【フリーゲームPV】落ち物パズル EnergeticBlocks

Help us caption and translate this video on Amara.org: http://www.amara.org/en/v/BmHM/

自作ゲームの紹介です。
四角を作って消す落ち物パズル。

ダウンロードはこちらから
http://linoalblog.wordpress.com/works/

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://amara.org/v/BmHM/

[Clapping]

Thank you.

Hello,

my name is Frankie.

I work also with an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement as you already know.

And I’d like to welcome everybody right here and from far and wide,

everybody that [has] come,

thank you very much.

I’d like to take this opportunity to especially thank the teams of the Zeitgeist movement:

teams meeting,

the linguistic tem,

the web team,

the technology team,

the activism team,

and also of course the project team that coordinated this project right here.

The whole German chapter did a huge great job with establishing this event right here within a month,

so I’d like to thank everybody personally and good to see you here.

I think Peter Joseph [doesn’t] need any introduction,

I think everybody knows right here who he is,

so short and precise,

thank you and I hand the mic over to Peter.

[Clapping]

And you can turn this mic off because I’m not going to use it.

(It’s off)

Ah,

so it’s the other…hi!

[Laughing]

How’s everybody doing?

[General Muffled Response]

I really appreciate you all being here and I want to thank Frankie and the Berlin team for moving so fast,

its really phenomenal having put on many events myself over the years,

it’s not an easy task.

And I’m always reminded when I travel these days that the Zeitgeist movement is truly a global phenomenon at this stage.

Right?

And no matter where any of us end up on the planet you don’t have to go very far to find friends who share similar values and this pursuit of a better world.

The title of this talk is “Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / Resource-Based Economy.” For the past fire years or so,

the Zeitgeist Movement has put out quite a bit of educational media with respect to it’s advocation and the learning curve has been rather intense and their’s been a tendency to generalize with respect to how things actually work technically.

This is the content of this presentation and in part one and two I’m going to refine the inherent flaws of the current market model regarding why we need to change along with relaying the vast prospects we now have to solve vast problems,

improve efficiency and generate a form of abundance that could meet that couple meet all human needs.

The active term which has gained a good deal of popularity in the past couple of years is called “post-scarcity” even though that word is a little bit misleading semantically as I’ll explain.

And in part three I will work to show how this new society generally works in its structure and basic calculation.

I think most people on the planet know that there is something very wrong with the current socio-economic condition,

they just don’t know how to think about the solution or,

accurately,

how to arrive at such solutions.

And until that is addressed,

we’re not going to get very far.

And on that note,

in a number of months,

a rather substantial text is going to put into circulation,

available for free and also in print form or download format at cost.

It’s a nonprofit expression.

This will be finished hopefully by the first of the year and this will be the definitive expression,

at least in the condensed form of the movement.

Something that’s been long overdue.

It’s called “The Zeitgeist Movement Defined” and it will serve as both an orientation and a reference guide,

and we’ll have probably over a thousand footnotes and sources.

Once finished,

an educational video series will be put out in about 20 parts to reduce the material,

along with a workbook to help people who want to learn to talk about these ideas because we basically need more people on a international level to be able to communicate as I try to do.

It’s a very important thing and I think the movement,

basically the future of the movement I should say rests in part on our capacity to create a well oiled international education machine with consistent language coupled with real design projects and interworkings.

Part 1:

So why are we even here?

Is this type of large scale change,

what the movement advocates,

really needed?

Can’t we just work to fix and improve the current economic model,

keeping the general framework of money,

trade,

profit,

power,

property,

and the like?

The short answer is a definitive no,

as I’m going to explain.

If there is any real interest to solve the growing public health and environmental crises at hand this system needs to go.

Market capitalism,

no matter how you wish to regulate it or not regulate it depending on who you speak with,

contains severe structural flaws which will always to one degree or another perpetuate (a) environmental abuse and destabilization,

and (b) human disregards and caustic inequality.

Put another way,

environmental and social imbalance and a basic lack of sustainability both environmentally and culturally is inherent to the market economy and it always has been.

The difference between capitalism today and say the 16th century is that our technological ability to rapidly accelerate and amplify this market process has brought to the surface consequences which simply couldn’t be understood or even recognized during those early,

primitive times.

In other words,

the basic principles of market economics have always been intrinsically flawed.

It has taken just this long for the severity of those flaws to come to fruition.

So let me explain a little bit,

from an environmental standpoint,

market perception simply cannot view the earth as anything but an inventory for exploitation.

Why?

Because the entire existence of the market economy has to do with keeping money in circulation at a rate which can keep as many people employed as possible.

In other words,

the world economy is powered by constant consumption.

If consumption levels drop,

so does labor demand.

And so does the available purchasing power of the general population and hence so does demand for goods as money isn’t there to buy them.

This cyclical consumption is the life blood of our economic existence and the very idea of being conservative or truly efficient with the earth’s finite resources in any way is structurally counter productive to this needed driving force of consuming.

And if you don’t believe that,

ask yourself why virtually every life system on this planet is in decline.

We have a ongoing lost of top soil,

ever depleting fresh water,

atmospheric and climate destabilization,

aß loss of oxygen prodding plankton in the ocean,

which is critical to marine and atmospheric ecology,

the ongoing depletion of the fish population,

the reduction of rain forests,

and so forth.

In other words,

an overall general loss of critical biodiversity is occurring and increasing.

And for those not familiar with the critical relevance of bio-diversity,

billions of years of evolution has created a vastly interdependent biosphere of planetary systems and disturbing one system always has an effect on many others.

And this of course is no new observation,

in 2002 192 countries in association with the United Nations got together around something called the Convention on Biological Diversity and they made a public commitment to significantly reduce this loss by 2010.

And what changed eight years later?

Nothing.

In their official 2010 publication they state:

“None of the twenty one sub-targets accompanying the overall target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity by 2010 can be said definitively to have been achieved globally.” “Actions to promote…biodiversity receive a tiny fraction of funding compared to infrastructure and industrial development.” Hmm,

I wonder why?

“Moreover,

biodiversity considerations are often ignored when such developments are designed…Most future scenarios project continuing high levels of extinctions and loss of habitats though out this century.”

In a 2011 study published which was in part a response to a overall general call to isolate and protect certain regions to insure some security of this bio-diversity,

found that,

even with millions of square kilometers of land and ocean currently under legal protection,

if has done very little to slow the trend of decline.

They also made the following highly troubling conclusion,

“Combining this trend with the state of our resource consumption,

the access use of the earth’s resources or overshoot is possible because resources can be harvested faster then they can be replaced.

The cumulative overshoot from the mid a980’s to 2002 resulted in an ‘ecological debt’ that would require 2.5 planet earth’s to pay.

In a business as usual scenario,

our demands on the planet Earth could mount to the productivity of 27 planets by 2050.”

And there’s no shortage of other corroborating studies that confirm to one degree or another [that] we are indeed greatly overshooting the annual production capacity of the earth,

couple with pollution and collateral destruction caused by industrial and consumer patterns.

Again,

this kind-of research has been published for many decades now and why is it that with all this mounting data we can’t seem to curb life support depletion and our overshooting consumption trends?

is it because there are too many people on the planet?

Is it because we’re just utterly incompetent and have no conscious control over our actions?

No.

The problem is that we have a global economic tradition still in place rooted in 16th century pre-industrial handicraft oriented thought that places the act of consuming,

buying and selling as the core driver of all social unfolding.

The best analogy I cant think of is to consider the gas pedal on a car,

the more consumption of fuel,

the faster it goes,

and buying things in our world is the fuel.

If you slow down the consumption economic growth slows,

people lose jobs,

purchasing power declines and things become destabilized and so forth.

So I hope it is clear that the system simply does not reward or even support environmental sustainability in the form of conservation.

In fact,

it doesn’t even reward sustainability in the form of any kind of earthly or physical efficiency as I will talk more at length of in a moment.

Instead it rewards servicing,

turn over and waste,

the more problems and inefficiencies we have,

not to mention the more insecure materialistic needy the population becomes,

the better it is for industry,

the better it is for GDP,

the better is for employment regardless of the fact that we may literally be killing ourselves in the process.

My friend John McMurchy,

a philosopher in Canada refers to this state as the “Cancer Stage of Capitalism,” a system which is now destroying it’s host,

us and the earth,

almost unknowingly because very few today really understand how unsustainable the core driving principles of the market really are.

The second structurally inherent consequence I want to mention is the fact that market capitalism is indeed empirically socially destabilizing,

it creates unnecessary and inhumane inequality along with resulting unnecessary humane conflict.

In fact I would say capitalism’s most natural state is conflict and imbalance.

And I would categorize two forms of the conflict in the world:

national and class.

I’m not going to spend much time on the causes on national warfare as it should be fairly obvious to most of us at his point.

Sovereign nations which are in part protectionist institutions for the most powerful forces of business have often engaged in the most primal act of competition,

systematic mass murder,

in order to preserve the economic integrity of their national economies and select business interests which invariably comprise the political constituency of any given country.

All wars in history,

while often conveniently masked by various excuses,

have predominately been about land,

natural resources,

or economic strategy on one level or another.

The state institution has always been driven by commercial and property interests,

existing as both a regulator of the basic day to day internal economic operations in the form of legislation and as a tool for power consolidation,

and competitive advantage by the most dominant industries of the national or even,

in fact more importantly,

global economy.

And of course there are many people in the world that still look at this causality in reverse,

in some economic views,

state government is deemed thee central problem,

as opposed to the self interest and competitive advantage seeking ethos inherent to market capitalism.

As the argument goes,

if state power removed or reduced dramatically,

the market in society would be free of most of it’s negative effects.

The problem with this argument is that it forgets that capitalism is just a variation of a scarcity drive specialization and property based exchange system.

A system which actually goes back millennia in one form or another.

Early settlements naturally needed to protect themselves as resource and land acquisition moved forward over time.

Armies were created to protect resources from invading forces and the like.

At the same time people were working to engage agriculture and handicraft and it revealed labor and exchange value in a very primitive form.

Hence property value,

in the midst of this scarcity,

demanded regulation and laws.Not to protect property,

but to protect commerce and also avoid scams and fraud in transactions.

This is the seed of the state! The market is a game and people can can cheat,

you need regulation.

This is the basic problem.

The market also allows,

and hears the punchline,

that regulation to be purchased by money.

Therefore there is no guaranteed integrity.

The state and the market both battle each other and compliment each other.

You will always have regulatory power centers in a market economy.

The state and the market are inseparable,

[they] go hand and hand.

Now,

as an aside,

people often challenge this reality with moral or ethical arguments,

which,

I’m sorry to say,m are entirely culturally subjective.

In a world where everything is for sale,

where the reward reinforcement,

the operant condition,

is directly tied to seeking personal advantage and gain,

who is to say where the lines should be drawn in that process.

This is why moral principles,

without structural reinforcement,

are useless.

In the end,

the question isn’t what is morally right or morally wrong,

the question is what works and what doesn’t.

And sometimes is takes a great deal of time for the truth of such patterns to materialize.

For example,

most people rightly so see abject human slavery historically as a morally wrong condition,

but lets dig deeper into the characteristics and think more deeply.

I think it much more productive to recognize that slavery didn’t work in the sense that it was culturally unsustainable.

Bigotry in all forms is not just ugly,

it is culturally unsustainable because it generates conflict.

I’m not aware of any slave owning society that did not undergo large slave rebellions,

its unstable and again,

therefore,

unsustainable.

And Market capitalism is on the same path,

there are more slaves in the world today,

operating within the bounds of the market system then anytime in human history.

And I have little doubt that if we get through this rough period of time without destroying ourselves with war,

uprisings,

or ecological collapse,

people in the future will look back at our world today with the same disgust that regarding our human rights violating system as we today look back upon the period of abject human slavery.

Class Warfare.

This leads us well into the subject of class warfare and socio-economic inequality.

The long history of so called “socialist” outcry has largely been about this constant and inhumane imbalance on one level or another.

A great deal of time has been spent by many critics of capitalism,

describing how it is indeed a system of exploitation,

which inherently separates a society into stratified economic laborers with a higher class given dominance over the lower structurally,

it’s structurally built right in.

And if you’re one of those people that doesn’t agree with this reality,

ask yourself why there has been one labor strike after another in the past 300 years,

why worker unions even exist,

why CEO’s often tend to make hundreds of times more money than the common worker,

or why 46% of the world’s wealth is now owned by 1%.

Which are almost exclusively of what we could call the capitalist ownership class.

Inequality and class separation is a direct mathematical result of the market’s inherently competitive orientation which divides individuals in small groups as they work to compete against each other for survival and security.

It is entirely individualistically oriented;

driven by a core incentive system based around isolated self preservation,

assuming the need to constantly reinforce one’s security financially since the market climate,

the environment gives no certainty once so ever of well being in and of itself.

Fear and greed,

the rich get richer because the model favors them and the porter basically stay the same because this system works against them by comparison.

It is structurally classed.

Those with more money have more options and influence than those with less.

You are only as free,

as they say,

as you’re purchasing power will allow you to be.

And the credit system is perfect example.

Money is treated as nothing more than a product in the credit system,

in the banking system.

Money is sold by banks via loans for profit which comes in the form of interest.

If you miss payments of violate your contract,

often the interest rate,

does what?

It goes up because you are now consider a “higher risk” consumer.

If you fail to meet that interest or future payments,

you might default on the loan.

You’re punishment is the ruining of your credit rating or reputation in the financial circles.

And once that happens your financial flexibility is even more stifled as your economic access is limited.

People see this as just “the way things are” but they don’t realize how insidious this is.

This pounds the lower classes to stay low for reasons and forces of coercion that are built into the structure that are beyond their control.

And I could give many other examples.

Everything in this system works against you if you’re not affluent in this society and guess what,

these financial policies were created by self-interest oriented market logic,

not some politician or some government.

And I wont even go into the fact that the interest charged for the sale of money today doesn’t even exist in the money supply itself which creates a kind-of system based social coercion forcing the inevitability of credit default over time.

Along with acts of economic desperation such as selling property you’d rather would not to meet your basic needs.

Or taking labor positions,

fo course,

that you do not appreciate.

the market generates desperation as its methods of coercion.

And this leads into another very common “free-market” confusion I often see in the very popular laissez faire community,

they talk about free trade as trade that is entirely voluntary as though such a thing could ever exist in an empirical sense.

All decisions to trade come from influences and pressures.

Only perhaps the super rich,

who literally have no need to worry about basic survival due to their wealth could possibly be said to engage in the act of voluntary free trade.

For 99% of the world,

we either trade or we don’t survive.

And that pressure is empirically coercive.

And no,

it doesn’t have to be that way which is the whole point of this new social model.

So with all that aside,

and with this understanding that wealth inequality is inherent to capitalism itself,

can’t regulate it out,

the main issue I want to address here has to due with what class separation and social inequality does to us in the context of public health.

It isn’t just a simple issue of some having more than others,

then others suffering the mere material inconvenience or pressure to engage in labor or trade they’d rather not have to.

It goes way beyond that.

Socio-economic inequality is a poison,

a form of destabilizing pollution that affects people’s psychological and physiological health in profound ways.

While also very often accumulating anger towards other groups and hence that generation of social instability.

The best term that I know of that embodies this issue is “structural violence.”

If I put a gun to someone’s head,

say a 30 year old healthy male,

and pulled the trigger and kill him,

assuming an average life expectancy of say 84,

you can argue that possibly 54 years of life was stolen from that person in a direct act of violence.

However,

if a person is born into poverty in the midst of an abundant society where it is statistically proven that it would hurt no one to facilitate meeting the basic needs of that person,

yet they die at the age of 30 due to heart disease which has been found to statistically relate to those who endure this stress and effects of low socio-economic status,

is that death,

the removal of those 54 years once again,

an act of violence?

And the answer is yes,

it is.

You see our legal system has conditioned us to think that violence is a direct behavioral act,

the truth is that violence is a process,

not an act and it can take many forms.

You cannot separate any outcome from the system by which it oriented.

And again this is virtually absent from the way people think about cause and effect in a socio-economic system.

The effects of market capitalism cannot be reduced or,

I should say,

cannot be deduced logically from a local or reductionist examination.

It’s like this are working like a clock,

the market is a synergistic system,

the economy is a synergistic system,

and the behavior of the whole,

meaning large scale social consequences such as the perpetuation of inequality or violence,

can only be assessed in relationship to that whole.

This is why there has been one big dichotomy between what market theorists think is supped to happen in their world and what’s actually happening.

For example,

there is no doubt that poverty and social inequity is and has been causing a vast spectrum of public health problems.

Both in the context of absolute deprivation,

which means not having the money to simply meet up with basic needs such as nutrition,

and in the context of relative deprivation,

which is a psychological phenomenon related to the stress,

the psycho-social stress of simply living in a highly stratified society.

One of the greatest predictors of reduced public health is now to be found as social inequity,

social inequality.

If you compare developed nations by the level of wealth inequality you will find that those more equal nations have much better health then those with less equality.

This includes physical health,

mental health,

drug abuse,

educational levels,

imprisonment,

obesity,

social mobility,

trust or social capital,

community life,

violence,

teen pregnancies,

and child well being on average.

These outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

And yet,

again if you tried to reduce and analyze a single person for any of these noted public health factors,

you could never know for sure if that person is actually a victim of the psycho-stress or the absolute or relative violence condition itself.

The causality can only be understood on the large scales,

probabilistically.

Which is the importance of statistical analysis.

So,

again,

the market can only be perceived as a whole to gage the truth of its effects.

This is why our legal system,

of course,

is so base and primitive.

Now,

that aside,

I would like to detail a few more examples of structural violence as it obviously takes many more forms.

When we see 1.5million children die each year from diarrheal diseases,

an utterly preventable problem that isn’t resolved due to finical limitation across the world we are seeing the murder of 1.5 [million] children by a system that is so inefficient in its process it cannot make the proper resources available in certain regions,

even though they are there.

Drug addiction which has become a plague of modern society across the world,

not only causing death,

but also a spectrum of suffering has been found to have roots in stress.

It has to do with a lack of support which creates a psychological chain reaction that leads to fill your feelings of pain with self medication.

You will rarely find a study on addiction patterns that does not see a direct correlation to unstable life conditions and stress.

And what is perhaps poverties most dominant psychological feature?

Feelings of insecurity and humility.

Even the vast majority of behavioral violence as we know it arises due to preconditions which have been tied to poverty induced deprivation and abuse.

Former head of the study of violence at Harvard,

Dr.

James Gilligan,

was a prison psychiatrist for many decades analyzing the reasons for extreme acts of murder and the like.

In virtually all cases,

high levels of deprivation,

neglect,

and abuse occurred in the life history of the offenders.

And guess what?

Poverty is the single best predictor of child abuse and neglect.

In a United States study,

children who lived in families with an annual income less than $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be abused or neglected than children living in families with an annual income of $30,000 or more.

Aristotle said,

“Poverty in the parent of revolution and crime.” Gandhi said,

“Poverty in the worst form of violence.” And the interesting thing about all this is is that we are all possible victims of its effects for every time you hear about an act of theft,

violence murder,

or the like chances are the origins of that behavior were born out of a preventable form of deprivation.

I say preventable because today there is absolutely no technical reason for any human being to live in poverty and resource deprivation.

Solving social inequality is not just a nice thing to do,

it is a true public health imperative.

Just like making sure our water isn’t polluted so we don’t get diseases.

And each opus have no idea when we might be subjected to say the violence bread by this deprivation.

It’s a form of blow back if you will.

Just like how some social theorists think about the reasons for modern terrorism from abused countries,

a country like the United States bombs some town,

the people in that town lose everything,

certain people are deeply affected and find no other emotional recourse but to act in the most violent way that can in revenge.

And the next thing you know a bomb explodes at a coffee shop in your city killing your sibling.

In short,

if you want to produce a violent criminal or gang mentality,

let them be raised in an environment where they are reinforced with the sense that society doesn’t care about them.

And,

hence,

they have no need to care about society.

This is the trademark,

this is the core characteristic of the capitalist-social order.

And as a final aside before I move on,

I find it incredibly interesting that the vast majority of the civil rights institutions today or human rights institutions today which still demand more race,

gender,

creed,

and political equality tend to do very little to address the roots of economic equality.

It’s a very interesting contradiction.

I’m firmly convinced that as times moves forward economic equality will morph into the same role as gender and race equality.

Where meeting human needs and facilitating a high standard of living will be an issue of human rights,

not market expedience,

sort of a social darwinism to which it is based.

Part two:

Post Scarcity.

I would like to spend a moment clarifying what an “Abundance Focused Society” actually and give some tangible statistical extrapolations to confirm this potential.

A Natural Law Resource Based Economy is not a utopia.

The Zeitgeist Movement seeks a high,

relative sustainable abundance reliving the most relevant forms of scarcity.

Of course many who hear such distinctions immediately dismiss such qualifications as mere opinion,

right?

The fact is,

it’s not opinion when it comes to life support or empirical human needs.

Relative sustainable abundance means seeking more than enough to meet all human needs and beyond while keeping ecological balance.

The most relevant forms of scarcity means we differentiate between scarcity as it relates to human needs and scarcity as it relates to human wants.

As they are not the same.

Unfortunately market logic pretends that they are.

Right.

The market cannot separate needs from wants.

And this gets to the root of the life blind value system disorder which continues to distort our culture.

The logic goes like this,

there exists any form of scarcity of anything on any level,

then we need money and the competitive market to regulate it.

Let me explain this a little bit more.

One of our international lecture team members,

Matt Burkowitz,

did a radio interview with a very popular Austrian economist a little while back and when the subject of scarcity came up this economists responded with “Not everyone can have a fancy steak or a Farrari!” This was his definitive view of what scarcity means.

Now that may be true,

not every human being can have a 500 room mansion with 3 jets parked in the front lawn,

with half the continent of Africa as his or her backyard.

You see in theory we could conjure up anything and use such luxury based scarcity defenses to support the existence of the competitive market.

So what are human needs?

Are they subjective?

Human needs have been created by the process of our physical and psychological evolution.

And not meeting these virtually empirical needs results,

as noted before,

in a statistically predictable destabilizing spectrum of physical,

mental,

and social disorders.

Human wants,

on the other hand,

are cultural manifestations which have undergone enormous subjective change over the course of time.

Revealing in truth something of an arbitrary nature.

Now this isn’t to say neurotic attachments can’t be made to wants so much so that they start to take the role of needs,

thats a phenomenon that occurs readily in our materialistic society in fact.

This is exactly why the previously noted wealth imbalance issues,

namely the psycho social stress response resulting from social comparison is what is.

It’s a part of our evolutionary psychology in many ways.

But this is partly why more unequal societies also are the more unhealthy societies,

because we perpetuate it.

So the Zeitgeist Movement is not promoting an infinite universal abundance of all things which is clearly impossible on a finite planet.

Rather it promotes a post-scarcity or abundance world view,

with an active recognition of the natural limits of consumption on the planet while seeking equilibrium.

And what separates the worlds today from the world of the past is that our scientific and technological capacity has reached an accelerating point of efficiency where creating a high-standard of living for all the world’s people based on current cultural preferences in fact,

is now possible within these sustainable boundaries without the destructive need to compete through the market mechanism.

This is made by what has been called “ephemeralization” a term coined by engineer,

R.

Buckminster Fueler.

And the recognition is very simple.

The amount of resources and energy needed to achieve any given task has constantly decreased over time while the efficiency of that task has increased paradoxically.

An example is wireless satellite communication which uses exponentially less materials then traditional large gage copper wire and of course is more versatile and effective.

In other words we are doing more with less continually and this trend can be noticed in all areas of industrial development;

from computer processing or Moore’s Law to the rapid acceleration of human knowledge or information technology.

And it isn’t just physical goods.

Also applies to processes or systems.

For example,

the labor system via automation today shows the exact same pattern.

Industry has become more productive with less people,

ever increasing machine performance with ever decreasing and material needs over time per operation.

Now,

as a brief tangent,

some might have noticed I keep saying this phrase “High Standard of Living.” What does that mean?

Who is saying what a high standard of living should be?

The answer is not who,

it is what.

And what determines our standard of living is the current state of technology in many ways and what is required to keep,

of course,

social and environmental sustainability on a finite planet.

That’s basically the equation.

If we as a society wish to keep the value of constant materialism,

growth,

and consumption promoting the virtue of having infinite wants then we might as well just kill ourselves right now.

As that going to be the end result if we continue to push past the limits of the physical world with respect to our resource exploitation and the loss of bio-diversity.

So I want to make it very clear,

this new economic proposal isn’t just about seeing how the market is obsolete per say given our new powerful awarenesses of technical efficiency,

it is also about the fact that we need to get out of the market paradigm as fast as we can before it causes even more damage.

Ok,

post scarcity! Four categories I want to cover in detail regarding this are food,

water,

energy,

and material goods.

And please note that for food,

energy,

and water this is actually a very conservative assessment.

Using statistics and measures based only on existing methods that have been put into industrial use,

not theoretical things that people talk about all the time.

And all I’m going to do is scale this out,

applying a system’s theory context.

Food.

According to the United nations,

one out of every eight people on earth,

nearly one bullion people suffer from chronic under nourishment yet it is admitted that there is enough food produced today by traditional market methods alone to proved everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories per day which is more then enough to maintain basic health for most.

Therefore,

just in principle right now the existence of such a large scale number of chronically hungry people reveals at a minimum that there is something fundamentally wrong with the global industrial and economic process.

According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,

“It is estimated that 30-50% of all food produced never reached a human stomach and this figure does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land,

energy,

fertilizers,

and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste.” And while there is certainly an imperative to consider the relevance of these waste patterns,

it appears that the most effective and practical means to overcome this global deficiency entirely is to update the system of food production itself with the most strategic localization in order to reduce the waste caused by inefficiencies in the current global supply chain.

And perhaps the most promising of these arrangements is something called vertical farming which I assume many are familiar with.

Vertical farming has been put to test in a number of regions with extremely promising results regarding efficiency and conservation.

This method of abundant food production will not only use less resources per unit output causing less waste,

have a reduced ecological footprint,

increase food quality and the like,

it will also use less surface of the planet,

uses less land area than we’re doing today.

It can even be cone off shore,

it’s that versatile.

Enabling types of food as well,

that certain climates simply couldn't produce because it’s enclosed.

A vertical farm system in Singapore for example custom built a transparent enclosure,

uses a closed loop automated hydraulic system to rotate the crops and circles between sunlight and a organic nutrient treatment.

Costing only about $3 a month in electricity for each enclosure.

This system also has reported to have 10 times more productivity per square foot then conventional farming.

Again,

using much less water,

labor,

and fertilizer.

Students at Columbia University in the U.S.

determined that in order to feed 50,000 people a thirty story farm built on the size of a basic city block would be needed.

Which is about 6.4 acres.

If we extrapolate this in the context of the city of Los Angeles,

California (where I’m coming from) with a population of about 4 million,

with a total acreage of about 318,000 it would take roughly 78 structures to feed all residents.

This amounts to about 0.1% of the total land area of Los Angeles,

to feed the entire population.

If we apply this extrapolation to the earth and the human population of 7.2 billion,

we end up needing about 144,000 vertical farms to feed the whole world.

This amounts to about 921,000 acres of land to place these farms which,

given about 38% of the Earth’s land is currently being used for traditional agriculture,

we find that we only about 0.006% of the Earth’s existing agricultural land to met production requirements.

Of course lets be a little bit more consistent,

within that 38% used statistic land for agriculture,

much of that land is also used for livestock cultivation,

not just crop cultivation.

So,

if we were to theoretically take only the crop production land currently being used,

which is about 4 billion acres,

replacing land based cultivation by dropping these 30 story vertical farms side by side in theory,

the food output would be enough to meet the traditional needs to feed 34.4 trillion people.

Given that we only need to feed about 9 billion by 2050,

we only need to harness about 200th’s of a percent of this theoretical capacity,

Which,

it could be argued makes rather mute any seemingly practical objections common to the aforementioned extrapolation.

In short,

we have absolute global food abundance potential.

Water.

According to the world health organization,

about 2.6 billion people,

half of the developing world lack proper sanitation and about 1.1 billion people have no access to any type of clean drinking sources.

Due to ongoing depletion by 2025 it is estimated that almost 2 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity with 2/3rd’s of the entire world population living in water stressed ares.

The cause?

Obviously waste and pollution.

I’m not going to talk about that,

the details in causes and prevention,

that’s not the point of this.

Rather,

lets take,

again,

a technological capacity approach only,

considering modern purification and modern desalination systems on the macro industrial scale.

Purification.

The average person today globally uses about 1,085 cubic meters of water per year.

And this factors in all industrial activity as well,

such as agriculture.

For the sake of argument,

lets consider what it would take to purify all the fresh water currently being used in the world on average annually.

Given the global average of 1,385 cubic meters in a population of 7.2 billion,

we arrive at a total annual use of about 10 trillion cubic meters.

Using a New York state U.S.A.

uv disinfection plant at a base measure which has an output capacity of roughly 3 billion cubic meters a year,

taking up about 3.7 acres of land,

we would need 3,327 plants to purify all the water used by the entire global population Taking up about 12,000 acres of land.

Now or course,

needless to say there are many other factors that come into play,

power needs,

location,

and the like.

That’s fair enough.

However,

this is a minor inconvenience.

Twelve thousand acres is nothing compared to the 36 bullion acres of land on the planet earth.

To give this a more practical example,

United States military alone has about 845,000 military bases and buildings I should say as well.

This has been reported to take up about 30 million acres of land globally.

Now only 400th’s of a percent of that land would be needed to disinfect the total fresh water use of the entire world if that were even needed which of course it is not.

Desalination.

Now let’s run the same theoretical extrapolation on desalination,

the most common method of desalination use today is called “reverse osmosis” and according the the National Desalination Association it accounts for 60% of the installed capacity globally.

Of course,

there are a lot of other methods that are emerging quite rapidly with high levels of efficiency [that] can move water much more quickly.

But I’m not talk about that because I want to stay only within the common method applied today.

Keep in mind that everything I’m speaking of has dramatic improvements coming very soon.

There’s an advanced reverse osmosis sea water desalinization plant in Australia that can produce about 150 million cubic meters of fresh water a year while occupying about 50 acres.

Given the goal annual water use of the world today is about 10 trillion cubic acres again,

it would take about 60,000 plants to produce current global usage in total.

Using the dimensions of that plant,

which is quite large,

such a feet would take about 18,000 miles of coast land,

or about 8.5% of the world’s coast land.

Now obviously that’s not really ideal,

that’s a lot of coast land,

but this exercise is about proportion.

Clearly we do not need to desalinate all water used once agin,

nor would be bypass the use of purification processes or ignore the vast reforms needed to preserve efficiency in fresh water or,

equally as important,

the reuse schemes that are coming to fruition where buildings are able to use water in multiple ways by recycling water water that comes from the sink into toilets and other mechanisms that unfortunately go unused for the vast majority.

So,

lets do a slightly more practical real life extrapolation combining only purification and desalination with actual regional scarcity statistics.

On the continent of Africa,

roughly 345 million people lack access to freshwater.

If we apply the noted global average consumption rate,

again of 1,385 cubic meters a year,

seeking to provide each of those 345 million people that amount we would need about 480 billion cubic meters produced annually.

If we divided this number in half and used purification systems for one section and desalination for the other,

the desalination process would need about 1.9% or 494 miles of coast line for desalination facilities and only about 296 acres of land for purification facilities which is a minuscule fraction of Africa’s total land mass of about 7 billion acres.

So this is highly doable even in this crude example.

And obviously,

in this case and all cases we would strategically maximize purification processes since it is clearly more efficient while using desalination for the remaining demand.

In short,

it’s absurd for anyone on this planet to be going without fresh water.

Not to mention as an aside,

70% of all fresh water used today is used in agriculture in our grossly wasteful agricultural methods.

Seventy percent! If we,

for example,

apply again vertical farms system which have been noted to reduce water by upwards of 80% in comparison,

we would see an enormous freeing up of this unnecessarily scarce resource as well.

Moving on to energy.

We live in one massive perpetual motion machine known as the Universe.

The fact that we still use polluting fossil fuels stores in the earth or the incredibly unstable nuclear phenomenon which gives very little room for human fallibility is truly frightening.

There are four main large capacity “base load,” as they would say,

renewable energy means which are currently most ideal as per our current state of technological application.

These are geothermal plants,

wind farms,

solar fields,

and water-based power.

Due to time I’m not going to explain what these mediums are as I assume most know.

I’m just going to run through the abundance comparison.

Geothermal.

2006 MIT report on geothermal found that 13,000 zetajoules of power are currently available in the earth with the possibility of 2000 zetajoules beings harvestable in proved technology.

The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planets is only about half a zetajoule a year.

This means literally thousands of years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone.

Geothermal energy also uses much less land then other energy sources.

Over 30 years,

a period time commonly used to compare the life cycle impacts from different power course,

it was found that a geothermal facility uses 444 meters squared of land per gigawatt hour while a coal facility used 3,632 meters per gigawatt hour.

If we were to do a basic comparison of geothermal to coal given this ration of meter squared to gigawatt hour we find that we could fit about 9 geothermal plants in the space of one coal plant.

And that isn’t accounting for the vast amount of land that is currently used for coal extraction.

You know,

those huge holes that we see in the earth.

And by the way,

the beauty of geothermal and in fact all of the renewables I’m going to speak of,

is that extraction or the harnessing location is almost always the exact same place as processing for the power distribution as well.

All hydrocarbon sources on the other hand require both extraction and power production facilities almost always in separate locations,

sometimes refineries as well in separate locations.

In 2013 it was announced that a 1,000 megawatt power station was to begin construction in Ethiopia.

We’re going to use this as a base theoretical for extrapolation.

If a 1000 megawatt geothermal power station operated at full capacity 24 hours a day,

365 days a year,

it would produce 8.7 million megawatt hours a year.

The worlds current annual energy usage is about 153 billion megawatt hours a year which would mean it would take an abstraction of about 17,465 geothermal plants to match global use.

There are over 2,300 coal power plants in operation world wide today.

Using the aforementioned plant sized capacity comparison of about 9 geothermal plants fitting into one coal plant,

the space of 1,940 coal plants would be needed in theory to contain the 17,000 geothermal plants or 84% of the total in existence.

Also,

given that coal accounts for only 41% of todays current energy production,

this theoretical extrapolation also shows how in 84% of the current space used by coal plants geothermal could apply 100% of total global power supply.

Wind farms.

It has been calculated that today with existing turbine technology,

which is improving rapidly,

that Earth could produce hundreds of trillions of watts power,

many more times than what the world consumes overall.

However,

breaking this down using the 9.000 acre Alta wind center in California as a theoretical basis,

which has an active capacity on 1,320 megawatts of power,

a theoretical annual output of 11 million megawatt hours is possible.

This means 13,000 9,000 acre wind farms would be needed to meet total global demand of 153 billion megawatt hours.

This requires about 119 million acres of land or 0.3%,

3/10th’s of a percent of the Earth’s surface to power the world in abstraction.

However as some may know off shore wind is typically much more powerful then land based.

According to the assessment of off shore wind energy resources for the United States,

a report,

4,150 gigawatts of potential wind turbine technology,

turbine capacity from off shore resources are available in the the United States alone.

Assuming this power capacity was constant for a whole year,

we end up with an energy conversion of 36 billion megawatts hours a year.

Given the United Staes in 2010 used 25.7 billion megawatt hours,

we find that off shore wind harvesting could exceed the national use by about 10.6 billion megawatt hours or 41%.

And axiomatically,

extrapolating the national level of capacity to the rest of the worlds coast lines,

also taken into account the aforementioned land based statistics,

it is clear that we can power the world many many times over with wind and quite practically.

Solar Fields.

If humanity could capture 1/10th of 1% if the solar energy striking the earth we would have access to six times as much energy we consume in all forms today.

The ability to harness this power depends on technology and how high the percentage of radiation conversion is.

The Ivanpah solar electric system in California,

it’s a 3,500 acre field with an annual stata generation of about one million megawatt hours.

If we were to extrapolate using this as the theoretical basis as we had before,

it would take about 142,000 fields or about 500 million acres of land to theoretically meet current global energy use.

That’s about 1.5% of total land on earth.

Deserts cover about 1/3rd of the world or about 12 billon acres and they tend to be fairly conducive to solar fields,

while often less conducive to life support for people.

Given the roughly 500 million acres theoretically needed to power the world as noted,

only 4.1% of the world’ s deserts would be needed to contain these fields.

Land that pretty much just otherwise sits there.

Water-Based Power.

There are five dominant types of water driven power.

Wave,

Tidal,

Ocean Current,

Osmotic,

Ocean Thermal,

and Water Course.

Overall,

the technology for harnessing [the] ocean in general is in its infancy...

but the potential is vast.

And based on traditional estimates,

here is what the accepted global potentials has been estimated at,

using existing methods,

we’re not applying advanced technology that’s not in application yet:

This all figures up to be about 150,000 TWh/yr or 96% of current global use of the .55 ZJ.

Pretty much enough to power the world in one medium alone if applied.

However,

to give a sense of growing technological potential because I think this is important considering how,

again,

technology and water-oriented power is deeply in it’s infancy,

recent developments in 'ocean current' harnessing technology (the current’s that go underneath the ocean),

which can embrace much slower speeds,

is has estimated that ocean current alone could now theoretically power the entire world if applied correctly.

So,

let's recap:

Wind,

solar,

water and geothermal have shown,

as large scale,

base-load renewable energy mediums,

that they are capable,

individually,

of meeting or vastly exceeding current annual global energy consumption at this time.

And obviously a systems approach,

harmonizing an optimized fraction of each of those renewables,

strategically,

is the key to achieving a global,

total energy abundance.

For example,

it is not inconceivable to imagine a series of man-made floating islands off select coastlines which are designed to harness,

at once,

wind,

solar,

thermal difference,

wave,

tidal and currents – all at the same time and in the same general area.

Such energy islands would then pipe their harvest back to land for storage and distribution.

It is only up to our deign ingenuity to figure this out.

[Localization and

Reuse]

The final energy factor I want to mention,

which builds upon this systems thinking explicitly,

has to do with localization and re-use schemes.

Localized energy harnessing isn't given a fraction of the attention it needs today.

Smaller scale renewable methods which are conducive to single structures or small areas find the same systems logic regarding combination.

These local systems could also,

if need be,

connect back into the larger,

base-load systems,

creating a total,

mixed medium integrated network,

which happens sometimes today with solar [energy].

There are many localized systems out there which can draw energy from the immediate environment.

Of course there’s solar power arrays;

there’s small wind harvesting systems,

localized geothermal heating and cooling...

and even architectural design that just simply makes natural light and heat/cool preservation more efficient.

Buckminster Fuller was great with his dome structure and how they actually contain energy quite well,

same idea.

Extending outwards to city infrastructure,

we see the same wasted possible efficiency almost everywhere.

A simple technology called piezoelectric is able to convert pressure and mechanical energy into electricity.

It’s an excellent example of an energy reuse method with great potential.

Existing applications have included power generation by people simply walking on these engineered floors and sidewalks,

streets which can generate power as automobiles cross over them,

and train rail systems which can also capture energy from passing train cars through pressure.

It has been suggested by people who have studied this that a stretch of road less than one mile long,

four lanes wide,

a highway,

and trafficked by about 1,000 vehicles per hour can create about 0.4 Megawatts of power,

enough to power 600 homes.

Now,

extrapolate that out to the bulk of all the highways in the world,

you have a very very powerful regenerative energy source.

Overall,

if we think about the enormous mechanical energy wasted by vehicle transport modes and high traffic walking centers alone,

the potential of that possible regenerated energy is quite substantial.

And it’s this type of systems thinking that is needed in order maintain sustainability,

while also pursuing this global energy abundance.

And the final and more complex subject,

energy aside,

will be the subject of Material Abundance and creating supporting goods.

Now,

unlike the prior,

more simple post scarcity categories of food,

water and energy,

the creation of a broad material abundance of all basics goods which comprise the current average,

you could say,

of what is culturally considered a “high standard of living” today,

is substantially more radical in its need for industrial revision and change.

As expressed before,

the current,

highly inefficient methods we use in industrial design,

production,

distribution,

and regeneration-

is one of the main reasons we are in a constant state of global resource use over-shoot and destabilizing biodiversity loss.

Also,

as noted prior,

there is no market incentive for advanced states of efficiency,

as efficiency always reduces the amount of labor,

resources and service needs for an existing purpose,

and hence reduces monetary circulation.

I can’t reinforce that enough.

Therefore a new,

synergistic,

systems view of industry,

focused explicitly on material and labor efficiency,

along with an optimized strategy for sustainability,

of course,

is in order.

For the sake of time,

and as a lead in to the final section on calculation,

I’m going to focus on a few principles or protocols and how each protocol assists efficiency towards this post scarcity abundance.

Otherwise it would take an enormous amount of time,

it’s not as simple as the prior extrapolations.

However,

in this book that I mentioned there will be a whole chapter dedicated to this issues in great detail.

Access not property.

A property based society incentivizes the preference to “own” a given product rather than rent or gain access to as needed.

I’m a filmmaker and while I do rent some things occasionally,

it’s much more cost effective and smart to buy things,

because they have resale value.

This incentive of universal ownership is incredibly wasteful when we examine actual “use time” of a given good.

Facilitating a means of access,

where things can be literally shared,

will allow many more to gain use of goods they otherwise could not,

along with their being less being production of those goods in proportion.

In a Natural Law Resource Based Economy we seek to create an access abundance,

not a property abundance,

which is inherently wasteful.

As an aside,

it’s also important to note that property is not an empirical concept,

only access is empirically valid.

Property is a protectionist contrivance.

Access is the reality of the social and human condition.

In order for you to truly,

say,

own a computer,

you have to have had,

alone,

come up with technological process that made thing,

along with the ideas that comprise the tools you might of used to make that computer.

This is literally impossible,

and is what destroys the early labor theory of value property stuff put forth by Plaskow economists.

There is no such thing as property – there is only access and sharing,

no matter what social system you employ.

Designed in Recycling

Contrary to our intuition,

there is no such thing as waste in the natural world.

Not only from the standpoint of the biosphere which reuses everything in its process – the 92 main,

naturally occurring elements [from] the periodic table that comprise all matter cannot be exhausted.

Humanity has given very little consideration to the role of material re-generation and how all of our design practices must account for this recycling.

In fact,

as some may know,

the highest state of this recycling will eventually come in the form of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology will eventually be able to create goods from the atomic level up – and disassemble them right back down to the almost virtual starting point.

Its the ultimate form of recycling.

And by the way,

I’m not suggesting this,

I’m not suggesting that nanotechnology is even needed at this time,

as though that that is what we’re doing right now.

It’s just [that] this is is a great principle to reference as far regenerative importance.

Today,

industry has little sense of synergy in this context.

Recycling is an after thought.

Companies continue to do things such as blindly coat materials with chemical paints and the like that distort the properties of those materials,

making the material less salvageable,

maybe completely unsalvageable to current recycling methods.

It happens all the time.

Long story short,

strategic recycling just might be the most core seed of a continued abundance.

Every landfill on earth is just a waste of potential.

Number 3:

Strategic conformation of good design to the most conducive and

abundant materials known.

You will notice this efficiency qualification in what I just said:

conducive and abundant.

Conducive means most appropriate based on the material properties.

Abundant means you weigh the value of conduciveness against the value of how accessible and low impact the material is compared to other materials which may be more or less conducive.

This is a synergistic efficiency comparison.

I’m sorry for the language sounding a little bit complicated.

Probably the best example of this is home or domicile construction.

The common use of wood,

brick,

screws,

and the vast array of parts that is typical of a common house,

is comparatively vastly inefficient to more modern,

simplified,

prefabrication or molded-able materials.

A traditional 2000-square-foot home requires about 40 to 50 trees,

about an acre.

Compare that with houses can be created in prefabrication processes with simple,

earth friendly polymers,

concrete,

or other easily formable methods.

3D printing for example systems is on pace.

These new approaches have a very small footprint as compared to our destruction of global forests which continue for wood.

Home construction today is one of the most resource intensive and wasteful industrial mediums in the world,

with about 40% of all materials collected for construction ended up as waste in the end.

Number 4:

Design conducive-ness for labor automation.

Now this is very foreign to many.

The more we conform to the current state of rapid,

efficient production processes,

obviously the more abundance we can create.

If you read texts on manufacturing processes,

they typically divide labor into three categories.

There’s Human Assembly,

there’s Mechanization,

and there’s Automation.

Human assembly means hand made.

Mechanization means machines assist the laborer.

And Automaton means no human action.

Imagine if you needed a chair and there were three designs.

The first is elaborate and complex and could only be done by hand.

The second is a more streamlined where its parts could be made mostly by machines,

but would need to be assembled by hand.

The third chair is produced by one process,

fully automated.

The latter chair design would be the design goal in theory of this new approach.

What this would do is reduce the complexity of the automation process-

with little to no human labor.

Imagine a production plant that not only produce cars,

it can produce virtually any kind of industrial product comprised of the same basic shared materials.

This is very feasible.

This would increase output substantially.

In other words,

we are optimizing the means of production.

And as an aside,

many who see stuff like this,

they think that this means there’s not going to be any variety in the future,

that it’s just going to be cold and uniform and everyone get’s the same thing.

No,

I am just using this as an example to make an efficiency point.

Being Conducive to Automation does not mean universal uniformity of design because the incredible amount of variance possibility in our current automation technology is amazing and accelerating.

Modular robotics,

their’s many different self changing machines that can create a great amount of variance.

All this means is the existing processes,

in their current state,

should be respected to ease production.

So please don’t confuse this with the idea everyone just gets the same everything.

What they get is the same basic sustainability principles which come in many different forms,

if you can understand that.

So,

these 4 parameters set in motion,

along with the basic intent to assist the trend of ephemeralization on all levels,

there is little doubt that every human being could have a very high standard of living.

It is simply about converting all of the inefficiency we have straight into productivity,

strategically.

I will conclude this section by noting that R.

Buckminster Fuller is probably the only human being that has ever attempted to account and quantify the state of resources and their potential within the past hundred years and,

while primitive,

he was able to arrive at the following conclusion in 1969.

“[Man] developed such intense mechanization in World War I that the percentage of total world population that were industrial “haves” rose by 1919 to the figure of 6%.

This was a very abrupt change in history...By the time of World War II 20% of all humanity had become industrial “haves”...At the present moment the proportion of “haves” is at 40% of humanity...if we up the performances...of resources from the present level to a highly feasible overall efficiency of 12% [more]…[increasing by 12% holistically,

on average,

all humanity can be provided for]”.

The exponential increase in information technology since 1969,

along with the applied technology and advanced synergetic understandings we have today,

I suspect,

it now far exceeds,

we are way beyond the 12% efficiency increase that he saw as needed.

The problem now,

in part,

is conforming to industrial conduciveness appropriately,

which is currently not done.

And this leads us to part 3:

Economic Organization and

Calculation.

Now,

if you are wondering why I spent so much time on the prior points of post-scarcity and those two core problems inherent to market capitalism:

Social Imbalance and Environmental Imbalance – its because you cannot understand the logic of the economic factors involved in this model,

without those prior awarenesses.

A Natural Law Resource Based Economy is not just a progressive outgrowth of our increased capacity to be productive as a species,

as though we would just gradually evolve out of the market system,

step by step,

into this approach....

No.

The dire need for this system’s removal needs to be realized once again.

It has to become a part,

in fact,

of the incentive structure of the new model-

the historical understanding that if we do not adjust in this way,

we will revert right back into this highly unstable periods we are in right now.

An economic model is a theoretical construct representing component processes,

by a set of variables or functions,

describing the logical relationships between them.

Basic definition.

If anyone has studied traditional or market based economic modeling,

a great deal of time is often spent on things such as price trends,

behavioral patterns,

utlitarianistic functions,

inflation,

currency fluctuations and so forth.

Rarely,

if ever,

is anything said about public or ecological health.

Why?

Because the market is again life-blind and decoupled from the science of life support and sustainability.

It is simply a proxy system.

The best way to think about a this [new] economy is not in the traditional terms ...

but rather as an advanced production,

distribution,

and management system which is democratically engaged by the public through a kind “participatory economics”-

that facilitates input processes – such as design proposals and demand assessment-

while filtering all actions through what we will call “sustainability” and

“efficiency” protocols.

These are the basic rules of industrial action set by natural law...

not human opinion.

As noted prior,

neither of these interests are structurally inherent in the capitalist model and it is clear that humanity needs a model that has this type of stuff built right into it for consideration.

Structural System Goals:

All economic systems have structural goals,

which may not be readily apparent.

Market Capitalism's structural goal,

as described,

is growth and maintaining rates of consumption high enough to keep people employed at any given time and employment requires,

also,

a culture of real or perceived inefficiency...

and that essentially means the preservation of scarcity in one form or another.

That is its structural goal and good luck getting a market economist to admit to that.

This model’s goal is to optimize technical efficiency and create the highest level of abundance we possibly can,

within the bounds of earthly sustainability,

seeking to meet human needs directly.

System Overview:

One of the great myths of this model is that it is “centrally planned”.

What this means,

based on historical precedent,

is that it is assumed that an elite group of people basically will make the economic decisions for society.

No.

This model is a Collaborative Design System (CDS),

not centrally planned.

It is based entirely upon public interaction,

facilitated by programmed,

open source systems,

that enable a constant,

dynamic feedback flow that can literally allow the input of the public on any given industrial matter,

whether personal or social.

Now,

a common question when you bring that up they say “Well,

who programs this system?”.

The answer is everyone and no one.

The tangible rules of the laws of nature,

as they apply to environmental sustainability and engineering efficiency,

is a completely objective frame of reference.

The nuances may change to some degree over time-

but the general principles remain.

Over time,

the logic of such an approach will become more rigid as well because we learn more as we perfect our understandings-

and hence less room for subjectivity in certain areas that might have had it prior.

Again,

I’ll be describing this more so in a moment.

Also,

the programs themselves would be available in an open source platform for public input and review.

Absolutely transparent.

And if someone noticed a problem or unapplied optimization strategy,

which would probably be the case,

it is evaluated and tested by the community-

kind of like a wikipedia for calculation except much less subjective than wikipidea,

without the moody administrators.

Another traditional confusion surrounds a concept which has become,

to many,

the defining difference between capitalism and everything else – and it has to do with whether the “means of production” is privately owned or not.

And this is replete throughout tons of traditional literary treatments on capitalism when they describe how it’s the ultimate manifestation of human behavior in a society.

If you don't know whist this means,

the means of production refers to the non-human assets that create goods,

such as machinery,

tools and factories,

offices and the like.

In capitalism,

the means of production is owned by the capitalist,

by historical definition and hence the origin of the term.

I bring this up because there has been an ongoing argument for a century that any system which does not have its means of production owned,

as a form of private property,

is just not going to be as economically efficient as one that has or maybe not even efficient at all.

This,

as the argument goes,

is because of the need for price,

the price mechanism.

Price,

which has a fluid ability to exchange value amongst virtually any type of good due to its indivisibility of value,

creates indeed a feedback mechanism that connects the entire market system in a certain narrow way.

Price is a way to allocate scare resources amongst competing interests,

for sure.

Price,

property,

and money translate,

in short,

subjective demand preferences into semi-objective exchange values.

I say semi,

because it is again a culturally relative measure only-

absent most every factor that gives true technical consideration to a given material or good.

In other words,

it has nothing to with what the material goods are it’s just a mechanism.

Perhaps the only real technical data in fact I would say that price embraces,

very crudely,

relates to ”resource scarcity” and “labor energy,” resource scarcity and labor energy,

you can basically find that in price.

So,

in this context,

the question becomes,

moving on,

is it possible to create a system that can equally,

if not more efficiently,

facilitate feedback with respect to consumer preference,

demand,

labor value,

and resource or component scarcity...

without the price system,

subjective property values,

or exchange?

And of course there is.

The trick is to completely eliminate exchange and create a direct control and feedback link between the consumer and the means of production itself.

The consumer becomes part of the means of production and the industrial complex,

if you will,

becomes nothing more than a tool that is accessed by the public to generate goods.

In fact,

as alluded to prior,

the same system can be used for just about any societal calculation,

virtually eliminating the state government in fact and politics as we know it.

It is a participatory decision making process.

And,

as an aside,

as far as the fact that there will indeed always be scarcity of something in the world,

which is the very basis of existence of price,

market,

and money-

human beings can,

again,

either understand the dire need to exist in a steady-

state relationship with nature and the global human species for cultural and

environmental sustainability ....or not.

We can either continue down the same path we are now and become more aware and responsible to the world in and each other.

Seeking post scarcity and using natural law rules of sustainability and efficiency to decide how to best allocate our raw materials or not.

But I think the former is the most intelligent path.

I state that because,

again,

this resource argument always comes down to the abstraction of resources,

it never,

excuse me,

the abstraction of scarcity,

it never qualifies what scarcity is in certain contexts.

It doesn’t separate scarcity and that’s its fatal flaw between human needs and human wants.

Also,

I want to point out another fallacy which of this “private ownership of the means of production,” a fallacy of this means of this broad concept is its culture lag.

Today,

we are seeing a merger of Capital Goods,

Consumer Goods,

and Labor Power.

Machines are taking over human labor power,

becoming capital goods,

while also reducing in size to become consumer goods.

I’m sure most everyone in this room has a home paper printer.

When you send a file to print from your computer,

you are in control of a mini version of a means of production.

What about 3D printers?

In some cities today,

there are now 3d printing labs,

which people can send their design to print in physical form.

The model I am going to describe is a similar idea.

The next step is the creation of a strategically automated industrial complex,

localized as much as possible,

which is designed to produce,

through automated means,

the average of everything any given region has found demand for.

Think about it.

On-demand production on a mass scale.

Consider for a moment how much storage space,

transport energy,

and overrun waste is immediately eliminated by this approach.

I think the days of large,

wasteful,

mass producing economies of scale are coming to an end.....

well...

if we want them too.

This type of thinking –true economic calculation,

by the most technical sense of the term,

I can’t reiterate that enough.

We are calculating to be as technically efficient and conservative as possible,

which again,

almost paradoxically,

is what will facilitate a global access abundance to meet all human needs and beyond.

Structure and Processes,

moving on.

So,

I’m going to walk through the following three processes.

1) Collaborative Design Interface and Industrial Schematic

2) Resource Management,

Feedback,

and

Value

3) General Principles of Sustainability and the Macro-Calculation.

1) The collaborative design interface is essentially the new “Market.” It’s a market of ideas.

This system is the first step in any production interest.

It can be engage by a single person;

it can be engaged by a team,

if you have friends and you want to put it together sort of like how businesses think;

it can be engaged by everyone.

It is open source and open access and your concept is open to input from anyone interested in that good genre or anyone that’s online that cares to contribute.

Obviously,

it comes in the form of a website,

as I’ve stated.

And likewise whatever exists as a final design,

whatever is put into production (even though,

in theory everything will be under modification at all times) but what has been proved,

if you will,

is digitally stored in a database which makes that good available to everyone.

Sort of like a goods catalogue.

Except it contains all of the information digitally that is required to produce it.

This is how demand is accessed.

It’s feedback,

and it’s immediate.

Instead,

of course,

of advertising and the unidirectional consumer good proposal system,

which it is – that we have today where corporations basically tell you what you should buy,

with the public generally going with the flow,

favoring one good,

component,

or feature which,

using price of course so if they don’t like something then clearly that wont produce it anymore to weed out supply and demand– this system works almost the opposite way.

The entire community has the option of presenting ideas for everyone to see and weigh in on and build upon...

and whatever isn't of interest,

simply wont be executed to begin with.

There’s no testing here,

such as you would see in marketing.

It’s incredibly wasteful.

It is as simple as that.

The actual mechanism of proposal,

would come in the form of an interactive design interface-

such as we see with Computer-Aided Design or CAD as it’s called-

or more specifically Computer-Aided Engineering,

which is a more complicated synergistic process.

And,

as an aside,

some see Computer-aided design programs,

as they exist,

as having an enormous learning curve and of course they do.

But just as the first computers were very difficult code-based interfaces,

which were later replaced by small little programs in the form of graphic icons that we’re all so familiar with – the future CAD type programs could be oriented in the exact same way – to make them more user friendly.

And obviously,

not everyone has to engage in design.

Some people,

like most people today,

they appreciate what’s been created prior,

they absorb and would use what other people come up with.

So there’s a diminishing law of returns in a lot of ways,

if you will,

not everyone has to get in there and have some role to do this,

but many will and many will enjoy the process.And of course you can customize things as you go which is a great point,

there’s minor things that can happen with a product that someone doesn’t know anything about but maybe they just want to change the color and that’s it.

Obviously,

that doesn’t take a lot of education.

More importantly,

technically speaking,

the beauty of these design and engineering programs today is they incorporate advanced physics and other real world,

natural law properties,

so a good isn't just viewable in a static 3d model,

it can be tested right there,

digitally.

And while some testing capacity might be limited today,

it is simply a matter of focus to perfect such digital means.

For example in the automotive industry,

long before new ideas are built they run them through similar digital testing processes...

and there is no reason to believe that we will not eventually be able to digitally represent and imitate and set in motion virtually all known laws of nature in time,

and being able to apply them to different contexts.

Similarly – and this is critical – this design as proposed of this system is filtered through a series of sustainability and efficiency protocols which relate to not only the state of the natural world but also the total industrial system in as far as what is capatable.

Processes of evaluation and suggestion would include the following:

a)Strategically Maximized Durability

b) Adaptability

c) and

Standardization of Genre Components

d) Strategically Integrated Recycling Conduciveness,

as I’ve mentioned before and

e) Strategically Conducive designs themselves,

making them conducive for Labor Automation

I’m going to go through these each quickly.

Durability just means to make the good as strong and as long lasting as relevant.

The materials utilized,

comparatively assuming possible substitutions due to levels of scarcity or other factors,

would be dynamically calculated,

likely automatically in fact by the design system,

to be most conducive to an optimized durability standard.

Adaptability,

this means that the highest state of flexibility for replacing component parts is made.

Has anyone seen this thing called phone blocks?

Where there,

yeah,

brilliant.

In the event a component part of this good becomes defective or out of date of any good,

wherever possible the design facilitates that such components are easily replaced to maximize full product life-span.

Standardization of Genre Components.

All new designs either conform to or replace,

if they’re updated,

existing components which are either already in existence or outdated due to a comparative lack of efficiency.

Many don't know this but a man named Eli Whitney,

in 1801,

was the first to really apply standardization in production.

He made muskets and back then they were handmade and they were un-interchange.

So the musket parts,

if anything broke,

you take apart from something else.

He was the first to make the tools to do this and he basically started the entire process of standardization and the U.S.

military was now able to buy high things of muskets and interchange them in much more sustainable [way] even though we were killing people.

Which is interesting for the military,

because if you think about it,

the military is one of the most efficient systems on the planet,

because it’s absent the market economy.

If you really want to look towards where industrial efficiency was born,

as much as I dislike it,

the military is where it becomes,

where it’s been harnessed the most.

So,

anyway,

this logic not only applies to a given product,

it’s applied to the entire good genre,

standardization.

And by the way this efficiency will never happen in a market economy with its basis in competition-

as proprietary technology removes all such collaborative efficiency.

No one wants that,

no one wants to share everything like that.

Otherwise,

people wouldn’t have a need to go back to their company of the root company and buy the part,

they would go somewhere else where they have access to it and other means.

Recycling Conduciveness,

as noted before,

this means every design must conform to the current state of regenerative possibility.

The breakdown of any good must be anticipated and allowed for in the most optimized way.

And Made Conducive for Labor Automation – this means that the current state of optimized,

automated production is directly taken into account,

seeking to refine the design that’s submitted to be most conducive to the current state of production with the least amount of human labor or monitoring.

Again,

we seek to simplify the way materials and production means are used so that the maximum number of goods can be produced with the least variation of materials and production equipment.

It’s a very important point.

And these five factors are what we could call,

in total,

the Optimized Design Efficiency function,

if you want to be technical.

Keep this in mind as I am going to return to it in a moment.

[1:30:55]

Moving on to the The Industrial Complex,

the layout.

This means the network of facilities which are directly connected to the design and

database system I’ve just described.

Servers,

production,

distribution,

recycling is basically it-

also we’d need to relate the current state of resources,

critically important,

as per the Global Resource Management Network,

another tier,

which I’m going to also describe in a moment.

Production,

this means of course actual manufacturing,

would evolve,

as expressed before,

as automated factories which are increasingly able to produce more with less material inputs and less machines,

ephemeralization.

And if we are to consciously design out unnecessary levels of complexity,

we can further this efficiency trend greatly with an ever lower environmental impact and resource use while maximizing our,

again,

abundance producing potential.

The number of production facilities,

whether homogeneous or heterogeneous,

as they would be called,

would be strategically distributed topographically based around population statistics,

very simple stuff– no different than how grocery stores today where they try to average distances as best they can between pockets of people and neighborhoods.

You could call this the “Proximity Strategy”,

which I’ll mention again in a moment.

Distribution can either be directly from the production facility,

as in the case of an on-demand,

custom,

one off production or it can be sent to a distribution library for public access in mass,

based on demand interest in that region.The library system is where goods can be attained.

Some goods can be conducive to low demand,

custom production and some will not be.

Food is the easy example of a mass production necessity...

while a personally tailored piece of furniture would come directly from the manufacturing facility once created.

I suspect,

again,

this on-demand process which will likely become equally as utilized as mass production will be an enormous advantage.

As noted,

on-

demand production is more efficient since the resources are going be utilized for the exact use demand as opposed to the block things that we do today.

In the context of the distribution library,

inventory is assessed in a dynamic,

direct feedback link,

of course,

between production/distribution and demand.

If that doesn't make sense to you,

again – all you have to think about is how inventory accounting and tracking in any major commercial distribution center today,

with,

of course a few adjustments made in this model.

We’re already doing this type of stuff already.

And regardless of where the good is classified to go,

whether it’s custom or not – libraries or to the direct user – this is still an 'access system'.

In other words,

at anytime,

the user of the custom good can return the item for reprocessing,

just as a person who obtained something from the library can as well.

Since,

as noted,

the good has been pre-optimized,

all goods have been pre-optimized for conducive recycling,

odds are the recycling facility is actually built directly into the production facility or the genre production facility depending on how many facilities you need to create the variety of demand.

So again – there’s no “trash” here.

Whether it’s a phone,

a couch,

a computer,

a jacket,

a book – everything goes back to where it came from for direct reprocessing.

Ideally this is a zero waste economy.

Resource Management,

Feedback and

Value The Computer-aided and engineering design process obviously does not exist in a vacuum,

processing demands input from the natural resources that we have.

So,

connected to this design process,

literally built into the [Optimize Design Efficiency] function noted prior,

is dynamic feedback from an earth-wide accounting system which gives data about all relevant resources which pertain to all productions.

Today,

most major industries keep periodic data of their genre materials as far as how much they have but clearly it’s difficult to ascertain due to the nature of corporate secrets and the like.

But it’s still done.

Regardless,

to whatever degree technically possible this is,

all resources are tracked and monitored,

in as close to real time ideally as possible.

Why?

Mainly because we need to maintain equilibrium with the earth's regenerative processes at all times,

while also,

as noted before,

work to strategically maximize our use of the most abundant materials,

while minimize anything with emerging scarcity.

Value.

As far as Value,

the two dominant measures,

which will undergo constant dynamic recalculation through feedback as industry unfolds,

is “scarcity” and “labor complexity.”

Scarcity Value without a market system could be assigned,

a numerical value.

Say from 1 to 100.

One would denote the most severe scarcity with respect to the current rate of use-

and 100 the least severe.

Fifty would mark the steady-state dividing line.

For example,

if the use of wood lumber passes below the steady state level of 50-

which would mean consumption is currently surpassing the earth's natural regeneration rate-

this would trigger a counter move of some kind-

such as the process of 'material substitution' –hence the replacement for wood in any given future productions,

finding alternatives.

And,

of course,

if you are free market mindset listening to this,

you are likely going to object at this point by saying “without price-

how can you compare value of one material to another or many materials?”

Simple-

you organize genres or groups of similar use materials and quantify,

as best you can,

their related properties and degree of efficiency for a given purpose,

and then you apply a general numerical value spectrum to those relationships as well.

For example,

there are a spectrum of metals which have different efficiencies for electrical conductivity.

These efficiencies can be quantified.

And if they can be quantified,

they can be compared.

So if copper goes below the 50 median value regarding it’s scarcity,

calculations are triggered by the management program to compare the state of other conducive materials in it’s database,

compare their scarcity level and their efficiency – preparing for substitution and that kind-of information goes right back to the designer.

And naturally,

this type of reasoning might,

indeed,

get extremely complicated as,

again,

these are numerous resources and numerous efficiencies and purposes.

Which is exactly why it is calculated by machine,

not people...

and it’s also why it blows the price system out of the water,

when it comes to true resource awareness and intelligent management.

"Labor complexity”.

This simply means estimating the complexity of a given production.

Complexity,

in the context of an automated oriented industry can be quantified by defining and comparing the number of “process stages,” if you will.

Any given good production can be foreshadowed as to how many of these “stages”of production processing it will take.

It can then be compared to other good productions,

ideally in the same genre,

for a quantifiable assessment.

The units of measurement are the stages,

in other words.

For example,

a chair that can be molded in 3 minutes,

from simple polymers in one process will have a lower ‘labor complexity’ value than a chair which requires automated assembly down a more tedious production chain with mixed materials.

In the event a given process value is too complex or inefficient in terms of what is currently possible or too inefficient by comparison to an already existing design of a similar nature as well,

the design,

along with other parameters,

would be flagged and hence need to be reevaluated.

Again,

all of this from feedback in the Design interface...

and there is no reason not to assume that with ongoing advancement in AI,

artificial intelligence,

[the system] wouldn’t be able to feedback not only the highlight of the problem but it would also create suggestions or substitutions for you to understand in the interface.

Macro-Calculation.

Okay.

So let put some of this reasoning together and I hope everyone can bear with me.

If we were to look at good design in the broadest possible way with respect to industrial unfolding,

we would end up with about four functions or processes-

each relating to the 4 dominant,

linear stages of design,

production,

distribution,

and recycling.

The following propositions should be obvious enough as a rule structure.

All Product Designs must adapt to [Optimized Design Efficiency].

They must all adapt to [Optimized Production Efficiency].

And they must adapt to [Optimized Distribution Efficiency].

And they must adapt to [Optimized Recycling Efficiency].

Seems redundant but this we have to think about it.

Here is a linear block schematic,

as shown before and the symbolic logic representation,

which embodies the subprocesses or functions I’m now going to very generally break down.

Process 1,

the design [Optimize Design Efficiency] A ‘Product Design' must meet or adapt to criteria set by what we will call [Current Efficiency Standards].

This efficiency process has five evaluative subprocesses,

as noted before earlier in the presentation:

[Durability],

[Adaptability],

[Standardization],

[Recycling Conduciveness],

[maximize automation conduciveness].

Further breakdown of these variables and logical associations can be figuratively made as well...of course...

which I don’t think is conducive to this type of presentation because we’re going to get lost in every reductionist minutia,

but for more detail this stuff will be developed much more and be put into this text which I just describe and will be available for free.

I’m going to try to do my best to give the general efficiency process here.

So,

in the end,

when it comes to this design efficiency process set-

we end up with this design function,

at the top.

And I’ll list,

just to see it,

I’ll list all of the functions meanings at the end.

We move on to Process two-

Production Efficiency.

In short,

this is the digital filter that moves design to one of two production facility types,

one for high demand or mass goods and one for low demand for custom goods.

The first uses Fixed automation-

meaning unvaried production ideal for high demand;

and the 2nd flexible automation which can do a variety of things but usually in shorter runs.

This is a distinction that’s commonly made in traditional manufacturing terms.

This structure assumes only two type of facilities of course.

Obviously there could be more based on the production factors,

but if the design rules in the process are respected,

as expressed before,

there shouldn’t be much variety.

And over time things get simpler and simpler.

So to state this,

I’m just going to run through it for those that like to hear things spelled out like this:

-All 'Product Designs' are filtered by a [Demand Class Determination] process-

D.

The [Demand Class Determination] process filters based on the standards set for:

[Low Demand] or

[High Demand]

All [Low Consumer Demand] 'Product Designs' are to be manufactured by the [Flexible Automation] process.

All [High Consumer Demand] 'Product Designs' are to be manufactured by the [Fixed Automation] process.

Also,

Both the manufacturing of [Low Consumer Demand] and

[High Consumer Demand] 'Product Designs' will be regionally allocated as per the [Proximity Strategy] of the manufacturing facility.

This simply means you keep things as close to you as possible,

as close to the average of any given demand as far as what type of facility you’re using.

And this will change over time as populations change,

so you keep updating.

Process 3

Once process 2 is finished,

the 'Product Design' is now a ‘Product' and it moves towards [Optimize Distribution Efficiency] in short,

all 'Products' are allocated based on the ‘prior’ [Demand Class Determination] as noted before.

So,

[Low Consumer Demand] products follow a [Direct Distribution] process.

[High Consumer Demand]s follow the [Mass Distribution] process-

which would likely be the libraries in that case.

Both of course [Low Consumer Demand] and

[High Consumer Demand] 'Products' will be regionally allocated per the [Proximity Strategy],

as before.

And Process 4,

very simple.

The 'Product" undergoes its life space.

Ideally it’s been updated and adapted,

ideally it’s been used to the highest degree and made as advanced as it could within its life cycle.

And once it’s done and becomes "Void” it moves to process #4 which is simply [Optimized Recycling Efficiency].

All voided products will follow a regenerative protocol which is a subprocess that clearly I’m not going to go into because it’s deeply complicated and is the role of engineers to develop over time.

And this is just a simple macro representation,

again,

these sub variable or sub processes go on quite a large degree.

So,

keeping all this in mind,

again a lot of this will be in the text,

and hopefully others I think can see this stuff better that are fluent with this type of thinking,

hone in and perfect these equations and relationships.

What I’ve tried to do here is to give a broad sense of how this type of thing unfolds.

As a concluding statement more or less,

the way this extrapolation of sustainability,

it’s really quite a simple logical thing.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how things work on this level.

So creating a real program that can factor in-

what are hundreds if not thousands of subprocess in algorithmic form,

as they pertain to such an economic complex,

is indeed a massive project in and of itself,

but more of a tedious project.

You don’t need to be a genus to figure this stuff out.

And I think this is an excellent think-tank program for anyone out there that’s interested in projects.

I have number of little projects that I’m trying to get going when I have time and one is simply called The Global Redesign Institute,

which is a macroeconomic approach to design the entire surface of the planet basically and then this other programming concept where you create an open source platform where people can begin to engineer this very program that I’m describing.

And that’s it.

I was going to make a conclusion section to this talk...

but it was already way too long.

So,

I just hope this gives a deeper understanding of the model and how it could work and thank you for listening.