NON ILLOGICAL LOGIC
As we contemplate a choice between allowing market forces and technological developments to resolve all, or accepting the necessity to intent initiation of a total global transformation, we must consider the consequences of the first choice, which is to allow each nation in the money economy reflection of egocentricity to pursue its own version of economic growth. There is no conceivable diminishment of petroleum exhaustion which is not to be brought about by severely punitive prices; little incentive to produce electricity in most areas by anything but coal combustion, unless the means of producing photovoltaic electricity were to become universally affordable and obtainable, its utilization non threatening to the established monopolies; no individual reason to cease the destruction of forest lands, nothing but to seek that which increases the share of each, no matter at whose or at what expense. Government, as it attempts to enforce an ecological intelligence, only weighs more upon the people who even now treat such governing as an impediment to well being, a dishonest boil which must be endured, but which has no integrity with the governed upon whom it does feast for sustenance. Hard it is to envision success in attaining an ecological harmony if we are to depend upon the motion of each individual and each nation struggling for its self-interest in competition with every other. The pursuit of money does not appear compatible with a genuine cooperation of the magnitude seemingly necessary.
Imagine a world in which the regulation of scarcity, and thus the existence of money, is not necessary, because those scarcities have been in the main superceded. It is harder to conceive how this omnipresent usage of money could become converted unto its absence, the process of transition from one social reality to another, each of which must seem unreal to the other. A world where starvation and misery are not the lot of so many would be a precondition to that absence. Can such a future that seems at once utopic and the foundation of a sustainable world economy become realized without the directive to transcend the money economy?
The very absence of money should engender a categorically greater efficiency of toiling. The losses to society caused by those labors which are performed principally because of their corresponding ease of monetary gain, but with contempt for their social worth, would cease to exist, and tempting it is to list the ills that would no longer have cause to manifest. The efficiency of toil in terms of rendering the collective social needs of the people en masse should be surprisingly above than presently attainable, but only the experience would truly provide the measure thereof.
It is almost a logical deduction to understand that a world without scarcity can only be realized by pursuing the types of social relation which would necessarily compose a part of that realized world, even if the moment is early, even if it seems there is no way to pass through the transformation. But it is not necessary to see every dip and curve of the path to know that it is correct. A leap of intuition alone resolves that the world of sustainable future must be freed of the primitiveness of money, and that therefore, the future way must be transcendence of the usage of money.
It is contrary to our experience to imagine a society without passing of money between its members, somehow working together in an enormous interrelated complexity of sharing and cooperation, infinitely more astonishing than any prior collective human efforts. As difficult as it may seem to imagine human culture working together without the mediator of scarcity, it is to a similar degree remarkable that so much has been achieved through the representation of real capital provided by these coins and papers. Who would dream that a world could be managed by passing from one to another incessantly little slips of paper, were the reality not experienced? We must remember the evolutionary justification for money, as a means of reserving and compounding human effort, to develop the tools that concentrations of capital can alone produce. But it is not the logical nature of society to remain forever dedicated to seeking tools, and to never focus upon the structure of society itself, once those tools have become adequate.
Nature may well be predesigned with a wisdom which might appear to us at first as catastrophic, in our forced inability to continue with our concept of economic progress as the growth of money expressed interchanges. This impossibility, which could compel us toward a hitherto unknown cooperation and sharing, toward the achievement of the just distribution of human potential, may well be the only path for human survival into the infinite future: a wisdom as influential as the prehistoric joining of the new and old worlds of civilization, followed by their enduring separation. To where would civilization have ever reached if there had never been a new world, and to where will civilization go if there be not Way?
Dare we believe that mere continuation of present momentums will guide
us into a future adequately different from the present, or dare we to contemplate
a transformation of the earth as profound as that of society without money,
or any derived equivalence, between its members? The first we will uphold if
the fear of change overwhelms us, because it be the bringer of the unknown,
because we intuit that our privilege in life will be threatened unjustly, or
because of the apparent utter impossibility of the proposed alternative; the
latter we will hold only if such can bring about an increase in human joy and
well being; only if it be not imposed but is sought out, by the young in their
weariness of alienation and cult of material extravagance, through their desire
for a true communion of work and sharing. Increased cooperation cannot be built
by force nor can it for long be restrained by force. This way shall become
the way only if it is Way. And if it be Way, then it shall be known as the
inexorable.
IF we are to contemplate the intelligent design of a world system
THEN it must be sustainable over time and practicable worldwide.
IF we are unable to contemplate the infinitely continued usage of petroleum.
THEN we must find a substitute to allow the same momentums of private transportation,
WHICH must be based upon a solar energy source of fuelELSE we must consider a transportation system with is primarily public based.
AND will be far greater in terms of effort-exchange-cost than present system dynamics
WHICH requires a social reorganization as well as one of infrastructure.
ELSE it must be essentially transient or maintained through suppression of human opportunity in other geographical areas
IF it is a design which is maintained through suppression of human opportunity in other geographical areasIF it is a design which is considered as transient toward a more sustainable method
THEN it must be considered essentially transient.
THEN
IF it proceeds toward the sustainable with enough alacrity
THEN the result will NOT be chaos of undesirable magnitude
ELSE we risk delaying until the half way point of petroleum exhaustion arrives and we are without a viable alternative.
AND the end result will be chaos of undesirable magnitude.
IF we are to base our intelligent design upon a sustainable world
THEN we need a structure of consciousness with corresponds to the goal.
IF our economic interrelating is the greatest fabricant of our structural consciousness
THEN we must ask if the money economy, which is an economy of the regulation
of scarcity, is adequate.
AND ask if the concept of regulating scarcity is compatible with a sustainable
economic system
IF NOT
THEN we must consider transcending the money economy.
--Morningthunder