end our evolutionary cycle..

 

 

What exactly do you mean by "an ethic of global stewardship and responsible custodianship"? What is your vision of global stewardship / responsible custodianship? What is your idea of a global value system?

 

 

Just as we all know that no individual gets stuck in any single stage of development between birth and death – ie we go through infancy, childhood, puberty, teenhood, young aduthood, parenthood and sagehood – so too do I believe does the collective consciousness of our specie. I see us moving from the infancy of our Stone Age, through Bronze Age childhood, and Iron Age of pubertal initiation and on into our pseudo-intellectual teens – with more Ages of further development ahead of us. This basic correlation between the consciousness of the individual and that of the collective, is the foundation of the Psyche-Genetic theory, which is outlined in more detail in my book.

If my hypothesis proves true, Psyche-Genetics will not only allow us to analyze each individual stages of maturity but that of entire cultures as well..

 

Right now the collective consciousness of western culture is in a more or less rebellious stage of teenage development. All the characteristics of a prodigal teen are present. We rebelled against a Father nation and went to war for our independence in a universe that is patently inter-dependent. We insist in self-determination, when quantum mechanics reveals that nothing can be determined. We are in a religious protest against dogmatic scriptural assertions. (Communism was a defiant declaration of outright atheism) We are gambling with our ancestral inheritance by playing Russian roulette with nuclear guns. We are promiscuous; We love fast cars and fast women. We divorce at the drop of a hat, without care of the consequences to children. We idolize rock stars, sports stars, religious icons and billionaires. I can go on and on here.

 

I believe that we are in a transitory stage of human development. Beginning in the 1960’s some 200 million westerns have already undergone a mass change of consciousness. They are the New Agers. Ideas of ecological concern and responsible environmental management have surfaced since then. Many have become ontologists. So I think we are taking a massive evolutionary step into a fifth stage of consciousness. We are becoming adults - we are beginning to wonder if we are throwing dice on the temple floor of the global estate. The prodigal son is thinking of putting down the dice and returning to his Father’s estate. So I think the new ethic of the Nuclear Age, will be one of responsible global stewardship. I believe that step is an evolutionary imperative. Population pressures on the environment are forcing us to make it. I sincerely believe that the concept of an egalitarian global society, all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not a utopian pipe dream- but an evolutionary imperative. That is our logical next step and the road to a future state of mastership and final sagehood.

 

 

What is this: Global management technology

 

Define your vision of this planet running like a top.

 

EDUCATION’ An entirely new home-based global educational system, based on the commonalty of our evolutionary ethics.

AGRICULTURE; An entirely new approach to sustainable agriculture. Start farming indoors and get away from all air-born infestations, droughts etc. Greenhouse farms can be multi-storied. Massive agricultural rafts can float on ocean currents and follow the rains

HOUSING ; Phase out horizontal city planning and the massive waste of energy and time that distance and gridlock it causes. Go vertical. Make use of gravity and chimney dynamics in construction.. Make every home a luxurious penthouse with its own greenhouse garden.. Plant forests and parks and rivers inside every city building. Have Nature just minutes from the front door.

ENERGY. Ban the combustion of all fossil duels. Harness gravity, and ocean energies. And tap into atmospheric thermal energy conversions ATEC.

TECHNOLOGY. Keep on trucking. Think planet size. Think long term.

For instance: How about harvesting the yearly precipitation of snow at the poles and pumping it to the world’s deserts? How about a space elevator that can lift nuclear waste safely into near space for launch into the sun?

 

When there is a full global realization of both the social ands spiritual meaning and purpose of human evolution, and we all ,recognize the commonalty of out origins and our final destination, and we are all working towards the good life together, then the planet will run like a top. If just one of us can see that vision – then there is no reason why all of us cannot see it too. If you do not want to see that vision, then you should ask yourself why not? If you analyze that negative response honestly enough, you will the discover for yourself the rebellious self-determined teen within.

[Cedars]

I am going to break this post up to try to keep it within a reasonable read.

 

 

Yes. And even more importantly, Religious argumentation. All of them are primitive and based on exclusive interpretations. Until the entire world is in agreement that there is only one supreme source of Consciousness, and can define exactly who That/She/He is, our emotional turmoil will continue. Science is beginning to give us that consensus. My argument for spiritual unity is based on the metaphysical potential inherent within the nuclear theorem. I believe that a hundred generations of empirical research that began with Aristotle's Protest of Plato's injunction, Know Thyself , will finally come up with the answer he originally rejected. Man is intrinsically Go(o)d. God is the Consciousness in all Atomic associations

OK now I am really confused. In my logic class, religion and god validity via the basic arguments for god were used as examples of fallacy (much to the dismay of the born again Christians taking that course). You also claim they are primitive and exclusive interpretations, then you claim there is only one supreme source of consciousness and that is the consciousness in all atomic associations. Can you show me any irrefutable proof that such a thing exists (consciousness in all atomic associations) and that it is god? Or should I just trust you? Which then brings up the question of your exclusive interpretation....

 

Once we have introduced a dual brain system that evokes both the analytical and intuitive side of our nature, the problem of greed will gradually go away. We have undergone four mass changes of the collective consciousness four times in the past.

 

Could you provide some links to this dual brain system you speak of?

 

What are the four mass changes of collective consciouness you speak of?

[Cedars]

I believe that we are in a transitory stage of human development. So I think the new ethic of the Nuclear Age, will be one of responsible global stewardship. I believe that step is an evolutionary imperative. Population pressures on the environment are forcing us to make it. I sincerely believe that the concept of an egalitarian global society, all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not a utopian pipe dream- but an evolutionary imperative. That is our logical next step and the road to a future state of mastership and final sagehood.

 

But theres a whole bunch of them thinking about colonizing mars, exploring the stars and spreading mankind outward from this earth. One could say many believe that is the evolutionary imperative.

 

Others may claim it’s a waste of time, resources and trained minds on places of the earth which are deserts (for example, your piping water from the poles) and to be contrary to the destiny of man and out of balance for the earth. That, because the deserts exist as they do does not mean they are barren wastelands that need altering. Many life forms have adapted through evolutionary process for that environment. Why should mankind fight this natural effect of many factors to the benefit of a few humans, when the real answer would be to let them be or have them move to another environment.

 

In my opinion, both are legitimate arguements and neither has more justification than the other.

[Cedars]

Home based education has it benefits for some that cannot be argued. But not every parent is capable of providing adequate education material. Not everyone is a good teacher. I would say that you also do not want it based entirely on our “evolutionary ethics” as I understand your interpretation of this. While you have touched on some ‘noble’ aspects of humanity, you are ignoring the territorial/dominance nature inherent in mankind (for good or bad) and seem oblivious to the possibility that people are in it for themselves/family first and the rest of us/them get the leftovers. If you are not going to dictate with absolutes the content of this home based education, you will not negate these idealisms that you seem to be wanting all humans to discard. So the continuation of this cycle you want to break will continue.

 

Farming indoors still requires fertilizer, pesticides and fungicide. It also requires water sources whether its from tapping underground water reserves or directing waters from rivers. The majority of farmland acreage in the USA does not require continued watering because of the rains that fall naturally. And I think the idea of floating farms had been tossed about in the early 70s and discarded due to the huge costs and variables in the oceans (such as waves, hurricanes, tides, winds, etc) plus harvest issues.

 

I do think cities could be better planned. More parks within. My state has that going for it, but it has its costs too. I do not think we would be better off living in high rises as a whole. I can think of no way to ensure everyone has a patch of roof to grow beans and corn on. I do know of someone who came home from work once to find his upstairs neighbor had begun an indoor garden. Unfortunatly, the weight of this enterprise caused the floor to come crashing down onto his living room. He said it was kinda cool the way all those little rows of plants looked. He also figured out then what they had been doing with all those buckets of dirt he saw them carrying up the stairs. The landlord did get a bit testy about the matter.

 

As far as banning all fossil fuels you will get resistance from every country that has fossil fuel within it borders or an investement in the countries that do. Additionally, you cannot ban something before you have a viable alternative. That is yet to come. Once its here, if it has added value for the consumer, it will take over on its own.

 

I appreciate your response. Its obvious you spent alot of time on it.

[MagnetMan]

 

OK now I am really confused. In my logic class, religion and god validity via the basic arguments for god were used as examples of fallacy (much to the dismay of the born again Christians taking that course). You also claim they are primitive and exclusive interpretations, then you claim there is only one supreme source of consciousness and that is the consciousness in all atomic associations. Can you show me any irrefutable proof that such a thing exists (consciousness in all atomic associations) and that it is god? Or should I just trust you? Which then brings up the question of your exclusive interpretation....

If I could give irrefutable proof that God exists I would be the greatest sage who ever lived.

 

You and I are conscious. Our physiques are an association of atomic energies. QED Do you have another interpretation?

 

Could you provide some links to this dual brain system you speak of?

 

I refer you to the split brain work done by Roger Sperry. There are a dozen links to him on the web.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhsper.html

 

What are the four mass changes of collective consciouness you speak of?

 

Stone. 2.5 m B.C. Hunter/gatherer. Family group

Bronze. 20.000 BC. Agriculture. Clan Group

Iron. 4000 BC. Industrial crafstman. National Group

Steel. 500 BC. Scientific technologusts. International Group

 

The Nuclear Age of globalism began in 1900AD with the introduction of quantum theory - but only a minority of ontologists have experienced that New Age change of consciousness. Most are still locked into the Steel Age of Religious Protestation and Scientific determination.

[MagnetMan]

The central question in this thread has yet to be addressed. With the collapse of communism we now have four powerful societies vying for profits on the global market. Whatever chance the 3rd world had of levelling the playing field has now all but vanished. All they have to ante up with is their children - in sweat shops or with bombs strapped to their chests.

 

Can capitalism remain ethical in this new world order?

[infamous]

corruption is the biggest problem in my eyes as far as capitolism goes,

 

 

Capitalism has no copywrite or patent on corruption. Every other form of social government yet devised have all fell subject to the same flaw in human nature, namely; greed........................Infy