This morning on a walk i came up with a poetic sutra for a friend that i think is worth sharing:  Here it is:

-----

Things are "always" better than they may seem.

Use the majesty and your awe of the Universe as an example.

-----

On a different front, i finished the first draft of Globanomics--Chapter 3 of my globanomics book this morning.  I am going to post it here now (even in its rough state without Linda's review) because i think it adds some additional details relating to globanomics that i had not provided before.  Although i am doing so now, I doubt if i will continue to post "chapters" of globanomics (although i still might) because down the line i want you to buy the f----- book and i don't want a complete full draft to be sitting out on Talkmarkets for free.

Anyway, this chapter called Globanomics had me kind of scared going into the writing, but in the end i think it came out pretty okay.  I have, myself, not sat down and read it straight through, so keep that in consideration, too, as you read (or if you read) the draft.

Globanomics

What is globanomics?

Globanomics is a concept—a theory so to speak.  Globanomics is real, but it is more ethereal than tangible.  Among many other things that globanomics  does, it lays down the minimal requirements and principles for the operation of an optimal world government.   The primary or fundamental goal of globanomics is to seek a better, more loving future for all of humanity and humanity’s planet, Earth--both in equal proportion, both at the same time.

One of the best ways I have found to explain globanomics is to show how it differs from finance and economics.  Several years ago a friend asked me to explain the difference between finance, economics, and my new discipline, globanomics and here was my response:

"It might help you to look at each of the three disciplines as interrelated and interdependent blocks in a pyramid. To keep the pyramid strong all three blocks and their adjuncts need to operate fully and transparently. The globanomics-block mediates the other two blocks of finance and economics. As such, globanomics is the eye of the pyramid (like the symbol of the eye in the pyramid on the one-dollar bill note) that equilibrates the other blocks for fairness and optimum efficiency. Whereas finance and economics serve globanomics, globanomics cannot exist in its ultimate form without good finance and good economics.

“I equate finance with business, and economics with economists. Financiers tend to talk in terms of NPV, IRR, cash flows, amortization, net income, discount rates, assets, liabilities, equity, etc.  Economists, on the other hand, tend to talk in terms of inflation, GNP, unemployment rates, interest rates (long and short), econometric models, Keynesian versus Austrian theory, etc.

“And regardless of how much time I spend learning and trying to decipher the two different languages, based upon my own experience, I have come to view people involved in the science of finance and business as having typically a more Optimistic perspective than do those involved in what some have called the dismal science of economics. And for that reason, I consider the finance and business-block to be senior to economics and economists-block on the pyramid.

When my friend asked me how I felt globanomics differed from economics, here is what I said:

“Those who listen to the "economists" see the United States as one of many countries struggling (or fighting) for the same piece of pie. Those who listen to the "globanominalists" see the United States as the leading country in a host of countries that are creating a bigger pie.”

When my friend asked how globanomics and finance differed, I said:

“Finance is primarily a “mathematical” science, whereas globanomics is predominantly a “moral or ethical” science with a strong “mathematical” foundation. Although the inward analysis of globanomics can be viewed as being “mathematical” in concept, the outward analysis of globanomics is more “philosophical” in nature. And it is this outward nature of globanomics that makes it senior to the finance-block or the economic block.  This is why I call globanomics the “Eye” of the Pyramid.

“Globanomics reaffirms (possibly expands) upon the founding principles of the founding fathers of the United States in that globanomics claims that “All Human Beings are Created Equal and thus are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

“Globanomics’ fully integrated philosophical and scientific discipline is based on global rather than nationalistic perspectives. At the same time, the foundation of globanomics is based upon a clearly defined, commonly accepted, core set of world principals, the building blocks that shape the discipline come from the latest concepts and theories from the science of economics. 

Among the economic building blocks that shape globanomics are:

• Global Pareto Optimums.
• Friendly Competition.
  • Perfect Competition over Monopolistic Control;
    -- Investment Strategy Over
    – Debt Strategy Over
    – Rape/Pillage Strategy.
• Increasing Gross Global Product per Capita Through Productivity Enhancements While Narrowing Gap Between Highs and Lows.
• Rewarding Positive Creativity; and
• A Single Monetary Unit of Currency.

The core philosophical foundation of Globanomics is based upon the following principles:

• Do No Harm.
• Love is the Highest Knowledge.
• The Ethic of Reciprocity.
• All Human Beings Are Created Equal.
• Freedom Is Preferable over Subjugation.
• An Individual’s Right to Pursue Happiness.
• The Protection and Wise Use of Global Resources; and
• Exponential Reality

Military war between national entities does not fit within the framework of Globanomics. Instead, Globanomic Wars are fought on the following fronts:

• War on Hunger.
• War on Poverty.
• War on Disease Control.
• War on Prejudicial Hatred; and
• War on the Misuse of Global Resources.”

And that is how I explained the difference between finance, economics, and globanomics to my friend. 

Since globanomics was first presented in 2010 as shown above, many people have had the opportunity to comment and debate the fundamental guidelines and principles that I set forth for globanomics.  Over the past ten-plus years since globanomics was first introduced, only one change has been made to globanomics as it was explained to my friend above.  That one change had to do with the “single monetary unit of currency”.  That was sloppiness on my part.

As it was very well pointed out to me, national currencies carry with them historical cultural implications that the world would never want to lose.  Regardless of globanomic’s effort to better unite the world, globanomics endorses historical cultural thinking.  Diversity and cultural differences offer advantages to creative development that are not there in a less-diverse world.  So, globanomics does not endorse a one-world currency; instead, it endorses national entities to maintain their currencies according to their own likes.

What I really meant when I said globanomics needed a one-world currency is that globanomics needed to be able to convert all currencies to a single standard currency for “analytical purposes”.  That particular ability is already available by using current “exchange rates”.  The reason for this requirement is because when we do globanomic national analysis we want to be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges—a single standard monetary unit does this for us.  From an analytical perspective, the standard could be the dollar, the yen, the euro, crypto whatever—it does not matter—the end results would be the same regardless.

I wanted to mention the above for three reasons.  First, it shows how firm the fundamental principles of globanomics are (i.e., the fact that little has changed in globanomics in the ten-plus-years since I first introduced the concept).  Second, globanomics can and should be amended appropriately if need be.  Like the Constitution for the United States of America, amendments can be made to globanomics to incorporate the ideas of the many rather than just ideas of the few or one.  Third, the principles and fundamentals within globanomics in their firmness are non-negotiable once the standards are set because they serve as the Constitution for a World Federation.

Before addressing each of the fundamental economic and philosophical principles of globanomics separately, I would like to share with you a few different perspectives currently in vogue as it relates to a one-world government.

The most common proponents of a one-world government adhere to “liberal internationalism."  Commonly, liberal internationalists believe in a strengthened United Nations evolving into a world government. It is frequently suggested that the UN be supplemented with a directly elected parliamentary assembly, to give the UN authority independent of member states. The liberal internationalists support international law as paramount over national law and see it evolving into a single global legal system, with individual citizens having direct access to international courts with the power to overrule national legislation.

There are other viewpoints which expect the formation of a world government, but do not look forward to the idea. Many premillennialist Christians believe that, at the end of the world, a one world government will be established under the rule of the Antichrist. Whereas liberal internationalists see one world government as a good thing and see the early signs of its development as a positive, many premillennialists see those early signs as evidence that we are approaching the End Times. The idea of one world government is frequently linked with that of one world religion.

Some have viewed one world government as the outcome of world conquest (by an individual such as Hitler) or the inevitable triumph of a particular political project (e.g., a global commie revolution), or simple imperialism.  Another viewpoint, as a response to both realist and liberal internationalist approaches, is that if a one world government does come into fruition, it ought to be based on the principle of subsidiarity: wherein individual countries and regional blocs retain at least some sovereignty while delegating certain powers over to a reformed United Nations, thus rendering its actual power strictly limited but real enough to function. Proponents tend to present such proposals as a moderate option and an answer to concerns over self-determination and what form said global government ought to take.

Realist and "communitarian" approaches to international relations see liberal internationalist proposals for one world government as wishful thinking, which are centuries away from fruition, if they ever will be. Critiques of the concept, including those from other liberals posit that such a global state would be either unwieldy, unaccountable or undesirable (if not impossible) for various reasons. It also brings up other questions, such as whether a world government is necessary at all or if it would really be in everyone's interests.

World governments are common in science fiction novels involving aliens, often formed as a response to first contact. The suggestion is that only an outside threat could truly bring about a world government. Fictional world governments fall into a wide variety of categories.

So, where does globanomics fall within all these different perspectives?  Well, first of all, I hardly think globanomics is associated with the Antichrist.  There is too much love and care in globanomics to turn it into something that would bring with it the end of times.  The End of Times will come in a much different way than through globanomics.  Globanomics does agree that the United Nations needs to be converted into something different than it currently is, and that something different is a World Federation with an appropriate governmental structure. 

Globanomics is for the now—not the tomorrow—although globanomics will work in the tomorrow.  The world cannot afford to postpone globanomics because globanomics substantially speeds up the world’s ability to solve worldly problems (e.g., the threat of war, global climate change, poverty, disease control, etc.).  Without globanomics, the approach to solving worldly problems is through a slower, step-by-step, “piecemeal” effort. 

Globanomics is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea by itself.  Some argue that liberals want to change everything, and conservatives want everything to remain the same as they are today, but that is not the true meaning of either liberalism or conservatism.  Liberalism tends to endorse change, but it does not mean liberals endorse all change.  On the other hand, conservatism accepts change, it simply demands that any change is line with certain fundamental principles of conservatism which include love and caring for individual and family rights.  (Conservatism, as it currently stands in the United States with the backing of religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, and Trumpists, is not true conservatism).  Conservatism is better defined by Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan than by Donald Trump and his band of sycophants who have no standards or principles worthy to stand upon.  The truth of the matter is this: when it comes down to what is really important—really important—there is little difference between a liberal-minded individual and a conservative-minded individual from whatever land they come from.  All true liberals and all true conservatives support individual freedom, family, their nation, and the world.  One cannot be a true liberal or a true conservative if he or she does not respect and support these key factors and institutions.

Globanomics is not an evil science; it is a good science--ready to be implemented forthwith. 

Now I would like to address each of the economic building blocks and core philosophical principles that shape globanomics separately.

The Economic Building Blocks of Globanomics—Pareto Optimality

Pareto optimality is a situation which exists when economic resources and output have been allocated in such a way that no-one can be made better off without sacrificing the well-being of at least one person.  The concept is attributed to Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), an Italian sociologist, economist, and philosopher. 

A situation is considered to be a Pareto Optimum when it is the “best that could be achieved without disadvantaging at least one group.”  Without going into the rationale or reasoning behind the circumstances, the concept of Pareto Optimization was brought more to my attention in my public administration education than my business administration education.  In my own way of thinking, it should have been presented equally in both.

Regardless, there are many ways to look at Pareto Optimums including one that says it is an ideal that can never be fully attained.  Debating government and business projects or initiatives from a Pareto optimization viewpoint can be a quantitative nightmare—simply consider how one might compensate for the economic impacts both locally and globally for the emission of greenhouse gases from a smokestack so that no one is worse off in the world because of the emissions.  Something like that is very difficult to do, especially considering the debate as to the danger of greenhouse gases themselves.  But that kind of talk is cloud cover.  Pareto optimums are achievable, and they are easier to be made through the use of globanomics where “love” directs the way.

Based upon Pareto Optimum economic theory if any project is worth pursuing then there is an optimal solution where all conflicting parties that fight within the decision process end up benefiting—every last one benefiting.  Pareto with his Optimum essentially says that if there can be a gain from processing then there ought to be a way to share that gain with every participant involved in the process at least in some way.  Or in other words, Pareto’s Optimum defined a process where no one suffers injury and the resulting whole is unquestionably greater than the sum of the parts.  Thus Pareto Optimums mean “do no harm”.  Treat your brother as you would have your brother treat you.  If we followed these principals and sought Pareto Optimums in everything we did, the world would become a better place for all of us to live.

Pareto optimums result from democratic processes, not authoritarian.  The only way a Pareto Optimum can be achieved through an authoritarian regime is through a Benevolent Dictator—and there is no such a thing as a benevolent dictator (that is a pipedream).

The Economic Building Blocks of Globanomics—Friendly Competition, Perfect Competition over Monopolistic Control

Globanomics believes in competition and prefers perfect competition over monopolistic operations.  Shortly after resolving my issues with Pareto and his Optimum, I later found myself delving even further into the ancient theories that form the foundation of globalnomics.  It was not long before I discovered that the ancients used to categorize their more micro principals as falling into one of four different forms of competition.  I soon learned that the highest of the four levels of competition, the one most touted from an efficient and optimal standpoint, the ancients called “Pure” Competition.  The lowest of the four, the least desirable and least efficient of all competitive forms, the ancients called a “Monopoly”.  Assuming that the ancients chose their words carefully—a habit well documented—let us think on that for a moment.

The word Pure means to be free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind.  Let me repeat that again.  Pure means to be free—free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind.  A Monopoly on the other hand means having exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 

“In truth the ability for a society to achieve anything like a Pareto Optimum under a Monopolistic environment is based upon the Hope of having a Benevolent Dictator at the controls.  However, we all know that Power corrupts.  Besides, Hope is a desire and not an economic fact.  So I asked myself the question, who amongst us would pin their future Globanomic efforts on a concept with monopolistic control at its foundation.  I could not.  And therefore, given the choice between Purity and Freedom versus an alternative choice involving Manipulation and Control, I chose to make Purity and Freedom a part of my foundation, supporting my cornerstone of Love, as the basis for all of future work in Globalnomics.

One of the most important issues a new World Federation must address will be the management and control of world monopolies.  It is conceivable to envision a monopoly-like institution that does in fact operate like an institution in a pure competitive environment—and that should be the goal when addressing the problems associated with monopolies within globanomics.  Every effort should be made to exclude any nation from operating a global monopoly without direct international involvement.

The Economic Building Blocks of Globanomics—Investment Strategy Over Debt Strategy Over Rape/Pillage Strategy

In simple terms it is better for a country or an individual to be in the “black” rather than the “red”.  While those in the black invest, those in the red borrow.  In some cases, countries and individuals try to by-pass both approaches to get ahead through some form of rape and pillage strategy, but that strategy usually ends on a dead-end street and is not considered an optimal choice in globanomics.  So, in globanomics, we say that an investment strategy is preferred over a debt strategy which is preferred over a rape/pillage strategy.

Not everyone is or can be an investor, so debt is the second choice for nations and individuals.  There is nothing especially wrong with debt, globanomics just simply views investments as a better tool for advancing the global community.  Globanomics views investments as something used to add to the whole while debt is viewed as something used to get whole.  

As individuals most of us would prefer to operate in the black than the red.  The same thing holds true for nations, too.  For an individual, the day he or she is able to move from the red to the black is a glorious day—it means one is out of the hole.  Out of the hole one no longer owes another, but instead, one can invest in another (or oneself).  One can try to do with debt what one wants to do with investments, the trouble or difference is this: debt requires an interest tax to be paid, tend while investments have no such interest tax.  The interest tax paid by debtors typically goes to those people or nations that are investors. 

In reality many individuals and nations use a combination strategy which includes all three approaches to handling funds—investment, debt, and/or rape/pillage.  Globanomics understands this but stands firmly to the position that investment is better than debt and debt is better than a rape/pillage strategy.  Globanomics recognizes that a nation’s financial condition somewhat determines its approach to fund handling and its status among other countrithes.  Countries that are investing tend to be viewed with higher esteem than those countries that are always in debt.  And generally speaking, those countries that try to rape and pillage another country to get ahead or stay whole are viewed with very low esteem.

Although not currently possible, the long term and ultimate goal of globanomics would be to make every nation and every individual an investor.  Yes, that may seem like a pipedream, but it is the direction in which globanomics will move the world.

The Economic Building Blocks of Globanomics—Increasing Gross Global Product per Capita While Narrowing the Gap Between the High and Low National Performers

Possibly the most important principle of globanomics is to increase gross global product per capita through productivity enhancements while narrowing the gap between the high and low national performers.  This principle is so key to globanomics that if it is not followed then global optimality will never be achieved.  This principle says that it is the obligation of those countries who are top performers to try to raise lower performing countries to their level—with the gap between the rich and the poor always narrowing.  Tied to the previous globanomic principle of investment over debt, this principle when followed increases the number of investors over debtors.

Narrowing the gap between high and low performers is key to globanomics.  Without this principle globanomics would be a sham—it would crumble under its own hypocrisy.  In the next few chapters I will describe the approach and methodology that globanomics will employ to ensure that this principle is being met. 

The Economic Building Blocks of Globanomics—A Single Monetary Unit for Analytical Comparisons

Since I discussed earlier the intent behind having the ability to use a single monetary unit for analytical purposes, I will not dwell on it here.  The need for this principle will become clearer as we get into the next chapters and globanomic monitoring.

The Core Philosophical Principles of Globanomics

The previous globanomic principles outlined above all have to do with monies, economics, and finance.  These principles alone, however, do not define globanomics.  At the “heart of globanomics” is the core philosophical principles associated with it.  It is this heart of globanomics that sets it apart from any other comparable scientific or economic discipline.  Every core philosophical principle of globanomics is in play and has a long history of human attachment to it.   Ignoring, or discounting any one of the core philosophical principles of globanomics will detract from the effort to achieve global optimalities.

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Do No Harm

The old saying “do no harm” has been with humankind since the beginning of time (humankind time, that is).  Do no harm from a philosophical standpoint is like saying “pareto optimums” from an economic standpoint—they are one and the same.  Typically, most people associate the term “do no harm” with an “eastern way” of thinking, but it is not just an eastern concept, but a global concept. 

From an eastern perspective “do no harm” is associated with karma.  From a western perspective “do no harm” is associated with scientific evolution.  Consistent with the scientific evolutionary principals, the Natural Law of Karma says when man struggles to gain anything for himself at the expense of others he is distinctly doing evil, and it is evil because it is against the interest of the whole.  The Natural Law of Karma says that the only true gain is that which is a gain for the race as a whole, and the man who gains something without cost or wrong to anyone is raising the whole race somewhat in the process.   The Natural Law of Karma says the former man of evil moves against evolution; the latter man of gain moves in the direction of evolution.

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Ethic of Reciprocity

The Ethic of Reciprocity is essentially the Golden Rule from the Christian Bible put into terms that fit the perception of different cultures.  The ethic of reciprocity, like the principle of do no harm, has been with humanity almost from the day humankind picked up a rock to throw at someone or something.  The ethic of reciprocity takes many forms, but it essentially one thing.  The following should serve as a good example of how different cultures view the ethic of reciprocity.

• From Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.:
• From Ancient Egypt: “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.”
• From Christianity: “In everything, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, that is the meaning of the law and the prophets.”
• From Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
• From Islam: “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you and reject for others that you would reject for yourself.”
• From Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor.  This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.”
• From Zoroastrianism: “The nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”
• From Daoism: “The Sage. . .makes the self of the people his self.”
• From Confucianism: “One word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life is reciprocity.  Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.”

Now I must point out that some critics challenge the practicality of such thought and the ethic of reciprocity, itself.  Every rule has soft edges that make the rule vulnerable to bending—and that is true with the ethic of reciprocity, too.  That is simply the nature of rules.  After all, it is difficult to string a set of words together that addresses every case in its absolute.  However, that does not mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater.  As we will come to see in Chapter 9 of this book, rules play an important part in the optimization of civilized societies.  And for that reason, the ethic of reciprocity is included in globanomics.  Without the recognition of this globally accepted fundamental principle there is little hope for a peaceful and optimal world of achievement.

As an aside, it is noteworthy that one can find examples and statements made worldwide that support many of the core principles of globanomics.  Core globanomic principles must be accepted globally. 

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Love Is the Highest Knowledge

Love is the highest knowledge.  The reason this principle is so important to globanomics is because love is the driving force that makes globanomics work.  With love as a core principle, globanomics clearly sets itself apart from all other political and scientific approaches to optimality where love is not included.  The actual statement from which I drew this principle came from Swami Vivekananda, who actually said, “Extreme love and the highest knowledge are one”.  

Another wise man, Meister Eckhart said, "Man's proper activity is to love and to understand.  Now the question is, what does blessedness most of all consist in?  Certain masters have said that it consists in understanding, others say that it consists in loving, others say that it consists in understanding and loving, and these speak better.  But we say that it consists neither in understanding nor in loving; more; there is something in the soul from which both understanding and love flow; it itself does not understand or love as the powers of the soul do.  Whoever understand this something, understands what blessedness consists in.”

Earlier in this book Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was discussed.  At the top of Maslow’s hierarchical triangle is self-actualization, the point where one achieves the most that one can be, which in its ultimate form is something many call “enlightenment”.  Although enlightenment may not be for everyone, it is available for everyone.  And most scholars, gurus, and teachers agree that there are only two paths towards this ultimate human achievement and that is through either: (1) love; or (2) understanding.  Since understanding comes from knowledge, it is imperative to understand that love is the highest knowledge if one is to pursue enlightenment through the understanding route. 

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Freedom Over Subjugation

The core foundation of Freedom over Subjugation is as important to globanomics as those of love, the ethic of reciprocity, and do no harm.  Individual freedom is one of the cornerstones to globanomics.  Without freedom there is no globanomics.  This particular core value is so important that I have included an entire chapter iSn this book towards the narrower, yet still related, subject of Freedom versus Authoritarianism.  It will explain why Freedom is preferable over Authoritarianism, both in a positive and creative way, but also in a way to operate one's nation.  Authoritarianism is a losing argument.  Freedom has proven time and time again to be better than Authoritarianism for the people.

Trumpism is just one example of an Authoritative type of rule but will serve the purpose as an example.  The definition of an authority is someone "in the know" on a particular subject.  That is why Trump could say he knew more than his generals, his health care people, his business partners, etc.  Trump was an authority on everything!  And his followers believed him!  Hitler was another "authority" that knew more than all his generals, his fellow people, and everyone else in the world.  These are losers in history.  Trumpism is so far from what Freedom and Democracy mean in the United States that all the pundits are right to be concerned because the people are not seeing the threat to the United States and the threat to the World that his type of authoritative-leadership poses, especially when that leadership entails leading the world, too.

There is no room for Authoritarianism in globanomics.  It is one of the principles of globanomics:  Freedom Is Preferable to Subjugation.

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—The Right to Pursue Happiness

Thomas Jefferson is the person who wrote the words that gave the people in the United States the right to pursue happiness.  Thomas Jefferson was a spiritual man, and in his studies, he examined a broad range of religious thought.  From that research he learned about “happiness” and deemed it important enough to include in the most important phrase of his Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now consider this.  If you had three things and only three things to give someone out of the blue, would the right to “pursue happiness” be one of those three things?  It was to Thomas Jefferson.  And the reason is this: in the realm of religiosity and enlightenment, happiness is the “ultimate achievement”.  In religiosity and enlightenment “true happiness” only comes after you have overcome all the roadblocks to achieving spiritual enlightenment.  Thomas Jefferson was not talking about going to the bar for a few drinks to get happy (although he might have endorsed it); he was talking about the “self-evident” and “unalienable” right to pursue spiritual enlightenment in your own personal way and on your own.  Self-evident meaning “intuitive”.  Unalienable meaning “impossible to be taken away or given up”.

Now that is what I call a writer!

Everyone in the world should have certain rights that are intuitive in nature and impossible to be taken away.  In globanomics we believe that Thomas Jefferson was on the right track in identifying what those particular rights are and thus we include them forthwith.

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Protection and Wise Use of Global Resources

In truth I am not sure whether the core philosophical foundation of globanamics to protect and use global resources wisely would have been a criterion of globanomics one-hundred years ago.  But today, we are much smarter than we were one-hundred years ago.  Human population has increased almost five-fold in the last one-hundred years, and we are only now starting to realize the toll that humankind has taken on our Earthly home.

The people of Earth can no longer afford to ignore their role in maintaining and fixing up their home.  Who wants to live in a trash ben or a hoarder’s home?  We have work to do in this area.  We have a beautiful planet to take care of!  Although the protection and wise use of global resources should always have been “intuitive”, it is now “imperative”.  First, we need to tackle the current global warming problem head on with all the engineering and scientific might the world can exert to the effort.  Second, we need to begin to address population trends and take a full accounting of the amount of global resources there are, including other species, chemicals and materials, water, food, etc.  After that is done, we have to make it a core value of globanomics to be good “housekeepers” --housekeepers who keep their lawns mowed and trimmed, their house exterior freshly painted, their appliances in good repair, and their rooms clean.

In the past the United States has been probably the biggest abuser of this core globanomic requirement to protect and to use global resources wisely.  That is not the case today, although the United States is still a large contributor, and it has much to make up for from its past.  Regardless of who is to blame for past events, our global environment must be protected whatever the cost.  We all live on the same planet with the same atmosphere and with similar/dissimilar environments.  In effect, we live in the same home together.  In globanomics you do not want to be the one with the messiest room.

A Core Philosophical Foundation of Globanomics—Exponential Reality

There have been times that I have left the core philosophical foundation of exponential reality out of globanomics when I have explained it.   Now with this book, exponential reality is in—for two reasons.

First, those who actually get into the mathematics behind globanomics will find that exponentiality pops up all over the place.  What one experiences with exponentiality is an ongoing trajectory of rapid increase.  It’s like a ball picking up speed as it rolls down the hill.  Many things start out looking exponential (e.g., a typical business growth curve), but then things begin to slow down, reach a peak and level out at maturity.  Although that type of exponentiality will still be apparent in globanomics, it is not what this core philosophical foundation is about.  In exponential reality things never slow down, but instead, things keep on increasing at an ever-increasing pace.  Examples in globanomics of exponential reality include technology, science, and the arts—there is no end to where the human mind can take these fields.  One can see exponential reality already taking place—just look at humankind’s history.  Six hundred years ago humans, after thousands of years of existence, began printing things making it easier for more people to learn different subjects.  Two hundred years ago, humans started an industrial revolution.  Fifty years ago, we began an information and technology revolution.  God only knows what we are starting today.  The truth of the matter is this: the trajectory of humankind can be exponential in nature as long as we do not screw things up.

Second, exponential reality is in globanomics because love is in globanomics.  Love is exponential in nature—the more love there is, the more love will be created.  With love being the constant in exponential reality and in globanomics, we become in tune with a universe of goodness.

The Elimination of Military War for More Global Beneficial Purposes

As a writer, sometimes I find it useful to look up the definition of words I already know the meaning.  The reason I do this is because behind each definition a great deal of effort has been put into defining the word and to keep the word current.  Now here is the definition of war as I just looked it up on my computer: “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or within different groups within a nation or state”.  Now I might look at this definition differently from the reader, but what stands out to me in this definition is the term “armed conflict”.  Continuing on, I looked up the word “armed” and found it to mean: “equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons”.  The definition of weapon being: “a thing designed or used for bodily harm or physical damage”.  

Okay, so what I am left with is this.  War is designed to do bodily harm and physical damage—neither of which are goals of globanomics.  In fact, war, using the definition given, is antithetical to the globanomics of do no harm, love, and the ethic of reciprocity.  War makes no sense in relation to any of the other core fundamentals of globanomics.  War (military war, that is) does not make any sense if you look at history either.  The final outcome of war is damage, not construction.  In globanomics military war is passe.

With globanomics we intend to change the definition of war, dropping the term “armed” entirely from its definition.  Military war today, with all the weapons of mass destruction in the world, makes absolutely no sense at all for humanity.  China and North Korea can continue firing their new missiles into the air, but that is not the direction of globanomics, nor the direction the rest of the world wants to move.  With globanomics swords will be turned into plowshares.  With globanomics the question as to which nation on Earth has the biggest peashooter will become meaningless because peashooters will become meaningless.

Ask yourself, what have all of the wars in history accomplished?  In the end you will find that the summation of all those wars have brought us to the place in history where we are today, which is at a “T” in the road.  Turn left and we go with “armed conflict”; turn right and we go simply with “conflict” by itself.  There is a big difference between the two.  With globanomics humanity will make the right turn.

Although it may be repetitive in nature, “military war” Is viewed with disdain and contempt in globanomics.  With globanomics the only wars that are fought are ones without weapons (mass destruction or otherwise).  Instead with globanomics wars are fought to resolve conflicts regarding such things as hunger, poverty, disease control, prejudicial hatred, and the misuse of global resources.