Bad Decisions

A few years ago, a nameless couple signed a contract with pages of purgatorial fine print that committed them to decades of debt so they could own a home.  The economy crashed, their house value plummeted, one half of the couple was laid off, and making ends meet became impossible.  Those who were not so unfortunate blame these victims and sum it up to “they signed the contract, so they made a bad decision.” 

Let’s roll back the clock a bit and look at the perspective of pre-crash days:

Just a couple of years ago, those of us attempting to warn friends against taking out questionable mortgages were ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.  Didn’t we understand that real estate always goes up?  Or that home ownership was the only way to guarantee one’s retirement?  That the longer you wait to buy a house, the further out of reach that house was going to get? The question of whether to become a home owner gave way to the much more presumptive “How are we going to get you in?” While government promised to encourage home ownership as a way of improving participation by poor people in the economy, banks came up with increasingly clever mortgage products that postponed the real cost of buying a house well into the future…

“What if interest rates are higher in five years?” I asked.“The increase in the home’s value will offset it,” the mortgage broker responded.“What if the house—for some reason—doesn’t go up in value? I asked.“Houses always go up in value,” she responded.“But what if the mortgage resets to a rate I can’t pay?”“Everybody has these mortgages, now.  Banks can’t set the rate so high that everyone defaults.  They won’t make anything that way.”...

Because these borrowers were generally less educated and less experienced with complex banking products, they were also less likely to fully grasp the implications of adjustable rates—often buried deep in mortgage documents only presented at closing, when there’s no time to read through them.  Other high-risk mortgage candidates included homeowners who could be induced to “move up” to bigger properties, and “flippers”—who bought houses with almost no money down hoping to resell them at a profit before the first payments came due. 

---  Life Inc., Douglas Rushkoff

People have limited powers to predict the future, even the experts among us.  Potential homeowners were thinking that houses were a solid investment, the economy was stable, and that they were getting fair and accurate information from their mortgage brokers and realtors.  Is it stupid to trust someone to give you true information?  Yes, in this economic paradigm!  Everyone is forced to make a buck off of your ignorance or lack of skill.  The more ignorant and the less skillful, even more profit can be made.  But, we can’t really function in a society where we have a paranoid distrust of all workers we transact with.  Imagine that at every single transaction you run through the scenarios of suspicion:  Do these noodles I’m about to eat have a tummy-upsetting ingredient that will drive me over to the adjacent pharmacy that is well stocked with gastro-drugs?  Is the noodle owner getting kickbacks from the pharmacy owner and from the gastro-drug manufacturer?  Will my iPhone combust so I have to buy a new one and pay for the burn on my hand? (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/red-hot-smoking-iphone-selfcombusts-on-airliner-20111129-1o3zn.html) Does this shirt have non-toxic fibers so I won’t get a rash?  When my dentist tells me I have five cavities that need fillings, is she just trying to make a sale?  (This actually happened to me and I was thankful I had a convenient opportunity to get a free second opinion that indicated my teeth had no cavities, which is what I expected since I’ve had pretty good dental hygiene.)

It’s so easy to make a bad decision, even when you have good information like picking the tastiest sandwich on the menu.  It’s a lot easier to make a bad decision when factors around you conspire to get you to make that bad decision.  There’s a lot of money to be made in bad decisions. 

There is the other issue of how a bad decision is arrived at.  When I lived in Thailand, I was aghast upon hearing impoverished people spend two to three months of their total salary (via debt) to buy a new mobile phone.  Why would they make such an irrational purchase?  I used to sum it up with, “Idiots!”  Calling them idiots helped relieve my discomfort over figuring out why such a bad decision was made.

Someone declaring that a “bad decision was made” is a sign of a lazy thinker.  It’s a bit like a child shoving the mess under their bed and declaring victory over the Untidy Monster.  No more thinking required.  No more following the chain of causality about the reasoning behind those bad decisions.  And the sad part is not so much the laziness, but the outcome: a deep lack of compassion.  Those bad decision makers should suffer for their sins bad decisions.  The Westboro Baptist Church says that dead soldiers are the natural result of bad social decisions like giving gays closer-to-equal access to citizens’ rights.  Kids get addicted to drugs or involved in mischief because they are “black sheep.”  Problem solved, case closed.  The irony is that labeling an action a bad decision is itself the bad decision because it does nothing to resolve the problem, and in fact, it enables the harmful behavior to continue.  It is a reaction to one’s frustration with oneself from a lack of skill and/or intelligence to truly resolve the underlying problem(s).  

SIDE NOTE: There should be a research study in which Libertarians people who liberally attribute someone's suffering to bad decisions should get offered a license to a great new software program that has in its terms agreement a statement about the right of the patent holder to procure all hardware the products of said software are housed on, including those to whom those products are distributed to (I plagiarized this idea from Monsanto).  The terms should be quite lengthy, coded in legalese, and the software should be something that is a "must have."  I would be interested to see how many people "agree" to those terms.

The roots are deep in decisions we make, and it is difficult to tease out all of the factors.  In looking more deeply at why some Thai people overextended themselves to buy a mobile phone, a few possibilities surface.  Thais have strongly interconnected social networks that advantage them (increase their access to goods/services that promote their survival and well being).  Such strong social networks come with costs that relate to maintaining their membership in a peer group.  If they fall too far behind, they may find themselves without access to that peer group and its resources.  If having a mobile phone is part of that cost, then it may be entirely rational to make that purchase.  Or what about the fact that low-income workers rarely have the opportunity to afford the things the free market is supposed to “provide:” creature comforts?  These workers live austerely day in and out (while seeing extravagance in every billboard, poster, and on TV).  They earn just enough to survive.  If having a small piece of the technological pie makes them feel a little less like life is so dreary, then the purchase is a rational decision.  This is the common advice of dieting so that the diet is sustainable.  Have your cake and eat it, just not every day!  Those who ruthlessly deprive themselves finally relent to their cravings and they abandon their diet.

Of late, there is a lot of new research into epigenetics explaining how nurture affects nature.  Nature (DNA) and nurture act together in a constant dynamic interplay that lead to physiological, physical, cognitive, and emotional output.  One day, you are full of energy and very “productive.”  The next, you can’t seem to focus and chide yourself for not being “productive.”  There doesn’t seem to be a reliable pattern to these swings in energy and mental focus.  Even if you think you have learned how your body systems work, there could be an unpredicted environmental upset that challenges this “reliability.”

In this study, the environment at young ages affected gene expression much later in life. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/living-conditions-child-may-imprint-themselves-your-dna-life  Does the child born to a stressed-out parent who then has their “delayed gratification” genes turned off and battles this problem throughout life deserve to be convicted as a bad decision maker?  This is oversimplified extrapolation, but the basic issue remains the same.  Most humans born today are just “bad decisions” made by impoverished and/or uneducated people.  Those kids are punished for simply being the product of that bad decision and now they must pay the price, which is a debt that lasts a lifetime.

Our Hollow-hearted Neighborhood

A 65 year old man lives near me.  Physically fit and socially active, he is able to live independently.  He has lived in his home for 26 years and has earned his living through a specialized trade.  Business has been steady for him for most of his time as a craftsman, until a few years back.  Since that time, he has struggled to make ends meet.  He has been, as far as I can tell, mostly generous with his neighbors and his church community.  What he lacks in intellectual volume, he makes up for in heart dimensions.  (I have only known him for a couple of years, so I cannot determine if his intellectual capacity has been diminished over time by aging, lack of mental exercise, or exposure to toxic chemicals in his trade.)  As he struggled to pay his bills over the last several years, he began to fall behind in payments.  His church community did not help him.  God didn’t give him a stipend either (jest).  Desperation coupled with a lack of awareness about modern tactics to exploit people like him, he fell for one of those infamous “you won the lottery, but must pay us to claim your prize” scams.  I tried to warn him after he had already invested money from himself and his family who found the scam credible.  Ultimately, it was revealed that it was indeed a scam, and he was not able to recover the money.  His relationship with his family was severed by them (in their anger over their losses), and so he was left to his own devices.

His house went into auction, he was scraping up any jobs he could get, and finally his truck broke.  The damage was around $6000 to repair.  He had no money left, had a terrible credit score, and was not able to get himself out from under his mounting debt.  An eviction notice appeared one day, and he tried to work with a lawyer to stay in his home.  A few weeks later, the sheriff came to tell him he needed to vacate the house.  The sheriff also explained that many scam artists are targeting victims to pay them for legal work to save their homes, when in fact they are just exploiting the homeowners’ ignorance and distress. 

I wish I could help him, but I have a house full of roommates and there is no space to accommodate another person.  I am also looking for work/income, so helping him financially is not an option either.  Instead, I just watch the savagery of our economic system twist itself ever tighter around his neck with his gasps for help going unanswered.  I realize my activism efforts won’t help him or anyone in the immediate future, but I hope that they will help future generations. 

Proponents of our current system would like to argue that it is his fault for not being smart enough, for not saving enough, for not being skilled enough to pick up other work, and for being too generous when he should not have been.  Our economic regime is a game that everyone must play because there is “no alternative” to the “free” market.  Just like in sports, some people play well and excel, while others are less adept (at that particular game) so they either get shunted to the side or develop their skills somewhere else.  Non-athletes may not be admitted to the top tier of sports teams, but they do not have their means of life cut off.  In our economic regime, your access to life resources depends on how well you play the game.  Losing is synonymous with death.  It is the ultimate penalty. 

When you can use the lens of an anthropologist, the game is revealed for what it is: brutal, competitive, uncompassionate, and entirely unmoored from the “life ground”.  The savagery of cultures from the past seems not so ancient when properly juxtaposed to our current economic system. 

What if I proposed that all access to means of life was determined by one’s ability to throw a discus?  The further you could throw it, the more resources you got.  Those who had less genetic power to grow their muscles would be starved, which would then make them even less likely to grow muscles.  Their spiral of downgraded access would leave a trail of misery until their deaths.  Such an economic system seems so ridiculous to us now, but after generations, it would seem inherent to our culture.  Justifications would arise for why the system must be preserved and how it is “fair.” Revolution would be too radical and upsetting; besides, everyone had a fair chance to develop their discus throwing skills. The anthropologist would see the system for what it was: an arbitrary system of rules that leads to great abundance for some, but leaves many destitute.  The anthropologist would have no existing prejudice about the “deserved” nature of those with muscles and discus throwing abilities.  It would appear to be exceedingly contrived and divorced from its purpose to provide people with access to life-advancing resources.

So, while humans struggle to find their bearings in understanding our global dehumanizing economic paradigm of money-for-more-money, my neighbor gets tossed out of his home into the hollow-hearted social body.  I do not know what will happen to him and try to not speculate much.  And while my neighbor’s situation forms part of my local perspective, there is the reminder that his proliferation of despair is more benign than those who struggle to get enough calories and clean water every day. 

There should be enough examples to provide the coup de grace to this barbaric social system, which dictates the prescriptions and proscriptions for resource allocation.  Without the correct diagnosis, uneducated prescriptions will merely modify the system’s disease pattern instead of resolving it.  Awaken your inner anthropologist as the first step.

My Week at Occupy OC

I have spent the past week at Occupy Wall St in Orange County in Irvine.  Occupy is not a Zeitgeist Movement event, but it is a meeting place of people who are feeling and acknowledging the failings of our current system.  People of many different backgrounds are passionate about alerting the public to the dangers of our economic system and they desperately want it changed. 

There is a good deal of time spent on the operational needs of this "village," as it is called.  I am inspired by the way people are relating inter-personally and organizationally.  People are working cooperatively, not competitively, and that has created a real sense of community.  There is a large food tent, where donations from the public are stored, and people can eat and drink what they need.  The village is growing organically, not by some pre-determined blueprint.  It is open to ideas from other occupations, but has found on some occasions that the logistical characteristics of other locations do not help the flow in Irvine, so they are modified to fit the needs of Irvine's village, for now.  Its structure is emergent.

There is deep-seated commitment to leaderlessness, and self-expression, even while recognizing the risks involved of intentional misrepresentation.  For example, a general theme of Occupy protesters is that endorsing a particular political candidate is not the solution, but there are a couple of people who have shown up with Ron Paul posters.  Thankfully, they have not remained very long.  I would say the majority of protesters understand that politicians are bought by the highest bidder, and they cannot be relied upon to protect people's access to life goods. 

Personally, my experience has been intense, productive, and exhausting.  I've engaged with a lot of people from completely different cultures, ages, educational backgrounds, and personal perspectives.  I let them know that while I share the perspective that our current system is failing and has led to a towering income disparity between the 99% and 1%, I understand this problem to be systemic.  I made a short speech to the group on the first day of occupation to let them know that even if we got rid of the top 1%, the next group would rise to take their place.  I have a sign that reads, "The answer is NOT jobs" next to a picture (circulated on the net) of an Asian girl working at a sewing machine with a Nike logo.  I have another sign with an image taken from the Zeitgeist Media page that shows two men holding bats while shaking hands with the question, "How can we trust each other if this is business?"  A journalist working with the OC Register took a picture of me with that sign and it's on their website: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/occupy-323151-irvine-city.html?pic=2   (picture 16)  My message to him while he was "interviewing" me got a little garbled, but I realize that it didn't fit within the standard soundbyte meme of contemporary journalism.

Perhaps one of the most interesting discussions I had was with a man who grew up in China, but has lived in the US for several years now.  He was telling me that during "Communism," children were encouraged to follow their interests in careers which they enjoyed.  He said the difference in earnings between doctors and janitors was quite small, so money could not be an incentive for any single career path.  In discussing other elements of society, we arrived at a cultural norm, which instructed people to subjugate their interests for that of the collective.  This is a common theme in collectivistic societies.  In America, the norm is the reverse (individualism).  All social interests are expected to be secondary to self-interest.  As I see it, both are out of balance.  The decision to elevate one's interests above the collective or vice versa are matters that cannot be resolved in abstraction.  We do this somewhat naturally in other settings.  For example, if I'm out with a group of friends and they all want to go to a cafe, I will go even though I don't drink coffee.  I won't go everyday, but sometimes, I will go for their sake.  To understand this point, which seems rather simple, but has far-reaching effects, takes education.  I don't mean education in the traditional sense of learning a discrete subject such a math, but of education in the sense of how to relate to others and what the dynamics of group interaction are.  I think religions see themselves as having roles in this sphere of education, but they get so clouded by speculations and rituals that the real work remains undone. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's fair to say that humans often have narrow perspectives.  There is so much information out there that a single human brain has to filter out a lot simply to function.  People who honestly investigate one topic in depth usually fall into the field of science, and their findings surprise us because they do not frequently confirm common assumptions.  Once this pattern of exploded assumptions is repeated, people begin to realize that their knowledge is always tentative.  With that in place, there is more space to look at oneself and one's reactions to new ideas.  It also can lead to greater compassion, along the lines of, "If I've been wrong so many times, maybe other people are also victims of misunderstanding, and their actions reflect that misunderstanding."  The solution then is about education:  emotional, physical, intellectual, and social.

The Ebb of Commercialization

Yesterday evening during a glorious sunset (at a Zeitgeist meeting in Laguna Beach) I saw around 20 skimboarders enjoying the generous waves and physics of hydroplaning.  It was quite a show.  Their facility with landing on the skim boards after gaining momentum from a quick sprint, and sharp u-turns to surf the waves back to shore made me realize that this was an art for these people.  They had likely spent much time in developing their skills.  They cheered each other on and took turns in challenging the ocean.  There was a real feeling of community among them.

They did not appear to have any official organization or laws to define their behavior: no signs, no contracts, no "terms of use."  Their conduct was orderly and this order arose simply because of their mutual interest in the sport and respect for each other.  Organization flowed naturally; it was self-evident.  Taking turns in this way may be difficult for a two-year old, but for adolescents and adults, it was obvious.  No one paid them to participate.   See? There is hope for humans!  We don't need laws to regulate every aspect of our behavior.  If we can move beyond (via proper brain development) a terrible-twos mentality, then we can more effectively cooperate, and the situation/circumstances will dictate the means of that cooperation.  One-size-fits-all laws developed in abstraction will be largely unnecessary.

Another point I want to make about this activity relates to understanding its social and individual significance.  Commerce-oriented minds will narrowly assume that this sport has no productive output.  What they really mean is that this activity does not produce a commodity, stock option, or some other money sequence value.  If we look at "productive output" defined more broadly as "useful" we can recognize value in this activity.

1. The sense of community not only fosters social responsibility, but individual well-being since humans are naturally social creatures and need social stimulation to maintain their cognitive brain systems and emotional health.
2. Skimboarding is demanding physically, and as such it provides these people's bodies a wonderful exercise opportunity.
3. Since this activity takes place in a natural setting, it allows people to connect with nature that reminds them of the beauty and bounty that only Earth provides us.  Ecological awareness and responsibility become part of the skimboarders consciousness.
4. Expressing themselves in this way helps to reduce stress and feel personal freedom to enjoy life.

A person deprived of these opportunities because of money or other barriers, for example, will be more socially isolated, less respectful, less creative, more careless about the environment, unhappy at work (and a misanthrope with coworkers), less physically healthy, and if this person has children, a less in-tune parent.  Of course, all those problems are something that can be exploited to profit from, but that's a value orientation from an outdated, irresponsible, and inhumane economic system.

Occupy Sane Street

Last night’s CA teamspeak meeting included a lot of lively dialogue about the Occupy Wall St protests.  Several perspectives were voiced about how The Zeitgeist Movement should or should not be involved.  One theme was that because TZM has no real top-down structure, it simply is up to individual members to decide if they are interested in participating.  There was a note of caution that the Occupy protests could get trapped in an “us vs. them” stance that is counter to the social understandings that form the foundation of TZM.  That kind of reactionary and divisive thinking would likely lead to violence and oppression.

That said, the Occupy Wall St movement does share some convictions with TZM.  For example, in the recently released Declaration, it is recognized that profit has been gained at the price of human life and well being, Earth’s ecosystem has been abused by rapacious business practices, and that humanity must cooperate to create a better alternative to the current economic system.  Occupy Wall St is also an explicitly leaderless organization that does not condone violent behavior.  For a nascent organization, it has already attracted mainstream media attention (even though it took a few weeks!), and is acting as a kind of magnet around which different organizations whose work is to promote life values (as opposed to money/profit values) are coalescing.  TZM’s aim of educating people to reach a critical mass before engaging in any widespread coordinated action to directly confront the prevailing paradigm needs to attract people who recognize the current undermining of life values.  According to some TZM members who have attended Occupy Wall St assemblies, the people there are largely receptive to core concepts expressed in TZM. 

Another thread in the discussion last night was that no one can know how a transition to a resource-based economy will unfold, or if it will happen.  Is the Occupy Wall St movement part of that transition to a more sane society?  Will it just make things worse?  My present feeling is that because these people are acknowledging the attack our economic system is having on life values it represents a step in the right direction.  However, I am reminded of the solemn moments immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers in which there was a quiet reflection about how and why such tragedy could be intended and executed.  It was as if people paused their normal habits and were forced to reexamine their values and their place in the interconnected web of a global society.  That could have been the beginning of a new, more enlightened perspective.  It turned out not to be and people fell into anxiety, fear, and revenge-filled thoughts that blamed “them,” and gave rise to a stupid one-upsmanship in patriotism, in America.  In other parts of the world, the retaliatory posture of the US marshaled the production of countless expensive weapons (economic growth) that were quickly detonated in and around “terrorist cells” creating demand for more weapons (cyclical consumption).  Many Americans just thought they were “gettin’ the bad guy.”  Bad guy thinking is a sign of a limited perspective, in which the error occurs by reducing social and psychological complexity to a simple conclusion.  This thinking is helpful if someone is wielding a knife and ready to plunge it into your chest because you need to react quickly to neutralize the threat, but to take a social action based on that mentality is foolish and will, most likely, lead to a proliferation of problems.  So, I see this as a critical opportunity for TZM to spur deeper inquiry into the malfunction of society.  When people are hungry, homeless, anxiety-ridden, and frustrated, they want quick answers and quick actions.  Unfortunately, TZM does not have the collective resources to feed and house everyone, but it does have an abundance of materials and passion to educate people about the metastasized cancer that invades our social organism.  With proper diagnosis comes better treatment.  I hope we have the collective patience to arrive at thorough diagnosis.

The last main point I want to mention is that the group showed agreement in that we hope a transition to a new economy will lead to less suffering, not more, and that humanity will come together in time to prevent its self-inflicted extinction. 

Dying For Job Growth

Obama didn't stand up for environmental and social health.  He failed to act against the threat of growing emissions that endanger our well being so as not to interfere with job creation (economic growth).  "Business groups and Republicans in Congress had complained that meeting the new standard, which governs emissions of so-called ground-level ozone, would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs."  Article in NY Times.

This is an example of the mainstream media reporting on environmental issues as seen through the lens of politics.  Now, let's turn to a publication by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Editor-in-Chief, Cynthia Mascone, for Chemical Engineering Progress, wrote in the Editor's note recently, "But as a regulated utility, it is impossible to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for validating and deploying technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already in place [italics added]."

In the main article, Carbon Capture and Storage, the authors state that the "amount of CO2 to be captured is a plant-specific decision and will likely be based on economic considerations that depend on the direction any future GHG emissions regulations might take." (p. 43)

Throughout this article and others in the August 2011 issue, there are frequent references to costs--financial costs--as the overriding consideration.  Those costs can be increased or decreased based on policy decisions that affect regulations and standards.  These engineers are trying to figure out what the chances are of new regulations being implemented, and when it becomes financially attractive to install technologies to reduce emissions.  Until those regulations are in place, it is cheaper to do business as usual (continue polluting because they don't have to bear the costs of that pollution--we do!).  However, if the government uses regulations to increase the costs of emissions, it is then that the cost of doing business will become expensive enough to warrant using carbon capturing technologies.

The government's function is to protect its citizens, or at least it was.  As politicians end up ever deeper in the pockets of businesses, their purpose of protecting people is compromised.  Corporate Rule and Congressional Rule are hardly distinguishable now.  A related article in the NY Times did include this sentence, "But many experts say that the effects should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors."  I wished the authors would have greatly elaborated on those societal costs, other than simply mentioning lengthening lives and reducing infant mortality and hospitalizations.  They could have, of course, also taken a more anthropological approach and asked why monetary-costs are of more importance than human costs in this culture.  Imagining an episode, National Geographic of the future would discuss our society in a video exposition: "This peculiar culture focused almost exclusively on its monetary factors, despite the known effects of pollution, resource depletion, social dysfunction, and an undermining of their own physical and mental health.  Their religious adherence to profit-based mores almost led to their extinction."

Indentured Students

From a radio broadcast on kpcc.org:  http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/09/02/20539/student-loans/

"Total amount owed in college loans across the country: $1 trillion (more than all U.S. households owe on credit cards). Number of undergraduates who have gone into debt for their education: two-thirds."--KPCC

"These are 18-year-olds, who are indenturing themselves for life."

--Andrew Hacker, Professor, Department of Political Science, Queens College

Professor Hacker correctly identified this problem by saying these students are becoming indentured.  Their student loan debts cannot be forgiven--even with bankruptcy!  Essentially, the banks have a lifelong leash on these students, regardless of what happens to them financially.  If they become stuck in poverty because their degree didn't pay off as they were told to believe, then that is just too bad for them.  Their wages, tax returns, social security checks can be garnished.  In a society that promotes higher education as the golden key to "getting a job" so one can "earn a living" (because you're right to life is not guaranteed), despite the fact that getting a job is not guaranteed, nor is earning a livable wage enforced by any regulatory agency.  Simply, this is a scheme that promotes only the interests of money investors, not of society's youth.  Why not invest in a student loan when there is total protection from bankruptcy?  It does not matter how destitute the person becomes, the money investor still gets to rope in their share, even if that rope is around the former-student-not-getting-paid-enough worker's neck.

Professor Hacker suggested that all education should be free, which I appreciated, but that is unlikely considering the driving value program of our time: money-for-more-money (John McMurtry, Cancer Stage of Capitalism).  Without a shift in the underlying economic paradigm, debt servitude will continue.  Because the last two decades have seen an exponential redistribution of wealth up to the top 1-3% of the global population, the remaining 97% will feel ever more severely the burdens of this value program, worsening as one goes down the socio-economic scale.

Protect the Xinane!

Two dozen officers tracked down and arrested one man, named as Joaquim Fadista. Mr. Fadista had already been detained in Brazil on trafficking charges and extradited to Peru. Officials believe Fadista was involved with a group trying to carve out new cross-border cocaine routes, or was working for loggers who covet the timber growing in the untouched forests where the group, called the Xinane, live. They are particularly worried at finding an arrow head in one of the trafficker’s abandoned backpacks.
Original Article

So here's a guy (Fadista) trying to do international trade and he doesn't care who gets exploited or who gets sacrificed in the process of maximizing his profits.  Doesn't that sound familiar?  Indeed, it should.  The only difference between this guy and sanctioned corporations is that corporations have permission to sell their goods.  And their goods don't have any "life-ground" litmus test.  For example,  people in the US think they are doing a great thing by recycling their old electronics. "These [recycling companies] typically go for the cheapest recycler to dispose of their collections and do not question, what exactly these firms do with the waste." (Article) But, this e-waste is shipped overseas and the wage slaves who sort through the "used goods" are exposed to toxins.  Does anyone measure the effects this exposure has on them?  Probably not, because very few actually care.

Pharmaceutical companies get to sell Oxycontin, perhaps the most infamous narcotic, and heaps of patients become addicted to them.  Is cocaine really that much more harmful?

Are junk food, fast food, and sodas any better?  That stuff is sold globally with few restrictions.  Loans are bought and sold.  Is that for the well-being of society?  We say cocaine can't be sold, but people still want it, so Fadista took up the cause of the free market and began selling his product to willing customers.  It just seems a bit self-serving to limit goods, not on the basis of what's healthy to society, but on the basis of who can extract profit.  And when I read the article about people and governments being so concerned about the Xinane, it screams of hypocrisy.  Are the poor people in a poor nation any less deserving of protection than people who use bows and arrows?  Apparently, the answer is, "yes."

Monetary-Market Apostasy

When a person who grows up in a religious environment begins to see some cracks in the cathedral, their process of becoming non-religious is usually not instantaneous.  It begins with cognitive quakes, perhaps by seeing how awful conditions are for others or for themselves.  Great hardship, illness, or death have often been circumstances that instigate questioning into firmly held beliefs.  Or, the quakes come more slowly through dialog and reading different perspectives than those they’ve been surrounded by their whole lives. Traveling has always been a great means of broadening one’s perspective because the traveler becomes the outsider, the one whose culture becomes foreign. The light that shines through those cracks feels shocking at first.  Like the moment when they remove their sunglasses, the sun shines so bright that they wince and close their eyes. But, as they adapt, it becomes easier to bear.  And after some time, the sunlight feels natural and wholesome.  The cathedral becomes a dark place of cruelty in the way that it robs people of the joy of the bountiful outdoors.

I went through a similar emotional evolution in regards to a resource-based economy.  For many years I had seen the cracks: giant fissures revealing the fragile nature of our social system partly crumbled atop people around me.  I had also grown up watching Star Trek The Next Generation.  That show was very explicit about living in a time when scarcity, money, and enslavement to work were seen not only as archaic, but as a regrettable era of human history.  That was the first light that had shone through the cracks.  It was all wrapped under the guise of entertainment, and as such, the humanistic philosophy of the series was not taken seriously as a call to change culture (which I think was the real goal of Gene Roddenberry).  I felt alone, like a non-believer in a church of fanatics.  I had gotten used to this feeling, particularly because I had so much experience being non-religious in Christian and Buddhist cultures. 

When I watched the Zeitgeist Addendum film, I had an immediate sense of connection with the message.  I pored over the website materials and was equal parts incredulous and excited.  It was like ET phoning home.  I felt like there was a community of people who took the “Star Trek values” seriously and wanted to take them from fiction to fact.  Becoming involved and advocating for the Zeitgeist Movement had a twinge of rebelliousness to it.  It was so counter-culture that I felt like I was joining a cult.  Of course, the ZM does not seek followers or believers loyal to any particular person or superstition.  It does not engage people in any bizarre or unhealthy rituals.  Most importantly, it does not draw clear lines between “us” vs. “them.”  It was for the simple fact that the ZM stands squarely in contrast to the prevailing monetary-based values that it felt awkward.  We are social creatures, and we have a natural tendency to recalibrate our perspectives based on what people around us understand to be true.  Even if we are intellectually aware of ad populum fallacies, there is some measure of emotional susceptibility that causes us to doubt ourselves.  This tendency is actually helpful in that it doesn’t allow us to get trapped in habitual thinking of a self-created delusion.

In the year that has passed since my introduction to the Zeitgeist Movement, feelings of its counter-culture nature have subsided.  To use my analogy, in the beginning, it was like I took a quick jog outside the cathedral, but still found myself partly chained to the hallowed interiors.  That feeling has since subsided, and a resource-based economy, or whatever one wants to call it, feels like a natural step in our evolution. It does not feel counter-anything, it feels like it's part of our natural development. The sanctity of the monetary-market paradigm feels silly and reckless.  Underlying nearly every societal and environmental problem or solution is the constant consideration of money--where it goes and where it comes from.  The solution isn’t in money, it is in human effort, and as long as we have humans, we have an abundance of human effort and resourcefulness to call upon.

A world in which each person’s dignity is respected and every person is encouraged to manifest their talents not only for their own well-being, but for the well-being of humanity, feels like a natural place to “come home” to.  There is plenty of new research that demonstrates the ills our current system produces and the benefits of an environment that fosters collaboration. This is not idealism; it is a reconciliation of current findings with the way we organize society.  Abolitionists and suffragists used to seem revolutionary, and the rights granted from their struggles now seem obvious.  Despite the heavy rhetoric of the human instinct to care only about oneself, science is marshalling in destructive evidence to that cherished assumption.  One study’s author  (Moll, J.) concluded, “humans are hardwired with the neural architecture for such pro-social sentiments as generosity, guilt, and compassion.”  We need only to embrace that understanding and be willing to step out of our anachronistic cathedrals to appreciate the many splendors that await us outside.

Letter to OC Register about Bank of America

I wrote a quick letter to the editor in response to this article:
Bank of America in $8.5B mortgage settlement


Chris Kahn wrote in the Bank of America article (June 29 2011), "Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors by continuing to service bad loans while running up servicing fees."  Isn't this the principal concern of business: to make a profit at the expense of others' lack of knowledge or skill?  Where are all the "free market"
advocates on this?  They usually say they don't want regulations interfering with the almighty invisible hand, so why not let BofA and its subsidiaries grab as much money as they can from consumers/investors?  Rather, they prefer to complain about the government using money to help those who suffer from poverty.  Until we decide to move to a resource-based economy, these kinds of uncomfortable business practices will remain with us.

"The Elite"

Knowing that most of the wealth is owned and wielded rather mightily by few people, "the elite," it is easy to fall into the trap of blaming the system-induced problems on those people.  An "us vs. them" attitude ensnares our minds and hearts and leads to solutions that are unwise and unhelpful.

It is hard to be patient and reflect for the person who is starving while watching another greedily consuming all the food on the table (planet).  They are justified in their anger, but hasty violent reaction to a complex system-wide problem will not resolve the underlying problem.  As the disparity in access to life-sustaining resources continues to widen, communities and countries are unleashing their violence on the perceived targets and those around them.  If those that are fed enough do not start working to correct this problem for themselves and those who are hungry, violence will ripple out in widening circles and eventually ripple through their own lives.  Suffering and anger are warning signs of problems, and if they are ignored, their severity will grow.  We should treat these signs with respect and learn about their causes.

But, back to "the elite."  The elite are indoctrinated, just as we all are, that wealth needs to be accumulated. Despite all the feel-good talk that money doesn't make you happy, we all know that no money = no resources = no life = no happiness.  The fact that the world out there is always trying to get more and more of the money you have means you must be cautious about how much you let go.  How can you ever have enough when you live in a world that does not care whether you live or die, only that you can pay for it?  If you make $200,000 a year and you feel generous and want to give away 100,000, you might not do so because you have to "save for a rainy day."  What if you get cancer and cannot work?  That will cost a lot more than 200K!  Also, as you accumulate wealth, you will likely be surrounded by those that have similar resources, so you have to keep up with the Joneses.  The consequences may be real for not conforming.  If all of your colleagues have multi-million dollar homes, drive luxury cars, eat at expensive restaurants, and travel to high-cost destinations and you decide to eschew that lifestyle, it would send a signal that you condemn their lifestyle.  That attitude could see your way out of a job, out of "the elite."

Even if you own your own business, you have to "make nice" with clients.  You may have to put up appearances so they think you have a legitimate business.  Isn't that what we do by putting on suits?  Suits aren't made for comfort, they are made to give the wearer a sense of respectability that they wouldn't have if they showed up in pajamas.

"The Elite" need to be educated about the system just as much as everyone else.  Actually, they may need it even more since their lifestyles are more immune to the consequences of poverty, disease, and lack of resources.  They need to see that that their lifestyles of "abundance for few" is not just unhealthy for the planet and many of the world's people, but also for themselves.  Within the current economic paradigm, they depend on money not just for their resources, but for their social standing and self worth.  They must also realize that if they intend to have children, their kids will be at greater risk of social unrest, of never-ending worry to maintain their hold on resources, and less clean, less healthy food, water, and air.  Their children will have to deal with people who want to gain their trust to exploit them.  They will have the worries of keeping up with the Joneses and the stock market.  They too, will know, that the world cares about the money they have, not them.  They will have to squash their conscience to ensure that they keep their profits.  They may have to abandon their passion to pursue wealth-generating activities, no matter how much they detest those activities.

It's not that "the elite" deserve more pity, it's just that it's important not to get trapped into the simplistic thinking that usually follows from an angry reaction.  Anger has its place, and if things are left unchanged, anger and violence will grow.  I hope that is not what it takes for people to wake up to the problems ahead.  It may be, but I hope not.  That's why I continue to be motivated to pursue the awareness raising campaign of the Zeitgeist Movement.

Work, Buy, Consume vs. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

This compelling image reminds us about the cycle of consumption. Actually, we work, buy, and consume many times over before we die, but that image would be too large to construct.  

In the Zeitgeist Movement, the emphasis is on education, awareness-building.  This is a necessary project because the system cannot change if only a few of us want it to change.  With the exception of the ultra-wealthy, most people do not have much power alone to change the status quo.  Unlike personal revelations, in which we can change our behavior immediately, insights into our economic system and structural violence do not allow us to change those factors quickly.  It can lead to feelings of being overwhelmed, disappointed, frustrated, angry, and despair.  To add insult to injury, we cannot practically avoid the system which we reject.  We still need to buy food, pay for shelter, and other resources (gained at someone else's expense).  "How many people have been poisoned by the pesticides used on the papaya I just ate?  How brutally have the people been treated at the factory (I saw it first-hand) where my shoes were made?  The landscaping crew that constantly maintain the grounds in my townhome community, are they paid enough to live on?"  Guilt.  I see the horrors of this system, and yet my dependence on it strengthens it.

The goal of the Zeitgeist Movement to transition to a resource-based economy will take a long time, and it requires sustained effort without feeling any system-changing impact.  That's why we need to be patient and just do what we can to create a balance between what needs to be done and enjoying life.  Something that can be done by all of us is to reduce, reuse, and recycle.  Have you noticed how the media/public service announcements tend to exclusively focus on recycling?  We can all reduce and reuse if we make an effort to do so.

  

Focusing on reducing allows us to spend less money, thereby making us a bit freer from workplace enslavement.  It also decreases our impact on the environment.  And finally, by limiting our participation in the Work, Buy, Consume cycle, we accelerate the rate at which that system implodes.  As the foundation cracks, people feel the unsteadiness, and look for alternative solutions.  This searching makes the Zeitgeist Movement more relevant, more meaningful.  And that will hasten the transition.

"That's just the markety world we live in"

“The forest cleans water.”--David Powell, a forester with Virginia's Department of Forestry. He says when you look at a forest, just sitting there, it's actually doing stuff. For you. “Forests are very good at filtering out and preventing erosion and sedimentation; it also helps clean out the air.”
Sabri Ben-Achour: This is what's called an ecosystem service -- when nature does stuff for people. The trouble is, even though people benefit from nature just doing its thing, nobody gets paid for letting nature do its thing. Actually, they get paid to do the opposite: forests get cleared, roots dug up -- benefits gone. That's just the markety world we live in. So Virginia's forestry department wants to pay for the benefit and maybe get consumers to do so too later down the road…Using models, they'll quantify the benefit of a forest to a water source, wrap it up and put a price tag on it and make it a product. But who pays how much and for what?

Hanson: For decades, we've been talking about saving nature for nature's sake and that's worked to some degree -- we have a lot of protected areas around the planet, etc. -- but there are limits. For a lot of governments, a lot of people, a lot of companies, that's not a convincing argument.

----  transcript of broadcast

The person who comes up with the scheme that commoditizes the forests’ processes and can sell it to the public will surely be the next billionaire.  At first, I couldn’t help but laugh at this broadcast, imagining these people scuttling about to find ways to make a profit from this natural process.   But later, when Craig Hanson spoke about the lack of progress in convincing people to care for the environment for nature’s sake and for our own survival, I felt sad.  The question, “what does it take?” keeps entering my mind.  How bad must things become for people to implement the change that is required for us to thrive?

A friend of mine, referencing back to stages of development, pointed out that it usually takes either some kind of personal catastrophe or a giant helping hand that saves a person from catastrophe to create the conditions that allow someone to see beyond a narrow frame of reference.  For example, a person rooted in “red” who thinks the State should stay out of their business could experience a shift in perspective if they have a life-threatening illness in which outside support is the only means for survival.  Not only will they be shaken by the severity of the unanticipated disease, but they may feel gratitude for the support provided, which allowed them to survive.  From this experience, they may be transformed to acknowledge that society functions better when we work together instead of constantly trying to grab power from each other.

Even though it isn’t fun and cheerful to hear about impending economic and environmental collapse, this message needs to be repeated in as many ways as possible to alert us all to the dangers we are facing so that we can try to prevent the horrific consequences on the horizon.  We need to share these messages in personal ways too. The damage is real and is heartfelt, here and now, not in some forecasted future.  The gripe about gasoline prices is something we all share in the Western world, and perhaps that is a starting point for some to explore our system-wide inefficiencies.  Unemployment is another.  It seems that very few are untouched by these factors.  If we act sooner rather than later, we will all gain, and, I hope, have a chance to thrive.

Sports, Death, and Justice

As a sports-like wave of excitement makes its way around the American Stadium, many people are getting carried away in that wave.  There are a few deeper discussions about the meaning of Osama Bin Laden's death disrupting the flow of that wave, which is a healthy sign.  One of the radio programs I heard yesterday tackled the issue of "should we be celebrating someone's death so joyfully?"  The caller felt disgusted that people were having a party because someone was shot dead (not to mention the fact that a woman was used as a "human shield").  The host rejoined that people weren't so much celebrating Osama's death as they were a sense of justice served.

He was pointing to the fact that people have a hard-wired sense of fairness and since so many loved ones were killed on September 11th, it makes sense for people to congregate in this communally expressed feeling of justice: "He got what he deserved!"

Unfortunately, there was no examination of what it means to have justice.  While there are many studies to support the finding that people do have a sense of innate fairness (people make all kinds of irrational decisions to ensure fairness, at their own expense), an issue like this is far more complicated than the well-planned parameters of a psychological experiment.

When the twin towers came down I was living abroad and the newswire was full of information about the collapse, but there was not the same patriotic rhetoric that Americans were exposed to.  It was publicized that some groups around the world were jubilant about the 9-11 attacks.  Why were they excited by such tragic news?  Not because they were thinking about the "loved ones" that had died, but because they felt that the impenetrable giant called the United States became vulnerable.  The almighty US was targeted and successfully attacked by a small group with relatively scant resources.  There was a sense of justice that America finally had to pay the price for its indulgences and exploitation, and they were happy about it.  Sound familiar?  Even countries that publicly stood united with the US, had citizens that felt that America got what was coming.

The fact that "justice" has become uncoupled from the real human lives lost is a symptom of the breakdown in our thinking.  Is it fair that so much "collateral damage" has been incurred at the pursuit of justice?  That kind of question just mucks things up, doesn't it?  But, it is part of the circumstances. With each side--and there are many!--striving to serve justice, we end up with more and more casualties.  And the spectators, just like in sports matches, take a sense of pride when their "team" wins a match.  Americans are celebrating their collective achievement.  The other team is diminished in reputation, in spirit, and in this case, in actual numbers.  Hillary Clinton said with a lioness determination, "We will not be defeated."  And the game we play goes on and on and on.

It's "their turn" now.

And that's what some people felt.  They were scared because retribution seemed inevitable.  Police were on alert and people worried that another attack may come.  And in a game where all of the people represent the "opponent," any one of us could be the next target.  Putting our own personal lives on the line raises the stakes of this game and it becomes much less fun to play!  If my family gets blown up in this game of Justice, is that still worth it?  Do I really hate the opponent that much?  Who is he/she anyway?  Hmm......  Oh yes, it's Bin Laden.  He is The Terrorist, the true threat.  But, if he's dead, then what am I afraid of?

The threat is not in any individual person, but in this seeking of justice through killing.  And further, it's in this idea of justice.  Where did the injustice really begin? Why did some people feel glad that America got attacked?  Why do any terrorist or violent groups retaliate against the more powerful enemy? Perhaps that is the clue.....the more powerful enemy.  The reality that there is an imbalance of power may be the beginning of the injustice.  The reality that this power imbalance is used to exploit others at the powerful's gaining of more power is the point at which the seeds of "justice seeking" begin germinating, and that's exactly what those psychological experiments point out.  Again, we may be hard-wired for fairness, but it is only when the circumstance fertilizes the seeds of injustice that justice seeking begins.  This understanding makes the scope of justice so broad, complex, and dynamic that we prefer to just go on killing each other.  That's much easier than reflecting on it.

My neighbor is my compatriot today.  We are hooting and hollering in the streets.  But, when he runs over my garden patch tomorrow in his big gas-guzzling, fume-spewing truck tomorrow, I'll get him!  I'll slash his tires, key his car, and that'll show him!!!  How easily we switch sides.

To really create justice for ourselves, not just perceived immediate justice, we must create a just world.  We must look at the whole dynamic and our part in it.  Relationships as small as those we have with other individuals up to those we have with other nations must be viewed as part of a larger dynamic that generates the world we have today.  And if that's too much for you to think about, then at least center yourself in compassion.  From there, you will create healthy relationships and as a result, a healthy world will emerge.

Royalty Mirrored

Yet another blog/article about the British Royal Wedding....but with a different perspective.

It seems that people are starkly divided: they either hate the ostentatious reckless spending or they are adoring the luxuriousness of it all.  Some people have asked, "how can they be so insensitive to proudly display their excesses in a world suffering from constant deprivation?"  To be honest, I am sympathetic to this sentiment, but I am concerned about suffering whether there is a show of indulgence or not.  There really is no need for this kind of deprivation.  There will always be natural phenomenon that threaten our survival, but most of what threatens people these days is human-created, and that means we can fix them.

So, in light of the fact that these problems can be fixed, but are not, and the fact that many people are supposedly captivated by this Royal Wedding (although I'm suspicious of how interested people are because no one around me seems to give a damn), what could account for that interest?  Is it truly a simple dichotomy of either you are interested because the suffering of others has no meaning to you or you are not interested because you care about others?

I think the issue is more complex than that.  A lot of people feel the world is full of suffering and they just don't want to be exposed to it more than they are because they feel powerless to do something to rectify it.  For example, if their friend were in danger or hungry, they would run to assist, but when the problem is structural, they see no way of alleviating that problem.  They are sympathetic to the suffering of people around the world, but they cannot find a means of fixing that problem so they want to turn their attention to events that are celebratory.

It got me thinking, why do people care about anyone's luxurious life.  Why does the general public care at all about the lives of the rich and famous when they do not share in it?  In fact, why is there not offense taken at these few living it up on their backs and apparently enjoying every minute of it?

Perhaps the answer lies in the concept of the "mirror neurons."  In the same way that a sense of sympathy and despair is invoked while seeing videos of children starving to death, perhaps there is a similar (although opposite) reaction when watching those who are pampered from abundance.  There is an intellectual understanding that their lives are different, but for a moment, there is mirroring of the feeling of being lavishly cared for.  Since the poor will most likely never directly experience those riches, they experience them vicariously, and that's really the best they can afford.  

Note to Peter Joseph

Peter,

I’m sorry you were hurt and I hope you take the time to recover emotionally.  Also, I know you are constantly pulled in many directions and your exhaustion is apparent.  I urge you to take the time you need: for rest, recreation, and socializing in ease.  You need to laugh again, spend some time in nature, and just live peacefully for awhile.

The Zeitgeist Movement is a resource for people to be disabused of prevailing indoctrination.  It is not about imposing a point of view, instead it’s about letting nature flourish.  The ZM debates a lot about “human nature” and works to provide evidence that we’re not all nasty, exploitative, and competitive by nature.  The main theme is that if we release ourselves from the artificially created (and dehumanizing) economic system, which sets person against person, we will allow our natural inclinations of collaboration and trust to come forward.  The result will be a better society for all of us. 

The harder part for us, is our tendency to think small.  We think of our individual selves, and possibly an extension of that, our families.  Education—and I’m not talking about just the formal kind—help us move beyond those limitations of perspective.  Education can take many forms, from films to one-on-one talks.  The VP believes that a film is the best way to go.  In its purported goal of using science to make decisions, has the VP found this to be a scientifically substantiated “best use” of resources?  To show a society that is free of money in which humans contribute in ways they care about and have talents for is a great vision to present to the public.  And it’s been done before in a "dressed up" fiction.  That work is well-known under the name of Star Trek. 

I understand the other goal of wanting to express one’s creative vision.  This is important, and I believe it is why you, Peter, made your films using funds you could generate.  It has been helpful and meaningful.  Now, if you had 50 billion at your disposal, would you use it for another film (your creative expression) or for something more influential in scope?  If that project was something you didn’t have the talent to direct/organize, would you give the resources to that other effort, knowing that it will help humanity on a larger scale than your presumed project?

I believe the answer is yes, and I’m glad to infer this on your behalf.  The VP has decided otherwise.  The VP has been useful in suggesting technical solutions and challenging entrenched thinking.  For this, it has been and will be appreciated. It's always a great idea to be disabused, since we all undergo so many years of abuse.  The VP wants to represent their organization in a particular way and be the center of their creative projects.  I understand this desire, although I think it lacks a sense of the larger perspective.  Perhaps that will always be a recurring limitation of our minds, and that’s exactly why we need each other to inform us (in an environment of trust) when our perspectives are embolized. Thanks for contributing to that effort!

Charity

I read a comment recently that basically said we can't force people to be charitable to the "less-fortunate." In other words, charity must come from the kindness in their hearts.  This comment was made in the context of workers being stripped of benefits, but it really applies to the idea of social welfare as a whole.  The thinking goes something like this, "I worked hard and earned all my wealth, so if I want to share it, I can, but if I don't, no one will force me.  Forcing me is dictatorship!"


The rich have a peculiar atmosphere of their own. However cultured, unobtrusive, ancient and polished, the rich have an impenetrable and assured aloofness, that inviolable certainty and hardness that is difficult to break down. They are not the possessors of wealth, but are possessed by wealth, which is worse than death. Their conceit is philanthropy; they think they are trustees of their wealth; they have charities, create endowments; they are the makers, the builders, the givers. They build churches, temples, but their god is the god of their gold. With so much poverty and degradation, one must have a very thick skin to be rich. --J.Krishnamurti


This thinking reminded me of the quote above.  If you treat me ruthlessly as "your" worker for years on end, but then you give a dollar a day to a starving child in Africa, have you then acquired--yes, I mean acquired--the label of charitable?  If charity were truly in your heart, would you have brought about a system in which your worker was exploited to begin with?  Wouldn't you have made a society in which charity didn't get selectively applied to those of your choosing?  You, the god, have "chosen ones" to bestow your charity on.  But, you are always at a safe distance, forever being careful not to truly jeopardize your own lot in life.  This is not charity, it is self-aggrandizement.  Having acquired so much in monetary power, you turn to other acquisitive challenges: fame, respectability, admiration (social power).


The other problem has to do with depth of perception.  You realize that workers work for you because they need money.  It's not out of responsibility to help you, which is why you feel justified in not helping them.  The reality is that these workers take low wages because that is the best that they can get considering their circumstances.  They take jobs with few vacation days, long hours, and barely enough pay because that is their best option.  Isn't that a form of social welfare for you?  You get access to an abundant supply of cheap labor.  The economic system supports this social welfare program for you. So, the problem isn't with social welfare, it's just the fact that you want to be the only recipient of it.  Why should you have this benefit?  Why do you get to pay workers less than what is needed to live comfortably?  Because they have no real choice?


It is true that someone can quit and work at another low wage job, but how is that helpful?  If money is needed to "earn a living," then how free are we really?  So, even though you don't want to be forced to share your resources/wealth, you don't mind forcing others to be deprived of it.  


If you were truly charitable, there would be no reason to force people to share their wealth because deprivation would have been solved already.  You would not be complicit in a system that treats people as commodities.  You didn't pay your mom $4 for a gallon of breast milk when you were an infant nor did you force her to provide it.  She did so, naturally.  In the same vein, why don't you make sure that I have access to what nourishes me so that I become a healthy, happy, and balanced contributor to society?  Is it because you just don't really care?

Zday 2011 Orange County Long Beach

With about 20 people in attendance at the comfortable and tranquil Avia Hotel in Long Beach, we had plenty of delicious snacks and great discussion.  Thanks go to Mico for securing the venue for us.  I was so pleased that the group felt welcome to participate and share their perspectives.

Originally, I had extracted 25 minutes (in 1 to 3 minute segments) of video from ZMF to use as discussion points.  There are so many research findings shared in the film, but while watching, one doesn't have the time to explore them in more depth.  This was the occasion for that exploration.  In fact, we only made it through 13 minutes of film in nearly three hours!

We took a few moments at the end of the evening to share what we would all do if we weren't forced into wage slavery, and it was great to hear how each person would share his/her individual talents to contribute to society. 

With a nascent movement like this, it is not difficult to find yourself feeling alone in wanting to create the change that is called for in a resource-based economy.  To discuss these topics in more detail with people who already feel compelled to create that change makes for a friendly environment of peers.

Thanks to all those who attended and helped make this event a great one!

Another Example of Profit Totalitarianism

If only we had enough "incentive" to harness renewable energy sources!  This radio program discusses technologies that have been around for some time, but the lack of incentive has stifled their use.  It's too bad that the incentive of having cleaner air and reduced global C2 emissions aren't enough.  Not in a profit model.  Ho-hum, we humans can be so dumb.

Instead of seeing the nature of the profit machine and how it obstructs innovation and adoption of technologies--across all sectors--that have the potential to improve our well-being, we put teams together to come up with clever ways of creating a profit incentive from these technologies.  Even those at the top of economic food chain still have to breathe dirty air and they cannot escape climate change.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/03/08/harnessing-elusive-energy-oceans-to-autos/

Defending Against Shame

I think it's useful to research criticisms of a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). However, I think it's important not to lose focus on the larger picture of dealing with the source of the innumerable ways that suffering is manifested in our current socio-economic system.  People focus so much on the content of particular arguments (will I have my violent video games?) that they lose sight of motive and the reasons for that motive. 


Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems; for what would we be without them? We would rather cling to something we know, however painful, than risk the pursuit of something that may lead who knows where. With the problems, at least, we are familiar; but the thought of pursuing the maker of them, not knowing where it may lead, creates in us fear and dullness. --J.K.


The monetary-market system is so pervasive--worldwide--that we can barely tolerate questioning it.  After all, how is it possible that this system could be wrong if it is so pervasive?  We see the same kind of thinking in terms of religion.  If it's a belief-system with many followers, it is called religion.  Few followers? A cult.  The deference we pay to religion while we vilify cults makes clear the way we subjugate our thinking by perceived authority.  The subtle, perhaps unconscious, implication is that what I've believed for so long was an untruth.  How could I (so clever and wise) have been so easily mislead?  To put it bluntly, "are you calling me an idiot for having fallen into this system hook, line, and sinker?"  Ohhhh, the self-shame.


We must be aware of this tendency when talking about the merits of a RBE.  Are the questions and criticisms sincere in their interest to find out how things could function for our collective benefit in a new system, whether you call it a RBE or not?  Do we have the interest in even giving it a try or do we prefer the old system with its familiar patterns of destruction?  At what point do we get so fed up with these recurring problems that we say "enough is enough! let's try something else!"  


If we had a new society to design and I proposed a system in which 30% of the world's people would go hungry, even more would have no access to medical care, and nearly all would be abused endlessly (with little recourse) in their work, do you think that would be a system we would hastily implement? It would be torn to shreds and thrown off the table as a suggestion. Yet, that's the system we have now. It meets only some of our needs. It offers abundance for just some people, and if we are so narrow-minded that we only include them in our calculation then we can come up with millions of reasons to support it. Inequality is not a concept, it is reality.  The system we have today encourages this stratification and conflict.  It engenders competition, not cooperation.


Some may argue that human society as a whole has no meaning in a cosmic sense and that a sort of "kill or be killed" model seems to be the natural order of things. That's a nice abstract argument, and it's true. It lacks authenticity though. It lacks any compassion. We no longer live in a society of "kill or be killed" and we wouldn't really embrace that change. If we truly wanted to organize society by these principles then might would be right.  If I wanted your stuff, I could kill you to have it.  Why not use "the visible fist" to regulate our economy?  Supply and demand would be determined by how much we could conquer another to make what we needed.  The doctor would have to mend my broken arm if she didn't want me to shoot her.  Then again, she could give me some "medicine" which got rid of the threat.  Oh that's right, we had a system somewhat resembling this in history.  People learned of the benefits of cooperation in creating a society that met many people's needs simultaneously.  Now, it's time to make another jump in cooperation.  That jump could lead us to a RBE.  Two hundred years ago, slave owners would have been outraged to think of an economy that didn't operate on forced labor.  Today, such a slave economy would be considered indefensible.  And someday, wage slavery will carry the same feeling of disgust.


When I witness people vehemently attacking the Zeitgeist Movement or resource-based economy, it becomes clear to me that there is a deep sense of fear, and generally, a desensitization to the current suffering.  Instead of arguing about the understandings of the ZM, it would be more fruitful to attend to the emotional issues that are obstructing sincere inquiry.  We all fall victim to conditioning.  The shame isn't in having been conditioned, but in insisting on preserving it.

Tahrir Triage

The protesters in Egypt had their demands met and Mubarak left office.  What did the protesters do?  They came back to Tahrir Square brandishing brooms.  Why? To clean up the mess that had been strewn about after the weeks of demonstrations.  The need was obvious--the place was littered with rubbish--and the people came together to clean it up.  Simple.

How did they ever do this without money?  Doesn't it take a team of janitors, HR personnel to hire and train them, CEOs to manage the revenues and profits to pay for those jobs, and a bunch of politicians to make rules about how to clean up the place?  I guess not.

It's amazing what can be done when people are in touch with the need and have the means to do something about it.

Common Reactions: Utopia

It is very common for someone who has first seen Zeitgeist Addendum and/or Zeitgeist Moving Forward to  respond with the conclusion that the solution provided is utopian.  It is another one of those prima facie judgments that Peter Joseph has spoken about in regards to communism, marxism, socialism...etc.

What is the cause of this association?  Why does the resource-based economy seem utopian, when it certainly isn't stated to be that?  The crime rates are estimated to drop by about 90-95% because most crimes are related to money.  But that doesn't mean they will drop to zero.  It doesn't say that a person's codependent emotional state will disappear.  It doesn't say that illnesses will be completely vanquished.  And it doesn't say that resources are so abundant that we get to have and do everything our heart fancies.  It doesn't say that miscommunication will never happen and we will be in a perpetual state of bliss.

It does say that our hearts will likely change what they fancy, and that we will have to have an understanding of collective responsibility.  That will take education.  And that takes effort.  (The Danes seem to have a better understanding of this already). It does say that resources will be managed responsibly and efficiently, which will maximize our potential for survival and reduce social unrest (this has not been done because of competing economic interests and national divisions).  It does say that people will contribute what they are skilled and passionate about because they have the time, energy, and lack of worry about how to meet their basic needs (we can see this kind of volunteering in current times for those who can "afford" it).

It just sounds too good to be true?  Are you sure of that?  How can you be sure of that?  Have we ever given it a try?  Are we just afraid of losing what we are used to?  Are we battered spouses too fearful to leave the situation?

I think some time and reflection are warranted to uncover the reasons for resisting.  The very fact that a resource-based economy is called "utopian" demonstrates that the qualities of that society are appealing.  People don't say, "that is an ugly, brutal society." They call it "utopian."  It looks good, sounds good, feels good.

So, it is pretty clear that the society we have is essentially dangerous.  Your access to the basics is continually under threat, not by mother nature (although that may be more common the more the planet's ecosystem changes) but by our  human society.  We are now seeing famines created not by lack of food, but lack of affordability.  People are starving....TO DEATH!  People suffer in sweatshops.  People are unemployed and feeling hopeless; they are competing with each other for all kinds of jobs just to survive, no matter how pointless or demeaning.  The economic interests of different businesses are in direct conflict with eco-conscious technologies, so we pollute more and more.  The resource-based economy does not promise technologies with no ecological impact; instead it promotes the use of those that are the cleanest and safest based on contemporary research.

Why is it then that people refuse to even try to change it?  Let's just assume that the resource-based economy doesn't work out, for some pretend reason.  Are we really going to be worse off than we are now?  What does it take--for your own child to die from starvation to get motivated?  Given an option, why continue with the old when we know how detrimental it is to ourselves?

We can call the new economy anything you want, but can we not agree to work together to remove those things that get in the way of a healthier way of living?  Even the richest of the rich must one day die and pass along their wealth to a child or grandchild.  And that person will live and spend that wealth in this society.  If that society is full of disease, unrest, pollution, and ugliness, then that person with vast wealth has failed his/her family.  It is in their interests to work towards a clean, rich planet with healthy and sane people.  It's where we live.

The important distinction isn't between dystopia and utopia; that's a false dichotomy.  Societies, even today, could be placed on a scale of well-being, from least well to most well.  Societies in the future could have a longer scale, with more variety, or it could be reduced, with less variety. In any case, we must be reminded that just because society won't be perfect in a resource-based economy (RBE), it doesn't mean we should make no effort to improve society.  Not being perfect does not mean it is no better.  A RBE seems to be a lot better, which is why people call it a utopia, but they are wrong to conceive of it as "perfect."