colewebberblog - Tumblr blog

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7671 — no excuses

There currently sit on Earth’s launchpads enough nuclear weapons to dedicate one each to destroying every city with over 150,000 inhabitants — with the delivery-speed of reaching their targets in less than one half hour.

Behind each of these, now ready to be launched (as you are reading this) wait more to be readied and reloaded: quite literally enough to destroy every city on Earth (by any meaningful measure).

Every single day the nations of Each spend money to maintain this vast system — the cost for which amounts to double the cost it would take to feed every single hungry child on Earth fully in the same time frame.

With the money that has been spent solely on the nuclear problem, it is no exaggeration to say that a utopia could have been instead paid for, one in which every human being — even amongst our expanding population — could presently be taken care of. Instead, everyday these resources are funnelled towards equipping for our total destruction.

Many would blame the politicians, but I do not fully. This is an abject failure of humanity in multifacets, and here this falls predominantly to another group. To a certain extent, upon successful invention their hands have been bound:

Even if a peace and disarmament treaty were signed to completely ban all nuclear weapons, every single one would never be gotten rid of. Any reasonable country would keep a few in secret, for fear that the others were doing the same.

Everyday terrorist and insurrectionist groups are pressing weak points in this vast dam — which sometime is nearly sure to break — to obtain information on how to build their own nuclear weapons.

Ergo, now that they have been created, demonstrated, evidenced and proven, Pandora’s box is open. There is no going back. And who opened the box?

The faulty ethics of a handful of scientists, who were much more concerned with what they could do than what they should, and even at best were — just following orders. Today many of them are hailed as brilliant fathers of modern physics and quantum mechanics. Departments and awards are named after them. The potential argument that they are mass murderers is relegated to footnotes, and often even celebrated for the intelligence solving such a great technical problem clearly shows.

What of the technical problem of how to take care of other human beings?

It did not have to be this way. They could have, seeing the potential, refused to develop the idea to its prototypical working conclusion, no matter the pressure or costs — since the future costs would have been inevitably greater.

In fact, this is the exact case with the Nazi bomb project, which was further ahead than that of any other country, and yet now believed by most historians to have been continuously and purposely sabotaged by the scientists involved — at risk to their own life — for exactly these reasons. They were not going to be the ones to open the box. And each scientist that could have also could have made this choice.

It is not a trade off, or an error. It is a brutal, crippling, personal and complete failure of character of the people who developed the bomb first that has forever hung a brutal shadow on humanity. In their onward affect and influence on the rest of humans and the future, they are probably the worst group of humans to have ever existed.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7670 — non-local forwardly (syntropy = god)

I believe that Syntropy is essentially God. Human beings can see entropy. They heat a glass of tea and it is no longer hot. They build a monument and it is crumbled by erosion and sand. This has been true since Ancient times. The other side of this is the verifiable reality, which human beings have only had the capability to see — since it is only present non-locally — in at best the last 150 years. That is that the heat that appears to be lost is not last; the monument that appears to have crumbled has not crumbled, that is there is no destruction, only recycling. Even in the truest form of destruction, the destruction of an atom, matter is converted to energy, of which the running sum total is always absolute and always the same. In the small term, meaning in any one local instant or one locale, entropy is visible, but entropy itself as a pattern is forwardly and at higher order repatterned, what is lost repurposed often to make the exact forward syntropic investments. The creatures that die are reabsorbed into those that lived at a higher standard, to continue the cycle, the end result being acceleratedly increasing consciousness and advantage. A pronoia of syntropically merging forwardly progressing regeneration has only been possible to be observed when all locales were linked — not just on Earth but the locale of the Universe, as well as the interchangeable equivalence of energy-mass. Anytime previous to 1905 an always trending of ‘it will all work out’ was never observed locally and though large-scale suspected and apprehended by some could only be taken on faith. It is no longer faith but a scientific reality.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7666 — Bankrupt!

I might add to my bucket list to go bankrupt. I think it might be a necessary development to teach myself there is no risk and that I can carry on. Money is invented, and fascinatingly if I look at the people who really advanced things over the last 500 years there are more bankruptcies in their collective experience than academic degrees or approved liceniates. Experience favours experience, not paper, and as a consequence of the first it further inherently must favour trial and error, and once again therefore many trials. There is no end. You never learn less, you can only learn more.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7636 – Counting doesn’t Count

I have been troubled on and on by the question: how much money is there in the world?

How much money is there in the world? Is a question most similar to How much water is in the ocean? Obviously, the answer most depends on how you count: but not in the simple manner you may think I mean, as in units of litres versus for another instance meters cubed. Even then: are we ‘counting’ only the metre contents, or also the film volume, however small (as a sheet of paper) of the x y z (double for paralleled) measuring planes? It depends on how you count the ocean itself. Do the rivers ‘count’? The lakes and feed-throughs that go to the ocean? The water which is being evaporated from the ocean into air humidity or further rain? If not those then does the water ‘in the clouds’ already ‘count’ – which themselves are only masses past a given density to form visible-to-us clouds, not much different at all from air humidity which is engendered by the same processes and so too can be returned to its source in time? If clouds, the ones there now or being sucked up and formed too in this instance? Even when you decide to ‘count’ or not the clouds or the air humidity coming from and returning to the ocean, you must still decide: In what instance of time? At any time there is a fluctuation of evaporation, condensation, precipitation. At what instance do we determine? Can we measure at the same instant everywhere in the world? Or a moving net average? Then, of what instant as any boundaries still start and end (a second is not an ‘indivisible’ atom but two sets of markers, so an hour is just a larger conceptual instant). GDP is not how much money there is in the world, it is the measured and predicted-extrapolated from measurements net money to change hands in one calendar year instant. There can be a lot more money or less money ‘in’ the world: and, for what purpose are we measuring? We have an accounting system where only one fiftieth or less of total accounted for, therefore underwritten, bank and nation-state accredited, and issued money can be kept on reserve in currency (which is different than money). (This is called ‘fractional reserve’). So, if we were asking to see ‘how much we could spend at once’, the more right answer of how much there ‘is’ would be misleadingly unuseful: we could not spend it all at once (for first how do you buy the world?) but also, only one fiftieth would be available to us at any given instant. What instant? How long does it take us to spend it? What instant? And now we are at accounting cycles. Likewise, if we were asking how much water there is in the ocean to see who could do the drinking up of it, the answer we give (to be useful) would depend on who is doing the drinking ands how fast they can drink. Even if they are drinking, if we are counting them as being connected to the ocean, as if evaporation itself — the end answer would not change. It is telling to me that when we draw boundaries as to what is included and what isn’t — though this is a descriptive, qualitative and not quantitative act — we say we are still ‘counting’; determining what ‘counts’. You can never get to ‘counting’ without drawing the boundaries first. There are no numbers, only what is being counted. As per our question with money, the most right answer to our ocean question is the same and is not a number but a definition. How much water is there in the ocean? is: how much matter engendered from water (and returnable to water) is present in all systems connected to the ocean. The total hydrogen and oxygen ratios in scenarios ready to be reacted at present in a state as to be driven by forces to reconnect to the ocean. How much money is there in the world?: is: however much value there is.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7660 — Stupidity or Malice?

There are a lot of insane things happening in the world right now, and I am often stricken as to whether it is being done by psychopaths who are pulling one over on us, or idiots who really mean it. Malice is the far more terrifying option, because it implies a shadow world with ties and powers so vast as to be unbreakable, un-overcome-able… fortunately it is the least likely option. There are many people who have no regard for other human beings, and unfortunately for us a great many of them are demonstrably ‘in power’ — but just because they are ‘evil’ does not also mean they are not ‘stupid’. They can be — and often are — both. Psychopaths are not evil geniuses for lacking empathy. Nor are they even normal geniuses. Human’s value is in collaboration, and the value of our technological tools is in doing more with less: which is always, has to be, to find a win-win. Anything else is not a value-add, is not revolutionary — it is a con, even if it may be earnestly meant by the conman, and engendered out of an inability of empathy rather than disregard-of-it maliciousness. I was recently thinking about the economic downturn we seem to be headed to, which is still very odd and very much up in the air: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the economy. To tell a business to completely close all activity and income for a quarter, and to find it goes bankrupt is not at all to point out that business doesn’t work. It would work if it was working. Many are still going bankrupt now. But ultimately, we can ‘flip the switch back on’. There was no fundamental economic crisis, rather everything was on hold. So we may very well be able to try to pick up from where we left off — if of course leadership is smart enough to push the pause button for everyone, which I am increasingly worried they will not do. The only real solution is to suspend collections across the board. Not just rent (the renter pays the landlord — who still often has to pay the bank — who still has to pay its clients, you). When the Depression happened — as is happening now — there is still the same amount of money in the world. People have just begun to desperately cringingly hold on to it. Economic disasters are funny, because they make people want to save, but are driven by not spending. But once again: are the state organizers Machiavellians, scheming to withhold precious dollars from us? It would be easy to say so, except that they lose too. Even if they mean it, they’re being stupid. It is completely short sighted. The beautiful case in point is Mr. Henry Ford, who, well not good in a lot of ways, pioneered the improvements in efficiencies that have brought many of the staples of everyday life to everyone — and in a sustainable way. Ford was one of the last ‘titans of industry’ to actually build a company — not just borrow one, or sell one on speculative stock price to guild-gaurunteed income-underwritten siphoning professionals (doctors, lawyers) looking to gullibly expand their investments. People act as if Jeff Bezos is a panderer to a corporate elite (which surely also he is). But he is the richest person in the world. He could not have curried favour with just one person, who bestowed it on him. He is the richest. Where did that money come from? Stock valuations, by the people buying the stocks, or the people providing the money to the investment bankers to provide the stocks. They’re not the ‘1%’ as we usually think of it, but the 10%: doctors, lawyers, and other licensed professionals who generally want investments but don’t want to make their own investments. They are not looking carefully, and easily swayed by image and promise, making Amazon, in name only, the largest company on Earth — even though their ‘revolutionary’ idea is simply to ‘own everything’, and their ‘skyrocketing’ margins are a little over 1%, only for a few years of their existence. With them, as much as with Tesla, Google, Facebook, almost every other ‘meteoric riser’, most of the value is just not there, only up-bid by perception. Ford on the other hand did build a car, and built a way for almost all the population to have it (not just promise to). And how did he do it? He made the simple and very accurate observation: that thinking of the whole system, his employees are also his customers. And his suppliers are also his customers. And all the rest. So he built company housing for his employees, and designed his entire supply chain, not freelancingly outsourcing to lowest bidder (as we see is causing great issues now as global trade is halted). Most importantly, he paid his workers more: far more than minimum wage at the time, ushering in the era of America where you could own a house on a factory worker’s salary. And why did he do it? He was clearly not a selfless man, just the opposite. But he was smart. As Buckminster Fuller notes in his books (he knew Ford) an economic calculation was literally run, which concluded: at this scale, your employees are your customers. Paying them enough to buy your products will allow you both to grow. That seems to be the message lost on founders of companies that tank in a quarter and buy a private jet — of the founders even of the largest companies on Earth today. Where is this mentality in requiring Amazon employees to pee in bottles? In bailing out the big corporations, and letting unemployment claims flood? I am worried for many people in the short term, and my heart goes out to them. But I am not worried for ‘the masses’ in the long term. We always win. Because the simple truth, which is only irrevocably accelerated in an interrelated and connected world, is that it is stupid to screw someone over. Not just cold, or psychopathic, or selfish, or cold blooded. Not just morality guides against it: it is stupid. Human beings are collaborators. Technology is win-win. Everything that is not these things are frauds. Which is why, though maybe these efforts succeed sometimes in the short term, over the very long millions of years of human beings on board the planet, and since civilization records began, the long and large overwhelming trending is for the rich to get less rich, the powerful less powerful, quality of life to expand, and people to have more say. If you are afraid of Amazon — which, fairly you should be — well wait until you hear about Standard Oil. Or the monarchies, who literally owned everything in their country. Even the great power players of today are not very powerful. The largest cash hoard in the world owned by one person (as per Mr. Bezos) is equal to only 0.17% of the money that is made in the world in one year. Not all of the money in the world; only all of it in one year. Not all the money in one year — only that which is ‘made’, not what stays tucked away. The richest man’s pile is just 0.03% of all the money to change hands in just five years. There are more resources and potential than anyone realizes, it is only that our brains have trouble dealing with numbers over a certain amount: a number such as that of humanity’s enormous present resting potential. The world is much bigger than you can even comprehend. People will be able to fix it — just perhaps not the present people ‘in’. It will be fixed. Which only makes me existentially worried for them. Because: even if a quarter of our population is unemployed, if debt flows up, and all the rest… that part is not real. The only real value of the real economy is the technological capacity of humanity. The factories are still there. The people that know how to use them are still here. The machines are still in the field, and the crops are still planted. We simply cannot lose it all overnight — we only can, somehow, on paper, which would call into question the validity of those approximating accounting methods in the first place. There have at times been events like this, which have usually resulted in massive restructurings. Debts can be cancelled. People can be put back to work. Countries even, can change governments — not just in name, but completely. And so while I am deeply worried for many of the masses in the short term, we are the force that must not be controlled but reckoned with in the long term. Always. You cannot simply beat us. You cannot lay off 25% of humanity — there is still the work to be done, and the capacity to take care of us! We will be employed, just not by you. I am called to the phrase ‘eat the rich’ which I originally detested as overly violent but only recently learned the full quote and origin of. It is greatly misused today. It is from the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau living very close to the French Revolution. It is not a grotesque call to action, but rather a simple and patient observation — and warning… to the rich. The full quote is: When the poor have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich. Simple and matter of fact and true. Their dollars are part of this economy too: they can’t crash it and then walk out with the bags of gold. They have to make it work, or else they will go down too. They have to figure it out, or else be toppled. If anything, I am not worried about a dystopia but a revolution. In the past months the governments of the world have proved that they can do, rapidly, what they usually pretend they cannot. They can completely alter society, form new organizations, develop new technologies, create programs to catalogue every citizen, raise and spend trillions of dollars — nearly overnight. Nobody on Earth has not noticed this. When the immediate threat begins to subside, if they say they cannot levy the same to deal with the run off problems: evictions, unaffordable housing, debts, etc. etc. — nobody is going to believe them. They can do it, and the must or be replaced.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7655 — communication uncaptured

How you say something is most key. You can say “One word is so small, what does it matter?” In both the sense of ‘writing is never worth it because of the cosmic insignificance of humanity in respect to total time,’ or ‘do not stress about each word, because the intention can be communicated beyond the labour.’ One phrase is either freeing or dooming… Maybe it really is all about how you think about things.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7650 — Insiders only Instant

It’s always an insiders world in the instant, but an outsiders world over any period of time that is cosmically significant; any period of time beyond human-time. The insiders create the problems, the great breakthroughs and solutions are made by the outsiders, as a very inherent sort of a thing. The same way going that started a problem won’t fix it.

We had the reality be for most of humanity’s history that the outsiders were operating primarily for people ahead in time from them. They still are, since any invention is really most valuable to the more people past the death of the inventor who will use it. But we are just now getting to the point in terms of technological generations versus human generations (which are always inter-affecting each other) that the outsider-inventor can see results within their own lifetime. Before we had it that they were far too often imprisoned, house-arrested, decried, even locked up in insane asylums within their own lifetime. Then maybe even a hundred years later, somebody found out they were right the whole time (or more accurately more-right, since we are are always finding improvements and therefore can never be wholly right) and then we say “Well it would be nice to paint portraits of them now and put their doodles into museums,” and things like this. So Van Gogh and DaVinci’s artifacts then become worth so much that they could be the richest humans at their time — but it was considered worthless then. Invariably, since you have to spend your time developing it, and because of our expanding population and continuous improvements via always coming up outsiders, inventions are still onward most useful to the most after the outsider death. But the generations are aligning such that the outsider, while almost guaranteed to be ridiculed, questioned, decried, and all the rest early on, can have a shot at seeing some of the reward in their later years. This is the mere fact — coterminous, both allowed by and causing — the introduction of patent laws. For most of our history they would have been nonsensical because the inventor never would have seen widespread use of the invention in their own lifetime, much less in a twenty year term as is the case with most patent protection now.

The outsiders have always been inventing and moving forward, even at great cost and with no incentive, so it is a personality trait less than a manipulatable societal trend. It is societies most constant and unmoving trend, yet it essentially entirely unpredictable and undetectable, because it is always counter-trending to everything else: the salmon pushing up the stream. But I am so deeply excited that the resistance is becoming less and less, the generations such aligning that the salmon itself, not their descendant, might now actually reach the end of the stream, that we may find many more people becoming much more comfortable with being an outsider. As we know more and more, we are all different outsiders.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7648 — Not selfishly, not stupidly, but smally

We’re in the terrible present reality where the world is being run by people who define wealth as power. This converts it not to advantage strictly speaking, but to advantage over someone else. Wealth has never been anything but purely technological, therefore completely metaphysical pattern-only and therefore recycling-abled forwardly regenerative and ever expanding. The physical resources remain constant, our knowledge what to do with them always increases, ergo our advantage (wealth) can only increase. We shrink from what we know can be done to what we choose to do. This is the simple reason why economics — from Communism to Capitalist — has been misconstrued, mislabelled, mis-enacted and misrepresented as a ‘zero sum game’ on all phases of the spectrum: never for an economic, technological, or therefore even real reason, but a strictly psychological one — in fact a very rare relative to the total human population psychological misstep. The majority of people are always looking for a win win. World War 1 had to be reshuffled as soon as the soldiers actually started talking, because if the 99% are free to communicate they will quickly and inevitably put down arms because they are looking for a win-win. It is often remarked that many psychopaths are leaders and CEOs because they are ‘good at it’. They are not at all good at it: they are less good at it than a random person picked off of the street, and their continued misunderstanding of the complexities and potentials drives us deeper and deeper off the cliff. Often, they don’t even benefit from their own mistakes. They time and again bankrupt their own countries, their own companies, their own estates, and destroy their own legacies and plans. The psychopath is petulantly impulsive, short sighted and self centred, which are not traits possible of growing success anywhere. They only temporarily bully, allowing them to temporarily steal. But what they steal is still stolen, and always leaves a repercussion. They have not added real value: they have not added to the economy at all. Humans — and our chief gift, technology — are inherently collaborative. Eventually that strategy shoots the weilder in the foot, every time. They are not strictly ‘screwing us over’ to get better, and yet they are not simply too stupid to see what they are doing either. They are horribly, horribly wrong in their fundamental view of the most basic human concepts: interaction, advantage, growth. They are only good at appearing to be what we in the public have labelled as ‘good at business’, which is a media sham and as much a sham of our own buying in. They would rather have $500 and you $0 than you each have $1000, and they are pursuing all of their economic policies to this effect. I feel bad for them, because I can hardly call it selfish — they are actually forfeiting a better world which they could have for themselves — but rather it is petty. How small of a person do you have to be to think like that? We are being led by the least of us, not selfishly, not stupidly but smally.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7646 — Leaf blower

I figured that I would start to understand more and more things as I get older. I understand less and less and less, and realize just how less I understand. Case in point profoundly this morning. Leaf blowers and leafs. Now, it may be good to have a leaf blower around, for creating amateur hovercrafts and the like, but why is it ever necessary for its regular intended purpose? This morning the cool summer breeze coming straight through my apartment windows is interrupted by the absolutely unbearable elephant roaring of a fucking leaf blower! The leaves are not even out yet, let alone to fall and need blowing away. I looked and the person doing it is blowing away pine needles from a strip of pavement. Why is this so important to do? Especially at 9:00 in the morning? My dad used to do it and I did not understand it then. Why spend your time subverting perfectly good nature? I think that the desire to work is a human thing, and we keep inventing stuff for us to do that we know is pointless. At the very best, the needles just blow themselves back in. At the very worst and very true, you got rid of something beautiful — beautiful that was supposed to be there.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7644 — art and world

It’s funny: the art world is the worst thing to ever happen to art. Because it rationalized and price tag stamped it like a can of soup. And made there be art sellers, and therefore art appraisers. Appraisers are the worst of them, the worst people in the world, because they do something that is completely impossible, but they do it with numbers so they seem and become completely unquestionable.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7393 – thoughts and quotes

You must learn to reject acceptance and accept rejection.

Do not take criticism from someone you would never ask for advice.

I am going the hard way; that is just the problem now. Too many people want it easy.

If you say ‘I own that star’ and you really believe it, you do.

DaVinci was not ‘the DaVinci of the 14th century’. The smartest people of now are not who we think.

There is no such thing as failure.

There is no such thing as waste; there is only applied or unapplied to a given purpose.

How extraordinary it is that you can silence yourself, and then — there it is. A limitless well of new.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7396 – Journal 7396

I feel right now although I really have become inlightened. I realized now that I misspelled this, but did not correct it (and in fact corrected the auto-correction) because as Dali says, mistakes are sublime. Mistakes are felt, and feeling is the highest form of thinking. I feel I have taken the light in and I have truly connected and bridged myself a bit more through to the world (out from a six year old me). When you are open to ideas, you see them everywhere. If I want to start a company manufacturing notebooks, all I have to do is to find the manufacturers and designers in Chapters, and call them.

I have felt separate from a society in a long way. I have taken that to be a bad thing. It really is not. My happiest times have been when I felt totally out of step, which allows me to feel in step with myself. I was back in Florida on the 2017 trip, and I was wearing awfully baggy and unfashionable clothes, and walking around target and drawing and drinking icees and going to panera bread and sleeping on the couch and constantly having all these ideas. Real ideas — for monsters, robots, head explosion special effects – not filtered to-be-classy ideas. I had a great resolve to direct a B movie, because why the hell wouldn’t I? And I had a dream where DaVinci and Bucky visited me, and said I was on the right track. (I often worry about being out of step with Bucky, but, here he was telling me I was alright. And I don’t think it is a coincidence or accident. At the least and most real (so called) and least metaphysical, it was my subconscious’s real opinion of myself.) I can be totally separate. I don’t want to be famous; don’t want to be noteworthy in any sort of a way except to some future cole. And he will recognize him. How wonderful not to be in step with the whole world, with any part of the world at all, except for just a few people; a few people now, a few people then, and even one person five hundred years from now.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7537 – idea-wealth

We do not live in capitalism; we live in Neo-feudalism, which is more strongly correlated with royalty fascism than the ideal of capitalism.

As envisioned by philosophers, and, as increasingly touted by the new age media in its ensuing application 1800s-present the advantages of capitalism are supposedly to be to enable a higher standard of living to the mass populous and to reward good ideas and good application. These are really the same aim:

Aim One: enable a higher standard of living to the masses — How? That is — how do we enable a higher standard of living to the mass populous, and, in fact further, how do we allow this standard to be ever raised, at, ideally, an accelerating pace? What is standard of living? Taking care of all physical needs — food, water, transportation, sanitation, clothing, shelter — and enabling more self-direction in the realization of higher individualized needs and wants engendered through the meeting of and therefore beyond these physical needs; creativity and further idea-generation once base needs are taken care of. Though applied unequally this has been the resultant of present known ‘capitalism’ — mass food, clothing and the like production, progressing to novelty entertainments. Do we improve standard of living simply by giving more clothing, more food, and the like? From the survival stage, more is better — but only to a point, and, therefore, devoid of engendered-through-time technology: is it better to have enough bread not to starve at a greater tonnage, or to have a lesser tonnage of an equally distributed nutritious diet? The latter. But many, coming out of the survival stage, are too fear-ridden to do anything but take the former. More-ing is the instinctual response to survival, and we have not, as a mass, been conditioned out of it yet. In fact, the opposite: the advertisers have wanted us to continue our more-ing, as, lacking good ideas and good application, more-ing of the same is the only adequate way to rapidly improve the cashflow. Being that the ‘real’ assets — like real estate — have been carved up and monopolized by the few asset-holders, everybody is essentially born into debt; if not outright debt, into an inability to continuously base-line survive forwardly without making money. This has been touted as ‘a reality of life’. It is nothing of the sort, anymore; it may have been for most of human existence, circa 500,000 years ago to present. But, as of most recently — somewhere within only the last 50 years — it has absolutely and as a matter-of-fact ceased having to be you or me. With the money spent on entertainment per year, we could house — in their own house, one per person, not one per family — not even all of the world’s homeless, but all of the world’s inadequately housed. With half the money everyday spent servicing nuclear weapons, we could feed every hungry child on earth. We already produce more than enough food to adequately take care of everyone. In economics, we are supposed to have supply and demand: the demand for such life necessities is fixed and only changes in relation to population; the supply, most recently, has been adequately met. Somewhere specifically between 1970-1980, we met the point at which all basic needs of everyone on Earth (demand) could be taken care of with what was produced in the same time frame (supply). There must be a grave miscommunication — or intentional damming — of the flow to make the two forces suddenly incongruent. It is only the decisions of the leaders of earth — not just the big leaders, but the complicit decisions we all of us make everyday, from the mid-managers to the pay check-takers — that are allowing this situation to persist. How did we realize a full — in fact, a surplus — supply to all of earth’s inhabitants, even as that number crossed what our ‘best minds’ listed as a full carrying capacity of our total systems — many times over — decades ago? How did we succeed? And how, despite the over-adequacy of supply and over-saturation of demand, are we failing to unite the two: to take care of everybody? How are we failing?

Let us return quickly back to the earlier question I raised: how is it possible to raise the standard of living, as a goal of hypothetical capitalism?

Is it only to produce more for each more-producing baby maker aboard the planet? When there are two people to conquer Earth, they can each have half if they agree that all can be taken care of. Now, we each can have only, at maximum, 1 eight billionth, with the number growing lesser. If that was the case, we would be extinct decades ago. People have been seriously — and rightly — foretelling the end of human society by simple atrophy of capacity since the 1920s. We’ve missed it every single time, in fact far exceeding the concerning maximum population point. The doom sellers were right at their time, but wrong when they caught up to their prediction. Why?

We often hear terrified cries about the expansion of material items in today’s world. In reality, we already reached the peak of this trend, and are now on the down-wave. In fact, we reached the peak some time ago. As Buckminster Fuller prophetically noted — and meticulously catalogued — in the 1940s, at that time (and since) the in-circulation amount of every major resource per person has been decreasing. That is, in 1940, there was more iron, coal, steel and the like on the markets per person than there was now. But — do we live better than in the 1940s? Our dietary fulfillment and indoor plumbing would suggest so; all measurable outcomes would.

How would we improve the performance with less input? It is a very simple equation, to which there is only one answer: phrase it however you like. We’ve invented, we’ve innovated, we’ve improved, we’ve gained efficiency. It is all the same: we have done more with less. And indeed, Buckminster Fuller charted that, at the microcosmic and the macrocosmic that was exactly what was happening. Macro: outcomes improved, less circulation of all materials per person. Micro: looking at specific units-based performance, we see the same: more energy is generated with less coal burned, more area enclosed more sturdily with less steel.

Capitalism, if it could only solve problems of standard of living by brute more-ing force, would run for a very short while indeed. Initiated amid the revolutions of the 1700s, it would not even have brought us indoor plumbing — a new invention unsuited to a more-ing now production-only system. The only way it can — and has been able to — meet its own ends is through the figuring out of ways to do more with less. You do not produce more doo-dads per person. Given the critical doo-dads, everyone only needs — or even can really have, so much. We all need a house, and even billionaires can only spend so much on housing. We all need food, and, even as our lifespans increase, the calories a human being can and will consume over a lifetime still hits a fixed maximum amount. If we are not to engage in trickery, and only give to people what they want or ask for, the needs of people for any given doo-dad — be it important, like food or water or shelter, or less important, like a music-making tool — are quite fixed. We do not improve the standard of living by making more doo-dads; we only improve the standard of living by figuring out how to make the desired number of doo-dads with less input at a higher standard. Even in the mass production of early industrialization, this was still the ever-present equation, we have only forgettingly reframed it. Getting mass car ownership was not at its first principle about mass producing them; /it was about designing them to a point that they could be mass produced/.

We see then how both aims are one in the same: to reward and thereby regeneratively incentivize good ideas and good application, and to improve the standard of living of the populous. The only way to accomplish the latter is through the former; the ever better figuring out — which is why we need a system whereby the figuring out is rewarded.

I do not prefer to use the term rewarded, but rather regeneratively accelerated. A reward is past-seeking. A regenerative continuing allowance is future-trending.

Capitalism is completely dependant on ideas for its function. But more broadly — and the reason its even limited application has led to improved outcomes — the whole basis of economic value whatsoever can ever and only be ideas.

Ideas and application. Application itself stems from the ideas — how to make the doo-dad is just as important a step as what the doo-dad is. Product and process are a whole and unit system. You cannot ever have one without the other.

“Real wealth is ideas plus energy.”

Here, I am quite confident he is using the physic-al definition of energy, being both matter and energy as per Einstein. Once again, not only is the Earth a sum-system, but the whole Universe is: matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be reconfigured. There is no /making/ in Universe, there is only /recycling/, in accordance with our human engendered design. We can never /lose/ physical materials or capability; we can only /lose/ usefulness of design for a given purpose.

Capitalism is derived from the word capital, meaning, broadly, input to the operation. Conventionally, there were understood to be only a few parts: labour, land, materials. The philosophers got it right in broadly considering the driving force of a system to be a feature which, when tasked with making or directing decisions, would enable positive outcomes. If capital, they said, would direct itself, it will do so, well. Brilliant. But, they got it dead wrong when identifying what exactly this feature was. What is capital?

I have a gold mine. It contains endless tonnes of gold. And yet, I am dirt poor. I have nothing to mobilize, and not even a plan for expansion or development. How is this possible? It is 100,000 years ago; I’ve made my camp above this gold mine, but don’t know what gold is, what it could be used for, or how to get it. And so, it is worthless. (This is why it is so important to be a comprehensivist: to look at the whole and not the parts. Too many people, even economists, are sitting in their own frame of reference, and cannot ponder, even at a subconscious level, a gold mine, or gold, or money, being worthless. The only sensible way to look at anything, at any level that can tell you anything, is 100,000 years out and 100,000 miles away.) Suppose, though, that, miraculously, I invent a process for converting dirt into a pill which would cure any ailment. My ‘dirt farm’ may become quite a ‘gold mine’ after all. Today, we are now awakening to the value of so-called intellectual property: ideas, books, code, plans, strategies, brands, concepts. As of 2002 75% of the sum value of the largest 500 companies in the world was pegged solely on intellectual property — intangible assets. It is also noticed that small businesses nearly almost undervalue their intellectual property, meaning, definitely, even by the sellers of the other systems and the asset-accounted, intellectual property officially became the largest resource on Earth even by their system within the last two decades. But the stark reality is, even in the age of great industrialization, there was never anything but intellectual property. All property, all trade-value, all assets of any kind are created strictly from ideas. A gold mine is only useful if you know the gold is there, how to get it out of the ground, and what to do with it. Coal is just a dead black rock until you know that it can be burned. And it is a much less useful burning fuel until you have not only the stove, but the steam engine.

Quick: Do this exercise, without looking anything up. Can you name who was Pope, anytime from 1400-1500? Or even 1300-1600? They surely would have been “the most powerful person in the world”. Can you name any of the great heads of the great city states, anywhere across Europe, from 1400-1500? Any of the wealthiest merchants? When I speak of this time period — who do you think of? I have given this problem now to many people, and have not had anyone yet name anyone other than DaVinci or Michelangelo. We think of — what do we call them? — the Renaissance men. The literal namesake for an entire era in history. And what did they do that was so monumental? More monumental than being “God’s ordained” world leader, the ruler of a military fleet, or a billionaire? DaVinci was the son of a slave with no formal education, sent to prison and to live in exile, struggling through poverty. But, he also scribbled ferociously in notebooks; he scribbled new ideas — not even published in his lifetime — that turned out to be worth a lot more than anything paid for or shipped by the merchants. The people we always remember history through — without even trying — are the inventors. Because they are the only people that bring value to human lives — they are the only ones capable of seeing and defining value. They are the ones with the ideas.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7535 – Free Writing (Journal) Jan 2 2020

If I really want to help people, believing that I can’t isn’t going to help anybody.

The problem with the world is perhaps not that the incompetent are so full of confidence, and the able so full of doubts, but that the uncaring are so unlimited in their actions, and so full of confidence, and the caring are so full of doubts. Anybody who wonders with distress if they are doing the right thing, if they are a good person, is: if they were a psychopath, they wouldn’t care.

The most successful people and organizations in history don’t allow their resources to define their missions: they define what they’re going to do, and mobilize resources to that end. People don’t live in or out of their means; they build (more accurately, being in-flow, mobilize) their means by defining how they will live.

Debt is not real; money is not real. Being both unreal, debt is perhaps even less real than money. They are both agreements, but debt is an agreement that in fact can be renegotiated in light of expanding circumstances. Its accounts can be renamed and resettled between two parties — borrower and lender — not between the total economy (as would be the sum-total ‘negotiations’ of interest rates, stock prices, inflation, and so forth).

There is a difference between debts and it is far too often demonized in society: credit card debt, at high rates and compound interest, is obviously bad debt: they give it to everyone. But for business debt, the banks have to think about it; and think about this: when it is good for the banks, do they show any hesitation in doing it? No. If they are trying to keep it from you, it is good for you. If it was good for them, they would give it to everybody.

Think logically: in which cases will it work out? In which cases will it not? Cases for working out forwardly are, further, always augmented by your thought at the case-time: the number is always bigger than what you can think, now. So take your present prediction, and increase the chances it will work out in the future, given the interim thought time. These are the real chances.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7549 – Being too busy is a way of not valuing your own time.

colewebber.com

0 notes

colewebberblog · 4 years

Text

7529 – Addendum to ‘Radio Beam to Universe’

The advertising reality of today is very much different from the one that Buckminster Fuller found himself in. In his time, you had to pay ad men to play your message to a certain number of people on the radio, or, much later in even his own life, the television. This is pay for play access, and is the sole reason why Coca Cola is able to exist as a company whatsoever, let alone their continued dominance of a market which should hardly exist to begin with.

Advertising has thrown a wrench into economics: it makes the system make no sense. If an inventor is supposed to be rewarded for their usefulness, how is one of the largest companies on Earth one that provides a certain recipe of sugar water, having no correlation to human need or function? It’s a trick.

The reality of today is very much different: one need not pay for communications capability or capacity. One need not censor their message in nearly any way. Circa 1790, there were likely less than 100,000 people truly literate in the English language. The cost to reach them would mean printing presses, horses and carriages, and more. In the present day, it is quite possible for me to reach a potential of 8 billion people — and even more, forwardly moving through time — with an input cost of essentially zero dollars. Moreover, these individuals may find my message only when they look for it. If I describe it accurately, it will be promoted, at least somewhat, in search functions and algorithms; critically, not to the masses, but to those who have /searched/ for it. While all of these companies operating this grand infrastructure, still — out of sheer ignorance, and lack of any better ideas — generate revenue off of a pay for play model, how /you/ may use it is completely the opposite of pay for play. The creators are the new advertisers of their own works and the paying advertisers are the suckers.

Buckminster Fuller’s philosophy was to leave artifacts, that people might pick up when they needed it. Social messaging can be exactly this, if we are to step out of the revolving numbers drive that these companies, and the public, has chosen to align themselves with. These isolated bits of thoughts, converted to artifact-message, and scattered periodically in the digital sand, may be found by search and picked up when needed. An Instagram post does not have to be totally different from a book. Due to increase in bandwidth capacity, an advertisement now has to be hardly different from ‘the thing’ it advertises. The technological capacity is a framework, a minimum; is an empty vessel, is omni-encapsulating — that is majority being used in a small minded way at present. But you don’t have to use it that way. You can use it differently, and beam out your different messages differently, with very little expectation or hope of money or massive promotional reach. You simply make honest artifacts, and automate their continuous distribution — quite possibly to no one. You don’t want any more views than the right number. I don’t write my books, or invent my inventions, for anyone other than the people who need them.

It is entirely up to the viewer if they listen to what I have to say in my artifacts. I never want to ‘sell’ anyone. I do not want to convince anyone. I will state the facts, the contents, the plan, clearly and simply, and will trust that if what I have created is needed it will be used. You can fake a lot, and a fake can even bring in a lot, but there is never — and never has been — a substitute for the real thing. Tesla may have been mocked, bullied, ridiculed, and forced out of school. But, receiving his patents for the totality of the A/C electric generation, distribution and use system (‘the grid’), Westinghouse never said: “Now where’s your degree? Your esteemed position?” The proof was in the patent. The highest calling is not to be liked, or popular, or wealthy, but to be useful. The only way to ever become the first three, if you do decide it is something you want, without being a fraud resting their considerable weight on a house of cards is to be the last one: useful.

colewebber.com

0 notes