Wednesday, February 28, 2018

A Tip Of The Hat To Mammoet For This Lovely Illustration Of A Very Clever Solution

To put a very big crane where you need it to be; despite some significant space limitations.

I just caught this by chance, but once I saw it, I couldn't resist sharing it.

Really guys. Hats off here. That is a neat visualization of a very neat way to have a crane assemble itself.

I see it as a kind of kinetic, mechanical poetry, flowing with smooth efficiency, and a great deal of flexibility. Nicely done.

Mammoet's Focus Crane: Set to change the rules and limits of the game





Self Sustaining Iteration, And The Curvature Of Space Time

[Main Text Change Note: I have been forced to make a changes in the main text here. And the list Grows. Please refer to Main Text Change Note Detail Below. J.V.]

After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle (or loop, if you will) of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?

Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference or, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass in another still? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within whatever other frames of reference you might imagine could interact, because of overlapping scales of energy consideration, in everything that is interacting throughout all of the realities of the entirety. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.

And I do keep saying the word "intent" more frequently because I've come to appreciate more just how much having the idea of "Elemental Intent" can be beneficial to your basic, effective philosophy. So just let me quickly illustrate what I mean by "Elemental Intent."

One essential intent is the idea of zero. Can, and does, zero ever really exist? And the answer to that is "well, it depends. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no." But, and as you might guess, it is, in fact an essential aspect of having a good cosmological model, and you need that, in my opinion, to have a decent, effective philosophy (I also think imaginary numbers are necessary intents, crazy as the idea of the square root of negative one is in any ordinary, intuitive sense). But let us continue.

The idea of magnetic north, and magnetic south, are both absolutely necessary intents. And those intents are very specific: North must avoid other Norths, but seek out other Souths. And South must avoid other Souths, but also seek out other Norths. Now, what exactly is the difference between North and South? They are orientations, which are another intent by the way, which are the result of the relative movements of particular "objects"

But let's get to the real meat here. Do "objects" ever really exists? Well of course they do, but then sometimes they don't, because it really, really, does depend. On so many things relative to so many other things. And "boundary?" It has to exist as an intent too, but it also has to be just probabilistic enough so that things can be, universally, semi permeable; so that information can leak back and forth, and up and around, and all about, all of the angles one could ever imagine.

And the real problem for me, certainly, is understanding the process that mediates these more basic intents, because there has to be one or I wouldn't be here to type the question of it in the first place, nor you there to read it.

And so I created the basic intent of there being a singular thing, and the basic intent of there being the thing that had to be based on the waves of the analogue, as well as on the idea that the analogue is there only because many encapsulated groups of other processes are making them happen, but doing that from another frame, or scale, of reference, allowing for the information to come through to our immediate, experiencial, frame of reference, as a multiplex of such waves. Waves that also have to be thought of in the context of the body because it is the body, and its complete electrochemical, nervous system, that first gets all of our interface with physical meaning space, so how could it be otherwise.

It also doesn't hurt that you can go back to the more simple notion of the "Elemental Embrace," which is simply the need to come together, and exchange, for which to sum up the what the rubbing, somewhere, does to create all of those "Giga Wiggles."

You then have to only throw in the one other fundamental of importance, which is choice itself, of course, to seal what ought to be a pretty easy bargain; because we truly have demonstrated that energy can be understood as being described in either of, what do you know, the same two fundamentals: the singular quanta, or the wave, depending, naturally now, on how you chose to do the testing.

In all of this, it is really, really hard for me to see how you could not have a meaning processor (whether biologic in origine or not) involved in your cosmology, and still have it be capable of creating self sustaining iteration. Any more than you can have so much based on relativity and not make provision for the observer you need to be relative to; you know, the one who would have to have the same meaning system as you, so the two observations could be done with the same referencing system.

I am writing this in reference to the linked article below because, not only does it just blow me away that you could, conceivably (because I want to be clear that this must remain a philosophical discussion, for an idea that might be useful to us. For a while at least, until a better idea comes along, which it inevitably will), be in an existential frame of reference where all causality, as physics has ordinarily known it, would break down, so that you no longer had a past, and any future would be possible; not only does that blow me away, but it also reminds me that physics as we know it isn't dealing nearly enough with the whys, and wherefores, of how we get, and make use of, information, as biologically created, meaning processors, and what that then does, if one is really honest, to what one then concludes is the way the Cosmos itself works.

In other words, in my opinion, they just aren't appreciating just how fundamental we are in making energy, or matter, possible in the first place (hence their ignoring the whole reality that whole body experience information can, and does, transfer across what might seem like impossible borders, because, if it didn't how could there be the phenomenon of savant). How could things that I have never had the actual life experience for, suddenly express themselves whole and complete; even if they were in very narrow contexts some times. They've ignored it, just as they have ignored the possibility that we can perceive giga wiggles from quite afar, and far beyond what we ordinarily consider as senses (eyes, and ears, and what our hands can touch at the moment); because here it can be a multiplicity of wiggles, forming complex associations, into codecs we simply don't fully understand yet; precisely because translating them to any of the other, word oriented, mind space codecs, is damn hard. And I should know because I've been trying to learn how to do it for going on 50 years now at least.

Said one more way, just as they give lip service to the "uncertainty" principle, so do they also seem to forget that there is no escaping their own involvement in what they seek to measure, and test. Because the simple fact of the matter is this: The further afield you go in looking into things farther from the scale of reference of your own reality, which would be into either the deepest realms of sub, sub atomic, or the farthest reaches of grander scale, in galaxy clusters, or other, larger dimensions outside of our reality, the more you entangle yourself, and the instrumentality you chose to use, with the way you chose to use it, into the mix of what you get back for results. And there will never, ever be any way you will be able to escape that. Which is why, at some point, you will be forced to face whether you can embrace faith or not, because it will come down to that. It is, in fact, already starting to come down to that.

The really bottom line here is this: I may well not be right about this whole structure I have created, but I am pretty sure I am asking some very important questions. I can only hope it intrigues you to learn more about this stuff, and to start asking your own questions about it.

Some Black Holes Erase Your Past and Give You Unlimited Futures


See Also:
[Post Note: Professor Davies presents his case as a "Closed Loop," but we all know that what he may well likely be talking about, in the larger sense, is "Self Sustaining Iteration."

Perhaps, at some point, people can come to realize that, just as a "nucleus system" in an atom must have its own sense of gravity, and inertia, and relativistic mass, so also must ideas themselves, biological systems, or even social systems. And it is all, ultimately, based on the meaningful elements inside, and the meaningful connections they have. And the fact that, with this resolved meaning, does it then create its own curvature of causality and effect so that it can maintain itself as a self sustaining, iterative process.

At least, that's how I see it. J.V.]

A closed loop


[Main Text Change Note Detail: 

1. This paragraph:
After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?
Has been changed to :
After forced into becoming a process guy (just a different way of saying systems analyst), it was inevitable (slowly, and floundering away at times as well), that I would ultimately stumble on to this. The fact that gravity is the necessary result, of meaningful interaction, because there has to be the thing that brings it back around to the circle (or loop, if you will) of process it also, must necessarily be; else how could it possibly iterate in the first place?

2.  This paragraph: 
Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference and, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within that other frame of reference. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.

has been changed to:

Ah, but is it gravity in one frame of reference or, say, inertia in another, or relativistic mass in another still? Or whatever, other aggregate, that has been encapsulated within whatever other frames of reference you might imagine could interact, because of overlapping scales of energy consideration, in everything that is interacting throughout all of the realities of the Entirety. And "meaningful interaction?" What are you talking about there? Well, I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what makes the intent of "object" possible in the first place, and why would there be energy to make the "objects" want to interact at all? And what about the absolutely necessary intent of "boundary" possible in the first place, because, obviously, they are all so relative.



J.V.]











Monday, February 26, 2018

Conceiving Decisions

This will likely be one of the most ongoing, most difficult, of examples of trying to find balance between two, very real, and important, competing rights; because in this both can have compelling cases to argue.

So let's be clear. The rights of the individual here, in this most personal of life impacting choices, of making a life come into being, has to be sacrosanct to a very great degree. How can it be otherwise, other than the most dire of existential threats to the species itself; and even then, one has to wonder, if you couldn't argue it a little further, morally, to think: if we can't get this most basic of individual choice ability right, and still not find balance? Maybe that's just not a rule system that was meant to survive at all.

That is my bias speaking of course because I was born centered on Mother Earth. And I love her deeply, but I was also born to know that there has to be counterbalance, always. And you can't give the individual such power without also allowing the individual great leeway in the choice of its use. And if the mistakes of the many (however "the many" were either directing themselves, or being directed) in making social choices have left the individual nothing but chaos within which to make conceiving decisions in, then, who is really to blame?

I say all of that as preamble because I also understand, quite clearly, that sometimes an individual's life does not, in a very special sense, belong to them any more. It belongs to the needs of the many. That is why I write to you now, in a 20 by 15 room (approximately), that I rent from my friend Kathleen. A room that contains all of my remaining worldly possessions. Because that is all my SSI income allows me to afford. And because to do anything else with all of the things that I could have made money with would have been ignoring that dictum. Which, of course, is why I was an idiot to take this whole thing on in the first place, but then, it seems there is also the significant possibility that this was already in motion, precisely because of the chaos that went into the conceiving decision that made me. Otherwise, how could all of the, seemingly impossible things, that have happened, exactly as they had to happen, in order to get me to be able to, possibly, describe it to you. Which is also why this has been at least as difficult for me as it may be now for you (with all of the both philosophical change proposed, as well as the social, and economic change proposed).

In any case, though, we are, ultimately, talking about conceiving decisions, but also the greater social, economic, and political environment, in which those decisions are made, or forced, upon both sides of the conceiving equation; and in this I'm not talking necessarily about either the "male, female side" of that equation, or the "needs of the many, opposed to the needs of the one", on the other, of that equation, but both at the same time.

Which leads me then to our Mr. Gates here and the wonder if he really understands another dictum: "Don't ask questions about things you don't really want to the hear the answers to." Because in this you really must question the larger frame of reference.

He thinks, in my opinion, that he's found an interesting relationship: If you help people keep being healthy (staying alive) you actually seem to have them make, overall, better "Overpopulation problem" decisions. Gosh Mr. Gates, I wonder why that could be. Perhaps that's its making for a good deal less chaos generally; that those involved can then can make better conceiving decisions, whether that's making less, or making more if they want to, because they can, and have the means, and they love each other, and... Wow, what if maybe they even had the expectation that they could then have children who would also have care, but also a stable growing environment, that their parents were deeply involved in providing; sometimes actually helping to teach with the other community's parents, to do the kind of learning that would both excite their children to learn more, but also let them see how they were needed, so that they too could help make the community go... And... And...

Ok. So that's why you can see how a crazy old dreamer can go off the deep end sometimes with his crazy visions of how things might be... You know... If only.

What I am trying to get at here, though, is that it is unlikely that Mr. Gates truly understands the full complexity of what it would mean to truly enable everyone to make not only good conceiving decisions, but good parenting decisions, as well as good decisions once you are an individual, out on your own, given whatever heritage, and/or social norms, and aspirations, to do what one ought to do that would serve good balance. Something that would give both sides what they need, as well as a little extra, once in a while, to make it all worthwhile. Something that makes sense. And something that feels right. And for that you do, truly, need to ask revolutionary questions now. Because if you aren't you are doing no better than our well intentioned philanthropist here, thinking that it's just the proper investment, in the proper service industry, or new technology, that will do the trick, for a very limited view, of a much much bigger problem.

GOOD QUESTION


Contrary to what you might think, improving medicine and healthcare environments do not lead to overpopulation. In fact, it's the opposite.

See Also:
[Post Note: And here do we see exactly what our poor, well intended Philanthropist, misses altogether; that economics, and politics, and inequality of outcomes, have to be revolutionary questions now because it really does matter as to the individual's ability to make good choices. How could it be otherwise; especially to matters of what you seek to do with socialization in the first place; because if all you are looking for is just obedient minions to carry out your dictates than perhaps good choice makers isn't such a big deal. But if you want folks who can really be there to provide value added to getting anything actually done, as well as for providing for that extra bit that makes life the engaging wonder it should be, you do really need good choice makers. And since getting something done now actually involves saving the planet... Well, I think any of you can do that math. J.V.]


MONEY ON THE MIND

Contrary to the refrain that bad decisions lead to poverty, data indicate that it is the cognitive toll of being poor that leads to bad decisions. And actually, decisions that may seem counterproductive could be entirely rational, even shrewd.





Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Bigger Contrast That Should Be Involved Here, When You Look At This Guy

It relates to an experiment that was conducted on monkeys. This had to be at least four or five decades ago at least.

The experiment involved simply wanting to see what difference there would be when monkeys have various kinds of limited social interaction; and we're talking about real body contact social interaction here because primates are just naturally, physically contact oriented, with each other as a subgroup of mammals; and with this varied deprivation conducted over the actual, formative years of the monkey, from infant, to near adult.

As you might imagine now, the results were as strikingly heartbreaking, as they were informative, as to just how important such basic upbringing contact was. And, as I think back on that, I also think, looking at this guy, that he's a terrifying, warped expression, of what a whole lot of integral, meaningful physical, and mental contact, gone missing, can leave a supposed human being with. And when you look at that, you also have to understand that we all, as a society, have at least some responsibility for the fact that we seem to be producing more such, "missing a lot," individuals.

And we have to remember now, that this is both because coming to a consensus on anything is hard enough these days, let alone a consensus on how you would ever go about creating a better way to socialize our men, as well as our women.

As well as to remember that, even as we try to keep these very difficult issues at the forefront, we must also answer what ought to be planetary wide klaxon horns; blaring out over every vicinity, at ear bleeding decibels. "We are killing our living biom. We are killing the miracle that billions of years of evolution took to create; as well as many thousands of years of suffering, and deprivation, us ultimate meaning processors had to go through, to give thought, as well as heart, a chance to be involved in the further miracle of choice itself."

And now that miracle of choice. And that miracle of life that created the possibility of choice makers in the first place, is in your hands. All of your hands. Each and every one of you out there in the infosphere, or wherever else. What will you do with it?

Tipster told FBI that Florida shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz was ‘going to explode’



See Also:
THE TERRIBLE TWOS


Over the last 20 years, that two-degree threshold has been referenced in policies and agreements made by the Council of the European Union, the G8 (now the G7), and more. So what makes two degrees so important?



THIS POTOO SHALL PASS


"The rainforest is filled with amazing living things, but experts say we're losing 137 different species every day."







Thursday, February 22, 2018

What We Need Now Is The Follow On, Much Larger, Earth To Moon Transfer Station

A station that would also, most likely, be at a considerably higher orbit. The one that would marshall all of the "one launch pod per hour, twenty four, seven, output that my Hypertube, suspended, underwater, launch system would allow us to not only build the transfer station, and maintain it, but also then forward the beginning supply stream that will make the first of many City Habitats on the moon possible.  And the thing is, we must have faith in the idea that, if we change our economic dynamic, we can approach this necessity as managing the effort it will take to do, as opposed to the more abstract idea that it is all just cost, out of someone's pocket, paying another for profit contractor to do what we all must be involved in; directly, or indirectly, because that will be one of the key components that will decide if we can keep this planet livable, or not.

This also seems very straightforward to me. You do this or not only do and yours perish, the rest of billions of years of evolution perish with you. Absolutely unacceptable, in my book, but that's just another one of my biases I guess.

The ISS was never supposed to end like this







What, Who, and How, Do We Decide What We Talk About, As A Society?

Assuming, of course, that our goal is to still preserve a society that has worked out what it means to agree to what will now be our norms of social behavior; the social contract as they say. A complex set of things that we've agreed to because it makes sense for one and all, because that's what you have to have in order to have any semblance of hope for preserving Democracy. Because, certainly, you can do all sorts of versions of imposition of order, incentivized by the pointy end, of much more pointy sticks, these days. And any fool can see how unbalanced that has always been.

I ask this now because I was struck by a snippet of a trailer making the rounds now for Bruce Willis's new movie, "Death Wish". In this snippet is, what one could suppose to be any of the usual DJ, BlogJ, VideoJ, or any other jockeys one might now imagine. And he is talking about, of course, the Willis character's (talking the reins from venerable Charles Bronson) vigilante actions. And don't panic here, because I don't want to talk about that topic in particular right at the moment.

It's what this supposed DJ says, or I should say, a prefacing statement he makes, before the trailer cuts to all of the things they think you need to see be sufficiently titillated to see more. And that statement is: "It's all over the web now so we have to talk about it."

When I heard that statement it immediately brought up two related considerations; each automatically suggesting the other.

First: Just because something is "all over the web," does that mean it not only automatically demands our attention, but also our involvement? Just because it's "all over the web?"

And then, juxtaposing that should be the other side of that question: Just because something isn't all over the web, does that mean it doesn't demand our attention, as well as our involvement?

This is where I get confused. It seems pretty straightforward to me that, given how confusing it's become to work any kind of lasting political consensus lately, an intelligent person would want to take a step back and start putting a great deal more concern into the question that is this post's title.

I think, and I make no bones of the fact, that this is, indeed, my bias; I think that a good portion of the problem here is the commercial, commoditize everything, dynamic, that personifies, the now mutated thing that we still call Capitalism. The commercial dynamic that puts "net gain" as the primary motivator so that it becomes inevitable that everything you see, feel, hear, read, or otherwise get washed through with, is suspect for whether its giving you anything, even remotely related to, what you really need. All without much suspicion at all that a few will probably be getting a great deal more of what they have come to believe they need; which are counters. And this is so because, no matter how, ultimately ephemeral, these counters really are, if you control enough synthetic ware you can make them do amazing things. And that's just the money motive itself. On top of that you also have the human weakness for God King, Dictator, Pharo, War Lord, or whatever other term you want to put to authoritarian social orders.

And of course, it is a human weakness. Both on the side of the individual being tempted into it, as well as on the side of, whatever percentage of us, that actually doesn't want to be fully responsible for themselves, or the bigger picture; which requires learning, and thought, and participation in leading, to be able to take that responsibility on. And for some of us it can be quite enough to just have others tell you what to do, give you order, and a set of rules to follow. And it can be surprising just how bad such systems can get before even these folks are made to feel that enough is enough.

 This really does seem like basic stuff to me, but maybe that's part of the problem. It's one of those "Gosh darn it. No wonder I didn't see it. It was right in front of me" kind of things that everybody excels at, to one degree or another. Whatever it is we better get over it quickly. Not making a choice, or what you want to think is not making a choice, is, in fact, making a choice. Continuing to do nothing but business as usual is a choice. A very bad choice. Remembering, of course, that I am biased in this.

See Also:
[Post Note: You see how the temptation for going back to old, unbalanced, authoritarianism, can reassert itself so easily. J.V.]
A NEW KIND OF FASCISM

Italy’s CasaPound has been central to normalising fascism again in the country of its birth. Now they’re trying to enter parliament.






Monday, February 19, 2018

If These Tragically Motivated Young Folks Find Success In This, And You Have To Hope That They Do

They will have achieved what working people as a group may well have to achieve, here in the not so distant future at all. Namely that they too will have to seize control of the economic debate, perform massive work walkouts, and march in solidarity with each other as much as they can. It might end up being the only thing that makes it clear to the wealthy few that business as usual is over.

And as far as the gun issue itself is concerned, let's be clear: You can't get rid of guns (any more than you can get rid of drugs); nor should you even want to try. You can, however, go a hell of a lot further in making sure that only sane, reasonably well adjusted individuals have quick access to them. And each community can make up its own mind as to what types of weapons to limit, and how they go about doing the limiting; understanding that coordinating these efforts with other communities only makes good sense (which is why we need to completely revamp weapons tracking so that we at least know who is having a problem with their share of limiting harm). That way we can negotiate better ways of doing harm limitation; ways everybody can live with.

Let's also be clear here that this is, in its essence, a statement of what government is supposed to be involved with. Something you can state fairly easily as the following: Government does a very bad job of trying to legislate against either stupidity, or mental illness, or outright evil, if you want to take it that far. What government can be good at, especially if you take money out of the equation, is limiting harm. And that is the way we need to approach this issue. Just as it ought to be with our approach to drugs.

Students seize control of gun debate, plan walkouts and march



See Also:
[Post Note: This just goes to show you the beautiful nature of the young. They don't know that something can't be done, so they just go out and try to do it. And sometimes they show us just how amazingly malleable the universe can be when you believe in something meaningful; something meaningful and steeped in balance. J.V.]
FEEL LIKE I'M LIVING A GREEN-AGE DREAM


High-schoolers are planning a climate march on Washington — but that's just the beginning.


[Post Note: This, of course, is what I'm talking about as far as all workers are concerned; whether you are hourly, or salaried. Whether you are a public, or private sector worker. This is what you are going to have to come to terms with doing, but on a much, much more massive scale nationwide. It may well be the only way we get them to take us seriously. J.V.]
COLLECTIVE ACTION IN ACTION


Today marks the third day of the largest strike of public school employees in West Virginia's history.



THE ONLINE GENERATION HAS ARRIVED


The pro-Trump media chose a political enemy effectively born onto the internet and innately capable of waging an information war.


California’s Tough Gun Laws Make Trafficking Illegal Firearms A Lucrative Business, Former Smuggler Says






Saturday, February 17, 2018

Here's An Interesting Conjecture, That Just Occurred To Me, Concerning Adding Ice To The Poles

Let's, just for the moment, say that it is more than just possible for me to create vast forests of lighter than air, lift doughnut supported, stacks of carbon fiber, tethering tube socks. Each one then a combined support column that would have X amount of carrying capacity, at whatever is the practical sweet spot, of highest lighter than air altitude. Where X is, of course, how big you are willing to make each lift doughnut; keeping in mind that, as you rise in altitude, you must also increase in size to allow for the greater displacement that's required to float anything, in a new pressure relationship.

So far, what I've been proposing is that we simply lay linked sheets of both reflective material, as well as some ratio of solar collectors as well, across these forests of supports, to reflect sunlight, and provide power for other options. Well, another option just occurred to me.

Some of you have probably already connected the dots here on what might also be possible, but I'm going to pass this along anyway. And keep in mind, also, that this next bit might be stretching things beyond purest credulity, because it will certainly be asking a lot for lighter than air technology to do; which is why we will really need to be creative here in thinking through how we might make this work. But enough with the caveats.

What I was thinking about is essentially this: How do we set up something of a conveyor belt system, of sorts, that would haul figurative buckets of ocean water up, to, again, the highest height we could practically achieve; let the water freeze up at that higher level, and then let the weight of the, now ice blocks, help continuously with the effort to bring up more seawater, as the blocks go back to the surface to be more of the ice we really need there?

Even if we had to augment with powered lift doughnuts, providing continuous electric fan powered thrust to do so, as well as connected Dirigible Blimp, Airtrain units, to provide additional electrical power, as well as lift support, wouldn't it be worth the effort? And with whatever mix of elements, Couldn't we still say that it was being done with solar power (because it will be wind turbine power that will create the hydrogen that the Airtrain units will run on), a significant part of which, at least, would be collected on surrounding, lift column supported, collector mats?

Think about it. Think about what other really creative things we could do to turn the warming around if we could be, all of us, really focused on it, and empowered to make magic happen. Because if we do do this in the right, inclusive way, magic will happen. I can feel it in my bones, wild dreamer or not.






Friday, February 16, 2018

It May Not Be The Best Plan, But It May Well Be The Best Plan Narrowing Options Are Likely To Give Us In The Time We Have Left

Both sides have to understand something very important:

Even  as it takes the Many to Make The Few,

It also takes the Few To Make The Many.

As we seek better ways to, in a very integral sense, grow our children up, as we do so, the process seems to (or I have always felt ought to) also have them growing us up a bit more as a result, as well. Assuming, of course, that we have it in our power to provide, with some assurance of stability, the basics that make life not only possible, but bearable as well; and by bearable I mean both in a practical sense, but also in the sense that how we're doing it feels right; precisely because we're trying to do right with each other, in meaningful ways; working it out locally so we can negotiate our own best path by actually talking to one another as an integral part of, everyday working life. And then going that extra step, once we get the training in, in trying to shift around in what needs to be done, so that we can all get a better idea of the full reality, of what it takes to make a practical, and caring, community happen.

I understand. This may well be the rantings of an idealistic dreamer, but still... I have to tell you that it feels right... Right to somebody whose continued existence was made possible by, whether he understood he was doing so or not, following the best balance he could between two opposites in his personality he wasn't even aware he had, to its fullest extent at least, till fairly recently. A balance that ultimately made him create a philosophy he had no idea would become so complete (however relative you might consider complete).

I made this approach to an alternative be designed as it is because it both felt right, and because it makes the best practical sense, that we're ever likely to be able to make, given the two, both terribly intimidating, challenges we have to face now, and our narrowing options because of time

Capitalism is broken. It simply does not work correctly in an electrified environment.

In twenty years, or even less, the temperature of this planet may well tip over a point we will never be be able to recover from. Understanding that it is both because of not only unresolved Capitalist, unpaid, full life cycle costs, of all the things done as a part of the, very real material, and technological development, it created; but that it is also because we are so many now as well; and always making more.

Because of these two main realities, we must mobilize now. Just as if this were a more traditional attack on our physical being. The problem there, however, is that to do such a mobilization, without first also addressing the existing inequality of outcomes we have in place, would be risking a great deal of internal, social turmoil, just when we need further distractions like we need more holes in our heads.

I think my approach to, what is basically just us running our own communities, is the way to address this because we would go into the change by doing a super employee buyout of everything. By which we, and I mean working people, as well as salaried, up to millions a year (it's all negotiable you know), would then be able to run things, temporarily, as a completely managed, super single payer, corporate/government entity; of which, of course we would all the shareholders of.

In this scenario everybody just keeps doing what they were doing starting out. We figure out what a minimum living wage is and we implement it. From then on, no matter what you are employed doing, you will get what the job should pay as the minimum wage, but with the difference being made up by the new Federation Government as your payment to yourself for the bond you took out, on your own credit, for this very, super buyout, purpose.

We then try to streamline everything we do as a consumptive nation.

We get rid of marketing because we won't need it anymore. We can choose as regions and city states what we want to make basic in bulk, and with automation as well, for what, we can figure out, that it will take to meet majority decided, branding translations, to what will be a necessarily limited lists of choices. At least until we get more of the commons set up where all community instrumentality, as well as the full rights of materials utilization each person's share of participation would allow, so that the individual could then make whatever desired end use item, need or fancy, might prompt them to make in their more generously available free time.

We get rid of excessive packaging because we won't need that anymore, either.

We rationalize, completely, all energy creation, and delivery, into a new mix of what still works best, environmentally, with conversion to hydrogen as the ultimate staple fuel; delivered without the unnecessary, high tension, overhead transmission systems we have now; preserving an outdated model of centralized production, to provide for the demand.

We rationalize, once and for all, and make more efficient, our healthcare system; using the Federation government to help rethink how each locality can help, each other locality, treat people exactly as they need to be treated, with true local care and involvement, but with information always organized so that we can keep track of important developments, as well as to aid in the development of new, and/or more effective treatments (and again, it can be negotiated).

We reform the military into only four main groupings (Fleet -- all main waterborne, and airborne, offensive and defensive assets; Mobile Infantry -- all main ground combat assets, including close air support, and immediate mobile placement assets; Command and Control -- self explanatory, as well as Federation Rapid Response -- a combining of the existing MAC operations, Army Corp of Engineers, FEMA, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental Protection agency)

We make mandatory national service, of no less than 6 years, by everyone, starting at eighteen, and up to, say, thirty years of age (which will also be negotiable), become law. Service that would then provide a combined 3 years of Junior College, and generalized Trade School education, if that education was lacking; something that could hopefully be done in expanded, already existing, state facilities, with the training personnel being a mix of both state labor, and New Federation provided service personnel. This service would then be utilized across the full spectrum of what the revised military would be responsible for; a big part of which, of course, would be doing everything we can to plant more carbon fixers (hopefully with short grow spans), protect more ice flows at the poles, respond to natural disasters, develop, and  maintain, better, unified critical systems transportation, everywhere it is needed, as well as provide coordination, and development research, to make the production, and delivery, of hydrogen fuel, universally available.

Everybody who is already, or is then made, unemployed, and no longer eligible, for national service, would be paid the basic living wage to attend a, to be determined, comprehensive skills review, and needs requirements, education; emphasizing (hopefully) not only possible remedial work, but also providing for the possibility of growth in both hands on skills (as in the sense of tradesmen), as well as, more technical process skills, and general people management skills.

And in that, of course, the community itself will have to play the major role in determining what those, "to be determined" things are; but doing so with the confidence that the transition government would be making it a priority to marshal not only material aid, but the research, and planning aid, to help each region, and each city state, be able to plan for their individual needs, but also with an eye on how they can best mesh with the entities around it.

The point here is that we will need to strive for as many, more generally capable people as we can create, as well as as much efficiency as we can muster, so we can weather lean times that might likely be coming, and still have life be bearable as I have described it.

We must do this, however, understanding that, however much we strive for self sufficiency, we are unlikely to achieve it in full, with all city states. This means we have to accept the inherent advantage of reinvigorating (and redefining), already extensive city state, and regional, cooperation; using as imaginative a blend of ways as we can possibly think of, to share labor, materials, and knowledge, so that regional variations in ability, and resource, can be utilized as a leveraged means to "scratch each other's backs," so to speak, in new and even more helpful ways. That way we can keep critical abilities, and infrastructure, doing what they've always been doing, but with a lot more possibility of doing it a whole lot more for the general good than it has ever been done before.

None of this is an impossibility, in and of itself, but just a great deal of change, in a very short amount of time, and change of this magnitude is never easy. But there is simply nothing for it. We must take this on, and do so with the sure knowledge that it must be do or die, because I'll be damned if I can see how else we could go about doing what needs doing, and still have any hope that it could be enough to make a difference in the short few decades we have left to act; intimidating amount of change or not.

This is what is essentially your call now. Whether to take this on or not. Whether to demand that current institutions and parties acknowledge this as the most probable way to start leading the rest of the world in helping us do everything that can be done to keep more carbon from going into our atmosphere; get more carbon out; and protect every part of our polar ice cap we can; and then perhaps branching out to shade cities, as well as whole swaths of arable land at, or near the equator; doing it so it can not only work the carbon problem more, but because it will help other people find their own best bearable balance of the practical, and the meaningful. So that their hands are just as energetically, and imaginatively engaged in finding, and working solutions as ours are.


See Also:
[Post Note: Since having generally more capable people would be every community's goal, we would be in a much better position to do what this next link makes quite clear we should do. J.V.]
HEALTHY, WEALTHY AND WISE


Yes, worldwide education rates have gone up, but we still have a very long way to go.


[Post Note: Developments like this one could go a long way towards making individual city states nearly self sufficient in food production, without taking huge swaths of land. J.V.]
FRANKENSTEIN'S MEAT


Soon enough, burgers will grow not just in fields, but in vats. If the sound of that bothers you, know that you're not alone.