Fruit, and How to Bear it.
View this post on Hive: Fruit, and How to Bear it.
6 years ago in #life by valued-customer (67)
$36.52
- Past Payouts $36.52, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $27.68, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $8.83, 0.00 TRX
I hate to be a wet blanket, but...
What you have defined is actually inevitable.
However, its knowledge is not the key. It is implementation.
In many ways, opening an online store that takes only cryptos is a huge step right now to creating your vision in reality. With good money, bad money will consume itself and disappear. With good money, the power of good transactions become even more fruitful.
Its like this. If we have good money, lending money to buy a house increases everyone's profits. If we have bad money, lending fiat-currency to buy a house really becomes stealing from EVERYBODY so that the purchase price appears to be paid, while the bank is given the house, which can never be paid off.
Good money = all the houses being paid for.
Bad money = none of the houses being paid for, and everyone owing more and more.
And the corporate structure will die, but i cannot tell you exactly how. Another form of people structure will arise and show corporations how things are really done. Corporations will just go out of business, because they cannot compete and they can no longer get tons of bad money to keep them going.
I hope to read more about your epiphany here on steemit.
I pretty much agree with everything. Execution of things play a huge part and all our creations are just tools. Distributed Ledger Technology can be used for authoritarian ends. Corporate structure would die simply due to their inability to compete. The definition of Evil is self-destruction. Labels don't make anything good or bad whether we are talking about banks or cryptos. One is simply wasteful compared to the other. Waste is destructive. Waste can't compete. For an example, VISA can't compete with Dash, PIVX etc. in speed, fees and freedom offered to the users. Unless raw force is used against cryptos, these financial entities would simply go to ruin like fax machines in an age of E-mail. There may be some edge case uses. I mean we still have Fax, Mail and Cable TV. But they will be tiny and powerless purely by their own lack of merit.
More saliently, we still use chipped rocks, fire, and dogs. The one truth that is inescapable about technological advance is that it inevitably strengthens individuals versus groups.
Extrapolating from where we are eventually leads to freedom, regardless of the impediments that may interpose.
Golden truths!
Easiest way to tell this is that these days a women can handle a farm that a large family of capable men couldn't dream to handle few centuries ago. I can analyze a database with over Trillions and Trillions of lines of text with https://steemworld.org
I find no wet blanket in your comment, nor in any comment I have read of yours. It is my sincere hope that I, and my vision, are extraneous to the eventuation of appropriate development, as I am notorious to them as know me personally, for failing to bring grand visions to permanent life.
I have always done so alone, and reckon that is the heart of my weakness.
I hope to reveal, before too long, a comprehensive development method--not a plan--that potentiates all good plans we might devise. I will likely not do it alone, and if I am left without mutual visions and expertise, will do the best I can, which IMHO, will not be enough. I am no saviour, but might add my work to all of those who are, I hope.
Thanks!
Beautifully written, I hope that you are right!
I have been devouring information since I had this epiphany, and am somewhat disappointed in the state of the art. I suspect much is being obfuscated in order to delay this transformation, and to preserve the status quo.
For instance, 3D printing hasn't really advanced in the last two years regarding affordability, availability to individuals, or wider materials list affecting immediate applicability to consumers of commercial goods and services. There is not a similar medium to glass fiber reinforced PPA injection molded material, that is the standard of commercial manufacturing in many consumer products presently, for example.
However, I note that holding back floodwaters inevitably produces Katrina scale events. Such advances are certainly percolating beyond public purview, and suppressing them creates ever-more overwhelming power in their eventual advent.
I reckon Louis the XIV's 'Apres moi, le deluge' seems to be the model, and the awful repercussions that imparted to the revolution that followed good metaphors for this one, when it comes.
Thanks!
Gina notified me of a comment from you that I cannot find. Did you delete a comment?
I did, I put my foot in my mouth. I called shenanigans with regards to the mycelium network. I thought it was the stuff of science fiction because Star Trek is currently having fun with that one right now. Yet, it turns out they borrowed it from the real world. I was incorrect so I deleted the comment. I should have done a simple web search first. Soo.chong163 is right about the mycelium network, apparently the discovery was interesting and cool enough for popular science fiction to use it as a major plot point.
Thanks for letting me know neither Gina nor I are broken =)
Recent discoveries in the plant kingdom reveals that the mycelium network connects virtually all the roots of disparate plants within a huge geographical area, even encompassing entire continents. The network functions as information and resource exchange system, much like human internet with the added benefit of exchanging resources directly through the network without an external delivery medium. Though there is competition and struggle among plants, such conflicts seem to be limited in scope, as cooperation using the mycelium network benefits the plants more. It is likely that as there are Nigerian princes seeking to defraud men on our internet, there also exists plant versions of these sociopathic being within the plant world, necessitating enforcement and conflict.
The fundamental reason for the apparent mismanagement and myopic resource management by men of our world is due to our conceptualization of our planet in terms of abstract commodification. Money forces equality to exists in a world that is inherently unequal, resulting in one sheep becoming equivalent to another sheep. Within such conceptual matrix, futures market becomes possible, where potential resource production at some time in the future can be commercialized to a discounted price at the present. Thus, economic incentive of human society lies with discounting the future for present consumption. For instance, cutting-down an entire forest for $1,000,000 gain at the present is financially logical practice over earning $100,000 per year in perpetuity with sustainable forest management.
The fundamental issue with man's social ills is the evil humanist concept of equality. As the concept of equality allowed for raping of man's environment, so too, the shrill cries for equality within human societies results in civil strife and misery, as men ignorantly grasp at that which is beyond their station. After all, the original sin of Man was clawing for that which was beyond his reach and station. 95% of men are ignorant and gullible creatures who, if presented with sand and told it was grain, would peck at it. The idea of equality of men is contrary to nature and common sense.
I find I struggle to fully comprehend your point, but do agree, to the limited reach of my poor ability. I note that equality is defined in many ways, and many of those ways do lead down dark paths, such as equality of station, or outcomes for all. Perhaps the subtle difference between equality and egality might prove worthy of rectifying some of the horror that results from jamming our myriad individualities into some conformal mold of equality.
Some measures of egality aren't evil, such as that each of us merits our own perceptions, and conceptions, of our world, without limitation. While those visions and thoughts aren't equal in any sense, they are of equal merit to the beholders thereof, I reckon.
I doubt I could express adequately the depth of my thanks for the wisdom and understanding you have shared here, and in all your writings I have been able to receive.
But, Thanks!
Eloquently put forth, but missing one major ingredient: how human nature is to be universally changed to replace greed with the desire to collectively act in our mutual best interest?
A salient point! However, in my travels around the world, and limited exposure to various cultures and societies, I note most obvious of our traits is our adaptability.
Some months ago I posted regarding human sexuality, and how, in all the myriad mechanisms nature has devised to procreate amongst the variety of kine, humans have undertaken, at one time or another, to some degree, almost all of them--and have added one unique aspect of procreative verdor: the pimp.
Nowhere else in nature are matchmakers, pimps, or priests that bless and arrange procreative activity amongst their kind.
It is this aspect of humanity that spurs me to reach out and pimp my epiphany, that our peoples' might bloom and spawn this new heaven and Earth that will come, that it might come the sooner. I reckon it is that very greed that will recommend to us the most profitable course: that of cooperatively planning a more fruitful model of development and mutual felicity.
Surely the wars, plagues, and cataclysms that have deranged and devalued us all are better replaced with mutual aid, comity, and security from disaster, that we all might profit from the strengths each of the others.
We have been preyed upon by those whose counsel is poison, for the relatively negligible benefits they might derive from preying on us. Sound counsel, and leadership we can trust, will be the sweeter as it comes in lieu of the rank foulness we have so long been offered.
This is my belief, and the core of my thesis here.
What do you think? Are we mere specks of mud capable of discerning that vastly greater benefit as desirable, and foregoing such limited fare as we now devour to our detriment?
No, not specks of mud, but rather cognitive beings who can visualize our immediate future and forsee situations which can lead to our death. That is our main survival trait, and it has primacy above our lesser trait for altruism: I will keep myself alive at all costs.
For most humans, that translates to protecting self and family; fighting for resources we need to survive, even to the detriment of others. Even though it may be proven clearly that the species would be better in the long run were my gene pool not be continued, that is not something I would acquiesce to. A million years of evolutionary practice have taught us how to survive with greed for life being the main motivator. I simply cannot see our species making basic evolutionary behavioral changes to make us a more acceptable and cooperative member of Earth's biota.
We always use self-justification to expand, take resources, replace other indigenous species, and borrow from future generations. By our nature, that is what humans do. In any group of well-intentioned humans who want to change our destiny, there will be at least one who wants to ensure his own survival above others, and he will ultimately survive through simple, human greed.
"Being nice" is a desirable goal. Unfortunately for us, it is not a successful survival trait.
I note that I didn't ask if we could be nicer. I asked if being more profitable wouldn't surely become eventually more desirable, particularly since it's demonstrably more socially beneficial than remaining susceptible to manipulation of our social behaviour. I asked whether it wasn't certain that reason and facts would make actual beneficence and sound development ascendant over being suckered into social development mechanisms that degrade us all, to all our detriment,but for the predators that parasitise our labors.
I also must note the frequency with which I encounter folks intent on not breeding, for various reasons, who all seemingly view the behavioural changes inculcated by spawning either with suspicion that they are equivalent to the ardor of drunks at closing time, or ancillary and inconsequential--which isn't true at all.
My thesis isn't that being nice is better because it morally superior, but that it's better because it's more--far more--profitable, to the degree that even abnegating some measurable degree of profit that might be attainable via skulduggery will prove profitable when society as a whole increases it's power to affect one.
That being said, I could hardly disagree more with the final line in your comment. Being nice is practically the strongest trait affecting human survival, far outweighing muscularity, intelligence, or any other heritable factor in impact on gene survival. It is existentially important to be socially acceptable, and that trait is the primary vector for our manipulation by nefarious actors.
The "being nice" was a softer way of suggesting that we humans absolutely do not act in our mutual benefit. We are driven by survival instincts over a short term and if there is no immediate, foreseeable threat, greed is the emotion that moves us forward. We do almost nothing to ensure the long-term survival of our species because long-range thinking and planning almost always means depriving ourselves of immediate rewards in satisfying our need for immediate gratification.
We take what we need from the environment without regard for the needs of future generations. "I want it all and I want it now" is the driving force driving expansion of our species. I doubt there has ever been an agreement to postpone beginning a migration, exploration of new resources, or using the available resources for altruistic reasons. No one says it is not forward thinking to use up the land or supplant another species because it will deprive future generations of its use. That is the "being nice" approach and we flatly do not do that: we do what we need to do to support our expansion in numbers, territory and resources. We use it all as if it were put here for our current use.
There is no "nice" built into our species and it is likely not possible for us to exist as a sedentary species and stop expanding because we are concerned about the next decade or the next century. Greed trumps nice at the species level. We are greedy to maintain ourselves above all else. We are greedy for us to survive; the "now" us, not the distant future "us." There will always be competitors who want whatever it is before some other group gets it, giving them a survival edge.
While you well expound on present and evolutionary pressures, I know you are a bit more cynical than is accurate, as you yourself could provide numerous examples of delayed gratification potentiating greater profit.
It is silly to claim that there has never been agreement to delay exploitation of some resource. You can provide examples yourself of exactly that being done. If you can't, I can provide them for you.
In fact, I already have. There were as many as 150M Native Americans living in N. America for thousands of years prior to the advent of the plagues that decimated their number in the century following De Soto, yet a fraction of that number of Americans of European descent and of the Western culture rendered the Passenger Pigeon extinct, and almost did the buffalo.
Much of the mindset you consider biologically determined is actually cultural, and people are now being forced to dramatically alter society, because technology utterly changes the basic facts of life. Rapine resource exploitation is not only no longer a weapon of war, but has become suicide, and the lamentable aversion to whelping Western civilization has inculcated in many Millenials and Gen Alphas is a remarkable indication of just how powerfully and radically the Western paradigm impacts the minds of people today.
I find neglecting the evidence that it is culture, not our inherent genetic heritage, that has crafted the insatiable maw of industry, naive and inadvisable. The chains that bind us to the pursuit of mammon are illusory, and by seizing the means of crafting our mutual mindset from those that would use us as weapons against their enemies we will be not only able, but compelled to recast the molds our minds are crafted in.
We are men, not beasts, and reason will inevitably supercede mere biology, because physics.
You are correct that the cultural exploration and expansion of the Europeans into North America decimated the native population with new diseases and advanced weapons. My view of that is that it was done throught the "not being nice" (admittedly a poor phrase) on part of the newco ers. They saw the native populations as being obstructions to their quest for gold or a fountain of youth, or of discovery of resources while giving no thought that the land and its resources were already possessed by another culture. They were culturally driven to conquor and possess and allowed their culture's greed to supplant that of a culture that had learned to live lightly with their environment.
None of the invaders asked what detrimental effects their actions would have on the native population's future, or what the impact destroying cultural artifacts would have on their own understanding of that culture. Their only concern was greed and acquisition of resources and they did not consider effects wrought upon the fiftieth generation to follow.
I agree that I am cynical, but knowing how the buffalo were killed and left to decay so their bones could be gathered and shipped eastward to be ground into fertilizer does not warm my heart over humanity, nor does the use of "shot pots" farmers set off to kill millions of migrating passenger pigeons to use as fertilizer.
Humans are survivors. Today is the most important day for all of us to survive and we will never sacrifice today for the good of many tomorrows. We are indeed men and not beasts, and we have the ability to vaguely see into the future. That is all the more reason we have a responsibility to act today with the future in mind. We do not do that. Our drive for extracting resources and other life to support our own collective "today".
To me, that is a fatal flaw in our evolutionary makeup. We assume "rights", and our invented religions justify those rights as having being granted by our own diety, so it's all okay.
We both have access to facts, but we interpret the motivations creating the events differently. To me, if things were working correctly with humanity, we would not have wars. If our idiocy cannot see that thet are bad things, who is going to care about the future.
You are correct that the cultural exploration and expansion of the Europeans into North America decimated the native population with new diseases and advanced weapons. My view of that is that it was done throught the "not being nice" (admittedly a poor phrase) on part of the newco ers. They saw the native populations as being obstructions to their quest for gold or a fountain of youth, or of discovery of resources while giving no thought that the land and its resources were already possessed by another culture. They were culturally driven to conquor and possess and allowed their culture's greed to supplant that of a culture that had learned to live lightly with their environment.
None of the invaders asked what detrimental effects their actions would have on the native population's future, or what the impact destroying cultural artifacts would have on their own understanding of that culture. Their only concern was greed and acquisition of resources and they did not consider effects wrought upon the fiftieth generation to follow.
I agree that I am cynical, but knowing how the buffalo were killed and left to decay so their bones could be gathered and shipped eastward to be ground into fertilizer does not warm my heart over humanity, nor does the use of "shot pots" farmers set off to kill millions of migrating passenger pigeons to use as fertilizer.
Humans are survivors. Today is the most important day for all of us to survive and we will never sacrifice today for the good of many tomorrows. We are indeed men and not beasts, and we have the ability to vaguely see into the future. That is all the more reason we have a responsibility to act today with the future in mind. We do not do that. Our drive for extracting resources and other life to support our own collective "today".
To me, that is a fatal flaw in our evolutionary makeup. We assume "rights", and our invented religions justify those rights as having being granted by our own diety, so it's all okay.
We both have access to facts, but we interpret the motivations creating the events differently. To me, if things were working correctly with humanity, we would not have wars. If our idiocy cannot see that thet are bad things, who is going to care about the future.
You neglect to note that all of the acts you ascribe to 'human nature' are actually correctly laid at the feet of Western capitalism.
You fail to note that the Bison and Passenger Pigeon were thriving in the ancient and continuous control of Native Americans.
It is not human nature that is the source of the folly that brings you to despair, but capitalism.