Charles,

My issue with more progressive taxation as a solution, is that it only directs the flow of wealth from this financial vacuum, rather than slowing the rate of destruction of that which it consumes, in order to create that flow of notational value.

If that person with the forest didn't have a highly leveraged and speculative financial system in which he might derive some definite profit from the money earned from cutting those trees, he would be far more inclined to leave them as a store of value in themselves and only cut what would bring in the money for which he immediately needed.

That's why I focus on treating this 'scorekeeping' as a contract, which has deep civil and sociological import. A contract is an agreement which requires both sides to cooperate as the essential purpose is to solidify a cooperative function, not a predatory one. Ultimately the bankers will find they cooked their own golden goose.

Even a puppet pulls back on its strings, giving meaning and focus to the puppeteer.

Regards,

John

Charles

You deal with how humanity can steer the future of society by dealing with the rational decisions that people can make. You do take into account the technological systems that enable them to implement these policies. You mention renewable resources when most of the physical resources, such as oil, are not renewable. If humanist is to steer the future, is must decide how to cope with the inevitable aging of the vast amount of technological infrastructure that provides the goods and services that society has become so dependent on using.

    Dear Denis,

    Yes. Unfortunately humanity is mal-invested in its future. Highly capitalized (developed) nations are dependent on apparently cheap non-renewables, (esp. the US, with urban sprawl, etc.) and this will require large amounts of re-capitalization to overcome. It may be that much of our present infrastructure should be let go. The biological sciences are woefully under invested in, and biological resources foolishly over-exploited.

    Like any junkie, humanity must be broken of its pathological dependencies. This does not mean we cannot live well. It does mean we must live within our means.

    Thanks for reading my essay.

    Charles Gregory St Pierre

    Charles,

    From one vagabond intellectual to another:

    Right on, brother. Thomas Paine couldn't have said it any better.

    " ... we will argue below that for any nation to most effectively deal with the future, ( and the future must be faced with the institutions we have,) it must eventually engage the majority of its population."

    Early in this century, I was highly disturbed by the rationalization that SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld used to justify our deficiency of military readiness, in answering the question of a rank and file soldier:

    "Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?

    Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up..."

    Few non-officers who have ever actually been to war (I am a Vietnam veteran) look at this astounding statement as anything but stupefyingly uninformed, and opposed to sound tactical wisdom.

    In the course of your essay, you expand and clarify the above statement, that we need to marshal our resources as well as the will of the people, before we try and take the hill.

    Great essay, and best wishes in the competition.

    Best,

    Tom

      • [deleted]

      • Post #14

      Hi Charles,

      In my essay I refer to the famous last will of a highly respected consequent critical personality. He didn't spend life Life "in self discovery and other dissolute intellectual pursuits". My dictionary tells me:"Someone who is dissolute does not care at all about moral and lives in a way that is considered to be wicked and immoral; used showing disapproval".

      Well, as I tried to explain in my essay, the traditional moral needs some correction. I merely doubt that your essay provides a more careful analysis than e.g. Alan Kadin's.

      Already your abstract begun with the perspective of humanity in the sense of mankind and jumped to the national perspective.

      I would like to know how do you intend steering your own life, what size of world population will be best, and how to overcome resistance against reduction of birth rate? While I didn't yet read your essay, I guess it does not answer these three questions.

      I wish you a lucky life.

      Eckard

        Dear Tom,

        Thanks for reading my essay, and thanks for the encouragement.

        Good luck in the competition.

        Charles

        Dear Eckard,

        You really should read my essay.

        Thanks for the wish.

        Sincerely,

        Charles Gregory St Pierre

        Dear Tom,

        I'm afraid the military-industrial complex is more interested in profit than preparedness, as we have, and will learn, to our sorrow.

        Indeed, the inefficiency of the military is a feature, not a bug, as it widens the scope for profit. The military cannot account for many of the billions of dollars it spends. That this compromises our position in the world, (and I include the US's moral standing,) is not the concern of the corporations which are instrumental in, and profit from, our decline.

        Charles

        Dear Charles Gregory St Pierre,

        Your essay was very interesting and the ideas you expressed about the steering of our future seemed quite sound to me. I do hope that your essay does well in the competition.

        Regards,

        Joe Fisher

          Charles,

          It's a bummer, isn't it? I think. though, that even if the offenders manage to survive the Inspector General, they'll not be able to survive a distributed system. There will be no place left for centralized massive funding so attractive to those with larceny in their hearts, and no need to have one. The system is self limiting.

          Best,

          Tom

          Dear Joe,

          Thanks Joe.

          Best of luck to your essay, also.

          Regards,

          Charles Gregory St Pierre

          Hello Charles - I really like where you say "The nation's ruling oligarchy and vested interests must be converted and involved, as they will otherwise oppose change, even that necessary for society's survival." Big job but totally necessary !!

          5 days later

          Charles,

          I believe you assess correctly the state the Earth is in. The latest news of melting in Antarctica has spurred the claim of doing nothing because it's too late. My view is "look beyond" the solar system and conventional theory and "look within" the greatest resource, the brain, a microcosm of the universe.

          Jim

          hi charles

          Fantastic just hit the bulls eye.I too address such challenges and provide feasible solutions in my essay here- http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101.titled LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru.Kindly take your time to rate/review it .Thanks.All the best

            Charles,

            Great essay. I agree we're 'sleep walking' into problems, and when awake we don our blinkers and also look the wrong way just in case. Extra credit just for pointing that out! I don't agree with your position in the fours anyway. I also subtly argue and hope I show;

            "In terms of human capital, the developing science of the mind is paramount." Judy Nabb also agrees. Eugenics is worse then useless if we develop only more physically perfect fools.

            I also baled out of indoctrination before it was too late, though continued studying for 10yrs (plus 40 part time). I've earned well from renewables, but have found in research that far better sources are hiding right under our noses once we learn how to see them by understanding nature. So does anybody listen, or even review the foundational new thinking required? Hmm. ...As you say;

            "society pursues its courses of individual and collective short-sightedness, almost certainly in (mostly) wrong directions."

            I hope you may read mine, which should be sensational. Only to a few it seems, and nobody with doctrine embedded. If you ever suspected QM had a simple(ish) classical analogue and should be unifiable with QM, you were right. Do tell me if you follow it (my prev essays set the dynamic framework). ..Going up.

            Very best of luck in the contest.

            Peter

              Dear Peter,

              Thank you for kind words. And your vote.

              I read your qualifications and you seem to be doing quite well. And your essay shows you're up on your physics.

              I'm afraid my life is a comparative mess. My learning is broad but my tools are dull. My only real accomplishments seem to be internal. I am pretty happy with my state of mind, delusional as it may be. Though of course there is plenty of room for improvement, (like brushing up on my math, eh?)

              Lately I've been concentrating on economic and social issues, and am more alarmed than Piketty about the effects of increasing inequality, not only on humanity's progress but even on man's ability to respond in a timely manner to real world crises. I think much social paralysis is the result of inequality, and the actions of the wealthy to preserve their position, no matter what.

              Best of luck in the competition,

              Charles

              Dear Michael,

              Thank you for reading my essay.

              I read your essay with a great deal of interest.

              You are right. We must increase our use of biological and renewable energy sources, and reduce/reverse or population growth rate.

              The difficulty is getting everyone on the same page for a global climate blueprint.

              Best of luck in the competition.

              Charles

              Charles,

              Thanks, including for you comments on mine. I responded viz;

              ~

              "Thanks Charles,

              I think you've highlighted the problem with mainstream theory. Though clearly very inconsistent and incomplete it's embedded, so recognising more consistent alternatives which are 'different' (be definition) is impossible.

              All are trying to get their heads and maths around reality in terms of twisted mobius strips and 7-spheres, but when shown that the simple relationship between orbital speeds at different latitudes on a sphere can reproduce everything needed to explain "QM predictions", it's so unbelievably simple that it's simply not believed so not even analysed!

              I stress I'm not shocked or upset Charles. I estimated in 2010 that mankind was unlikely to have the vision to perceive the truth of any such 'different' solution until 2020 (see my 2011 Essay). The subsequent essays have shown the proofs, being exceptionally well supported, (2nd Community last year) but translating that to a paradigm shift is a long way off it seems.

              I do hope you might look back to better understand to logic and quite solid evidence (see also me recent comments here) which will help you better understand my classical solution here, also how QM and SR are indeed marriageable once the interpretations of both are just slightly modified by the same mechanism; electron/plasma re-scattering at the electrons own 'c'. I call it 'joined-up-science', a bit like learning 'joined-up-writing as it invokes well known effects from disparate 'disciplines'."

              ~

              Best wishes.

              Peter

              Dear Charles

              Very nice and well written essay. You discuss many hot topics that are important to address. I agree that we should work together for the future generations. But I think it is difficult to negotiate with the interests of countries, they are still competing for hegemony and supremacy and it seems that's more important for them.

              I think you will be interested in reading my essay which deals with similar topics to yours.

              Good luck!

              Best Regards

              Israel

                6 days later

                Dear Israel,

                Thanks for reading my essay. I'm glad you liked it, and I will read yours with interest.

                Charles