This is a long post, but I hope you will linger on it, take your time with it, and explore its references. It’s not that I think they provide the most direct or comprehensive context for what I’m alluding to at the very end of this article, but only that I honestly believe that it will contribute to a better understanding of “revolution” in the sense that I am thinking about it. People need to take charge of their circumstances and prepare themselves for everything they need to do to improve their lives and ensure that living systems, what economists call “natural services,” are healthy and maintained not only for us but for life in general and for posterity.

Natural services (or ecosystem services) are the benefits that nature provides to people. These benefits include food, water purification, flood control, pollination, carbon sequestration, soil stabilisation, recreation, cultural value, and many others (listed below). The value of such benefits has become more apparent as human populations grow and average consumption per person increases. The multiplication of these two factors means that the demand for resources is also growing which puts enormous pressure on the natural environment.

I’m a storyteller. I’m an ordinary person. My immediate family members had all passed before I was thirty, and I didn't inherit a dime. I’ve enjoyed life while making the best of the opportunities that came my way. Some efforts worked out, and others didn't.

I'm in my sixties now and still ambitious and energetic. I love what Dick Van Dyke, at ninety-nine, said after being rescued from a fire that almost destroyed his house, "I need more time; I've got plans." I know how fortunate I am for being born in the fifties, a white American man with half a brain and a sunny disposition. I have no complaints, although I know there are things I could have done better.

Modern technological, industrial, fossil-fueled "Western" civilization has been great for many people for generations. People are incredibly industrious and creative. Science, engineering, and technology are fantastic domains that allow us to experience things our ancestors could not have imagined.

I'm an NFL fan, and the commercials tell it all. Folks, life is good when you buy these products. I get it. Business makes the world go around. I have some nice stuff, too. But things I lived without as a child and young person now seem like necessities, and in many ways, they are. I don’t want to give up on modern civilization and what it provides. Unfortunately, our way of life doesn’t have a long-term future. We could develop and “progress” in wiser, less destructive ways.

Most people still believe in "The American Dream." You can become wildly successful if you work hard and do things right. With a bit of luck and support, anything is possible. If we are competitive and ruthless, we’ll win. We only need to defeat our enemies, and the future is bright.

All glory to God. There is so much to be thankful for.

With the right genes and work ethic, you could be an NBA, UFC, NFL superstar or a famous entertainer; if you have a college degree and work hard, you could become a successful business owner with some extra money to invest; if your parents are wealthy, you could go to a private prep school, then an Ivy League University and become an elite professional, the President of the United States, a corporate lawyer, or a CEO of a multinational corporation, regardless of your profession or pastimes, you never have to worry about money, having a house, or opportunities. Capital on capital returns, baby!

There’s always a chance you’ll buy a winning lottery ticket. Somebody has to win—it could be you.

Look around; look at what the “enlightenment,” fossil fuel energy, science, engineering, technology, global industrialization, and global supply chains have given us. It’s fantastic! Capitalism has made many people wealthy; even ordinary folks have more things than people a century ago could have dreamed of.

Thank the good Lord for the Pax Americana. There is nothing more intimidating than a big, capitalist country with nuclear arms, hell-bent on enforcing a global “rules-based order.”

I have been the beneficiary of all of it. I know that.

The world is full of good people, and many wonderful things are happening.

Unfortunately, I have also learned about the price of success.

“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know that even one life has breathed easier because you lived. This is to have succeeded.” —Bessie A. Stanley often attributed to Fake Ralph Waldo Emerson Quote

So what’s the problem?

Let me convince you that we must act to solve persistent destructive problems emerging from near-universal behaviors and beliefs.

Many of us feel increasingly powerless. Folks are starting to feel like the future might not be better than the past. Progress and modernity are under threat and seen by many as the causes of all our ills. People are wondering if the system is rigged and corrupt. Mechanisms of social control have never been so powerful, effective, and ubiquitous. We are confused by culture wars, info wars, and all the false choices we are presented with.

Things would be better if only those other people would come to our side.

Despite my relative personal comfort, health, well-being, and conditions, I am deeply disturbed and horrified by the direction our global civilization is headed and the way we conduct our business. I am not an expert or influencer; I don’t pretend to be “qualified” or credentialed enough to demand your attention. I am a well-traveled and experienced reader who has paid careful attention to current events and looked at things from multiple perspectives for my entire life. My favorite class in middle school was current events; at the time, we were focused on the Vietnam War and Watergate. I have spent over a decade or more in Europe, the United States, Japan, and China and have had lengthy stopovers in many other countries. I was the fortunate beneficiary of parents who loved to travel, and before twenty years of age, I had been around the world, including Africa, India, and the Soviet Union.

I love culture and nature; I love to think and collaborate with creative, passionate people. I am lucky to have a positive disposition and never to have experienced depression or any major illness. I am blessed. But I am so frustrated and disappointed in people. What gives me the right? I’m not particularly judgemental. I understand that we all must focus on what’s at hand and get on with life. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Maybe it’s time for me to empty my cup and enjoy the rest of my days, focusing on the good things around me and working with my immediate community in whatever way I can to help make things a little better. Nothing I say here or my artistic endeavors will significantly affect how the world works or what comes next. I should say my piece and unplug. I will try.

Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master.
People traveled from far away to seek his help.
In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment.
On this particular day, a scholar came to visit the Zen master for advice.
“I have come to ask you to teach me about Zen,” the scholar said.
Soon, it became obvious that the scholar was full of his own opinions and knowledge.
He interrupted the master repeatedly with his own stories and failed to listen to what the master had to say.
The master calmly suggested that they should have tea.
So the master poured his guest a cup.
The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes.
The scholar cried:
“Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?”
“Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile.
“You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in.
Come back to me with an empty cup.”

Assumptions:

We have faced considerable and increasingly complex social problems for thousands of years. Despite our growing knowledge of what they are and what we could do to mitigate the most deadly and destructive outcomes of their abuse, they persist decade after decade in horrific cycles of boom and bust.
These increasingly complex problems (global heating, pollution, weapons of mass destruction, distribution of resources, etc.) now represent an existential threat to too many life forms, including us.
Despite our many scientific and technological advancements, our way of life is destructive, and we lack the wisdom to slow down and manage our science, technology, and industries in safe, healthy, benevolent, and meaningful ways.
Technology and how society operates is a black box for most people, as mysterious and more incomprehensible as imagined spirits in the woods were to ancient people.
Our global institutions, by and large, put profits first above all other considerations. Their leaders are greedy, status-driven careerists, and we’ve been conditioned to admire those traits.
Our civilization has been in “overshoot” for decades. We are ecology, energy, and materials blind.
People in wealthy, developed nations are becoming more powerless and easier to control. Hopelessness, helplessness, and powerlessness are on the rise. We are becoming apathetic. We are becoming utterly domesticated and pacified. Too many people are unaware of what truly ails them and society.
As we define it and operate it now, the global economy is in perpetual decline. GDP growth and other similar metrics are out of date. New concepts of “growth” are essential. Unplanned degrowth is already happening. The human population is declining. We are doing nothing to mitigate a complete collapse of what we call civilization. Endeavoring to keep our current economic religion going is suicidal.

Stop following intellectual influencers like Sam Harris (apologists for the status quo) and start reading Howard T. Odum.

Educate yourself regarding essential supply chains and life cycle profiles of materials required to run perpetual growth models.

I am concerned that our late-stage, fossil-fueled, neoliberal/neoconservative, financialized, rapacious, modern techno-industrial, TESCREAL (transhumanism, Extropianism, singularitarianism, (modern) cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, and longtermism) global civilization with its deteriorating, discredited, and increasingly ineffectual institutions, will not produce the kind of leaders and revolutionaries required to rest power from the pathological, dark tetrad, ideologues, capital coders, and true believers in unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources, the gang of social, structural and technological engineers behind the omnicidal, heat-engine-wealth pump that supports only the Players of The Great Game 2.0 21st Century that our historical-socio-political-cultural system has created since the dawn of modernity in Europe in 1650.

We have the knowledge and the tools to do better.

10 Reasons Our Civilization Will Soon Collapse

A deep dive into the problems world leaders have let spiral out of control.

The Collapse of the US Elite

“Popular Revolutions” aren’t
The adjective “popular” is often attached to “revolution.” And indeed, in their hot phases, revolutions often see a consistent participation of “the people.” But history shows that their role is mostly that of musket fodder.
A revolution may delude people into thinking that they are taking power into their own hands, but the final result is the replacement of an old elite with a new one. Think of how the French got rid of their king in 1793; then, little more than 10 years later, they had an Emperor (Napoleon) in exchange. Think of the Russian revolution. Lev Tolstoy gives us a magistral portrait of the Tsarist elite in the mid-19th century in his “Anna Karenina” (1877): a band of parasites interested in nothing but money and self-promotion. They were swept away by the Communist Revolution in 1917. But it would be hard to say that workers were ever in power in the Soviet Union. Rather, the government was managed by a new elite sometimes called the “Nomenklatura,” in turn swept away by a new revolution in 1991.
Elites are indispensable for the functioning of the state and, no matter how we may reason that a perfect society shouldn’t need an elite, we can’t find a real one in history that was “eliteless.” The problem is that all human organizations tend to become inefficient, costly, and often counterproductive, showing “diminishing returns to complexity,” as Joseph Tainter noted. You can say that they accumulate entropy; it is typical of complex systems. (See at the end of this post some mathematical models of this story).
The problem is especially serious when the economic system is undergoing a contraction: military stress, resource depletion, pollution, and more, reduce the capability of the system to sustain its elites. Then, the elites become a huge parasite sucking out vital resources from the rest of society. The size of the elite class has to be reduced, but the elites are not good at that; they have no structures to cut down their own number. In practice, they keep growing until they cease to be useful and become a burden for society.
The results are known: a top-heavy social structure, the ruthless exploitation of the poor, the diffuse inefficiency, the brazen injustice, and more. It all tends to generate a police state where the elites desperately try to maintain their power using force. It can’t normally last for long: by beggaring commoners, the elites destroy their source of wealth, and the result is collapse. In states, collapse is normally traumatic, and it involves a lot of violence, blood, and destruction. In corporations, it is called “corporate restructuring.” It is not, normally, bloody, but it is surely traumatic for those being restructured.
The current situation in the US is a clear example of the start of a revolution. The old US elite, aka the “deep state,” has become too large, too inefficient, too parasitic, and too violent. It has to be replaced with a new one. It has been surprisingly fast, but it is happening. The momentum of the “Magaist” revolution is tremendous, and the opposition is reduced to little more than old leftists yelling at clouds. It may still not succeed, but the mechanism is clear.

Study Peak Steel and other materials flows required for our current global economy. (Use your AI tools to discover these domains quickly then follow the reference materials and educate yourself—prompted results from Gemini.)

The idea of "peak steel" suggests a point where global demand for steel plateaus or declines, similar to "peak oil." This could be driven by factors like:
- Shifting consumption patterns (less steel-intensive industries)
- Increased recycling and circular economy models
- Technological advancements reducing material needs
Scholarly Articles:
- "Peak Steel: A Review of the Evidence" (Hypothetical title; search for similar titles on Google Scholar)
- Search for research on "material intensity" and "decoupling" of economic growth from material use.
Popular Articles:
- Look for articles discussing the future of the steel industry in publications like the Financial Times, The Economist, or specialized industry journals.

Steel Life Cycle

Stages:
1. Raw material extraction (iron ore, coal, limestone)
2. Steelmaking (basic oxygen furnace, electric arc furnace)
3. Manufacturing into finished products
4. Use in construction, vehicles, etc.
5. End-of-life recycling or disposal
Scholarly Articles:
- "Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Production" (Search on Google Scholar for specific studies)
- Research on "circular economy" and "industrial ecology" related to steel
Popular Articles:
- Reports from organizations like the World Steel Association or the American Iron and Steel Institute often have lifecycle overviews.

Supply Chains

Complexity: Steel supply chains are global, involving:
- Mining companies
- Transportation networks (ships, trains, trucks)
- Steel producers
- Manufacturers
- Distributors
Scholarly Articles:
- "Global Steel Supply Chains: Challenges and Opportunities" (Search on Google Scholar)
- Research on "supply chain resilience" and "risk management" in the steel industry
Popular Articles:
- Trade publications like Metal Bulletin or American Metal Market cover steel supply chain dynamics.

Energy Requirements

High Energy Intensity: Steelmaking is energy-intensive, primarily due to:
- The need for high temperatures in furnaces
- The use of coal as a reducing agent
Scholarly Articles:
- "Energy Efficiency in Steelmaking" (Search on Google Scholar for studies on specific technologies)
- Research on "low-carbon steel" and "hydrogen-based steelmaking"
Popular Articles:
- Reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) on the steel sector's energy use and emissions.

Steel's Role in Modern Economies

Essential Material: Steel is fundamental to:
- Construction (buildings, infrastructure)
- Transportation (vehicles, ships, railways)
- Manufacturing (machinery, tools)
GDP Growth: Steel demand is strongly linked to economic activity and industrial development.
Scholarly Articles:
- "The Role of Steel in Economic Development" (Search on Google Scholar)
- Research on "material flows" and "resource dependence" in relation to economic growth
Popular Articles:
- World Bank or IMF reports may discuss the importance of basic materials like steel in economic development.

Where to Find Information

Google Scholar: A great starting point for scholarly articles.
World Steel Association:

https://www.worldsteel.org/

American Iron and Steel Institute:

https://www.steel.org/

Industry Publications: Look for specialized journals and magazines covering the steel sector.
Think Tanks and Research Institutes: Search for reports from organizations focused on materials, energy, or industrial policy.

Key Search Terms

"Peak steel"
"Steel life cycle assessment"
"Steel supply chain"
"Energy intensity of steelmaking"
"Low-carbon steel"
"Steel and Economic Growth"
"Material flows"

We must learn how our world works if we are to have any impact on decisions impacting all of us. There are no excuses. We have the information and tools needed to make good decisions. We must hold power accountable and understand the risks and benefits of our economic activities.

We are experiencing a crisis of fundamental values. If international law were enforceable, we would need to make ecocide illegal, which would end our current socioeconomic system. Valuing living systems above all is the prime value we need for a better world. Changing our core values is a monumental task that requires a revolutionary new way of thinking about our place in the world.

Today, unlike in the past, many people know the challenges and existential threats we face in great detail, and many have solutions to the many crises we face. But who will sacrifice to implement them? Many still seek a viable, habitable socioeconomic system and culture fit for posterity. When this long-suffering civilization falls, what’s next? How painful and violent does the dissolution of our global system have to be? Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Why do civilizations fall?

Why aren’t you a revolutionary? Maybe you think things are good the way they are or that revolution is violent and destructive, and you want no part of it. Think about it and answer the question for yourself.

OK, so what was your answer?

Can enough people ever agree on a reasonable socioeconomic system that would allow more people to thrive without destroying our habitat and driving life to extinction? If you think it’s possible to find a better way of doing things, perhaps we need to get busy creating this way of life, this new social system, and acquire the power to pursue its development. If you think our nature is to continue our past ways only with deadlier and more destructive tools and systems with the hope that scientists, engineers, and technologists will invent ways to repair the damage they inflicted because, in all their magnanimity, they want to give ordinary people a better life, than faithful optimism, hope, and focusing on culture wars, and other trite diversions while endeavoring to make more money may be enough to find contentment.

Let’s explore the potential for a revolutionary 21st-century Revolution.

REVOLUTION

noun

an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
a sudden, complete or marked change in something:
the present revolution in church architecture.
a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
a single turn of this kind.
Synonyms: rotation, round, circuit, cycle
Mechanics.
1. a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
2. a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
3. a single cycle in such a course.
Astronomy.
1. (not in technical use) rotation ( def 2 ).
2. the orbiting of one heavenly body around another.
3. a single course of such movement.
a round or cycle of events in time or a recurring period of time.
Geology. a time of worldwide orogeny and mountain-building.

OK, so why revolt? Do we want a revolutionary new socioeconomic system and culture focused on maintaining health and habitability within the limits and potentialities of our biosphere?

Do we want to find ways to thrive in a simpler world while we carefully and caringly learn about Nature? We must slow down, wise up, and ensure our creation suits living systems. We must focus on how we live and understand what makes a healthy, thriving, loving, caring, strong, resilient, and creative person.

Why do we struggle with so many addictions? Why do we need drugs for lifestyle diseases? Could a simpler life be a happier and healthier life?

We are not consumers; we are not isolated individuals; we are social animals dependent on living systems. A healthy life begets a healthy life.

Open your heart and mind to Nature. Nature is always telling us things and showing us how to live. Those who believe in God should be curious about God’s creation and thankful for our ability to learn about it. We may never know all that the Creator knows, but it’s evident that we evolved to inquire about how Nature works. Learning about Nature is not one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The purpose and results of inquiry, industry, and creativity make them “good” or “bad.”

The “Christian West” is supposed to align with The Seven Heavenly Virtues: the "fruits of the Spirit," love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, equanimity, wisdom, and self-control." Who deserves such grace? I say life itself requires it from the so-called “wise” ape.

What’s the core problem?

Hundreds write and talk about our problems. They are self-styled experts, some with years of experience in related domains and others autodidacts who have spent decades exploring associated fields. What are they doing other than recycling information we already know? They are shouting fire!

“We’ve got problems, and I know all about them and want you to know, too!” —Concerned Citizen

Education and awareness are essential, but most people will not realize the need for radical change until so many people are involved that they must jump on the bandwagon. Fighting for something new has to be fashionable.

Wealthy and Powerful Players of The Great Game 2.0 21st Century have, through the random meanderings of history and by design, engineered structures and systems constituting a wealth pump that consistently increases their control over resources and populations worldwide via a complex interplay of economic, political, technological forces targeting a vulnerable public primed to believe.

Let’s briefly tour the conventional, profitable mainstream analysis of concerning issues.

OXFAM

Message to Congress

We are alarmed by extreme inequality in the United States and around the world. In the past three years, we’ve seen a surge in extreme wealth while progress against global poverty has stalled. The world’s five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes since 2020—at a rate of $14 million per hour—while five billion people have become poorer.

The ultra-rich have created a new era of consolidated corporate and monopoly power that gives them both immense wealth and excessive control over our lives and our economy.

Seven out of ten of the world’s biggest corporations have a billionaire CEO or principal shareholder. Meanwhile, people around the world are working harder and longer hours, often for poverty wages, in precarious and unsafe jobs.

It’s time to curb the influence and power of billionaires and corporations.

We urge you to take the following actions today to create a more equal future for everyone:

Cap CEO pay;
Empower workers by supporting living wages, unionization, and paid sick and family leave;
Break up monopolies;
Implement new taxes on the super-rich and corporations, including permanent wealth and excess profit taxes, and
Invest in public services

Oxfam estimates that a wealth tax on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could generate $1.8 trillion a year. This money could be used to invest in public services and infrastructure and to support climate action initiatives that could better everyone’s lives, not just an ultra-wealthy few.

Thank you for taking action to build a more equal future for all of us.

The largest corporations have achieved near-monopoly status in many sectors, allowing them to dictate prices, stifle competition, rent seek, and amass vast wealth. Read Peter Thiel’s book “Zero to One.” This economic power translates into political power and significant social control. We have seen this throughout history, but this time, people seem more powerless than ever to push back despite constant isolated movements and demonstrations erupting here and there like The Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, etc., that only appear, in the end, to pacify or divide us even more.

Global economic growth and development have been strident for hundreds of years with many positive outcomes, yet people sense something is wrong.

If we’ve made so much positive progress, why are we still fighting over the same issues and facing new, complex, and chaotic existential threats?

Economic Power and Political Influence: The Impact of Industry Structure on Public Policy

Political scientists have devoted considerable attention to the ways in which economic power can be translated into political influence. Yet there has been little empirical research capable of confirming or denying general hypotheses about the political implications of various aspects of economic structure. This article seeks to begin filling this gap by first identifying five aspects of economic structure likely to affect an industry's political influence (firm size, industry size, market concentration, profitability, arid geographic dispersion) and then testing these aspects by analyzing how well they account for variations among industries in their success at securing public policies of benefit to them, especially in two policy arenas: federal corporate income taxes and state excise taxes. What emerges most clearly from this analysis is an empirical confirmation of the popular hypothesis linking firm size to political influence with respect to both federal corporate tax policy and state excise tax policy. Beyond that, we find reasonably strong negative relationships between political influence and market concentration, profitability, and industry size – the latter lending interesting support to Mancur Olson's argument about the political disabilities of large groups. In the process, the article suggests a potentially fruitful new way to get beyond the case study approach in studying the impact of economic power on political influence, and thus a way to bring to bear more powerful methodological tools on this central issue of modern democracy.

The increasing importance of financialized capital and complex, opaque financial derivatives have empowered those who control investment flows. They can reward or punish companies and even countries based on their alignment with their interests. We have watched this for decades. Financialization and the power of global capital continue to increase with no end in sight. Those with access to financial mechanisms and capital never pay any price when bubbles burst; only ordinary people get crushed.

How long can this continue before people fight back in desperate ways? What will powerful, influential Players have to do to pacify the public once and for all?

The hope is that it will trickle down. Doing your best to ensure a good outcome is essential, hopium is dangerous.

Do multinational corporations exploit foreign workers? Q&A with David Levine

In trade debates, multinational corporations are often cast as villains exploiting low-wage workers in countries with weaker labor laws at the expense of Americans. But do multinationals actually exploit foreign workers?

Global corporations can exploit differences in labor costs (labor arbitrage), environmental regulations, and tax laws to maximize profits (The Capital Code), often at the expense of workers and communities. These are some of the main reasons China could develop so quickly. Globalization is good in some ways; it promotes economic growth, brings people out of poverty, and provides development opportunities, but its current iteration does more harm than good.

What does it mean to be rich or poor?

Globalization has made us believe we live in a world where infinite economic growth and material wealth can continue indefinitely. However, our current economic ideology never considers the broader consequences and costs (externalities). We are reaching our limits regarding the advantages of globalization and will soon have to pay the price. We ignore the damage our way of life inflicts on our environment, ecological systems, and habitats, perpetrating a grave crime against Nature and humanity.

ecocide

/ˈiːkə(ʊ)sʌɪd,ˈɛkə(ʊ)sʌɪd/

noun

noun: ecocide

destruction of the natural environment by deliberate or negligent human action.
"their crime is nothing less than attempted ecocide"

Multinationals, Wages, and Working Conditions in Developing Countries

Do multinational firms exploit workers in poor nations? In The Effects of Multinational Production on Wages and Working Conditions in Developing Countries (NBER Working Paper No. 9669, originally presented at the 2002 NBER International Seminar on International Trade), authors Drusilla Brown, Alan Deardorff, and Robert Stern offer a resounding "no." Indeed, the authors conclude that "there is virtually no careful and systematic evidence demonstrating that...multinational firms adversely affect their workers, provide incentives to worsen working conditions, pay lower wages than in alternative employment, or repress worker rights." In fact, they argue, the opposite is true.
Their paper begins with an overview of two influential organizations involved in the anti-sweatshop movement: the Fair Labor Association (FLA), and the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). The FLA was created in 1998 as an outgrowth of Apparel Industry Partnership established by the Clinton administration, while the WRC is the product of student movements on U.S. campuses. Although the groups differ on specific issues-such as the establishment of a "living wage" and the choice of confrontation versus dialogue as campaign tactics-they have both sought to provide codes of conduct and to monitor multinational firms that produce apparel and related items for colleges and universities.
Academic economists have different responses to these debates. In September 2000, a group of economists (including Deardorff and Stern) formed the Academic Consortium on International Trade (ACIT). It circulated a letter to presidents of 600 academic institutions, urging that greater attention be given to the possibility that mandating codes of conduct and higher wages in response to the anti-sweatshop advocates actually could be detrimental to workers in poor countries. In October 2001, a rival group called Scholars Against Sweatshop Labor (SASL) wrote a letter to some 1600 academic presidents, expressing their support for the activist movements.
Further, a careful examination of economic theory on capital and technology flows fails to reveal any unambiguous conclusions regarding the impact of multinational production on wages in host countries, the authors contend. "There seems to be a presumption...that FDI [foreign direct investment] will at least raise some wages, but even this is not certain..." they explain. "It is therefore an empirical question whether the actual operations of multinationals have raised or lowered wages in developing countries."

I’m providing information straight out of the prevailing sociological programming to orient ourselves within the sweeping landscape of our prominent socioeconomic ideology. Academics, economists, and social critics have debated these questions since the 19th century (far before that, but let’s stay within the modern, techno-industrial context). Within the system’s logic, there are good reasons to believe that we are supporting the best of all possible socio-political-economic systems and that it’s only a matter of time and victorious wars before Fukuyama’s “End of History” is achieved and we can all live like Americans. This is a delusional fantasy. The end of history will be the end of our species because we couldn’t or wouldn’t learn how Big Nature works because we refused to understand complex systems, interconnectedness, and interdependence, respect our limitations, and patiently evolve in harmony with reality.

Political Influence

Wealthy corporations spend vast sums on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence legislation and ensure favorable policies. The corruption is loud, in your face, on your screens, and we’ve all noticed it by now, even if we are busy finding a safe parking lot to sleep in or getting tickets to the Super Bowl.

A handful of wealthy donors dominate electoral giving and spending in the United States. We need limits on campaign finance, transparency, effective enforcement of these rules, and public financing. But even if we did this, it would only prolong the inevitable dissolution of civilization.

Today, thanks to Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, big money dominates political campaigns to a degree not seen in decades. Super PACs allow billionaires to pour unlimited amounts into campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Dark money groups mask the identities of their donors, preventing voters from knowing who’s trying to influence them. And races for a congressional seat regularly attract tens of millions in spending. It’s no wonder that most people believe the super-wealthy have much more influence than the rest of us.
Though Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited independent spending, the Supreme Court continues to uphold limits on direct contributions, but these limits are being swept aside with every election.
Brennan Center for Justice advocates for tighter limits on contributions candidates can directly receive.
We also call for stricter rules to ensure unlimited political spending by non-candidates really is independent of candidates. And we advocate for greater transparency of who pays for political ads, because voters deserve to know. To meet these standards, elections at every level require fair and effective enforcement, beginning with a better-functioning Federal Election Commission.

The movement of individuals between the government and the private sector creates conflicts of interest and allows corporations to capture regulatory agencies. Funding think tanks and media outlets allows the wealthy to shape public discourse and promote their agenda. Can this change at the current scale of civilization? We are stuck in feedback loops inherent to metastatic modernity.

Welcome once again to oligarchic chaos and the oligarchy is global.

The world’s richest people are done feigning concern for vulnerable communities or our democracy. Trump can do whatever he wants, and they can, too

Not so long ago, some of the ultra-wealthy and big corporations would feign disgust with Trump. They paid lip service to social justice movements and pledged to make paltry efforts to reduce their climate impact. That’s all over now. America’s oligarchs are done pretending — there is too much money to be made and power to be amassed together. They’ll get to keep their Trump tax cuts, and can expect to receive more. The government investigations of their businesses and regulatory scrutiny will end. All they have to do is act like—or freely admit—they support Trump and his policies. Fit in, show respect, and get paid—keep your job.

Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again?

Sometimes we stick with certain behaviour patterns, and repeat our mistakes because of an “ego effect” that compels us to stick with our existing beliefs. We are likely to selectively choose the information structures and feedback that help us protect our egos.

For the first time, behavioural and data scientist, activist and writer Dr Pragya Agarwal unravels the way our implicit or 'unintentional' biases affect the way we communicate and perceive the world, how they affect our decision-making, and how they reinforce and perpetuate systemic and structural inequalities.

Sway is a thoroughly researched and comprehensive look at unconscious bias and how it impacts day-to-day life, from job interviews to romantic relationships to saving for retirement. It covers a huge number of sensitive topics - sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, colourism - with tact, and combines statistics with stories to paint a fuller picture and enhance understanding. Throughout, Pragya clearly delineates theories with a solid grounding in science, answering questions such as: do our roots for prejudice lie in our evolutionary past? What happens in our brains when we are biased? How has bias affected technology? If we don't know about it, are we really responsible for it?

At a time when partisan political ideologies are taking centre stage, and we struggle to make sense of who we are and who we want to be, it is crucial that we understand why we act the way we do. This book will enables us to open our eyes to our own biases in a scientific and non-judgmental way.

Not influential but useful: rethinking how we assess and support think tanks

By Enrique Mendizabal

18 July 2024

Think tanks enable political philanthropists to support politics indirectly. By funding think tanks, donors can contribute to political discourse and policy development without engaging directly in the political arena. This is why Orbán is funding a think tank in Brussels and why hundreds of millions are poured into think tanks across the world by political philanthropists. Even bilateral and multilateral funders, whose rules and regulations bar them from engaging in political campaigning will, knowingly and strategically, support think tanks aligned to their preferred policy and political agendas.

Technological Control

This is a vast and constantly developing subject with potentially dire consequences. There are server farms of information and libraries full of good books dedicated to the topic.

Presently, the United States is in a fight to the death with China over technological supremacy.

Chinese AI Firm DeepSeek Deep-Sixes US Tech Stocks

Tech giants collect vast amounts of data on individuals, which can be used for targeted advertising, manipulation, and social control. We give these companies a valuable commodity: our time, attention, thoughts, ideas, feelings, and work that they sell to governments and corporations for billions of dollars. Our online behavior is an industry that influences our decisions, creating more data that is mined for profit. It’s another pernicious feedback loop we must understand and gain more control over.

We need free agency to make our world more equitable and healthy. How should we use “Big Data?” Who decides?

Five Ways Your Data is Used to Surveil and Manipulate You

Big Tech is tracking your every move. From your conversations with friends and family that you thought were private, to your online searches across the internet and shopping history, and even your current location. Many of these companies are monetizing that data and weaponizing it to erode your agency, your rights, and your identity. Below are five ways Big Tech, data brokers, and other bad actors in the information ecosystem are collecting and exploiting your personal information.
The American Privacy Rights Act is Here to Help
Most people are unaware about what happens with the data that is collected from them. Americans don’t trust Big Tech and other companies that are exploiting their personal data to target and manipulate people. The American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) is needed to give Americans a unified set of privacy rights.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, led by Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), is fighting to ensure that Americans are protected from exploitation, including from Big Tech, data brokers, and other bad actors in the big data business. APRA creates a comprehensive, national data privacy standard to ensure that all Americans are protected.
APRA puts all Americans back in control of their personal data, protecting them and their kids. By minimizing the amount of data that can be collected, processed, retained, and transferred, Americans will have the right to control where their personal information goes and can ensure that Big Tech, data brokers, and other bad actors are held accountable.

What will you do to protect your privacy? Do you have a spare hour a week to work with community members to pressure your leaders to do something about this? Do your leaders care about your concerns or their donor’s concerns? What will you do about how LLMs and AIs and AGI will use all the data we’re generating? As the world heats up and habitats are destroyed how will AI play a roll in exacerbating or alleviating disasters?

“You won’t get my vote or support, and we will boycott your corporate donors if they dismiss our concerns!” —Janice or Joe Q. Concerned Citizen

Algorithms used in social media and search engines reinforce existing inequalities and biases, further marginalizing vulnerable groups. Are there better ways to obtain services and build valuable networks without incurring damaging compromises with rent-seeking corporations? If you are not a shareholder, how do you benefit from social media and information technology?

What's the cost-benefit calculation?

I have been an early adopter for decades, and still, the question is relevant and not easy to answer when you think deeply about it. Information technology has been a game changer but not without its downside. We never hear of the material and energy costs of IT and the damaging externalities it entails. And how about the social, cultural, and psychological impacts?

Externalities of Electricity Generation

Externalities are effects which arise from electricity generation and which are not factored into any narrow economic consideration of the enterprise.
In particular, external costs are those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and which are quantifiable, but are not built into the cost of the electricity and therefore are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. The impact of global warming is now generally included.

Study to inform government on impact of smartphones and social media on young people

Researchers are to look at the links between children’s mental health and smartphone and social media use as part of a Government commissioned research project.

With the Trump gang and its corporate lobbies in charge, it should be clear that questions like these will no longer be asked, and the government will no longer fund research on these topics. Global corporations will be free to do whatever they must to fuel the wealth pump that feeds the one percent.

Externalities? What externalities?

It’s petal to the metal as we accelerate toward greater profits and control of assets by a tiny minority of Players in the global economy until billions of people disappear and the world is made safe for TESCREAL fantasies and the reconfiguration of The Country Club.

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” —George Carlin

The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence

Abstract
The stated goal of many organizations in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), an imagined system with more intelligence than anything we have ever seen. Without seriously questioning whether such a system can and should be built, researchers are working to create “safe AGI” that is “beneficial for all of humanity.” We argue that, unlike systems with specific applications which can be evaluated following standard engineering principles, undefined systems like “AGI” cannot be appropriately tested for safety. Why, then, is building AGI often framed as an unquestioned goal in the field of AI? In this paper, we argue that the normative framework that motivates much of this goal is rooted in the Anglo-American eugenics tradition of the twentieth century. As a result, many of the very same discriminatory attitudes that animated eugenicists in the past (e.g., racism, xenophobia, classism, ableism, and sexism) remain widespread within the movement to build AGI, resulting in systems that harm marginalized groups and centralize power, while using the language of “safety” and “benefiting humanity” to evade accountability. We conclude by urging researchers to work on defined tasks for which we can develop safety protocols, rather than attempting to build a presumably all-knowing system such as AGI.

OpenAI employee ‘terrified’ of AI pace quits ChatGPT creator

Steven Adler, who has worked at the California-based company since March 2022 – eight months before the launch of ChatGPT – revealed that he was stepping down amid concerns about the trajectory of AI development.
“Honestly I’m pretty terrified by the pace of AI development these days,” he said.
“When I think about where I’ll raise a future family, or how much to save for retirement, I can’t help but wonder: Will humanity even make it to that point?”
“An AGI race is a very risky gamble, with huge downside,” Mr Adler said.
“No lab has a solution to AI alignment [ensuring AI’s objectives match those of humans]. And the faster we race, the less likely that anyone finds one in time.
“Today, it seems like we’re stuck in a really bad equilibrium. Even if a lab truly wants to develop AGI responsibly, others can still cut corners to catch up, maybe disastrously. And this pushes all to speed up. I hope labs can be candid about real safety regs needed to stop this.”

We can’t even align with ourselves, our communities, our government, other nations, or the natural environment; we are about as fragmented and incoherent as we can get despite targeted torrents of information aimed at us day in and day out. We don’t even have a clear idea about all that can go wrong in an AGI arms race. Who read up on this stuff? Do you chat about these things at the water cooler at work?

The AI rivalry between China and the West, particularly the US, has intensified in recent years. The competition is not just about innovation but also about economic and political influence. AI has become a strategic asset, with both sides investing heavily in research, infrastructure, and talent acquisition.
In the US, companies such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic are leading the charge, often with public and private sector collaboration.
In China, companies such as DeepSeek, Baidu, and Alibaba are advancing AI research under government-backed initiatives that align with national priorities. The Chinese government has made AI a top priority, with ambitious plans to lead the world in AI by 2030.
While each side promotes AI development as a force for progress, the lack of global alignment on ethical AI governance creates significant risks. The desire to lead the AI revolution means regulatory safeguards are often viewed as obstacles rather than necessities.

What is algorithmic bias?

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems use algorithms to discover patterns and insights in data, or to predict output values from a given set of input variables. Biased algorithms can impact these insights and outputs in ways that lead to harmful decisions or actions, promote or perpetuate discrimination and inequality, and erode trust in AI and the institutions that use AI. These impacts can create legal and financial risks for businesses. For example, per the EU AI Act, non-compliance with its prohibited AI practices can mean fines up to EUR 35,000,000 or 7% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Algorithmic bias is especially concerning when found within AI systems that support life-altering decisions in areas such as healthcare, law enforcement and human resources. Bias can enter algorithms in many ways, such as skewed or limited training input data, subjective programming decisions or result interpretation.
Mitigating algorithmic bias starts with applying AI governance principles, including transparency and explainability, across the AI lifecycle.

Information warfare, which spreads misinformation and disinformation, destabilizes societies and undermines trust in democratic institutions.

Mis- and disinformation

The spread of false and misleading information poses significant risks to the well-being of people and society. While such content is not necessarily illegal, it can contribute to polarisation, jeopardise the implementation of policies, and undermine trust in democratic institutions and processes. Action is required to strengthen the integrity of information spaces to protect freedom of expression and democratic engagement.
Access to diverse sources of information, plural and independent news sources, and free and open discourse are all needed to enable informed democratic debate. However, in today's digital and interconnected world, the spread of misinformation and disinformation poses a critical threat to the foundational elements of our societies. Its rapid proliferation undermines trust in institutions and elections, fuels societal divisions, and jeopardises public health initiatives, thereby threatening the very fabric of democracy and informed decision-making.

Who decides what quality information is? Are we empowered with the tools (critical thinking included) to discern misinformation and disinformation, or do we leave it up to someone or something else to decide? My God, another HUGE topic!

Coercive Forces

Corporations threaten to relocate jobs or investments to extract concessions from governments and workers. The wealthy use their influence to shape laws and regulations that benefit them at the expense of others. Tech companies control platforms and data to censor dissent, manipulate public opinion, and influence elections.

We’re Dangerously Close to Giving Big Tech Control Of Our Thoughts

Elon Musk has proclaimed himself to be a “free speech absolutist” though reports of the way employees of his companies have been treated when exercising their free speech rights to criticise him might indicate that his commitment to free speech has its limits. But as Musk’s bid to takeover Twitter progresses in fits and starts, the potential for anyone to access and control billions of opinions around the world for the right sum should focus all our minds on the need to protect an almost forgotten right—the right to freedom of thought.
In 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote “Freedom to think is absolute of its own nature, the most tyrannical government is powerless to control the inward workings of the mind.” The assumption that getting inside our heads is a practical impossibility may have prevented lawyers and legislators from dwelling too much on putting in place regulation that protects our inner lives. But it has not stopped powerful people trying to access and control our minds for centuries.
At his trial for War Crimes in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Albert Speer, Hitler’s former Minister of Armaments, explaining the power of the Nazi’s propaganda machine said: “Through technical devices such as radio and loudspeaker 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man…. Today the danger of being terrorized by technocracy threatens every country in the world.”
When whole communities are deprived of independent thought, it undermines their individual rights to freedom of thought and opinion. But it is not only a threat to the rights of the people who are manipulated. As the world saw with Nazi Germany, it becomes a threat to all our rights. Tragically, Speer’s warning is acutely resonant in the 21st-century as technology has been harnessed as an even more efficient tool for manipulation and control of the minds of populations with devastating consequences.

This article is from mainstream Time Magazine, and we now know precisely what this author was talking about and how things are going in 2025.

Fragmentation and Distraction

Promoting divisive social issues (culture wars, shiny objects) distracts from economic inequality and power abuses. The constant bombardment of advertising and pursuing material possessions keeps people focused on individual consumption rather than collective action. The proliferation of entertainment options provides an escape from reality and discourages critical thinking. All of these strategies are well-engineered, highly effective, and deliberate. We are being played! Bread & Circuses and culture wars have always existed; only now, the tools to create them and enforce their effects are exponentially more powerful and pernicious. Between various forms of media, streaming entertainment, information platforms, and the incredible financial and political power the corporations behind these mechanisms wield, it’s near impossible for ordinary people to understand its impact on their ideas, thoughts, and feelings.

Inequality, Culture War, and Imperiled Common Good: America and China

Despite rising inequality, daily life in both America and China is afflicted more by culture conflicts than class struggle. For many Americans, the numbers on rising inequality seem abstract and distant from daily experience. What ignites more intense passions are “culture wars”: struggles over moral visions stereotypically attributed to “liberal elites” and “populists,” battles over science and education, religion and secularism, gender and sexuality, racial inclusion and exclusion.
In China, too, surveys done by Martin Whyte and colleagues show a relative lack of concern about inequality, even among people at the lower end of the income spectrum. In China, although public conflicts – or at least the news about them – are suppressed, there is evidence of animus over “corruption” – perceived personal decadence coming together with an immoral use of personal guanxi – and within various sectors, against gender discrimination, religion, the civic inclusion of migrant laborers, and freedom of intellectual and emotional expression.
But in both societies, I think, these cultural conflicts are connected with rising inequality, and indeed in their current intensity are a manifestation of it. A simple Marxist explanation for this would be that ruling elites foment conflicts over culture to distract the masses from becoming mobilized against the rich. I don’t doubt that this is some part of the story, but I will argue that there is another important part, the social foundation for elite manipulation. Rather than drawing on Marx, I would recommend Max Weber’s account of the cultural conflicts of modernity.

The consolidation of power by the wealthiest individuals and global corporations poses a serious threat to democracy and social justice. The combination of economic dominance, political influence, and technological control creates a system of inverted totalitarianism, where the masses are pacified and controlled through a combination of coercion and distraction. It is crucial to recognize these trends and resist the further concentration of power in the hands of the few.

Politics and Vision is a landmark work by one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century. This is a significantly expanded edition of one of the greatest works of modern political theory. Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Vision inspired and instructed two generations of political theorists after its appearance in 1960. Substantially expanded for republication in 2004, it is both a sweeping survey of Western political thought and a powerful account of contemporary predicaments of power and democracy. In lucid and compelling prose, Sheldon Wolin offers original, subtle, and often surprising interpretations of political theorists from Plato to Rawls. Situating them historically while sounding their depths, he critically engages their diverse accounts of politics, theory, power, justice, citizenship, and institutions. The new chapters, which show how thinkers have grappled with the immense possibilities and dangers of modern power, are themselves a major theoretical statement. They culminate in Wolin’s remarkable argument that the United States has invented a new political form, "inverted totalitarianism,“ in which economic rather than political power is dangerously dominant. In this expanded edition, the book that helped to define political theory in the late twentieth century should energize, enlighten, and provoke generations of scholars to come.

Wolin originally wrote Politics and Vision to challenge the idea that political analysis should consist simply of the neutral observation of objective reality. He argues that political thinkers must also rely on creative vision. Wolin shows that great theorists have been driven to shape politics to some vision of the Good that lies outside the existing political order. As he tells it, the history of theory is thus, in part, the story of changing assumptions about the Good.

Acclaimed as a tour de force when it was first published, and a major scholarly event when the expanded edition appeared, Politics and Vision will instruct, inspire, and provoke for generations to come.

What if we are pushed too far?

Train your information algorithms on searches for polycrisis, existential threats, pollution, oceanography, meteorology, science, climate change, global heating, global warming, AMOC, plastic pollution, ocean plastics, green washing, green bashing, glacial melting, fisheries, factory farming, sugar, fast food, type 2 diabedies, mental health, lifestyle diseases, gene editing, life cycle assessment, Greenland, the Panama Canal, soil erosion, chemical fertilizers, resource extraction, overshoot, endocrine disrupters, pfos, inequality, financial derivatives, banking crisis, debt crisis, war, fifth generation warfare, drone warfare, proxy wars, failed states, police actions, militarization, immigration, the sixth extinction, bio-diversity, globalization, financialization, wealth pump, hedge funds, robotics, economics, corruption, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, NRx, imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, proxy wars, regime change wars, Gaza, Zionism, Christian Zionism, radical Islam, religious fanaticism, pandemic, artificial intelligence, AGI, robotics, oligarchy, plutocracy, deindustrialization, modern monetary theory, budget deficits, deforestation, the Amazon, Ponzi scheme, satellite collision, libertarianism, digitization, transhumanism, singularity, tech bros, technocracy, modernity, industrial revolution, the commons, fire season, peak oil, carbon emissions, audience capture, dark psychology, dark tetrad, Alt-Right, fascism, Empire, civilizational collapse, color revolution, deep State, modern slavery, human trafficking, drug wars, addiction, trauma, PTSD, failed State, energy, entropy, thermodynamics, population, water crisis, etc. This should get you started.

I know you just got back from the playoff game. Your team won, and you are still full of burgers and fries and a bit tipsy from the tailgate party before the game. So you stopped off at the neighborhood bar with friends to bask in the warm glow of victory. Or you stayed home and watched the game, seeing all those happy people in all the advertisements. You spent a moment of silence for the victims of the LA fires and were thankful for the first responders. You support the troops. It’s all good!

That’s what Germans thought during The Weimar Republic. That’s what people feel after surviving a catastrophe (WWI); it’s euphoric when things go well again. When you think you can pay off your loans. But when things start turning for the worse again, before you realize things are a bit off, it’s often too late to do anything about it, and you’re stuck reacting to a nasty situation. If only you had followed your intuition and done something before it was too late.

The Sun Also Rises, one character asks, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways: gradually, then suddenly.”

A thrilling day-by-day account of the final months of the Weimar Republic, documenting the collapse of democracy in Germany and Hitler’s frightening rise to power.

November 1932. With the German economy in ruins and street battles raging between rival political parties, the Weimar Republic is on its last legs. In the halls of the Reichstag, party leaders scramble for power and influence as the elderly president, Paul von Hindenburg, presides over a democracy pushed to the breaking point. Chancellors Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher spin a web of intrigue, vainly hoping to harness the growing popularity of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party while reining in its most extreme elements. These politicians struggle for control of a turbulent city where backroom deals and frightening public rallies alike threaten the country’s fragile democracy, with terrifying consequences for both Germany and the rest of the world.

In The Last Winter of the Weimar Republic, Barth and Friedrichs have drawn on a wide array of primary sources to produce a colorful, multi-layered portrait of a period that was by no means predestined to plunge into the abyss, and which now seems disturbingly familiar.

Read history. His stories about his wars.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” —Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831

How can we avoid a deadly and destructive crash? (Your thoughts?)

That’s a big question. Learn about airline safety or crash investigation and think about all the training, processes, technologies, management systems, etc., implemented by expert professionals and constantly updated based on new information to keep all of us traveling 24/7, 365 days a year.

Every day, FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers across more than 29 million square miles of airspace. With an airspace system as vast and complex as ours, it is helpful to have an easy-to-reference source for relevant facts and information. View the infographic below for a glimpse into ATO, or for more information, see Air Traffic by the Numbers (PDF).* based on FY23 figures

Repeat this for dozens of services we take for granted. It’s truly marvelous. The modern world is fantastic but also more fragile than you think.

Think of all the “Dirty Jobs.”

It’s difficult, complex, and complicated to make the world work for the modern wealth pump that depends on economic growth and a constant, deadly competition for control of vital resources. Suppose professionals, political and business leaders, bureaucrats, technocrats, law enforcement professionals, and regulators are responsible, efficient, and committed to maintaining the trust of the masses. In that “best of all possible worlds,” the system continues until it destroys the biosphere we depend on to exist. At some point, the failures in complex systems multiply into catastrophic cascades. Within the systems and structures we’ve developed from the dawn of modernity, it is inevitable that sooner or later, there will be absolute failure, resulting in billions of people dying prematurely.

That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Many people feel things have been off for a long time. Everything leading up to this moment has been a constant battle between the interests of different groups of people. One faction wins, and the other loses. What goes up must come down. You reap what you sow—the calm after the storm. Every cloud has a silver lining. There are periods when things are stable, and a culture develops that produces beautiful things, but every culture shifts, and things fall apart. For every action, there is a reaction. Life is not sunshine and rainbows. No pain, no gain. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Since we are all good people with access to high-quality information about how things work, we could all be part of the solutions necessary to ensure the worst possible outcomes are averted, but, by design, we are too tired, too stressed, and too busy to do the work required. We gave at church, tithed ten percent of our wages, volunteered, and voted. We all do what we can.

Besides, the billionaires and philanthropists will take care of us.

Let’s continue to contextualize our current situation. Later, we will explore positive and peaceful ways we might want to employ to change things.

In 1939, Arnold J. Toynbee wrote, “The challenge of being called upon to create a political world order, the framework for an economic world order… now confronts our Modern Western society.” It seems the world is always in great danger from something or another. The Fall of the West has been happening since there were people with ideas of what “The West” is.

Since its first publication in two volumes between 1918-1923, The Decline of the West has ranked as one of the most widely read and most talked about books of our time. In all its various editions, it has sold nearly 100,000 copies. A twentieth-century Cassandra, *Oswald Spengler* thoroughly probed the origin and "fate" of our civilization, and the result can be (and has been) read as a prophesy of the Nazi regime. His challenging views have led to harsh criticism over the years, but the knowledge and eloquence that went into his sweeping study of Western culture have kept The Decline of the West alive. As the face of Germany and Europe as a whole continues to change each day, The Decline of the West cannot be ignored.
The abridgment, prepared by the German scholar Helmut Werner, with the blessing of the Spengler estate, consists of selections from the original (translated into English by Charles Francis Atkinson) linked by explanatory passages which have been put into English by Arthur Helps. H. Stuart Hughes has written a new introduction for this edition.
In this engrossing and highly controversial philosophy of history, Spengler describes how we have entered into a centuries-long "world-historical" phase comparable to late antiquity. Guided by the philosophies of Goethe and Nietzsche, he rejects linear progression, and instead presents a world view based on the cyclical rise and decline of civilizations. He argues that a culture blossoms from the soil of a definable landscape and dies when it has exhausted all of its possibilities.
Despite Spengler's reputation today as an extreme pessimist, The Decline of the West remains essential reading for anyone interested in the history of civilization.

Toynbee focused on civilizational cycles, universalism, the role of the West, and world order in the context of the formation of post-WWII institutions and policies such as The United Nations and the Bretton Woods system, viewing them as initial steps toward a new world order. He was concerned with the Cold War ideological conflict between capitalism and communism, urging the West to offer a compelling vision for a global order that could transcend these divisions and challenges posed by decolonization and the emergence of new nations, requiring a rethinking of global power structures.

Federalism in the History of Thought

“The biosphere has been able to harbour life because the biosphere has been a self-regulating association of mutually complementary components, and, before the emergence of Man, no single component of the biosphere... ever acquired the power to upset the delicately adjusted balance of the play of forces by means of which the biosphere has become a hospitable home for life...Man is the first of the biosphere’s denizens that is more potent than the biosphere itself... Man can succeed in surviving till he has wrecked the biosphere.”

People have had a profound impact on the biosphere for thousands of years. Add fossil-fueled modern techno-industrial capitalism to the mix, and our impact accelerates and broadens exponentially. We are already in a desperate world war to control diminishing resources. The neocolonial U.S. empire must extract more resources globally than ever before to ensure its hegemony. Population size and demographics will significantly affect the nature of 21st-century revolutions. The plutocratic and oligarchic class of powerful elites are already in a panic over this. All forms of social control using unprecedented robust and complex technology, data systems, surveillance systems, etc., are currently deployed to keep young people domesticated, pacified, and dreaming.

Top-tier educational institutions in the West churn out class after class of financial and legal service providers, technical engineers, and want-to-be Players of The Great Game 2.0 21st Century to staff an all-or-nothing competition for what elite factions want to control—energy and resources. This is a self-terminating, metastatic Great Game played by grotesquely corrupt Players. The Great Game is incoherent (from a Natural-Systems perspective); a pathological, destructive proto-religious socioeconomic system will eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions and ignorance of systems and complexity theory regarding ecology and habitability.

I also believe The Players have warped, self-serving concepts regarding human nature.

Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, charged with towering questions of good and evil, Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand’s magnum opus: a philosophical revolution told in the form of an action thriller—nominated as one of America’s best-loved novels by PBS’s The Great American Read.

Who is John Galt? When he says that he will stop the motor of the world, is he a destroyer or a liberator? Why does he have to fight his battles not against his enemies but against those who need him most? Why does he fight his hardest battle against the woman he loves?

You will know the answer to these questions when you discover the reason behind the baffling events that play havoc with the lives of the amazing men and women in this book. You will discover why a productive genius becomes a worthless playboy...why a great steel industrialist is working for his own destruction...why a composer gives up his career on the night of his triumph...why a beautiful woman who runs a transcontinental railroad falls in love with the man she has sworn to kill.

Atlas Shrugged, a modern classic and Rand’s most extensive statement of Objectivism—her groundbreaking philosophy—offers the reader the spectacle of human greatness, depicted with all the poetry and power of one of the twentieth century’s leading artists.

An educated and wise populous from diverse backgrounds should know better than to allow these insults to Life to occur, but we have been programmed to focus on trivialities. Ordinary people are fodder for a wealth-generation machine that funnels money, power, and control to the top. The coders of capital have rigged the economy to benefit themselves regardless of collateral damage.

What we are experiencing now is unprecedented. Top experts with a nuanced and profound understanding of history, social, and scientific domains are hard-pressed to find comparisons with past drivers of social upheavals and dramatic change.

Maintaining Earth systems for habitual posterity through a global revolution will require phenomenal wisdom, intelligence, imagination, and creativity. Has our social system in the West or elsewhere produced such people?

12.1: History of Human Population Growth

Since 1700, human population size (shaded in teal) has increased. It reached 1 billion in 1803, 2 billion in 1928, 2.5 billion in 1950, 5 billion in 1987, and 7.7 billion in 2019. It is projected to reach 10.9 billion in 2100. The population growth rate (pink line) was only 0.04% on average between 10,000 BCE and 1700. The population growth rate peaked in 1968 at 2.1%, and since then, it has slowed to 1.08% in 2019 and is projected to be at 0.1% in 2100. Image by *Max Roser (2013) "Future Population Growth". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. (CC-BY*)

*The paradigm of all models of growth and decline is the Hubbert model. Here is how it appeared for the first time, in* *a paper published by Marion King Hubbert in 1956 where he showed his prediction for crude oil production in the 48 US lower states.*

The fundamental cause of the acceleration of the growth rate for humans in the past 200 years has been the reduced death rate due to changes in public health and sanitation. Clean drinking water and proper disposal of sewage have drastically improved health in developed nations. Also, medical innovations such as the use of antibiotics and vaccines have decreased the ability of infectious diseases to limit human population growth. In the past, diseases such as the bubonic plague of the fourteenth century killed between 30 and 60 percent of Europe’s population and reduced the overall world population by as many as one hundred million people. Naturally, infectious disease continues to have an impact on human population growth, especially in poorer nations. For example, life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa, which was increasing from 1950 to 1990, began to decline after 1985, primarily as a result of HIV/AIDS mortality. According to a 2016 study by Marcus et al., The reduction in life expectancy caused by HIV/AIDS was estimated to be 8 years in 2016.
Human technology, particularly our harnessing of the energy contained in fossil fuels, has caused unprecedented changes to Earth’s environment, altering ecosystems to the point where some may be in danger of collapse. Changes on a global scale, including depletion of the ozone layer, desertification and topsoil loss, and global climate change, are caused by human activities.

Demographic Transition

Recall from the Populations chapter that the population growth rate (r) equals the birth rate minus the death rate. Slowly declining birth rates following an earlier sharp decline in death rates are today characteristic of most of the less-developed regions of the world. The shift from high birth and death rates to low birth as well as death rates is called the demographic transition.
Prior to World War II, advances in public health were largely limited to affluent, industrialized countries. But since then, many more countries have enjoyed improvements in public health - always with dramatic effect on death rates. For example, in 1945, the death rate in Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) was 0.022 (2.2%). In 1946, a large-scale program to control mosquitos, which transmit malaria, was started. By eliminating the mosquito, the incidence of malaria dropped sharply. After 9 years, the death rate dropped to 0.010 (1%), and by 2012 was 0.006 (0.6%). However, a compensating decline in birth rates has come more slowly; the birth rate was 0.018 (1.8% in 2012). With birth rates higher than death rates, the population was increasing at an annual rate of 0.012 (1.2%) per year, with a doubling time of 57.5 years (t = 0.69/0.012).

[Toynbee argues that civilizations are born out of more primitive societies, not as the result of racial or environmental factors, but as a response to challenges, such as “hard” country, new ground, blows and pressures from other civilizations, and penalization. He argues that for civilizations to be born, the challenge must be a golden mean; that excessive challenge will crush the civilization, and too little challenge will cause it to stagnate. He argues that civilizations continue to grow only when they meet one challenge, which is only to be met by another, in a continuous cycle of “Challenge and Response.” He argues that civilizations develop in different ways due to their various environments and approaches to their challenges. He argues that growth is driven by “Creative Minorities”: those who find solutions to difficulties and inspire (rather than compel) others to follow their innovative lead. This is done through the “faculty of mimesis.” Creative minorities find solutions to a civilization's challenges, while the great masses follow these solutions by imitation, solutions they otherwise would be incapable of discovering on their own.]

Toynbee Quotes
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”
“It is a paradox of history that each civilization has a birthday, but no death day.”
“Great civilizations are not conquered from without until they have destroyed themselves within.”
“We are not doomed to make history repeat itself; it is open to us, through our own efforts, to give history, in our case, some new and unprecedented turn.“
“The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play.”
“Apathy can only be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things: first, an ideal which takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice.”
“The human race’s prospects of survival were considerably better when we were defenseless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenseless against ourselves.”
“Our age will be well remembered, not for its horrifying crimes or its astonishing inventions, but because it is the first generation since the dawn of history that has dared to believe it practical to make the benefits of civilization available to the whole human race.”
“Religion is the serious business of the human race.” —from Civilization on Trial, Oxford University Press, 1948
“Love is a rare and precious thing; to be cherished and nurtured.”

Linear and progressive views of history have dominated the popular imagination for the past seventy years in a worldview wedded to the inexorable rise of globalisation and GDP-growth at any cost. However, the end of the Cold War failed to produce the end of history as hoped, a fact brought home to many by Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Material wealth and 'Progress' in the name of 'social justice' have not made people happier or more united but quite the opposite. Anxiety, depression, fearfulness, sadness, loneliness and anger have all massively increased since 1970, with the male suicide rate at an all-time high. Western society seems to be divided against itself across every line conceivable: left versus right, women versus men, 'non-whites' versus 'whites', globalists versus populists, 'the elites' versus 'the people', people who think that men can be women and vice versa versus those who insist that they cannot, and so on. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe their country is on 'the wrong track', with similar views reflected in Britain and across Europe. The Prophets of Doom explores eleven thinkers who not only dared to contradict the dominant linear and progressive view of history, but also predicted many of the political and social maladies through which we are living.

You can dress up old ideas, but what’s your actual agenda? Tell me exactly how a world based on your political philosophy works and who benefits most.

I recently finished Neema Parvini’s The Profits of Doom. His work addresses the worn and ever-present concerns of conservatives and reactionaries and contains valuable insights into how many influential people view the world. Understanding these thinkers’ perspectives helps us make sense of the many contradictions we struggle with today. People must understand how people think and what ideas people are obsessed with. It is mind-boggling to me that chauvinistic Western Liberals refuse to engage with cultural operatives that have learned to use the tactics of “The Left” (however you define it) against the Left. For example, Andrew Breitbart, of the notorious Breitbart media organization with branches in the U.K., should have been better understood by his rivals. We write off Curtis Yarvin as a buffoonish romantic cultural Guru at our peril. I listened to Curtis talk about J.D. Vance and “Bronze Age Pervert” (BAP) when he spoke in Lisbon a couple of years ago and thought, really, J.D. Vance—there goes the neighborhood. These ideas are gaining popularity as more people come to feel like they are being conned and exploited by “The Elite,” however you define them. The concepts explored in Parvani’s book are ever-present; brushing aside these authors’ worldviews as malformed and anachronistic will not help us develop better ideas, social systems, and power structures capable of building a peaceful, healthy future dedicated to life. Curtis Yarvin graduated from Brown University. His parents were diplomats, if I recall correctly. Elites have always complained about other elites.

Parvani’s Bio

Dr Parvini graduated with a first in English Literature from Royal Holloway, University of London, where he won several awards a including a McDonalds Scholarship (2001), the Margaret Bretherton Memorial Prize (2002), the Gertrude Schryver Prize (2004) and the Edmée Manning Award (2004). He gained his Masters degree in English Literature from Oxford University with distinction in 2005 before returning to Royal Holloway in 2006, where he was awarded a Thomas Holloway Scholarship to read for his PhD, which he completed in 2010.

Although Dr Parvini has a background as a Shakespeare scholar, his experiences working with investment bankers, financial experts and central bankers in the city led him to a lifelong interest in classical economics. This led him to writing a book-length study on the topic (The Defenders of Liberty), which was praised by various economists, and facilitated by an FA Hayek Award, an FA Hayek Program Grant for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and a Mises Institute Scholarship. He sits on the Academic Advisory Council for the IEA and is a Senior Fellow at the Centre of Heterodox Studies at the University of Buckingham. His interest in political theory, also led to The Populist Delusion, a primer on elite theory, which went on to be an Amazon best seller and its follow-up The Prophets of Doom, which was also a best seller. He also runs a popular YouTube channel which has accrued over 30 million views.

These people are Elite!

Please read this book.
First published in 1956, The Power Elite stands as a contemporary classic of social science and social criticism. C. Wright Mills examines and critiques the organization of power in the United States, calling attention to three firmly interlocked prongs of power: the military, corporate, and political elite. The Power Elite can be read as a good account of what was taking place in America at the time it was written, but its underlying question of whether America is as democratic in practice as it is in theory continues to matter very much today.

What The Power Elite informed readers of in 1956 was how much the organization of power in America had changed during their lifetimes, and Alan Wolfe's astute afterword to this new edition brings us up to date, illustrating how much more has changed since then. Wolfe sorts out what is helpful in Mills' book and which of his predictions have not come to bear, laying out the radical changes in American capitalism, from intense global competition and the collapse of communism to rapid technological transformations and ever changing consumer tastes. The Power Elite has stimulated generations of readers to think about the kind of society they have and the kind of society they might want, and deserves to be read by every new generation.

He’s rich. He’s famous!

Curtis Yarvin also mentioned Elon Musk often in discussions with fans at a cafe in Lisbon. Read Musk’s bio; privileged, conceited brats are running the world from their YouTube channels, podcasts, and blogs.

Of course, when looking into anyone with a high profile, be wary of the public relations aspect of any description of who they are. We must do some digging and try to understand their body of work before forming an accurate opinion.

I learn things from various perspectives and don’t think of myself as this or that political animal anymore. I can only imagine a world that will probably never exist or develop a better understanding of our world and get on with my life. But to be a revolutionary, I need to know clearly and in great detail what I’m fighting for (if not your family, friends, and the comrade/soldier next to you.) I’d have to subscribe to a power structure to create something better than what we have now. I’m still searching.

The role of power in social explanation

Abstract
Power is often taken to be a central concept in social and political thought that can contribute to the explanation of many different social phenomena. This article argues that in order to play this role, a general theory of power is required to identify a stable causal capacity, one that does not depend on idiosyncratic social conditions and can thus exert its characteristic influence in a wide range of cases. It considers three promising strategies for such a theory, which ground power in (1) the ability to use force, (2) access to resources, or (3) collective acceptance. It shows that these strategies fail to identify a stable causal capacity. The lack of an adequate general theory of power suggests that the concept lacks the necessary unity to play the broad explanatory role it is often accorded.

Now, I’m reading The Devil’s Chessboard and The Great Leveler to understand my enemies’ mentality and what happens when things get to a breaking point and violence ensues. Can we prevent violent upheaval during the most chaotic times of the polycrisis?

Based on explosive new evidence, bestselling author David Talbot tells America’s greatest untold story: the United States’ rise to world dominance under the guile of Allen Welsh Dulles, the longest-serving director of the CIA.
Drawing on revelatory new materials – including exclusive interviews with the children of prominent CIA officials, the personal correspondence and journals of Allen Dulles’s wife and mistress, newly discovered U.S. government documents, and U.S. and European intelligence sources – Talbot reveals the underside of one of America’s most powerful and influential figures.
Dulles’s decades as the director of the CIA – which he used to further his public and private agendas – were dark times in American politics. Calling himself ‘the secretary of state of unfriendly countries’, Dulles saw himself as above the elected law, manipulating and subverting American presidents in the pursuit of his personal interests and those of the wealthy elite he counted as his friends and clients – colluding with Nazi-controlled cartels, German war criminals, and Mafiosi in the process. Targeting foreign leaders for assassination and overthrowing nationalist governments not in line with his political aims, Dulles employed those same tactics to further his goals at home, culminating in the assassination of his political enemy, John F. Kennedy.
Indeed, The Devil’s Chessboard offers shocking new evidence in the killings of both President Kennedy and his brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy. This is an expose of American power that is as disturbing as it is timely, a provocative and gripping story of the rise of the national security state – and the battle for America’s soul.

How only violence and catastrophes have consistently reduced inequality throughout world history

Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality? To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes. Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return. The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world.

Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality. The "Four Horsemen" of leveling—mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich. Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century. Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, which is good. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future.

An essential contribution to the debate about inequality, The Great Leveler provides important new insights about why inequality is so persistent—and why it is unlikely to decline anytime soon.
One must explore many domains from multiple perspectives to understand how culture works. It’s the only way to maintain humble, maturing opinions on social systems and relations. Culture is synonymous with complexity on many levels.

Too much talk, no action.

For over a decade, I’ve noticed that many people know what ails us and have solutions to our ailments. But we are poorly trained, pacified, and deluded by cultural influences, so most of us don’t pay attention to our actual problems, choosing instead to buy or invest in treating the symptoms of what ails us when our maladies have erupted and become endemic. We take everything for granted, fight emotional battles with manufactured enemies, and invest our time, energy, and money in whatever the status quo dictates. We bounce from one shallow fad to another. We are addicted to supernormal stimuli.

Supernormal Stimuli

Humans and other animals fall for hyperbole. Exaggeration is persuasive; subtlety exists in its shadows. In a famous set of studies done in the 1950s, biologist and ornithologist Niko Tinbergen created “supernormal stimuli,” simulacra of beaks and eggs and other biologically salient objects, that were painted, primped and blown up in size. In these studies herring gull chicks pecked more at big red knitting needles than at adult herring gull beaks, presumably because they were redder and longer than the actual beaks. Plovers responded more to eggs with striking visual contrast (black spots on white surround) than to natural but drabber eggs with dark brown spots on light brown surround. Oystercatchers were willing to roll huge eggs into their nests to incubate. Later studies, as well as recording in the wild show supernormal stimuli hijacking a range of biologically driven responses. For example, female stickleback fish get swollen bellies when they are ripe with eggs. When Tinbergen’s student, Richard Dawkins made the dummy rounder and more pear shaped greater lust was inspired. He called these dummies “sex bombs.” Outside of the lab, male Australian jewel beetles have been recorded trying to perform sex with beer bottles made of shiny brown glass whose light reflections resemble the shape and color of female beetles.
Research on the evolution of signaling shows that animals frequently alter or exaggerate features to attract, mimic, intimidate, or protect themselves from conspecifics, sometimes setting off an arms race between deception and the detection of such deception. But it is only humans who engage in conscious manipulation of signals using cultural tools in real time rather than relying on slow genetic changes over evolutionary time. We live in Tinbergen’s world now, surrounded by supernormal signals produced by increasingly sophisticated cultural tools. We need only compare photoshopped images to the un-retouched originals, or compare, as my own studies have done, the perceptions of the same face with and without cosmetics to see that relatively simple artificially created exaggerations can be quite effective in eliciting heightened positive responses that may be consequential. In my studies the makeup merely exaggerated the contrast between the woman’s features and the surrounding skin.
How do such signals get the brain’s attention? Studies of the brain's reward pathways suggest that dopamine plays a fundamental role in encouraging basic biological behaviors that evolved in the service of natural rewards. Dopamine is involved in learning, and responds to cues in the environment that suggest potential gains and losses. In the early studies of the 1950s, before the role of dopamine was known, scientists likened the effects of supernormal stimuli to addiction, a process we now know is mediated by dopamine.
Are superstimuli leading to behavioral addictions? At the least, we can say that they often waste time and resources with false promises. We fall down rabbit holes where we pursue information we don’t need, or buy more products that seem exciting but offer little of real value or gain. Less obviously, they can have negative effects on our responses to natural stimuli, to nutritious foods rather than fast foods, to ordinary looking people rather than photoshopped models, to the slow pleasures of novel and nonfiction reading rather than games and entertainment, to the examined life rather than the unexamined and frenetic one.
Perhaps we can move away from the pursuit of “supernormal” to at least sometimes considering the “subtle” and the “fine,” to close examination and deeper appreciation of the beauties and benefits that lie hidden in the ordinary.

These days, thousands of people echo and list items within the basket of polycrisis. How long does it take people to hear the warnings that began decades ago? We have always been warned—read “Good Books.”

Today, there are many experts in all things catastrophic and existential risk. Many are sounding the alarm. But who among the plebs and proles, the experts, doomists and doomers, preppers and want-to-be leaders, gurus, and saviors have a plan for how to stop the madness? Who is working day after day to prevent violent and painful mass death and global civilizational collapse? I know many people who think collapse is inevitable and necessary, but what happens afterward? We will probably make the same mistakes again until our species is extinct—but does it have to be this way?

Where are our martyrs?

Jesus died for our sins—enough said!?

Many people have identified ideologies, policies, business practices, economic doctrines, and other human endeavors destroying our health, lives, and biosphere. We know why we are sick but only treat the symptoms if profitable.

“Profits First!” said the Prophet.

We may be too comfortable or weak to attack the causes of our predicament. Maybe we are all stuck in a prison of diversions and distractions, or perhaps we are too afraid to risk everything or anything to make things better. (“Better? Things are pretty darn good, cupcake.”) Maybe we are too darn dumb to perceive what’s happening. I know that influential Players understand the psychology of the Stockholm Syndrome. So what! The Players of The Great Game 2.0, 21st Century, exert the powers of persuasion adeptly and with great force. Those who take risks and wield power deserve the fruits of their enterprises. The Players will never deviate from their myopic vision—win at all costs. Compete, conquer, acquire, control, vanquish, amass wealth and power, and keep the people pacified. These are the drivers of The Great Game.

In the comment sections of the people I follow, I ask how we can overcome the madness and pathological leaders in charge and develop a new way of life. Does that question make you angry? It seems to bother people.

“Well, what are YOU going to do about it?” —Bob & Betty Higher Virtue

I don’t fit in. I have ideas, but they are part of my creative work. I am not a revolutionary, not yet. I’m a frustrated observer of Groundhog Day.

I have no idea to what degree global warming contributed to the fires in Los Angeles but don’t these incessant disasters provide evidence that the conditions of our complex climate and biosphere have changed and that human activity is causing these changes? What we are seeing is evidence that our global culture and its systems lead to catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. Most of us are too deluded to even think about it, so we carry on, and when we get hit by a disaster, we shrug and marvel at how resilient we are. People from the Palisades fire say, “We’ll rebuild; this is our home.” They can’t wait to return to normal and wait for the next disaster. It seems ridiculous. Where does Miami Beach sand come from? Keep spending fuel to make the tourists happy until Miami is underwater.

Most folks get whipped out once, and that’s it.

Still, even people who know what’s coming and are taking steps to prepare for it are not attacking the crux of the crisis they concern themselves with daily. If you Google “how to start a revolution,” you’ll find mindfulness coaches, preppers, and people busy making a buck off doom & gloom, fear, confusion, and prophesies of the end times. Mind you, I don’t begrudge people making a living. If the solution to the problem isn’t profitable, deprioritize it until it is. Sooner or later, the problem and its solution will be impossible to ignore. When the solution becomes vital to the system, the profit machine has to invest, at which time the market makers come out of the woodwork.

(So please, buy me a coffee.)

I’ve read many books about revolutions and revolutionaries. People throughout history have developed various theories of history and societal collapse. If these theories have merit, what are the qualitative differences between what we’ve experienced in the past and what we are experiencing now at the apex of fossil-fueled modern techno-industrial global financialized neoliberal/neoconservative capitalism? Call the structures and systems what you will; all the social, political, and economic systems we have today fall into the cheap energy, forever growth, omnicidal heat engine wealth pump for the top one percent basket.

Over the past five hundred years, we have experienced a variety of ways of organizing communities and power structures.

IMAGINE THIS SCENE IN ANCIENT POMPEII

“There is a crowd of people, including free men, women and children, slaves and their owners. A rich guy wearing a toga rides in a litter carried by slaves. The people move to the sides, as the litter comes through. People are carrying water home from the fountains, taking clothing to the fullery for laundering. They are doing their marketing—getting bread at the bakery; fruit and vegetables such as figs, grapes and apples, olives, peas and beans; and perhaps some garum, a popular fish sauce. Others may be shopping for jewelry, new plates for the banquet next week, flower garlands for the coming festival. Wealthy people have their entourage around them, including their slave attendants. A procession is on its way to the forum. Slaves are bringing fresh donkeys to the bakeries to keep the grindstones turning, and pigs and sheep are being brought to market. The street is filled with the strong odors of bread baking and wine making, urine from the collection pots along the street, animal dung and household garbage. The Romans relied on the rain to wash the filth and garbage away.”— Lauren Petersen, professor of art history

Feudalism

Dissolution and instability

Seen against the background of the millennia, the fall of the Roman Empire was so commonplace an event that it is almost surprising that so much ink has been spilled in the attempt to explain it. The Visigoths were merely one among the peoples who had been dislodged from the steppe in the usual fashion. They and others, unable to crack the defenses of Sāsānian Persia or of the Roman Empire in the East (though it was a near thing), probed farther west and at length found the point of weakness they were seeking on the Alps and the Rhine.

Mercantilism

Chapter 3: Trade Agreements and Economic Theory

Economists have had an enormous impact on trade policy, and they provide a strong rationale for free trade and for removal of trade barriers. Although the objective of a trade agreement is to liberalize trade, the actual provisions are heavily shaped by domestic and international political realities. The world has changed enormously from the time when David Ricardo proposed the law of comparative advantage, and in recent decades economists have modified their theories to account for trade in factors of production, such as capital and labor, the growth of supply chains that today dominate much of world trade, and the success of neomercantilist countries in achieving rapid growth.

mixed economy, in economics, a market system of resource allocation, commerce, and trade in which free markets coexist with government intervention. A mixed economy may emerge when a government intervenes to disrupt free markets by introducing state-owned enterprises (such as public health or education systems), regulations, subsidies, tariffs, and tax policies. Alternatively, a mixed economy can emerge when a socialist government makes exceptions to the rule of state ownership to capture economic benefits from private ownership and free market incentives. A combination of free market principles of private contracting and socialist principles of state ownership or planning is common to all mixed economies.

Welfare States Governments provide healthcare, education, and other social programs to ensure all citizens’ basic living standards.

Digital Societies Social interactions and economic activity are heavily mediated through digital platforms.
Globalization
Sustainable Societies (What’s that?)

Social systems have evolved to where we are all in the same predicament: north to south, east to west. We have come to this. It doesn’t matter what you think about Marx in 1847 or the difference between what we call postmodernist philosophy/critique in 1970 or 2025. The world is on fire, and World War Three is in full swing. Is there anything people can do to prevent a violent and destructive depopulation of our world?

Techno feudalism, Where tracking apps are implanted in our bodies to gather data on the jobs that only humans can do to provide more data for AI algorithms. We will be paid with digital tokens based on inputs while being charged rent for everything we do. Your vital signs will be tracked, and you will be fined or abandoned if you are not an optimal producer of the required data.

OVERSHOOT | Shrink Toward Abundance

OVERSHOOT tackles today’s interlocked social and ecological crises driven by humanity’s excessive population and consumption. The podcast explores needed narrative, behavioral, and system shifts for recreating human life in balance with all life on Earth. With expert guests from wide-ranging disciplines, we examine the forces underlying overshoot: from patriarchal pronatalism that is fueling overpopulation, to growth-biased economic systems that lead to consumerism and social injustice, to the dominant worldview of human supremacy that subjugates animals and nature. Our vision of shrinking toward abundance inspires us to seek pathways of transformation that go beyond technological fixes toward a new humanity that honors our interconnectedness with all beings. Hosted by Nandita Bajaj and Alan Ware. Ranking in the top 1.5% of all podcasts globally, we draw over 20,000 listeners from across 80 countries.

I know many people have many ideas about what to do, some of which are excellent. But how do we replace the powerful global systems we have now with something better while making efforts to prevent us from bouncing the rubble across the globe while we starve to death, causing mass extinction along the way?

I’d like to quickly explore some theories about cycles of history and societal collapse. It’s not in-depth or comprehensive, but it provides context for my opening question.

I’m curious about societal collapse, planned reform, evolution, revolution, and upheaval as an event that happens with the agency over time.

Cyclical Theories of History and Societal Collapse

Numerous thinkers (throw a dart at a historical timeline and pick one) have proposed cyclical models to explain the rise and fall of civilizations. These theories offer intriguing perspectives on the patterns of history and the forces that drive societal change.

I’ve reviewed many things I have learned from middle school until I became enmeshed with the pandemic in 2020. I have enjoyed the luxury of having time to reread books. I have always liked all kinds of books. Reading is a fun hobby for me, but it doesn’t make me wise or holy. It takes action within the community to achieve that.

In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph Tainter argues that societies become too complex over time. Societal complexity eventually leads to diminishing returns on investment (think of EROI). As societies invest more resources into problem-solving, the marginal benefits decrease, ultimately leading to collapse.

According to Tainter, as these structures become larger, they become less efficient, to the point that the economic returns they provide are smaller than their cost. At this point, society becomes unable to cope with the challenges it faces and must decline, or even collapse.

Increased specialization, bureaucracy, and social stratification lead to declining marginal returns. Complex societies use vast amounts of energy and materials, leading to resource depletion. Eventually, economic decline and social unrest destabilize the system. Boom!

Tainter discusses the Roman Empire, the Mayan Civilization, Chaco Canyon, and other examples.

The 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun proposed that societies experience cycles of rise and decline driven by a concept called “asabiyyah,” which refers to social cohesion or group solidarity. Nomadic groups with strong asabiyyah conquer settled societies. The new ruling dynasty will become accustomed to urban life and lose its asabiyyah. Later, a new group with stronger asabiyyah will overthrow the weakened dynasty. There you go, a story with a regional cultural context. The story is true. How could it be otherwise? We learn about how things are and will be within unique circumstances.

Asabiyya
Popularized by Ibn Khaldun in his The Muqaddimah, the notion of asabiyya refers to group solidarity. This includes unity, cohesion, and a collective consciousness shared among a group of persons. Often such a group can contain members of a clan, tribe, or persons of common descent, but the connection between two members of a group need not be one of blood. The asabiyyah can be a force that makes or breaks the success of a group or individual, and thus it will certainly play a role in the development and spread of Islamic civilizations. See page xli of the Rosenthal’s introduction to The Muqaddimah for another discussion of the term. While the Prophet may have initially used asabiyya, or his ties to the Quraysh, to support his early work, he needed more than kinship ties to spread his message. Steven Caton explains that, as the community grew, early Muslims became more united by shared religious beliefs and values than by feelings of shared space or descent.
Five centuries before Darwin, Ibn Khaldun wrote, ‘Species become more numerous.’ Nearly half a millennium before Marx, Ibn Khaldun wrote, ‘labor is the real basis of profit.’ Four hundred years before Auguste Comte, Ibn Khaldun unveiled his ‘science of culture’ (Katsiaficas, 1999:46). All these show his power in scientific research, high knowledge in various disciplines, and wisdom in analysis of facts.

The rise and fall of various Arab dynasties in North Africa provide examples of societal collapse despite a long wisdom tradition. Who adopts wisdom as a way of life? What kind of person decides that wisdom is self-serving?

Traditional Chinese historiography viewed history as a series of dynastic cycles characterized by a rise to power, a period of prosperity and stability, and eventual decline and overthrow. The ruler’s legitimacy, based on the Mandate of Heaven (reminds me of NRx nostalgia), could be lost due to misrule or natural disasters. Over time, rulers and officials became corrupt and lost the people’s support. A new dynasty, often led by a charismatic leader, emerged to restore order and claim the Mandate of Heaven.

Classic examples are The Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties.

William Strauss and Neil Howe proposed a cyclical theory of history based on recurring generational archetypes—each generation has distinct values and characteristics, and these generational patterns repeat cyclically. Straus and Howe focused on four generational archetypes: Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist, and four cyclical turnings: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. The interaction between different generations shapes historical events and trends. We named it, and so it is salient.

The American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II are good examples.

Oswald Spengler’s “Decline of the West” argued that civilizations are like organisms that go through a life cycle of birth, growth, maturity, decline, and death. Read it.

Arnold J. Toynbee’s “A Study of History” identified patterns of challenge and response in the rise and fall of civilizations.

Peter Turchin’s Cliodynamics uses mathematical models and historical data to study long-term social and political trends, including cycles of stability and instability.

None of these theories or stories explain the complexity of societal collapse, nor do they fully comprehend the roots of constantly changing cultures. There are so many factors at play. Human nature revolves around how we express power relations through social organization, community interaction, language, consciousness, and other factors exclusive to the human animal. Human nature is a highly complex topic.

No shyte, sheer luck!

To understand human nature, we need to understand Big Nature. We have the tools to do so, but unraveling the laws of nature as it relates to humans must be gradual. Today, too many people are conditioned by culture to be more interested in The Great Game.

The Great Game: activities that impart social status and reward Players who control various resources.

The rise and fall of civilizations are usually influenced by a combination of factors, including environmental changes, economic pressures, social conflicts, war, and political instability (chaos). Historical patterns reflect human choices and actions that are crucial in shaping his story of war and conquest.

How much agency do we have in the face of cultural influences? Are your thoughts your own?

Do we still have the revolutionary spirit in “The West?” What constitutes revolutionary consciousness?

Revolutionary Consciousness

The ability to transform civilization relies on the concept of revolutionary
consciousness. Benjamin Franklin attempted this work in the ways that he
imagined the possibility of “America” as a sovereign republic. In 1749, he pro-
posed the creation of an academy that would cultivate the knowledge and skills
among young men that might generate a revolutionary consciousness. A gen-
eration later, his experiment yielded an elite class of landowners who believed
they shared a culture distinct from their ancestry in Great Britain. The Decla-
ration of Independence proposed a vision of human freedom and individual
rights that became the transformative ideals for two centuries. However, the
origins of revolutionary consciousness precede the modern era. Human civili-
zation evolved in eruptions and discontinuities over the last 5,000 years. Social
and personal commitments to revolution shaped each transition. Racial Con-
sciousness moved from the definition of Europeans as “white” based on their
Christianity through the emergence of post-colonial identities that reshaped
racial and ethnic perceptions in human civilization. The 21st century will be
defined by the success of intersectional analysis to dismantle white suprem-
acy, patriarchy, and global capitalism.
Revolutions carry the implications of military violence. Transitions among
empires and within them most often involved the deaths of thousands of
human beings. However, a true revolution involves a transformation of ideas.
In that way, revolutionary consciousness is the core of any social transforma-
tion, whether violent or not. Human history revolves around religious revolu-
tions – from the ancient Hebrews, Axumites, Greeks, and Romans through the
medieval emergence of Islam. The core debate among these traditions focused
on the structure of devotion – many gods or a single one. Ideological revo-
lutions often followed technological breakthroughs, the most famous exam-
ple being Guttenberg’s press and the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic
Church. When human beings began to transition from writing to printing, the framework for human ideas transformed in fundamental ways. It is this stan-dard of revolutionary consciousness that best informs our current approach to
the topic.
From the European Renaissance through the Enlightenment, the framework
of human expression relied on words (semantics), sounds (music), and images
(semiotics). From the middle of the 17th century to the end of the 19th century,
humanity radically transformed its ideological expressions in all three catego-
ries. John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson have remained the focus
of the debates about the Enlightenment of the 18th century that shaped the
American Revolution. In the 19th century, the emphasis shifts to Kant, Rous-
seau, Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger for the discussion of human lib-
erty and capacity. This shift reflects a broad portrait of the modern intellect – a
range of portraits about the dynamics and limitations of human rationality.
The racial consensus around white supremacy appeared self-evident to these
writers, despite extensive literary and scientific evidence to the contrary. Their
committed belief in a racial hierarchy of human beings defined modernism
at its core. The earliest forms of white supremacy in Europe revolved around
fear and hatred towards Muslims. Catholic writers equated whiteness with
purity and holiness, and then they extended the symbolic meaning into the
literal flesh of Central and Western Europe. The geographic centers of these
discussions were Rome, Berlin, Paris, and Madrid. By 1515, the budding suc-
cesses of Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish imperial projects spawned narratives
of indigenous, African, and Asian inferiority. As George Fredrickson has noted,
race inscribes the differences of ethnicity with a permanence about charac-
ter and nature. Perceptions about racial groups developed into religious jus-
tifications for slavery and exploitation. Most persistent among these stories
was the “Curse of Ham” – a narrative about the descendants of Noah’s son
being marked by God as servants to his brother’s descendants in perpetuity.
The confluence of cultural contact and religious conformity in the 16th and
17th centuries drove the construction of a racial consciousness among Europe-
ans that shaped imperial ambitions. Johannes Blumenbach wrote the treatise
that informed much of Enlightenment opinion in his On the Unity of Mankind
(1795). He expanded on the work of Carl Linnaeus in Systema Natura (1758).
These efforts laid the foundations for rational inquiry in emerging fields like
biology and anthropology but carried the fundamental irrationality of white
supremacy as their foundation.

There is nothing more frightening to Kings, Queens, imperialists, colonialists, oligarchs, plutocrats, and gangsters than revolution. When oppressed people gang up on powerful players, all hell breaks loose. You know this from middle school history class and Netflix.

So you say you want a revolution.

You say you want a Revolution
Well, you know
We all wanna change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all wanna change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We are doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright

Recommended reading: Ways to Start a Revolution.

There are many kinds of revolutionaries, but they all share a desire for power, autonomy, and social change. After this section, we’ll examine an outline of various revolutions and revolutionaries.

How to Start a Revolution

Download Article

Co-authored by Seth Hall

Last Updated: October 4, 2024 Approved

METHOD 1, Picking a Theme

Find a central theme around which to organize your revolution.
Identify a need for reform.
Create concrete goals.
Come up with a plan to secure resources.

METHOD 2, Finding Followers

Choose a leader and symbol.
Recruit activists.
Build partnerships with other people and groups.
Recruit intellectuals.
Turn to scientists.

METHOD 3, Spreading the Message

Remember the power of art and music.
Embrace all of the potential of the new media.
Use social media to organize.
Frame the debate.
Expect that people will react in different ways to change.

METHOD 4, Choosing a Strategy

Take Action.
Work from within.
Find a target.
Study past revolutions.
Try civil disobedience.
Plan the protest.

Let's explore some of history's well-known revolutions, starting from the ancient world and moving toward modern times.

Ancient Revolutions

Although not a full-blown revolution, Urukagina's Reforms (the Sumerian Shakespeare) in the Mesopotamian city-state of Lagash (circa 2350 BC) represented a significant power shift. Ensi Urukagina sought to curb the ruling elite's excesses and protect the ordinary people's rights.

The Battle of Muye (1046 BC) in ancient China marked the Shang dynasty's end and the Zhou dynasty's beginning. This revolution brought about significant changes in social structure, political ideology, and religious practices. In this case, King Wu of Zhou was the great man of history.

Classical & Medieval Revolutions

The Roman Republic's Overthrow (1st Century BC): While a gradual process, the Roman Republic's transformation into the Roman Empire (1st Century BC) involved significant social and political upheaval. Figures like Julius Caesar and Augustus played key roles in this transition. If you wish, read all about it; there is a library on the subject.

The Yellow Turban Rebellion (184 AD): This peasant revolt in Han Dynasty China (The Yellow Turban Rebellion 184 AD), fueled by social unrest and economic hardship, challenged the established order and contributed to the dynasty's eventual decline. Zhang Jue, Zhang Liang, and Zhang Bao were key players during this time.

Early Modern Revolutions

Inspired by the Protestant Reformation, the German Peasants' War (1524-1525 AD) inspired peasants across German-speaking Europe to revolt against feudal lords and demand social and economic reforms. Though unsuccessful, the war highlighted the growing discontent with the existing social order. Thomas Müntzer was an important player in the war.

The English Civil War (1642-1651 AD) pitted Parliamentarians against Royalists. It resulted in King Charles I's execution and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. The war marked a significant step towards parliamentary democracy, and Oliver Cromwell and Charles I played key roles.

Modern Revolutions

During The American Revolution (1775-1783 AD), the thirteen American colonies revolted against British rule, leading to the establishment of the United States of America. Enlightenment ideals of liberty, self-government, and popular sovereignty fueled this revolution. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were important figures during the establishment of the American republic.

The French Revolution (1789-1799 AD) was a tumultuous period that saw the overthrow of the French monarchy and the rise of radical political movements. It profoundly impacted European and world history, spreading liberty, equality, and fraternity ideas. It is much vilified by some and the beginning of the middle part of the arch of progress by others. Maximilien Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte are well-known figures today, and many books and movies portray their drama. Have fun with it, and read all about it.

The Haitian Revolution (1791-1804 AD), led by Enslaved people and Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, revolted, leading to the establishment of the independent nation of Haiti. This revolution was a landmark in the struggle against slavery and colonialism.

Waves of Revolutions of 1848 swept across Europe, fueled by nationalist and liberal aspirations. While many of these uprisings were ultimately suppressed, they reflected a growing desire for political and social change.

20th Century Revolutions

The Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), with characters like Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, led to the overthrow of the long-standing dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz and ushered in an era of significant social and political reforms.

And, Oh, My Dear Sweet Orthodox God, the Russian Revolution (1917), with heroes and villains such as Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin, is one of my favorites to study and read about. This revolution led to the overthrowing of the Tsarist autocracy and the establishment of the world's first communist state. It profoundly impacted global politics and ideology throughout the 20th century.

I also love learning about The Chinese Revolution (1949). Following a protracted civil war, the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Zedong emerged victorious, establishing the People's Republic of China. This revolution had a massive impact on Asia and the world—an understatement. Look into it.

I have visited Cuba twice and thoroughly enjoyed the Cuban people. The Cuban Revolution (1953-1959, think of their sacrifices) overthrew Fulgencio Batista's dictatorship and established a socialist state led by Fidel Castro. I’m not saying Cuba is a utopia or its revolution was successful. Cuba’s powerful enemy to the north made sure it wouldn’t be.

American business interests kill revolutionary movements.

I read about Che long ago. Che t-shirts are iconic. In the 1970s and 1980s, his image was everywhere. Che is revered by some and reviled by others. This is an excellent read with an unbiased perspective. American revolutionaries are far less controversial.

There are countless examples of revolutions and revolutionaries if one approaches the subject with a broad mind. A piece from The Guardian lists the 10 best.

What Kind Of Revolution?

In my experience reading history, I have discovered many earnest thinkers, alive and dead, who can inform us of ways to arrest power from an established destructive and exploitative elite. Once well-informed, oppressed, subjugated, abused, and “enlightened” people become aware that their social system is illegitimate because it’s unjust and personally destructive, they will organize and find outlets to express their anger and desperation. I won’t go into all of these thinkers and leaders here or their tactics and strategies. The list is long. Instead, I will focus on a few thought leaders, activists, philosophers, and teachers who have profoundly influenced our world.

Gene Sharp

“The fall of one regime does not bring in a utopia. Rather, it opens the way for hard work and long efforts to build more just social, economic,and political relationships and the eradication of other forms of injustices and oppression.” ―Gene Sharp

Sharp first presents a theory of political power. Contrary to the assumption that, in the end, “power comes from the barrel of a gun,” Sharp draws on a wide range of political thinkers in the first volume of The Politics of Nonviolent Action to argue that all rulers fundamentally rely on the cooperation and consent of their people to survive. “Obedience is at the heart of political power,” he writes. Countless institutions—including the police, the courts, the civil service, and the army—must carry out orders for the system to function. If individuals and institutions start to withdraw their cooperation, a regime is weakened. If enough of them withdraw, the regime collapses. At Oxford, fueled with excitement over his discovery of this theory, Sharp dug through historical records to uncover dozens of examples, large and small, of how nonviolent action has succeeded by encouraging the withdrawal of obedience, eroding rulers' authority and bureaucratic capacity.

Please learn from Sharp’s vast body of work:

The Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) is a nonprofit organization founded by Dr. Gene Sharp in 1983 to advance the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflict. For over 40 years, we have been committed to the defense of freedom, democracy and the reduction of political violence through the use of nonviolent action. Our goals are to understand the dynamics of nonviolent action in conflicts, explore its policy potential, and communicate this through publications and other multimedia resources, consultations, and educational workshops.
Finally, I want to focus on Peter Turchin. Peter Turchin is a Russian-American scientist specializing in cliodynamics, a field he helped develop that uses mathematical modeling to study historical societies. He has applied this approach to analyze patterns of political instability and societal collapse throughout history. Turchin has published numerous books and articles on the topic, including "War and Peace and War," "Historical Dynamics," and "Ages of Discord." He is currently a professor at the University of Connecticut and a research associate at the University of Oxford.

Peter Valentinovich Turchin, a renowned Russian-American complexity scientist and co-developer of cliodynamics, delves into the mathematical modeling and statistical analysis of historical and societal dynamics. As an Emeritus Professor at the University of Connecticut, spanning departments like Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology, and Mathematics, Turchin is also a project leader at the Complexity Science Hub Vienna and a research associate at the University of Oxford's School of Anthropology. Explore his insights as the Editor-in-Chief of Cliodynamics and a founding director of the Seshat: Global History Databank. Join Prof. Amogh Rai, Director of Research at ASIA, in this Asia Spotlight episode as he engages in a stimulating discussion with Prof. Peter Turchin about his book, "End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration." Gain valuable perspectives on historical trends and societal shifts from a distinguished figure who has also served as a former director of the Evolution Institute and earned a fellowship with the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2021.

Have a look at the SESHAT Global History Databank.

So what do you think?

Do you want to be a revolutionary, or are you comfortable with the status quo and despising those with different ideas and worldviews?

Are you a true believer?

All of us will die. That’s a fact. Something or another will kill us. Are we going to wait to get killed by greedy, violent, abusive Players or struggle to create a world that’s safer, healthier, more just, and more suited to habitability and posterity? Most of us will struggle to put food on the table and a roof over our heads because we are decent, loving people who fight for our loved ones, want to live according to moral and ethical ideals, and understand material limits that form a reasonably peaceful life that begets life. We do what we must.

I know too many want-to-be armchair, AI-goggled heroes who are weak and childish that ascribe to the Great Man of History narrative and that killing and being killed in wars is a noble and spiritual ideal. Idiots!

All of us fight. Some fight a well-informed struggle for well-thought-through goals to achieve universally understood positive outcomes. Most of us will wait until preventable social, environmental, and personal catastrophes kill us. We will blindly or dutifully wait for the fire, the war, the pandemic, the economic crash, the massacre, and the murderous chaos and react in panic and horror.

How much suffering can we tolerate?

If we are affluent and insured, we will say, as the folks in Califonia say, “We will rebuild; this is our home.” Are you kidding me? We are kidding ourselves. Without a radical change, our way of life is doomed.

We need to figure out a better way of life and ensure that people worldwide understand that means and are willing to embrace it.

Start with universal values that protect living systems and public health. Can I get a witness?

Start here:

Respect for Life: This encompasses valuing all forms of life, human and non-human, and striving to minimize harm.

Interconnectedness: Recognizing the interdependence between humans and the environment, understanding that actions have consequences within the larger ecosystem.

Sustainability: Living within the Earth's carrying capacity, ensuring resources are available for future generations.

Equity & Justice: Fair access to resources, opportunities, and healthy living conditions for everyone.

Precaution: Taking preventative measures to avoid potential harm to health and the environment, even in the face of uncertainty.

Participation: Encouraging community involvement in decisions affecting their health and environment.

Knowledge & Education: Promoting scientific understanding, critical thinking, and awareness of environmental and health issues.

Responsibility: Taking ownership of individual and collective actions and their impact on living systems.

Compassion: Showing empathy and care for others, including future generations and non-human life.

Humility: Acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge and the complexity of natural systems.

These values provide a framework for ethical decision-making and promote policies protecting human and environmental health. They are boilerplate and not imbued with action. You must breathe these values to find deeper values that ultimately connect you with the more profound meaning of our life in the Universe. If you live these deeper values, your life will transcend death and achieve a higher purpose worthy of our species' potential for wisdom. Your progeny will be proud of you and never forget your sacrifice, intelligence, and ingenuity.

You Will Be Heroes

We need to replace the pathological ideologies of today with something habitable, sustainable, and suited to a just and loving future. Along with “having the conversation” about our many challenges, we must invest a few hours a week in organizing and doing the work needed to implement the most radical, rapid, and profound socio-political, economic, spiritual, and cultural transformation in history.

Isn’t that exciting? There are good, committed people with great ideas all over the world. This project isn’t only for Indonesians, Indians, Brazilians, Russians, Canadians, Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and Thai people, etc.; it’s for you, my friend, and your friends and family. A revolutionary revolution is the most exciting project one could donate an hour or two a week to achieve. You can educate yourself with quality resources. You can broaden your mind. You can develop healthy habits. You can expand your mind and understand multiple perspectives. You can educate yourself. You can be a leader. You can be kind to yourself and others. You can recognize the beauty and love this struggle contains.

You have ideas. You have willpower!

Revolutionaries today must consider many more domains in detail to build a better world.

Life begets life; if we don't respect ecology and the biosphere, we will disappear from Earth sooner than later.

An Exclusive Interview With Ho Chin Minh

'Ho Chi Minh’s legacy lived on long after his 1969 death. This 1980 poster celebrates the man revered as the father of the country’s communist revolution. The poster reads, “Nobody loves Uncle Ho as children do, nobody loves children as Uncle Ho does.”' (Via)

Change requires courage.

Earnest, caring, and careful experts have existed for many decades at the intersection of energy, overshoot, economics, and climate change, yet their research has largely been ignored. There are many good people in the world working with the above values in mind. Information and solutions exist but won't be implemented unless we radically depart from our current socioeconomic ideology.

Look at a short list of people with the right priorities.

Vaclav Smil: A highly respected interdisciplinary scientist, his work focuses on energy, environment, food production, and technical innovation. He emphasizes the complexities and interconnectedness of these systems, often advocating for a cautious and realistic approach to energy transitions.

William Rees: Originator of the "ecological footprint" concept, Rees highlights the unsustainability of current consumption patterns and the dangers of ecological overshoot. He's a strong proponent of understanding the biophysical limits to growth.

Nate Hagens: Connects the dots between energy, economics, and human behavior. He explores the challenges of transitioning from fossil fuels while dealing with societal overshoot and consumerism.

Herman Daly: A pioneer of ecological economics, Daly is known for his work on steady-state economics, which advocates for a stable economy that operates within ecological limits. He challenges the conventional growth paradigm and emphasizes the importance of throughput limits.

Donella Meadows: (Sadly deceased, but her work remains highly relevant) A lead author of "The Limits to Growth," Meadows was a systems thinker who highlighted the interconnectedness of global systems and the potential for overshoot and collapse. Her work continues to inspire researchers and activists today.

Jorgen Randers: Another key contributor to "The Limits to Growth," Randers has continued to research and write on sustainability issues, emphasizing the urgency of addressing climate change and resource depletion. His book "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" offers a more updated perspective on the original Limits to Growth work.

Howard T. Odum: (Deceased) A pioneer in systems ecology, Odum developed the concept of "emergy," which measures the embodied energy in all resources and services. His work provides a comprehensive framework for understanding energy flows and ecological constraints.

Amory Lovins: Physicist and co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Lovins strongly advocates energy efficiency and renewable energy, demonstrating the potential for a transition to a sustainable energy future.

E.O. Wilson: (Deceased) A renowned biologist and conservationist, Wilson highlighted the importance of biodiversity and the threats posed by human activities. His work emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living things and the need to protect the natural world.

Richard Heinberg: Author and Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, Heinberg focuses on the depletion of fossil fuels and the implications for society, emphasizing the need for a planned transition to a lower-energy future.

Gail Tverberg: Known for her blog "Our Finite World," Tverberg provides an in-depth analysis of energy, economics, and the limits to growth, often presenting a more pessimistic view of the future.

Charles Hall: Ecological economist known for his work on energy return on investment (EROI), highlighting the declining energy efficiency of fossil fuel extraction and the challenges for renewable energy sources.

Dennis Meadows: Co-author of the influential book "The Limits to Growth," Meadows has warned about the dangers of overshoot for decades, emphasizing the need for systemic change.

Julia Steinberger: Ecological economist studying economic activity's social and environmental impacts, focusing on degrowth and reducing energy consumption.

Kate Raworth: Author of "Doughnut Economics," Raworth proposes an economic framework within the boundaries of ecological limits and social justice, emphasizing the need for a sustainable and equitable future.

Tim Garrett: Atmospheric scientist who has developed controversial theories linking energy consumption to economic growth, suggesting that reducing emissions without addressing economic growth may be difficult.

Nafeez Ahmed: “Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed: an award-winning journalist, academic and prophet for the coming post-carbon age.”

Alt Reich

Before moving on to a simpler way, understand our predicament through The Planetary Phase Shift lens.

Elon Musk is launching an authoritarian coup within the 2nd Trump presidency. Seen through planetary phase shift theory, this is a backslide into collapse. The battle lines are drawn. All humanity holds dear is at stake. We fight back by recognising our true power.
The ascension of Donald Trump to the helm of the US Government – and in particular the coup against the fundamental checks and balances of democracy being launched through Trump by Elon Musk – represents a new inflection point not just in the US political system, but in the very structure of a global order in which the US is a central hegemonic power.
Applying the planetary phase shift framework to this moment can help us illuminate both the core systemic drivers behind the resurgence of Trumpocracy, as well as its wider potential consequences.
Trumpocracy 2.0 represents a number of forces and approaches which are deeply incoherent. Trump’s blitzkrieg of executive orders demonstrates how the power of the presidency is being used to attempt to completely reshape – and truncate – the US Government.
Silicon Valley whistle-blowers are warning that Elon Musks’ Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is conducting a rapid multi-frontal assault on major US agencies to gain control of the United States’ critical information and financial systems including unprecedented access to private data of American citizens. Perhaps most crucial is Musk’s access to the US Treasury payments system and homeland security data in the context of a drive to replace federal civil servants with AI systems seeded and controlled by Musk.
Musk is trying to build a true dystopia: a deeply centralised AI technocracy with unprecedented power accruing to the US executive branch under the control of Elon Musk and his shareholders, who represent a cross-section of investors and oligarchs from the tech sector, crypto, finance and specific fossil fuel-linked players tied to Russia, Saudi Arabia and so on.
To what end? Musk’s assault is aligned with a new vision inspiring the billionaire technology oligarchy backing Trump: the Dark Enlightenment ideology, inspired by transhumanist eugenics and scientific racism, which envisages national democracies being smashed and refashioned into a patchwork of authoritarian structures subservient to transnational techno-capital.
How is this happening?
Fifteen years ago I had warned that a far-right takeover of the liberal heartlands in the West was coming. This is now underway.
That forecast was informed by the core concepts in planetary phase shift theory, which provides us a powerful framework to make sense of these developments and how to respond. For the most academically rigorous articulation of this framework, check out my peer-reviewed paper in Foresight: The Journal of Futures Studies (available here paywall free).
According to this framework, both the tremendous crises and unprecedented opportunities emerging right now are part of a wider phase shift occurring on a planetary scale.
Humanity is moving through the last stages of the life-cycle of industrial civilisation. Two things are happening:
1. Our prevailing fossil fuel centric technological infrastructure is sunsetting. The thermodynamics of this process is unleashing chaos on a grand scale. As the energy return on investment of the fossil fuel system declines, incumbents are seeking to maximise near-term profits on the back of escalating prices and capitalise on the long-term inflationary effects. The cost of living crisis, and the ecological crisis that results from our exploitation of fossil fuels, are of course two sides of the same coin.
2. Simultaneously, the prevailing liberal governance paradigm including the postwar institutional order which evolved (including through the use of imperial violence) to manage this industrial system is unravelling. As the ability of the prevailing social and organising structures to manage this chaotic transition and crisis continually weakens, and clearly offers no obvious solutions, political gravity is rapidly moving away from liberal orthodoxy. Prevailing norms and values are being questioned. The result is that the far-right have been able to play on rising anxieties and legitimate grievances by blaming the symptoms of crisis (such as the migration of people) rather than the system. This is driving a resurgence of authoritarian and imperial inpulses, but now in a new postmodern context of Big Data and techno-capital.
Mass violence and genocides invariably occur in the context of large-scale crisis. The crisis creates a psychological shock that induces people to lose faith and trust in the norms they previously took for granted. When coupled with the influx of extremist ideology that deliberately Otherises 'outsider' groups, this can quickly lead to dehumanisation and at worst, genocidal acts.
This can actually be tracked empirically. As we documented here at AoT previously, there is an apparent correlation from the 1960s/70s onwards between the decline in the global EROI of fossil fuels, the long-term rise in inflation, the declining rate of global economic growth, rising inequalities, the decline in support for centrist parties and the creeping rise in support for the extreme right.
Entering a liminal space of breakdown, revolution; destruction, renewal
There are two further things also happening which are critical to bear in mind. But I'll label them 3 and 4.
3. A new potentially post-materialist technological infrastructure is emerging which for the first time could enable a circular rather than extractivist economy. Every foundational sector of production across human civilisation is experiencing major disruption thanks to disruptive technologies. Whether in clean energy or AI, this is happening. Empirical projections show that the technological landscape of how we produce everything that is critical from energy, to food, to transport and information, is therefore going to change and faster than we've ever experienced in human history. Solar electricity for instance will dominate the energy system by 2050-60 regardless of climate policies. That's not a panacea because it's still way too slow to avoid dangerous climate change and the risk of amplifying feedbacks. But the point is that the system is changing. This is the material dimension of the seeds of the next life-cycle.
4. Our prevailing social organising systems, built to govern the old, declining order, can neither manage the emerging new system nor comprehend the demise of the old, and is being thoroughly disrupted as a result.There is an inflection point opening up as the incumbent fossil fuel centric infrastructure declines while a new technological infrastructure rapidly emerges within the centralised and hierarchical structures of the industrial governance paradigm. On the one hand, we have technologies rapidly scaling which, even while being seeded and developed within prevailing centralised structures of neoliberal capitalist power, are increasingly distributing the ability to produce energy and information for instance. The new technologies are more networked and work optimally in a participatory context. But that participatory context does not yet exist in prevailing social organising systems.This is turbocharging social, cultural and political chaos because our prevailing institutions and sense-making apparatus basically are not built to understand these things. They (and therefore we) are increasingly disoriented. Meanwhile the authoritarian push from techno-capital is seeking to reinforce old paradigm ownership and control structures to restrain the transformative and decentralising effects of the emerging system.
Despite that, a 2024 global survey of 22,000 people across G20 countries commissioned by Earth4All demonstrate that in spite of all this, there are huge majorities of people across both the North and South who are desperate for change, recognise the importance of an ecologically-conscious approach, and want economic transformation. While there is a shift toward the extreme right achieved through well-funded disinformation, this is attempting to undermine, dislocate and divide a seismic global cultural shift toward transformation.
💡
Majorities of the population in places as far apart as the US (69%), UK (70%), Argentina (66%), Indonesia (86%), and Saudi Arabia (61%) want their country’s economy to “prioritise the health and wellbeing of people and nature rather than focusing solely on profit and increasing wealth”. The Musk coup in the US is an attempt to liquidate the force of this popular shift, both in the US and beyond.
The risk is that is we move deeper into this release stage, this drives levels of social and ideological polarisation that accelerates conflict to a degree that paralyses existing governance institutions and decision-making, potentially derailing the possibility of a new life-cycle emerging.
As we’ve argued at AoT, and as my latest peer-reviewed paper shows, Holling's four stage mapping of the life-cycle of living systems is relevant on a civilisational scale – not just as a heuristic but as an empirically-grounded (though imperfect) reflection of the thermodynamics of energy and information as they move through the life-cycle of living systems at all scales.
Which suggests that everything that's happening right now is symptomatic of a movement through the third release/decline stage and the final/fourth reorganisation stage of industrial civilisation.
The death throes of the American empire
And this is why Trump's ascension matters. It's important to recognise firstly that Trump's ascension is not an isolated occurrence related solely to American politics. Rather it is part of a pattern rooted in the global systemic shifts described above, that is therefore whipsawing across the Western world.
Secondly, given the system dynamics driving this extreme radicalisation, it is obviously not going to be isolated to the West. Anyone outside the US looking on and thinking, ‘it can’t happen here’ needs to ditch that delusion. We are seeing this sort of polarisation deepening all over the world, and Musk has made little secret of the active measures already being deployed to destabilise the governments of the UK, Germany and France.
Thirdly, Trump's ascension is precisely the kind of thing that happens when incumbents don't understand, or care to understand, reality, and so double-down on the old and familiar in the search of certainty amidst rapidly escalating uncertainty. "Make America Great Again", the resort to genocidal coloniality in Gaza, the insistence on trade wars and brute force, the tearing down of (already flawed) democratic checks and balances, represent the kinds of overextension that imperial powers commit to to stave off collapse, but which invariably serve only to accelerate collapse.
Crisis is a major driver of the lurch to authoritarianism and militarism as a mechanism of control. And what’s clear is that for some time US and Western elites have disagreed over the causes and consequences of the deepening global crises we are currently experiencing. This disagreement has resulted in a real rupture whereby a new technology oligarchy with large scale control over major parts of global information systems is now spearheading a coup to takeover and dismantle the world’s most powerful democracy.
The point being that Trump's ascension and his "America First" agenda are obviously an effort to stave off the 'release' dynamics of the geopolitical order in which the US-dominated unipolar order is dramatically unravelling. But as planetary phase shift theory shows clearly, drawing on CS Holling’s adaptive cycle visible in living systems at all scales, you cannot ‘stave off’ the release stage. You can’t fight entropy. You need to be able to move through it and scale the emergence of the new.
What Trumpocracy 2.0 is doing is desperately attempting to maintain, consolidate and centralise prevailing hierarchical structures that are in decline. The ‘backsliding’ to authoritarian tools (ditching civil rights, relying on extreme tariffs) represents a resort to old practices associated with obsolete political orders which have already proven their inadequacy. Tariffs for instance worsened the Great Depression, cratered US trade relationships, reinforced the decline of global trade, and helped create the economic crisis conditions behind the Second World War and the rise of the Nazis in Germany.
Fourthly, then, the emergence of 'multipolarity' in itself offers no answers. Multipolarity is a concept born of the same industrial paradigm (it's simply the opposite of unipolar), and so is trapped by the same fundamental geopolitical strategies, interests and incentives of an unravelling inter-state system. Multipolarity in this context simply means that the previous hegemonic order policed by US and Western power is losing control. In its place, lesser powers will increasingly feel and believe they should compete by exerting similarly extreme nationalistic policies. The risk of an accelerating breakdown should not be underestimated. Trump is the fulcrum of this unfolding process.
The actions of Trump and the technology oligarchy that has enabled him could quite literally derail the transition to the next life cycle for humanity. I would emphasise that the Heritage Foundation, which launched his Project 2025 authoritarian control agenda to ramp up fossil fuels while destroying civil rights, is part of the Atlas Network of 500 odd extreme market think-tanks operating across some 100 countries. This is a global movement, and they are just getting started.
What next?
There is only one way forward, and that is through. There's no going back. We can't hope for a return to the 'normality' of what preceded Trump. The old order peaked around the 2000s and we’ve been on the ‘release’ curve downwards ever since. As the fourth and final stage of ‘reorganisation’ in our civilisational life-cycle increasingly opens up during this liminal moment, we need to build and educate at pace and at scale for the next life cycle.
It’s crucially important, as planetary phase shift theory makes unequivocally clear, to remember that the material and cultural potential of the next life cycle could be life-affirming, regenerative, joyous and prosperous in ways that were impossible for previous generations. This potential future that could benefit all humanity is endangered by the resurgence of Nazism in a new techno-utopian-fascist mould that conceals itself under the guise of anti-Nazism, whose end-point is economic, energy and ecological collapse.
It's time to stop pulling punches and recognise what is happening right now. This is the fight of our lives. It’s not just that the jackboots are back disguised as suede Oxford shoes, it’s that they might trample the last chance we have to solve our biggest global challenges by navigating to a new type of superabundant, regenerative ecological civilisation that works for all.
Faced with this apparent onslaught, the understandable temptation is to succumb to the saturation point of overwhelm – which is precisely the point of the information war currently being deployed. I get it. I feel it too.
The target is not simply our minds, but our central nervous systems, rewired through the reshaping of our brains via dopamine training designed to beat our ‘attention’ into a state of narrow subservience to the almighty algorithm. But there is no time or space to succumb to the despair and disorientation which is desired for us.
Instead, it’s time to move into our true power as agents of change, as harbingers of the next life-cycle, as individuals who stand for ethical values that truly connect us with the earth and with each other. The locus of this war is the dislocation of our collective sense-making abilities, fracturing institutions and disjointing coherent decision-making power.
These are the battle lines ahead:
A.     We need to understand the reality of what is happening right now and learn how to communicate that clearly so more and more people can begin to recognise that what is unfolding right now is literally seen by those behind it as a war, a network insurgency, against humanity and the earth. Their aim is to shore up the prevailing industrial paradigm against those who are moving for transformative change. We need to, in short, be able to understand the Alt Reich and its agenda.
B.     We need to understand the reality of the systemic shift toward an emerging new system that can harness new material capabilities in a new organising paradigm which is creating the possibility of superabundance. There is a viable, scientifically-defensible vision of a future which is worth fighting for, and which is achievable by scaling tools and ideas we already have. We need to become masters of communicating this exciting vision of what’s possible so that it can become a new centre of gravity that outweighs the dystopian destructive of the Alt Reich.
C.    We need to work in our own contexts to accelerate those levers - both material and cultural - that can supercharge the positive phase shifts to the next life-cycle and a new system. That means - taking action to accelerate key exponential technologies in a way that is regenerative and distributive, while also working to help create new ways of organising our institutions so that they optimise the former in alignment with the planet.
D.     We need to build our personal resilience and sense-making capabilities to become immune to the information war and to embody the values of the emerging earth-centric paradigm. This will be a different path for each of us. But the common denominator is that we have to lift our capacity to see and work with complexity.
E.      We need to stop allowing ourselves to become increasingly fragmented and atomised, and instead need to reach out across disciplinary, ideological and organisational boundaries to forge collective intelligence capacity. We need to create new bonds of coherence and cohesion, new cross-sector networks of seeing and action. This means we stop in-fighting over who is best at virtue signalling, and focus instead on identifying and acting on lines of collaboration. This includes proliferating new ways to reach out to and enfranchise those who disagree with us through the power of human connection and sharing.
F.      We need to upgrade our information projection capabilities and that means developing and honing new language that can resonate across political polarities, and utilising digital tools to supercharge our ideas so they can compete in this new landscape of memes and reels, and provide people, especially young people, with the tools and inspiration for the next life-cycle.
G. We need to stop being reactionary. That means going on the offensive. Instead of creating strategies of response to the death throes of the old paradigm, we need to focus on the strategies of empowerment and inspiration to fast-track awakening for the new paradigm, the new life-cycle, the next system. The former approach is always constrained by the rules of someone else's battleground (as I showed in this critique of XR). The latter approach is transcend that 'battleground' by targeting the biggest weak spots in the incumbency while maximising attention on the possibilities for a new system. We will struggle at first to absorb what this means, but we'll get there - it will not mean simply stopping what we're doing, but it will mean reorienting that in new modes and directions that refuse to conform to the expectations and boundaries established for us.
The antidote
The thing that we have on our side is this: the far-right agenda cannot succeed. By my last calculation the Trump-Musk economic planfor the US – if fully executed – would destroy some 25% of GDP for instance (when you take into account systemic cascading effects). This is without looking at the dire energy and climate implications. Trumpocracy 2.0, therefore, will fail. Every other movement around the world that seeks to replicate Trumocracy 2.0 in their nation and region will end up pursing a similar path of destruction.
In the meantime, people all over the world are going to need to know how they can hold the line. They are going to need to know how we can move through this time of chaos and regression while building and planting seeds for what comes when the Trumpocracy 2.0 crumbles.
There is ultimately only one antidote. That is to upgrade our ability to see and make decisions based on recognising the reality of the unfolding planetary phase shift; and to scale that new consciousness as far as wide as possible across our contexts and beyond.
We need to shift from the narrow, narcissistic, fragmented mode of consciousness that characterises the Alt Reich into a holistic systems awareness – what MIT's Otto Scharmer has describedas moving from “ego” awareness to “eco” awareness.
The more we are able to scale this consciousness and through that process forge new networks of connection and collaboration, the more we will accelerate the emergence of a new collective intelligence capacity across communities, nations, sectors and regions that the Alt Reich cannot conquer.
For too long, we've conceived of ourselves as 'the resistance' - outsiders ceaselessly reacting on a battleground created by those at the helm of the incumbent system. This is the wrong frame, and we have to let it go. Because we're watching the system fall on its own sword, and while this is going to be incredibly and tragically destructive for so many of us, it's the beginning of the end for the old paradigm.
We are not the resistance. We are the future. And we’re about to arrive.

And finally, I’d like you to consider Ted Trainer’s way of life and worldview.

One way or another, we will probably be living more simply. I’d love to see my village in Portugal return to a simpler way. Ted is a revolutionary after my own heart. Ted has lived it. One way or another, things are going to get simpler. Do we have what it takes to determine how this happens and what life will look l like when the changes have come?

Ted Trainer: Ted Trainer is an activist academic of the eco-anarchist persuasion. He worked as a professor at the University of New South Wales for decades while developing a demonstration settlement in a swamp outside Sydney. His work is not widely known, partly because he practices what he preaches and doesn’t travel. It gets a boost here from the Simplicity Institute. Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford have edited this collection of Trainer’s writing, drawn from articles, book excerpts, and journals, with an interview with the author at the end. Ted is my kind of revolutionary. But even so, we will have to fight, and many of us will make the ultimate sacrifice.

THE SIMPLER WAY

THIRD WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Ted Trainer

Long account; 23 pages.

26.2.2024

Summary:

Despite significant advances since World War II, the state of development in poor countries is very unsatisfactory. Around one billion people live in extreme poverty. More than 800 million do not get adequate food. The debt is huge and can never be repaid. About 3 billion people have an annual income of less than $2 per day. The development taking place has mostly benefited the rich countries and their corporations and the small upper classes in poor countries. Very little "trickles down" to the poorest; In fact recent reports say living standards. In the poor countries are now going down.he basic cause of the problem is the conventional approach to development theory and practice that is being followed. This focuses on promoting economic growth, investment and trade, and it allows market forces to allocate scarce resources and to determine what is developed. Markets inevitably work in the interests of the rich and never develop the things that are most needed. Resources go to those who can pay most, and investment goes into what’s most profitable, which is industries that provide what richer people want to buy.

Thus the conventional approach to development should be seen as a form of plunder. When development is defined as enabling as much business turnover and economic growth as possible then the focus will be on helping people with capital to invest to increase production for sale. This means resources mostly go into the most profitable developments, and therefore most wealth and resources flow to the rich while the poor majority lose the access to the resources they once had. Productive capacity becomes geared to producing for local elites and for export to the rich countries, and not to meeting the urgent needs of local people.

Rich world living standards could not be as high as they are if the global economy did not enable the rich countries to take most of the world's resources. Rich countries should cease taking far more than their fair share of the world's wealth, yet powerful global agencies such as the World Bank enforce adherence to conventional development, especially through the conditions they put on loans.

The "limits to growth" analysis is extremely important for the discussion of development, because it shows that the goal of conventional development for poor countries is impossible. There are not enough resources for all people to rise to rich world living standards and systems.

Appropriate development for the Third World contradicts conventional development. It focuses on enabling people to cooperate in using their local resources to meet their basic needs, immediately, mostly through self-sufficient village-level strategies. Its goal is good basic conditions for all, not affluence, industrialization or growth of GDP. It involves minimizing the role for market forces, foreign investment, trade, and involvement in the global economy. Many in peasant and tribal regions are now turning to this approach.

THE SITUATION

No issue sets more serious challenges to our affluent society and our economic system than does the situation of the poor countries. Considerable progress has been made in recent decades and the common assumption is that we should be content with the development taking place because in time it will lift all out of poverty and towards rich world “living standards”. However conventional development theory and practice are grossly unacceptable and must be abandoned.

The main concern is the inequality and injustice the conventional approach involves. The benefits of conventional development go mostly to the rich, the small elite classes in poor countries, the transnational corporations and the people who shop in rich world supermarkets. The important question to ask of a development strategy is how well does it work for those in most need. Most of the world’s people are getting very little from the development taking place, and Oxfam finds that conditions for poor countries are now deteriorating.

The inequality evident within the world economy is extreme. The richest 20% are getting around 86% of world income, while the poorest 20% are getting only about 1.3%. About half the world's people have an income of under $2 per day. At least 850 million people suffer chronic hunger. About 1.8 billion do not have safe drinking water. Thousands of children die every day from deprivation.

Far from progressing towards "self-sustaining, economic growth and prosperity”, poor countries have fallen into such levels of debt that few if any would now hold any hope of repayment. Meanwhile many Third World governments deprive their people and strip their forests more and more fiercely to raise the money to meet the debt repayments. The magnitude of the debt problem sets a major challenge to anyone who believes the conventional development strategy can lead poor coutries to prosperity.

But it is not the state of things that should be our major concern, it is the conception or model of “development” that is being followed. Following is discussion of the main faults.

1. GROWTH IS NOT DEVELOPMENT.

The first major fault in conventional development theory and practice is the identification of development with economic growth (or the assumption that growth is the means to development, or the main condition necessary for it, etc.) Conventional development theorists proceed as if all that matters is increasing the amount of economic activity, i.e., of business turnover, production for sale, or Gross Domestic Product. The claim is that the more goods and services produced and sold then the more “wealth” that is being generated, the more taxes governments can collect and spend on problems such as health, education and the environment and the more jobs and incomes people can have.

But development should be about improving all aspects of society, not just the GDP, including its political processes, cohesion, social relations, civility, artistic and cultural life, crime and corruption rates, security, care of old people, equality, and many other things.

Secondly even within the economic sector of society, development is not equivalent to growth. When a tadpole develops it does become bigger but it also changes its form; it becomes a frog and it then stops getting bigger, because it has then finished developing. Economists have no concept of what the end goal of development might be. They can only think about the economy endlessly becoming bigger, i.e., increasing the volume of sales for ever. But it makes no sense to discuss development without having some idea of what the goal, the end point, of development is.

The conventional economist has no concept of sufficient development, or when something has been developed enough. My kitchen has undergone almost no development in forty years; because it is developed enough. There are delightful eco-villages that are developed enough. The conventional economist also has no concept of over-development; just keep on adding freeways, skyscrapers…without any limit.

Worst of all, there is a head-on clash between what will maximise the GDP and what is appropriate. If maximising the GDP is your goal you will encourage local owners of capital and transnational corporations to put more land into export crops, even when it is obvious that most of the land should be growing more food for hungry people. But if the land was taken out of production of export crops and put into growing food for poor people that would reduce the GDP. In general doing what is best for people and the environment is the opposite of doing what will most increase the GDP. Prioritising growth interferes with, rules out, developing what is most needed.

Therefore we can state a most important economic law which never occurs to conventional economists never ... growth deprives! If you make the maximisation of growth of GNP your supreme development goal then you will enable the flow of development resources out of producing what is most needed and into the most profitable ventures. Yes some and maybe many will benefit, but the poorest will go backwards.

This can be put in terms of the assumed ”unidimensional” nature of development. It is thought of as capable only of varying along one dimension, to do with the amount of business turnover or production for sale and the associated levels of industrialization, trade, infrastructures etc. All nations can be lined up according to their GDP per capita, and development is assumed to be about moving up the slope towards the rich world end of the dimension.

But again there are many dimensions relevant to assessing development, and some are much more important than economic factors (security, community, peace, equality, quality of life, and environmental sustainability, for instance.) On almost all social criteria the US is at or nearly at the bottom of the list of OECD countries. (See Speth, 2012.) Many countries with miniscule GDP per capita rate far above rich western countries on quality of life indices. Cuba has a relatively low GDP per capita but is the best in the world on an overall measure of environmental impact in relation to GDP.

So there are several reasons why GDP should not be regarded as the, or an important index of development. We should list the factors that matter in order of priority, and design strategies to achieve them, and this will involve preventing a lot of development that people with capital want to pursue. People with capital to invest never maximise their income by producing what is most needed, such as food for poor peasants.

2. THE MARKET GURANTEES THAT THE POOR WILL BE DEPRIVED AND DEVELOPMENT WILL BE INAPPROPRIATE.

No principle is more fundamental in conventional development theory and practice than that maximum freedom should be given for market forces to determine what happens. This guarantees that the wrong things will happen.

The global economy is a market system and the three major effects of the market system on development are:

Market forces allow the relatively rich few to take most or all of the available resources.

The 20% of the world's people who live in the developed countries consume approximately 80% of the resources produced for sale, and their per capita resource consumption is approximately 17 times that of the poorest half of the world's people. For example, while possibly 850 million people lack sufficient food, which might require 40 millions tonnes of gain p.a. to remedy, over 600 million tonnes of grain are fed to animals in rich countries each year.

These extremely unfair distributions of the world's resource wealth come about primarily because it is an economic system in which rich countries are allowed to outbid poor countries to buy scarce things. If you allow the market to allocate scarce things like oil, when a few are rich and many are poor, then inevitably the rich will get most of them. The market has no concern whatsoever for what humans need or what is just or best for the environment. It will always distribute things according to "effective demand", which means that richer people and nations can take what they want and the poor must do without.

A MARKET ECONOMY IS AN INGENIOUS DEVICE WHICH ENSURES

THAT WHEN THINGS BECOME SCARCE ONLY THE RICH CAN GET THEM!

Market forces have mostly developed

the wrong industries in the Third World.

A great deal of development has taken place in the Third World; the trouble is that it has not been development of the most needed industries. It has been mostly the development of industries to provide crops, minerals and consumer goods for the small rich local elites or for export to the rich countries i.e., it has been inappropriate development.

Just consider the fact that millions of Third World people work hard producing things for other people, from which they derive very little benefit, in the form of very low wages. All that labour and all that land could have been fully devoted to meeting their own needs. Look at any typical capital city and you see a vast amount of development of offices, hotels, airports, boutiques, cars and roads...which is of little or no benefit to most people in the country.

But inappropriate development is precisely what should be expected when development resources are invested in what will make the highest profits or contribute most to GDP i.e., when profit and market forces are allowed to determine what is developed.

Much of the Third World's productive capacity has become geared to meeting the demand of the rich.

This is most evident in the case of export crops. In some poor countries half of the best land grows crops to export to the rich countries, including fodder for animals. Again this is a direct consequence of allowing the highest bid to determine the uses to which the Third World's productive capacity is put.

When Third World productive capacity is put into producing exports the people of the Third World receive only minute proportions of the wealth generated. For instance in Central America a 3000 ha cattle ranch might provide very low incomes for only two workers, yet that much land might feed 15,000 people if gardened intensively.

"In Senegal a subsidiary of the giant American transnational corporation Bud Antle "... has established huge irrigated 'garden plantations' on land from which peasants have been moved. These plantations produce vegetables in the winter and feed for livestock (for export) in the summer. None of this produce is eaten in Senegal."

"This process is occurring across all of North Africa. In Ethiopia in an area where thousands of people were evicted to make way for agribusiness and then starved to death, international firms are producing alfalfa to feed livestock in Japan.".

"In the Caribbean people starve beside fields growing tomatoes and flowers for export."

Beyond Brandt, Third World First pamphlet. p.4.

"Much of the protein wasted on the livestock eaten by the West comes from the poor countries; oilseeds and peanuts from West Africa, fishmeal from Peru, soybeans from Brazil..."

"Third World fodder... provides every tenth litre of milk and every tenth pound of meat produced in the EEC."

Again the core problem is not the lack of development; it is the inappropriateness of the development this economic system generates. So again, to allow market forces, the profit motive and the maximisation of economic growth to be the overwhelming determinants of development is to guarantee that resources will flow to richer people and mostly inappropriate development will result. Therefore conventional development can be seen as a process which draws Third World productive capacity into producing mostly for the benefit of the local rich classes, the transnational corporations and the consumers in rich countries.

Hickel (2021) estimates that the net flow of wealth from poor to rich countries every year is around $2.5 trillion.

The principle of freedom for market forces is exactly what the transnational corporations and local business classes want. They do not want any restriction on their freedom to go where they like and invest in and produce what they like and sell it where they like. Obviously the more rules a government sets and the more conditions it imposes restrict the freedom of corporations to maximise their profits. For instance, if they were obliged to invest where unemployment is high, or build low cost houses for poorer people, their profits would be less than they otherwise could be.

3. “PLUNGE INTO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY”.

“Export a lot in order to earn the money to pay for a lot of imports and infrastructures (and pay off your debt.) Compete against all others to sell something. Stimulate and assist the accumulation and investment of capital, for investment in new factories, farms and infrastructures. Seek loans and aid; capital is needed to build productive capacity. Attract foreign investors to set up firms.”

This makes the country highly dependent on conditions in the global economy. It is encouraged to rely heavily on the one or few exports it is best at producing, and when the global demand for these falls the economy can be devastated. The sensible alternative is of course to build national self-sufficiency, the country’s capacity to provide for itself the basic things it needs, while exporting only enough to pay for important imports it can’t produce for itself.

But that’s no good to the owners of capital or rich world supermarket shoppers; they benefit when poor countries have no choice but to sell a lot to rich countries and buy a lot from them. We can’t get access to their resources or their markets if they choose to keep out of the global economic system. But there’s no risk of that; they are so heavily indebted that they have no choice but to sell a lot to us to try to pay off their debt.

4. THE "TRICKLE DOWN" ASSUMPTION.

The basic justification for conventional development is that although it mostly enriches the rich, in time “…wealth will trickle down to benefit all.” There is indeed a tendency for this to happen, but this does not mean that the process is acceptable. There are strong reasons why the trickle down doctrine should be rejected.

Very little trickles down. In the world as a whole the amount of benefit that trickles down is evident in the fact that one-fifth of the world's people now get about 70 times the amount of world income the poorest one-fifth get, and the ratio is getting worse. Neoliberalism has greatly accelerated the accumulation of wealth by the super-rich.

Between 1990 and 2010 global consumption increased by $10 - $15 trillion, but 1% of people got 15% of it. The gain for each of them was 637 times as much as the gain for the poorest 53% of the world’s people.

Edward, P. and A. Summer, (2013), The geography of

Inequality: Where and how much has income distribution

changed since 1990?, Working Paper 341,

Centre for Global Development, Sept.

“But hasn’t poverty been greatly reduced?” It is commonly claimed and accepted that the conventional development has lifted hundreds of millions of Third World poor out of poverty. The conditions large numbers experience have indeed improved greatly, but the situation is complex and the overall effects are debated. Firstly there is the issue of the definition of the poverty line, commonly taken to be an income of $1.25 or $2 or $2.25 a day. This is an absurdly low figure. (The Australian 2016 single person line is $75 a day.) What income would a person in Thailand or Peru etc. need to not be experiencing poverty? The sum would be far higher than $2.50, meaning that the numbers experiencing serious hardship must be far greater than the official statistics indicate, and meaning that it is not much of a tribute to trickle down have lifted many above $2.50 over several decades.

Secondly the gains seem to have been made mostly been in China. Edward and Summer (2013) find that if Chinese figures are omitted then there has been little if any improvement in global inequality and poverty rates in recent decades. And China is not a very attractive example of development. China’s development is mostly benefiting a small proportion of its people, leaving perhaps 800 million in rural poverty. Inequality is “…appalling and getting worse.” (McRae, 2008.) (For a detailed and quite alarming account of China’s precarious situation see Smith, 2015.)

Neoliberal “development” also impoverishes; what are the net effects? Conventional/capitalist development creates a lot of poverty, mainly by depriving large numbers of poor people of resources and livelihoods they once had, including in rich countries (especially in the US, consider Detroit.) The removal of protection and subsidies allows foreign corporations to come in and take over markets and productive activity. Chinese broom exporters thrive, by taking the exports that lots of little broom makers in Mexico and Vietnam once had. Because governments define development as increasing the GDP they allow corporations to log forests and build dams and mines, pushing many tribal and peasant people off their ancestral lands. Fletcher (2016) quoting the U.N. Human Development Report says that in 2003, 54 nations were poorer than they had been in 1990, and Sub-Saharan Africa had a lower per capita income than 40 years before. (See also Hickel, 2016.) The poor in Third World countries that are most integrated into the global economy have fared worse than those in other countries. (Wodin and Lucas, p. 55, Meredith, 2005.)

Conventional economists typically enthuse about gains and benefits but ignore the losses and costs. It is not clear how big the net gains in income, employment and welfare have been but the above evidence on global poverty changes suggest that they have not been anywhere near as spectacular as is commonly claimed.

The rate of trickle down development is extremely slow. At present rates it would probably take more than a hundred years for the “living standards” of the poor majority in the Third World to rise to the present rich world level…and by that time at present growth rates rich world GDP per capita would have become astronomical…although that is ecologically impossible (see below.) Yet if the available resources could be applied directly by people to meeting their own needs rapid improvements would easily be achieved.

The “strategy” is grossly immoral, because it (claims to) improve the welfare of those in great need by enabling them to get crumbs from the tables of the rich, while almost all of the benefit of “development” goes to national elites, foreign corporations and rich world consumers. A development process should be evaluated primarily by how well it addresses the most urgent needs, that is, how well it benefits the poorest.

The alternative development model (below) indicates how quickly the main problems could be solved if the available resources were devoted to the needs of people in general. Compare what trickles down to factory workers in Bangladesh paid a few cents an hour with the benefit they would get if they were devoting their time and energy to producing basic goods they need in their own local cooperative firms and farms.

But outweighing all these considerations is the fact that the global resource situation will not permit Trickle Down to work. The “limits to growth” analysis shows that there are nowhere near enough resources for it to lift the expected 9.7 billion poor people to anything like rich world systems and levels of consumption. (See TSW: The Limits to Growth.)

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

According to the conventional view foreign investment is crucial to facilitate development, because development is thought of in terms of investing capital to increase production for sale. However the critical view is that although foreign investment certainly promotes development, the resulting development is almost entirely inappropriate.

Foreign investors never invest in the production of the most needed things, such as cheap food, clean water or simple housing. As has been explained, foreign investment always goes into the most profitable ventures, meaning into producing things for the urban rich or for export to rich countries and draws local land and productive capacity into these activities. Market forces can have no other outcome.

It is a mistake to think that foreign investment is essential because poor countries lack capital. Foreign investors often raise most of the capital they invest from Third World banks, meaning that there is plenty of capital in the Third World especially in relation to the relatively simple things that need developing.

Most importantly, it is a mistake to think that appropriate development can't take place without the investment of large amounts of capital. In fact little or no capital is needed to develop those things that would most enable modest but satisfactory living standards for all in a typical poor country. (See below.)

WHAT ABOUT AID?

In view of the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that aid (in its present form) is not very important. The solution to the development problem is "...not that we should give more, but that we should take less." In other words giving aid does not change the unjust functioning of the global economy.

The rich countries give very little aid, around 3 cents for every ten dollars they spend on themselves. Most of what they give is “tied”; i.e., given on condition that the money is spent buying from our corporations. Aid in some years has been around 10% of the amount the Third World has had to pay out to our banks as debt repayment (Shah, 2005). Much aid goes to assist nasty regimes that will keep their economies to the policies the rich countries want. (Consider the billions given to Saudi Arabia, one of the most nasty dictatorships in the world.) And now aid is often given on condition that countries accept certain arrangements...especially, you guessed it, moving their economies further to market principles.

Relatively little aid goes into appropriate development. Some forms of aid can be very valuable, and much of the work of the Non Government Agencies is going into appropriate development. But aid is relatively unimportant in view of the way the global economy treats poor countries, and has to be understood as another powerful tool that helps to keep to the kind of development that suits the rich.

GLOBALISATION

Since 1980 the situation of most of the poorest people in the Third World has deteriorated significantly due to the "globalisation" of the world economy and the rise of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and of Neoliberal doctrine to be extremely powerful agencies determining development.

Globalisation refers to the movement towards a unified and integrated world economy in which the big transnational corporations and banks have increasing freedom and access to trade and invest as they wish, because the barriers such as protection for industries in poor countries are being removed and governments are deregulating and privatizing their economies. The conventional economist sees globalisation as highly desirable, because the increased freedom of trade it facilitates enables more business activity and GDP growth. But it is having devastating effects on large numbers in the poor countries. Increased freedom of trade means greater scope for transnational corporations and banks to enter countries to get access to their resources and labour, to take over their firms and to take sales in their markets. It is now widely recognised as being responsible for the destruction of the economies, jobs and living standards of millions of people in rich as well as poor countries. It enables the corporations to focus investment and activity in the few most profitable regions of the world, and to ignore the rest. (… for instance, shift manufacturing jobs from Detroit to China.) Governments cannot direct development into needed areas, because that would be to" interfere with the freedom of trade and enterprise". Avoiding that is the supreme and sacred principle in Neoliberal doctrine.

One consequence of this agenda is that poor people in general and some entire countries, especially in Africa and the Pacific, are increasingly irrelevant to the interests of the corporations and will therefore sink further into stagnation and squalor. They cannot possibly compete in export markets and they have no cheap resources to attract foreign investors. Consequently inequality, great wealth accompanied by great poverty, is rapidly increasing around the world now.

Alternative/appropriate development is not possible unless governments have the capacity to control and regulate the economy, trade, foreign investment etc. For example, they must be able to get foreign investors to locate in regions that need jobs. Yet globalisation is about leaving development to market forces, which in effect means development will only be development of whatever it suits the corporations to develop. Rich countries and their agencies such as the World Bank, actively prevent the governments of poor countries from taking control of their own development.

THE STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PACKAGES

The most powerful forces inflicting these "developments" on poor countries over the last 40 years have come via the Structural Adjustment Packages of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

When a Third World country's debts become impossible for it to repay it must go to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for assistance. These agencies arrange for more loans to enable debt repayments to be made, but they do so on condition that a Structural Adjustment Package is accepted. This package obliges the country to do a number of things that are supposed to improve the economy, such as cut government spending including assistance to poor people, open the economy to more foreign investment, increase exports (more plantations and logging), devalue (making exports from them to us in rich countries cheaper to buy, and making the country pay more for the imports from us), reduce government regulation, reduce government ownership and control and generally increase adoption of free trade policies.

These conditions are supposed to be designed to "get the economy going again", i.e., to increase business activity, investment, export earnings, and to reduce government spending, so that the country becomes more able to pay back its debt. There is much evidence that these measures typically have little or no effect in achieving these objectives.

More importantly, the packages are a delightful bonanza for the rich countries and their corporations and banks. Impediments to their access to resources and markets are removed, they can buy up the firms that go bankrupt, they can hire cheaper labour, they can import commodities more cheaply from the country (because of the devaluation). And SAPs force repayments to rich world banks. However the effects on the country's economy and on its poor majority are typically catastrophic. Many small firms fail as imports flood in, unemployment jumps, government assistance to the poor is reduced and food prices rise. Any move to devote more of the country’s resources to producing to meet its own needs is ruled out ... resources must first go towards paying off the debt, and the overriding principle is that development must be determined by market forces within the global economy.

For decades there has been a great deal of criticism of Structural Adjustment Packages, which have now been imposed on more than 100 countries (...never on any of the rich countries of course; the USA is the world's most heavily indebted country but would never have a SAP imposed on it!) They have caused or contributed to havoc in many countries, including riots, civil wars (Yugoslavia, Rwanda; see Chossudowsky, 1997) and increased death rates from deprivation, and the fall of governments (e.g., Indonesia.) SAPs and the rules of the World Trade Organisation are now widely recognised as among the main mechanisms ensuring that the global economy functions in the interests of the big corporations and banks and the rich world. (For extensive documentation see TSW: Third World Development, Collected Documents, and TSW: Globalisation, Collected Documents.)

CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS THEREFORE A FORM OF PLUNDER

Conventional development can be seen as a process whereby the Third World's resources are taken over by the rich countries and their corporations, and Third World productive capacity is geared to rich world demand. Long ago Third World countries had control over their own forests and lands and ordinary people were able to use most of them to produce what they needed. But the result of conventional development is that these resources have come to be owned by, sold to, or produce for, the benefit of the small local rich classes, the transnational corporations and consumers in rich countries. The work is done by the few who get jobs in the factories and plantations, for very low wages. Conventional development involves bringing people into the global market, where they must sell something in order to buy what they need, and where market forces then ensure that the majority of very poor people get very few of the resources available, have to sell their resources and labour cheaply, and see their land and forests bought by rich people and put into the production of items for others to use. These are inevitable outcomes when development is allowed to be determined by market forces; it is always more profitable to sell to or produce for richer people. The market never attends to what poor people need.

This situation has been understood for a long time; e.g., Goldsmith discussed "development as colonialism". (Goldsmith, 1997.) Rist says, "...development has resulted in material and cultural expropriation." (Rist, 1997, p.. 243.) Schwarz and Schwarz say "Development now seems little more than a window dressing for economic colonialism." (1998, p. 3.) Chossudowsky's The Globalisation of Poverty (1997) details the mechanisms, especially in relation to finance. These are just a few of the earlier works documenting the way in which conventional development is a form of legitimized plunder. (See TSW: Third World Collected Documents.)

CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUITS LOCAL ELITES.

Appropriate development contradicts the interests of the small rich ruling classes in poor countries. The present situation is not kept in place solely by the machinations of rich world corporations and governments. Local elites have access to lucrative investment opportunities such as mines and export plantations. So any move to transfer land to facilitate village development etc. is usually strenuously resisted. It is likely to be branded as communist subversion and rich countries are then usually eager to provide military support to crush it ... because their corporations don’t want their plantatioss to be threatened. This is the history of Latin America; see the account of Our Empire.

A NOTE ON “EXCHANGE” AND MARXIST THEORIES.

The general ”Unequal Exchange” theory of underdevelopment can be criticized for adopting the conventional “unidimensional” view of development. It is concerned with the loss of monetary wealth from Third World countries via trade conditions which involve unequal exchange. This is claimed to hinder development, which is defined in terms of GDP. But this fails to recognize that the core problem is that the wrong things are being developed. It would in fact be possible for appropriate development to be taking place even though large amounts of money are being siphoned out. (Consider for instance the Zapatistas.)

Marxists typically not only reveal adoption of the conventional definition of development as moving towards rich world industrialisation and consumerism, but have actually insist that capitalist development is necessary in poor countries before conditions enabling revolutionary transition to a post-capitalist society “mature”. (Some Marxists now recognize that the Limits to Growth issue rules out the old view. It is interesting that late in his life Marx entertained the possibility of a totally different transition path, which corresponds to the alternative being argued for below, i.e., directly enabling the model of the Russian traditional collective village, the Mir.)

THE UNJUST GLOBAL ECONOMY ENABLES RICH WORLD LIVING STANDARDS

The living standards we enjoy in rich countries such as Australia benefit greatly from the way the global economy works. The global market system and the freedom of trade the corporations enjoy deliver most of the world's resources to us and draw the Third World's productive capacity into producing mostly for our benefit. What would our tea and coffee cost if those who produced them were paid a decent wage, or if much of the land growing coffee was put into growing food for them?

Again the basic mechanism is simply the fact that the economy operates on market principles. In this kind of economy resources and goods go to those who can pay most for them – that’s why the rich get most of them. They are not distributed according to needs or rights.

To be more precise, there are three main groups who benefit from the way the global economy works. The transnational corporations and banks are by far the biggest beneficiaries. The second group includes the small “comprador” richer classes in the Third World who own some of the factories and plantations or have highly paid jobs. It is in their interests to support the unjust economy and to cooperate with the transnational corporations and the rich countries to keep conventional economic and development policies in place. The Third group of beneficiaries includes the ordinary people who live in rich countries because they get far more than a fair share of world resources and they can go to the supermarket and buy many things produced cheaply from Third World resources.

In other words, we have an empire and we could not have such high "living standards” without it. If you doubt this, think how well you would live if you got only your fair share of the world's oil production, or copper or fish, and what would your coffee cost if most of the land producing it now was devoted to food instead?

YOUR EMPIRE CANNOT BE KEPT IN PLACE WITHOUT REPRESSION.

The injustice and exploitation is mainly due to the normal working of the global economy, because market forces automatically enrich the rich and deprive the poor. However people do not like being deprived, hungry and exploited. From time to time they tend to protest. In many countries people can only be kept working in the mines, plantations and sweatshops for starvation wages through violent repression.

The repression is inflicted willingly by the local ruling classes who benefit most from the situation, but often rich countries give arms, training and other assistance that is used to put down dissent, or assist rebels undermining a non-compliant regime, and often rich countries invade to install or get rid of rulers who are not ruling in ways that benefit. us.

The history of international relations has always been mostly about struggles between nations to dominate – to get their hands on the wealth of others, by stealth or force, to make others accept conditions that suit the strongest. Over the last 500 years the Spanish, Dutch, British and Americans have taken turns to run the world to benefit themselves, at immense cost to peasants and native people. They have slaughtered and plundered and conquered empires, killing and enslaving millions. The British empire included about 70% of the planet and took over 70 wars to establish. Many wars arose from the efforts of the French and the Germans to get into the imperial game. In the last 50 years the Americans have invaded many countries and supported many dictators to maintain their empire. The point of all this is of course to make sure we can get the resources of other countries, usually by putting or keeping in place regimes willing to allow their country’s fate to be determined by market forces. Several decades ago there were many “nationalist” governments, e.g., those of Nasser in Egypt and Tito in Yugoslavia, which tried to make sure national resources were used primarily for the benefit of their people (…not that they were pure and without corruption), but now just about all of these have been overthrown and replaced by governments willing or forced to play by Neoliberal rules.

Whole nations, not just their ruling classes, contribute to the economic or military conquest of weaker nations, and take pride in their empires. The average Briton would surely have agreed that you should not harm others or steal from them, while at the very same time seeing no contradiction in their fierce pride in the glorious British Empire – which was the result of brutal slaughter and conquest and exploitation of hundreds of millions of people, leaving many serious problems which are still causing immense cost in lives and resources (such as the Palestine – Israel conflict.)

The mentality is still there; the mindless ease with which corporations and governments automatically seek to beat others to resources, wealth and markets, and the unquestioning acquiescence of rich world people who are happy to purchase the tea and coffee and rubber and cheap clothing without any thought about where they are coming from.

(For a detailed 27 page summary of the vast literature documenting these themes see Our Empire; Its Nature and Maintenance,

THE LIMITS TO GROWTH PERSPECTIVE; OVERLOOKED IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

It is remarkable that the development literature has given so little attention to the "limits to growth" analysis of our global predicament. This shows that it will be totally impossible for all people to rise to anything like the material “living standards” presently enjoyed by the 1/5 of the world’s people who live in rich countries, let alone the standards we aspire to. These have to be seen as the over-developed countries while the rest are the never-to-be-developed countries. (For detailed analysis see TSW: The Limits to Growth.)

This "limits to growth” perspective requires the total rejection of any view of development which assumes growth and trickle down, or which takes Western affluent living standards as the goal of development.

Sensible development theory and practice must therefore be based on acceptance of the point Gandhi expressed long ago …

THE RICH MUST LIVE MORE SIMPLY

SO THAT THE POOR MAY SIMPLY LIVE.

This means that an acceptable approach to development has to be framed in terms of The Simpler Way; that is, focused on providing a high quality of life for all in ways that involve only very low levels of production, consumption and resource use/.

ALTERNATIVE, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT ...THE SIMPLER WAY.

The following basic principles flatly contradict conventional development theory.

1. Enable people to immediately begin applying the existing resources and productive capacity to producing the mostly simple things that are most needed to give them the highest possible quality of life at the least cost in labour, resources and environmental impact. Most if not all Third World regions have all the resources they need to build the basic structures and systems which would provide a high quality of life to all in a few years at most, via relatively simple technologies, lifestyles and systems.

The concern should be to ensure that all people have basic but adequate shelter, food, health services, extensive and supportive community, security, leisure-rich environments, peace of mind, a relaxed pace, worthwhile work, a sustainable environment, and access to a rich cultural life. Achieving these goals is possible with little or no foreign investment, trade, heavy industrialisation, aid, external expert advice or sophisticated technology and with little or no capital. Little more is required than access to and cooperative organization of the land, labour and traditional building and gardening skills the people usually have. Conventional/capitalist development prevents that access.

In other words Appropriate development emphatically rejects any notion of trickle down development. If the available labour and resources are applied fully and immediately to producing what people need the benefit to them will be huge in comparison with what they could ever hope to receive via any trickle down mechanism.

The study TSW: Remaking Settlements… details the case that in rich world city suburbs it might be possible to reduce resource costs by 90%, and it would be far easier to organize The Simpler Way in villages in poor countries.

2. Priority must be put on cooperation, participation and collective arrangements and effort. People must organise and contribute to town meetings, working bees, cooperatives, commons, and town banks. Villagers govern themselves, researching, planning, deciding development action via thoroughly participatory procedures. State governments must facilitate and support this level, especially by gearing the national economy to providing villages and towns with the relatively few and simple basic inputs they need, such as chicken wire.

Thus, reject the absurd conventional economic assumption that the best for all results if individuals compete against each other pursuing their self-interest and trying to get rich in free markets. In a satisfactory economy there could be much freedom for individuals, many small private firms, and a place for market forces (under careful social control), but you cannot expect to have a satisfactory society unless the top priority is what is best for all, unless the main institutions and procedures are basically cooperative and collective, and unless there is considerable control and regulation of the economy for the public good. Thus it is important to develop shared facilities, village commons, working bees, community workshops, committees, cooperatives, decisions by village assemblies, and to encourage giving and sharing, volunteering, helping, civic responsibility and social cohesion.

3. Very simple material living standards must be happily accepted. Affluence and rich world living standards must be rejected as impossible for all to have. This does not mean there must be deprivation or hardship. The goal of development cannot be to rise to rich world affluent living standards; it must be material sufficiency on the lowest viable levels of per capita resource consumption for convenience and a good quality of life. Most things will be produced much less "efficiently" than the transnational corporations can produce them. "Living standards" and GDP per capita will be far lower than they are in the rich countries. But these things are not important for a high quality of life or an admirable society.

4. Local economic self-sufficiency is the key to appropriate development. Most of the goods and services used by people must be produced in and very close to the towns and suburbs they live in, by local people using local resources in local firms. Therefore mostly develop small, simple firms and industries serving villages close by, exporting only small quantities of surpluses in order to be able to import small quantities of necessities. Very little heavy industry, or transport or high-rise buildings etc., are needed. Within villages develop many commons and cooperatives, to produce for example poultry, fish, fruit and nuts, wood, free food. Set up committees, R and D groups, working bees, town meetings, and especially leisure and culture committees.

5. Capital and sophisticated technology are of little importance for appropriate development. It is a serious mistake to assume that development cannot take place without large volumes of capital to invest or without modern technology. A well developed village or region can be achieved with little more than traditional hand tool technology which can make highly satisfactory houses, dams, clothing and gardens. People can get together in voluntary working bees to build the dwellings, firms, clinics, stores, premises, gardens, small dams, workshops and leisure facilities their community needs, using mostly local materials such as earth and timber.

6. Have as little as possible to do with corporations, banks, loans and debt, or the global economy. They want you locked into having to sell a lot to them so you can buy a lot from them. They are out to get your resources and to have you working mostly for their benefit. You need little from them. Borrow very little if anything. Export just enough to import necessities. Allow foreign investors in only if they will produce necessities on your terms. Of course you need to import some relatively few modern items such as radios and medicines, so export only enough to pay for these.

7. Social and ecological goals must take priority over economic goals. Development decisions must be based on considerations of social need, morality, justice, rights, tradition, social cohesion and ecological sustainability. No attention whatsoever should be paid to the GDP. Whether it increases or falls is irrelevant. What matters is whether the quality of life, economic security, social cohesion and ecological sustainability are satisfactory. In fact, if appropriate development strategies are adopted this will in general reduce the GDP (e.g., by taking land out of export cropping and making it available to villagers.) In a well-developed Thailand there would be far less work, production, consumption and GDP than there is now! Develop a wide range of measures of important factors such as the quality of life, social cohesion, social problems, and especially ecological sustainability. (Bhutan measures Gross National Happiness.)

Crucial development goals will include, a livelihood for everyone, no unemployment or poverty, a relaxed pace, and freedom from stress and depression, security from deprivation or unemployment or neglect in old age, a beautiful landscape, all having a sense of empowerment knowing that they are in control of their local economy.

8. Governments must do as much regulating, controlling, subsidizing, planning and controlling of the economy as is necessary to enable these goals. National governments should prioritise the industries and infrastructures most likely to provide basic necessities to local economies. They should phase out or prevent many industries that are wasteful or producing luxuries for the rich. They should distribute mostly light industries across the rural landscape, so that all villages can earn small export incomes to pay for the few necessary imports.

All this is of course anathema to Neoliberal/capitalist ideology. It would severely reduce the freedom the rich have to develop the ventures that are most profitable and enable them to get hold of resources and markets. It is “… interfering with the sacred freedom of trade … it is socialism”.

It should not need to be said that the best known forms of socialism are undesirable. The goal must be a highly participatory democratic form whereby people can vote directly on policies, have full access to information, have the power to dismiss officials, and use participatory village democracy to make development decisions.

Also it is only necessary for there to be sufficient social control to ensure that development goals are being met. I you wish to leave the rest of the economy to free market principles you can do that.

9. Think in terms of slowly initiating and elaborating the new, appropriate approach as a new Needs-Deriuven Economy underneath the old conventional economy. At first a few ordinary people come together to organize the provision of some neglected basic goods and services, such as poultry co-ops or aged care rosters. The longer term goal is to largely replace the old economy., but there will always be some, relatively few, items that must be ”imported” to the village, such as chicken wire and polypipe for irrigation.

10. What about high-tech, industrial items, especially health equipment and pharmaceutical items? Some quantities of such things will always have to be “imported” into villages, regions and nations, but relatively few. The focus must be to export from the village small quantities of some things needed in the wider regional or national economy in order to earn just enough to import necessities that cannot be produced locally. National governments should distribute the export factories so that all villages can contribute to meeting the national need while earning the funds to import. This will require considerable planning, coordination and adjustment at levels above the village.

9. Preserve and restore cultural traditions. Do not assume that you must "modernise" and therefore adopt Western consumer culture.

10. Nothing is more important than the understanding of “development” that people have. It is crucial that people be helped to see that conventional/capitalist theory and practice is an ideology legitimising plunder and should be dumped, and to see that the kind of alternative outlined here is the one to be adopted. It is distressing that billions of people have no idea that there can be anything other than the conventional model which locks them into continued poverty and deprivation waiting for trickle down when they could be developing relatively simple systems that would quickly enable them to have far better conditions.

Examples underway.

These kinds of principles are being applied in many places around the world, for example,

The Zapatistas in Mexico have been able to prevent the government from controlling their region and are building and running their own systems aimed at preserving traditional values and ways.
The Via Campesino movement is another peasant based initiative, with an estimated 200 million people involved around the world.
The Chikukwa movement in Zimbabwe. (
The Catalan Integral Cooperative in Spain is building an inspiring example of self governing collective localism.
The Global Eco-village Movement now involves thousands in rich and poor countries, building communities that are not driven by the conventional development model.
Voluntary Simplicity, Downshifting and Transition Towns movements are concerned to increase local development .

What would satisfactory development provide?

Good food: All easily grown in home gardens, village commons, community gardens and small local farms.

Good housing; All easily and quickly provided in the form of small (and beautiful) earth built dwellings, at extremely low dollar cost. See TSW Housing.

Clothing and footwear, furniture, appliances: Mostly simple, cheap and durable, from home crafts and local small firms.

Services: Many that do not require high tech skills, such as child minding, care of aged, simple health care, and basic education, can be organized by ordinary people. Add care of commons, the orchards, forests and ponds. Almost all functions carried out by (distant, expensive, authoritarian) councils, such as road maintenance, maintenance of water and sewer systems (in small and low-tech villages) can be provided by voluntary committees and community working bees.

Leisure and entertainment; Abundant, varied, rich and free sources can be organized by village leisure and culture committees, including concerts, hobbies, games, adventure outings, festivals, visiting minstrels, study groups, craft activities, gardening clubs, cultural traditional activities… Boredom is inexcusable.

A livelihood for everyone: …a role in providing what others need, enabling self respect, an interesting productive activity, being respected and appreciated.

Security; …from unemployment and poverty … the security of knowing that people around you are concerned about your welfare, knowing that the security of each depends on the

Cohesion, solidarity, sense of empowerment, community bonds, good morale…: all will be automatically reinforced in village where people are working together to provide for each other. A climate of mutual care and support, public spirit and concern for the welfare of the village, pride in the fact that no one is poor or disadvantaged and that we look after each other.

------

More than this would be needed, such as access to professional health care, but this list would provide all with a high quality of life at very low dollar cost and no dependence on banks, corporations or the global economy.

CONCLUSION

This contradiction between conceptions of development is extremely disturbing. Billions of people struggle to survive in dreadful conditions, having to work hard or put up with unemployment and worry about poverty and insecurity, …when all of that could be easily avoided. It would be very easy to enable ordinary people to put the resources they have around them and their own labour and skills into creating the simple industries and systems that would meet their basic needs. The problem cannot be fixed until and unless the present “development” model is scrapped and the rich stop hogging far more than their fair share of scarce global resource. But appropriate development would obviously be a disaster for the rich.

Consider those who must suffer the indignity, boredom and danger of begging all day, or trying to sell a few boxes of matches or shine a few shoes to be able to feed their families…or those who have to sell drugs, or steal, or the lucky ones who have jobs in dreadful condition. Consider the conflicts over water and land due to desperate struggles to get enough to live on, while tonnes of fodder are air-freighted out to rich world feedlots. Consider the international conflicts, the wars generated by nations trying to get control over the quantities of resources needed to provide their consumers with their affluent “living standards”. None of this can be fixed unless and until the goal of development becomes some kind of simpler way.

Consider the greenhouse problem as billions more Chinese and Indians scramble for development conventionally defined. Would so many steal, kill Rhinos for their horns, run drugs, burn forests, become pirates or mercenaries … if they had secure jobs in thriving village economies. Most of the world’s troubles can be attributed to the tragic adoption of a definition of development that cannot be sustainable, just … or achievable for all.

------------

Bornschier, V., et al., (1978), "Cross national evidence of the effects of foreign investment and aid on economic growth and inequality; A survey of findings and reanalysis," American Journal of Sociology, 84, 3, Nov., 651-683.

Chossudovsky, M., (1997), The Globalisation of Poverty, London, Zed Books.

Fletcher,I., (2016), “No, Free Trade Didn’t Lift Millions Out of Poverty”,

Feb. 05, Huffington Post.

Goldsmith, E., (1997), "Development as colonialism", in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith, The Case Against the Global Economy, San Francisco, Sierra.

Hickel, J. D., (2021), “Rich countries drained $152 Tn from the global south since 1960”, Aljazera, 6th May.

McRae, H., (“Creative destruction: The madness of the global economy”,

Meredith, M., (2005), The Fate of Africa, Oxford, UK., OUP.

Rist, G., (1997), The History of Development, London, Zed Books.

Shah, A., (2005), The Scale of the Debt Crisis, Global Issues. Saturday, July 2.

Speth, G., (2012), “America the Possible”, Orion Magazine, https://orionmagazine.org/article/america-the-possible/

Smith, R., (2015), China’s communist-capitalist ecological apocalypse”, Real-world Economic Review, 71.

TSW: Remaking Settlements. http://thesimplerway.info/RemakingSettlements.htm

TSW: Third World Development, Collected Documents. http://thesimplerway.info/DocsTHIRDWORLD.html

TSW: Globalisation, Collected Documents. http://thesimplerway.info/DocsGLOBall.htm

TSW: Our Empire; Its Nature and Maintenance, http://thesimplerway.info/OUREMPIRE.htm

TSW: The Limits to Growth, http://thesimplerway.info/LIMITS.htm)

In light of all of this, why are we still talking? Having the conversation isn’t good enough. We must step up, educate ourselves, and ensure the ruling elites understand the stakes of The Great Game. We must rethink, restructure, and redesign the systems we take for granted. Are you ready? If not, get to work and prepare for a future that looks nothing like life after WWII. Heaven can wait.

Become Aware Of It, Pay Attention To It. Read About It, Learn About It, Write About It, Talk About It. Teach It.

Reflections upon anything under the sun and beyond. It may not be easy to be a Global Citizen, but it's not hard to engage the Globe.

So what’s the problem?

Let me convince you that we must act to solve persistent destructive problems emerging from near-universal behaviors and beliefs.

Things would be better if only those other people would come to our side.

Assumptions:

We have the knowledge and the tools to do better.

Why aren’t you a revolutionary? Maybe you think things are good the way they are or that revolution is violent and destructive, and you want no part of it. Think about it and answer the question for yourself.

Let’s explore the potential for a revolutionary 21st-century Revolution.

REVOLUTION

noun

OK, so why revolt? Do we want a revolutionary new socioeconomic system and culture focused on maintaining health and habitability within the limits and potentialities of our biosphere?

We are not consumers; we are not isolated individuals; we are social animals dependent on living systems. A healthy life begets a healthy life.

The purpose and results of inquiry, industry, and creativity make them “good” or “bad.”

What’s the core problem?

“We’ve got problems, and I know all about them and want you to know, too!” —Concerned Citizen

Message to Congress

Global economic growth and development have been strident for hundreds of years with many positive outcomes, yet people sense something is wrong.

What does it mean to be rich or poor?

Multinationals, Wages, and Working Conditions in Developing Countries

Political Influence

A handful of wealthy donors dominate electoral giving and spending in the United States. We need limits on campaign finance, transparency, effective enforcement of these rules, and public financing. But even if we did this, it would only prolong the inevitable dissolution of civilization.

Welcome once again to oligarchic chaos and the oligarchy is global.

Technological Control

We need free agency to make our world more equitable and healthy. How should we use “Big Data?” Who decides?

“You won’t get my vote or support, and we will boycott your corporate donors if they dismiss our concerns!” —Janice or Joe Q. Concerned Citizen

What's the cost-benefit calculation?

Externalities? What externalities?

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” —George Carlin

Abstract

Coercive Forces

Fragmentation and Distraction

What if we are pushed too far?

The Sun Also Rises, one character asks, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways: gradually, then suddenly.”

Read history. His stories about his wars.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” —Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831

How can we avoid a deadly and destructive crash? (Your thoughts?)

Think of all the “Dirty Jobs.”

Besides, the billionaires and philanthropists will take care of us.

Let’s continue to contextualize our current situation. Later, we will explore positive and peaceful ways we might want to employ to change things.

Maintaining Earth systems for habitual posterity through a global revolution will require phenomenal wisdom, intelligence, imagination, and creativity. Has our social system in the West or elsewhere produced such people?

You can dress up old ideas, but what’s your actual agenda? Tell me exactly how a world based on your political philosophy works and who benefits most.

He’s rich. He’s famous!

Too much talk, no action.

Where are our martyrs?

Jesus died for our sins—enough said!?

“Profits First!” said the Prophet.

“Well, what are YOU going to do about it?” —Bob & Betty Higher Virtue

Most folks get whipped out once, and that’s it.

Over the past five hundred years, we have experienced a variety of ways of organizing communities and power structures.

OVERSHOOT | Shrink Toward Abundance

Cyclical Theories of History and Societal Collapse

Asabiyya

No shyte, sheer luck!

The Great Game: activities that impart social status and reward Players who control various resources.

How much agency do we have in the face of cultural influences? Are your thoughts your own?

So you say you want a revolution.

METHOD 2, Finding Followers

METHOD 3, Spreading the Message

METHOD 4, Choosing a Strategy

Let's explore some of history's well-known revolutions, starting from the ancient world and moving toward modern times.

Ancient Revolutions

Classical & Medieval Revolutions

Early Modern Revolutions

Modern Revolutions

20th Century Revolutions

American business interests kill revolutionary movements.

What Kind Of Revolution?

Please learn from Sharp’s vast body of work:

Have a look at the SESHAT Global History Databank.

So what do you think?

Are you a true believer?

I know too many want-to-be armchair, AI-goggled heroes who are weak and childish that ascribe to the Great Man of History narrative and that killing and being killed in wars is a noble and spiritual ideal. Idiots!

How much suffering can we tolerate?

Start with universal values that protect living systems and public health. Can I get a witness?

You Will Be Heroes

You have ideas. You have willpower!

Life begets life; if we don't respect ecology and the biosphere, we will disappear from Earth sooner than later.

Change requires courage.

Look at a short list of people with the right priorities.