That could mean our founders inadvertently although it's more likely they couldn't agree on economic structure well enough to define it, left out a very important structural piece of creating a nation and should have had far more debate on economic truths starting with the definition of money and its circulation purposes, methods and value determination before they determined the political system (The constitution) they were trying to devise. Having defined economic components of the new nation would have given great perspective to those drafting the constitution and new insights into liberty and justice. In fact they this missing piece demonstrates the importance of economics and monetary systems as the foundation of civilization. This isn't about being money centered, materialistic or greedy, it recognizing that money is the most basic form of human interaction. It is not the only one obviously but it is the most fundamental economic one and therefore most imperative that it be well defined and understood. I'd submit by allowing economics, money, trade, and other economic truths like "are we creating a cooperative or an antagonistic nation at its core?' not to be strictly defined has caused most of the dysfunction the world sees today. Had we got this correct in the beginning its far more likely we'd be already living in a sustainable peaceful world or at least far more so.
How does this concern the environment? It has everything to do with the environment and the More Jobs are Not the Solution; the Earth Needs Fewer
by Kristine Mattis article brings it to light so clearly. The economics of it in fact precede the "less jobs' mandate. I don't even think working less to spread work around is necessarily the answer if we keep the same underlying monetary system. The economic system is completely grounded in the monetary system which is the main dysfunction in the world today.
There is a lot of righteous frustration out there today. If you are like me you are impatient and a little befuddle why we aren't acting and there are many reasons including the purposeful deterrents to action by the power elite that have been well documented and what do we do to bring attention to the right systems at the right time. But as importantly to me is where. Where is the main pain point in all of this? Lesser actions toward solutions are futile if not aimed directly at the monetary issue. HR 6550 is aimed squarely at that system and would be the beginning of major progress toward sustainability and a more perfect economic system. Maybe promoting this is the answer to both what and where. I know I intend to try and keep bringing attention to this.
All this isn't to fault our founders too severely because after all they did appoint the responsibility of monetary affairs to congress. In Article 1 section 5 of the constitution. This power has been turned over to the Federal Reserve, in error. And it needs to be recovered to be operated by the public rather than private profit motive driven elites. The act properly gives congress the authority to coin (create) money and set its value. In many senses this is all they need but try wrestling that from the banker's hands.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality...
to change something...build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
Buckminster Fuller
Time IS of the Essence
Time is of The Essence
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality...
..To change something - build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
Buckminster Fuller
The environment is about exhausted. We may have a few generations or a few centuries before deteriorization grows exponentially and humanity decreases at the same rate. The reasons are well known and have been very well articulated here. What is the point of no return? Have we past the point of return? Here is a hypothetical demonstrating how serious this could be: A lake containing 1 lily pad can be totally covered in lily pads if they double their number every day in 30 days. How much of the lake is covered on day 29? Only half the lake! How about day 20? 1/256th! - is covered on day 20. How about day 25? 1/64th! So with just 5 days before the entire lake is covered it appears as though it is hardly an issue leading us to believe for example if we knew the lake would become unusable due to lilies sometime in the future it would appear on day 25 of the 30 allotted, there still was plenty of useable time left when in reality time was almost up. If there were something we wanted to do to stop this growth before it became an obstacle to its use how soon do we have to act before it is too late to stop the growth -- before the Lilies had rooted themselves so deeply that the growth couldn't be stopped. This progression not only applies to the environment but many economists I read believe the economic system is not just going to fail but that it is in the middle of massive failure right now. If the system does fail actions will be taken that cripple many countries and many people. It could be a massive human depletion. In the end though, no matter what actions are taken as remedy and what is even as disturbing as human depletion is that the changes will still likely leave the people or institutions (Banks) that caused this in charge to replay the same things they've done for the past century and do even more damage to humanity and the world even as political systems fail and are reorganized. This is why we need to apply Bucky's' quote (above) to not just political systems but to the economic system and moreover include economic systems as part of our political system with the understanding all of it needs to fully align with liberty and justice for ALL under deep, deep democratic governance always putting people (including sustainability to as far into the future as we can possibly manage) first.
Those are the questions needing answered in terms of our environment. Some environmentalists think we may have already past the point where we can have any impact on reversing the current environmental problem of global warming not to mention the other catastrophes in Kristine's poem (More Jobs are Not the Solution; the Earth Needs Fewer) at the beginning of her article. My understanding is human life came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago and the earth has a life expectancy of 12 billion years of which it will be inhabitable by humans for about a billion years. After that it heats up and eventually vaporizes as a natural process which probably coincides with our Sun going super nova. After about 6 billion to 6.6 billion years or so the earth will naturally heat up according to some projections to where it is no longer livable no matter what we do. That still gives us humans about 500 million years give or take to advance the species and explore the universe for alternatives. But we seem determined to shorten that period substantially by poisoning and cooking ourselves prematurely for short term wealth limited to elites. What are we thinking?
Sustainable environment hardly seems like an issue we should take lightly. It seems like it should be at the forefront of our minds everyday -- sort of like terrorism has been made "top of mind' for all of us like it or not, for the last 10 years. Even if global warming was not something we could do anything about I still want clean air and water -- no more pollution and the things that cause global warming also cause pollution so either way we need major environmental reforms.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
