The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Tuesday, May 10

A further word on Sustainability

If the best way to do something is to do it such that it can be done forever -- an elegant solution, if you will -- then why is the economic answer always fast, cheap, and dirty?

Sustainability ought to be within the reach of a G-8 leader such as the United States. Yet the desire for continued competition amid a global economic sphere, including the supreme dominance of that sphere, is paramount. the interests constantly being defended in the name of the founding fathers of the United States is that the free and independent path is the way to the future. Capitalism is that path, in the mind of the united states government and its policy.

[it seems that it is always easy to reveal the biases of the older generation from the perspective of a younger one. More on this later, but keep this as a parting thought and thought experiment: what if, collectively, the youth of today request one thing of their forebears: to take the path to sustainability; would the political and economic structures of today bend to the will of the generation to come? It would be democratic and would ease the current issue of taxation without representation re: debt load of environmental collapse and fiscal irresponsibility by the current empowered generation...]

And now, three points:

1. the economy should, theoretically, thrive on sustainable resource.

with the capacity to power everything, people would be granted more freedom. There would be less competition for natural resources and the needs of a sustained society would all be met. Now, one may think of this as ghettoization -- a form of agrarian slavery, yesteryear socialist gulags begging to be freed from bondage -- however, an elegant solution, simply has yet to found. If the resources being committed to military interventionism alone were diverted into research on sustainability, the face of the globe could be transformed within a decade.

Consider capitalism for a moment. What was once the design and construction of the means to capitalize upon an opportunity, has become the designate understanding of the processes and rate-determining steps required to achieve an endeavour. The rate determining steps of the current capitalism being resource and the means to lay claim to it. If the world is, at present, consuming resource at a rate that razes ["consumes all, sum totality of consumption"] a resource from the earth within a lifetime, then the world is certainly not sustainable, and something is seriously the matter with us. Thus, overcoming rate determining steps is the first step to a capital opportunity.

Second, it must be timely. The world is moving at an ever-quickening pace. This could explain why children are struggling in schools. There is ever-more information of know and assimilate. New ideas require time and space to develop and mature. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was the universe built in six. The pace at which humans are made to assimilate information, decide upon it and act, is breakneck. Compare this to the rate information exchange in the pre-tele-community, and Isaac Newton's head would spin. Before he knew what had hit him, he'd have to text message [insert contemporary here], to ruin his great idea There are few great "thinkers" in this world, save Chomsky and select others. Those that do are often persecuted in the court of public opinion -- where information exchange is fastest -- and among complete imbeciles. Alternatively, they are persecuted as radicals or threats to states or religions. Seen Rushdie lately? Thinkers choose to countermand the trend and create an eternal path. Remember Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Bodidharma.

Resources must also be both plentiful and accessible. To sustain growth and create a holistic new dynasty, its foundations must be plentiful and accessible. This is the final element of committed sustainable capitalism. Where once capitalism was footed in refinements in technique or design, it is now footed in refinement and technique of exploitation and resource -- whether it is resource that is being exploited or people or environment depends upon the "capitalist" opportunity. Since mechanization and petroleum have come of age, the destructive ingenuities of mankind has followed. To drive our further curiosities we now strip-mine rare metals from the earth, we dump billions cubic meters of toxins and pollutants into the environment, and mankind literally cooks the planet with construct gamma, X-ray, and fissile radiation.

2. freedom, theoretically, should thrive on sustainable resource.

Small communities are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves given three things: knowledge, action, and resource. If you want a banana in Alaska or Ontario or Miami you can do one of two things: you can grow one yourself or you can get one from someone else. Given a sustainable and productive resource is found, one ought to be free to choose, without recourse, either path.

If a resource is found that powers the capacity for people to teleport -- to travel anywhere at any time -- then the prices for items would fall dramatically as all transactions could be directly between people. Much in the same fashion as small, nomadic trading communities used to exist, so would they exist again, but on a global scale. Interracial relations would sharply incline as the sense of 'other' "races" would fall away. Remember, too, that telecommunication was once science fiction. Thanks Marconi.

Sustaining such a form of transport would also increase the probability that population would explode beyond control. Relying upon such natural population control devices as bacterium and viruses may yet solve this problem. If, one day, a neo-Black Plague is the scourge of humankind, perhaps then this whole security issue won't really matter. Of course, all military resources would be dumped into martial law efforts [read: population control] and military research efforts. Patenting the creation early would ensure continued human suffering and stocks in Pfizer-Smith-Kline-Behring would skyrocket. Long live the animal pharm!

Humans ourselves must choose to act sustainably. Freedom does not come without responsibility. The lesson of Eden should remind us of that. So, what is this elegant solution? What is the perfect way to live? Don't you think humans should attempt to find out? At least as one alternative to destroying the world on a daily basis...

3. democracy, theoretically, should thrive on sustainable resource.

Not necessarily the democracy of the here and now. The consturct of back-room deals, vote-purchases, and sponsorship scandals. No, the democracy of representation as of the ages long past. One person, one vote. Articulation without occult wordplays. Truth above all.

Imagine a stadium that would seat the world. Each day, for one hour, the world represents itself by standing at court with the world. Each day, concerns would be brought to light and statutes would be debated and voted upon until they were resolved by standing to vote, an appropriate device granted for those who cannot stand. Granted, with all of the necessary appeals and contests to each point, this type of bureaucracy could never stand. It would take centuries before we could agree to drive on either side of the road. Perhaps this true democracy works better in smaller numbers for a reason. Vast states with representative governments cannot possibly grasp the nuance to regional values and cultures. Oversight by federation encroaches absolutely in some instances. Representative democratic bodies, those the completely resolve issues, are invaribly smaller than national federations.

Resources applied to solving these types of issues ought to be of paramount importance to world leaders.

How about the speech delivered by President George W. Bush on 2005 April 20th, two days before Earth Day, wherein he discussed energy consumption and conservation without once using the word "sustain"?

It is not the goal of the current powers that be to act as custodians of the globe. The globe is to conquered, and it has been. It is presently being plundered. Sustainability could reverse this trend. No longer would the cost of medical supplies be dictated by the orchestra that is its manufacture, transport, and administration -- and all of the petite cash cycles therein. Economy, again, is a sham. It is an all-ecompassing illusion that denies people the capacity to search for a better way. Fast, cheap, and dirty; that is the way of this world.


Tuesday, May 3


So I had thought that involving myself with a larger corporation than the one i was already with might be a good move. Apparently the lessons I'd learnt hadn't sunk in. The motivating factors to any corporation are uniformity, fidelity, and profitability. Never challenge these underlying factors, as they will only undo one in the conduct of business with a corporation.

The corporation I work for presently is Rogers. More on this later. The corporation that i had thought of involving msyelf with is CitiFinancial via its subsidiary group Primerica. i just broke up with my handler, Roy, today. He took it pretty well. I tried the "it's not you, it's me" approach, and he tried to talk me out of it. Then I talked about the parent company and the conflict of ideals I experienced in conducting business with them, but he tried to explain this away as well. It wass really funny he tried to co-opt the fact that I still work for Rogers, knowing full well that I'm working my way out of that as well.

The Primerica opportunity was an experiment for me, as many things are. The approach of the business is to develop "leads," first through the people you are closely acquainted with, and then through the people that they introduce you to, and so on ad infinitum -- ideally. This is an excellent representation of corporate enterprise, capitalizing on the opportunities presented to you at each turn.

My issue is that this particular business mandates the agent to capitalize on every person you meet. This is much the same as viral occupation. Taking one's own ideals, co-opting the ideals of another -- inducing them to fall in line -- and utilising this co-option to recreate the ideals in that other. How is this achieved? By appealing to the plight of the working man, the wage slave, the under-appreciated employee. These people will never be "debt free and financially independent" by working for a large corporation. The path, obviously, ends in tragedy -- with a tiny apartment, an undersized pension, and a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Enter the white knight and the light of reason.

Primerica promises freedom and independence, the greatest of American ideals, for everyone; whether you work for the corporation, or simply provide access to their products. Granted, those who work for Primerica have the potential to generate vast wealth by securing deals for the corporation; insurance, investments, and structured payments. The design of Primerica's path to financial freedom and independence is logically infallible. Their recruiting practices offer this opportunity to anyone who is willing to pay the licensing fee. Ay, there's the rub...

And so, I paid the licensing fee. I also attended a meeting, one meeting, and had four interactions with my "coach" (read: handler) Roy. His position as an RVP was won by sacrifice and persistence, making the job work for him. There is no doubt in my mind that Roy is an honest and good person and that the job he does is just. His successes have elevated the quality of life for his wife, his family, and the people he has come to know around him. An admirable series of experiences ensuring his financial success. Experiences that I have said no to.

Here's why. Not only does the development of business connections for the world's largest corporate finance entity through my friends and my family have admit of a seemingly insidious nature, in my opinion, but the operations of the parent entity also do not strike me as admirable. While Roy is a good-natured person, the corporation about him does not always share his benevolence. Whereas there are those who will support a company despite their exploitative practices, I cannot.

Disagreements of business philosophy are not reconciled across the kitchen table, where most of Primerica's deals are made. Presenting a narrative of a possible future does not ensure that future will exist. Selling futures, as Primerica does, constructs a gambit by which the a financial system is manipulated in favour of everyday people. This construct is, then, contingent upon the ability for everyday people to uphold their end of this binding agreement. Unfortunately, life is not this simple.

The weight of the corporation, its automatic machinery to procure funds, will surely crush any individual that does not fall in line. Missed payments or faltering income of any kind cannot be tolerated. Any misfortune on the part of the client, the everyday person, bears the promise of a sink into further debt, and the promise of abandonment by the Citigroup umbrella -- unless, of course, the client can find more money to sink in to the system.

Having decided to not parttake of this enterprise, my investment is to be refunded. Partially. Though the wheels have been turning only for the last six days -- four business days -- the contract clearly states that $50 of my investment cannot be returned. I accept this. The timeliness of this refund has yet to be determined. My refund is certain to be confounded by the fact that I gave Roy cash and he, in turn, wrote a personal cheque to cover the fee. As always, the character of an entity -- individual or corporate -- can be discerned in its willingness to release funds. $165 is owed to me.