Lets take a moment to explain Y Worlds before we emerge from our chrysalis this Spring.
Over the past two years, we have been developing a global cooperative scaffolding that we believe will eventually ignite and support a self sustainable world – becoming a model, a generative enterprise and a change agent operating beside the worlds we have inherited.

Our scaffolding, always a work in progress, consists of ourNurture, Equality, Truth and Systems model set, our semiotic language for the representation of knowledge, meaning and complexity, our first generation Visual Y generative engine, our daily.yworld.com posts culminating later this year in The Book of Y, and our sustainable enterprise gameplan that includes a consultancy, an alternative cooperative investment system, and high value initiatives focusing on such topics as food production, health and small scale entrepreneurship.
The Y Worlds team is putting together a very large funding proposal that we will be introducing later this Spring to a carefully selected group of philanthropists, foundations and societally committed venture firms. We are always exploring people and organizations who may benefit from mutual coordination and support and exchange.
We believe that in order for large scale change to occur there needs to be a major recalibration of our language, our objectives and principles and our understanding of systemic complexity plus there needs to be the invention of a compassionate collaborative mechanism to organize ourselves toward our potential.
Sincerely,The collaborative of people at Y Worlds. Y Worldsinfo@yworlds.com 
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

April 24, 2014by AAY








inShare

Categories: About Y Worlds, Daily Y
Tags: Y Worlds

Lets take a moment to explain Y Worlds before we emerge from our chrysalis this Spring.YWorlds-banner-1024x320

Over the past two years, we have been developing a global cooperative scaffolding that we believe will eventually ignite and support a self sustainable world – becoming a model, a generative enterprise and a change agent operating beside the worlds we have inherited.

Our scaffolding, always a work in progress, consists of ourNurture, Equality, Truth and Systems model set, our semiotic language for the representation of knowledge, meaning and complexity, our first generation Visual Y generative engine, our daily.yworld.com posts culminating later this year in The Book of Y, and our sustainable enterprise gameplan that includes a consultancy, an alternative cooperative investment system, and high value initiatives focusing on such topics as food production, health and small scale entrepreneurship.

visualy1-150x150
The Y Worlds team is putting together a very large funding proposal that we will be introducing later this Spring to a carefully selected group of philanthropists, foundations and societally committed venture firms. We are always exploring people and organizations who may benefit from mutual coordination and support and exchange.


We believe that in order for large scale change to occur there needs to be a major recalibration of our language, our objectives and principles and our understanding of systemic complexity plus there needs to be the invention of a compassionate collaborative mechanism to organize ourselves toward our potential.

Sincerely,Blue_Logo_No_Background-150x150
The collaborative of people at Y Worlds. 
Y Worlds
info@yworlds.com 


Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

April 24, 2014
by AAY

Categories: About Y WorldsDaily Y

Tags: 

Tags: yworlds


We are on the hunt.Our prey is accurate, systemic, comprehensive knowledge.We understand that such knowledge exists within the wild and untamed frontier.We do not intend to harm knowledge. Rather, we would like to capture it, record it, study it, map it, and if possible, breed it to generate stronger and wiser offspring.

Various species of knowledge roam the earth. Well documented sightings are scattered and rare. Specific variants of knowledge are known to live at corporate and non-profit breeding grounds. Herds of knowledge have been found to frequently congregate at conferences and universities and research centers. They are attracted to watering holes. And much of the population of knowledge roam the earth relatively alone and unrecorded.
Samples of knowledge have been extracted and essences placed in (e)books and (e)periodicals and online knowledge zoos and museums. There are dried and pressed samples of knowledge all over the place.
Finding a really accurate map of where it roams free, where one can find domesticated forms, and where the best places are to experience accurate, systemic, comprehensive knowledge is impossible. The maps do not exist.
And the creature sightings are rare. It is big but hard to see – with many body parts . It is bold but difficult to recognize. It has incredibly complex patterns all over it. But it blends into the background. It often travels alone but has been seen in families, packs, and swarms. It is the symbiotic host of many smaller creatures.
Search all you want. During our trips to wikiville and googleland, using their maps, we found droppings and footprints, but nothing as substantial as we had hoped.

So, ever inventive, we created a unique mechanism to attract and collect full knowledge.
We staked out every conference in the world where high value knowledge was known to appear. We placed on every seat a wireless device linked to a local computer linked to a global network. We connected two cameras and a large screen projection system to the local computer/switcher/recorder/transmitter. And we waited. When knowledge appeared, we instantly tagged each creature with a smart card that slid into the device. Since they would never sit still for more than a half hour, we packed in as much knowledge accumulation as we could.
We asked questions and they responded instantly via voting or texting – their accumulated results were visible on screen immediately. We followed up with questions individuals could answer through the microphone built into the device. We used the smart card to filter responses by gender and age and anything else we knew about them or captured previously about them.
And when they were getting restless, we asked them to ask questions of their peers. All results appeared instantly on screen and were visible around the world. When it was over, when the dust from the creatures had settled, we had captured a beautiful specimen of current, systemic, peer reviewed knowledge.
In real time , we mapped all live knowledge to our systemic visualization models constructed from previously captured knowledge. After a thorough examination and tagging, we let the specimens of comprehensive knowledge go. To roam the earth until the next capture.
The dynamic interactive process described above is called a knowledge generation system. It can be activated at attended or virtual conferences, synchronous or asynchronous.
The capture process can be solely internet based. No need for a physical meeting space. Or it can be solely a physical meeting, or any hybrid variant.
Here is a brief summary of a large scale cooperative knowledge development process called ENCODE. This was a long term project that required much R&D. Imagine if we had all of the contributors in one room for a half day with the Connector.
The live model building/mapping of knowledge is called a knowledge visualization system.
The global highly efficient process of gathering knowledge and systemically organizing it from key constituents is called The Y Worlds Institute Knowledge Mapping Project.
The on-premise device described above is called The Connector. It, and its virtual web relatives, is the most powerful weapon on the planet yet it is hardly ever used for large scale knowledge mapping. It harnesses the energy of millions of minds. It focuses them. It extract the value and meaning. And leaves the participants with newly created knowledge. No specimens are hurt in the process. And the cost is inconsequential compared to benefit.
We are bringing the live event based Connector and a web based process to the world. Contact us for more information. Be a part of the Knowledge Mapping Project.


 Learn more about ENCODE and Y Worlds.
 

April 23, 2014by AAY








inShare

Categories: About Y Worlds, Daily Y,Systemic Thinking
Tags: systemics, Y Worlds

We are on the hunt.
Our prey is accurate, systemic, comprehensive knowledge.
We understand that such knowledge exists within the wild and untamed frontier.
We do not intend to harm knowledge. Rather, we would like to capture it, record it, study it, map it, and if possible, breed it to generate stronger and wiser offspring.

Various species of knowledge roam the earth. Well documented sightings are scattered and rare. Specific variants of knowledge are known to live at corporate and non-profit breeding grounds. Herds of knowledge have been found to frequently congregate at conferences and universities and research centers. They are attracted to watering holes. And much of the population of knowledge roam the earth relatively alone and unrecorded.

Samples of knowledge have been extracted and essences placed in (e)books and (e)periodicals and online knowledge zoos and museums. There are dried and pressed samples of knowledge all over the place.

Finding a really accurate map of where it roams free, where one can find domesticated forms, and where the best places are to experience accurate, systemic, comprehensive knowledge is impossible. The maps do not exist.

And the creature sightings are rare. It is big but hard to see – with many body parts . It is bold but difficult to recognize. It has incredibly complex patterns all over it. But it blends into the background. It often travels alone but has been seen in families, packs, and swarms. It is the symbiotic host of many smaller creatures.

Search all you want. During our trips to wikiville and googleland, using their maps, we found droppings and footprints, but nothing as substantial as we had hoped.


So, ever inventive, we created a unique mechanism to attract and collect full knowledge.

We staked out every conference in the world where high value knowledge was known to appear. We placed on every seat a wireless device linked to a local computer linked to a global network. We connected two cameras and a large screen projection system to the local computer/switcher/recorder/transmitter. And we waited. When knowledge appeared, we instantly tagged each creature with a smart card that slid into the device. Since they would never sit still for more than a half hour, we packed in as much knowledge accumulation as we could.

We asked questions and they responded instantly via voting or texting – their accumulated results were visible on screen immediately. We followed up with questions individuals could answer through the microphone built into the device. We used the smart card to filter responses by gender and age and anything else we knew about them or captured previously about them.

And when they were getting restless, we asked them to ask questions of their peers. All results appeared instantly on screen and were visible around the world. When it was over, when the dust from the creatures had settled, we had captured a beautiful specimen of current, systemic, peer reviewed knowledge.

In real time , we mapped all live knowledge to our systemic visualization models constructed from previously captured knowledge. After a thorough examination and tagging, we let the specimens of comprehensive knowledge go. To roam the earth until the next capture.


The dynamic interactive process described above is called a knowledge generation system. It can be activated at attended or virtual conferences, synchronous or asynchronous.

The capture process can be solely internet based. No need for a physical meeting space. Or it can be solely a physical meeting, or any hybrid variant.

Here is a brief summary of a large scale cooperative knowledge development process called ENCODE. This was a long term project that required much R&D. Imagine if we had all of the contributors in one room for a half day with the Connector.

The live model building/mapping of knowledge is called a knowledge visualization system.

The global highly efficient process of gathering knowledge and systemically organizing it from key constituents is called The Y Worlds Institute Knowledge Mapping Project.

The on-premise device described above is called The Connector. 
It, and its virtual web relatives, is the most powerful weapon on the planet yet it is hardly ever used for large scale knowledge mapping. 
It harnesses the energy of millions of minds. It focuses them. It extract the value and meaning. And leaves the participants with newly created knowledge. No specimens are hurt in the process. And the cost is inconsequential compared to benefit.

We are bringing the live event based Connector and a web based process to the world. Contact us for more information. Be a part of the Knowledge Mapping Project.

keypad_hi-res-11-1024x1024 Learn more about ENCODE and Y Worlds.

 

April 23, 2014
by AAY

Categories: About Y WorldsDaily Y,Systemic Thinking

Tags: 

Tags: knowledge

- keep track of things.- record events.- tell stories.- organize components into the whole.- sketch architectures and plans.- map place and time.- capture on paper what we see.- craft art about what we imagine.- portray meaning.
The petroglyphs in our main image come from a people living thousands of years ago. The modern world tends to think of those people and their communications as ancient and primitive.

But when those people lived, they thought of themselves as the modern world. And they thought their society was state of the art, cutting edge, and at peace with the universe.
At Y Worlds, we believe in many ways we are the same as the people who made the petroglyphs. We believe the equality of peoples transfers from past to future, and among all who are present today.
Our generation invented the computer. But we are just beginning to see how the dimensions of CAL – Computer Aided Life will profoundly affect the lives of billions of people. The generation of people who are born today will witness the full embrace of a disruptive new economic paradigm, and a new beneficial language between people and computers and between people and people that is semiotic – visual and representational, participative and systemic. Just like the language of the petroglyphs was for its creators.
Future generations of people will look back at our dependency on analog, on words, and think of us as ancient and primitive. And when they look at our limited understanding of our bodies and minds and the core workings of the universe, they will think of us as ancient and primitive.
We can see around the corner of the future. It is like the images between two mirrors that seem to go on forever.
Cycle after cycle, generation after generation, in tighter and tighter evolutionary time sequences, we have a “metamorphosis”. The bright new butterfly of semiotics emerges from the chrysalis of words, looks back briefly at its primal origins, and then turns toward its future. And so on.
 
 

Semiotics: Visualizations
We are wired to process visual complexity.Complexity is best organized and best communicated visually.Therefore….Visual Semiotics and Audio Semiotics are rapidly emerging.

 
Knowledge is about meaning. Meaning can be represented with color and pattern within models.
Flip a switch and the patterns come alive.
 
 
 

Semiotics: Audio
We are wired to process audio complexity.Complexity is best organized and best communicated visually. Audio is a distant second.Audio Semiotics has barely been explored. 

Symbolic Representation: 22 SoundsKnowledge Construct: 

Symbolic Representation: CircleKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Very GoodKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: GoodKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: NeutralKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: BadKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Very BadKnowledge Construct:  

Symbolic Representation: Human AlturismKnowledge Construct: 

Symbolic Representation: Human PainKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: AlturismKnowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: PainKnowledge Construct:

Knowledge is about meaning.Meaning can be represented with models filled with sound.
 
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox

- keep track of things.
- record events.
- tell stories.
- organize components into the whole.
- sketch architectures and plans.
- map place and time.
- capture on paper what we see.
- craft art about what we imagine.
- portray meaning.

The petroglyphs in our main image come from a people living thousands of years ago. The modern world tends to think of those people and their communications as ancient and primitive.

But when those people lived, they thought of themselves as the modern world. And they thought their society was state of the art, cutting edge, and at peace with the universe.

At Y Worlds, we believe in many ways we are the same as the people who made the petroglyphs. We believe the equality of peoples transfers from past to future, and among all who are present today.

Our generation invented the computer. But we are just beginning to see how the dimensions of CAL – Computer Aided Life will profoundly affect the lives of billions of people. The generation of people who are born today will witness the full embrace of a disruptive new economic paradigm, and a new beneficial language between people and computers and between people and people that is semiotic – visual and representational, participative and systemic. Just like the language of the petroglyphs was for its creators.

Future generations of people will look back at our dependency on analog, on words, and think of us as ancient and primitive. And when they look at our limited understanding of our bodies and minds and the core workings of the universe, they will think of us as ancient and primitive.

We can see around the corner of the future. 
It is like the images between two mirrors that seem to go on forever.

Cycle after cycle, generation after generation, in tighter and tighter evolutionary time sequences, we have a “metamorphosis”. The bright new butterfly of semiotics emerges from the chrysalis of words, looks back briefly at its primal origins, and then turns toward its future. And so on.



 

 

sem_viz_feature_image-560x280

Semiotics: Visualizations

We are wired to process visual complexity.
Complexity is best organized and best communicated visually.
Therefore….Visual Semiotics and Audio Semiotics are rapidly emerging.

 

Knowledge is about meaning. Meaning can be represented with color and pattern within models.

Flip a switch and the patterns come alive.



 

 

 

semoticsaudio-560x280

Semiotics: Audio

We are wired to process audio complexity.
Complexity is best organized and best communicated visually
Audio is a distant second.
Audio Semiotics has barely been explored. 

Symbolic Representation: 22 Sounds
Knowledge Construct:
 

Symbolic Representation: Circle
Knowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Very Good
Knowledge Construct:


Symbolic Representation: Good
Knowledge Construct:


Symbolic Representation: Neutral
Knowledge Construct:


Symbolic Representation: Bad
Knowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Very Bad
Knowledge Construct:  

Symbolic Representation: Human Alturism
Knowledge Construct: 

Symbolic Representation: Human Pain
Knowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Alturism
Knowledge Construct:

Symbolic Representation: Pain
Knowledge Construct:

Knowledge is about meaning.
Meaning can be represented with models filled with sound.



 

Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox

Tags: semiotics


I grew up in a suburb of Boston.I know the streets of Boston.I have Boston culture in my bones.
Every year, there are individual and organizational acts of terrorism. Every year all of us absorb a spectrum of thousands of people killed, maimed or traumatized. Some at 0 degrees of separation, some at distances too far to register. 

I do not need to know why. I already know why.I do not need to know about accomplices. I already know who.I do not need to know how to prevent future occurrences. I already know how.I did not need to see the bravery of service providers. I knew them already.
I know about crimes against humanity.Acts designed to harm. Hurt.
I do not care about the motivation of the hurters.There will always be hurters. Haters.
Blasts tear at our guts – our primal programming that reacts to the flash and sound and light and terror of explosives.
Boston tore at our guts.West Texas tore at our guts.
Newtown, Aurora, Navy Yards, Fort Hood….Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon…9/11 tore at our guts.Airplane crashes, car crashes and shootouts grab our guts – our attention.The Fourth of July celebrates explosions. Gut visceral fascination – stimulation.
Yes,Bombs + Hate = death.Guns + Hate = death.
What I do care about is stopping hurters and murders.But our language fails us. Holds us back.
We do not have a sufficient word or concept for decision-makers who prevent people from accessing health care and necessary services. Thousands of men, women, children and seniors die by their hand each year.
We do not have a sufficient word or concept for organizations that knowingly produce products that deliver absolutely avoidable harm. Thousands of men, women, children and seniors die by their hand each year.
We do not have a sufficient word or concept for organizations and decision-makers who believe Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systemic Support Systems are simply words – who cannot process the untold misery and harm and death that results from their inequalities and lies and failure to enable systemic Nurture to prevail.  
We do not have a sufficient word or concept for a public that stands passively by while decision-makers try to protect their jobs and not the public – the men, women, children and seniors among us who will need protections, who DO desperately need protections NOW.
Lets take our intelligence and compassion and outrage and apply it to systemic acts of Nurture, Equality and Truth. There will still be death by hate or inattention or ignorance or greed. But no more should there be a place on earth where people can honestly believe that hate and violence, ignorance and greed, work better than NETS to achieve any objective other than harm to the commons.
Once a person or group is programmed and locked into hate, it becomes an immense struggle to reshape hate into NETS. One of the essential objectives of public education, one of the reasons public education is essential for a healthy society, is to teach people, young and old, about the greatest lesson of history – the story of hate, and about the nature of how we think and why. The only way to declare war on hate is to prevent it from becoming the accomplice to dogma, fear, ignorance and violence. Hate can be characterized as mental illness. Extreme anger can be characterized as mental illness. It causes only harm, is damaging to all, is preventable, and is curable. We must never tolerate hate, yet it is pervasive and regarded as an acceptable and appropriate reaction by many. Hate is not an acceptable reaction to Boston.
Hate kills the potential of everyone.
Y Worlds. Imagining an economic and societal framework that enables the free to free others from the bonds of hate, from the shackles of SLANT, and from the tragedies to come. NETS.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

April 21, 2014by AAY








inShare

Categories: Daily Y, Knowledge Models, Systemic Thinking
Tags: models, NETS, systemics

I grew up in a suburb of Boston.
I know the streets of Boston.
I have Boston culture in my bones.

Every year, there are individual and organizational acts of terrorism. Every year all of us absorb a spectrum of thousands of people killed, maimed or traumatized. Some at 0 degrees of separation, some at distances too far to register. 

I do not need to know why. I already know why.
I do not need to know about accomplices. I already know who.
I do not need to know how to prevent future occurrences. I already know how.
I did not need to see the bravery of service providers. I knew them already.

I know about crimes against humanity.
Acts designed to harm. Hurt.

I do not care about the motivation of the hurters.
There will always be hurters. Haters.

Blasts tear at our guts – our primal programming that reacts to the flash and sound and light and terror of explosives.

Boston tore at our guts.
West Texas tore at our guts.

Newtown, Aurora, Navy Yards, Fort Hood….Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon…
9/11 tore at our guts.
Airplane crashes, car crashes and shootouts grab our guts – our attention.
The Fourth of July celebrates explosions. Gut visceral fascination – stimulation.

Yes,
Bombs + Hate = death.
Guns + Hate = death.

What I do care about is stopping hurters and murders.
But our language fails us. Holds us back.

We do not have a sufficient word or concept for decision-makers who prevent people from accessing health care and necessary services. Thousands of men, women, children and seniors die by their hand each year.

We do not have a sufficient word or concept for organizations that knowingly produce products that deliver absolutely avoidable harm. Thousands of men, women, children and seniors die by their hand each year.

We do not have a sufficient word or concept for organizations and decision-makers who believe Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systemic Support Systems are simply words – who cannot process the untold misery and harm and death that results from their inequalities and lies and failure to enable systemic Nurture to prevail.  

We do not have a sufficient word or concept for a public that stands passively by while decision-makers try to protect their jobs and not the public – the men, women, children and seniors among us who will need protections, who DO desperately need protections NOW.

Lets take our intelligence and compassion and outrage and apply it to systemic acts of Nurture, Equality and Truth. There will still be death by hate or inattention or ignorance or greed. But no more should there be a place on earth where people can honestly believe that hate and violence, ignorance and greed, work better than NETS to achieve any objective other than harm to the commons.

Once a person or group is programmed and locked into hate, it becomes an immense struggle to reshape hate into NETS. One of the essential objectives of public education, one of the reasons public education is essential for a healthy society, is to teach people, young and old, about the greatest lesson of history – the story of hate, and about the nature of how we think and why. The only way to declare war on hate is to prevent it from becoming the accomplice to dogma, fear, ignorance and violence. Hate can be characterized as mental illness. Extreme anger can be characterized as mental illness. It causes only harm, is damaging to all, is preventable, and is curable. We must never tolerate hate, yet it is pervasive and regarded as an acceptable and appropriate reaction by many. Hate is not an acceptable reaction to Boston.

Hate kills the potential of everyone.

Y Worlds. Imagining an economic and societal framework that enables the free to free others from the bonds of hate, from the shackles of SLANT, and from the tragedies to come. NETS.


Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

April 21, 2014
by AAY

Categories: Daily YKnowledge ModelsSystemic Thinking

Tags: 



 


Spectrums of Meaning
We like to think in polarities.It makes things very simple.
[one_half]BlackManGoodDeadFatYesHardRichHappyStrongDemocratYoungSmartExpensiveGenerousTrueBigHotSharpLoveSameEmployedHealthyIntrovertUgly[/one_half]
[one_half_last]WhiteWomanBadAliveThinNoSoftPoorSadWeakRepublicanOldStupidCheapSkinflintFalseLittleColdSoftHateDifferentUnemployedSickExtravertBeautiful[/one_half_last]
We suggest that these words and all of the meanings they conveyfunction as artificial boxesfunction as plastic choicesfunction as inherited misunderstandingsof the complexityof the systemsof the spectrumsthat constitute the essence of every one of these words, and all of the                                 words we have invented to fill the gap between each set of polarities.
These boxes fail at Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.They are useful. But mislead, misinform, miscommunicate.
They do the job of the word itself. But most often, the spectrum of meaning behind any topic cannot be accurately, systemically, or contextually realized by the word alone. The points depicted by the words are simply points within a spectrum of points, threads, fabrics, patterns and systems – a rich semiotic landscape.
There is no such thing as healthy or sick.There is no such thing as ugly or beautiful. There is no such thing as smart or stupid.
These words. Narrow inherited words. Points within a spectrum. What is a beautiful face to a baby hippo is different than what a human baby finds attractive.  What is smart to a human may seem dull to a future intelligent species.
Yes, we must use words, Yes, we must use words to think.Yes, we must understand the world by the words.But the words do not convey Nurture, Equality, Truth or Systems.
What if our words, our labels, our polarities, our restrictive constructs, limit us from learning the greatest lessons of the past century? What if we could translate those lessons into an evolutionary language that helps us put that knowledge into practice? 
The learning begins with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.When applied to every polarity on our list, NETS takes us to a different modality.
Lets take the construct of young and old. We think of humans as babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle aged adults and seniors. We categorize. We know a human being is rapidly changing from birth to childhood, beginning to solidify its foundational essence in its early life, and launches into a stronger conscious mechanism to guide itself until it stops functioning as a human. The chronological reference to the state of a human being across its development and lifespan is nothing more than an artificial construct that social structures use to regulate and manage human affairs. But there are biological “ages”, biological states of being, biological functionalities and capacities and potentials that express a spectrum of dynamic realities that more accurately describe the meaning and value that words fail to capture. The labels themselves obfuscate the meanings and complexities beneath the surface of the label.
Consider the label of “poverty”. Poverty is a state of being caused by a complexity of non nurturing, non equal, non truthful and non systemic human thoughts and behaviors. Poverty is us failing to live up to our potential. When we use the word poverty we think about the individual on the wrong end of inheritance, and not us – because we have no word for us failing them. Labels have nothing to do with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.
The essential meanings emerge from answers (Proof Process) to the following questions:
How do the systems of the universe work?How do human centric systems work?What does any variable in question have to do with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems?How do I understand the states, dynamics, programming and exchange among variables in question?How can I contribute to my establishment of Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems and to a similar vitalization of every human and potential human on the planet?
Words are important. Labels are useful. But if we are to sustain and surmount and survive, it is essential that we develop a semiotic language that gathers complex knowledge into systemic scaffoldings. Simplification of the complex into understanding and action is essential.

So, here is the meaning of life simplified.
We exist within a vast and never ending                 systemic                 auto-poetic                 spectrum of variables, forces and interactions.
Our most vitalizing role is to pursue and perceive Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.
As individuals, groups, collectives and societies, we act upon ourselves and the resources of the universe.
The more we can understand ourselves, each other and “what is”, the more we begin with a foundation rooted in Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems, the more we can shape the future                 at all levels of detail                 toward our potential.

Y Worlds. Seeing the universe as a brilliant spectrum of matter and energy and meaning.


Cells + Patterns = Meaning
Madison Avenue’s Upper East Side coutures contain some of the most intricate designs we have ever seen. These clothing patterns explore the breadth and depth of our capacity to create shape and form, color and texture. Among these dresses and skirts and scarfs are semiotic inspirations for the use of pattern to carry and convey meaning.

After years of research, we still believe that unique fixed models are the best way to organize the variables of systems.
We still believe that filling the cells of these models with rich semiotic patterns is the way to convey states and exchanges.
We still believe that a multitude of perspectives can only be portrayed by a multitude of integrated models viewed together.
We still believe that we only need a few specific defined colors, shapes and forms to deliver meaning.
And we still believe that a browser based real time visualization engine is the solution to the reinvention of knowledge.
Above all, representations are driven by their objectives and the meaning to be conveyed.
Here are some examples of how meaning can be portrayed through pattern embedded in form.
DRINKING ENERGY DRINKSThese patterns depict the immediate result of a person drinking an energy drink.  The patterns show the different effects by changing not only the color but the texture of the pattern. A harsher pattern conveys a more negative depiction.
CONCUSSION MODELThese patterns depict the immediate result of a person getting a concussion.  The patterns show the different effects by changing not only the color but texture of the pattern. A harsher pattern conveys a more negative depiction.
Below are some examples of pattern we at Y Worlds have created.

 
Y Worlds Pattern as Meaning  — Y Worlds Models
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox. 

April 18, 2014by AAY








inShare

Categories: About Y Worlds, Daily Y,Semiotics, Systemic Thinking
Tags: meaning, pattern, systemics, Y Worlds

meaning-560x280

 



SpectrumsFeature-560x280

Spectrums of Meaning

We like to think in polarities.
It makes things very simple.

[one_half]Black
Man
Good
Dead
Fat
Yes
Hard
Rich
Happy
Strong
Democrat
Young
Smart
Expensive
Generous
True
Big
Hot
Sharp
Love
Same
Employed
Healthy
Introvert
Ugly[/one_half]

[one_half_last]White
Woman
Bad
Alive
Thin
No
Soft
Poor
Sad
Weak
Republican
Old
Stupid
Cheap
Skinflint
False
Little
Cold
Soft
Hate
Different
Unemployed
Sick
Extravert
Beautiful[/one_half_last]

We suggest that these words and all of the meanings they convey
function as artificial boxes
function as plastic choices
function as inherited misunderstandings
of the complexity
of the systems
of the spectrums
that constitute the essence of every one of these words, and all of the                                 words we have invented to fill the gap between each set of polarities.

These boxes fail at Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.
They are useful. But mislead, misinform, miscommunicate.

They do the job of the word itself. But most often, the spectrum of meaning behind any topic cannot be accurately, systemically, or contextually realized by the word alone. The points depicted by the words are simply points within a spectrum of points, threads, fabrics, patterns and systems – a rich semiotic landscape.

There is no such thing as healthy or sick.
There is no such thing as ugly or beautiful. 
There is no such thing as smart or stupid.

These words. Narrow inherited words. Points within a spectrum. What is a beautiful face to a baby hippo is different than what a human baby finds attractive.  What is smart to a human may seem dull to a future intelligent species.

Yes, we must use words, 
Yes, we must use words to think.
Yes, we must understand the world by the words.
But the words do not convey Nurture, Equality, Truth or Systems.

What if our words, our labels, our polarities, our restrictive constructs, limit us from learning the greatest lessons of the past century? What if we could translate those lessons into an evolutionary language that helps us put that knowledge into practice? 

The learning begins with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.
When applied to every polarity on our list, NETS takes us to a different modality.

Lets take the construct of young and old. We think of humans as babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle aged adults and seniors. We categorize. We know a human being is rapidly changing from birth to childhood, beginning to solidify its foundational essence in its early life, and launches into a stronger conscious mechanism to guide itself until it stops functioning as a human. The chronological reference to the state of a human being across its development and lifespan is nothing more than an artificial construct that social structures use to regulate and manage human affairs. But there are biological “ages”, biological states of being, biological functionalities and capacities and potentials that express a spectrum of dynamic realities that more accurately describe the meaning and value that words fail to capture. The labels themselves obfuscate the meanings and complexities beneath the surface of the label.

Consider the label of “poverty”. Poverty is a state of being caused by a complexity of non nurturing, non equal, non truthful and non systemic human thoughts and behaviors. Poverty is us failing to live up to our potential. When we use the word poverty we think about the individual on the wrong end of inheritance, and not us – because we have no word for us failing them. Labels have nothing to do with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.

The essential meanings emerge from answers (Proof Process) to the following questions:

How do the systems of the universe work?
How do human centric systems work?
What does any variable in question have to do with Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems?
How do I understand the states, dynamics, programming and exchange among variables in question?
How can I contribute to my establishment of Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems and to a similar vitalization of every human and potential human on the planet?

Words are important. Labels are useful. But if we are to sustain and surmount and survive, it is essential that we develop a semiotic language that gathers complex knowledge into systemic scaffoldings. Simplification of the complex into understanding and action is essential.

So, here is the meaning of life simplified.

We exist within a vast and never ending
                 systemic
                 auto-poetic
                 spectrum of variables, forces and interactions.

Our most vitalizing role is to pursue and perceive Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems.

As individuals, groups, collectives and societies, we act upon ourselves and the resources of the universe.

The more we can understand ourselves, each other and “what is”, the more we begin with a foundation rooted in Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems, the more we can shape the future
                 at all levels of detail
                 toward our potential.

Y Worlds. Seeing the universe as a brilliant spectrum of matter and energy and meaning.



pattern_meaning_feature_image-2-560x280

Cells + Patterns = Meaning

Madison Avenue’s Upper East Side coutures contain some of the most intricate designs we have ever seen. These clothing patterns explore the breadth and depth of our capacity to create shape and form, color and texture. Among these dresses and skirts and scarfs are semiotic inspirations for the use of pattern to carry and convey meaning.

After years of research, we still believe that unique fixed models are the best way to organize the variables of systems.

We still believe that filling the cells of these models with rich semiotic patterns is the way to convey states and exchanges.

We still believe that a multitude of perspectives can only be portrayed by a multitude of integrated models viewed together.

We still believe that we only need a few specific defined colors, shapes and forms to deliver meaning.

And we still believe that a browser based real time visualization engine is the solution to the reinvention of knowledge.

Above all, representations are driven by their objectives and the meaning to be conveyed.

Here are some examples of how meaning can be portrayed through pattern embedded in form.

DRINKING ENERGY DRINKS
These patterns depict the immediate result of a person drinking an energy drink.  The patterns show the different effects by changing not only the color but the texture of the pattern. A harsher pattern conveys a more negative depiction.

CONCUSSION MODEL
These patterns depict the immediate result of a person getting a concussion.  The patterns show the different effects by changing not only the color but texture of the pattern. A harsher pattern conveys a more negative depiction.

Below are some examples of pattern we at Y Worlds have created.

 

Y Worlds Pattern as Meaning  — Y Worlds Models



Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox

April 18, 2014
by AAY

Categories: About Y WorldsDaily Y,SemioticsSystemic Thinking

Tags: 

Well, for starters my analog home makes everyone who sees it and everyone who enters it happy. It advances the health of everyone who breathes its air, drinks in its sunlight, sounds, colors and smells, takes its nourishment, sleeps in its safety and comfort, and moves to its beat.
My home comforts and heals. It shares itself openly with many creatures other than me. It collects and generates its own energy, food and water. It exercises the mind and body.
It is small. Yet it feels enough.It is an intimate place filled with intimate spaces.It requires a small payment in currency, or much sweat and collaboration, and very little maintenance.It is flexible and open enough to shape itself to the tastes of each inhabitant.It has only two umbilical cords to the outside world.It passively cools the heat and warms the cold.
It is secure from storms and stormtroopers.Its lawn is a commons garden.Its flat roof is a manufacturing facility for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.Its slanted roof is a manufacturing facility for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.Its window boxes are manufacturing facilities for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.
The exterior walls are terraced manufacturing facilities for water collection, growing, animal habitats and energy conversion.
It produces energy from the pressure against the earth, energy from the force of rain and wind, energy from the weight and state of snow, energy from changes in atmosphere, energy from motion, energy from sun, energy from convection, energy from vaporization, and energy from temperature change.
Downpipes, chimney, up pipes, light mirrors and earth tunneled pipes collect, distribute and generate energy.
Insulation is embedded into everything between external and internal.
The earth beneath is accessible, used from a multitude of purposes including piped heating and cooling, soil based growths, hygienic waste compost, biome harvesting, worm and insect farming, moisture capture etc.
My multi-unit building shares tools, kitchen equipment, unused food, furniture, clothing, electronics, books, movies, cd’s, art, fix it skills, medical knowledge, self help, computer know how, job leads, friendship leads, open activities, transportation and other resources as a collaborative.
The materials used for construction are mostly from recycled local ingredients – from waste paper and plastic to sand based concretes and bricks, to bamboo and fast growing fibrous trees and plants, to filled balloon domes, forms and molds, to organic solidified mold and biome growths. Windows can be insulators and solar energy collectors and indoor grow lights.
All appliances are operated using low energy mechanisms. The heat of the sun can dry clothes, stored energy can propel motors and mechanisms, methane can be produced for cooking fuel, lights can be light boxes or LED, powered by rechargeable batteries or focused sunlight, fresh foods can be eaten without need for refrigeration, etc.
If our objective is to reimagine how we live, and to create systemic kits that make the possible happen, and to embed Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems into everything we do, it will take just a small proportion of us, a small cooperative, a collaborative, to ignite a way to live that satisfies every parameter of vitalization, comfort, meaning, control, creativity and happiness.
Big is not happiness. Bad is not happiness. Bling is not happiness. Happiness is a state of mind affected by other close states of mind. It takes one to be happy. It takes two to spread happiness.
A really smart home knows it is just a figment of our creation, a vessel of our capacity, and a legacy to our priorities. It knows our imagination and determination can craft it into a form that we today would hardly recognize.
Share your smart smart home thoughts with us. Try support sites like Greensulate and Rate People. We are accumulating home plans, kits, stories, experiences, and fresh ideas to be displayed in our new website.
Y Worlds. A home and safe harbor for smarts.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

Well, for starters my analog home makes everyone who sees it and everyone who enters it happy. It advances the health of everyone who breathes its air, drinks in its sunlight, sounds, colors and smells, takes its nourishment, sleeps in its safety and comfort, and moves to its beat.

My home comforts and heals. It shares itself openly with many creatures other than me. It collects and generates its own energy, food and water. It exercises the mind and body.

It is small. Yet it feels enough.
It is an intimate place filled with intimate spaces.
It requires a small payment in currency, or much sweat and collaboration, and very little maintenance.
It is flexible and open enough to shape itself to the tastes of each inhabitant.
It has only two umbilical cords to the outside world.
It passively cools the heat and warms the cold.

th-7It is secure from storms and stormtroopers.
Its lawn is a commons garden.
Its flat roof is a manufacturing facility for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.
Its slanted roof is a manufacturing facility for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.
Its window boxes are manufacturing facilities for soil, plants, bees, water, light, coolant and energy.

The exterior walls are terraced manufacturing facilities for water collection, growing, animal habitats and energy conversion.

It produces energy from the pressure against the earth, energy from the force of rain and wind, energy from the weight and state of snow, energy from changes in atmosphere, energy from motion, energy from sun, energy from convection, energy from vaporization, and energy from temperature change.

Downpipes, chimney, up pipes, light mirrors and earth tunneled pipes collect, distribute and generate energy.

Insulation is embedded into everything between external and internal.

The earth beneath is accessible, used from a multitude of purposes including piped heating and cooling, soil based growths, hygienic waste compost, biome harvesting, worm and insect farming, moisture capture etc.

My multi-unit building shares tools, kitchen equipment, unused food, furniture, clothing, electronics, books, movies, cd’s, art, fix it skills, medical knowledge, self help, computer know how, job leads, friendship leads, open activities, transportation and other resources as a collaborative.

The materials used for construction are mostly from recycled local ingredients – from waste paper and plastic to sand based concretes and bricks, to bamboo and fast growing fibrous trees and plants, to filled balloon domes, forms and molds, to organic solidified mold and biome growths. Windows can be insulators and solar energy collectors and indoor grow lights.

All appliances are operated using low energy mechanisms. The heat of the sun can dry clothes, stored energy can propel motors and mechanisms, methane can be produced for cooking fuel, lights can be light boxes or LED, powered by rechargeable batteries or focused sunlight, fresh foods can be eaten without need for refrigeration, etc.

th-9If our objective is to reimagine how we live, and to create systemic kits that make the possible happen, and to embed Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems into everything we do, it will take just a small proportion of us, a small cooperative, a collaborative, to ignite a way to live that satisfies every parameter of vitalization, comfort, meaning, control, creativity and happiness.

Big is not happiness. Bad is not happiness. Bling is not happiness. Happiness is a state of mind affected by other close states of mind. It takes one to be happy. It takes two to spread happiness.

A really smart home knows it is just a figment of our creation, a vessel of our capacity, and a legacy to our priorities. It knows our imagination and determination can craft it into a form that we today would hardly recognize.

Share your smart smart home thoughts with us. Try support sites like Greensulate and Rate People. We are accumulating home plans, kits, stories, experiences, and fresh ideas to be displayed in our new website.

Y Worlds. A home and safe harbor for smarts.


Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

How do you do?
Let me introduce myself.Now you tell me about yourself.

So what do we talk about?What do we want with each other?What do we need?How do we connect?What do we do?
On a societal level, we have this same conversation.But for many of us, those who want to do good deeds, initiate great deeds, join fabulous organizations, partner in great movements, Nurture ourselves and others, ensure Equality, pursue Truth wherever it takes us, and embrace a rich System understanding of everything complex, the question facing us is:
How do you do it? How do we do it? How do I do it?
Just like when an airplane loses air pressure, put the oxygen on yourself first. Take care of yourself. Nurture yourself. Breath. Find a sustainable situation you can live with. Then take care of the world.
Build relationships with people who believe in Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems and who consciously invest themselves in reaching their potential and consciously invest themselves in you on your journey toward your potential.
Some people will have passion and energy that transfers. Some people will have skill sets to exchange. Some people will have ideas to explore. Some people will have foundations of currency, capital, assets and tangible enterprises that help you not to have to begin from scratch – starting from 0 is hard. Go with momentums and moving energies if they exist and have withstood your due diligence reviews.
Learn all you can. Always.Teach when the potential difference between you and them means you are needed. Find lattices that connect you with your future.
Then look both ways, all ways, all around you, to make sure no truck will hit you, and then take a step or a hop or a skip or a jump, or just dance…

Do something outward.
It can be a momentary thing. Or it can have traction and sustainability and robust potential.
1. Write .Talk2. Enable . Share . Invest3. Design . Consult . Collaborate. Make4. Create a concept to bring to life    Create a service    Create a product    Create a system – vertical, horizontal or circular integration
Attract human resources and the necessary capital resources for a SPECIFIC enterprise with SPECIFIC objectives and processes and outcomes that are measurable.
SPECIFIC is tough stuff. It cannot be a dream, a wish, a whim, a fashionable statement.
The inherited systems for raising human resources and capital resources are breaking down and the new web enabled local circles and global circles are the emerging systems for borrowing or acquiring necessary resources – you having a great chance to figure this out before they mature into institutional constructs.
SPECIFIC has to claim value, add value, and return value for all parties. The more value the better. SPECIFIC needs to differentiate itself from others. If it does not, join them.
VALUE is in the eye of the beholder. VALUE is the essence of meaning.
If you come from nowhere and start with something, an organization may hire you to work for them. Choose wisely.
If you come from nowhere and start with something, an organization seldom offers an open door to your ideas. You will need to connect with someone who can open the door – an employee, an executive, a person who does business with the organization.
Or you will need to come from somewhere and construct an organization by yourself at first –  by making yourself visible through the internet or videos or writing or networking. Or you can pursue a grant or donation or investment or a collaborative.
But you still must do something. Find a niche, a crack, a fissure or a chasm that you, or a gaggle of yous, can fill. That you can thrive on. Getting the word out should be easy – we have the internet. But it is not so easy.
Enterprise is the model we use for sustainable action, sustainable change, sustainable initiatives, sustainable businesses, sustainable philanthropy, sustainable revolution . Enterprises have objectives that include sustainability, value generation and a process. Our Enterprise model integrates 5 nodes:
Positioning for Future Performance Model
All 5 nodes need to be compiled, activated, synchronized and systemically viable.
VALUE at the end of the day is if someone wants what you have or needs what you have. Or when some neutral or oblivious someone experiences what you have will realize its mutual VALUE - to that person and to you.
Given that the great wealth of the world spins largely in circles of its own making, one opportunity is to deflect or redirect some of that massive currency and capital toward us – the people from nowhere with something valuable to share - SPECIFIC TANGIBLE HIGH VALUE, HIGH RETURN-ON -INVESTMENT ENTERPRISE.
We embrace a hybrid model for all enterprises. 1) Creative Commons for the people. 2) Currencies and Capital and Fair Trade and Alternative Currencies to sustain the enterprise           and the people – from the commercial world.
You can be an enterprise. You can craft an enterprise. You can empower an enterprise.
One enterprise opportunity is to build an organic humanistic system for all of us to find each other. Thanks for finding us.
Y Worlds. An Enterprise from Nowhere.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

How do you do?

Let me introduce myself.
Now you tell me about yourself.

So what do we talk about?
What do we want with each other?
What do we need?
How do we connect?
What do we do?

On a societal level, we have this same conversation.
But for many of us, those who want to do good deeds, initiate great deeds, join fabulous organizations, partner in great movements, Nurture ourselves and others, ensure Equality, pursue Truth wherever it takes us, and embrace a rich System understanding of everything complex, the question facing us is:

How do you do it? How do we do it? How do I do it?

Just like when an airplane loses air pressure, put the oxygen on yourself first. Take care of yourself. Nurture yourself. Breath. Find a sustainable situation you can live with. Then take care of the world.

Build relationships with people who believe in Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems and who consciously invest themselves in reaching their potential and consciously invest themselves in you on your journey toward your potential.

Some people will have passion and energy that transfers. Some people will have skill sets to exchange. Some people will have ideas to explore. Some people will have foundations of currency, capital, assets and tangible enterprises that help you not to have to begin from scratch – starting from 0 is hard. Go with momentums and moving energies if they exist and have withstood your due diligence reviews.

Learn all you can. Always.
Teach when the potential difference between you and them means you are needed. 
Find lattices that connect you with your future.

Then look both ways, all ways, all around you, to make sure no truck will hit you, and then take a step or a hop or a skip or a jump, or just dance…

Do something outward.

It can be a momentary thing. 
Or it can have traction and sustainability and robust potential.

1. Write .Talk
2. Enable . Share . Invest
3. Design . Consult . Collaborate. Make
4. Create a concept to bring to life
    Create a service
    Create a product
    Create a system – vertical, horizontal or circular integration

Attract human resources and the necessary capital resources for a SPECIFIC enterprise with SPECIFIC objectives and processes and outcomes that are measurable.

SPECIFIC is tough stuff. 
It cannot be a dream, a wish, a whim, a fashionable statement.

The inherited systems for raising human resources and capital resources are breaking down and the new web enabled local circles and global circles are the emerging systems for borrowing or acquiring necessary resources – you having a great chance to figure this out before they mature into institutional constructs.

SPECIFIC has to claim value, add value, and return value for all parties. The more value the better. SPECIFIC needs to differentiate itself from others. If it does not, join them.

VALUE is in the eye of the beholder. VALUE is the essence of meaning.

If you come from nowhere and start with something, an organization may hire you to work for them. Choose wisely.

If you come from nowhere and start with something, an organization seldom offers an open door to your ideas. You will need to connect with someone who can open the door – an employee, an executive, a person who does business with the organization.

Or you will need to come from somewhere and construct an organization by yourself at first –  by making yourself visible through the internet or videos or writing or networking. Or you can pursue a grant or donation or investment or a collaborative.

But you still must do something. Find a niche, a crack, a fissure or a chasm that you, or a gaggle of yous, can fill. That you can thrive on. Getting the word out should be easy – we have the internet. But it is not so easy.

Enterprise is the model we use for sustainable action, sustainable change, sustainable initiatives, sustainable businesses, sustainable philanthropy, sustainable revolution . Enterprises have objectives that include sustainability, value generation and a process. Our Enterprise model integrates 5 nodes:

Positioning for Future Performance Model

All 5 nodes need to be compiled, activated, synchronized and systemically viable.

VALUE at the end of the day is if someone wants what you have or needs what you have. Or when some neutral or oblivious someone experiences what you have will realize its mutual VALUE - to that person and to you.

Given that the great wealth of the world spins largely in circles of its own making, one opportunity is to deflect or redirect some of that massive currency and capital toward us – the people from nowhere with something valuable to share - SPECIFIC TANGIBLE HIGH VALUE, HIGH RETURN-ON -INVESTMENT ENTERPRISE.

We embrace a hybrid model for all enterprises. 
1) Creative Commons for the people. 
2) Currencies and Capital and Fair Trade and Alternative Currencies to sustain the enterprise           and the people – from the commercial world.

You can be an enterprise. You can craft an enterprise. You can empower an enterprise.

One enterprise opportunity is to build an organic humanistic system for all of us to find each other. Thanks for finding us.

Y Worlds. An Enterprise from Nowhere.


Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

It is great sport to watch the players on the medical pitch perform before their small audiences.
At the Mayo Clinic, I watched a premier league competition full of well trained mental athletes, populated by rigorous quality checklists and processes and perhaps most tellingly, their team was imbued with numerous demonstrations of very smart, very systemic understandings of the game. For example, they had every player respect the science of blood pressure measurement. They did not rely on a single reading. They captured a continuous series of 5 readings, knocked out the high and low readings, and took the average of the rest as their measure. Other teams and leagues that I have observed took a single reading and moved on.

The Mayo players were fully conscious of the inaccuracy of a single blood pressure reading and their game plan created a fail safe mechanism to ensure no one forgot that as they played the game of medicine. They scored a lot of points with me by having that in their playbook – which included many other similar insights from infection to prep to checklists.
I had two hours recently to observe team play in the urgent care league. I sat in a visually antiseptic room with septic coughing and sneezing sick people all around me. A child ran around touching everyone and everything, her father finding it impossible to interact with her without escalations and tears and threats.
The ticket taker, the first human contact in the game, insisted that everyone wait in line to see her. The ticket taker was positioned in the middle of the waiting room, right in front of the seats. Like confession, every person was first asked what the nature of their torment was. Unlike confession, their intimate answers were heard by all of us. Flu symptoms, infection, and pain were reported for all of us to hear – and we each made sure to catch a glance at the people sharing the more interesting confessions.
Otherwise, we went about our business of reading, staring down, working our phones, watching the small wall tv showing medical information or avoiding the energizer child. The ticket taker then took identificaiton, credit card and health insurance information and asked each person to fill out a 4 page paper form and return it to her. Every 20 minutes like a cuckoo clock a person from the hidden recesses of the facility popped out and apologized for the wait to the often long line of fans, thanking them for their patience. The expected wait time was about 1.5 hours to watch the actual game – in the waiting room were just warm ups and practice and a lot of stretching. The actual game took place somewhere behind the ticket taker. It was first come, first served, first to get to watch the game. No triage, no reserved seats, no platinum elite access. The game itself never lasted more than 20 minutes or so. A tech or nurse, a waiting room, a wait, and then the game – a doctor began to play but sometimes a nurse or technician were the only players.
There was not much contact, not much drama, really not much of a game. But it was the only game in town beside the emergency room league playing every moment of every day at the regional hospital stadium. Only rubbing alcohol is allowed in the stands. Purell pumps instead of mustard pumps. People sick as dogs instead of hot dogs. Such a bummer.
“Bad bad bad medical system” we say, like we do when we catch our pet soiling the rug.
Saying bad bad bad does very little to change things. At Y Worlds, we would like to be a part of a change process, not a part of the million critical comments that never translate into change.
As we begin to roll out our Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems model, here are a select summary of high level understandings that invoke a wide array of generative improvements to the thing, the human construct, we call a health system.
From the Y Worlds NETS Model:
NETS begins with Nurture
The privacy and dignity of the individual can be achieved by modifying the intake procedures at medical facilities. First and foremost is instant initial triage to determine what the situation is, what the person’s status is, and what can be done to provide that person with the best assistance, services and guidance. Addressing Equality, no human body is the same as another’s and no human being presents systems or handles intake rooms at institutions the same way. Nurture, Equality and Truth merge to insist that we interact with each person as a complex individual and the process we call triage is actually intended to provide an experience, even a relationship, that comes as close as a loving, knowledgeable parent or caregiver might provide. Cold care does not work as well as humane care.
It may actually be less costly and more effective for certain chronic or pervasive medical conditions to be addressed by a mutually agreed to systemic allocation of a new category of caregivers for a long term bonding relationship – live in, nearby, remote video.  
Nothing created by Humans is a System in our Ontology unless it is systemically designed as a comprehensive system based upon NETS. There is no health system, no intelligently and compassionately designed health system, there are only manifold components thrown together as a patchwork – each mostly addressing one piece of the problems at a time. Lets reject SLANT – thinking that what we have is some sort of an effective well thought out system. It should be clear by now that what we have is far from it.

A NETS system would emphasize prevention, through intensive education throughout our lives as a primary directive, as the primary objective
We need to become much more knowledgeable and self sufficient about the workings of our own bodies. Our institutions of education need to make learning about our own bodies a priority — to the level of a professional nurse. We need to make learning about ourselves a priority.
Public schools, parents and health organizations should teach comprehensive systemic health and medicine knowledge. They should develop processes for individuals to obtain relevant longitudinal reference information about their own bodies.
Waiting rooms and treatment rooms are infection and disease exchanges. Humane, gentle triage and isolation clean rooms for those with communicable symptoms serve to separate the communicable bio agents away from the high risk visitors.
SWAY

The evidence is overwhelming that self measurement, self diagnosis and self treatment has and will continue to exponentially increase due to the SWAY of medical access and costs, and to the continued invention and evolution of a wide range of machines, instruments, chemical and bio agent diagnostics, and enabling technologies. Lets organize this potential using a proof based evidence model into affordable fail safe toolsets for all of us. And of course, certified and highly trained medical personnel with advanced diagnostics should be consulted whenever it makes sense or reduces risk factors.
With Truth, we need to recognize that there is much about diseases and illnesses and human bodies that we do not yet understand. Every opportunity for medical education, including self education, should include systemic understandings coupled with checklists of what we know and do not know. The checklist, for example, would identify the pallette of diagnostic measures for particular symptoms in order of procedure and importance, and would identify that any time a blood pressure reading is taken with current instruments, it should follow something on the order of the Mayo Clinic protocol… and more.
Systems & Freedoms
Well thought out Systems enable people to experience maximum freedom. People may choose to smoke or eat or drink themselves to death. NETS suggests that we, as a compassionate evidence based free society, can intervene at the earliest stages of a person’s life via education, modeling, access to support services and effective protections without damaging the principle of freedom.
Taxing at higher rates not only the consumption of such known depleters of human potential as smoking and alcohol but also the producers of such products allows the currency received to be invested in prevention and treatment. Added taxing should be calculated and tied directly to measures of the direct and indirect systemic costs of these products to the societal fabric. The regulatory burden of government across all known sources of harm to human beings needs to be shifted more to the actors responsible for the sources of known harm. Individuals and organizations should be expected to produce a simple Proof Process that shows they acknowledge their responsibility to see that known harms are prevented and have acted accordingly. If they lie or fail to act responsibly according to their own procedures, enforcing their mandate, they will be held accountable for their failure to act. Court and enforcement requirements should substantially decline as the penalties for the heads of organizations not to comply would be so severe they would most often institute strong controls to ensure their organization acted on NETS principles.
Rewards and consequences should be linked transparently and seamlessly to objectives. If it is health we are after, understanding the art and science of health needs to receive investments and rewards, avoiding or preventing damaging exchanges needs direct support and rewards. Enabling and empowering people to achieve their conscious, subconscious and corporal potential should become a mandate, and after living ones life, accepting the end game of life as something to be absorbed and shared, not fought with painful forced pyrrhic interventions.
Y Worlds. It is urgent that we care. It is more urgent that we care systemically.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox. 

It is great sport to watch the players on the medical pitch perform before their small audiences.

At the Mayo Clinic, I watched a premier league competition full of well trained mental athletes, populated by rigorous quality checklists and processes and perhaps most tellingly, their team was imbued with numerous demonstrations of very smart, very systemic understandings of the game. For example, they had every player respect the science of blood pressure measurement. They did not rely on a single reading. They captured a continuous series of 5 readings, knocked out the high and low readings, and took the average of the rest as their measure. Other teams and leagues that I have observed took a single reading and moved on.

The Mayo players were fully conscious of the inaccuracy of a single blood pressure reading and their game plan created a fail safe mechanism to ensure no one forgot that as they played the game of medicine. They scored a lot of points with me by having that in their playbook – which included many other similar insights from infection to prep to checklists.

I had two hours recently to observe team play in the urgent care league. I sat in a visually antiseptic room with septic coughing and sneezing sick people all around me. A child ran around touching everyone and everything, her father finding it impossible to interact with her without escalations and tears and threats.

The ticket taker, the first human contact in the game, insisted that everyone wait in line to see her. The ticket taker was positioned in the middle of the waiting room, right in front of the seats. Like confession, every person was first asked what the nature of their torment was. Unlike confession, their intimate answers were heard by all of us. Flu symptoms, infection, and pain were reported for all of us to hear – and we each made sure to catch a glance at the people sharing the more interesting confessions.

IMG_0568-229x300Otherwise, we went about our business of reading, staring down, working our phones, watching the small wall tv showing medical information or avoiding the energizer child. The ticket taker then took identificaiton, credit card and health insurance information and asked each person to fill out a 4 page paper form and return it to her. Every 20 minutes like a cuckoo clock a person from the hidden recesses of the facility popped out and apologized for the wait to the often long line of fans, thanking them for their patience. The expected wait time was about 1.5 hours to watch the actual game – in the waiting room were just warm ups and practice and a lot of stretching. The actual game took place somewhere behind the ticket taker. It was first come, first served, first to get to watch the game. No triage, no reserved seats, no platinum elite access. The game itself never lasted more than 20 minutes or so. A tech or nurse, a waiting room, a wait, and then the game – a doctor began to play but sometimes a nurse or technician were the only players.

There was not much contact, not much drama, really not much of a game. But it was the only game in town beside the emergency room league playing every moment of every day at the regional hospital stadium. Only rubbing alcohol is allowed in the stands. Purell pumps instead of mustard pumps. People sick as dogs instead of hot dogs. Such a bummer.


“Bad bad bad medical system” we say, like we do when we catch our pet soiling the rug.

Saying bad bad bad does very little to change things. At Y Worlds, we would like to be a part of a change process, not a part of the million critical comments that never translate into change.

As we begin to roll out our Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems model, here are a select summary of high level understandings that invoke a wide array of generative improvements to the thing, the human construct, we call a health system.

From the Y Worlds NETS Model:

NETS begins with Nurture

The privacy and dignity of the individual can be achieved by modifying the intake procedures at medical facilities. First and foremost is instant initial triage to determine what the situation is, what the person’s status is, and what can be done to provide that person with the best assistance, services and guidance. Addressing Equality, no human body is the same as another’s and no human being presents systems or handles intake rooms at institutions the same way. Nurture, Equality and Truth merge to insist that we interact with each person as a complex individual and the process we call triage is actually intended to provide an experience, even a relationship, that comes as close as a loving, knowledgeable parent or caregiver might provide. Cold care does not work as well as humane care.

It may actually be less costly and more effective for certain chronic or pervasive medical conditions to be addressed by a mutually agreed to systemic allocation of a new category of caregivers for a long term bonding relationship – live in, nearby, remote video.  

Nothing created by Humans is a System in our Ontology unless it is systemically designed as a comprehensive system based upon NETS. There is no health system, no intelligently and compassionately designed health system, there are only manifold components thrown together as a patchwork – each mostly addressing one piece of the problems at a time. Lets reject SLANT – thinking that what we have is some sort of an effective well thought out system. It should be clear by now that what we have is far from it.

A NETS system would emphasize prevention, through intensive education throughout our lives as a primary directive, as the primary objective

We need to become much more knowledgeable and self sufficient about the workings of our own bodies. Our institutions of education need to make learning about our own bodies a priority — to the level of a professional nurse. We need to make learning about ourselves a priority.

Public schools, parents and health organizations should teach comprehensive systemic health and medicine knowledge. They should develop processes for individuals to obtain relevant longitudinal reference information about their own bodies.

Waiting rooms and treatment rooms are infection and disease exchanges. Humane, gentle triage and isolation clean rooms for those with communicable symptoms serve to separate the communicable bio agents away from the high risk visitors.

SWAY

The evidence is overwhelming that self measurement, self diagnosis and self treatment has and will continue to exponentially increase due to the SWAY of medical access and costs, and to the continued invention and evolution of a wide range of machines, instruments, chemical and bio agent diagnostics, and enabling technologies. Lets organize this potential using a proof based evidence model into affordable fail safe toolsets for all of us. And of course, certified and highly trained medical personnel with advanced diagnostics should be consulted whenever it makes sense or reduces risk factors.

With Truth, we need to recognize that there is much about diseases and illnesses and human bodies that we do not yet understand. Every opportunity for medical education, including self education, should include systemic understandings coupled with checklists of what we know and do not know. The checklist, for example, would identify the pallette of diagnostic measures for particular symptoms in order of procedure and importance, and would identify that any time a blood pressure reading is taken with current instruments, it should follow something on the order of the Mayo Clinic protocol… and more.

Systems & Freedoms

Well thought out Systems enable people to experience maximum freedom. People may choose to smoke or eat or drink themselves to death. NETS suggests that we, as a compassionate evidence based free society, can intervene at the earliest stages of a person’s life via education, modeling, access to support services and effective protections without damaging the principle of freedom.

IMG_2392-300x225Taxing at higher rates not only the consumption of such known depleters of human potential as smoking and alcohol but also the producers of such products allows the currency received to be invested in prevention and treatment. Added taxing should be calculated and tied directly to measures of the direct and indirect systemic costs of these products to the societal fabric. The regulatory burden of government across all known sources of harm to human beings needs to be shifted more to the actors responsible for the sources of known harm. Individuals and organizations should be expected to produce a simple Proof Process that shows they acknowledge their responsibility to see that known harms are prevented and have acted accordingly. If they lie or fail to act responsibly according to their own procedures, enforcing their mandate, they will be held accountable for their failure to act. Court and enforcement requirements should substantially decline as the penalties for the heads of organizations not to comply would be so severe they would most often institute strong controls to ensure their organization acted on NETS principles.

Rewards and consequences should be linked transparently and seamlessly to objectives. If it is health we are after, understanding the art and science of health needs to receive investments and rewards, avoiding or preventing damaging exchanges needs direct support and rewards. Enabling and empowering people to achieve their conscious, subconscious and corporal potential should become a mandate, and after living ones life, accepting the end game of life as something to be absorbed and shared, not fought with painful forced pyrrhic interventions.

Y Worlds. It is urgent that we care. It is more urgent that we care systemically.


Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox


At Y Worlds, we distinguish between data visualization and knowledge visualization. Using semiotics to help understand the patterns associated with Multiple Sclerosis can take the form of data driven graphics, body maps and geographic maps, algorithmic graphics and knowledge representations. Here we show two examples of dynamic interactive data visualizations exploring the link between smoke and multiple sclerosis.
Multiple Sclerosis- Demographics
Multiple Sclerosis- Tobacco Exposure
Smoke introduces changes in genetics, in body chemistry, in body function, in lung capacity, in the introduction of materials and conditions that the body has no prior programming for. Women appear to experience greater negative effects from smoking than men. Smoking and environmental smoke are endemic to certain parts of the world. Smoking before or during puberty may cause changes in body function and metabolism that last through life and begin processes at an early age that can ultimately be debilitating many years later. There is a significant correlation between smoke and Multiple Sclerosis symptoms.
View more on Multiple Sclerosis.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.


April 14, 2014by AAY








inShare

Categories: Daily Y, Food & Health,Infographics, Systemic Thinking
Tags: Infographics, Multiple Sclerosis, systemics

At Y Worlds, we distinguish between data visualization and knowledge visualization. Using semiotics to help understand the patterns associated with Multiple Sclerosis can take the form of data driven graphics, body maps and geographic maps, algorithmic graphics and knowledge representations. Here we show two examples of dynamic interactive data visualizations exploring the link between smoke and multiple sclerosis.

Multiple Sclerosis- Demographics

Multiple Sclerosis- Tobacco Exposure

Smoke introduces changes in genetics, in body chemistry, in body function, in lung capacity, in the introduction of materials and conditions that the body has no prior programming for. Women appear to experience greater negative effects from smoking than men. Smoking and environmental smoke are endemic to certain parts of the world. Smoking before or during puberty may cause changes in body function and metabolism that last through life and begin processes at an early age that can ultimately be debilitating many years later. There is a significant correlation between smoke and Multiple Sclerosis symptoms.


View more on Multiple Sclerosis.

Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

April 14, 2014
by AAY

Categories: Daily YFood & Health,InfographicsSystemic Thinking

Tags: 

Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt
In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles.
But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?” (full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”).
Standing at the front of the conference room, the geophysicist from the University of California, San Diego walked the crowd through the advanced computer model he was using to answer that question. He talked about system boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors, bifurcations and a whole bunch of other stuff largely incomprehensible to those of us uninitiated in complex systems theory. But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the “are we f**ked” question, Werner set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.”
There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance” – movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture”. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups”.
Serious scientific gatherings don’t usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage. But then again, Werner wasn’t exactly calling for those things. He was merely observing that mass uprisings of people – along the lines of the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or Occupy Wall Street – represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control. We know that past social movements have “had tremendous influence on … how the dominant culture evolved”, he pointed out. So it stands to reason that, “if we’re thinking about the future of the earth, and the future of our coupling to the environment, we have to include resistance as part of that dynamics”. And that, Werner argued, is not a matter of opinion, but “really a geophysics problem”.
Plenty of scientists have been moved by their research findings to take action in the streets. Physicists, astronomers, medical doctors and biologists have been at the forefront of movements against nuclear weapons, nuclear power, war, chemical contamination and creationism. And in November 2012,Nature published a commentary by the financier and environmental philanthropist Jeremy Grantham urging scientists to join this tradition and “be arrested if necessary”, because climate change “is not only the crisis of your lives – it is also the crisis of our species’ existence”.
Some scientists need no convincing. The godfather of modern climate science, James Hansen, is a formidable activist, having been arrested some half-dozen times for resisting mountain-top removal coal mining and tar sands pipelines (he even left his job at Nasa this year in part to have more time for campaigning). Two years ago, when I was arrested outside the White House at a mass action against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, one of the 166 people in cuffs that day was a glaciologist named Jason Box, a world-renowned expert on Greenland’s melting ice sheet.
“I couldn’t maintain my self-respect if I didn’t go,” Box said at the time, adding that “just voting doesn’t seem to be enough in this case. I need to be a citizen also.”
This is laudable, but what Werner is doing with his modelling is different. He isn’t saying that his research drove him to take action to stop a particular policy; he is saying that his research shows that our entire economic paradigm is a threat to ecological stability. And indeed that challenging this economic paradigm – through mass-movement counter-pressure – is humanity’s best shot at avoiding catastrophe.
That’s heavy stuff. But he’s not alone. Werner is part of a small but increasingly influential group of scientists whose research into the destabilisation of natural systems – particularly the climate system – is leading them to similarly transformative, even revolutionary, conclusions. And for any closet revolutionary who has ever dreamed of overthrowing the present economic order in favour of one a little less likely to cause Italian pensioners to hang themselves in their homes, this work should be of particular interest. Because it makes the ditching of that cruel system in favour of something new (and perhaps, with lots of work, better) no longer a matter of mere ideological preference but rather one of species-wide existential necessity.
Leading the pack of these new scientific revolutionaries is one of Britain’s top climate experts, Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which has quickly established itself as one of the UK’s premier climate research institutions. Addressing everyone from the Department for International Development to Manchester City Council, Anderson has spent more than a decade patiently translating the implications of the latest climate science to politicians, economists and campaigners. In clear and understandable language, he lays out a rigorous road map for emissions reduction, one that provides a decent shot at keeping global temperature rise below 2° Celsius, a target that most governments have determined would stave off catastrophe.
But in recent years Anderson’s papers and slide shows have become more alarming. Under titles such as “Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous … Brutal Numbers and Tenuous Hope”, he points out that the chances of staying within anything like safe temperature levels are diminishing fast.
With his colleague Alice Bows, a climate mitigation expert at the Tyndall Centre, Anderson points out that we have lost so much time to political stalling and weak climate policies – all while global consumption (and emissions) ballooned – that we are now facing cuts so drastic that they challenge the fundamental logic of prioritising GDP growth above all else.
Anderson and Bows inform us that the often-cited long-term mitigation target – an 80 per cent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2050 – has been selected purely for reasons of political expediency and has “no scientific basis”. That’s because climate impacts come not just from what we emit today and tomorrow, but from the cumulative emissions that build up in the atmosphere over time. And they warn that by focusing on targets three and a half decades into the future – rather than on what we can do to cut carbon sharply and immediately – there is a serious risk that we will allow our emissions to continue to soar for years to come, thereby blowing through far too much of our 2° “carbon budget” and putting ourselves in an impossible position later in the century.
Which is why Anderson and Bows argue that, if the governments of developed countries are serious about hitting the agreed upon international target of keeping warming below 2° Celsius, and if reductions are to respect any kind of equity principle (basically that the countries that have been spewing carbon for the better part of two centuries need to cut before the countries where more than a billion people still don’t have electricity), then the reductions need to be a lot deeper, and they need to come a lot sooner.
To have even a 50/50 chance of hitting the 2° target (which, they and many others warn, already involves facing an array of hugely damaging climate impacts), the industrialised countries need to start cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions by something like 10 per cent a year – and they need to start right now. But Anderson and Bows go further, pointing out that this target cannot be met with the array of modest carbon pricing or green-tech solutions usually advocated by big green groups. These measures will certainly help, to be sure, but they are simply not enough: a 10 per cent drop in emissions, year after year, is virtually unprecedented since we started powering our economies with coal. In fact, cuts above 1 per cent per year “have historically been associated only with economic recession or upheaval”, as the economist Nicholas Stern put it in his 2006 report for the British government.
Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, reductions of this duration and depth did not happen (the former Soviet countries experienced average annual reductions of roughly 5 per cent over a period of ten years). They did not happen after Wall Street crashed in 2008 (wealthy countries experienced about a 7 per cent drop between 2008 and 2009, but their CO2 emissions rebounded with gusto in 2010 and emissions in China and India had continued to rise). Only in the immediate aftermath of the great market crash of 1929 did the United States, for instance, see emissions drop for several consecutive years by more than 10 per cent annually, according to historical data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre. But that was the worst economic crisis of modern times.
If we are to avoid that kind of carnage while meeting our science-based emissions targets, carbon reduction must be managed carefully through what Anderson and Bows describe as “radical and immediate de-growth strategies in the US, EU and other wealthy nations”. Which is fine, except that we happen to have an economic system that fetishises GDP growth above all else, regardless of the human or ecological consequences, and in which the neoliberal political class has utterly abdicated its responsibility to manage anything (since the market is the invisible genius to which everything must be entrusted).
So what Anderson and Bows are really saying is that there is still time to avoid catastrophic warming, but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed. Which may be the best argument we have ever had for changing those rules.
In a 2012 essay that appeared in the influential scientific journal Nature Climate Change, Anderson and Bows laid down something of a gauntlet, accusing many of their fellow scientists of failing to come clean about the kind of changes that climate change demands of humanity. On this it is worth quoting the pair at length:
 … in developing emission scenarios scientists repeatedly and severely underplay the implications of their analyses. When it comes to avoiding a 2°C rise, “impossible” is translated into “difficult but doable”, whereas “urgent and radical” emerge as “challenging” – all to appease the god of economics (or, more precisely, finance). For example, to avoid exceeding the maximum rate of emission reduction dictated by economists, “impossibly” early peaks in emissions are assumed, together with naive notions about “big” engineering and the deployment rates of low-carbon infrastructure. More disturbingly, as emissions budgets dwindle, so geoengineering is increasingly proposed to ensure that the diktat of economists remains unquestioned.
In other words, in order to appear reasonable within neoliberal economic circles, scientists have been dramatically soft-peddling the implications of their research. By August 2013, Anderson was willing to be even more blunt, writing that the boat had sailed on gradual change. “Perhaps at the time of the 1992 Earth Summit, or even at the turn of the millennium, 2°C levels of mitigation could have been achieved through significant evolutionary changes within the political and economic hegemony. But climate change is a cumulative issue! Now, in 2013, we in high-emitting (post-)industrial nations face a very different prospect. Our ongoing and collective carbon profligacy has squandered any opportunity for the ‘evolutionary change’ afforded by our earlier (and larger) 2°C carbon budget. Today, after two decades of bluff and lies, the remaining 2°C budget demands revolutionary change to the political and economic hegemony” (his emphasis).
We probably shouldn’t be surprised that some climate scientists are a little spooked by the radical implications of even their own research. Most of them were just quietly doing their work measuring ice cores, running global climate models and studying ocean acidification, only to discover, as the Australian climate expert and author Clive Hamilton puts it, that they “were unwittingly destabilising the political and social order”.
But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. It’s why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations’ scientists. In Britain, this strategy is becoming more overt, with Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, writing recently that scientists should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong” and should express their views “by working with embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena”.
If you want to know where this leads, check out what’s happening in Canada, where I live. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper has done such an effective job of gagging scientists and shutting down critical research projects that, in July 2012, a couple thousand scientists and supporters held a mock-funeral on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, mourning “the death of evidence”. Their placards said, “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth”.
But the truth is getting out anyway. The fact that the business-as-usual pursuit of profits and growth is destabilising life on earth is no longer something we need to read about in scientific journals. The early signs are unfolding before our eyes. And increasing numbers of us are responding accordingly: blockading fracking activity in Balcombe; interfering with Arctic drilling preparations in Russian waters (at tremendous personal cost); taking tar sands operators to court for violating indigenous sovereignty; and countless other acts of resistance large and small. In Brad Werner’s computer model, this is the “friction” needed to slow down the forces of destabilisation; the great climate campaigner Bill McKibben calls it the “antibodies” rising up to fight the planet’s “spiking fever”.
It’s not a revolution, but it’s a start. And it might just buy us enough time to figure out a way to live on this planet that is distinctly less f**ked.
Article by Naomi Klein, found by Richard David Hames

The Structural Flaws of Global Economics and the Problem of Erroneous Value Equation
“A living whale swimming in the ocean has no economically recognized value to anyone, but harpooned, is worth up to a million dollars as meat. A 2,000 year old redwood tree that produces oxygen, sequesters CO2, cleans toxins from the atmosphere, stabilizes topsoil, prevents flooding, and creates habitat for pollinators and other species that are crucial to the functioning of our biosphere, confers economic advantage to no one. But cutdown, makes $100,000 worth of virgin lumber.”Excerpted from Daniel Schmachtenberger.
Global economics has several core structural flaws (that have not been addressed in any industrialized system of economics to date) that make major environmental and social harm, including world hunger, unavoidable, irrespective of the specific people involved.
I will address some of these flaws here just deeply enough to demonstrate the level at which economics has to change, and to underscore the necessity of these changes to bring about a world of sustainable sufficiency:
* The value equation
What determines the relative economic value we place on one thing compared to another? Why is gold valued at $1,200 per ounce while air has no assessed value? Our human values both inform and are reinforced and conditioned by the value equation economically. Several of the core drivers of the valuation process create an economic incentive that is antithetical to environmental sustainability and human flourishing for all.
Extraction:
A living whale swimming in the ocean has no economically recognized value to anyone, but harpooned, is worth up to a million dollars as meat. A 2,000 year old redwood tree that produces oxygen, sequesters CO2, cleans toxins from the atmosphere, stabilizes topsoil, prevents flooding, and creates habitat for pollinators and other species that are crucial to the functioning of our biosphere, confers economic advantage to no one. But cutdown, makes $100,000 worth of virgin lumber.
Our value equation is extractionary and commoditizing. Even the phrase “natural resource” assumes the extraction and commodification of what was once a part of a living ecosystem. This is exactly why we have decimated 90% of the large fish populations, 80% of the world’s old growth forests, and caused more species extinction than we have been able to account for. This is also why we enslave whole species, at forced populations greater than our own, in conditions that future historians will catalogue along with concentration camps and slavery ships as tragic examples of human power, pre-civilization.
As long as the other species with which we inhabit this planet are worth more to us dead than alive, more enslaved and commodified than free, and only have assessed value insofar as they can be used to meet an immediate need of ours, not recognizing sovereignty or intrinsic value on the balance sheet…then we will continue rationalizing violence and extracting faster than renewability, eroding the very cliff on which we stand.
Our extrinsic only, commoditizing valuation system applies to other people just as much as it does to other species. This is why the aid of wealthy nations to poor ones is limited by the rationalizable case for ROI. The manufacturing of goods, including of foodstuff, for the industrialized world,depends on cheap labor from the developing world. This system of profit margin is not only predicated upon but also requires the continuance of massive economic disparity.
This is not just self-serving interest, but shortsighted self-serving interest. Beyond a living tree’s value to the rest of life, or itself, it is producing the oxygen that I breathe. That does something more fundamental for me than anything I can do with the tree. But my cutting this one tree (or forest) down won’t ruin the entire atmosphere, so I breathe either way. But me cutting down this one tree does confer immediate and tangible economic advantage to me that I wouldn’t have otherwise. It is a whole population thinking this way, because the structure of incentive within the system predisposes that, that has us nearing the end of a savings account we are not equipped to replenish nor yet prepared to live without.
Related to extraction is the expectation for continual growth, which is clearly not possible on a finite planet. Continued evolution of scientific insights and technological resource efficiencies leading to a continued increase in quality of life is possible sustainably, but requires a closed loop economic model based on evolving homeostasis rather than continued exponential growth.
Externalization:
What extraction is to the front of a linear materials economy, externalization is to the end of it. With the integrity of the commons not represented on anyone’s profit and loss statement, the more of the cost of operations can be externalized to the environment and others, the better the profit margin.
Hence, the agricultural run off, the mercury in the ocean, the deserts and landfills taking the place ecosystems once inhabited, the “waste” marine life accidentally killed in drift nets and long lines, and the general blind eye to the immense suffering induced in the pursuit of narrow success metrics.
If the cost of a landmine included the cost to remove it afterwards (let alone to try and remediate the irreparable harm to human life caused in its use), there would be no land mines. Real cost accounting would mean the military industrial complex would operate at an astronomical loss. Without the majority of the cost being unaccounted for, i.e., paid for by somebody else, war would be the least economically viable solution to conflicts, which would motivate the development and utilization of other strategies.
If the cost of a hamburger included the cost to clean the water used in its production, to sustainably manage the soil used for growing feedstock, to remove the methane and CO2 produced from the atmosphere, to tend to any resultant health issues in the people consuming it as a result of the antibiotics, hormones, or steroids used, to remove the pesticides from the environment, etc. (not to mention the cost of suffering to the animals or intrinsic value of life taken, which is impossible to calculate a value for), current methods of industrialized animal agriculture would be the most expensive way of producing food ever attempted.
In order for the strategies we develop for feeding people to be sustainable, they have to inventory and internalize all the costs associated. That imperative is not incentivized or even possible (to maintain competitive status) within the current valuation system.
If we inventoried and internalized all the externalities within the value and profit equation, economics would spontaneously incentivize behaviors that supported sustainability.
Scarcity:
As long as a thing’s scarcity adds economic value on top of its real use value (whether it was scarce or not), there will be economic incentive to artificially manufacture and maintain scarcity even where otherwise avoidable. Technology’s capacity to create more abundance through increased efficiency will not be fully utilized within an economics where abundance results in lower valuation.
Where food is an economic commodity whose scarcity informs its price and thus the profitability for the most powerful stakeholders affecting the equation…and the profitability of that industry affects the homeostasis of the stock market and economics as a whole… The technologies and strategies that could produce the most sustainable abundance are directly opposed to the highest valuations for those vested in the current commodities market, i.e., sustainable global food sufficiency would be economically disadvantageous for those who have the most influence over current food production.
This is the underlying reason farmers have been paid to not grow food and why speculators drive the commodities prices high artificially, exacerbating hunger for the poor who already couldn’t afford enough.
This is why to date, air, which is seen as abundant and universally available, has no assessed value, despite its foundational role to life…while gold, which is seen as relatively scarce (factoring both total amounts and the associated extraction and refinement costs) is given a high value, independent of any real use value or lack thereof. This is why we will clear cut a forest (and damage the atmosphere in the process) to mine the gold underneath it, to put it in bars in safes serving no real value to anyone.
The value focus on scarcity is based on the underlying goal of maximizing differential advantage rather than systemic advantage. This causes unavoidable violence.
Ownership:
Essential to all these elements of the value equation is the concept of separate ownership. Separate ownership, at the level of an individual, family, corporation, or nation, creates a line where extraction and externalization on one side equals prosperity to the other. It is the basis of the drive for differential advantage, hoarding, and decreased sharing, resulting in decreased efficiency and thus systemic insufficiency. Separate ownership minimizes synergistic advantage and works in the opposite direction of empathy, extended responsibility, and intentional symbiosis.
As long as there is separate ownership, some people will be born into greater economic advantage than others, having nothing to do with merit, leading to socioeconomic stratification and class systems. Those with more resources have more to be creative with (and visa versa) leading to a perpetual widening of the gap and ever-greater resource disparity. This disparity is the primary driver of crime and war.
This system of resource allocation creates additional unnecessary scarcity through decreased circulation and sharing. In response to the resultant crime,which is an impulse towards equality and homeostasis, we invest the largest fraction of our already scarce resources into protecting the scarce resource stores, further perpetuating the underlying imbalances.
A world without war, crime, and poverty, requires a fundamentally new structure for resource access and allocation, and individual motive, not based on separate ownership.
By Daniel Schmachtenberger, arranged by Michel Bauwens.
Nurture, Equality and Truth can be, has to be, part of a closed loop valuing system for mother earth and for all of us living here and all of us to come. Read our Daily Y Posts: Bank On It and The Exchange.
Join Y Worlds.Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.
Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt

In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles.

But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?” (full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”).

Standing at the front of the conference room, the geophysicist from the University of California, San Diego walked the crowd through the advanced computer model he was using to answer that question. He talked about system boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors, bifurcations and a whole bunch of other stuff largely incomprehensible to those of us uninitiated in complex systems theory. But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the “are we f**ked” question, Werner set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.”

There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance” – movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture”. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups”.

Serious scientific gatherings don’t usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage. But then again, Werner wasn’t exactly calling for those things. He was merely observing that mass uprisings of people – along the lines of the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or Occupy Wall Street – represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control. We know that past social movements have “had tremendous influence on … how the dominant culture evolved”, he pointed out. So it stands to reason that, “if we’re thinking about the future of the earth, and the future of our coupling to the environment, we have to include resistance as part of that dynamics”. And that, Werner argued, is not a matter of opinion, but “really a geophysics problem”.

Plenty of scientists have been moved by their research findings to take action in the streets. Physicists, astronomers, medical doctors and biologists have been at the forefront of movements against nuclear weapons, nuclear power, war, chemical contamination and creationism. And in November 2012,Nature published a commentary by the financier and environmental philanthropist Jeremy Grantham urging scientists to join this tradition and “be arrested if necessary”, because climate change “is not only the crisis of your lives – it is also the crisis of our species’ existence”.

Some scientists need no convincing. The godfather of modern climate science, James Hansen, is a formidable activist, having been arrested some half-dozen times for resisting mountain-top removal coal mining and tar sands pipelines (he even left his job at Nasa this year in part to have more time for campaigning). Two years ago, when I was arrested outside the White House at a mass action against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, one of the 166 people in cuffs that day was a glaciologist named Jason Box, a world-renowned expert on Greenland’s melting ice sheet.

“I couldn’t maintain my self-respect if I didn’t go,” Box said at the time, adding that “just voting doesn’t seem to be enough in this case. I need to be a citizen also.”

This is laudable, but what Werner is doing with his modelling is different. He isn’t saying that his research drove him to take action to stop a particular policy; he is saying that his research shows that our entire economic paradigm is a threat to ecological stability. And indeed that challenging this economic paradigm – through mass-movement counter-pressure – is humanity’s best shot at avoiding catastrophe.

That’s heavy stuff. But he’s not alone. Werner is part of a small but increasingly influential group of scientists whose research into the destabilisation of natural systems – particularly the climate system – is leading them to similarly transformative, even revolutionary, conclusions. And for any closet revolutionary who has ever dreamed of overthrowing the present economic order in favour of one a little less likely to cause Italian pensioners to hang themselves in their homes, this work should be of particular interest. Because it makes the ditching of that cruel system in favour of something new (and perhaps, with lots of work, better) no longer a matter of mere ideological preference but rather one of species-wide existential necessity.

Leading the pack of these new scientific revolutionaries is one of Britain’s top climate experts, Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which has quickly established itself as one of the UK’s premier climate research institutions. Addressing everyone from the Department for International Development to Manchester City Council, Anderson has spent more than a decade patiently translating the implications of the latest climate science to politicians, economists and campaigners. In clear and understandable language, he lays out a rigorous road map for emissions reduction, one that provides a decent shot at keeping global temperature rise below 2° Celsius, a target that most governments have determined would stave off catastrophe.

But in recent years Anderson’s papers and slide shows have become more alarming. Under titles such as “Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous … Brutal Numbers and Tenuous Hope”, he points out that the chances of staying within anything like safe temperature levels are diminishing fast.

With his colleague Alice Bows, a climate mitigation expert at the Tyndall Centre, Anderson points out that we have lost so much time to political stalling and weak climate policies – all while global consumption (and emissions) ballooned – that we are now facing cuts so drastic that they challenge the fundamental logic of prioritising GDP growth above all else.

Anderson and Bows inform us that the often-cited long-term mitigation target – an 80 per cent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2050 – has been selected purely for reasons of political expediency and has “no scientific basis”. That’s because climate impacts come not just from what we emit today and tomorrow, but from the cumulative emissions that build up in the atmosphere over time. And they warn that by focusing on targets three and a half decades into the future – rather than on what we can do to cut carbon sharply and immediately – there is a serious risk that we will allow our emissions to continue to soar for years to come, thereby blowing through far too much of our 2° “carbon budget” and putting ourselves in an impossible position later in the century.

Which is why Anderson and Bows argue that, if the governments of developed countries are serious about hitting the agreed upon international target of keeping warming below 2° Celsius, and if reductions are to respect any kind of equity principle (basically that the countries that have been spewing carbon for the better part of two centuries need to cut before the countries where more than a billion people still don’t have electricity), then the reductions need to be a lot deeper, and they need to come a lot sooner.

To have even a 50/50 chance of hitting the 2° target (which, they and many others warn, already involves facing an array of hugely damaging climate impacts), the industrialised countries need to start cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions by something like 10 per cent a year – and they need to start right now. But Anderson and Bows go further, pointing out that this target cannot be met with the array of modest carbon pricing or green-tech solutions usually advocated by big green groups. These measures will certainly help, to be sure, but they are simply not enough: a 10 per cent drop in emissions, year after year, is virtually unprecedented since we started powering our economies with coal. In fact, cuts above 1 per cent per year “have historically been associated only with economic recession or upheaval”, as the economist Nicholas Stern put it in his 2006 report for the British government.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, reductions of this duration and depth did not happen (the former Soviet countries experienced average annual reductions of roughly 5 per cent over a period of ten years). They did not happen after Wall Street crashed in 2008 (wealthy countries experienced about a 7 per cent drop between 2008 and 2009, but their CO2 emissions rebounded with gusto in 2010 and emissions in China and India had continued to rise). Only in the immediate aftermath of the great market crash of 1929 did the United States, for instance, see emissions drop for several consecutive years by more than 10 per cent annually, according to historical data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre. But that was the worst economic crisis of modern times.

If we are to avoid that kind of carnage while meeting our science-based emissions targets, carbon reduction must be managed carefully through what Anderson and Bows describe as “radical and immediate de-growth strategies in the US, EU and other wealthy nations”. Which is fine, except that we happen to have an economic system that fetishises GDP growth above all else, regardless of the human or ecological consequences, and in which the neoliberal political class has utterly abdicated its responsibility to manage anything (since the market is the invisible genius to which everything must be entrusted).

So what Anderson and Bows are really saying is that there is still time to avoid catastrophic warming, but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed. Which may be the best argument we have ever had for changing those rules.

In a 2012 essay that appeared in the influential scientific journal Nature Climate Change, Anderson and Bows laid down something of a gauntlet, accusing many of their fellow scientists of failing to come clean about the kind of changes that climate change demands of humanity. On this it is worth quoting the pair at length:

 … in developing emission scenarios scientists repeatedly and severely underplay the implications of their analyses. When it comes to avoiding a 2°C rise, “impossible” is translated into “difficult but doable”, whereas “urgent and radical” emerge as “challenging” – all to appease the god of economics (or, more precisely, finance). For example, to avoid exceeding the maximum rate of emission reduction dictated by economists, “impossibly” early peaks in emissions are assumed, together with naive notions about “big” engineering and the deployment rates of low-carbon infrastructure. More disturbingly, as emissions budgets dwindle, so geoengineering is increasingly proposed to ensure that the diktat of economists remains unquestioned.

In other words, in order to appear reasonable within neoliberal economic circles, scientists have been dramatically soft-peddling the implications of their research. By August 2013, Anderson was willing to be even more blunt, writing that the boat had sailed on gradual change. “Perhaps at the time of the 1992 Earth Summit, or even at the turn of the millennium, 2°C levels of mitigation could have been achieved through significant evolutionary changes within the political and economic hegemony. But climate change is a cumulative issue! Now, in 2013, we in high-emitting (post-)industrial nations face a very different prospect. Our ongoing and collective carbon profligacy has squandered any opportunity for the ‘evolutionary change’ afforded by our earlier (and larger) 2°C carbon budget. Today, after two decades of bluff and lies, the remaining 2°C budget demands revolutionary change to the political and economic hegemony” (his emphasis).

We probably shouldn’t be surprised that some climate scientists are a little spooked by the radical implications of even their own research. Most of them were just quietly doing their work measuring ice cores, running global climate models and studying ocean acidification, only to discover, as the Australian climate expert and author Clive Hamilton puts it, that they “were unwittingly destabilising the political and social order”.

But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. It’s why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations’ scientists. In Britain, this strategy is becoming more overt, with Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, writing recently that scientists should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong” and should express their views “by working with embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena”.

If you want to know where this leads, check out what’s happening in Canada, where I live. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper has done such an effective job of gagging scientists and shutting down critical research projects that, in July 2012, a couple thousand scientists and supporters held a mock-funeral on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, mourning “the death of evidence”. Their placards said, “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth”.

But the truth is getting out anyway. The fact that the business-as-usual pursuit of profits and growth is destabilising life on earth is no longer something we need to read about in scientific journals. The early signs are unfolding before our eyes. And increasing numbers of us are responding accordingly: blockading fracking activity in Balcombe; interfering with Arctic drilling preparations in Russian waters (at tremendous personal cost); taking tar sands operators to court for violating indigenous sovereignty; and countless other acts of resistance large and small. In Brad Werner’s computer model, this is the “friction” needed to slow down the forces of destabilisation; the great climate campaigner Bill McKibben calls it the “antibodies” rising up to fight the planet’s “spiking fever”.

It’s not a revolution, but it’s a start. And it might just buy us enough time to figure out a way to live on this planet that is distinctly less f**ked.

Article by Naomi Klein, found by Richard David Hames


valueing-1
The Structural Flaws of Global Economics and the Problem of Erroneous Value Equation

“A living whale swimming in the ocean has no economically recognized value to anyone, but harpooned, is worth up to a million dollars as meat. A 2,000 year old redwood tree that produces oxygen, sequesters CO2, cleans toxins from the atmosphere, stabilizes topsoil, prevents flooding, and creates habitat for pollinators and other species that are crucial to the functioning of our biosphere, confers economic advantage to no one. But cutdown, makes $100,000 worth of virgin lumber.”
Excerpted from Daniel Schmachtenberger.

Global economics has several core structural flaws (that have not been addressed in any industrialized system of economics to date) that make major environmental and social harm, including world hunger, unavoidable, irrespective of the specific people involved.

I will address some of these flaws here just deeply enough to demonstrate the level at which economics has to change, and to underscore the necessity of these changes to bring about a world of sustainable sufficiency:

* The value equation

What determines the relative economic value we place on one thing compared to another? Why is gold valued at $1,200 per ounce while air has no assessed value? Our human values both inform and are reinforced and conditioned by the value equation economically. Several of the core drivers of the valuation process create an economic incentive that is antithetical to environmental sustainability and human flourishing for all.

Extraction:

A living whale swimming in the ocean has no economically recognized value to anyone, but harpooned, is worth up to a million dollars as meat. A 2,000 year old redwood tree that produces oxygen, sequesters CO2, cleans toxins from the atmosphere, stabilizes topsoil, prevents flooding, and creates habitat for pollinators and other species that are crucial to the functioning of our biosphere, confers economic advantage to no one. But cutdown, makes $100,000 worth of virgin lumber.

Our value equation is extractionary and commoditizing. Even the phrase “natural resource” assumes the extraction and commodification of what was once a part of a living ecosystem. This is exactly why we have decimated 90% of the large fish populations, 80% of the world’s old growth forests, and caused more species extinction than we have been able to account for. This is also why we enslave whole species, at forced populations greater than our own, in conditions that future historians will catalogue along with concentration camps and slavery ships as tragic examples of human power, pre-civilization.

As long as the other species with which we inhabit this planet are worth more to us dead than alive, more enslaved and commodified than free, and only have assessed value insofar as they can be used to meet an immediate need of ours, not recognizing sovereignty or intrinsic value on the balance sheet…then we will continue rationalizing violence and extracting faster than renewability, eroding the very cliff on which we stand.

Our extrinsic only, commoditizing valuation system applies to other people just as much as it does to other species. This is why the aid of wealthy nations to poor ones is limited by the rationalizable case for ROI. The manufacturing of goods, including of foodstuff, for the industrialized world,depends on cheap labor from the developing world. This system of profit margin is not only predicated upon but also requires the continuance of massive economic disparity.

This is not just self-serving interest, but shortsighted self-serving interest. Beyond a living tree’s value to the rest of life, or itself, it is producing the oxygen that I breathe. That does something more fundamental for me than anything I can do with the tree. But my cutting this one tree (or forest) down won’t ruin the entire atmosphere, so I breathe either way. But me cutting down this one tree does confer immediate and tangible economic advantage to me that I wouldn’t have otherwise. It is a whole population thinking this way, because the structure of incentive within the system predisposes that, that has us nearing the end of a savings account we are not equipped to replenish nor yet prepared to live without.

Related to extraction is the expectation for continual growth, which is clearly not possible on a finite planet. Continued evolution of scientific insights and technological resource efficiencies leading to a continued increase in quality of life is possible sustainably, but requires a closed loop economic model based on evolving homeostasis rather than continued exponential growth.

Externalization:

What extraction is to the front of a linear materials economy, externalization is to the end of it. With the integrity of the commons not represented on anyone’s profit and loss statement, the more of the cost of operations can be externalized to the environment and others, the better the profit margin.

Hence, the agricultural run off, the mercury in the ocean, the deserts and landfills taking the place ecosystems once inhabited, the “waste” marine life accidentally killed in drift nets and long lines, and the general blind eye to the immense suffering induced in the pursuit of narrow success metrics.

If the cost of a landmine included the cost to remove it afterwards (let alone to try and remediate the irreparable harm to human life caused in its use), there would be no land mines. Real cost accounting would mean the military industrial complex would operate at an astronomical loss. Without the majority of the cost being unaccounted for, i.e., paid for by somebody else, war would be the least economically viable solution to conflicts, which would motivate the development and utilization of other strategies.

If the cost of a hamburger included the cost to clean the water used in its production, to sustainably manage the soil used for growing feedstock, to remove the methane and CO2 produced from the atmosphere, to tend to any resultant health issues in the people consuming it as a result of the antibiotics, hormones, or steroids used, to remove the pesticides from the environment, etc. (not to mention the cost of suffering to the animals or intrinsic value of life taken, which is impossible to calculate a value for), current methods of industrialized animal agriculture would be the most expensive way of producing food ever attempted.

In order for the strategies we develop for feeding people to be sustainable, they have to inventory and internalize all the costs associated. That imperative is not incentivized or even possible (to maintain competitive status) within the current valuation system.

If we inventoried and internalized all the externalities within the value and profit equation, economics would spontaneously incentivize behaviors that supported sustainability.

Scarcity:

As long as a thing’s scarcity adds economic value on top of its real use value (whether it was scarce or not), there will be economic incentive to artificially manufacture and maintain scarcity even where otherwise avoidable. Technology’s capacity to create more abundance through increased efficiency will not be fully utilized within an economics where abundance results in lower valuation.

Where food is an economic commodity whose scarcity informs its price and thus the profitability for the most powerful stakeholders affecting the equation…and the profitability of that industry affects the homeostasis of the stock market and economics as a whole… The technologies and strategies that could produce the most sustainable abundance are directly opposed to the highest valuations for those vested in the current commodities market, i.e., sustainable global food sufficiency would be economically disadvantageous for those who have the most influence over current food production.

This is the underlying reason farmers have been paid to not grow food and why speculators drive the commodities prices high artificially, exacerbating hunger for the poor who already couldn’t afford enough.

This is why to date, air, which is seen as abundant and universally available, has no assessed value, despite its foundational role to life…while gold, which is seen as relatively scarce (factoring both total amounts and the associated extraction and refinement costs) is given a high value, independent of any real use value or lack thereof. This is why we will clear cut a forest (and damage the atmosphere in the process) to mine the gold underneath it, to put it in bars in safes serving no real value to anyone.

The value focus on scarcity is based on the underlying goal of maximizing differential advantage rather than systemic advantage. This causes unavoidable violence.

Ownership:

Essential to all these elements of the value equation is the concept of separate ownership. Separate ownership, at the level of an individual, family, corporation, or nation, creates a line where extraction and externalization on one side equals prosperity to the other. It is the basis of the drive for differential advantage, hoarding, and decreased sharing, resulting in decreased efficiency and thus systemic insufficiency. Separate ownership minimizes synergistic advantage and works in the opposite direction of empathy, extended responsibility, and intentional symbiosis.

As long as there is separate ownership, some people will be born into greater economic advantage than others, having nothing to do with merit, leading to socioeconomic stratification and class systems. Those with more resources have more to be creative with (and visa versa) leading to a perpetual widening of the gap and ever-greater resource disparity. This disparity is the primary driver of crime and war.

This system of resource allocation creates additional unnecessary scarcity through decreased circulation and sharing. In response to the resultant crime,which is an impulse towards equality and homeostasis, we invest the largest fraction of our already scarce resources into protecting the scarce resource stores, further perpetuating the underlying imbalances.

A world without war, crime, and poverty, requires a fundamentally new structure for resource access and allocation, and individual motive, not based on separate ownership.

By Daniel Schmachtenberger, arranged by Michel Bauwens.


Nurture, Equality and Truth can be, has to be, part of a closed loop valuing system for mother earth and for all of us living here and all of us to come. Read our Daily Y Posts: Bank On It and The Exchange.

Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.