This page is on: http://www.oocities.com/ghering2000/tos.html


Want to chat about this?
BLOG: http://homosapiensurvival.blogspot.com/


Theory of Survival

Survive!
(tos.html)

(Original: 29. April 2002, updated 09. Aug. 02, 08. Sep. 02, updated 30. December 2003, updated 01. March 2004, 07. November 2004, 01. Feb. 2006, 13. March 2006)

Scroll down past the linkbar please

(unless you're really into fire protection that is).

This is a linkbar that is at the top and bottom of each of my pages, to facilitate navigation.

Main Site

Firestop Site

Code Evaluations AVAILABLE!

Glossary of Fire Protection Terms

3M Fire Barriers

Vectorising Drawings and Maps; Paper to CAD

Circuit Integrity Fireproofing

Bounding

Code Req's for Firestops

Essay on Performance Based Codes

Master Spec. Section 07840 Firestopping

Related Sections to 07840

Penetration Seal Drawings

Building Joint Drawings 1

Building Joint Drawings 2

Building Joint Drawings 3

History of Firestops in North America

Warnock Hersey Experience

Firestop Trade Jurisdiction

Achim Hering Bio

Man Made Mineral Fibres

Fire Protection Industry Links

Firestop Products and Equipment

Firestop Mortar

Firestop Silicone Foam

Intumescent Products

Endothermic Products

Insulation Products

Caulking & Paint Firestops

Firestop Pillows

Firestop Devices

Firestop Slide Show 1 of 10 Basics

Firestop Slide Show 2 of 10 Code

Firestop Slide Show 3 of 10 No Seal

Firestop Slide Show 4 of 10 Deemed-to-comply

Firestop Slide Show 5 of 10 Misinstalled

Firestop Slide Show 6 of 10 Re-entered

Firestop Slide Show 7 of 10 Faulty Spec.

Firestop Slide Show 8 of 10 Proper Firestops

Firestop Slide Show 9 of 10 Test

Firestop Slide Show 10 of 10 Smoke and Trays

Sample Firestop Listing

Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning; Boiling-Hot Pressure Washing

ULC           UL

T O S

(Theory of Survival)

DIBt

TU Braunschweig iBMB

CONTACT

This is a ~35 page (# of pages depends on your settings) theory on how (despite collective and concerted efforts to the contrary) mankind may survive as a species, in ways not considered as a whole before. Reading little bits here and there will not give you an accurate impression of this document. If abstract concepts and "thinking outside the box" are alien to you, there are better ways to spend your time than to read this.

Despite some lighter side references and graphics, the document has serious and urgent intent for a paradigm shift. No political correctness is implied. In fact, it is seen as a hypocritical scourge upon mankind.

 
IMPENDING DISASTER + SOLUTION
Impending Disaster + Solution

 

First off: THIS IS NOT A TREE-HUGGING PAGE!
Tree Hugger

(Not that I mind tree-huggers, but they have their own pages.)


This text utilises some metaphors, third party references and hyperlinks to make points and for levity. To those with a bit of education, some of this will be repetitive of lessons learned in basic courses. I'm trying to create a common frame of reference. You may scoff at this text, but whatever your thoughts may be on the subject matter below, do you have the intestinal fortitude to publish them?


Unlike the rest of my site, this page is also not about fire protection or about me Yours truly, Achim Hering.
Thank goodness, right?


The starting premise:

WE'RE DESTROYING OURSELVES IN WAYS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE - and there is a way to fix it.

We're collectively missing the boat on the 'BIG PICTURE', to use the common vernacular.

Ignorance of the overall 'fit' keeps us busy with useless, counterproductive and eventually self-destructive endeavours that prevent our very survival as a species. These endeavours have typically been viewed in isolation or segments, but not as a whole.

In order to help you see that big picture, if you don't already and many of you may be convinced that you do, I have to step you through some basic facts, so we have a common frame of reference so that the 'punchline' of this text makes sense. Without it, it likely will not.

Scroll to the bottom of this text for thoughts about what is behind where we are headed if we do not engage in this theory.


Contents:

 1. We're lucky to even be here. (Earth's place in the universe, impacts and how this place will go to hell in-a-handbasket whether we're here or not...eventually)

2. Why are we even here? (Don't worry - this is not as heavy as you may think :-)

3. What are we? (frame of reference stuff still)

4. What are the useless distractions? (on Money, Marketing, Sales, Organised Religion, Crime and other Disasters)

5. So what is the magic solution?

6. What are we going to do?


Let's start with some basic facts about humanity and our environment. Don't worry, I'll try to keep it light and entertaining. The page is serious, but let's maintain our sense of humour, shall we? After all, this is about 35 pages printed out (depending on your setting and paper size)! Actually, you're probably best off to print this out, staple it  and read it as you find the time.

1. We're lucky to even be here.

(That's certainly not new but requires repetition and context to ensure we - you the reader and I, the author - have the same frame of reference.)

On that note, I suggest you bookmark the page so you can get back better. There are plenty of hyperlinks in here. To make sure you and I  are on the same page, so to speak, you're best off to look at the embedded links as they appear. At least put your mouse arrow on the link and check on the bottom left of the screen to see whether or not you know the referenced page.

Well, let me qualify that (the part about being lucky). You can consider yourself lucky to occupy space on this  planet:

Earth!

 if you live in reasonable comfort, in a reasonably civilised country (frames of reference differ greatly in that department), without a painful and debilitating disease or fear of persecution/retribution. In that event, you will probably consider yourself  lucky in lieu of the following. If you're in really dire straights, well, what are you doing reading this?

Generally, I submit that we (the human species) are infants compared to what our species can be when we've reached our full potential (if we don't do ourselves in first) - more about that also further down the page.

But back to luck: why? OK, put on your Trekkie helmet. Pretend you're 'Q'. Q! All about Q on http://www.startrek.com/ You don't need a space suit then. You lift off the surface of our beautiful planet, in perfect comfort of course, picking up a great deal of speed, zipping past our sun to the outer edge of our galaxy.

Drawing of the Milky Way Galaxy, which contains us.

Now, as 'Q', you can mess with time. Our galaxy is like an enormous fat frisbee shape with solar systems (stars and planets in orbit around them with the occasional bit of space junk thrown in) in constant motion. Solar systems exhibit internal motion of course. Solar systems also move relative to one another and the rest of the galaxy. We're talking about a lot of space here. Enormous distances. But you're 'Q'. You're omnipotent. So you zip further into outer space about 5 times the diameter of our galaxy, away from our galaxy. You dodge some big chunks of ice and dust. That trip is completed in a few seconds. You look back at our galaxy. You can tell from the lights (stars) that the further in you go, the greater the density of 'stuff'. More stars, more planets, more junk - comets, meteors, junk. Useless, violent (because of the speed of these items and the likelihood of collisions), dangerous humzingers. You snap your 'Q' fingers and speed up time. You might have seen something similar on TV before, film footage from a camera taking a shot per hour, observing the growth of a plant, or the deterioration of fruit over time, as fungus sets in etc., where you see the birth and death of a plant within less than a minute. That, but in much larger terms, is similar to how you're now experiencing the motion of the universe. You might remember a bit of Albert Einstein's Einstein, talking on the radio... work. Gravity! You may have thought of gravity as magically sucking down on you to keep you from floating off the planet. But you're 'Q' now. You know better. Large bodies of mass bend space and you have no trouble with the concept of bending what would seem to our sense to be essentially NOTHING - empty space that is. The larger a celestial body, the more bending of space it causes because of how massive it is. The larger the mass, the more it bends space. Remember an old thought experiment. You're on your stomach, on a 1 metre tall diving board looking down on a big in-ground pool filled with Jell-O. Jell-O! You don't eat any. Are you kidding? Do you know what's IN that??? Eddie Murphy's Uncle Gus has brought his engraved bowling ball and his trailer maintenance manual (I believe that bowling and trailer maintenance go hand in hand. So shoot me.). You thank him for the bowling ball and tell him exactly where to put the trailer maintenance manual. Strange side of the family. You lean back down over the diving board and roll the bowling ball down the centre of the pool, across the Jell-O. The heavy ball comes to a stop in the middle of the pool, on top of the Jell-O. You observe, that along the path of the bowling ball, the Jell-O has been depressed or indented. That's similar to how large bodies of mass bend space, and more. Now, you take a small glass marble out of your pocket. You send the marble down the same path towards the bowling ball. Where the bowling ball has come to rest is the biggest indentation in the surface of the Jell-O. As the marble approaches the big indentation, it assumes a circular path around the bowling ball. On the pool, of course, the marble will quickly come to rest, touching the bowling ball. But that is because it is really a small object on earth. Expand this Jell-O and ball scenario to planetary size and you might see why these huge celestial objects circle around one another (ellipse, really) like clockwork. The planets and stars don't 'suck' things in. They bend space and things swirl in, stay in orbit or fling past, perhaps changing direction, like a being flipped in Judo, Judoexcept that you keep going, instead of hitting the mat and losing the match after giving up 10 points. You blink and you're back to being 'Q' outside of  our galaxy, looking in. You see our solar system, moving as a unit, bobbing (you did just speed up time) in and out of that really dense inner galaxy zone. That's the 'danger zone'. Why danger zone? Because every 30 million years, we bob in there and bump into all sorts of major space junk. More junk in the way, greater chance of collisions. Our planet has the scars to prove this. Big, circular craters and patterns deep down in the dirt, which tell geologists about the fall out caused from these collisions, as large volumes of dust enveloped the planet, or at least very large areas for some time following the immediate collision between the space junk and Earth. This isn't unique to Earth of course. We have observed this elsewhere too. It's sort of like bowling, once again. When these big collisions happen, our planet is bombarded with junk, which routinely wipes out nearly all life. So much for the dinosaurs. That's not an immediate threat. We just bobbed out of there about one million years ago. You can keep your day job. Unfortunately, it takes about one million years for other projectile junk to catch up with us - more collisions again. So far,Jupiter and 4 Moons, Earth's professional Spajejunk Catcher! Jupiter (we're really lucky that Jupiter is where it is in relation to Earth) has caught the worst of the junk impacts for us. But it's a numbers game. Jupiter is perfectly positioned to run interference for us. But it won't catch everything forever. It hasn't before. Earth has taken some enormous impacts before, which had extremely violent consequences. Our physical universe can be a brutal, violent place of celestial bowling! These huge impacts with space junk can cause explosions to finish off planets in short order - even planets much bigger than earth. One theory holds that this is how the moon came to be separate from Earth. Good thing we weren't there on THAT particular day, if this theory is correct! Now, you've probably heard of black holes. Black Hole What are those? In the first place, their existence is pure theory, disputed by some, backed up by a large amount of circumstantial evidence leading others to believe that they are for real. The theory holds that stars which are massive enough turn into them - eventually do just that. They implode, compressing their subatomic particles into a tiny volume, perhaps the size of a pea. All the matter is still there, causing huge gravity, but it does not occupy nearly the volume it previously did. So, if you go near a black hole, you're likely to get sucked in and crushed into sub-atomic particles, joining the rest of them inside the black hole. These things gobble up planets and stars, supposedly. Our sun is too small for this, but instead, in 5 or 6 billion years, it will have turned into a massive red star and then will turn into a white dwarf star. The massive red star deal is decidedly unhealthy for us. Black holes are enormous monstrosities. Stars grow larger and get hotter (as does ours). We're not entirely sure why all this happens, but evidence suggests that it most certainly does. The closer you are to a stars, the hotter it is for you. The further away you are, the colder you will be. Picture our sun. The Sun, a Spacelab picture from 1973. There is a 'safety zone' surrounding our sun, as well as all other stars, which aren't being ripped apart by black holes at the time. Brutal place our universe! The safety zone is like an imaginary, hollow gumball surrounding the sun. If you get any closer to the sun than our earth and all life stops because it's too hot. Any further out and life comes to a stop because it's too cold. Within the safety zone, or habitable zone, water can exist in liquid form without boiling off or freezing. As our planet tilts (relative to its north/south axis) on its annual ride around the sun, any one location on the planet can be further away or closer to the sun, depending upon whether you're in a spot that is tilting towards or away from the sun. This has bearing on our seasons, spring, summer, autumn and winter - distance to the sun. That tells you how thin the safety zone is. When Earth tilts this way or that, not even a deviation from its prescribed course, you're dangerously close to being outside that safety zone already.  Now, as the sun grows and gets hotter (granted this doesn't happen overnight, but it IS happening, slowly but surely, right now), the safety zone also grows (and MOVES), meaning it occupies more space around the sun. But with that growth, we get left behind, because we're now outside of the safety zone and thus too close to the sun for comfort - no more winters! If our planet does not suddenly skip into a wider orbit around the sun (and why would it?), the hot zone, which follows the safety zone, will necessarily catch up with us. First it will get hotter and hotter. Eventually, our beautiful planet will fry to a crisp. The sun will become a red giant star, and swell to the orbit of Venus or even the Earth in size. Actually, even now, the sun grows brighter and brighter as it is evolving 'off' the main sequence. In another 500 million years of this steady increase, it will be about 10 percent more luminous (giving off more light). This means that the surface of the Earth will be a LOT hotter as the oceans begin to dump more water vapour into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Some forecasts suggest that in as little as another few hundred million years, the Earth's biosphere may turn very inhospitable. Fortunately, there are 'thermophylic' bacteria that live in nearly boiling water, so again in the far future, the Earth will end its years as a host for life by being a breeding ground for bacteria. We had better not be here when that happens. There have been reports in the media, indicating that our sun will turn into a black hole. Modern astronomy does not support this because our sun is too small to do that. But that does not mean we may not encounter another black hole. If this were to happen we would get sucked in. Black holes are about the size of a pea, near as we can tell. But they are dense (unit of mass per unit of volume) beyond our experience. It is known, that atoms, of which matter consists, are mostly empty space, on a subatomic level. In order to reach such enormous densities as must exist in a black hole, the subatomic particles cannot possibly be as distant as they are in common matter which surrounds us. Even lead, which is about 11 times as heavy as water, is still mostly empty space, compared to the completely collapsed matter, which must be the essence of a black hole. Matter, as Albert Einstein taught us, is but another form of energy. A thimble full of explosive and radioactive matter in a nuclear warhead, is completely converted to pure energy in a nuclear explosion. If one can be transferred into another, they are but forms of one another. But in the state of physical matter, even our most dense materials consist primarily of empty space. Matter consists of atoms, with a nucleus in the centre, which is made up of protons and neutrons, which are tiny particles. The subatomic particles are made up of even tinier stuff. Around the outside of each atomic nucleus, electrons buzz around at phenomenal speed, in certain patterns. Protons are positively charged, electrons are negatively charged and neutrons are neutral in electrical charge. Compared to the size of these subatomic particles, the distances that separate nuclei from electrons are huge. If a nucleus were the size of a baseball, and it were located in Winnipeg, the nearest electron could be as far away as Halifax. The electrons zip around so fast, that they form 'clouds' (wave patterns) around nuclei, almost seeming to occupy all orbital space around the nucleus simultaneously. Still, atoms are primarily empty space. Imagine this space were collapsed. Protons and electrons would be crammed together. Does that remind you of the movie 'Honey, I shrunk the kids'? You have the right idea, but the proportions are out of whack. If the matter to be collapsed were YOU, you would be smaller still, and most likely dead as a doornail. Do that with an entire star, and perhaps that's what black holes are about? As black holes move through our galaxy (or vise versa - motion is a matter of frames of reference), they 'feed'. Of course, they may not move but perhaps the galaxy moves relative to them. We're not too sure. At any rate, this means that they swallow and collapse space junk, planets and entire stars which cross their paths. Remember that massive objects bend space? Well, a black hole may be no larger than a pea, but depending upon how much matter it has already eaten, it is fabulously dense. It is so dense that not even light escapes it. This is how we find black holes. We need light in order to see. Black holes swallow everything, including light (which consists of particles - photons - which act like waves or particles depending on your perspective). But we see black holes shredding stars, tearing layer upon layer from them. If they're feeding on stars at the time, that is one of the few ways we can actually tell they exist, because we see a stream of light coming off the unfortunate star and disappearing into nowhere. That 'nowhere' is, in fact, we think, a black hole. Whatever burning matter black holes cannot absorb fast enough, they spew out the sides at incredible speeds in plasma form. It's terrifying to behold, even on a TV computer simulation. The other way we have found black holes is by looking for known stars until one blinked. Why would a star blink at us? It was not saying 'Hi'. Instead, a black hole came between Earth and the distant star. A planet coming in between would have bundled, or lensed the light, we think, but ye olde black hole swalloweth whole all light. While the monster was between Earth and the distant star, we could not see any light from the star. Why not? The black hole was in the light's path to us. The black hole swallowed the light. Every massive star, starting at 5 times the mass of our sun, which died, turned supernova and then became a black hole, is still out there raising hell. So far, we have not heard that any of them have an expiry date. But the mother of all black holes is in the middle and keeps the rest of the solar systems spinning about the centre of our galaxy, the milky way (we think - and we think that about other galaxies as well). It's a big'un! And that is the pattern for what we figure is around 100 billion galaxies, which make up the universe. Physicists calculate that this biggest of all black holes in our galaxy has a density of one million times that of our sun. Perhaps it eventually become saturated with mass and then blows up, repeating a cycle of big bangs? But then that's just our galaxy, which is just chicken feed compared to the rest of the universe. And the idea of the big bang and the big crunch includes all the galaxies in the universe. We're not really sure yet. There are still so many unanswered questions about how this universe really works. So let's work with what we think we know or are able to prove. Now, you're back to being 'Q'. You're still hovering around the outside of our galaxy. Of course, as 'Q', you have the advantage of knowing all about how the universe got started, where it's going and when it will end. But you probably won't tell us, will you. Fat lot of help you are! Your mother probably wears combat boots! So, we're lucky to be here. Every 30 million years we dip into the danger zone of the milky way and get wiped out by space junk collisions. There is junk flying around, which wipes out planets, Jupiter (a planet in our solar system about 300 times the size of Earth catches most of it for us. We have about four major impacts per month but these have typically been outside of harm's way. The US Department of Defense monitors this for us. But we haven't had any really big doomsday-wipe-us-out-for-good events of late. Lucky. We will necessarily have to outrun our sun, because it will first boil and then fry us because of its growth. But not in our lifetimes. Still, how bent out of shape must we get about our environment, when it all turns to seed in the end anyway? If we are to survive as a species, we must, necessarily, become travellers. We HAVE TO get away from the sun, whose energy now nourishes us. Now let's say you're a die-hard tree hugger. That's not a bad thing. You could do much worse. You could polka! (Can you imagine 'Q' in the same scene with the Schmenge Brothers??) Schmenge Brothers' Last Polka But remember, we have such a thing as the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy. The total amount of stuff (matter) and energy in the universe is constant. While on Earth, during a safe time (no major space junk impacts or other catastrophes, bell bottoms are not in style at the time, and while Earth is in the safety zone relative to its distance from the sun) all the stuff that's here makes for a beautiful world to live in. It makes a lot of sense to keep it in good shape before it all goes to hell in a handbasket. The problem of course is that we screw this up by how we convert matter and energy into lethal forms through pollution, wars etc., and how dishonest and apathetic too many of us are to actually change things. But let's face it, nothing we can do to the planet is anywhere nearly as bad as what the sun will do to it eventually. The sun pulls us (and the other planets in our solar system)  into the danger zone (the densely planeted part of our galaxy), where we get beaten up by junk and wiped out every 30 million years. The sun grows and gets hotter, frying us to a crisp and eventually, the sun collapses into this useless white dwarf star. By that time, Earth is a useless rock. So, while you don't want to wreck this planet before any of this takes place, don't sweat it. We're here for a good time, not a long time, literally. Now you may think: Yes, but my frame of reference is junk. All of this will take millions of years. You don't know that for sure. If a hefty enough comet wipes out Jupiter or slips past Jupiter to nail us, which can happen, when you see our galaxy as a whole, NASA has observed catastrophic impacts more than once out there, then our junk-catcher, which is one of the biggest reasons why we're even here, may be gone or have let us down. Apart from that, Jupiter has, historically, not caught all junk for us. Because of its large mass, it draws in lots of stuff - but not all of it. It's simply a numbers game. Jupiter cannot catch all space junk. And there is lots! From space, we have observed, and confirmed on the ground, enormous craters on Earth, which are testimony to violent impacts from space junk, which managed to zip past Jupiter, our bodyguard. Now, we watch for these things. But what do you think anybody will do, if a rock or a comet the size of Europe is headed this way? There's really no place you can hide from the effects. We have movies about that, as you may be aware. Once (in a movie) we collaborated with the Soviets to send rockets and change the rock's trajectory or blow it apart. Another time, we sent up the usual All-American heroes who miraculously land on the rock, drill in and blow it up that way. No matter how you slice it, this place WILL, necessarily, no two ways about it, be toast, sooner or later. This means that if we are to survive as a species, we HAVE TO get off this place in time and become and remain travellers and colonisers. A whole lot of things have to happen, before this can take place. This theory is about increasing the likelihood of making that happen  - eventually -  against the odds imposed by our legendary or almost ritualistic human ignorance, short attention span, apathy and distractions by irrelevancies. I just hope that we don't run out of time. These are simply facts. If you don't believe me, do some research with NASA and others and you will find the basic facts to be true. I certainly did not invent them - they're public information. This page is about what we do about it, which gets rather complex, because of how perfectly and collectively infantile we are - even the most learned of us - compared to our true potential as a species. How much of our brain do we really use?

2. Why are we even here?

Big heavy question? Relax. Yaaaaaawn!  Take your shoes off. Loosen your collar. The question is: Why we are here on this particular planet? The question is not, why are we in this universe at all. Opinions are rather divided on that one. And they are just opinions. We're too stupid to really know right now. So don't sweat it. Let's have a good time until we find out for sure. But why on Earth? Fairy tales and early religions have referred to this place as 'Mother Earth'. When you consider the big black hole in the middle and all its evil cousins as well as all the space junk zooming about out there just in our galaxy, then, from the perspective of a human being and its size (our body size), and the physical power we have in comparison to these enormous, super-fast celestial bodies, we don't really amount to a hill of beans.

Those early religions and fairy tales have a good metaphor though to describe this place. It's like a mother's womb. When gestation is complete, we have a chance to be born and grow - leave this place for our very survival - just like childbirth. And that is also a way to see the human psyche right now (2003). Compared to our full potential, we are no more advanced than an unborn fetus. Some of us, in fact, are closer to minerals or vegetables - sometimes out of apathy, and sometimes out of sheer necessity. Science already tells us, that we only use a fraction of our brains. And as for human relations? Well, just look at our illustrious history. But for select pockets of prosperity and bliss, scattered about this planet, as a species, we have not done that well. Pick your cause. Look at how few people have enough to eat. In the 'civilised' West, we have "Weightwatchers". If you look at that, once again, as 'Q', from the outside, you really have to scratch your head and wonder about the Schmendricks who inhabit this particular rock. How cruel we are and how we phoney twits lie to ourselves to justify our actions and our inactions as a species. This comparison is, of course, against our POTENTIAL as a species. I'm not trying to be excessively negative here. But frankly, I have no time for perpetual optimists who paint everything in rosy colours under all circumstances. There is lots of good stuff here and there is an extraordinary amount of bad stuff, suffering, pain, hunger, despair, war, terrorism, deviant behaviour, illness, etc. The positive twist to this, in terms of this document, is a potential way out of the negative stuff.

But if you entertain the metaphorical idea for a moment, that 'Mother Earth' is the womb that holds us as a species, until we mature, we can relax. Kids make mistakes. And we're not even born yet (In this context, "born" means we've developed the ability to pick up and move all of us to some other planet if we want to.). How much do you (if you're a parent) expect from a fetus? You don't expect anything. You simply hope that the fetus will remain healthy enough to grow older and mature. So if there is a God, perhaps view the concept of God's love for us and infinite forgiveness, as that of an entity, like a parent, which created us and is capable of forgiving, just like a pregnant mother may at times be annoyed by the kicking fetus (like when she's trying to sleep or hold down a meal) but on the whole sees every sign of life within her as perfectly glorious (bearing in mind a backdrop of a fairly safe and stable environment). You can look at our current, limited, space adventures, metaphorically, as the fetus (that's us) kicking against the walls of mommy's stomach (that's our trip to the moon and assorted probes we've sent out there). This means that this place is but a learning experience, if we can get our heads out of our butts long enough to realise what's actually going on and take the proper steps to survive. In order to survive, we have to learn how to get off this place, fast and in big numbers. Otherwise, we're stillborn (In this context, "stillborn" means either we do ourselves in on this planet or some space junk hits us before we can either prevent that or get off.). Not good! So, if there is some master plan (planned by whom??? And did the planner do the planning out of desire or necessity??), as our many religions would suggest to us and science can have no official opinion on because we're too limited at this point to sort it all out, then it would seem that our being on Earth was intended to buy us enough time, in a reasonably safe place, to grow up so we can survive in a universe, which is full of danger. To survive out there, we need to get our act together - fast. We have 500 million years before the closest star does us in but if some big whopping space junk comes along, our time may be up much sooner! It happens all the time to all sorts of planets after all. This is really not that unrealistic when you look about! Don't be a Yutz and think that just because you're 80 years old and nothing apart from baseballs and bird droppings has dropped in your back yard yet, that it's completely unrealistic. It's a numbers game. But the trouble with being an infant (our collective human race being the infant or fetus) is that we are simply unconscious and entirely too wrapped up in irrelevancies to save our very skins collectively. Look at it larger again. If you are a parent, how many times could your child have died in traffic, because he or she defiantly wanted to cut loose and run around, right onto the busy road? How many times have you saved your child's life by preventing access to things, which would otherwise have meant death or dismemberment for the little tyke? Think of locking the door to the balcony. And how often was the kid totally bummed out about these restrictions? The kid won't even remember this, when he or she comes to (sometime after 30). But as a parent, you have saved the kid's life countless times - like you're supposed to. And you still love your child, even though the child has fed the VCR with a grilled cheese sandwich or done any number of ridiculous things - unconscious things. In that larger sense, we, the human race, are just such an unruly infant, fetus or young child (some of us are more enlightened than others, as we all know). So, time to get our heads out of our butts and grow up. (Fat chance because how many readers will even make it don this far along the page?) But we'll take our sweet time about it. Hopefully, if we're even more lucky, we won't run out of time! To think we have infinite time, even our very own lifetimes is at best a judgement call. We got awfully close to the end of the world a few times during the cold war. We may also see a huge, planetbusting comet or other space junk coming right at us say 40 years before impact. Let's say we see that. In 40 years, if it's too big for us to change its trajectory or break it apart before it gets here, what do you think is the likelihood of humanity's pulling together, forgetting about money and putting all our best efforts into getting off the doomed planet? Could we, for instance, pull all the lawyers off the law and get all these smart folks to convert to rocket science for the next 20 or 30 years?

3. What are we?

We have no shortage of categorisations or labels about us. Jews and Gentiles. Muslims and infidels. Christians and pagans. Japanese and Gai-Jins. Bavarians and Prussians. The 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. Rich and poor, Smart and dumb, low and high golf handicap etc.

But in section 2 of this page, I submitted that we are infants at best. Infants deserve to have a loving parent. It would be nice if we did. Like we are as parents, forgiving our children's trespasses and saving them from their own ignorance. Holding them back from crossing a busy street without looking, bathing with a plugged in electrical appliance etc. Similarly, one could say that our unique place in the galaxy, in the limited safety zone of our sun, which ensures the proper temperature range to sustain life, in the shadow of Jupiter, which catches the worst of the flying space junk, is a divine place. Just look at the profound effect that the tilting of our planet's axis in its path around the sun has in causing the change of seasons. In Canada, we can vary temperature between summer and winter by around 80°C. If we were permanently at -40°C, how much life would there be here for us? Or at the other extreme? Move this planet to either side of the sun's safety zone, and we're toast. So, is this physical location testimony to divine intervention, proving we are children of a loving God? It's hard at times to maintain such beliefs. Take a look at Asia. In many parts, there is insufficient food and medical care. Go to Cambodia, Laos and other places in that neck of the woods and you will find scores of prostitutes, some as young as eight years old, working in shacks, owned by powerful organised crime. Do you have a child? Do you love your child? Can you imagine such an existence? How is this possible? An eight year old professional prostitute? Many of us are apathetic, completely unconcerned with the effects of our actions. We look away. You can be down on organised crime, which runs the show there. But what of the sex tourists who sit with us in church and then come from all over the 'Western civilised world' bringing money to sustain such demeaning and brutal environments? How many of the sex tourist who routinely flock to Asia, come back home afterwards, go to church on Sunday and sing along with the rest of the congregation? What about the church, which sold absolution from  the most heinous crimes? Making money off sin? There is no shortage of examples of our collective stupidity, apathy and cruelty, as a species, usually because we refuse to see past the end of our very noses. The worst of us choose personal entertainment over life and safety of countless others. So it can be tough for some of us to maintain faith in a divine being, all-loving, all-forgiving. Where is this divine being when children are being raped, property stolen, spouses cheated upon, starving, thirsting, hungering masses, refugee camps, concentration camps, "ethnic cleansing", "final solutions", you name it. Where is God in all this? Homicide police officers must struggle with the concept of maintaining faith at times, though they are not the only ones, to be sure. There is a strong psychological attraction to the idea that after we're done living here (regardless of how we may die), we get to heaven. Relief! Relief from all the nasty and painful experiences and contraptions and distractions on Earth. As a species, we have a soft spot for this sort of spiritual leadership or any leadership really. But in the end, we are still infants. We are distracted from that which should be our main goal (who cares why?), which is survival, followed by happiness (which comes after our basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, safety and love are met). Like an infant or young child can be completely absorbed in some imaginary play phantasy, our focus is everywhere but where it should be to make sure that we survive as a species, despite the fact that individual survival is closely linked to survival as a species. Take any space movie. When you see the ship (there are always spaceships aren't there?) and the folks on board see that some comet or big rock comes zipping along, they simply get out of the way and let it pass. No problem. It's like the old saying about being in the swamp. By the time you're up to your rear end in alligators, it's too late to drain the swamp. Only infants would not see this for being distracted. And that is our current state of development as a species: human beings. We are completely distracted from that, which matters (survival of the species and collective happiness).

In order to survive, our collective survival must become our priority. 

In order for our collective survival to become our priority, we must become focused on this survival and dispense with our pointless distractions.

And while we're at it, we might have some fun and learn a few things.

4. What are the useless distractions?

There are many distractions, which are quite powerful. Religion has often sought to provide some basic ground rules to 'keep the monkeys from taking over the zoo'. These are also quite basic and common across a multitude of faiths. We find them in the ten commandments, among other scripture. All of the negative aspects of human nature do us in, collectively - because they cause us to be increasingly distracted. In the presence of these negative distractions, we can be neither happy, nor focus on our survival, which should be a collective effort to become galactic travellers, enabling us to outrun the sun and to dodge space junk, as explained above. Here's a little thought experiment for you. We have these little furry creatures called degus. A Degu. Highly unintelligent creature.Degus are (not quite as useful as dental-work for barn owls in my personal opinion) not rodents by definition, but they are small burrowing mammals, at home in South America as well as many cages in many homes around the globe, where the households can afford pets. Degus are not excessively smart. But they apparently manage to keep reasonably happy, given the right conditions. With a large enough cage and a regular supply of degu food (factory-mulched green stuff in dry, monotonous lumps), they are among the most social and lovable creatures. They make these cute noises through which they appear to communicate (God only knows what considering their virtual absence of brain power). They share the running wheel. And when they're tired, they actually snuggle together and go to sleep. Everything's cool, until some Bart Simpson comes along and throws in a cookie. Now, degus are about as aware of their surroundings as Barney, the fat, belching drunk at Moe's bars (Another Simpsons reference). When you open the cage, they may look up. But even if you drop the cookie right in front of them, which cause a considerable THUD, it will take a while before they realise what new treasure has fallen in their laps. Degus previously engaged in their common welfare, grooming, cuddling, chatting, sharing, gnawing on and tossing over their running wheel despite their desire to run in it although they never get anywhere) are suddenly into their common warfare! The cookie is a serious distraction, which brings nothing good really. It's certainly not good for them. The successful cookie winner may in fact ralph (wouldn't you hate for your first name to be a verb?) up all he managed to eat. And meanwhile, all harmony is gone. We, as a species, get similarly distracted. In fact, I submit that our insistence to continue our preoccupation with pointless distractions, as outlined herein, is  about as intelligent as the degus' captivity-borne behaviour described herein. One of the first tell-tale signs of this distraction is how we categorise one another into various groups (haves, have-nots for instance). All the bickering we do 'as groups', or as individuals against any sort of group of people (be they a company, agency or nation state), keeps us focused on bullshit (BS). Why such strong, horribly offensive language? Well, that which keeps us from striving for survival as a species and from happiness, I define herein as, well, bullshit (BS). It's a perfectly pointless distraction with the inevitable negative effect of lowering our chances of attaining our goal of survival as a species. We don't know that we don't know and we are apathetic towards and run down those of us who know and dare to tell us so (no rhyme intended). These things are but ideas, with good and bad parts, but they keep us from the truth (about the pointlessness of a majority of our endeavours) and from what should be our goals. Granted, we strive to make a living. And we need to do that for the individual to survive. If all the individuals are gone, then all of us are gone. (Duuh!) But if we take a larger view, we cannot help but  see how the majority of ways in which we go about striving for our own survival and/or prosperity, does us in as a species. Whether we kill an entire species or just every individual member, no matter from which angle you approach it, this way we're still all toast. Here is a big distraction, which has immeasurable negative and distracting side effects:

MONEY!

Now, money makes sense, to the novice. How did we get to have money in the first place? We must have had a reason! We don't normally do things without a strong personal motivation! It was very simple, really. Early traders got tired of haggling over how many sheep to trade against a pig. Or how about trading spears and swords against foodstuffs, rugs against baskets, and so forth. Money put all the bartering objects on a measurable footing. We barter to this day, even in our Western free, civilised world. We have bartering clubs. But those can only exist in the presence of a common frame of reference, which is the currency in the country in which the bartering is being conducted. Think of the complexities our society endures as a result of dealing with money. We have created the profession of economists, among others, like insurance agents, currency exchange clerks, etc. But back to economists. Ever notice the extent to which they disagree with one another? We have banks, we have stock exchanges, which collectively act with the wisdom of terrified pre-school children or St. Bernhard puppies, at best! You've seen this, haven't you? Something happens on the news. It's perceived as 'bad'. A terrorist hit, a rogue nation dictator invades some other country the majority of North Americans has never heard of nor particularly cares about and most certainly mispronounces, or Coke classic is discontinued in favour of a new flavour. "Baaaaaaaaad stuff." Imagine a sheep in an animated Hollywood movie saying: "Baaaaaaaad." It's about that sophisticated, though economists and news anchors and assorted learned professionals either agree or argue about the terrible woe, which may have befallen us yet again. And, within minutes, while stock exchanges are still trading, stock values plummet, instantly. I picture the stock exchanges as a frightened, cowering toddlers in a poorly run daycare centre, with analysts, traders and news anchors (talking heads) wallowing in their rancid saliva. And what about those schmendricks you see on the news who are up on the balcony of the stock exchange, who CLAP at the end of a trading day? What is that about? Isn't that like actor guests at a talkshow, who walk on stage and clap? What on earth are they clapping for? Do they even know? But back to the stock exchange-analogy comparing traders against small children. Uncle Gus passes gas in the next room, and the toddler jumps with fear. Then mommy comes in the room (say the fed drops the rate) and goes: "There there, it'll be alright...". And the toddler wipes of the tears and smiles back at mommy. Identically, stock values recover when the 'alarm' is off. It's completely emotional. When one toddler is terrified, he or she gets the others going. And the ramifications of this nauseatingly infantile, unconscious behaviour are also immediately noticeable. How long does it take after a stockmarket plunge, for layoffs to surface in the news? The next day! Money keeps the world going round and those who don't have it are in rough shape indeed. Just ask any third world child living off garbage dumps or single mom on welfare or the majority of commission-only sales reps. With all the corporate BS we're fed a daily diet of in the media, mission statements, pricey commercials about the deeply rooted values of this or that sans-soul corporate entity, no one was able to be frugal enough during any good times to save anything whatsoever for a rainy day. Lay-offs follow stock market drops like a junkie follows a dope-dealer.

Gene Roddenberry Gene Roddenberry - Creator of Star Trek and a new economic model, in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We have evolved beyond the need for money." envisioned a world, in which we developed PAST the need for money. Karl Marx Karl Marx: Would you buy a used car from this man??? Could this man afford a hair cut?? almost did that in a way. Everyone supposedly earned the same amount, except for (in reality) the elite at the top. But communism was one big disaster, everywhere. It is simply contrary to human nature to have a world, where one cannot prosper through one's own efforts - particularly when some folks can, while others cannot and when some folks find out that others are doing better - whether within or outside of the communist country! No country on this planet can live in complete isolation. People go FAR out of their way to do as well for themselves as they can. And thus (albeit through many circumstances and very deliberate action on the part of some), communism failed. Human nature itself prevented its success in the first place. Why? We simply cannot handle money, as a species. Our inability to handle money is independent of the political system we choose to run our countries. Just look at credit card debt. Look at national deficits all over the world and God forbid the efforts by conservative governments to cut costs to get rid of that enormous debt. Look at starvation in the Third World as well as at home. Imagine, if you will, the sigh of relief, the extension of lives, if all debts were suddenly gone, if money were abolished, discarded as a failed system. How many deaths, illness, diseases, wars, crimes, hate etc. are directly tied to our inability to deal with money?

As 'Q', you would have to sit out there and shake your head at humanity's collective unconsciousness. Would you not say: "If the money system causes so many problems, why not get a different system?"

Money is not only the cause for excessive, stupid and unnecessary distractions, it is stopping us from our very survival as a species. How much terrorism do you think there would really be without hunger and repression? I think little to none.

You think that's nuts? Think again. The concept is not new. Poverty breeds crime and terrorism. Put in suspended animation, for a moment, the personal reasons of the ringleaders of terrorism for the actions they have taken. Leave these folks aside for a moment. Look at their supporters. Usually, they have only a fraction of the knowledge of the ringleaders. What do the actual 'fighters' and suicide bombers et al know beyond that which their leaders have told them? The leaders tell their followers that they're in rough shape. They already know this, but it's nice to have someone acknowledge it. Don't you feel better when someone acknowledges your feeling? Well, so do they. Have a look at any refugee camp. It's not exactly a posh existence in there. Along comes someone who taps into poor people's anger at the conditions in which they live. These leaders challenge that anger and focus it into their twisted aims. What do you get as a result? People who are prepared to kill themselves for vengeance and the relief from their pitiful existence. Suicide bombers, People who handle fierce poisons and mail them, harming innocent victims. Muslim extremist are even told, according to our media, that if they die for 'the cause', they wind up in heaven, where they get beamed straight to the best buffet dinner and a pick of willing virgins to do with as they please. The Normans thought similarly about Valhalla, didn't they? Now think for a moment. Take a likely follower of twisted religious zealot terrorists, and move him and his family and his buddies to nice housing in suburbia anywhere Western. Give him work and starting capital. Let him enjoy that for a year. What do you think the percentage likelihood is of converting such an individual after a year of the good life and ready access to media and free speech? Compare that to the percentage likelihood of converting him into a suicide bomber when he still is in that camp, without food, watching the health effects of this life upon his family.

If you take a step back and look at our world as the fictitious and omnipotent 'Q', you might begin to think, that we cannot afford money.

But it's not just terrorism that makes this clear. Now, if you're fortunate to be one of the few 'rich' individuals (and bear in mind, that the definition of the adjective 'rich' may vary from person to person and country to country) on this planet, the last thing you would want to do is to get rid of money. Whether you worked hard for it or inherited it, stole it, or in whatever way you might have obtained it, you most certainly don't want to be rid of it. If you were previously poor, the money caused you to relax a great deal. Oh, how many worries vanished, once you obtained the wealth. No more worries about a roof over your head, food in your belly, food and medical care for you and yours. And a bit of luxury, please! And once you got used to that, you might even indulge in some arrogance. Perhaps a snazzier car, a bigger house, a boat, a yacht, a private plane, expensive catsup. But I submit that these very things are doing us in, when they are so unevenly distributed that more folks are getting poorer and more desperate. Because eventually, guess what, they won't take it anymore. Communism was created and toppled as a direct result. Every revolution had elements of this issue, including the French revolution and the Vietminh's ascent following the end of World War 2. For communism's failure in particular, while a few fat cats had the good life at the top, albeit that plenty of infighting robbed them of a lot of fun and peace of mind, the starving populace did not buy the party line and eventually, albeit with some assistance of Western intelligence services and nuclear deterrents) the whole thing fell apart like a house of cards. Mainland China is a current exception. But how would China fare, without export, which depends exclusively on foreign, hard currency, flowing into China? A dependence on capitalism, is it not? It's Lenin's old plan, world domination in the end, and the use of capitalism to that end. Give the capitalists just enough rope to hang themselves. That's Lenin's old plan and it's not working so far, though it's obviously still being tried by the remaining communists and their remaining front organisations. If the West suddenly cut off all trade with communist regimes, then we would find out very quickly if we needed their cheap goods and services more than they need our money, wouldn't we? They're also smart enough not to start a fight with us. They would collapse and be assimilated into our free market system in short order, or die of starvation, like some of the smaller remaining communist nations. And who are the Chinese knocking off lately in their own courts? Corrupt officials! Human nature does not halt at any border. So we, in the West, still think this cannot happen to us? Are we immune to the effects of lousy economics in other places? We are not. We have terrorism right at home, courtesy of foreign entities who would rather kill us to get our people out of their countries back home. People who would kill us because they're angry that we in the West have supported all the wrong dictators because we were unable to envision the long-term consequences of our actions, despite being warned quite specifically. Case in point: Ngo Dinh Diem, former strongarm ruler of South Vietnam. When uncle Ho came knocking on the door, trying to keep the French from re-occupying his country after ousting the Japanese at the end of WW2, no-one listened or even responded to him. He called on FDR, Truman and Johnson. No return call. One return call might have been as good as if that certain art school in Vienna, Austria had accepted Mr. Adolf Hitler. He might not have started WW2... Who in Vietnam got the support, despite direct warnings to the contrary from the US intelligence community? Diem. Diem could not have successfully run a chicken coop. He surely had no idea about or concern for his own people. Result: the American portion of the Vietnam war. American troops were sent into a situation, despite McNamara's warnings to the contrary, where the population was (justifiably) unhappy with its own government and then saw the US as upholders of such a despotic, inhumane government, which was great for the VC to recruit more and more people in a struggle to get all foreignors out and to get entirely rid of the local government. Even after the US tolerated coup on Diem's and Nhu's life, there was no recovery from the popular view of US forces as supporters of all that was wrong with South Vietnam. There are many other such examples in human history.

A whole range of terrorist attacks and wars throughout recent history should drive the point home, that the West can ill afford to maintain the illusion that it lives in isolation. Do you think we are immune to the effects of the dire conditions in large parts of this planet, their desperation, their anger, their recruitability for causes and madmen who think it's cool to strike against us? Perhaps not right away. But we have bigger problems. We are now so busy fighting crime, fighting terrorism and rogue regimes that we are spending very little (in comparison) on solving the real problems. I submit that we can hardly afford to do so.

Take your basic rogue countries. It's the old standard formula. Like a thief or a mugger, stealing from a victim in the street, so countries invade one another in an attempt to steal land and resources. This is certainly not new. Adolf Hitler figured that the German people needed 'Lebensraum' - room in which to live. Not enough real estate in Germany, so therefore, let's go and steal the East, kill all the undesirables and keep some for slave labour for as long as necessary and then 'off' them. It was hardly a unique concept. This has happened before Hitler and after Hitler, inside and outside of Europe. Even some African tribes subscribe to this formula. It's by no means exclusively a 'white man's thing'. Neither is discrimination for that matter.

So why would a nation do this? The perception that either the aggressor thinks he or she does not have enough or would be better off having more. So off we go to war, hurrah!

Why would one nation not have enough?                         Money.

Some have more than others. If you have it, you have relief, if you don't, you'll go far out of your way to get it, perhaps even to the detriment and compromise of your own morals.

This too, is why we can be likened, as a species, to infants. Take the toddler's cookie away and he or she will react quite strongly. Why am I referring to humanity as infants, in the context of nation states attacking one another? Look at the animal kingdom. Here is another example of why the notion of strong and unshakeable faith in the love of God can be seriously stressed. You think we humans are more cruel than animals? Ever watch a predator, a carnivore, chasing, catching and killing its prey? You've seen this on the tube, haven't you? You've watched some big feline tearing after a wildebeest on a Sunday afternoon nature show. First you see the cats as adorable little kittens. How wonderfully they play with one another etc. Junior jumps on mommy and chews at mommy's ear, tugs on daddy's tail and they both put up with it even though they really need a nap, right? Some of us even obtain these poor animals and keep them as exotic pets until they get too old and rambunctious for us. Back on the tube, next thing you know, they're grown up, hunting and sinking their jaws into an equally cute animal's throat. How much fun do you think the prey is having? How much pain is that animal in? I bet that if the same thing were done to you, it would likely feel similar. Now, as civilised human beings, we are supposed to have a sense of morals, knowing right from wrong, 10 commandments, scriptures, gurus, new age, countless sources of information telling us not to act this way. And yet, how many years of history have really gone by without this struggle? Without causing such excruciating pain as the wildebeest is feeling when attacked by the predatory cats? And yet, our actions aimed at getting money cause this very same effect as the lioness is causing for the wildebeest. Some poor sap is tilling a field or washing dishes and suddenly gets drafted to go to war, where he either kills or gets killed and probably both. Why? Because someone decided he wanted to steal the resources of one country for another country. Is that so different from the animal kingdom, or is it simply more complex? If the conditions are gone where such actions can happen, we free up one hell of a lot of time for ourselves. We have the means at our disposal to harvest this planet sufficiently to have more than enough food for all - even if we grow everything organically, without the assistance of agricultural chemicals. We know this. We can have enough food, enough to drink, shelter, clothing, happiness. But none of this can happen, when we are distracted by useless bullshit. If we all had enough, many jobs could instantly disappear and free up labour for much better things, like food production. Money is just such a thing. The very existence of money, and our inherent inability to handle it, keeps us so busy, we can't focus on outrunning the sun, world peace, happiness, etc.

If we collectively got rid of money and focused on ridding the world of hunger, why would anyone bother going to war with anyone else? Why have crime? Without money, you couldn't be significantly ahead of anyone else anyway.

This, of course, is not easy to achieve.

One of our biggest human failings is a completely closed mind. The systems we have in place, by which this world functions, all based on money, are so rigid and tenaciously strong, that it would take an enormous, worldwide paradigm shift to dislodge them. We see this closedmindedness time and again throughout our history. Take the extreme arrogance of many of our scholars. Albert Einstein's theories were shunned for a long time, before anyone would take notice. Einstein was forced to take work, which was far below his abilities, because the European academic establishment of the day would not recognise him. First of all, he did not have his PhD soon enough. Without that, many a PhD over there (and here, even now) thought you'd have to be a complete imbecile, not worth mentioning. This, of course, would fall apart the instant you questioned one of these egomaniacs about relatives they might have looked up to at any given point in their lives, who never did possess a PhD, like their mothers perhaps. But, put some of them in a big university and give them a decent salary and a chair, and suddenly all others are idiots to them. People's minds had to almost be forced open to accept his radical theories. And in a way, this is understandable, as his ideas meant a great departure from the current paradigm of the time. And Albert was also a human being. His tongue could be sharp too, history tells us, in his dealings with others whom he thought to be of lesser regard, even at the Solvay conferences. Nobody's perfect, not even Albert.

Only a minority of people on this planet have enough money and are able to handle it.

So what do we replace money with? How can we possibly get on without money? A possible solution to that is further down in the text.

What other useless distractions are there?

Well, they're mostly related to the first one, money. The bottom line is that it's anything that takes serious time away from our basic collective goal of survival as a species and as individuals. So let's look at some sub-categories of perfectly pointless distractions:

Marketing

Aaaah, marketing. The end of all truth. The ability to take people who have no specific product knowledge or interest, or ability or willingness or time to understand said product, good or service nor any clue about the market in which it is intended to be sold and get them to understand what they believe to be enough about this product or this service to come up with catchy drivel, tunes, jingles, BS names, which defy dictionaries in most known languages, graphics, commercials etc. to get people to buy. Mind you, for the most basic of consumer goods, it is hard to argue that even a marketing professional would have difficulty to understand certain products and services. Take personal toiletries and foodstuffs, music and movies. Alright, they GET that stuff. But take technical products such as chemicals, fire protection goods, machine parts and most marketing types are defeated from the start. You can tell from glossy literature about technical products. Though effective advertising can have startling bottom line results, it has not really brought humanity closer to fulfilling what should be its primary goal of survival. Take any commercial, which may really have worked, say for a large computer maker. Wow, "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell!" Great stuff. Dell shares go way up, even in tough times! How do they get to be so cheap for such good products delivered? Who is making that product and its components? The people in your very own neighbourhood, who are paying property taxes to your very own municipality, like those who work in your local computer shop who can also build you that computer, perhaps for $50.00 or even $100.00 more? No? No! they're not making that Dell, that the dude is 'gettin''. Think about the stupidity of the commercial, really. "A Dell!" - Like it's the answer to your prayers, some mystical anthromorphised new superwidget that will pay your mortgage off and solve your marriage problems, spay the cat, neuter the dog and keep undesirables form dating your children. No, it's just a computer. There are 14 year old kids who can build computers right in your neighbourhood. There are local shops, who can build those, just as well, with a warranty, service and training and if you really think you've you've done yourself such a huge favour by buying from the big outfit, you haven't. You just defecated in your own breakfast cereal because you did not buy locally. How well is your city hall doing? Are they bellyaching because they don't have enough money for infrastructure? Are you driving over roads pockmarked with holes from winter damage, which City Hall has no money to fix anytime soon? Are you concerned about the safety of your neighbourhood? Well, the negative cashflow you supported by going to these outsiders to "get your Dell" is the reason why that is so. Are you driving a foreign car? So why did you make those choices, when you could have supported local business? If you simply bought on price, well, money. If you bought into the ad, marketing. Likely it's a combination of both. Smart shopping has you comparing things like Consumer Reports. You would be silly not to do what you could to buy quality, of course. And if your only local choice is cheap junk, well then buying quality from further away should perhaps teach the locals a lesson to smarten up. But your basis of decision can be a spreadsheet of standardised information. You don't need marketing for that. If you're buying a printer for your computer, there is such an outfit as "Buyers' Laboratories Inc." Office equipment dealers all have access to it. Turf the printed propaganda on the product and compare the BLI reports for the price range of printers you're considering. It's not hard. Or, be an idiot and go for what has the prettiest pictures or the best looking models in the product propaganda. Then, one year later, when the printer dies, 2 weeks after the warranty is expired, or 1 month later, when the "starter print-head" has given up its ghost, what does the nice literature (marketing) really do for you? Nothing whatsoever. What has it done for the manufacturer? A lot more than for you apparently. "Dude, you're being had!" There are better ways to compare than through the use of nice-looking marketing. Marketing benefits only the vendor. Marketing could not exist without money.

Sales

Sales, the sacred cow of our system. "Nothing ever happens until somebody sells something!" You don't believe it? We are all sales people. Remember when your mom first sold you on eating some nutritious food? Taste-free? "Yum Yum! Ohhh! This is GOOOOOD! Open wide!" Mom knows how to sell. "Vote for me!" "Read my lips!" Politicians know how to sell. Actually that's where marketing and sales sort of overlap. Now which sales person would be selling for a living, if there were no such thing as money? We're still all selling, don't get me wrong. That will never stop. We sell ourselves to get an idea across, to get the girl, to get this, that or the other thing. But Sales, as a gig, would be thoroughly superfluous without money. And sales is one thing, that is getting tougher by the minute because we are out-cheaping ourselves (through collective unconsciousness and economic treason) on a daily basis Once again, we place giant and steaming, excreted lumps, right on our own plates. We've done it to ourselves. What is the most simplistic, devoid of any creative thoughts whatsoever, way that a newcomer company gets marketshare? Lower prices, of course! Lower prices, lower margins, lower wages, lower standard of living, jobs wandering off to places with even lower standards of living, zero workplace safety, zero job security, zero trade unions, zero collective bargaining etc. "Aaaah!" you may say: "But, you communist twit! What of innovation? Better and cheaper ways of doing things?" Indeed. That's why smarter companies invest in R & D - to get a competitive advantage with a new widget or service. Everyone sells widgets for $10.00 and barely makes a living. But suddenly someone figures out how to make a $5.00 widget and then that outfit is ahead of the pack for a very short period of time, until the others catch up and/or surpass the innovator. In the fire protection market, as one callous example, such innovation has historically brought very little gain in terms of safety or real benefit to the end-user (Us, the consumer or building occupants). We make things lighter and cheaper and more combustible. Thus we have lower costs, but at the cost of significantly reduced safety and zero margin for error, such as installation practices courtesy of construction workers. That's just one example of many. What drives this cycle? Front-line salesmanship. The short-sighted individual sees lower costs and is ecstatic at the 'innovation'. If you taker a broader view, you have to scratch your head, don't you? But back to SALES in general:

I'll preface this next paragraph by saying that there are some companies out there, who have some ethics left (as long as they can afford this) and tend to deal more fairly than others. Unfortunately, our collective buying behaviour as a species (and what other species apart from us buys anything in the first place???) is reducing that number of companies, which can afford to be as ethical as most of us would like them to be, quite effectively. So let's go a tad higher up the sales chain and look at the people who employ the sales representatives. It used to be, that sales people outside of retail, which ritualistically, almost religiously, pays below the poverty line (how ethical is that?), which presumes a strong and fundamental compromise in personal morality on the part of the owners, got paid fairly well. It used to be, that sales was paid in salary. In fairness to employers, there are sales people who would go to sleep on salary, not putting forth maximum effort. Then we saw salary plus, and finally commission only. I submit to you, that if you can find your butt cheeks with both hands, you can get a commission-only sales job. No sweat. Think about it: what does the employer have to lose? Their precious "training investment"? Paleeze! Just walk down to the local car lot and apply and shortly thereafter, you will join the millions who go through that revolving door of car sales. Equally, you can sell siding, vacuum cleaners, driveway sealing, office equipment, printing supplies, exercise equipment, freezer plans, "multi-level-marketing" (who will ALL tell you that they're NOT pyramid scams), and with a bit of training, you can also sell financial planning, insurance and real estate. Those who 'hire' those who cause all the turns in the constantly revolving door, pretty much all have the same rap: "Hard work, but the sky's the limit. Look at all these (the slicker operators provide photographs of all those who 'made it' and are supposedly earning perfectly obscene incomes - such picture albums can be a first sign of trouble) people who went before you! You can do that too." In reality, what they would be saying, if they had any morals left after years of doing this, would be closer to this: "Look, only a small percentage of people makes it. Those are the ones who got in it years ago and have done their homework and established clientele, which you can't touch. Now, you can invest as much as you can borrow, take your money, invest it in my business, by driving around, living without a decent paycheque and benefits (are you KIDDING? Dental, Dismemberment?), no employment insurance, no pension plan, talking about the stuff we sell and selling as much as you can, to the populace that has been trained to buy cheap, cheap, cheaply. This will cost you X per month. You need to sell Y per month to make it. This means you need to do this for least least Z months, preferably day and night. And by the way, there are hundreds of others doing this out there who will want to undercut you because in this industry, we are too unconscious to keep pricing at a reasonable level so that people like you can make it." Any sort of reality brought up to such opportunistic thugs who routinely troll for commissioned sales reps (prey) is quickly dismissed as defeatist excuses, for which they have the catch-phrase, early on, when the budding sales rep signs on: "It's up to you.". That covers it all. The ONLY way that this could not work out, the only way, that your investment in time and money and gas and whatnot is all for naught, is if you, personally, are a complete failure. Only people who can be described as total losers or failures cannot make it here..." In other words, the economy in your town could be among the worst in the country, with a high unemployment rate and businesses and people alike barely keeping their heads above water, but if you don't sell X amount, then it's exclusively YOU, the inept sales rep. Why is it just you? Easy, just look at Tom, Dick and Harry, who have sold MILLIONS of [plug in your favourite: insurance plans, freezer plans, siding jobs...]. The more the commission-only scam artists try to sell the prospective sales representative (=victim/prey) on the bullshit "job", the more suspicious one ought to be. A first clue is the call for an interview, booking the victim without disclosing any details, such as the salary portion, if any, which will be comfortably below the poverty line. But I digress:

Organised Religion

My personal definition of organised religion is this: guilt and fear-based crowd control. That's just me. Take what you like and leave the rest, please. Think of the real estate, the people, the resources, the property tied up in organised religion. It's considerable, to say the least. Would there be a mouth left to feed on this planet, even in a monetary system, if all those assets were converted to food? Now, congregations of many denominations provide 'soul-food', comfort, solace and fellowship, without which there would be more suffering. But imagine how much of the suffering would be alleviated if money were no longer an object. Imagine the reduction in violence across the globe minus both money and organised religion. Take Ireland. Protestants and Catholics, who have not exactly been on speaking terms. Apart from that, could there be a lovelier place on the planet? Can you think of a place where people have a better sense of humour, charming accent and beer that is supposedly good for you? From the latter perspective, move me to Ireland and I'll think I've died and gone to heaven - provided I don't have to drive on the other side of the road. And yet, in certain areas, there has been so much bloodshed and so  many years of strike and counterstrike, Protestants against Catholics, SAS against IRA, fathers against uncles and sons, across the religious lines, between people who believe in the same God, with the same name. And really, no priest or minister sent these people to fight against one another to the best of my knowledge. Of course, there is the matter of British occupation of Ireland, which is a political and military deal, more so than religion. But it's all connected. Pope John  Paul II has been very forthright in apologising for many wrongs committed by the Catholic church and its flock, over hundreds of years. That's a big deal. Of course, "SORRY", does nothing to fix the problems. Jews turned over to Nazis during WW2 (whether by direct action or by omission of assistance), who died or were injured, deprived, starved and robbed don't have much to gain by an apology from the Pope. Too little, too late. Or what of the extreme arrogance in the crusades of the middle ages? What of the murder and bloodshed instigated by the Catholic church then? Too little, too late. Lots and lots of suffering. 'Witches' burned at the stake. Another gruesome practice supported by the Vatican at the time. And what about the whole Jesus trip? Try not to get offended here please. I don't exclude the possibility of his existence. Here was my idea on the topic until corrected by a well-meaning catholic reader: "Joey, honey, guess what. I know you have not been getting any. But I'm pregnant. Now, it's not what you think! Not the milkman or anybody, no. Joeysweetheart, God faxed a baby into me, see?" And THAT, was the "immaculate conception". There are Catholic churches named after that. Immaculate conception! That should mean, by default, that if you get pregnant through intercourse, certainly a messier procedure, this is then LESS THAN immaculate. If it is not immaculate, does that mean it's DIRTY? Unholy? Nasty? In my experience, although a shower afterwards may be a cleansing thing, I find nothing dirty about normal sex. But the only way it's immaculate is if God faxes it in for you without human touch. Or did he? Physiologically, a sperm had to make it into Mary's egg. Or are we supposing that when God faxes in a pregnancy, that an egg of hers did not have to be fertilised? In any event, Jesus, according to scripture, was born through a vaginal birth. Mary went through a pregnancy, meaning the fetus grew inside her womb, just like for everybody else. So, pregnancy, vaginal birth - so far that's normal. Back a step, a growing fetus does what it does because cells divide. That's growth. And it only starts doing that when the egg becomes fertilised, meaning that a sperm has to make it in. Normally, especially in those days, pre-artificial insemination, that meant intercourse, which isn't immaculate. But this was immaculate, supposedly. So there are only two possibilities then. Either God beamed in (Scotty) a sperm (from where???) or he beamed/faxed in something different or caused a unique mutation within Mary, to fertilise that egg. If Jesus was a son of God, more so than any of us could consider ourselves children of God, that would mean that the egg received something akin to a sperm that meant that the child, Jesus, was as much part of the mother as the father, meaning the child's makeup would have genetic information from both parents. So Joe, as we know, wasn't getting any from the immaculate Virgin Mary. God beamed or faxed in the sperm and Joe did not get lucky until AFTER Mary healed from giving birth to Jesus. And Mary was always referred to as the virgin. Did that mean she remained a virgin for the rest of her life, meaning Joe's sex life was a solitary experience? Joe didn't even get a hand-job or a BJ? He had to do it all by himself without so much as a girlie magazine to jack off over? Or was he getting some on the side? Let's face it, Joe isn't here to set the record straight and actually, if he were, I would consider that his private business, not anyone else's. Classy folks don't kiss and tell. But you get the idea from the Catholic church, that sex is at the very least less than immaculate. Priests and nuns and monks shall not (at least officially) engage in such horizontal practices. Actually, how do we know just how many babies resulted from divine faxing? If you were God and you could do that, perhaps you'd do it more than once? Maybe you only told anybody about it with Mary but perhaps you do this once a week? But then why, if you went to all the trouble of making men? There's a thought: If God made men, and we presume that God was happy with that accomplishment (after all, we can't even build androids like Star Trek's DATA, nevermind a living, breathing and thinking organism anywhere nearly as complex as a whole dude), then why would he not use one of the men to fertilise Mary? Or was there something wrong with Joe? Was Joe a dud? Would Joe have produced a child of less than normal intelligence or excessive body odour? Would God have preferred perhaps a Fred or a Tom, Dick or Harry to have impregnated Mary? But Mary wanted Joe, so God gave in and faxed in a sperm so Joe wouldn't do the deed and spoil the whole thing? Maybe that was it. There are these bugs, beetles, you can learn about in biology. They have these big clam things in the front they fight with to get the female. And whichever male bug makes it, impregnates the female and then puts a plug in that the other male bugs can't remove. So once she's had 'Fred', that's it - the plug's in the jug and try as you might, no one else gets in. Was Jesus such a plug against Joe? No matter what really happened, (and who knows - some say the New Testament was written 400 years after the last event in it took place) the Catholic Church indicates that only Mary's conception was immaculate.

Now, as I prefaced, this was my interpretation of the whole 'immaculate' deal. After all, to conceive a child, typically means getting pregnant, which is ordinarily achieved via intercourse. But the current Catholic explanation is, in my view, even more twisted than I suspected. I am fairly creative, but I would not have thought of this deal, which fits with immaculate precision into my original definition of organised religion: Guilt and Fear Based Crowd Control. Get a load of this:

Click here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

For complete satisfaction, click on their link about 'original sin'. Guilt and Fear, Guilt and Fear, carrot and stick. You're born in deep excrement (the apple deal started it all off apparently on the wrong foot) and the church is the only way out. Apparently we're all tainted and sinners and in trouble and so on and the Vatican provides the solution, creates the market and then serves it. If the Catholic church had not been invented and only came on the scene now, I suggest they would be deemed a cult and be subjected close scrutiny. But that's just how I see it. You make up your own mind. Or prove me wrong. Invent a new religion and have as much far out symbolism and holy this and that as the Catholics and see what happens.

Now, in that same church, if you're a female, you have the opportunity to marry God! Talk about having friends in high places! That's called being a nun. I don't know what the monks' deal is. As a nun, you're one of the many many many wives of God. So, polygamy is OK, if you have the right connections. They even wear a ring! And they never get any! Now, if a nun got herself pregnant, would the Catholic Church presume that God faxed in another sperm? After all, it's his wife, so what's the problem? According to the catholic link above, NO, because Joe DID get the action and Something other than that sperm was faxed in - or something like that. BUT: if your faith were that strong, then would it seem unreasonable to think that God could have teleimpregnated that nun without any local man's assistance? If Jesus is supposed to come back down one more time, then why not as a son of one of his many many wives - a nun? Mary was married to Joe at the time and nobody made a fuss about the fact that even though she was married to Joe, it was God who got her pregnant - or maybe it was a partial responsibility deal. The catholics say that it was only immaculate because Mary was exempt from the tainting of the original sin. But why refer to her as a virgin even though she gave birth to at least one son? Not even Joe was reported to be sore at God for this. Or would the Church (back to our pregnant nun example) throw the pregnant nun out saying that she was getting some on the side? Maybe a vag exam would reveal absence or presence of that little membrane which must be severed to turn a virgin into a woman of the world? And who would conduct that exam? If the above link is right and Joe did get some action, then perhaps it was just a gene that was faxed in, right? There are books about lesbianism among nuns. Hard to get pregnant that way mind you. Of course, whether the Church sees sex as less than immaculate or not, guess what, it's in the wiring. What about homosexuality among the male Clergy? If male and female prisoners are doing each other, why not clergy? All alone in that monastery? No one's looking? We've all heard about abuse cases in boarding schools and so forth. Theoretically, men and women of the cloth in the Catholic Church must abstain from sex. Not immaculate enough I suppose. And exactly what has been the benefit of this to mankind? Who is better off because of the fact that a nun is getting no action or perhaps lesbian action? Who benefits from the sexual frustration of priests or monks? Is there some cosmic lesson in it for them? Does that do us any good outside of clergy? It's all out in the open now. The Pope apologized and the media informs us with regularity of sexual trespasses of men of the cloth, as cases come before judges. What about all the singing they do in Church? What good does that do? Did God not create people who make Rock'n'roll music? If he's listening to our tunes, what makes you think he wants to hear the same tired old hymns from churches that were yesterday's news hundreds of years ago? Catholicism of course is NOT the only organised religion. But whenever you get into dedicated real estate, rituals instead of substance, dedicated staff, etc., you have a self-serving organisation, typically with rigid belief systems, which are often twisted way out of shape, by the 'flock' and also by many of the cloth. For an example outside of Catholicism, just look at female circumcisions, which are still performed in the middle east. What could be more cruel and pointless and in fact insulting to the very God they purport to serve? After all, if they find it necessary to remove a human body part, which God put there, does that not imply that they think their God made junk? On the whole, it's an enormous waste of resources, in my view. This is offset by many of the good things which are done, such as helping the poor in various ways and providing solace and comfort and fellowship. But in the end, the aim is for "missionary" purposes, convincing people of the narrow views held by the Church in order to serve that Church and keep it in existence. Do as we say or you will perish in hell in an unpleasant manner. Do what we say and you will go to heaven and all will be well, an eternal Graceland, complete with Coca Cola fountains and steak dinners. And some people are prepared to engage in violence to defend such views. A distraction from our goals of enormous proportions. Instead, if one believes in a divine being or creator, one may make contact anywhere, anytime, without the need of such expert guidance as Clergy has to offer. Most religions agree to varying degrees. If you pray, you may do so pretty much anywhere. And the thoughts that run through your head while you do this, are yours and the recipient's if you're right.

Crime

Now why do we have crime? What sort of crime do we have? Most of it has to do with illegal gains of money or property. Minus the money, if everyone is reasonably content, who would engage in criminal activity? There would be no bank to rob, wallet to steal, money to embezzle. Monetary crimes exist exclusively because of money. Thieves steal to get money, so they can buy things 'legitimately' with stolen money. Crime employs a lot of people. It's a big industry. There are the criminals of course. Then there are their dependents. Then there are police officers, attorneys, secretaries, jailhouses, jailhouse staff as well as the whole industry, which produces goods and services for everyone. Weapons have to be made as well as ammunition, listening devices, building materials, office equipment, office supplies, riot gear - the list goes on. Ever stop to think just how many trees are harvested each year for the paperflow through legal offices? So by extension, you have paper workers, machine builders who make everything that goes into pulp and paper mills, etc., on and on. Altogether, it's an enormous industry with huge spin-offs that would entirely disappear in the absence of a system that utilises money. In our system, we might not be able to make do without crime?!

You might mention that we have crimes of passion that do not involve money. OK, take rape. How many rapists come from perfectly calm and normal circumstances in their upbringing versus those who had abusive parents, no parents etc.? Remove the money aspect and the stress that accompanies it and how sure are you that there would not at least be a REDUCTION in such crimes in the long run? We'll probably always have some twisted psychos who get off on causing untold suffering to others and who must be brought to justice. But remove money and you free up an enormous amount of resources to nail these guys.

Money,

Marketing,

Sales,

Organised Religion,

Crime

These are the prime contenders for the position of 'useless distractions'. The list is by no means complete and I'm sure you can think of more, if you follow the gist.

5. So what is the magic solution?

I don't really think there is a practical solution for the foreseeable future because an overwhelming majority of people would have to agree. In the first place, what is the percentage of people on this planet who will read this text down to here? One requires scientific notation to even quantify that percentage number. KISS - keep it simple, stupid! And although I find this quite simple and although there are not even calculations involved and basically anyone with basic Grade 10 skills should be able to handle this text and these concepts, the required attention span likely will kill this at least in my lifetime. Now let's say that enough people got the message. The 'haves' are not likely to readily agree to give up what they have (Imagine having a healthy bank account only to find out that perhaps in one stroke of a pen, there would be no more bank accounts?) or any change to governance that might jeopardise their potential for being better off than anyone else, regardless of what this might do for anybody else. And let's not be too harsh. In the same position, would you? If you've toiled all your life and were able to save something for your kids and suddenly the whole monetary system is replaced by something different entirely and perhaps other people's kids whose parents did not succeed or even try to do as well by their kids, suddenly those kids are in an identical position to your own and you don't even understand it yet? That is sure to go over like a lead balloon. But let's extricate our cranium from our posteriors for a moment and step back to 'Q's position. Let's say you're in a pressurised and perfectly comfortable, gravity equipped and heated Star Fleet runabout (small shuttle spacecraft), sitting there next to 'Q'. The ship is sitting in orbit around Earth. From your position, you can see the Moon. Both the runabout and the Moon are at the same distance to the Earth'Q' snaps his fingers, as he enjoys doing to emphasise a point, and very  rapidly, the runabout is moved at an enormous velocity and comes to rest in a position outside of the Milky Way,  our galaxy,  and 'Q' turns to you and says this: "Look, you and your terrans are on this rock, which won't last, right over there (points to some spot on the Alpha Quadrant where our solar system is) If you're going to amount to anything at all, you will have to learn to travel. See these big boulders flying about inside of and between galaxies? He snaps his fingers once again and the runabout slides parallel with a dust and debris spewing hunk of space junk. "These things are very important because they contain the stuff that life is made of. Without a few of those, you would not even be here. But once your planet is colonised and then it hits, it's all over. These things get hurled around and deflected by gravity of planets and stars near their paths so you have no idea when one may come at you that Jupiter won't catch. If you have any brains at all, you'll quit wasting precious resources and see to it that if you ever need to, you have someplace else to go. Now watch what happens. (The runabout is moved a few thousand kilometres away from the space junk and you see a large, uninhabited planet. The rock collides with the planet and literally smashes it. An enormous cloud of dust and debris, bits and pieces, result.) "You see that?" You nod, remembering to close your mouth. This is how that planet is getting two moons for itself. It'll take a while, but that's what will happen. Now if that had been Earth, how many of your insignificant little people do you think would have survived? Do you think the President would have survived if he were airborne at the time of the impact in Airforce 1?"   "No", you reply. "Can you afford to ignore this?" "No." "Do you know how many such impacts happen per hour just in your galaxy?"

Even if you, the person reading this right now, can wrap your mind around these very simple concepts, you have to realise that it takes more than just one person to bring about change on a large enough scale to completely alter our (meaning humanity - all of us in all countries) way of life and our goals.

So let's take it a step further. Say we are 200 years ahead and we're actually ready to DO something. Real action, not just talk and BS.

6. What are we going to do?

These are broad principles, which require a lot of detailed work to function.

1. The federal government in each country, through the elected representatives is given the task of administration of a new system of government as outlined below.

2. We educate the population of the planet about what is going to happen and what we will do. We communicate the contents of this text and whatever else has been learned since its initial writing that is relevant. This is intended to begin a worldwide paradigm shift.

3. We determine necessary occupations and activities for our new system and assign skills and abilities best suited to each activity, whether old or new. Essential activities must include (but are not limited to) health care, which is in desperate need of more resources everywhere, food production and distribution, healing the landscape from toxic industrial effects, counselling to heal the stress and pain of many, safety of people and buildings and work practices.

4. EVERYONE undergoes extensive psychological testing and profiling exclusively to determine best skills and experience base for each person. In other words, we begin to match our people to the activities we determined to be essential for collective survival and happiness. We take into account that families need to be as close as possible and in many cases re-united, where the previous system tore them apart due to economic or political pressures.

5. We abolish everything that is not conducive to our goals of survival and happiness. 

That's another broad statement, but it includes (and is not limited to) getting rid of money and all jobs tied directly to it, such as banking, tax collection, marketing, outside sales, mortgage brokers, pyramid scams etc. This frees up many people everywhere from pointless activities. Once personal skills and experience testing has been completed, we re-assign these people to the most urgently needed tasks, such as food production, energy production, education, transportation of precious goods and services to those most in need.

6. The easiest language of all and that which is spoken as a second language by most people who speak a second language, is English. All governments everywhere, insofar as that is not already the case, make it mandatory for everyone to learn Oxford English to facilitate global communication, understanding and peace.

7. A generous credit system must be established for many components of life, such as personal food intake, entertainment, clothing, work etc. to avoid abuse and deprivation. Each person must contribute reasonably and be assured a level of comfort based on personal work. Credits must not be transferable to avoid their becoming "currency" as in the previous system. The most important milestone will have been reached, when each person, young and old has attained an acceptable level of comfort in terms of food, shelter, clothing, access to health care, education and the ability to contribute meaningfully to personal and our collective goals.

8. Technology changes must occur towards maximum ecology and be implemented with utmost dispatch.

9. Each person must have access to education equivalent to the university postgraduate level. Learning activities count fully towards work credits. Universities must accept direction from people with more practical experience (these would have been assigned earlier) to lessen irrelevant curricular activities and enhance practical application of knowledge.

10. Everyone in health care, from nurses to doctors, including interns and medical students must be entitled to the same maximum 40 hour work week as everyone else. Where this creates personnel shortages, such personnel shall be augmented through additional staff as necessary from the pool of re-assigned and re-educated workers as soon as practical. Elective and preventive surgery shall become increasingly more available as medical staff and facilities are increased to handle the additional work.

11. Leaders in each industry, insofar as this is not already available, shall agree on uniform spreadsheeting of information concerning the goods and services of their respective industries, first inside of each country and then internationally. Organisations, private and public, shall merge to effect maximum efficiency. Spreadsheeted information necessary for users' choices shall be made publicly and electronically available.

12. Space faring organisations, public and private shall communicate more effectively without the need for confidentiality. NASA shall head up the overall administration of this effort. Personnel and resources shall be assigned to such organisations as practical for maximum exploration of space and interplanetary travel. We need to work towards the potential of being able to move the entire population of the planet. A Mars colony shall be explored as the beginning step towards further colonisation of planets outside of our solar system.


There is only one shortcut I can think of for the paradigm shift to occur, which would undoubtedly be necessary for enough people to grasp these concepts, problems and solutions. This would be major advances in neurology, the discovery of the neurological codes, those we all have in common and those that we theorise to be unique per person. When we know exactly how the brain works, we can then approach overcoming the immense apathy and lack of necessary attention span to solve all sorts of problems. Until then, it's tough.


Want to chat about the TOS?
http://homosapiensurvival.blogspot.com/


Thoughts about what is behind where we are headed if we do not engage in this theory:

In short, there is a lot of bad stuff going down. The web is full of conspiracy theories and so forth. There are certain facts that make the practical and world-wide application of this theory an urgent requirement. Ever since my first publication of the Theory of Survival, nearly every news item and every bit of history I have become aware of, and this is LOTS, has done nothing but confirmed irrevocably, my firm belief that I am right in this. A few scholars have attempted to rebuttal me but their arguments have been easy easy to defeat on merit. You cannot beat common sense, which is all this is. So, the facts are, that we are too stupid to handle money and that having it around is causing us to do ourselves in. History is repeating itself, only in a more complicated manner. Essentially, we have moved from monarchies and feudal societies of the haves and the have nots, to lots of struggle, revolutions, war, torture, conflict, etc., to an always temporary more even distribution of wealth. The struggles of the early labour movements had significant results, which are, once again, under attack. Pretty soon after major redistributions of wealth, such as have happened on the heels of a number of revolutions, human nature took hold again and instead of some blue-blooded monarchs who insist that deity was responsible for their positions and status in society, the monarchs were replaced by either totalitarian regimes or corporations, lobby groups and self-serving organisations. At present, the spread between rich and poor is rapidly growing again. All western, civilised countries are draining jobs towards third world, cheap labour markets. The middle class is being eroded. The media are in the hands of powerful corporations who are feeding a steady diet of status quo to apathetic masses, which are getting less affluent each year, thus increasing poverty, crime, bad health, frustration, in short all the emotions that are routinely released in human history by major outbursts of violence. Attention spans are shortening all the time too. Whenever an excessive gap has existed between a ruling elite and masses of people who are in rough shape, which is exactly what is happening right now, at an accelerating pace, with trends going back by to the nineteen eighties, civil unrest and even revolutions have been sure to follow. So where is all this headed? It would appear that we are headed to loads of trouble, not unlike the recent civil unrest among young immigrants in France. If YOU and those whom you convince to read this don't do anything, neither will anybody else and history must repeat itself until we're all wiped out by attrition. It is thus not unreasonable to assume that if the current trends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer AND larger in numbers, that this is quite purposeful. If there were some intelligent force behind it though, it is also reasonable to assume that whoever the head honcho behind such a conspiracy (theory) might be, he's just a bit short sighted, when one considers recent history, such as the revolutions in France, China and Russia, as well as the immense struggles of the labour movement in North America. A few quotations here:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.



No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
-
We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.

-
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
-
If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.

 Theodore Roosevelt :
If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.
-

In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.
-
No man is worth his salt who is not ready at all times to risk his well-being, to risk his body, to risk his life, in a great cause.
-
That's enough heady stuff. For lighter side stuff, see what Dan Quayle had to say:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dan_quayle.html


Further links to big stuff:

Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics; Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D.,  Professor of Physics

Physics in my hometown  :-)

Main Site

Firestop Site

Code Evaluations AVAILABLE!

Glossary of Fire Protection Terms

3M Fire Barriers

Vectorising Drawings and Maps; Paper to CAD

Circuit Integrity Fireproofing

Bounding

Code Req's for Firestops

Essay on Performance Based Codes

Master Spec. Section 07840 Firestopping

Related Sections to 07840

Penetration Seal Drawings

Building Joint Drawings 1

Building Joint Drawings 2

Building Joint Drawings 3

History of Firestops in North America

Warnock Hersey Experience

Firestop Trade Jurisdiction

Achim Hering Bio

Man Made Mineral Fibres

Fire Protection Industry Links

Firestop Products and Equipment

Firestop Mortar

Firestop Silicone Foam

Intumescent Products

Endothermic Products

Insulation Products

Caulking & Paint Firestops

Firestop Pillows

Firestop Devices

Firestop Slide Show 1 of 10 Basics

Firestop Slide Show 2 of 10 Code

Firestop Slide Show 3 of 10 No Seal

Firestop Slide Show 4 of 10 Deemed-to-comply

Firestop Slide Show 5 of 10 Misinstalled

Firestop Slide Show 6 of 10 Re-entered

Firestop Slide Show 7 of 10 Faulty Spec.

Firestop Slide Show 8 of 10 Proper Firestops

Firestop Slide Show 9 of 10 Test

Firestop Slide Show 10 of 10 Smoke and Trays

Sample Firestop Listing

Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning; Boiling-Hot Pressure Washing

ULC           UL

T O S

(Theory of Survival)

DIBt

TU Braunschweig iBMB

CONTACT

1