Jim,

I enjoyed your interesting, responsible and optimistic assessment of humanity's survival and the various tools that may be available to us to accomplish that.

Your singling out corporate waste as an important obstacle to such survival is spot-on. Human greed and wastefulness has always been with us, but following America's rapid rise to super-power status following WW II these traits were scaled up to a global scale . The recent economic setbacks come as a timely warning that we all must find a better way to spend our resources. Honesty courage and ingenuity are needed to solve these and many other problems - qualities not uncommon in your country or in many other places and in individuals all over our interconnected world.

Your essay is inspiring and gives much to think about.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

    As you know, Vladimir, there is no way to do this essay without citing the corporatocracy as a force that interferes with steering a viable future.

    Jim

    Wilhelmus, what does the recent discovery that captures the gravity waves of cosmic inflation affect Total simultaneity. Is that only in our consciousness?

    I try to get a fix on all plausible theories.

    Jim

    Then social relations and the environment will be more clearly viewed as the fundamental stores of value that enable a truly healthy society and environment.

    John, I'm sure you don't mean this the negative way in that some only believe social relationships have value if you gain from it. Rather that social relationships have value in terms of common good and good will to others.

    Jim

    Of course it would appear that the fastest way to save the planet might be to get rid of all of the scientists and their unnatural science.

    Don't follow your above statement. Is it meant facetiously?

    Jim

    8 days later

    Dear Mr. Hoover:

    I think you got some winning ideas.

    Is survival the one and only goal of humanity? If so, shouldn't each individual, family, tribe, business, etc strive for survival? Where do concepts of "the common good" enter? Should some smaller unit such as an individual sacrifice everything he is for others good? I note I disagree with Rand on this point, also.

    I suggest the essence of modern business is to be more efficient user of resources. A business that has less efficiency fails. That is, it fails unless artificially supported by some other ethos such as "it's too big to fail". This ethos is supporting a status quo agenda. I think we need to look elsewhere than the corporate arena as the source of the problem you outline. Your examples show that less efficient users must be allowed to fail.

    I'm beginning to think we are kindred spirits.

      Very interesting,

      Your essay was fun to read and gives us a lot to think about. We must exceed the industrial vision if humanity is to survive - on that we can agree. Playful minds have always seen beyond the bounds of hardened belief structures, and lead the way to freedom. I'll probably have more to say later.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Jim,

      I would have to put the concept of 'gain' in a very broad spectrum. In a sense, only as a way to compare to the monetary distillation of worth. Personally there are aspects of my life which are elementally a function of giving, in the sense that I'm simply directing some of the flow of life towards others, rather than attempting to bottle it up within me. I can only maintain balance by keeping such circuits open and vital.

      Regards,

      John M

      9 days later

      HI James,

      Good essay. I like that you clearly see the obstacles to a bright future but also set out what you think should happen to steer a good course, such as global cooperation and organisation.You suggest a role for the UN.I agree there is most likely a bigger role they can play in the future dealing with the consequences of climate change, which might include mass migrations from war and famine.Some intriguing suggestions at the end. I don't know how practical they are but at this time in human history there is certainly no harm in brainstorming. Good luck, Georgina

        Jim,

        A wide-ranging and thought provoking essay. I especially liked this quote:

        "Humankind and the material world around us is the stuff of stars. It is fitting that, like stars, living and dying, we recycle that stuff, giving more substance to those that follow. Our lives have always been a quest to find life's origins, a pursuit often sidestepped by hubris we collect on the way. We find a future by finding ourselves and understanding our world, a world that grows as we mature."

        Best of luck!

        Rick Searle

        10 days later

        James,

        Another well balanced essay covering an important gamut of subjects. I particularly agree that the way ahead is via improved scientific understanding. I too argue for that.

        But you ask; "Is there evidence that quantum entanglement could be the basis of teleporting?" at small ranges and up to light speed yes. Only the 'belief' has gone beyond that, destroying faith in causality. I show how classical mechanics can explain QM by reconsidering particle spin as normal rotation - back to reality I hope! Your great quote and discussion of particles was moot; "O amazement of things - even the least particle".

        I hope you find time to read mine, your comments should be interesting with your practical engineering background.

        I wish you luck in the contest.

        Peter

        4 days later

        James,

        You did a wonderful job of pulling some very wide date and thoughts to support your argument that the need exists for us to focus on the HOW to obtain "survival", a"vibrant future", a "viable future", "preserve Earth's life lines", etc.

        I totally also agree that "opening the universe of the mind" supplemented with more science "guarded against the arrogance of accepted scientific models."

        Good luck.

        - Ajay

          Thanks, Rick.

          The "stuff of stars" is a thought of wonder and mystery.

          Yes, John, we are all part of the problem and the solution. We focus on corporations because of their size, control and power.

          Jim

          Dear James Lee Hoover,

          We seem to agree that, as you say in your essay, "political leaders act as corporate agents." However you seem to place the problem at the feet of corporations. I don't see it that way. Corporate officers are responsible to their stockholders and don't take an oath to uphold the law and defend our rights. Neither do they have the power to put me in a cage, or execute me, or even take taxes from me at the point of a gun, all of which is pretty absolute power. So I see corporations as simply taking advantage of the corruption of those with the real power. Of course those with the real power are happy to place blame elsewhere. Along these lines you say there is no world force with authority to "assure a vibrant future" and say it should be in the hands of "people with integrity". There, of course, lies the problem. Where do you find them and how discern them?

          We do agree that the universe in our own individual minds is not under control of bureaucracy. I agree fully, and that is the basis upon which I propose a 'pay to learn' system that bears no resemblance to the "training that has already been tried". Unfortunately lack of space presented my developing this model.

          You discuss "green technology" as "A Noble Plan" and seemed to conclude that the massive undertakings of ethanol and wind power represent cautionary tales. I very much agree. You seem also to be wary of current scientific perspectives. If so we agree here also. There are far to many anomalies and far to many unproven theories taken seriously today that, in my opinion, will be shown to be quite mistaken in the end. (Or even before the end!)

          I would not bet on quantum computing as the answer either.

          If your suggestion is that the answer lies in the freedom of the individual's mind, I think we are in firm agreement.

          Finally, it's difficult to know how much our environment affects our thoughts. I believe you live in the LA area, while I live on a ranch. We see very different things every day.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          7 days later

          Thank you for reading my essay.

          I think, like you, that the science has not ethics, it is a tool for good, or evil, scientists; and the example of the ants is perfect: there is a objective of the colony that must be achieved, and the genetic, the reasoning, and the tools are used for the survival of the species.

          I think, like you, that when some corporation have the power to influence the choice of the democracy, then it is a problem for the corporations, and for the people: the right decision is a decision that improve the conditions of the people, if there are methods to influence the politics so that this objective is not obtained (unlike the ants) then this is a short term victory, because the results are evidents in a long term time, and the corporation build their own collapse.

          I think, like you, that some technological choice (to steer the future) have to be weighted with the scientific method, without non ideological bias, so that can be evaluated each single effect (like a medicine).

          Your essay is a good essay.

          Thank you, Domenico. We seem to be stuff of the same star.

          Jim

          James, thanks for the comment on my essay. Yes, in your I can see similar paths leading to shared conclusions.

          Hope you do well in the contest.

          Don Chisholm