Forum Post: The smartest guy in the world today, this is how we save the world.
Posted 11 years ago on June 17, 2012, 7:59 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is a TED talk and web site about how people can retake the means of production for themselves and break free of corporate suppliers for machinery and on banks for finance which ends up owning the worker caught between the two.
very interesting - creating independence - but the first portion of this equation is the LAND scarcity; it is the major problem to begin (this is ideal when you have the land but someone owns all the land and you must join the rat race in order to even exist somewhere on the earth)
Land ownership is a major method of control, but many small industries can be started on very little, good point though.
correct
Hope you don't mind, just a bump because I believe in this so much.
A GREAT video. If this catches on, the Fortune 500s will have something to think about. Paradigm shifting concept that puts production and use back into the hands of the people and out of the greedy 1%.
What will they do? Well, you can bet they won't take it lying down. If push comes to shove they will figure out some way to disrupt/destroy it. They are just that powerful.
On the other hand, they are few and we are many.
The ability to create modern standard of living without reliance on banks, yeah, I think that might get them riled up, but as you say we are many.
very interesting what's amazing about this is how far, in leaps and bounds smart people can leave big government and big business behind. It's a total leap frog from our current economic status quo.
The combination of open source software and aplying it to hardware that can allow people to set up their own manufacturing, this really is huge.
Yes - there is more than one way to get a job done. open source looks to free individuals from corpoRat enslavement through educational sharing.
Thanks - frf
People need to learn to think outside the Box.
Shifting paradigm.
I think what this guy is doing could be huge, real independence for the masses.
this is really good!
That all the equipment can be repaired by the user seems to be a big part of it, self sufficiency I like that part a lot.
very true - read this and you will be more convinced! "Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford professor we have often quoted, and whom we know well enough to say his research is thorough and excellent, has estimated the costs of building out renewable energies worldwide to be in the neighborhood of $100 trillion. For China, whose population is approximately one-fifth of the entire world’s, that would suggest expenditures in the neighborhood of $20 trillion. We actually think Jacobson is somewhat conservative here, and as we said before and in our book “Red Alert” he and so many others, ignore the problem of resource scarcity.
There is probably nothing more critical or important to a country or the world itself to develop in a way that does not run into a roadblock created by scarce resources. Thus, as some people bemoan (or cheer) the slow growth in China, they seem not able to see the areas of extraordinary and critical long-term progress. For example: the northwestern part of China is not known for its bustling industry, especially in the desert area known as Gansu.
And yet, Gansu, the home of about one million Chinese, has seen annual investments totally about $6 billion in wind, solar and other areas related to renewable energy. The result has been noteworthy. An area once known as a center for oil has largely replaced the now depleted wells with solar farms, wind farms and a smart grid. By 2020 the area should be more or less free of oil and largely running on renewable energies.
If you multiply the million people in Gansu by 1,500 (i.e., to arrive at the approximate total population of China of nearly 1.5 billion), you’ll see the scale at which China is hoping to build out its renewable energies: Gigawatts of wind and solar are likely to be eventually measured in four digits. If you do the math and make a few assumptions, you can see how China could easily spend $20 trillion on these efforts.
And to assume a country on its way to spending this kind of money is headed for some sort of Armageddon is just silly. Remember too that renewable energies are labor- as well as resource-intensive.
The real question comes down to longer-term shortages of copper, silver and other metals and minerals destined to become scarce. A thousand gigawatts of solar would surpass the current yearly supply of silver by several-fold. And a thousand gigawatts would be a very modest long-term goal for China. How about the rest of the world?
For example, Asia has another very large economy called Japan. Recently that country announced plans for ramping up solar energy to 3.2 gigawatts, simply a fraction of one percent of the amount of electricity they will eventually needed in Japan. But even these 3.2 gigawatts move the needle in silver, as it represents nearly 1.5 million ounces of the metal.
Is it really hard to see why we like silver, which is a crucial component in solar energy technology, or why we like copper, whose role in smart grids and hybrid cars will eventually come close to exhausting all available supplies of copper?
Gold, of course, is a different animal, but, as we’ve said so many times, how in the world can you ration scarce resources with paper money? Another sign that China “gets it” is their massive imports of gold at the same time as they are achieving the world’s highest rate of gold production internally.
China’s intention of making the Yuan the world’s major reserve currency is also evident, as recent financial reforms included liberalizing the amounts banks can pay their customers for deposits.
That China can do more than one thing at a time – i.e. liberalize their banking system while building out new energies – can also be seen from the record amounts of long term loans that took place there in the second half of May, the majority of which went to – you guessed it – renewable energy projects.
Yes, we are still betting on stocks and indeed think the U.S. market will rally, but if you want to play the game the Chinese play so well, think long term, and “long term” in this case means “think commodities”.
Clearly, this article is very much informed by my frustration with our political process. While it still may not be too late to come together and develop a world we want our children to live in, our politics are marred by mudslinging and arguments over matters that have little to do with the year after next, let alone the rest of the century. We need to get our act together pronto – and stop fighting about it.
Thanks, that was very enlightening.
wasn't my post but it is really good! we all better get those plans - we will need them! take a look at this - the world is running out of everything - "Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford professor we have often quoted, and whom we know well enough to say his research is thorough and excellent, has estimated the costs of building out renewable energies worldwide to be in the neighborhood of $100 trillion. For China, whose population is approximately one-fifth of the entire world’s, that would suggest expenditures in the neighborhood of $20 trillion. We actually think Jacobson is somewhat conservative here, and as we said before and in our book “Red Alert” he and so many others, ignore the problem of resource scarcity.
There is probably nothing more critical or important to a country or the world itself to develop in a way that does not run into a roadblock created by scarce resources. Thus, as some people bemoan (or cheer) the slow growth in China, they seem not able to see the areas of extraordinary and critical long-term progress. For example: the northwestern part of China is not known for its bustling industry, especially in the desert area known as Gansu.
And yet, Gansu, the home of about one million Chinese, has seen annual investments totally about $6 billion in wind, solar and other areas related to renewable energy. The result has been noteworthy. An area once known as a center for oil has largely replaced the now depleted wells with solar farms, wind farms and a smart grid. By 2020 the area should be more or less free of oil and largely running on renewable energies.
If you multiply the million people in Gansu by 1,500 (i.e., to arrive at the approximate total population of China of nearly 1.5 billion), you’ll see the scale at which China is hoping to build out its renewable energies: Gigawatts of wind and solar are likely to be eventually measured in four digits. If you do the math and make a few assumptions, you can see how China could easily spend $20 trillion on these efforts.
And to assume a country on its way to spending this kind of money is headed for some sort of Armageddon is just silly. Remember too that renewable energies are labor- as well as resource-intensive.
The real question comes down to longer-term shortages of copper, silver and other metals and minerals destined to become scarce. A thousand gigawatts of solar would surpass the current yearly supply of silver by several-fold. And a thousand gigawatts would be a very modest long-term goal for China. How about the rest of the world?
For example, Asia has another very large economy called Japan. Recently that country announced plans for ramping up solar energy to 3.2 gigawatts, simply a fraction of one percent of the amount of electricity they will eventually needed in Japan. But even these 3.2 gigawatts move the needle in silver, as it represents nearly 1.5 million ounces of the metal.
Is it really hard to see why we like silver, which is a crucial component in solar energy technology, or why we like copper, whose role in smart grids and hybrid cars will eventually come close to exhausting all available supplies of copper?
Gold, of course, is a different animal, but, as we’ve said so many times, how in the world can you ration scarce resources with paper money? Another sign that China “gets it” is their massive imports of gold at the same time as they are achieving the world’s highest rate of gold production internally.
China’s intention of making the Yuan the world’s major reserve currency is also evident, as recent financial reforms included liberalizing the amounts banks can pay their customers for deposits.
That China can do more than one thing at a time – i.e. liberalize their banking system while building out new energies – can also be seen from the record amounts of long term loans that took place there in the second half of May, the majority of which went to – you guessed it – renewable energy projects.
Yes, we are still betting on stocks and indeed think the U.S. market will rally, but if you want to play the game the Chinese play so well, think long term, and “long term” in this case means “think commodities”.
Clearly, this article is very much informed by my frustration with our political process. While it still may not be too late to come together and develop a world we want our children to live in, our politics are marred by mudslinging and arguments over matters that have little to do with the year after next, let alone the rest of the century. We need to get our act together pronto – and stop fighting about it.
I haven't had the time, and probably won't for a while to get into this as much as I would like, but i did know that China was targeting the alternative energy field with the aim of being the world's leader. All this while we in this country embroil ourselves in a bunch of crap.....wars, screwing up the enviroment, and bickering, etc. I am very interested in the big picture, and can see how things are so inter-related. I never thought that I would have said this, but I do question whether capitalism can take us where we want to go. For a system that requires infinite resources on a planet that has a finite amount thereof, it is difficult for me to see. I do know that for us as species to survive, there has to be a lot more collaboration between all of us.
Here in Alaska where I am visiting family, a good friend of one of my daughters runs REAP (Renewable Energy Alaska Project). One of the objectives is to bring AE to villages in the remote parts of AK that have never been on the current electrical grid. This guy travels the world in his research into what other countries are doing in the AE field, and he made it clear to me that we have fallen well behind in innovation, and the implementation of AE. His outlook is quite bleak if we do not change course soon.
For now though, I'm getting ready to celebrate Midsummer at Denali National Park with my family. It is a very beautiful holiday in Sweden and it has come to symbolize light after a long dark winter, rebirth, and hope. Those are things we should all celebrate, and aspire to especially in our struggle here.
i have been to sweden many times and lots of friends there - great place and great holiday! we need to go to a system of production for use and not for profit. that doesn't mean that barbers and tennis pros can't be little capitalists but the consumer society is done or we are - i may have sent you this already (if so sorry) but here is a bit from max neef - AMY GOODMAN: And what is that language? How do you apply economics or have those situations explain economics changing?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: No, the thing is much deeper. I mean, it’s not like a recipe typical of someone in your country, fifteen lessons or satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. That’s not the point. The point is much deeper. You know, I would — let me put it this way. We have reached a point in our evolution in which we know a lot. We know a hell of a lot. But we understand very little. Never in human history has there been such an accumulation of knowledge like in the last 100 years. Look how we are. What was that knowledge for? What did we do with it? And the point is that knowledge alone is not enough, that we lack understanding.
And the difference between knowledge and understanding, I can give it as an example. Let us assume that you have studied everything that you can study, from a theological, sociological, anthropological, biological and even biochemical point of view, of a human phenomenon called love. So the result is that you will know everything that you can know about love. But sooner or later, you will realize that you will never understand love unless you fall in love. What does that mean? That you can only attempt to understand that of which you become a part. If we fall in love, as the Latin song says, we are much more than two. When you belong, you understand. When you’re separated, you can accumulate knowledge. And that is — that’s been the function of science. Now, science is divided into parts, but understanding is holistic.
And that happens with poverty. I understood poverty because I was there. I lived with them. I ate with them. I slept with them, you know, etc. And then you begin to learn that in that environment there are different values, different principles from — compared to those from where you are coming, and that you can learn an enormous amount of fantastic things among poverty. What I have learned from the poor is much more than I learned in the universities. But very few people have that experience, you see? They look at it from the outside, instead of living it from the inside.
And you learn extraordinary things. The first thing you learn, that people who want to work in order to overcome poverty and don’t know, is that in poverty there is an enormous creativity. You cannot be an idiot if you want to survive. Every minute, you have to be thinking, what next? What do I know? What trick can I do here? What’s this and that, that, that, that? And so, your creativity is constant. In addition, I mean, that it’s combined, you know, with networks of cooperation, mutual aid, you know, and all sort of extraordinary things which you’ll no longer find in our dominant society, which is individualistic, greedy, egoistical, etc. It’s just the opposite of what you find there. And it’s sometimes so shocking that you may find people much happier in poverty than what you would find, you know, in your own environment, which also means, you know, that poverty is not just a question of money. It’s a much more complex thing.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think we need to change?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Oh, almost everything. We are simply, dramatically stupid. We act systematically against the evidences we have. We know everything that should not be done. There’s nobody that doesn’t know that. Particularly the big politicians know exactly what should not be done. Yet they do it. After what happened since October 2008, I mean, elementally, you would think what? That now they’re going to change. I mean, they see that the model is not working. The model is even poisonous, you know? Dramatically poisonous. And what is the result, and what happened in the last meeting of the European Union? They are more fundamentalist now than before. So, the only thing you know that you can be sure of, that the next crisis is coming, and it will be twice as much as this one. And for that one, there won’t be enough money anymore. So that will be it. And that is the consequence of systematical human stupidity.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to avoid another catastrophe, collision, if you were in charge, what would you say has to happen?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the beasts would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.
And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized.
AMY GOODMAN: You don’t think the earth will force this different way of thinking, that we’re reaching the end?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Oh, well, yes. Yes. I believe, you know, that — well, there are some important scientists that already are saying, I believe. I have not reached that point yet. But some believe, you know, and state that it’s definite: we are finished. We are finished. In a few more decades, I mean, there will be no humanity anymore. I don’t think we have reached that point of it, but I believe that we are pretty close to it. I’ll say that we already crossed one of the three rivers. And if you look at it and what is happening everywhere, I mean, it’s quite frightening how the amount of catastrophes are increasing all over the place, you know, in all manifestations — storms, earthquakes, you know, volcanoes erupting. I mean, the amount of events is growing dramatically. I mean, it’s really frightening. And we continue with the same.
AMY GOODMAN: What have you learned that gives you hope in the poor communities that you’ve worked in and lived in?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Solidarity of people. You know, respect for the others. Mutual aid. No greed. I mean, that is a value that is absent in poverty. And you would be inclined to think that there should be more there than elsewhere, you know, that greed should be of people who have nothing. No, quite the contrary. The more you have, the more greedy you become, you know. And all this crisis is the product of greed. Greed is the dominant value today in the world. And as long as that persists, well, we are done.
AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.
One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.
Two, development is about people and not about objects.
Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.
Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.
Illustrates how difficult it is when you are unsure of where the audience is on the subject.
One concept he presents, that one should spend some time in different environments to learn their ways is a solid one.
Germany is also looking to solar in a big way:
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/05/137630991/germany-looks-to-replace-nuclear-power
part of what helped it take off there on a local level was the realization by banks that solar was a safe loan that really did pay for itself over time. here's another good piece:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141808249/after-scandal-solar-industry-looks-on-bright-side
Thank you for stopping please help to share this.
I saw some stuff on "open source" up here and thought I should repost this, these guys really are going to change the world.
Then stop supporting the status quo.
you allow the "status quo" to hold power by keeping both legs of the ladder "balanced" with all your "they're all the same" crap, it is people like you that confuse the subject and keep people from making a choice which would make their lives better, the "status quo" depends completely on people like you to do what you do..
Where does he talk about building a completed house and a cell phone or laptop or tv? And how much does it cost? And how much time does all of this take? What does the car look like?
What are the benefits to building everything yourself?
I've seen your stuff I'd say these questions are in keeping with it, perhaps you should search out the answers I think i gave the link.
http://opensourceecology.org/
I looked at the website. All I can see is that you can make primitive versions of a very, very small percentage of the goods and services available in this world.
If you are a survivalist and want to live independently, I think it is a great idea. If you want a high standard of living, I don't think it will deliver at all. I don't even think it will get you more than what a low paying job will get you.
But I am open minded. Show me where I am wrong.
maybe you could send them an email to learn more, we don't all see everything the same way, that's OK
That's a freakin' great video and link... thanks!
thanks for stopping by, spread the word on this one please corium
Interesting, good ideas on that site (will read further). Also, "to retake the means of production" we should support a new constitution, as follows:
We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:
The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.
This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).
Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?
For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/; so help us help you, today!
When it gets to my state I'll look at it. I think there is still a lot of work to do to lay down the fundamentals before we can start writing laws and such, there is a working group that has a good amendment to end corporate personhood and CU. At first glance this looks far too detailed for a constitutional amendment they should be brief and to the point. Take a look at the working group’s work and make some comment, I think you’ll see the it is better to keep it simple.
If you haven't been here for a while it's worth a visit this guy is still at it, and you can help.
http://vimeo.com/54558035
[Removed]
[Removed]
Great talk, great idea, and great web site.
It is great to see solutions for problems that involve individuals rather than governments. I agree that individuals working together though loose social groups is the best way to improve our world. That is what open source software is. People working together in a leaderless configuration. The idea of bringing the concept to every day life is intriguing.
thanks for stopping by joe
this one has brought a couple of people together....