JOINING THE DOTS:
BROAD SYSTEMS CONTEXT UNDERLYING EVERY INTERVIEW/EPISODE
The following information is provided to all guests in advance prior to interviews (along with the anticipated questions) to ensure transparency of the main arguments/principles that underlie every episode of Project Sanity, along with the supporting data for each argument; and to advance knowledge/understanding within the current social order. This is an educational show.
Underlying argument #1 - Life Capital vs. Money Capital
UNDENIABLE ACCELERATING PLANETARY LIFE-SUPPORT DECLINE REQUIRES A LIFE-COHERENT MACRO SOLUTIOn at all levels of life-organisation
Every level of life-organisation and life-system on this planet is now in a state of rapid decline (see conceptual trend depiction below).
No peer-reviewed journal in the past 30 years will tell us anything different: every planetary life-support system is in decline. I challenge anyone to find any planetary life-support trend that is not in the red.
Furthermore, all life-support decline is directly predictable from our social construct’s money-sequence growth (eg, "higher wages", "wealth creation", "value adding" etc.), with no Life-Value Anchor, Compass, Base or Measure to steer it.
Hence every level of growth of this cancer system is now pathogenic when viewed within an Earth Management systems context.
There is no Life-Value Anchor, Compass, Base or Measure to distinguish between Life-Value/Life Capital Growth and Money-Value/Money-Capital growth at any level. Only money-value computes. All organic, social and ecological life requirements are absurdly assumed away - they don't exist.
There is no criterion of "need" in the market construct, with everything dissolving into "wants" and all priced-commodities called "goods" by definition, never bads.
Where are the universal human life necessities even named and connected?
Underlying argument #2 - Structural Violence
"THE MARKET" IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE WORLD TODAY
We now have a century of data in public health and epidemiological research confirming we are literally allergic to socioeconomic inequality. Many data sources to prove this claim within a systems context (ie, the structural violence inherent to the current social model) can be found here.
Furthermore, true economic calculation taking into account our post-scarcity trends and exponentially advancing technological capacity reveal that an access abundance is possible for all humans if we oriented our system towards managing abundance rather than preserving scarcity; and managing our resources intelligently rather than exhausting and wasting them in the idiotic pursuit of the metaphysical “GDP” and “jobs”, as the market model must do in order to remain operational.
Hence, this imposed structural violence is no longer necessary and true economic equality is in fact possible, if an economic and industrial reorientation away from Market Economics (Market Theology) was achieved.
What is Structural Violence?
Structural Violence is a term commonly ascribed to Johan Galtung, which he introduced in the article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research". It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung. According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs". As it is avoidable, structural violence is a high cause of premature death and unnecessary disability.
The data source confirming 18 million annual deaths due to structural violence can be found in An Empirical Table of Structural Violence, Kohler and Alcock.
A need is (and only is) that without which life-capacity is always reduced or destroyed.
Underlying argument #3 - Cyclical Consumption
A LIFE-BLIND ‘ECONOMY’ POWERED BY CONSUMERISM that destroys more means of life than it produces cannot by definition be called an economy by anyone with a working mind
Our current ‘economic’ model of Earth Management is powered by cyclical consumption to maintain “demand” and hence “jobs”.
The market paradox: “the market” construct justifies its existence by the recognition of the need to manage scarcity, but due to its structural mechanics, actually promotes and rewards infinite consumption. That is, nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what an be endured in order to continue the needed cyclical consumption.
- A 2011 study revealed we need an estimated 27 planet Earths by 2050 in a “business as usual” scenario.
- A 2013 study revealed that none of the world's top industries on the planet would be profitable if “negative externalities” were accounted for.
Within an Earth Management systems context, this data profoundly implies that “economic growth” is now consistent with predictably destroying all planetary life-support systems.
- In your view, do you feel that the root socioeconomic orientation of our current ‘economic’ model (“Capitalism”) is compatible with our Earth System over generational time as we move forward?
- ie, what is a true “economy” supposed to be by definition?
- Or in other words, what exactly is the market model e-con-o-mis-ing ??
The notion of “externalities” refers to costs imposed by businesses that are not paid for by those businesses. For instance, industrial processes can put pollutants in the air that increase public health costs, but the public, not the polluting businesses, picks up the tab. In this way, businesses privatise profits and publicise costs. Of the top 20 region-sectors ranked by environmental impacts in this 2013 study, none would be profitable if environmental costs were fully integrated. Ponder that for a moment: None of the world’s top industrial sectors would be profitable if they were paying their full freight. Zero.
This clearly amounts to a global industrial system built on sleight of hand.
An economy powered by consumerism is in fact not an economy at all
Underlying argument #4 - The false "no alternative" narrative
The market model is now structurally obsolete, yet within the ruling order the best of possible worlds is absurdly 'a money-price gain for the exchangers'
In addition to the understandings explained above in arguments 1-3:
- a recent UN report stated that Robots Will Replace Two-Thirds of All Workers in the Developing World; and
- a 2016 McKinsey report found that Half of all jobs in the modern world could be automated/mechanized right now.
- Furthermore, “productivity” is also now inverse to “employment” in most sectors studied.
So, the entire foundation of what currently keeps our social model operational is now falling away, and the Labour-For-Income system (absurdly considered by most to be time immemorial and "the best of possible worlds" - that is, optimised) is becoming more and more inefficient at a critical time when we have an immutable social imperative to increase physical efficiency (ephemeralization) and Life-Capital efficiency to reduce scarcity-pressure and increase broad public health and reduce environmental footprint.
What is ephemeralization?
Ephemeralization is a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, is the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing," that is, an accelerating increase in the efficiency of achieving the same or more output (products, services, information, etc.) while requiring less input (effort, time, resources, etc.). Fuller's vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not recognised by the scarcity-driven Market Economics (Market Theology), as explained above. Abundance has no role in market mechanics. All it knows is that people need to keep buying stuff, and the more they buy, the better everything is supposed to be.