A New World Democratic government + Climate Agreement/Pact +
updated Economics (systems/Models)
"Situated knowledge taken to an extreme - some forms of situated knowledge (i.e. those grounded in biophysical reality) may prove to be acceptable if not wholly desirable - allows people to embrace a myriad of virtual realities while nature and humanity (primarily along lines of race, class and gender) continue to be exploited for socioeconomic and political profit. By emphasizing the relativity of all beliefs and the validity of socially constructing sustainability, post-modern cultural relativism helps empower modernist actors, institutions and processes to continue with business as usual (adapted from Drengson 1996). For it is difficult to establish which social construction leads to sustainability. As Alan Drengson argues: If there is no single natural reality which has integrity and evolutionary direction, and the world or Nature is just a social construction, then there is no moral reason we should not redesign it however we please... In New Age thought the 'many realities' language can become a way of avoiding responsibility for the present state of affairs (massive species extinction, e.g.) by living in a different 'reality', or by believing that we can change the world just by thinking in a certain way [or shifting consciousness as we desire] (Drengson 1996:2). While sustainability is not a purely homogeneous concept, which can be defined in a resolute, deterministic and narrow manner, it nevertheless is bounded by one knotty, complex and multifold reality. There are certainly varying ways of organizing this reality and of achieving sustainability. We can create our own sur-reality, or experienced reality, if we subjectively inhabit the world, but survival requires that we live sustainably (Drengson 1996:2). In effect, reality is like a giant crystal, which shifts and changes as it turns, but nevertheless is always one crystal. Ultimately, even though there can be different interpretations of sustainability, in order for these visions to be viable they must be grounded within multidimensional reality. And, it is with an understanding of this reality, that sustainability does not become a desirous everything for everyone, but a concrete concept that recognizes the real need for environmental responsibility."
The economy of today with capitalism as the dominant economic paradigm is interconnected across the world. Capitalism and fossil fuels have resulted in vast advancements for humanity over the last 100 years but the planet has limits. Everything takes energy.
Money = power and money in a capitalist system tends to funnel towards the top without sane restrictions, systems of law and laws. It also tends to always produce a single-track mind towards competition and profits over everything while neglecting many other aspects of life and that which support life itself. I believe it's time we humans develop and implement some sane ground rules that apply to all countries and people to more sustainably live life on our planet and build a better future - that could be amazing and great for everyone. There is much groundwork that has been laid already in the form of international laws but not all countries abide and the U.N. frameworks have been setup to be undermined in the first place by countries with veto powers effectively holding the world hostage by the governments of a few over the vast vast majority. I'm not sure if my proposals are the very best (most fair, just, least oppressing, etc.) and realize and know they need be fleshed out more but is only my take at this time and setting initial broad proposals - something I would do if I was the most powerful person in the world (President of the United States).
"We oppose the division of the world in competing blocks that invest in rampant militarism, hyper-modern weapons of mass destruction and a new Cold War. We believe that lasting peace can be achieved only by replacing all military blocks with an inclusive International Security framework that de-escalates tensions, expands freedoms, fights poverty, limits exploitation, pursues social and environmental justice and terminates the domination of one country by another"
- Yanis Varoufakis on why the world needs a new Non-Aligned Movement. -On Friday, January 27, 2023, DiEM25 co-founder and MERA25 leader Yanis Varoufakis gave a speech at the Havana Congress on the New International Economic Order, about the need for a new Non-Aligned Movement to "end the legalised robbery of people and Earth fuelling climate catastrophe." The co-founder of DiEM25 was in Cuba on an official visit upon an invitation from the Havana government and a key topic of discussion on his trip was the creation of a New Non-Aligned Movement that will aim for a New International Economic Order.
(Blog Posts: What is reality?. Bad Economics. "Woke". Cryptocurrency as means to democratizing capitalism?.)
Why can't we do this and these things? If the world and the U.S. really wanted to transition towards a sustainable society that honors life then why not? Why aren't there real economic repercussions and incentives (2015 non-binding Paris Climate Agreement, etc., etc.) and a move towards an economy that makes ACTUAL sense given REALITY as we know it?
I would "make things simple, stupid" (military saying), as a general rule and (as President of the United States):
I would start with proposing to the world leaders in a way that is cooperative and democratic (all of these things and proposals need be done in such a way that is, with mass cooperation, deliberation and overall agreement) a global carbon tax and a binding new climate agreement. Binding to all countries or else they would face economic repercussions within the world's trade markets such as in ways of non-cooperation such as boycotting, divesting and tariffs. - This is not the same as sanctioning a company and these actions would be willful actions of host/participating countries.
Start the transition towards a circular economy in the United States and encourage others to do the same (already happening in many nation-states including in the European Union. - Update: Since the war in Ukraine and possible corporate interferences I suspect, it seems "it is on hold" or not being talked about much anymore that I know of).
Propose a new economic model based on humanity's unlimited ability to create through the human mind but living on and within a finite planet with finite resources. --------------- Setting the dollar (the world's current reserve currency) as inflation-adjusted based on human progress which would be calculated --------------- Doing away with the Federal Reserve as we know it today and instituting a new Federal Reserve body and practices in it's place OR ->
Alternative to #3: A new global currency by a New Democratic World Governmental body that acts with extreme transparency and is held liable by all countries and people of the Earth that also sets a few simple ground rules (see below) > - > -> expanding in power, remaking and rebranding the United Nations (United Nations of Earth) to undertake this role.
- As an addition to the expanded economic powers of the U.N. or newly formed government body, proposing they also provide arbitration and very basic planetary rules (see below or continue reading) for all nations and organizations/people to follow and abide by less they face economic repercussions in worldly trade. Arbitration also could help in reducing dangerous conflicts through settling international court cases between nation-states and multinational corporations and nation-states. I like this option best.
-The United States with our military power could/should only work to better promote peace and democracy - this is the highest level of democracy. We spend and have spent a ton on our military over years and decades - therefore, through democracy maybe the world could/would "pay" us (through democratic processes and deliberations) for services rendered to promote peace - through the higher world government - the possibilities are endless really. As the world is now, much of the United States power comes through military and economic might but the current economic system and these types of ends through these kinds of means are oppressive and destructive in nature/reality - one could easily call the current system(s) genocidal and ecocidal and non-sustainable in its very nature.
Update: 2/1/2023: No - I was wrong. Wrong about inflation and wrong about sanctions. A world reserve currency should not be inflationary in any way. It should be static. There should be no interest anywhere in the world. Profits that are made via money and money lending are wrong and lead always, eventually to ever-widening wealth inequality and oppression. Debt = credit in another persons account. So in reality, debt = is a form of holding power over another and is used to enslave the world and leads to wars, inflation (that is, loss of value of money, a loss of savings), and economic boom-bust cycles. Manipulations. Injustice. Sanctions are illegal under the United Nations international law and as they should be as people are the ones who end up being hurt and suffering. Governments - foreign or domestic, should not be used to oppress people.
The carbon tax: would require profits on carbon taxes to be spent on the transition towards a zero and eventually negative carbon economy. Doing it the most efficient way possible which is, first, spending on 1st world countries to lower our/their emissions. Then afterwards and also during - after return on investment (ROI) gets to a certain point where spending is not very beneficial (like the upper 80% on a curve), spending on lesser developed countries (renewable, green economy infrastructure), giving them more energy per capita . -> Transitioning towards also protecting water resources (resource rights) and towards sustainable agriculture that puts carbon back in the ground (also helping to slow and sink water for beneficial uses). Also implementing measures towards increasing the albedo of the Earth; that is implementing white surfaces on roofs, parking lots, etc., reflecting high energy UV radiation directly out of our atmosphere, back out to space. Towards a circular economic model - "the circular economy" as it is called which creates truly healthy economies with much sharing and new job opportunities and business models - cradle to grave product design and circularity principles with the goal of having zero waste - smart designs (systems), learn from nature, work with nature, not against it, creating a beautiful and vibrant world.
If only a tiny percent of global GDP went into transitioning towards a carbon neutral economy then we could be making huge strides every year (2.5%). What better way of advancing towards the future is there than not destroying our home planet and making it a nice place to live at/on? Nature - in such that all things rely on (ourselves included) and where we evolved. We go out in it without a care or worry (about dying from a simple foreign bacteria, fungus or virus as we might on some alien planet); drink of its waters, eat of all its fruits. Plunder its riches that have fueled and been the backbone with which we've built our world and based our economies around which. We own it. It's ours. To destroy it, is like destroying ourselves and our future.
Good Video here, James Hanson talking about a carbon tax, also Citizens Climate Lobby proposes a very nice carbon tax. It Is more domestic/nationally focused. I believe though, that if the President of the United States would propose these ideas to the United Nations and all the Nation's truly positive actions would come about. Then nations working together to create a good and fair carbon tax (and spending fund) system.
I believe it would be a good idea to tax the initial buyer of fossil fuels - then they would spend that money within country towards transitioning towards a carbon-neutral economy until neutral or nearly neutral. Once that point reaches a plateau and it becomes harder to draw down emissions with spending (at like, say, 90% or however much it happens to peak at (the curve, such as energy return on investment curves) for an individual country and if still buying, then having money go towards helping other countries such as the lesser developed countries (they having higher population growth rates anyway as well). It would also entail creating rules and regulations on suppliers so they can't tamper with supply to manipulate prices.
-> "The United Nations of Earth" Idea expanded:
What I believe is needed is the formation and creation of a transparent, democratic "United Earth" (or some other name) type of governmental organization. One that supersedes all multinational corporations (and all business dealings), international banks, governments and everything/all other organizations. It would provide direction and rules for all countries to follow and obey. It must be truly fair and democratic i.e. one nation = one vote. Much like how true democracy should be run everywhere. Money and power should have no influence. It should meet with and hear all countries and take into consideration all people. All culture, language, tradition, religion, all science and information, all the latest technological developments, (all the most wealthy people of the world as well) - basically, consider all human affairs and developments of the world as best as it can and to make the best choices that it/we can; to go towards the world we want to have and live in, for ourselves and future generations. It is the future I believe in anyway, especially if we are to become an interstellar or multi-planet space exploring species. We should have a unified government representing all of humanity. It should take into account all human progress (unlimited) and all of the Earth's resources (limited), setting a new global currency standard. This is the best way I can think of to move forward given the state of the world and its interconnectedness (would love to have conservations on the topic though and if anyone has any better ideas?).
I believe all governments and governmental bodies should make all meetings recorded and open (available) to the public. All public servants should be held accountable for their actions and any corruption (corrupt dealings, "quid pro quo", under the table deals) should be publically prosecutable and they should be barred from holding any public office thereafter if found guilty of selling themselves (and humanity) out for personal gain of profit.
(related blog post here)
It's just an idea (ideas can change the world). Consider, if an alien race where to come and observe humanity, what would they think? We are trying to go to space and do all this and that (have advanced tactical nukes, spend trillions on our military and warmaking, etc., etc.) yet we can't even take care of our own planet which gave birth to us and sustains us and millions still suffer from food insecurity and clean water access. Even in America, the richest country on earth, people still suffer greatly and suicide rates especially in 2020 during the pandemic were very high. Is quite bad and depressing in my opinion growing up in a world as such that seems to only value money (money being the "end all, be all" - greed - a false dogma of capitalist thought ("systemic sponsor of self-interest") is that people only do things for themselves and profit is the main motivation that will lead to "progress" and so competition and technological progress are always what is best). I think it would do much good for the motivation, mindset and spirit of people throughout the world to dissolve this false notion and to give people a more positive outlook. The best people throughout the history of the world we're not those who were looking to make a buck. That's a fact.
Proposals/rules for the planet and humanity as of now including the above global carbon tax:
o De-escalation/disarmament of Nuclear Weapons Pact: A pact to ban any mass/large scale weapon(s) (and development) of these type- biological synthetic, large scale weapons of mass destruction – scale being the keyword. Providing protections to whistle blowers of such technology and harsh military and economic actions against individuals who break the rules. This includes the United States of America de-arming itself.
o No A.I. for offensive weapons pact (respect of human life). The potential lethality of "smart" weapon systems combined with advanced military technology and robotics is downright scary. Defensive A.I./smart technology should be permissible and would therefore develop into being a more safe world as international ballistic weapons, biological weapons, etc. would be less of a threat. So would computer/cyber attacks and security as well which would be very good for nation-states with less.
o Biological integrity pact(s) - Limits in deploying, modifying and developing genetically modified organisms into the wild (flora and especially fauna since we already deploy so many genetically modified crops in and within agriculture). Requiring much data (years of testing and computer-modeled simulation runs) for possible exemptions to the law.
- Also moving away from environmentally destructive and unsustainable agricultural practices - could be expanded to provide finances to countries who preserve ecological hotspots for the world as well and penalties unto those who violate the "New Paris" climate agreement (The IPCC, scientific organizations and scientists have been warning us for years that action must be taken and I agree - as do most people I believe, know, even if they don't want to change or they might not like that things are getting much harder because of the actions of greedy corporations and individuals throughout the world - I believe that is the real problem of resistance there against any climate change agendas by some populations).
New Blog post here.
and also here.
The latter blog post also proposes:
- /\ - talking about Chinese construction/development but it applies to all construction, manufacturing, and consumption of goods - “Carbon intensive Construction and manufacturing” –
My take: Is this not the intrinsic problem with global competition between Nations when it comes to thinking about the planet as a whole and it’s problems we and it (capitalism itself producing or having its effect be, that of so much competition) present to it (the world - global warming, biodiversity, pollution, extinctions, etc., etc.)? Do we not believe in Democracy? People and education. Our smartness as a species – individually and as a whole. To come together, to hold each other and ourselves accountable to create a better world for all. Then why not create an organization that supersedes all corporations (transnational in power, principally) and Nation-States to set agreements everyone can all agree on and work towards meeting? Long-term planning is better than short-term planning. Even individually one can see that (oftentimes, concepts and things scale up and down nicely) - living for life as a whole, considering your life on a long time span. Goal setting for example (day, week, month, year, 5 yr. 10 yr. 20 yr. 30 yr. Etc. etc.). Also how that affects others and the world (impact one can have in life and butterfly effect(s)). We see always (mostly, and when/if we can think well on such topics) that being smart about things and our decisions/choices have consequences and impacts (use your brain!...). Teamwork (more than one brain) is good. Cooperation. Democracy. So then, why not? – Of course, having a global government with too much power is dangerous as well but who really runs the world as is? That’s why things need to be Democratic and transparent (to the highest of levels) and not overly complicated or dictatorial. The United Earth" needn't be any type of organization with people at all, just the meeting of diplomats somewhat like how it is with the current U.N. system but different, and having the U.N. and international laws be binding on all countries and the U.N. being itself, held accountable for its actions by any and all people. The International rules as is are not overly complex or too much but the U.N. itself does not hold all countries unto its own rules AND it has no power that binds.
- § Love. Respect. Goodness can overcome. The Truth always prevails.
+ Nuclear Weapons. The Age of A.I. Machine learning and the smart internet of things. Military applications. Downright SCARY. The lethality and deadliness of potential weapons/weapon systems. We should be very wary and choose wisely and think about what kind of World we want to live in especially with a warming climate that could cause global upheaval at unprecedented scale.
+ I think we should come to agreements and pacts about a lot of these big issues that transcend us as individual human beings living here, just right now, on the planet at this time.
New Proposals and updates:
No tax havens - make tax havens and tax evasion illegal throughout the whole world for individuals and corporations. Tax profits of multinational corporations the same as domestic-only corporations.
No debt-based economics - No interest - No new money creation - reset all global debt. Set a global reserve currency at a level, say $10,000 for every individual on the planet at the time and leave the total amount of currency the same forever more. Interest causes unfair and unjust wealth inequality and creating money causes inflation. Need more input and discussion of the topic on how this could be worked out but it is definitely something I firmly believe in and know to be true - is just a matter of and the structure of the current economy and banking and the need for that system to function properly is credit. - ->
So say, even like how in this system, a bank can create money to give a loan to a person to buy a house. The house's price is already set but they need a loan agreement to buy the house with payments over time. So you need sufficient credit for this to happen...or a company wants to invest in another, like a startup, well you could just let them set up they're own agreement to payback that investment if they are successful...winning some money but not excessively so and not taking any ownership of the company or having any influence in that company is the right thing and if they aren't successful then, well, they would just lose that money - seems fair. "You win some you lose some". The current system doesn't work like that - obviously - they never want to lose. So for house loans how to go about that? - You wait until you can buy a house or get a loan from a super-rich person or richer person (a friend) - essentially a bank now - the super-rich person (can easily think and relate a bank with a super-rich person in this context), and they make guaranteed money off the interest and loan without doing anything - without building the house, without doing much of anything, (some paperwork, templates) without giving themselves any risk of losing money - that is not right...if you have real democracy and the vast majority of people running the government and directing (society) and working towards building towards a secure world, a peaceful world, a highly developed world, you don't have these problems and so, "I'm a socialist".
- Give the U.N. more "teeth" (actually they already have the power but hardly ever use it)- prosecute international criminals and criminal actors - The U.S., yes us, get away with far too much - on that note, make the U.N. truly democratic with two or even more representatives from every country and every voice and every vote being equal - or could have a more ranked choice vote based on population size (China and India would have the most influence) but I like the former better and in the form of real democracy, just like within a national government regarding the voice of corporations, the people who are in politics should give a little more ear so to speak to highly important matters and topics. Is not rocket science! People are smart. There is an international news media etc. and a highly connected globe already. - Prosecute people (I support the death penalty, kill people cheaply, humanely, with humility and be done with it) - not whole nation-states - sanctions should be illegal. How to have teeth and move the world towards a sustainable planet? That's another discussion that can be worked out. As is, we shouldn't have corporate neo-liberal eco-fascism (World Economic Forum) - we need to work towards a circular economy (it's been developed, people throughout the world have knowledge in this day and age of so much, so much - how is it being used and deployed?) - countries should be improving themselves, not hurting themselves - building - improving. People could and should work more in agriculture - community agriculture - for sustainable reasons (knowledge - fact - soil has the capacity to hold a whole lot of carbon if you do it right) - I think a lot of people are fine and want to live more like that anyway but they don't have the means (money, and community, community trust is lacking as well, - also the farmer in the capitalist society is oppressed basically by the capitalist corporations of the world locking them into a system of production where they struggle to even make ends meet- it (community trust lacking) is a product of individualist competitive capitalism (everything works for profit - even the prison system is a for profit system) while us workers all get poorer and the rich want full control (check out my blog if you don't believe me, seemingly, is also about U.S. imperial dominance and has been - is the nature of the capitalist world that we have to compete against one another (man vs man trying to get more than the next man, which is okay if it leads to good things and advancing society but obviously...anyway...is why I'm not a total commie, at least not yet anyway...I believe in trade, in creativity (learning) which spawns ideas and new products (consumer choices and all this extra stuff we have now which we don't truly need but are nice to have), in the rule of law and government to protect individuals, freedoms, and democracy - organizations and structures/structuring of society so that it doesn't degrade into anarchy and people killing each other for resources (the real money and keys to power (money) in the capitalist world but economics is not capitalism, trade is and can be helpful and productive obviously but there needs to be restraints and rules on capitalism).