Today the planet is being torn apart with everyone being pushed to extremes. But what are those extremes?

We thought we saw them as a child: what I want vs what I don't want.

We got a little a older and thought the extremes were as simple as freedom vs parents. Those who respected their parents thought it was my friends and family vs yours.

We eventually became legal adults and found out that the world was much more connected. Our extremes seemed further away: My race vs yours, my neighborhood vs yours, my company vs yours, my country vs yours.

We grew a little older and became responsible adults. We started to get involved, trying to make a difference. Some tried to eliminate their opponents. Others tried to win over their opponents. We thought we knew the extremes then: my style of government vs your style of government, my political party vs yours, my educational background vs yours, my religion vs yours. These are extremes that cover the entire "people spectrum." What more could there be?

What we all missed is that we were even more connected than we thought. Our extremes were even further apart than what we could imagine. The "people spectrum" isn't the entire spectrum. So what is?

As far as I can see, the universe is the entire spectrum. But since we are all confined to this planet as of now, I will only point out extremes on this planet:

On one end there is Green, meaning the earth, it's ability to sustain human life, and it's nature that doesn't appear to be in stronger opposition of the human population than the reverse.

On the other end is also Green. That's the Artificially Intelligent Machine we've created for the purpose of communicating measures of wealth. The trouble is, wealth has a mind of it's own. This wealth cares about NOTHING but more wealth. The wealth will attempt to exchange the planet it was borne on for more wealth. This Green is the institution of currency. Never in human history has so many diverse organizations been bound by it, yet corrupted by it at the same time.

So at the extreme ends of the human spectrum are two gravitational forces pulling everyone and everything in between the Greens towards one end or the other. Which Green do you want to end up with?

I'll take the green of our ancestors and our earth, Bill

This is right-on bill. Everyone wants money. It's a security issue I think.

I think of the evil green as a shark, with cold, dead eyes (thank you, Quint) that ceaselessly ranges the ocean, looking for prey on which to feed.

Nice post, Bill.

But it wasn't always this way or was it? And if it always was, to borrow Peg's metaphor, how and why did the Shark become so ravenous?

Bill?

Considering the original purpose of currency, I would say that it wasn't always this way. Originally, money was just an easy way to trade goods and services.

The shark was born ravenous. The question is, when was the shark born?

I say the shark (the artificial intelligence of money) was born the first day humans began to see money as the source of power instead of just a way to communicate.

In other words, money is not the answer. Money only translates answers from one language to another. When people treat money as the answer, they give money a mind of it's own.

I raised my children by trade and barter with friends and neighbors.
I would choose a world that is evolving with evolution improving us.
The money green world belongs to those who say green money is keen and the more you have the more you are.
Diamonds covered with blood or blood diamonds is a good way of describing the needs of greed.
By the way I have never seen a poor minister on TV?

Money is misunderstood in my opinion. It was supposed to be a symbol of work or human effort. Seen that way it represents a kind of "devine energy" (as much as you believe that we are part of the devine). If we are a part of "God" or the "Supreme Spirit" then all we do is devine in some fashion. I know that many will disagree given our horrendous record of mistreatment of each other, but I am talking about our essense.

Look at it this way. Karma represents an energy of action and reaction. Human energy. What we do, and what we accumulate is the first action. It can be seen as stored energy, like when we carry a stone up a hill. If we drop the stone over a cliff it has the stored kinetic energy we accumulated by carrying it up the hill. If we trade that Kinetic or stored energy in the form of barter or it's representation "money" it is an act of trading Karma.

When we developed systems of Money we are trading Karma. One person's Karmic energy for another persons'. It was at least close to equal, because someone who traded a chicken they raised for a blanket someone wove were trading something like an equal amount of effort or "work".

But when the added convienience of representing that chicken or blanket with paper money came about things changed. A banker could make money by loaning a portion of the stored money in his bank out to others. He made a profit based on interest he charged for the loan. But if he loaned out more than he actually had stored he was in danger of a run on his bank by those who wanted their money back. So he printed more paper money. Rules were set up but were rarely followed about how much the banker needed to keep on hand. Greed usually won. Because of this more money representing the total human work that actually existed, was loaned out causing inflation. This lowered the origional value of the work the money represented. This is a Karmic crime that has consequences.

It follows that those who engage in making "money" out of manipulating "money" are making devine energy out of nothing, because they are not contributing an equal amount of their energy to trade for. They are simply writing lies to those they loan money to and lowering the value of their depositors "work". They are stealing devine energy, and if allowed to continue they will destroy the economic health of the community.

These people dress in suits and present themselves as upstanding. They gain positions of power while they suck everyone dry. Yes they are like Vampires. Their greed for this stolen devine energy causes devastation throughout and knows no bounds. they use this stolen energy to fund activities that benefit them only. This includes the destruction for profit of the very environment that people need to live and interact in, in order to work and thrive.

Someday someone will explain it better than I and we will rise up.

Good points TROU.

Inflated interest rates and fractional reserve banking is part of what makes money a problem more than a solution. These are associated with greed more than artificial intelligence.

Inflated interest rates (called usury) is condemned as immoral by most religions because it is blackmail, but you won't hear the preachers preaching about it on Sunday. It's a form of economic slavery. When it's made legal, it's legal loan sharking. One could argue that without some interest, people would have no reason to lend, causing a depression. First of all, nothings more depressing than being a slave. Secondly, people would have reason to lend without interest. It's called investments. Investments are a return on profits, instead of on money. Not only would it make people lend responsibly, but it would also eliminate the need for bankruptcy laws.

Fractional reserve banking is basically lying to the economy. There is no good reason to do this. One might argue that it's a way to stimulate the economy. But even if it stimulates the economy, it gives the benefits of a stimulated economy to the undeserving liars. Because this is allowed, it's a legal lie.

Inflated interest rates and fractional reserve banking are associated with greed. But there is another part of money rarely talked about. It's a major shortcoming of money even without the stolen energy from lending and greed. It's more of a wasted energy from ignorance and flawed logic than a stolen energy. Because you can't put a price on everything, people who boil everything down to money inadvertently devalue things that aren't priced like the environment, nature, humanity, charity, community and family. We've seen those master card commercials where they say somethings are "priceless." Well, those same things that are called "priceless" are automatically considered "worthless" by the money A.I. This is a logical error. A bug in the program.

On a personal level, it's just a discipline problem with an individual. But think about haw this problem is combined on a global scale, and it's no wonder there is so much suffering in the world. One person's over concern for money can effect another persons living conditions on the other side of the planet. That's how connected we are with a global currency system. The further removed the person living in excess is from the poor person, the less likely that person will change his/her level of submission to the money A.I.

Billfsmd
"people who boil everything down to money inadvertently devalue things that aren't priced like the environment, nature, humanity, charity, community and family. We've seen those master card commercials where they say somethings are "priceless." Well, those same things that are called "priceless" are automatically considered "worthless" by the money A.I. This is a logical error. A bug in the program."
________________________________________

So simple and so true

This imagery, for me, is too external. There is only one universe. We're not choosing planets but which perception/conception of myself-in-my-universe I live out. Our worse possible Self and our best possible Self is always within us.

You are speaking of an individual conscience. I'm speaking of a global conscience.

Money is a means of communication. Individuals are within this system of communication just like a blood cell is within the blood stream. The system is not within individuals anymore than blood is within a blood cell. Individuals don't exchange money with themselves.

Our individual faults have an affect on the short comings of our money system. But those are not problems with the system as much as they are problems with the individual spender. The system it self also has problems that can't be found by looking within.

We are not just looking for the best possible individual self. We also seek the best possible global self.

The aggregate of all Individual Self-in-situation adaptations and their interactions constitute the, "Global Conscience" and the, "Global Self" or human culture or
universal social system, which is a big part of an emerging universe. Every system is itself and its relation to a larger system.

The larger system develops problems that are too big to be handled by a smaller component of the system. So the problem is external to the components. It's a global problem that requires a global solution.

It's like a software bug. All the hardware components of the computer may be working fine, but the software bug makes the hardware malfunction. The software problem is external to the hardware. The problem can only be solved by troubleshooting software, not hardware.

August 11, 2006
Editorial
Build Green, Make Green
NEW YORK TIMES

Recent record-breaking heat waves had governments from Sacramento to Washington, D.C., urging businesses and homeowners to turn down the lights and ratchet up the thermostat. The message was especially urgent last week in New York City, where City Hall and businesses teamed up to reduce the strain on the electric grid. Their concerted effort probably helped avert a blackout.

That particular heat wave is gone; the lights are back up and the thermostats down. But it would be a tragedy if that meant an end to the conversation about cutting down on unnecessary energy consumption.

Buildings are something of an energy-efficiency blind spot in this country. Public attention tends to focus largely on automobile companies and mileage, but houses and skyscrapers consume more energy than cars. According to the Energy Department, residential and commercial buildings account for 40 percent of total energy consumption in this country, versus just 28 percent for the entire transportation sector.

Companies are seeing the light on what are known as green buildings and the lower operating costs that come with them. For instance, The Washington Post noted last week that PNC Financial Services Group’s new green bank branches are using 45 percent less energy than comparable structures. And the company says that it builds them faster and cheaper than through old-fashioned construction methods. The new Bank of America Tower rising in Midtown Manhattan will feature special insulating glass windows and a plant-covered roof for natural temperature control. For maximum efficiency, an on-site natural-gas power generator will also recapture energy from lost heat headed out the building’s chimney, lowering energy costs by an estimated 40 percent or more.

There are ways for government to make the payoff even greater. California is the model when it comes to offering incentives to utility customers for increased energy efficiency. But even in states that fail to offer rebates and tax benefits, businesses have strong motives of their own to get on board simply for the sake of competitiveness.

Corporate membership of the U.S. Green Building Council, which manages the leading certification program, has increased more than tenfold since 2000. Wal-Mart, famed for its ability to slash costs, is trying to reduce the energy used in stores by 30 percent while also increasing the efficiency of its vehicle fleet and cutting back solid waste.

Companies can choose to be energy-wasting dinosaurs, but in an age of escalating prices, they’ll go extinct. In business, the company with the lowest costs usually wins.

Thanks for the post taz. The environmental aspect is half of the green planet worth protecting. The other half is the humanitarian aspect.

This is mostly true, but there are ways of making money at the expense of the environment instead of the company. The consumer pays less money for the product or service, but unknowingly pays more with their health when the cost to the environment goes unnoticed.

As I stated earlier in this thread, unless everything of value is priced, things that aren't priced will be treated as worthless by the system. It's left up to humanity to make the difference. But even humanity itself gets devalued by the system.

There is a book that attempts to show an economic model with a more thorough pricing system titled Who Owns the Sky? by Peter Barnes. If it's thorough enough, I see how it could work on environmental protection. But I can't imagine how you could price humanitarian things like mental health, quality of life, and social justice.

Loaning or investing money is production too, it's using stored labor to get things done more quickly or help someone through a rough spot. Now if someone had made the point that this has merely become too large a portion of our economy because we've become too impatient I'd agree.

How much could lenders take advantage if people weren't clamoring to borrow money? Supply and demand, we can't solve it on the supply end so the only solution is adjusting demand. It's true for money and all resources.

It's false to say we can't solve supply. It's a false dichotomy to say we either address supply or demand. The truth is that we can't solve the supply problem without simultaneously solving the demand problem. We have to address both supply and demand. We can pass laws that address both.

In lending, there's a difference between investing and usury. Investing seeks a return on the profit, whereas usury seeks a return on the loan. If usury were outlawed, you would still have investing. The differences would be:

1) Lending would be more responsible.
2) Borrowers wouldn't be enslaved by high interest.
3) There would be less opportunity for profit from the misfortune of the borrower.
4) Money would make productivity instead of just more money at other people's expense.

Usury IS outlawed! You want it redefined or want to eliminate the ability to collect interest, if the former I agree we need reform, if the latter it's among the most destructive ideas I've read in a long time. I guess retirees will just have to die quicker to avoid starving if you meant the latter (and the immediate economic collapse it would cause would literally impoverish nearly the entire nation).

If interest were only compensation for loss of value over time due to inflation, than interest is OK. Anything more is usury. And I don't think that has been outlawed for anyone but the people on the streets.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that retirees dying later in more debt is keeping the economy stable?

Even if the economy were to collapse, it doesn't mean the end. Why prolong the inevitable? The economy as we know it, is not our only choice for community. Why rebuild a house on the same faulty foundation?

Retirees tend to count both on bonds and social security, social security counts on interest. Without them most retirees would go bankrupt or starve.

Also interest rates impact currency valuation profoundly, by what you propose most Americans would immediately become impoverished.

Capitalism is out of hand, but proposing something that goes further than communist states did isn't worth more of my time.

OIC. You are talking about retirees lending instead of borrowing. That's different. I have no problem with lending. I just think lending should be for investment, not usury. Investing is money made off of productivity. Money made off of money, only makes money.

Have you ever considered that poverty during a depression might be an illusion? If money is backed by nothing in a thriving economy, then what's the difference during a depressed economy?

Money is just a form of communication. We have better forms than paper.

I haven't proposed anything but a reexamination of how money works. It's our dependancy on the status quo that makes the status quo.

I don't suggest overthrowing capitalism, because capitalism isn't even a form of government. Capitalism is just a law of nature, that we either choose to obey or oppose. Just like flying opposes gravity, new economic models could potentially oppose the down side of capitalism. I'd don't claim to know what those models are. I just know that they are out there to be discovered. We already have the tools, we just need to develop the skills.

What you call reform is a moderate step towards a radical solution. It has to start somewhere.

How many people age 60 would qualify as retirees not dependent on Social Security.

When you discuss SS. Please remember the lifetime awards of disability until the age of 65.

I do not know how long I will live. I am terrified of getting more medical issues then I have and as my mother use to say when the doctors would think I was on deaths door" You should be so lucky."

Mom just died at age 87 raised 8 kids and lost Dad at his age 51 her age 48.
Even in the sixties dad said you can not get insurance if something happens. Insurance is based on cost today and not tomorrow.
Dads theory was the only way to keep up is to everyday try to meet the need of more today then yesterday.
I guess since Dad had stocks and Bonds he meant that also.
When Dad died their was one out of school and 1 I can't remember what she was doing. 3 in college and 4th to go soon and 2 still at junior high level.

Time is more valuable than money, isn't it?

I was considering boycotting all mega-corporations, till it dawned on me that I would have to withdrawal from civilization with all the monopolization that's going on. This would be a major boycott.

A more realistic way to move toward the green planet that we value more, I suggest a minor boycott. This means cutting back on expenses, especially the luxuries. This also means moving your purchases to the more humanitarian environmentally-friendly business.

It doesn't matter how corrupt or secretive the corporations and international bankers are. They all report to the money A.I. Punish the money A.I. and you punish all of it's subordinates.

Sharing vs Hoarding

When making money becomes a higher priority than sharing, the flexibility gained by money is cancelled out by hoarding. People equate accumulated money with accumulated flexibility. In reality, it's less flexibility for the whole system by removing options from the overall resource pool. The more that money is hoarded, the less useful it is. Money needs to continually circulate in order for it to optimize resources and maximize options.

America thinks that it's a knowledge economy. It's wishful thinking. In order to make money from knowledge alone, that knowledge has to be shared. What keeps the knowledge from being shared is the fear of the competition benefitting more from that idea. Knowledge is hoarded in the same way that money is hoarded. In order to optimize knowledge, knowledge must be continually shared as well.

I think the thing that scares us humanoids the most is our Creativity. Very early, as man developed artistic expression and created beautiful objects which stimulated feelings of admiration, he began to worship them.. Rather than swallowing hard and accepting his own capacity to create (which
carries an obligation), he projected this capacity onto an emerging concept of God. Thus the shark
was born. Art, like money, is only a system of communication.

I don't think it's a fear of ones own creativity as much as it's an unhealthy excessive admiration for things that weren't created by the individual humanoid and a sense of unworthyness. That admiration was so overwhelming that the humanoids felt unworthy of all these gifts of life. That feeling of being unworthy also triggers a feeling of indebtedness. People have a problem just accepting a gift without feeling like they need to pay it back, sometimes with their own lives.

For theists, this indebtedness is to a (perhaps imaginary) god. Even Christians have trouble accepting their own New Testament belief that Jesus paid for their sins and therefor are forgiven just by accepting Jesus, so they continue to revert to the Old Testament where all the sins were paid for by the individual sinner in the form of some sacrifice.

For atheist, this feeling of indebtedness is to a king, institution, or some force of nature. Power of money is often seen as a force worthy of owing ones life to. The SAD submission to financial institutions we've seen today is evidence that people (especially rich people like politicians) feel in debt to the money system. Most of these people wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of no debt. After all, our entire global money system would collapse if it weren't for debt. Maybe a collapse is what we need.

Yes, in the practice of counseling and psychotherapy, one of the things I found most surprizing was
how most clients could not freely accept a compliment, much less a gift. Persons who have difficulty
accepting love from another person also can't give love.