Humanity's Question: To be, Or not to be?

WHETHER IT IS NOBLER IN THE MIND?

(Special Report)

First Financial Insights

THAT IS THE QUESTION...

Today we are republishing a  commentary that was posted back in January 2013. The post is even more relevant today, as the critical issues we face as a species are escalating almost it seems beyond control. Reports are also being made by various LEGITIMATE groups including NASA, UN bodies and the White House and Pentagon. These reports are posted through-out our affiliated blogs and may be searched by keyword. Moreover, let's not forget too, that Stephen Hawkings sits on a committee that is actually planning "end of world events", while The Bank of England  is calling for a wholesale change in the dogmas of classical economics - as the stresses of infinite growth are self-evident in so many countries around the world. 

As a further result, the possibility that the EU, Japan, China and other third world nations could financially collapse is a very real danger that could be sparked by an abrupt climb in global interest rates. Many events at any moment could spark this rapid rise, that would cause the greatest and most unprecedented collapse in asset values around the world where credit and banking bubbles in real estate and market investments, exist almost everywhere - another dark age looms large on the horizon.

Economics is not the only cancer that has terminal implications. Overpopulation and unbridled industrial destruction of the biosphere are crossing over to the exponential phase. Should  average global temperature rise just a mere 2 degrees C., some experts say we risk triggering a methane bomb that yields the same consequences of the Permian Extinction's climate conditions  - over 95%  of life on the planet was wiped out in short order.

Words of Science 

More could be said, but what should be obvious from the preponderance of scientific and expert facts and conclusions - "we are on the wrong path"  and the destiny of the road is all too certain in fairly short order. A less travelled road is required. One that does not focus on the ambiguous linguistic meaning of " sustainability," but rather a turn to the path that is more concrete in nature, more measurable and absolute - " longevity!" Why? Because that goal forces us to apply hard mathematics and physical concepts to the planet's realities. Moreover, what is clear, for instance, is that a global population creating equal per capita footprints of 1 billion people lasts seven times longer than our current population's numbers, all other things also being equal. And if reduce the average per capita `footprint - we add greater value to our species' possible longevity.

Unbridled Growth Leads To One Destination  

To briefly sum up, our goals need to redirected towards the path of longevity and not the cluttered language associated with the concepts surrounding sustainability. We must be more object and absolute in our purpose or we will remain exposed to manipulation. 

To take this path, four steps are essential. The pursuit of infinite growth in a finite context must be deemed redundant and acknowledged as impossible. It must stop in all ways. Two, global populations worldwide must be dramatically reduced in the coming decades. Concurrently, the global per capita footprint must also be reduced by 75% OR MORE. These are non-negotiable actions that are imperative to the longevity goal; anything else would be foolhardy.

Why?

Lastly, and most importantly all-out WAR must be declared on climate change. For if we cannot reverse the course of the now self-evident feedback loops affecting and destroying our planet, then all preceding measures listed, and indeed any other measures conjured by noble minds, would be muted by a course of physical activity in the biosphere that has only one ill-fated conclusion. Extinction...

So this is without doubt the outrageous misfortune of the slings and arrows of our times. Now it is up to us, collectively as a species, to choose a path; perhaps one less travelled, and decide - "to be, or not to be". 

If we have the time...

First Financial Insights
May 25, 2014
(Special Report)

WHAT IS OUR GOAL?

 HUMAN LONGEVITY OR UNBRIDLED GROWTH?

Club for Growth President Chris Chocola on C-Spans Washington Journal

Now, here is something you may want to think about given; first, the hard finite constraints of the planet's resources, and second, the mathematical intersection that must ultimately occur between this finite regression and time's infinite linear regression.

What is Humanity's goal? Sustainability? Rapid Extinction? Or Longevity? Personally, I prefer the latter option, as it gives us a little more time to do things; like space travel, accelerate human evolution or perhaps determine the preconditions that define the Laws of Thermodynamics... e.g. Anti-Entropy???. You got to start somewhere.

Now, let's look at the simple math. Lets say we target to degrowth our extraction and consumption activities by seven fold using population as the proxy metric.Taking population levels from 7 billion down to 1 billion, would extend our visitation rights on terra firma by a corresponding seven fold years, in theory. Hmmm. Ponder the unborn gratitude heaped upon us by our future generations for pursuing such wisdom.

Consider also, if we optimistically have only one hundred years left under our current extraction and consumption algebra. Degrowthing,  gives us a shot at at least another seven hundred years, all other things being equal.

So you see in the end, it is not about accelerating growth in both resource "extractions" and populations in order to bring on our species premature extinction; not at all.It is all about that unselfish goal of wisely using the resources of the planet, so that future generations are not subjected to intolerable conditions and have every opportunity to live in a  civilized manner that allows them to pursue the true progresses and nature of our spirit.   

Hopefully, when the growth addicts espouse their mantra next time, you will ask these questions: What is this all about? Extinction through rapid growth?  Elusive sustainability? Or longevity of our species?

Now, what is humanity's goal, if we truly want to reach for the stars? That's your call now...


Dr. Peter G Kinesa  
January 10, 2013

"we are here, thanks to the unselfish wisdom of our ancients"

Stocks Will Boom or Doom - Who Knows?

Be wary when you hear ‘this is the big stock crash’ 

 

 

 

By L.A. Little












Market commentators love to make the big call: market crash. As soon as there is a sign of general market weakness, they come out of the woodwork with their crash calls. Perennial doom commentators like Marc Faber, Harry Dent and others were on the airwaves last week talking up the fear of the impending meltdown. If you go back through history, that's how you get famous.

You repeat your bear calls each time the market wobbles, calling for a huge decline, and if it develops while your call is still fresh, then six months down the road you are a guru — set up to live off your 15 minutes of fame for the rest of your life.

Of course, these big macro gloom-and-doom calls do nothing for the average investor/trader. In fact, one could easily make the case that they do far more harm than good, since they are wrong 99% of the time, and anyone who acts on the crash calls typically ends up liquidating what are likely well-positioned longs at inopportune times.

It all ended in 2013?

So are the crash callers right this time around? Is this that 1% case where you really should sell everything finally and hunker down? Is this the big meltdown that has been repeatedly called fo?r


 
In short, it is doubtful, and even if it is, it will take more time to create the structure needed for it to happen. How can one say that with confidence? What is meant by that statement? Many detractors suggest that one cannot know when a sell off is imminent and with that, I agree. Imminent implies one can call both direction and timing correctly. That is not possible with any reasonable degree of accuracy.



Read More 


Comments:

Great to hear and read a balanced insight on the markets - and generally reality. Anyone who has been in the markets knows by now they are not always rationale, and guru's are right only some of the time, you will never hear about their mistakes thatare  promptly buried in the "oops" archives.

Let's face it, most these guys - Rogers, Dent, Faber, and others are financial entertainers. and that includes the cable networks - Cramer;  as well. There are mostly actors, comedians and promoters bestowing modern day snake oil to any one foolish enough to listen. J. T. Barnum's patrons.

So on with the show...

Platinum Wealth Partner 
April 22, 2014       

  
  

World's Top Economist: Economics Obsolete - Needs Fresh Existential Science

 

Why UK universities shouldn't be hostile to alternative economic models

We at the Post-Crash Economics Society believe room must be made in economics teaching for non-mainstream theories

Brilliant Students way ahead of professors

What follows may just seem to be a story about one course option at one university, but it has important ramifications, not only for an ongoing national debate about economics education, but for economic policy and politics itself. We, the Post-Crash Economics Society at the University of Manchester, believe that the contents of economics syllabuses and economics teaching methods should be rethought in the light of the financial crisis. We were recently informed that our economics department had rejected our proposal to teach a module, called Bubbles, Panics and Crashes: an Introduction to Alternative Theories of Crisis, next year.

Does anyone ever listen?

This year, our society had run this module as a popular evening course, led by one of the few non-mainstream economists in the department. This was the only module offering any in-depth explanations of a variety of perspectives, or employing different methodologies and assumptions and applying them to economic phenomena. We have found it thought-provoking and informative and believe that Manchester should be providing courses such as this for all its undergraduates. Over the last few months we have run a campaign to persuade the university to make it part of the official curriculum. The result of this campaign was the support of the heads of both economics courses at Manchester – BA (Econ) and BEconSc –plus the department's head of teaching, and the support of 245, or one in five, economics students who signed a petition.

Economics is a science?

Despite an incredible amount of support, the module was rejected due to a veto from a few lecturers in the department. Some academics believe that alternative perspectives should not be taught in economics because they are not "rigorous" or "scientific", a claim that has allowed the mainstream to continually dismiss any alternative way of thinking as "bad economics", simply because it does not conform to the assumptions and mathematical formulas of neoclassical theory. 

Read More

More From Another World's Top Economist
"Thinking.... What a discovery!"