Re: [Futurework] Ideal world

[Darryl and Natalia]

Selma, you don't ask for much, do you!?   First, I think you're off to a good start already. A world solution. If government legislation were enacted to constrain capitalism, initiate work fairness and raise the minimum wages, in addition to ensuring that all children and adults had basic needs including medical and dental, plus childcare... access to education which included the arts, credits for educa- tional and work related needs such as computers, work or school clothing and transportation, compasses and canvasses and violins...   Investing in one's own nation, though I'm not condoning nationalism as a good thing, is do-able and the wisest investment that can be made. Perhaps if we reviewed some of the economic strategies of Canada in the fifties and sixties, when the Bank of Canada invested in the nation, the government, job creation, public utilities education, culture, hospitals, public housing, etc. and things were booming all over. It was a time of real growth, and the people gave back to the country, and we saw that it was good (except for a few snags).   I would imagine that 3.3 trillion missing from the D.O.D., if ever recovered, could provide basic necessities to those who are most in need, world-wide. In addition, it would also enable most of those to develop sustainable income. Given that they will never recover said sum, if they accumulated it once, they can do it again. And  obviously afford to lose it again, since the loss was no big deal.   Ted Turner, who as you no doubt heard, had promised donations of  $100,000,000 a year for ten years to the U.N. a few years ago would be delighted to have more consistent tax shelters, as would  others of his financial accomplishments. We must convince them that they have value as much as the homeless one in the street, and relieve them of their guilt money before they blow it all in Vegas.   Money from legal (as in state) gambling alone could be allocated towards programs of sustenance. Ever tried to get money for a charity out of them? You have to be incorporated, and the list is full from ten years ago. They like to invest in huge empty over-priced sports arenas and bigger casinos. Both their management and their mandates deserve an overhaul.   I think that there should be financial incentive for couples who do not have children, because this world cannot afford to populate much beyond where we're at. This would result in a state savings of whatever the figure is for per person lifetime debt, currently in the U.S. some $154,000 just this year, right? We were all supposed to live in Eden any way, where food grows on trees and shelter is a substantial frond. Planned parenthood, sans Le Rockefeller, is crucial. Large technological urban areas are likely to continue to grow, despite the fact that the earth cannot sustain them, so we need dis-incentives.   Another dis-incentive could be small community start-up programs, the likes of which Karen sent info on perhaps. These won't be for everyone, of course, but a sustainable alternative to be sure.   If there were also financial rewards allocated to kids who stay in school, by way of grant systems and based upon moderate passing scores, after say grade ten or eleven, perhaps more would stay in school.    Invest more money in the schools and kids will want to stay. They need a broad and rich base for stimulation, and teachers who can teach in the way that each individual learns. Every child is intelligent, each has her/his own contributions to make to this world. Ensure that curriculum includes emphasis on social skills, esp. conflict resolution, self-help and group dynamics to governance preparation.   Start high school kids classes at 11:00 am, when their developing brains actually kick in. Teens are most alert and creative between 11pm and 1am. --so it's a waste of teaching time to try to impart anything so early, and a waste of money too.   Enough for one night.   Something I remembered, sent to us by a friend wishing to relocate to an idyllic little island in the gulf between Vancouver Island, where we are, and the mainland of B.C., where he is :   "In case I confused you Plato's ideal city has a perimeter of 31680 and a population of 5040. some examples : 12 Hides of Glastonbury=31,680 ft. Ave.perimeter of Stonehenge Sarsen circle=316.8 ft. New Jerusalem perimeter=31,680,000ft. 5040 is the radius of a circle with a circumference of 31680 etc. Gabriola has a population of approx. 5000 at the moment and the coastline measures approx. 50klm. or 31.25 miles!!"                                              ----- Original Message ----- From: Selma Singer To: Darryl and Natalia ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Beyond Bush I'm not completely convinced that there could not be a system that allows a controlled and constrained capitalism within a governmental structure that made sure that, commensurate with the wealth of the country, every person's needs (of all kinds) were adequately met; an extension and refinement of the model that has been used in northern European countries, perhaps. Actually, reading over what I have written here, I would have to change it. We can no longer think in terms of the wealth of any particular country belonging to just the people of that country. The people on this planet are already so interconnected that it is insanity for us to think or ourselves as separate nations. So, whatever system might be worked out, it would have to be one in which the wealth on this planet is seen as belonging to everyone.   I know that seems ridiculously idealistic and maybe not even worth talking about. It is my contention, however, that if we don't have some sense of what goals we want to see realized (not necessarily in our lifetimes) we cannot figure out what steps we need to take now in order to set us in a direction that holds out some hope of getting to a better place.   Do you have any ideas about what kind of an economic system would further the ends of a humane society? We can borrow ideas from small hunter-gatherer societies and even small agricultural communities, but taking those ideas and making them workable in large, complex, technologically oriented societies is what we need to work on.   I do not believe we can go back to some 'simpler' life that some seem to believe is possible. Most of those ideas are based in concepts of ideal societies that have never existed in reality, for one thing.   Secondly, I strongly believe that we need to use all existing technological advances for human benefit. Technology could make possible a very 'good' life for everyone, if, as a society, we had to the will to use it that way.   However, as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details" and, outside of a few very broad principles, how to bring this about is a question that I think needs the most discussion.   I think this is an issue that we must think about if any of our problems are ever to be solved. Otherwise we must inevitably destroy ourselves and everyone else as the administration in this country is already doing.   Selma       ----- Original Message ----- From: Darryl and Natalia To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: [Futurework] Beyond Bush Selma, That was a good one! Has the topic of the Illuminati been raised on FW?   Just a brief mention around your question about capitalism, and whether or not there are any circumstances under which it could actually be fair and just:   Acquiring the most money for the least investment always means profits are at the expense of someone else.   Just one tiny aspect of capitalism, that of interest rates acquired on money deposited, is false profit because it is earned on the premise that for every 5 cents--today's bank is allowed to lend out one dollar. This system is based upon the system remaining stable, hardly anyone removing their savings, and the bank being able to re-invest what isn't theirs in the first place. Much like the false value of diamonds; if only 5% of women cashed in or switched to another stone, the industry would be ruined. The image of stability is just that fragile, and money doesn't really grow. Anyone who invests does so at the expense of someone else, eventually. Wages are never commensurate with cost of living, and never with the cost of things they just don't make anymore. Capitalism depends on the enslavement of people to thrive. In a nut shell it is a blatant legalized pyramid scheme. I can't look at this question any way but rhetorically.   What are your views?   Natalia DJB