A System of Parity

[William]

Reminder

If you read what I have to say on this forum you would have noticed that I often refer to the overall problem of this world as being its 'Systems of Disparity'.

I have seen this Putting Our Heads Together forum and thought that at some time I would like to use it to expand on my ideas regarding the systems humanity have been using for - perhaps thousands of years - and why I see these systems as the main problem facing humanity and what I think would need to be done in order to change from the old ways to something more aligned with serving humanity in order to bring us from a level zero species to a level one species.

In relation to that, What I would like you to do is watch this youtube video[5:21] by 'Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science.' Michio Kaku in relation to the 'types' of civilizations which are attainable in regard to this universe.

Specific to the focus, the types of civilization I want to engage you in conversation about in relation to this, are Types 0 and 1 civilizations - type one is explained @ [0:28] and type 0 @ [2:00].

Type 0 populations opposed to type 1 civilization @ [4:08]

Based on the opinion the video content speaks of, we are and always have been a Type Zero Species, which is to say we get by fairly much by surviving as best we can with what we have and this type of lifestyle has basically not changed until fairly recently with the advance in scientific discovery and engineering, although both processes still contribute at present to maintaining the Type Zero Species as status quo.

The habits of thousands of years have basically shaped the way we currently think and thus organize ourselves as communities, and in order to seriously make an attempt at becoming a type one species we will have to radically sort out what aspects of those habits are helping and which ones are hindering.

The common denominator which can be observed in all types of social organization, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, dictatorships, etc et al is that they all share the same structure in relation to disparity. All these systems of social order operate on the principles of disparity - some more than others, but that in itself is besides the point. All have some 'leaven in the bread' as it were, in relation to disparity.

Simply put, where there are 'haves' and 'have-nots' in any social system, that is a system which operates under the regulations of disparity.

I think that as long as this is the case, we will not - at least collectively - attain level one as a species.

In that case, what would be required is to somehow dismantle all such present systems of disparity and replace these with a system of parity.

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

This of course is a radical shift from the way things are presently done, where humans are not granted that right and have to earn it from the go-get, due to the present systems and in relation to this, (A) most are born into unfortunate circumstance and most of those remain in those situations for their entire lives.
(B) Some are born into more advantageous situations but it can go either way for them in that regard, and for the very few, (C) they are born into ideal situations where the threat of losing that is non existent.

Those in group (A) are everyone from the destitute, starving of the 3rd world right through to the poor in the first world.

Those in group (B) are what the poor in the 1st world consider to being rich. They range from those with steady jobs and income, paying off mortgages and getting their kids through to university up to those who own lots of property outright, have a lot of money which works for them, lots of leisure time and large banks accounts.

Those in group (C) are they who live in their own secure micro-Utopias where money is no object and where anything possible one wants to do can be done.


Altogether A B and C represent disparity and are made that way through the systems of disparity.

That is the basics. The question is, how would these systems have to change in order for a true system of parity and attaining level one status as a species in a collective manner thus be made achievable?

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Of course I have some ideas regarding those questions, which I would like to share in subsequent posts. For now I will leave the OP as it is and hopefully some feedback will be forthcoming.

Cheers

William

[JP Cusick]

Reminder

If you read what I have to say on this forum you would have noticed that I often refer to the overall problem of this world as being its 'Systems of Disparity'.

I have seen this Putting Our Heads Together forum and thought that at some time I would like to use it to expand on my ideas regarding the systems humanity have been using for - perhaps thousands of years - and why I see these systems as the main problem facing humanity and what I think would need to be done in order to change from the old ways to something more aligned with serving humanity in order to bring us from a level zero species to a level one species.

In relation to that, What I would like you to do is watch this youtube video[5:21] by 'Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science.' Michio Kaku in relation to the 'types' of civilizations which are attainable in regard to this universe.

Specific to the focus, the types of civilization I want to engage you in conversation about in relation to this, are Types 0 and 1 civilizations - type one is explained @ [0:28] and type 0 @ [2:00].

Type 0 populations opposed to type 1 civilization @ [4:08]

Based on the opinion the video content speaks of, we are and always have been a Type Zero Species, which is to say we get by fairly much by surviving as best we can with what we have and this type of lifestyle has basically not changed until fairly recently with the advance in scientific discovery and engineering, although both processes still contribute at present to maintaining the Type Zero Species as status quo.

The habits of thousands of years have basically shaped the way we currently think and thus organize ourselves as communities, and in order to seriously make an attempt at becoming a type one species we will have to radically sort out what aspects of those habits are helping and which ones are hindering.

The common denominator which can be observed in all types of social organization, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, dictatorships, etc et al is that they all share the same structure in relation to disparity. All these systems of social order operate on the principles of disparity - some more than others, but that in itself is besides the point. All have some 'leaven in the bread' as it were, in relation to disparity.

Simply put, where there are 'haves' and 'have-nots' in any social system, that is a system which operates under the regulations of disparity.

I think that as long as this is the case, we will not - at least collectively - attain level one as a species.

In that case, what would be required is to somehow dismantle all such present systems of disparity and replace these with a system of parity.

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

This of course is a radical shift from the way things are presently done, where humans are not granted that right and have to earn it from the go-get, due to the present systems and in relation to this, (A) most are born into unfortunate circumstance and most of those remain in those situations for their entire lives.
(B) Some are born into more advantageous situations but it can go either way for them in that regard, and for the very few, (C) they are born into ideal situations where the threat of losing that is non existent.

Those in group (A) are everyone from the destitute, starving of the 3rd world right through to the poor in the first world.

Those in group (B) are what the poor in the 1st world consider to being rich. They range from those with steady jobs and income, paying off mortgages and getting their kids through to university up to those who own lots of property outright, have a lot of money which works for them, lots of leisure time and large banks accounts.

Those in group (C) are they who live in their own secure micro-Utopias where money is no object and where anything possible one wants to do can be done.


Altogether A B and C represent disparity and are made that way through the systems of disparity.

That is the basics. The question is, how would these systems have to change in order for a true system of parity and attaining level one status as a species in a collective manner thus be made achievable?

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Of course I have some ideas regarding those questions, which I would like to share in subsequent posts. For now I will leave the OP as it is and hopefully some feedback will be forthcoming.

Cheers

William

There was a recent declaration by some billionaires with a similar idea - but it is not parity.

Link here Zuckerberg & other Silicon Valley bigwigs.

See in the video that the small applause was not enthusiastic.

It does seems like a first step would be to give a "universal basic income" to every person.

[Divine Insight]

The common denominator which can be observed in all types of social organization, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, dictatorships, etc et al is that they all share the same structure in relation to disparity. All these systems of social order operate on the principles of disparity - some more than others, but that in itself is besides the point. All have some 'leaven in the bread' as it were, in relation to disparity.

Simply put, where there are 'haves' and 'have-nots' in any social system, that is a system which operates under the regulations of disparity.

I think that as long as this is the case, we will not - at least collectively - attain level one as a species.

In that case, what would be required is to somehow dismantle all such present systems of disparity and replace these with a system of parity.

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

Isn't this what the Democrats of the USA arguing for? For example, the Democrats are arguing that healthcare should be a right for all. The Republicans want to make healthcare only a privilege for the rich who can afford to pay for it.

I think the Democrats are also arguing for equal civil right among all people, whilst the Republicans are starting to support bigotries based on religious and other social ideologies. This is especially true in someone like Roy Moore who has recently hit the political spotlight.

So I'm not sure I can agree with you that a "System of Disparity" is the norm. To the contrary I think then entire Obama Administration was working toward a system of Parity against much Republican resistance.

So I don't see where you are onto anything that hasn't already been started by at least some governmental administrations. Unfortunately the USA has just recently made a U-turn from that agenda with the election of Donald Trump, and now we are headed right back into the dark ages.

I didn't mean to bring current politics into the mix here. But I can't help but point out that the Obama Administration was indeed working toward a system of parity already. Perhaps not nearly as efficiently as could have been done, but at least they were on the right track.

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Of course I have some ideas regarding those questions, which I would like to share in subsequent posts. For now I will leave the OP as it is and hopefully some feedback will be forthcoming.

I too have ideas of how humanity can reach a system based on parity. However, these ideas are not compatible with greed. And greed appears to be the driving force of many corporations. So attempting to get these greedy people to see the betterment of humanity as being more important than greed is extremely difficult.

Our current Capitalism is based on the insane idea that growth is key to making bit profits. This may even be true if BIG PROFITS are the only goal. However a capitalism that is based on the ideology of growth is actually doomed to fail.

So this idea concerning capitalism is one of the very first ideas that needs to go. But it's next to impossible to get greedy people on-board with this because they aren't about to give up their BIG PROFITS in favor of a better world for humanity.

Therein lies the problem.

It's really all about greed actually.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by JP Cusick]

There was a recent declaration by some billionaires with a similar idea - but it is not parity.

Link here Zuckerberg & other Silicon Valley bigwigs.

See in the video that the small applause was not enthusiastic.

It does seems like a first step would be to give a "universal basic income" to every person.

If food clothing shelter and health were provided to all humans as a right, what need would there be for a "universal basic income"?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by JP Cusick]

There was a recent declaration by some billionaires with a similar idea - but it is not parity.

Link here Zuckerberg & other Silicon Valley bigwigs.

See in the video that the small applause was not enthusiastic.

It does seems like a first step would be to give a "universal basic income" to every person.

If food clothing shelter and health were provided to all humans as a right, what need would there be for a "universal basic income"?

More important, what incentive would there be for anyone to work? Also, who decides what is "universal basic income". Right now, Kim Jung Un is providing a form of universal basic income, to the citizens of DRNK. Note that they also refer to themselves as a democratic republic.

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I didn't mean to bring current politics into the mix here. But I can't help but point out that the Obama Administration was indeed working toward a system of parity already. Perhaps not nearly as efficiently as could have been done, but at least they were on the right track.

So this idea concerning capitalism is one of the very first ideas that needs to go. But it's next to impossible to get greedy people on-board with this because they aren't about to give up their BIG PROFITS in favor of a better world for humanity.

Therein lies the problem.

It's really all about greed actually.

You are correct regarding greed.

As far as I am aware, the bankers and corporations of wall street created a problem for ordinary citizens due to how the market was being manipulated.

This caused a crash which saw a large number of people lose their homes and jobs etc.

What did the Obama admin do about that? They bailed wall street out, through taxes the victims of this crash had paid.

No one in wall street was held accountable and indeed not only were they rescued but they were allowed to continue in their roles, received their bonuses and continue in their lifestyles while the ordinary folks who lost everything were given nothing but the bill.

The Obama admin could have said 'we will use the taxes to pay back the people their loses' because it was the fault of wall street, not the ordinary people.

But others would argue that it was the fault of those who trusted their investments to wall street in the first place.

So that is the state of politics, and greed. Bed-mates.

Thus, any solution has to involve recognizing the problem and figuring ways in which the solution can replace the problem.

So whatever the political party, they are voted in by the people who are educated to trust a system which is based upon greed and desire, and the voters are a big part of why this is the case.

So - how to educate the voters to see the problem of greed and desire and accept an alternative which benefits them without the need for representatives of the political kind who are obviously serving the interests of the banks and the corporations?

Obviously a plan of action would have to be formulated which can withstand all critical analysis and be found to be the best way forward as a solution to the problem.

The problem has to be acknowledged as being the problem by those currently ignoring the problem.

[JP Cusick]

It does seems like a first step would be to give a "universal basic income" to every person.

If food clothing shelter and health were provided to all humans as a right, what need would there be for a "universal basic income"?

I can not speak for Zuckerberg & company, but I would say that giving people a basic income then they could buy their own food, clothes, shelter, and etc.

I would agree that many people are poor because they waste and just blow their money, so it becomes more practical to give them food, housing, etc etc, without giving them any money.

Giving money is easier - and those who blow their income would thereby deserve to live in poverty.

[Divine Insight]

So whatever the political party, they are voted in by the people who are educated to trust a system which is based upon greed and desire, and the voters are a big part of why this is the case.

So - how to educate the voters to see the problem of greed and desire and accept an alternative which benefits them without the need for representatives of the political kind who are obviously serving the interests of the banks and the corporations?

Obviously a plan of action would have to be formulated which can withstand all critical analysis and be found to be the best way forward as a solution to the problem.

The problem has to be acknowledged as being the problem by those currently ignoring the problem.

I agree. But at the same time I suggest that this is basically a futile dream. Especially if you are suggesting that this might actually be done in any kind of practical time.

Trying to convince the major participants of a capitalistic society that our current model of capitalism is wrong and YOU (generic you) have a better idea, is really not much different from trying to convince the most passionate dedicated Christian that Christianity is false an secular atheists is more likely the truth of reality.

Seriously, this problem is basically not much different from walking up to a large stone wall and banging your head against it thinking that you could move the wall a few miles down the road. It's just not going to happen.

If humanity survives to someday become a social-political system of parity it's only going to happen over many years.

About the only thing that you (generic or personal) could do about it is to write books, design possible social-economic models to offer as a replacement to our current system, and just hope that your efforts will help this process of evolution head in the right direction over future decades.

Just as a secondary note, it's probably totally futile to try to address these kinds of issues on an internet forum since all that will most likely do is cause a few people to either agree or argue against various suggestions that you might make. Writing a book would be far more productive. If a person has the resources available producing documentaries to propose better ways forward would be even better. And of course becoming involved in a lot of active social events that address these topics in a live setting would also be helpful.

Even having done all that a person would still be looking at many years if not decades to see any serious changes taking place within the capitalistic societies.

Everything is already set up for "competitive" (i.e. greedy) capitalism. Many people even argue that this is healthy because they see competition as supposedly forcing companies to make better products and services (although that doesn't necessarily follow).

Basically what needs to be done is to change an entire global social-economic system that is currently based on competition to instead become based on cooperation.

It's extremely unlikely that this is going to happen, especially overnight.

Consider the following: I have a cousin who has a Ph.D. in economics, he even teaches college level economics. I have absolutely no experience or education in economics at all. When I suggest to him that we need to move from a competitive greedy capitalism into an economic system based on cooperation he does nothing more than call me a completely idiot and simply points out the fact that I have no formal education in economics. An academic education that TEACHES competitive greedy Capitalism as thought it's the only possible way to do business.

I may as well call up Pope Francis and try to convince him to become an atheist.

What you are hoping to achieve is basically futile IMHO. Not wrong. Just futile.

You may as well ask Donald Trump to start acting like an adult. Good luck with that too. Sometimes you just need to recognize that some hopes and dreams are truly futile. Or at the very best, are going to take many generations to move in a better direction.

But yeah, I'm all for a social-economic system that is actually cooperative and serves all humans in a positive way.

Speaking of "voters". Tell me when such a system is on the ballot and I'll cast my vote for it.

Until then there's nothing to even vote for.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]
More important, what incentive would there be for anyone to work? Also, who decides what is "universal basic income". Right now, Kim Jung Un is providing a form of universal basic income, to the citizens of DRNK. Note that they also refer to themselves as a democratic republic.[/quote]

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

I can not speak for Zuckerberg & company, but I would say that giving people a basic income then they could buy their own food, clothes, shelter, and etc.

But this does not answer my question. The idea is that - let me quote the OP:

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

There would be no requirement for the medium of money, as these things are GIVEN rather than having to be PAID for, as the current systems of disparity presently operate.

I would agree that many people are poor because they waste and just blow their money, so it becomes more practical to give them food, housing, etc etc, without giving them any money.

Correct. Thus we are now focusing attention of a money-less system which exists in order to create parity.

What FCSH (food, clothing, shelter and health) allow for the individual is personal energy which can be channeled freely back into the SoP (System of Parity) and this can be regarded as the 'exchange' which replaces money.
Thus, the deal is - the individual by right receives FCSH and the system by right receives the energetic input of the individual. For as long as they both may live, so to speak.

Giving money is easier - and those who blow their income would thereby deserve to live in poverty.

Which is just another system of disparity.

Giving money is pointless because the use of money is exactly what precipitates SoDs (systems of disparity) in the first place.

Money also allows for criminal activity to prosper...those who have money and spend it unwisely are often supporting crime.
This translate into the bigger arena where crime is simply made lawful.

If I were to take your quote and change it to this:
Giving FCSH is easier - and those who invest their lives into that which gives to them would thereby deserve the rewards of the system of parity.

Those rewards will equate to more than just FCSH.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I agree. But at the same time I suggest that this is basically a futile dream. Especially if you are suggesting that this might actually be done in any kind of practical time.

Sure - we can approach it that way as you wish.
Call it a thought experiment which also acts as a potentially achievable idea which humans could easily adopt if they wanted to.

Then we could also focus upon possible reasons why they would not, and perhaps in that get to the heart of the human problem....and perhaps find solution therein.

The idea is not to wander off in wishful thinking but rather create a theoretical SoP which humans COULD actually achieve without magic, gods, alien intervention et al.

Trying to convince the major participants of a capitalistic society that our current model of capitalism is wrong and YOU (generic you) have a better idea, is really not much different from trying to convince the most passionate dedicated Christian that Christianity is false an secular atheists is more likely the truth of reality.

Following your line of thinking, it appears that you still have some kind of hope it can be done or why bother even participating in this forum?

But please, lets not make this about atheists vrs Christians - there are plenty of threads dealing with that already.

Seriously, this problem is basically not much different from walking up to a large stone wall and banging your head against it thinking that you could move the wall a few miles down the road. It's just not going to happen.

Even so - is that a reason not to involve yourself with it as a thought experiment and contribute ideas which may become part of a plan?

Are we to give up hope and also become hopeless?

Or - can we give up hope but still remain hopeful - at least in realistic hypothetical terms?

If humanity survives to someday become a social-political system of parity it's only going to happen over many years.

This is about how humanity can become a Type One civilization. If it - as you say - cannot happen, then why the seeming contradiction?
If it is a possibility that it is going to happen over many years, what is to say that what WE contribute as ideas in this thread now, are not going become part of the reason why humanity does survive to become Type One?

About the only thing that you (generic or personal) could do about it is to write books, design possible social-economic models to offer as a replacement to our current system, and just hope that your efforts will help this process of evolution head in the right direction over future decades.

Or I could create a forum thread and WE (generic) could all contribute ideas, arguments finding holes in ideas etc...and maybe even get to the point where we have a comprehensive plan which can be shared on the broader internet...

Just as a secondary note, it's probably totally futile to try to address these kinds of issues on an internet forum since all that will most likely do is cause a few people to either agree or argue against various suggestions that you might make. Writing a book would be far more productive. If a person has the resources available producing documentaries to propose better ways forward would be even better. And of course becoming involved in a lot of active social events that address these topics in a live setting would also be helpful.

Perhaps. If you believed this I would say you will not be contributing anything to the thread. Unless you have a reason to continue to criticize for the purpose of dissuading the topic from going anywhere - in which case you would be one of those who desires the human race remains as a Type Zero civilization and its inevitable decline.

Creating a book etc is primarily the effort of an individual, then there are publishers etc...this idea is to simply use what is available now and have it be a combined effort where many minds are involved.

Everything is already set up for "competitive" (i.e. greedy) capitalism. Many people even argue that this is healthy because they see competition as supposedly forcing companies to make better products and services (although that doesn't necessarily follow).

That is a problem identified.

Basically what needs to be done is to change an entire global social-economic system that is currently based on competition to instead become based on cooperation.

It's extremely unlikely that this is going to happen, especially overnight.

That is a solution identified.

As I stated in the OP;

The question is, how would these systems have to change in order for a true system of parity and attaining level one status as a species in a collective manner thus be made achievable?

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Thus we would need to show a plan which is watertight and can be agreed upon by those already in the position to enact the plan, and this would require an agreement between countries/corporations to do so ON an agreed to date when all things are in place to enable it.

Consider the following: I have a cousin who has a Ph.D. in economics, he even teaches college level economics. I have absolutely no experience or education in economics at all. When I suggest to him that we need to move from a competitive greedy capitalism into an economic system based on cooperation he does nothing more than call me a completely idiot and simply points out the fact that I have no formal education in economics. An academic education that TEACHES competitive greedy Capitalism as thought it's the only possible way to do business.

However, if you had a comprehensive plan which was already critically assessed to being watertight in relation to arguments your cousin (and his ilk) could not argue against, then there would be no call for him to call 'idiot'.

What you are hoping to achieve is basically futile IMHO. Not wrong. Just futile.

What would you rather do...argue with Christians or work on a plan such as this?