The Morning After The Earth Day

Each Earth Day celebration fills our hearts with hope as ordinary citizens, nature conservationists, NGOs, and businesses all over the world gather together to clean up the environment and discuss the badly needed change. Every year, countless communities and businesses do their best to implement the environment friendly solutions to minimize pollution and minimize waste of resources.

Much will be done between now and the next time we get together to celebrate the Earth Day, asses the results of our strategies, and admire the changes visible everywhere. But the change has to start with us! Unless we critically review our shopping habits and understand that our behavior has consequences, nothing will change.

The morning after. How many of you forgot to take your reusable travel mug, your reusable aluminum water bottle, or your reusable shopping tote bag with you this morning? Another plastic cup, another plastic bottle, another plastic straw, another plastic bag that could have been avoided. Well, tomorrow is another day and we can certainly do a bit better.

Those who travel learn to see the world with different eyes. Take the coffee habit in Vienna, Austria, for instance. The coffee to go found its way there as well, but the Austrians still love their traditional coffee shops where they can sit quietly, read the morning news, and enjoy every sip of their coffee, served in cups with saucers and spoons, in a less hurried manner; Visit a grocery store in Germany. Many chain supermarkets there do not use plastic bags anymore. You can buy a paper bag at checkout if you did not bring your own and you are expected to reuse and recycle it; You see recycling bins everywhere you go in Europe. In many cities you even find recycling bins in hotel rooms. Most people in most European countries recycle as much as they can and yet, even Europe cannot completely avoid the pollution and waste problem.

Hikers and skiers in the Alps or the High Tatra dump tones of plastic bottles, bags, and containers every year. And every year around the Earth Day or during the so called Plastic Free July, volunteers gather to clean up the mess. Many forests, beaches, and cities all over the world go the same way. It makes you wonder, do tourists even care for the places they visit?

Many communities in the US have implemented ambitious recycling programs. The situation varies from state to state and from community to community. Much has to be done, but there is hope. Yet recycling alone is not enough. The packaging industry will most probably not disappear like the once popular horse and carriage, but it definitely has to change its ways. New bio-degradable packaging materials must replace plastic. But unless consumers demand such change, no much will happen. If customers collectively refused to buy anything packaged in plastic containers, the industry would have no choice but to adapt. Not that long ago milk, for instance, came in glass bottles. Why cannot we go back to bottling milk again?

Old habits die hard, but with a little patience and determination, we can learn new ones and change the ways we live our daily lives. And the best thing is, we will see the change next time we gather to celebrate the Earth Day.

By Dominique Allmon

Dominique Allmon©2018

Happy Birthday Albert Einstein

Born on π day! 

Albert Einstein during lecture in Vienna, 1921 by F. Schmutzer

"The cult of individual personalities is always, in my view, unjustified. To be sure, nature distributes her gifts variously among her children. But there are plenty of the well-endowed ones too, thank God, and I am firmly convinced that most of them live quiet, unregarded lives. It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few of them for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular estimate of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." - Albert Einstein, 14 March 1879 - 18 April 1955

Year 2015 marks a very special anniversary. Hundred years ago, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity. This theory described gravity as a fundamental quality of space-time. It provides foundation for our current view of the expanding universe.  

Image source here

Healthy Life on a Budget?

There is hardly a week without some shocking discovery. Food scandals and food safety hazards; cancer causing chemicals in food or personal hygiene products; drugs that kill; new reports telling us not to eat a particular thing and a while later another report urging us to embrace the very thing for our own sake. This is confusing to most consumers and many turn to alternative sources and organic produce. Those who can, grow their own food, but many are completely at a loss. 

Last month I had a chat with my Facebook friends. Confusion is one thing, wish for clarity and safety another, but many people simply cannot afford "safe" food. The question is why harmful chemicals end up in food in the first place? And why on earth do we have to be affluent to be able to get what a decent human being deserves? Is clean and safe food only for those who can afford it?

I often look back in time when parents did not have to worry that much. Food was simply honest and safe. Food scandals did not exist. Some foods may have been bad for you because they had too much sugar or too much fat, but people, in general, ate well and did not worry about harmful ingredients. There were less food allergies and not many people were obese back then.

But something happened in the last few decades. People started consuming less food and replaced it with "food products" that were made in factories out of ingredients that had nothing to do with food. 

Many housewives embraced quick and easy ready meals and few people questioned the necessity of food preservation. Who would object to food that does not spoil? But did anyone really ask what ingredients extended the shelf life of a product to ten or twenty years. Could such thing be safe for humans? 

 

One does not have to be a conspiracy theory nut to deduce that the legislators are in cahoots with the food and drugs making industry. These people move through the revolving door - they either manage big food and pharmaceutical companies and get appointed to run federal agencies or move to politics later, or the other way around. At the same time consumers are getting sick from the junk they eat and the pharmaceutical industry is making exorbitant profits in attempt to cure them. 

This really is horrible. But are we all helpless victims of some obscure machinations? If we collectively refused to buy the crap that is being sold to us maybe something would change. Yet for as long as only the affluent people can afford safe, organic produce on daily basis, many of us have to maneuver between the aisles and buy only what still resembles real food. 

To everyone struggling to stay healthy on a budget I can only suggest a serious reconsideration of the choices they make. Investment in real, organically and humanely produced food will pay off. It will not only minimize health care bills in the future, but most importantly, extend the lifespan and improve quality of life in old age.

Remember that every time you reach for a product on a supermarket shelf you are balancing your life against someone's profits. Does this work out for you? Are you on the right side of the equation? 

Dominique Allmon

Dominique Allmon©2013

Resource-Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. 

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. 

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Article source here
Image source here 

 

It's the End of the World As We Know It And I Feel Fine

By Eric Wagner

Environmentalists have never been very good at predicting the apocalypse, but that doesn’t keep us from trying. Such was the case in 1968, when Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. Seven years later, he warned that hundreds of millions of people would starve due to widespread famine and that society would enter a “genuine age of scarcity.” But the bomb turned out to be a dud (at least in the near term), and the specter of mass starvation remained exactly that - a specter.

Still, doomsaying can be a hard habit to kick. In 1980, Ehrlich famously bet the economist Julian Simon that the prices of five metals (harbingers of resource shortages) would rise by decade’s end. But 1990 came and went, and the prices had actually dropped. While Ehrlich has since offered caveats - the price of oil doubled during the same decade, he notes - the fact remains that he gambled and lost.

All of which raises a question that makes environmentalists squirm: why has the human condition -  incontrovertibly and inconveniently, it would seem - gotten better and better, even as most ecosystem services have declined? In a recent BioScience paper, a team of researchers led by Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne of McGill University confronts this “environmentalist’s paradox.” 

The authors consider four possibilities. First, the numbers are wrong, and we actually aren’t doing fine. But they are quick to reject this. The Human Development Index has increased in all major regions of the world over the past 35 years, while the global poverty rate has dropped by nearly 75 percent. Even with the recent spate of local catastrophes - an inundated Pakistan, a scorched Russia - humans by almost any measure are living longer, healthier lives than ever before.

What about food, then? Few revolutions have matched the impact of the Green Revolution, and human well-being depends largely on having enough to eat. Since food availability is increasing, perhaps it overwhelms whatever other privations we suffer. But while all this is true, the authors consider food a factor in the paradox but not an explanation.

In a similar vein, maybe technology is the savior, having (as the authors put it) “decoupled well-being from nature.” But support for this idea is ambiguous at best. Even with advances in technology, we still depend on ecosystem services more than ever. And it’s not as though technologies make us less dependent on those services - rather, they tend to let us use more of them than we were able to before. Which is how we end up with things such as - oh, say - deep-sea oil drilling or fracking.

This leads to the fourth hypothesis: that we have not yet begun to feel the full brunt of our depredations, due to a time lag, and wholesale collapse may be just around the corner. This is at once the most plausible answer and the most frustrating. The authors purport to tackle something that makes us uncomfortable, but their lasting message is one that leaves us in a very comfortable place. The environment is going down the tubes. Even if we haven’t paid for it yet, we’re about to - just you wait! Sound familiar? It’s Ehrlich’s old gamble.

Article source here

Government's Responsibility

In the last analysis, employment and prosperity are the function and responsibility of private enterprise. It is government’s responsibility to end the harassment, roadblocks, and regressive taxation and to offer, wherever practical, tax incentives that will help to provide jobs and a friendly business climate. - Ronald Reagan at the University of Southern California on April 19, 1966

Image source world wide web

A Willingness to Try

Betterment is possible. It does not take a genius. It takes diligence. It takes moral clarity. It takes ingenuity. And above all, it takes a willingness to try. - Atul Gawande

When I first saw that image, I had to laugh. What a clever business idea! It reminded me of the ingenuity of countless immigrants who came to America penniless but determined to make it. Many would try their luck in business. Some would peddle snake oil, others would try to sell you the Brooklyn bridge. There were many crooks and the mafia, but also many decent people who would come up with business ideas so unique that the whole world would sigh in admiration and then quickly set out to copy the example. Fortunes would be made and lost like nowhere else. This was the America in the making, always striving for the superlative.

The unique desire to succeed shaped the face of America from the very beginning of its existence. Capitalism in its most aggressive form was responsible for unsurpassed economic growth. But America did not exist in vacuum. Just like any other country it was touched by the globally occurring events. World War I, the Great Depression and World War II brought hardship and poverty to many, but at the same time, mobilized others to utmost creativity and diligence. In only few decades American economy recovered. American  Dream was the new motivating force. Prosperity was attainable once again.

People worked hard to achieve high living standard that was propagated by the cheerful Hollywood productions of the era. As always, some people made it, others were left behind. But one could always start all over. Americans were well known for their resilience. They were industrious and willing to take risks. And no one was blamed if things did not turn out well. There was no vicious envy for those who succeeded. Instead, people admired those who made it and wanted to emulate their success. This is how things always were in America. Until the Vietnam war, that is. 

The Vietnam war incited violent social and racial unrest. The suburban ideal crumbled when youth rebelled against everything that was sacred to their parents and grandparents. Things were never to be the same again. The conservative values of the previous generations were replaced by so called progressive thinking and a desire to create a new society which was to be modeled after the collectivist totalitarian societies of China and the Soviet Union. The acid-laced (LSD) vision of the American "revolutionaries" comfortably omitted the atrocities perpetrated by the communist regimes. They ignored the plight of the people living the communist hell on Earth behind the Iron Curtain.

America needed change but thankfully, the "red" rebellion did not succeed and things returned to normal. More or less. The disenchanted students went back to school and graduated. Some of them went to teach in schools and universities, others went into politics. Some, however, decided to embrace capitalism and became successful entrepreneurs. 

The late 70s brought the energy crisis, stagflation and the escalation of the Cold War. In 1981 Ronald Reagan became the president of the United States and once again America gradually recovered from the economic crisis. People prospered as the country experienced new wave of upward mobility. Everyone had the same chance to succeed, although Black and women still experience some discrimination.

Now, four decades later, the Vietnam era protest movement experienced its revival as the wave of protests spread across America. Once again, students took to the streets with demands for change. Ironically, many of them were indoctrinated by their own teachers - the very people whose rebellion died without success in the sixties - the Flower Power and the pot smoking hippies. This were the many "colorful" grown ups you could see among the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The protesting crowds were by no means homogeneous. Most of the protesters were young. Many of them were college graduates who could not find jobs with their degrees. But there were of course others. There were the union thugs, the agitators, the neglected veterans, the homeless, the long-term unemployed, but also others who claimed that they quit their jobs in order to participate in the protests. 

And just like in the sixties, the demands for change were made, most importantly, the demand to abolish capitalism and create a just society were the wealth would be redistributed and marijuana legalized. Once again America witnessed the revival of the Maoist and Stalinist thought. And this only twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union!

Their demand for equality is irrational and perilous! We all need an equal opportunities, but some of us are more talented than others. Some of us are more diligent or more determined. Some of us decide to work hard while others prefer to waste their lives away. And yet, demands are being made to share the wealth equally. These demands are reinforced by President Obama who believes that the rich are not paying their fair share.

The Wall Street protesters are backed, among others, by President Obama, by the Unions, by the American Communist Party, by the American Nazi Party, by the Vatican, and by Soros and his movement. There is no valid statistics, it appears that most of the demonstrating students have degrees in humanities. Very few of them understand how the economy works. They do not understand capitalism. And something is wrong with their math. They claim that they represent the 99%. They don't! 

Many of the the demonstrators do not really want to take responsibility for their own lives. Instead, they demand that things be given to them. Meritocracy is gradually being replaced by mediocrity, complacency and laziness. They abhor capitalism, but are comfortable with its products. Could they imagine a world without iPhones, Lewis jeans and Starbucks lattes? Probably not. And if you asked them whether they would agree to "redistribute" their good grades so that those who did not work hard could also graduate, you would hear an uproar. Grades are different! Grades cannot be compared to money and wealth! Why not?

There is no doubt that things must change in America. Cronyism and corruption must be eradicated. Entitlement programs must be reformed. Some oversight of financial institutions must be introduced, but the ridiculous business-stifling regulations must go. Conditions must be created for businesses to invest in America again. School system has to be reformed, infrastructure modernized. Tax code has to be simplified. It is scandalous that those who make money with money pay so much less taxes than those who create jobs and work hard to keep their family businesses afloat. And when a corporation pays less taxes than a teacher, something is fundamentally wrong.

Economy is in a downturn again and many people have very few reasons to feel optimistic. And yet, there still is much talent and much ingenuity in America. Some people give up too quickly, but others are always willing to try. 

By Dominique Teng

 
Post scriptum

Do not get me wrong! I do not suggest in this article that you have to senselessly toil for the rest of your life to amass a fortune that you wouldn't be able to spend in five lifetimes. This article is not that much about making money, as it is about dignity, self-realization, creativity, and ingenuity. 

Great fortunes were made by greedy sociopaths and much too many people suffered and died in poverty never being able to realize their own humanity. But our beliefs and values evolved over time and today we understand that some people are simply unable to fend for themselves. This is why social programs were created in many capitalist countries. Unfortunately, these systems are prone to fraud and abuse. Some are nothing but cleverly designed Ponzi schemes. They create dependence and lethargy. And they definitely buy votes. 

Just think. It is not about "justice". It is about motivation, self-reliance, self-determination and self-worth. It is about the individual mindset because people who resign themselves to handouts not only give up their independence, they also  forfeit a chance of genuine fulfillment. 

Image source unknown but greatly appreciated

A Willingness to Try by Dominique Teng is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Social Security, Ponzi Schemes, and the Need for Reform

 

By Michael D. Tanner

Recently there has been much debate over whether Social Security is or is not a Ponzi scheme.

Clearly Social Security has many structural characteristics that resemble those of the classic Ponzi or pyramid scheme. For example, like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security does not actually save or invest any of a participant's payments. When a worker pays taxes into the system, that money is used to pay current beneficiaries. Therefore, participants receive payments, not from returns on their own investments, but directly from inflows from subsequent participants.

As a result, Social Security was able to pay early participants a windfall return on their money. But as demographic changes result in fewer workers paying into the program and more recipients taking benefits out, the return to subsequent generations grows steadily worse. Today's young workers will receive a rate of return far lower than what they could receive from private markets.

However, there is one crucial distinction between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. Once Ponzi was unable to talk enough people into investing with him, his scheme collapsed. People participate in Social Security because the government makes them. And if the Social Security system begins to run short of people paying into the system, as it is now, it can always force those people to pay more.

Yet, Congress's ability to preserve Social Security through higher taxes and lower benefits should not distract from the more fundamental problem that the program's Ponzi-like structure makes it unable to pay currently promised levels of benefits with current levels of taxation. In short, the program is facing insolvency without fundamental reform.

Instead of just making a bad deal worse, that reform should fundamentally restructure Social Security. It should remove the Ponzi-like aspects of the program and allow younger workers to save a portion of their payroll taxes through privately invested personal accounts. 

Article source CATO Institute

Dangerous Institutions?

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (the banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.