Di seguito tutti gli interventi pubblicati sul sito, in ordine cronologico.
“La Siria sta pagando un prezzo altissimo per una partita che serve a stabilire nuovi equilibri mondiali e in Italia la verità non viene detta, viene raccontata un’altra realtà”. E’ quanto afferma Mimmo Srour, siriano, ingegnere, ex assessore della Regione Abruzzo e della Provincia dell’Aquila, ex sindaco di Sant’Eusanio Forconese, comune in provincia de L’Aquila.
Srour è nato a Nakib, in Siria, dove è rimasto fino al momento di intraprendere gli studi universitari. Il suo vero nome è Mahmoud ma tutti lo chiamano “Mimmo” fin da quando venne in Italia, nel 1969, per laurearsi in Ingegneria presso l’Università dell’Aquila, città dove ha deciso di restare mettendo sù famiglia.
Mimmo Srour conosce bene la Siria e anche in questi momenti così delicati e complessi continua ad essere in contatto costante con persone, che ricoprono vari incarichi, che vivono in Siria. L’aspetto che mette in evidenza e che non riesce ad accettare riguarda l’informazione di parte che viene portata avanti in Occidente. “Un po’ di tempo fa alcuni giornalisti italiani, di giornali anche blasonati, sono andati in Siria – afferma – e una volta tornati nessun giornale gli ha dato la possibilità di scrivere e raccontare quello che avevano visto. E’ stato imposto il silenzio su quanto sta accadendo in Siria”.
Secondo lei cosa sta accadendo in Siria?
Io sono convinto che tutto è già stato scritto da parecchio tempo. Chi è attento a quello che succede in Siria, queste cose le ha sentite e lette tempo fa, da tanto si parla di Grande Medio Oriente, di disordine creativo. Hanno promesso queste cose a tutto il bacino del Mediterraneo. Vi sono in atto nuovi equilibri mondiali, in cui la Russia aspira ad un ruolo diverso rispetto a quello che ha assunto negli ultimi anni, dopo il crollo del muro di Berlino e dell’Unione sovietica. Dietro la Russia sembra che ci sia la Cina, ma anche Brasile, India e Sudafrica, cioè i cinque Paesi che compongono il BRICS. Credo che la Siria stia pagando questo prezzo e per questo si sta combattendo una guerra. Il Times ha scritto che quelli che combattono in Siria in realtà sono tutti mercenari, combattono dietro un compenso pagato dai Paesi del Golfo. E’ vero che in Siria ci sono dei problemi, tra cui la corruzione, però questo non c’entra niente con quanto sta accadendo, i Paesi del Golfo hanno voluto approfittare della situazione difficile per arrivare ad un loro obiettivo. Basta guardare la carta geografica e leggere cosa sta succedendo in questi giorni in Pakistan, in Afghanistan dove sappiamo chi c’è, in Iran, in Iraq e in Siria che diventa la porta verso il Mediterraneo. Il “cambio del regime” in Siria è una parola d’ordine e solo le parole d’ordine si rispettano in questo modo: con il silenzio. Nessuno dice, nemmeno per dovere dell’informazione, cosa fa una parte e cosa sta facendo l’altra. Si stanno verificando atti di puro terrorismo, come l’attentato che è successo a Damasco. Non capisco perché se il ministro della Difesa e il viceministro sono colpevoli allora li portiamo a processo, altrimenti li uccidiamo con le bombe. Oggi in Siria non si può viaggiare da una città all’altra perché c’è il rischio di essere sequestrati e in base alla carta d’identità pure uccisi. Ci sono delinquenti di professione che hanno costituito le loro bande, fermano e uccidono.
Da un lato c’è la Russia e dall’altro lato chi c’è?
C’è l’Arabia Saudita, il Qatar, tutti i Paesi del Golfo, e la Turchia, Paesi che pagano. Poi c’è l’America e tutto l’Occidente tra cui l’Inghilterra, la Francia, che sta cercando di riacquistare un ruolo da protagonista ma sta facendo solo danni, che forniscono armi, strumenti, attrezzature, tecnologie. Tutti abbiamo l’obbligo, il dovere di difendere la laicità della Siria, la tolleranza della Siria. In Siria il 40% della popolazione sono minoranze: Sunniti, Sciiti, Alawiti, Drusi, Cristiani Ortodossi, Cristiani di rito Orientale e Occidentale e si trovano ben quattro etnie diverse: arabi, curdi, armeni e drusi. Convivono insieme 19 confessioni religiose, questo era un modello che andava salvato e salvaguardato. Non è possibile giustificare quanto sta accadendo solo perché non fa comodo avere Assad, perché bisogna dare vita al grande Medio Oriente. Una donna in minigonna fino a qualche tempo fa poteva andare alle 3 di notte in una qualunque via di Damasco da sola e non le sarebbe successo niente. Nel giro di 18 mesi siamo arrivati che nessuno può uscire da casa.
Lei ha contatti con persone che si trovano in Siria?
Ho contatti continuamente e la gente è terrorizzata, impaurita, la gente non capisce perché questo odio contro il popolo siriano, la gente non riesce a comprenderlo. Addirittura noi che difendiamo le minoranze, in Siria abbiamo abbandonato anche i cristiani. Bisogna ricordare a tutti che il cristianesimo è nato in Siria seicento anni prima dell’Islam. La Siria non è un paese qualsiasi, ha una storia alle spalle. Ha dato alla Chiesa cattolica quattro Papi, ha dato imperatori all’Impero Romano. Io dico che quanto sta accadendo non è comprensibile. Dove sta la primavera di cui parlano tutti? Questo è un “inverno gelido”, non una “primavera”. Dove sta in Libia, in Egitto? La primavera consiste nel consegnare la sponda Sud del Mediterraneo all’Islam politico e in alcune occasioni integralista? Significa che non abbiamo capito nulla. Io ho dedicato la vita per il dialogo nel bacino del Mediterraneo, per creare non una frontiera, ma un ponte di dialogo e invece stiamo lavorando per consegnare, malgrado la volontà popolare, la Siria alle monarchie assolute. In Arabia Saudita una donna non può uscire di casa da sola, deve essere accompagnata da un uomo, non può guidare la macchina, non c’è un Parlamento, non si vota nemmeno per un condominio. Nel Qatar la stessa cosa. Possono essere protagonisti di una “primavera democratica” questi Paesi che sono monarchie assolute? A chi vogliono farlo credere.
Tempo fa è stato detto che l’Emiro del Qatar vuole diventare il leader di un grande movimento islamico del Medio Oriente....
Appunto e noi dobbiamo aspettare un po’ di tempo per vedere cosa succederà. Adesso c’è questo baratto, ma poi vedrete cosa succederà. Certo che la Siria deve essere cambiata, tutto quello che vogliamo, ma non è questa la strada, non si può perseguire la strada libanese dove uno uccide l’altro, dove si uccide il vicino di casa con il quale prima erano stati condivisi momenti belli. Non capisco nemmeno questo silenzio che è stato imposto, non si dice cosa sta accadendo in Siria, questa Europa che non vale più niente, è un’Europa che ha dimenticato il suo passato, lo sta barattando.
Assad è stato sempre descritto come una persona diversa dal padre, molto più aperto. Qual è il suo commento?
Ma a chi vogliono far credere che questo ragazzo sia un dittatore. La Siria è un paese che ha una Costituzione e un Parlamento da almeno 60 anni. Assad è uno che accompagna i figli a scuola, ha studiato all’estero, è un oculista, e in fondo non voleva neanche fare questo mestiere, si è trovato al posto del padre probabilmente a causa della morte del fratello. Veramente è incredibile quello che avviene e come sta accadendo, tutto quello che sta accadendo in Siria è stato progettato e scritto anni fa dai neoconservatori americani e adesso Obama lo sta mettendo in atto, credevamo che lui era diverso e invece non lo è per niente. Se è vero che l’obiettivo sono le riforme, ci sarà un modo per far sedere tutti attorno a un tavolo e discutere del futuro della Siria. E’ necessario mettere le bombe? Le infrastrutture in Siria sono state demolite, stanno riducendo il Paese all’età della pietra. Le ferrovie non esistono più, tutti i ponti ferroviari sono stati fatti saltare. Le centrali elettriche sono state distrutte e metà paese è stato ridotto al buio. Distrutti anche gli oleodotti, c’è una carenza di gas e le famiglie non possono cucinare e in inverno non potranno riscaldarsi. Ma perché tutto questo? A cosa serve, se non a distruggere un paese.
Cosa dobbiamo aspettarci?
Il problema non è Assad. Se per un motivo qualsiasi Assad venisse messo fuori, la Siria si divide, gli alawiti e i cristiani della costa vanno per conto loro, i drusi della zona confinante con la Giordania se ne vanno da soli, i curdi andranno da soli. Sarà guerra civile vera. Noi oggi dobbiamo sperare nel buon senso di qualcuno, che è l’Occidente da una parte e la Russia dall’altra, che rinuncino ai loro progetti e lascino stare il popolo siriano a discutere del suo futuro. Solo con il dialogo e non con le armi si può risolvere tutto. La Russia vuole la sua base a Tartus, vuole ostacolare questo grande Medio Oriente perché nella parte sud della Russia ritorna la cintura di ferro e la Russia non accetterà mai questo. Già non digerisce la stazioni radar in Turchia e in Polonia. Sapendo tutto questo perché devono portarci verso una guerra. E’ una pazzia quello che sta avvenendo. L’unica cosa che possiamo fare è di costringere il regime e gli oppositori, che sono tanti e a cui è difficile dare una identità, a ragionare del futuro della Siria. La Siria è un paese di tolleranza e noi non possiamo buttarlo nella guerra civile come si sta facendo.
Sul sito Siriatruth che è un sito dell’opposizione, un’opposizione diversa dalle altre, laica, c’è scritto che chi ha messo la bomba nel quartier generale della Sicurezza Nazionale siriana è il segretario del presidente Assad, che non ha niente a che fare con l’opposizione ma è un uomo dei servizi segreti americani. E dopo l’attentato si è rifugiato nella casa dell’ambasciatore americano a Damasco. Questa è una notizia che arriva dall’opposizione. Ma è possibile che se uno Stato o un governo non ci piace noi lo buttiamo giù, ma non democraticamente. Se tutti fossero stati sinceri allora dovevano far votare il popolo siriano, sotto controllo internazionale, e si vedeva cosa voleva questo popolo. Se il popolo non votava per Assad, allora lo si mandava via. Nessuno ha scritto la notizia che Assad ha anche cambiato l’articolo 8 della costituzione così come gli era stato chiesto, nessuno ha detto niente. Ultimamente in Siria sono nati 20 partiti nuovi anche di opposizione ma nessuno lo dice, perché l’obiettivo sono gli equilibri internazionali e la Siria fa parte di questo scacchiere, in nome di una “primavera” che non c’è stata.
Cosa pensa del Piano di pace di Kofi Annan?
Si è capito subito che questo Piano non poteva avere un seguito, perché quando la Lega Araba, e sappiamo chi è oggi la Lega Araba, ha mandato i suoi osservatori questi hanno scritto qualcosa di diverso rispetto a quello che avrebbero voluto leggere questi monarchi arabi e cosa è successo: gli osservatori sono stati mandati a casa. Kofi Annan è più tosto e si sta muovendo meglio, in quanto sta coinvolgendo la Russia in modo più forte, certamente non è detto che ci riuscirà ma prima di mettere da parte il Piano passerà un po’ di tempo.
Pensa che ci sarà un intervento militare?
Questo lo vogliono fare già da molto tempo, l’unica cosa che lo impedisce è la forza missilistica siriana, in quanto la Siria si prepara da sempre, e questo è un altro male, ad un’altra guerra con Israele. Di conseguenza la Siria ha un esercito organizzato, è un Paese che non si può paragonare alla Libia. Inoltre la preoccupazione dei Paesi occidentali è quella di giustificare con l’opinione pubblica l’invio dei soldati in Siria. L’opinione pubblica non sopporta i troppi morti come è successo in Iraq, allora solo per questa paura stanno cercando di indebolire l’esercito siriano e poi fanno l’attacco. Non hanno fatto l’attacco tempo fa perché in Siria c’è un esercito organizzato e certamente sanno che ci vuole del tempo per indebolire e rendere meno reattivo l’esercito siriano. In Iraq i Paesi occidentali hanno fatto una guerra in base ad una bugia e chi ha mai chiesto conto su tutto questo, sono morti un milione di iracheni e nessuno si è preoccupato, tanto sono iracheni e possono morire. In Libia sono morte 40 mila persone e nessuno ha detto niente.
Cosa dovrebbe fare il governo italiano?
Il governo italiano non è in grado di fare nulla, ogni tanto gli dicono di fare qualche dichiarazione perché in tutta questa vicenda c’è il gioco delle parti.
Qual è la sua speranza?
Spero che il popolo, non il governo, italiano non rimanga inerme di fronte a tutto questo, ma pretenda di conoscere la verità e di sentire tutte e due le campane e non una sola, di far passare notizie per potersi formare un’opinione. Per farsi un’opinione bisogna leggere tutto e non solo una parte. L’attentato a Damasco è stato riportato come un atto eroico e mi sta bene che lo dicono, però devono dire anche il resto, non solo una parte. Abbiamo il diritto come popolo italiano di formarci un’opinione, l’informazione non può essere a senso unico. E’ impossibile che la televisiva siriana in arabo “Addounia”, laica, viene oscurata in Europa, parlo di una Tv libera, e invece trasmettono decine e decine di stazioni televisive salafite, che notte e giorno incitano alla morte, all’assassinio. E’ possibile questo in una Europa che ha conosciuto l’Illuminismo? Eppure avviene, avviene nel XXI secolo. Il colonialismo del XIX e XX secolo era molto moderato, più dolce, rispetto a quanto sta accadendo oggi.
No Money or Market System
Automation of Labor
Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach.
Access over Property.
Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
Science as the Methodology for Governance
1) No money or market system.
Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental.
The core problems to consider are the following:
A) The need for "Infinite Growth" which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and "economic growth". In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.
B) A "Corruption Generating" Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes.
Also, if one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds.
C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US and bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This "cost efficiency" generates extreme "technical inefficiency" and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money.
In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the "strategically best" possible goods. (see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.
D) A propensity for "Establishments". Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit, and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation.
If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a "competition" mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.
The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and 'Big Oil' collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( ie - the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.
In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature.
E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay "competitive" This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay "competitive" against another company... which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers "create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices" is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis.
They very simply cannot make the "strategically best" physically - it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember - people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste.
You will notice the term "strategically best" was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the "strongest" materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes - such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statistical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is mere issue of calculation.
F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This "invisible hand" assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the "free market" itself does not resolve these issues - it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies.
This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on "growth", it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand and hence dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world - expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above- the inherent propensity of an "Establishment" to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel's income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.
G) The market system is driven, in part, by Scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world's people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits.
Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn't even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed.
While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of "running out"--- the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never "run out" of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.
2) Automation of Labor
As the trend of what appears to be an exponential increase in the evolution of information technology, robotics, and computerization- it has become apparent that human labor is becoming more and more inefficient in regard to meeting the demands necessary for supporting the global population. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an increasing trend of "technological unemployment", which is the phenomenon where humans are replaced by machines in the work force. This trend, while debatable in regard to its ultimate long term effect on employment, creates a propensity to displace the worker and hence the consumer, slowing consumption.
That stated, this issue is actually overshadowed by a larger social imperative: That the use of machine labor (mechanization) is provably more efficient than human performance in virtually all sectors. If one was to track, for example, the performance output of factory production such as within the steel industry in the US for the past 200 years, we find that not only do less than 5% of the workforce now work in such factories, the efficiency and output capacities have increased substantially. The trend, in fact, now shows that "Employment is Inverse to Productivity." The more mechanization that occurs, the more productive an industry becomes.
Today, there are repetitive occupations which simply do not need to exist given the state of automation and computerization ("cybernation"). Not only would mechanization in these areas reduce the mundane burden and allow more free time for people, it also would, more importantly, increase productivity. Machines do not need breaks, vacations, sleep, etc. The use of mechanization on its own means to create many forms of abundance on this planet, from food to physical goods.
However to do this, the traditional labor system we have simply cannot exist. The reality is that our labor for income system is stifling progress in its requirement to "keep people working" for the sake of "economic stability". We are reaching a stage where the efficiency of automation is overriding and making obsolete the system of labor for income. This trend shows no sign of slowing, especially in regard to the now dominant Service Industry, which is increasingly being automated in the form of kiosks, robotics and other forms. Likewise, due to phenomena related to Moore's law and the growing in-expense of computers and machines, it is likely that it is simply a matter of time before corporations simply can not rationalize keeping human labor anymore, as the automation systems will become too cheap. Of course, this is a paradoxical market phenomenon, called by some theorists as "the contradiction of capitalism", for it is, in effect, removing the consumer (laborer) itself and hence reducing consumption.
Apart from those issues, it is important to also consider human labor contributions based on social relevance, not monetary gain. In a RBE, there would be no reason to have such occupations as Banking, Trading, Insurance, Cashiers, Brokers, Advertising... or anything related to the governance of money.
All human actions in the form of institutionalized labor should also have the highest social return. There is no logic in wasting resources, time, and energy on operations that do not have a direct and tangible function. This adjustment alone would remove millions of jobs, for the idea of "working for money" as a purpose would no longer exist.
In turn, all the poor demographic, shoddy goods, vanity items and culturally contrived creations designed to influence people for reasons of status (for the sole sake of profit) would also no longer exist, saving countless amounts of time and resources.
One final note on this issue: Some hear this and they assume that this voids the Communicative Arts and personal and social expression as far as painting, sculpture, music and the like. No. These mediums of expression will likely thrive like never before, for the amount of free time made available to people will permit a renaissance of creativity, invention, along with community and social capital. The burden of labor obligation will also reduce stress and create a more amiable culture.
There is a difference between creating for the sake of keeping society sustainable and efficient, focusing on resource preservation, product efficiency and strategic allocation of labor for those things which generate a tangible social return - and creating for personal expression, exploration, experimentation, and hence art, which has been a staple of human evolution since the dawn of time.
3) Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach
We live in a symbiotic/synergistic planetary ecosystem, with a cause-effect balance reflecting a single system of earthy operation. Buckminster Fuller defined this well when he referred to the planet as "Spaceship Earth". It is time we reflect this natural state of affairs in our societal affairs on this planet. The fact of the matter is that the human societies, which are dispersed across the globe, require resources which are also un-uniformly dispersed across the globe. Our current procedure for enabling resource distribution comes in the form of corporations which seek and claim "ownership" of our earthly resources, which they in turn "sell" to others, in the name of profit. The problems inherent in this practice are numerous again due to the self-interest based disposition inherent in selling anything for personal gain, as denoted before. But, this is only partially the issue in the larger scheme of things when it come to the reality that we live on a finite planet and resource management and preservation should be the number one concern in regard to human survival- especially with the population explosion of the last 200 years.
Two people are born every second on this planet and each one of those humans needs a lifetime of food, energy, water and the like. Given this fundamental need to understand what we have, the rates of depletion and, invariably, the need to streamline industry in the most efficient, productive way, a Global System of Resource Management must be put in place. It is just common sense. This is an extensive subject when one considers the technical, quantitative variables needed for implementation. However, for the sake of overview, it can be stated that the first step is a Full Global Survey of all earthly resources. Then, based on a quantitative analysis of the properties of each material, a strategically defined process of production is constructed from the bottom up, using such variables as negative retro-actions, renew-ability, etc. (More on this can be found in the section called Project Earth in the ZM lecture called "Where Are We Going?"). Then consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution; with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability. Given the mathematically defined attributes, as based on all available information at the time, along with the state of technology at the time, the parameters for social operation in the industrial complex become self evident, with decisions arrived at by way of computation, not human opinion. This is where computer intelligence becomes an important tool for social governance, for only the computation ability/programming of computers can access and strategically regulate such processes efficiently, and in real time. This technological application is not novel, it is simply 'scaled out' from current methods already known.
4) Access over Property
The concept of property, unannounced to most people today, is a fairly new social concept. Before the neolithic revolution, as extrapolated from current hunter and gatherer societies existing today, property relationships did not exist as we know them. Neither did money or even trade in many cases. Communities existed in an egalitarian fashion, living within the carrying capacity of the regions and the natural production built in. It was only after direct agricultural development was discovered, eventually proceeding with resource acquisition by ship traders and the like - up to the modern day of power establishments and corporations, - that property became the highly defined staple of society as we know it today.
With that understood, which dismisses the common notion that property is a result of some kind of empirical "human nature", the notion of "no property" is also today often blindly associated with "Communism" and the works of Karl Marx. It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals. There is no relation between the two, for communism was not derived from the needs to preserve and manage resources efficiently. Communism, in theory and practice, was based on a social/moral relativism which was culturally specific - not environmentally specific - which is the case with a RBE.
The real issue relevant to meeting human needs is not ownership - it is access. People use things, they do not "own" them. Ownership is a non-operational, protectionist advent, derived from generations of scarcity over resources, currently compounded by market based adverting which supports status/class division for the sake of monetary gain . To put it another way, ownership is a form of controlled restriction, both physically and ideologically. Property as a system of controlled restriction, coupled with the monetary value inherent and hence the market consequences is unsustainable, limiting and impractical.
In a RBEM, the focus moves from static ownership to strategic access, with a system designed for society to obtain access as needed. For example, rather than owning various forms of recreational sporting equipment, Access Centers are set up, typically in regions where such actions occur, where a person simply "checks out" the equipment- uses it and returns it. This "library" type arrangement can be applied to virtually any type of human need. Of course, those reading this who have been conditioned into a more individualistic, materialistic mindset often objects with claims such as " what if I want green, custom golf clubs and only white are available?". This is a culturally contrived, biased reservation. The issue in question is utility, not vanity. Human expression has been molded by the needs of the current market based system (consumption) into values which are simply nonfunctional and irrelevant. Yes, this would require a value adjustment to quality, rather than identity. The fact is, even for those who object from the standpoint of their interest in personal identity, the overarching social ramifications of such an social approach will create benefits that will greatly overshadow any such arbitrary personal preference, creating new values to replace the outdated ones.
These include : (a) No Property Crime: In a world of access rather than ownership, without money, there is no incentive to steal, for there is no resale value. You can not steal something no one owns and you certainly couldn't sell it. (b) Access Abundance: It has been denoted that the average automobile sits in parking spaces for the majority of its life span, wasting space and time. Rather than having this wasteful consequence of the ownership system, one car could facilitate a large number of users in a given region, with only a fraction of the production/resource needs. [c) Peak Efficiency of Production: Unlike today, where the market system must perpetuate inherently inferior products for the sake of economic turnover, we could actually design goods to last, using the best materials and processes strategically available. We no longer make "cheap" products to serve a poor demographic ( which is the majority). This attribute alone will save cataclysmic amounts of resources, while also enabling a society to have access to goods and services they would never have had in a world based on money, inherent obsolescence, and property.
5) Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
There are many brilliant engineers who have worked to tackle the issue of industrial design, from Jacque Fresco, to Buckminster fuller to Nicola Tesla. Behind such designs, such as Jacque Frescos' famed Circles cities or Fuller's Geodesic Dome, rests a basic train of thought : Strategic Efficiency and Maximization of Productivity.
For example, Fresco's "circular city" is constructed of a series of "belts", each serving a social function, such a energy production, research, recreation, living, etc. Each city is a hence a system, where all needs are produced in the city complex, in a localized fashion, whenever possible. For example, renewable energy generation occurs near the outer perimeter. Food production is produced closer to the middle in industrial sized greenhouses.
This is very different in its logic from the "globalization" based economy we live in today, which wastes outrageous amounts of energy and resources due to unneeded transport and labor processing. Likewise, transportation within the city is strategically created to eliminate the use of detached automobiles, except for rare cases, such as emergency vehicles. Homes are created to be micro-systems as well, with as much power generation occurring internally, such as from sunlight absorbed by the building structure using photovoltaic technology. More information on these city system can be found at www.thevenusproject.com.
The Geodesic Dome, perfected by Buckminster Fuller, offer another efficiency oriented medium within the same train of thought. Fuller's goal was to build designs to do more with fewer resources. He noticed problems inherent in conventional construction techniques, and recognized the indigenous strength of naturally occurring structures. The advantages include: much stronger than a conventional building while using less material to construct; domes can be built very quickly because they are of a modular prefab construction and suit being mass produced; They also use less energy to keep warm/cool than a conventional box structure. More information can be found at http://www.bfi.org.
In the end, the fundamental interest is, again, sustainability and efficiency on all levels, from the "housing deign" to the "earth design". The market system actually fights this efficiency due to the broken, competitive nature inherent.
6) Science as the Methodology for Governance
The application of "the scientific method for social concern" is oft-repeated mantra for the basis of social operation in a RBEM. While the obviousness of this in regard to industry is simple enough to understand, it is important to also realize its value in regard to human behavior. Science, historically speaking, has often been derailed as a cold, restrictive discipline, reserved for the sake of mere technology and invention. Little regard seems to be currently given to its use in the understanding of human behavior.
Superstitious thought, which has been powerfully dominant in human evolution, has worked on the basis that the human being was somehow detached from the physical world. We have "souls"; "spirits"; we are "divine"; we are related/guided by an all seeing, all knowing, controlling god, etc.
Conversely, yet oddly similarly, there is an argument that humans have "free will" in their decisions and that we have the open ability to choose our actions, absent of the influence of our environment or even education. Now, while the vastness of the prior two statements and many reading those could find numerous cultural arguments to claim the contrary, this doesn't change the basic reality that we humans have historically liked to think that we are special and unique from the rest of the organisms and natural phenomena around us.
However, as time has gone on, it has become increasingly obvious that we are not special and that there is no such thing as "special" in the natural world...for everything is special based on the uniqueness of all organisms. There is no reason to assume the human being is any more important or intrinsically different or special than a mole, a tree, an ant, a leaf or a cancer cell. This isn't "New Age" rhetoric - it is fundamental logic. We are physical phenomena - nothing more or less.
We are greatly influenced by our culture and our values and behaviors can only mostly be a result of our conditioning, as external phenomena interacts with our genetic predispositions. For example, we have a notion called "talent", which is another word for a genetic predisposition to a given behavior, or set of behaviors. A piano prodigy might have an inherent ability that enables them to learn more quickly and perform in a more acute way than another, who has spent the same time in practice, but doesn't have the genetic predisposition. Be that as it may, that "talented" person still had to learn 'what a piano was' and how to play it. In other words, genes are not autonomous initiators of commands. It takes an environmental trigger to allow for the propensity to materialize.
At any rate, it is not the point of this article to expand on the argument of "nature and nurture". The point is that we have proven to be scientifically defined and a product of a traceable causality and it is this understanding that can allow us to slow and even stop the aberrant, or "criminal" behavior we see in society today such a abuse, murder, theft and the like. The logic, once the effects of human conditioning are understood, is to remove the environmental attributes which are enabling the reactions.
Just as an abused dog who has been starved for a week might have a knee jerk reaction to react very violently to an otherwise innocuous passerby, we humans have the same behavior dynamic. If you don't want people to steal food, do not deprive them of it. It has been found that prisons are now generating more violence than they are curbing. If you teach a child to be a hateful racist, then he will carry those values into the rest his life, very often. Human values and hence human behavior are shaped by the environment in a cause and effect based way, no different than a leaf being blown by the wind.
In a RBEM, the central focus in regard to removing aberrant human actions is not to "punish them", but to find the reasons for their offensive actions and work to eliminate them. Humans are products of their environment and personal/social reform is a scientific process.