I'm just going to be straightforward about this and not try to couch anything in brilliance or cleverness - wordsmithery.  I've been alive since nineteen fifty-five, and I've paid attention, especially to the people I've encountered along the way to this present.  For, what is this universe but a very elaborate and interesting machine with no purpose were it not for the life which results from its machinations, and especially the sentient life which can then observe this machine as it does what it does?


     This, I believe, is lost on most people today.  We are a cooperative species that has managed to create a competitive society in which very few people are truly happy, and in which problems persist that seem to have no end; warfare, deprivation, and disease.  We sit in amazement at our technological advancement and try to finagle a solution from the machinations of the machines we have built, and people are still scratching their heads.  Sure, things like renewable energy can alleviate quite a range of maladies, but realistically cannot achieve the requirements of a highly-industrialized production system.  The petro-dollar and how this society is organized go hand-in-hand and though it's commendable people seek cleaner, friendlier alternatives to this, the fact will remain:  If we don't fundamentally reorganize ourselves as a humanity, we'll just have to learn to live with these maladies - these "problems".

     Why is the wonder of our life-generating universe lost on people today?  I assert it is precisely because fulfilling the requirements of a member of a wealth-driven competitive society leaves no time or energy to consider the nature of this reality in which we exist.  And, of course, so many centuries have been spent perfecting this present system little to no attention has been paid to researching and determining what alternatives there might be.  The most significant step in this direction was taken by Karl Marx who, though his observations are astutely correct, could not in addition come up with an alternative.  His solution was just another form of the system in place.  In practice it just changes from one bully to another, rather than rid us of bullies altogether.  This then hampers any thought to alternatives as the myth has arisen there are only two methods to organize an economy and these are polar opposites; capitalism or communism.

     This is much like a religion.  The two poles in religions are good and evil.  Wall Street and the so-called financial "industry" are akin to the great seats of religious power.  The financiers, bankers and brokers resemble bishops, cardinals and abbots.  The utterings of the economic "experts" are too involved for the average person to understand, so they are accepted on faith not unlike the tenets of other religions are accepted - belief without proof.  In fact, the organization of the enterprise of human activity into this economic system has all the characteristics of a religion, and are deemed untouchable - unalterable facts of highly-evolved human intelligence.  This, though precious little effort has been made to determine if there are not alternatives which could perform the function as tools to organize human effort, harnessing it to produce prosperity - prosperity for humanity rather than wealth for individuals.

     It would then of course follow that examining this set of problems (which seem to relentlessly plague humankind) in terms of just how much of this is brought on by the doctrinal beliefs in, and intransigence to change this present method of organizing human enterprise and activity may reveal this method actually generates these problems as a by-product.  Have we created a system offering wealth to a few at the expense of all the rest?  If so, how can this economic process be passed off as a tool to facilitate mankind?  Doesn't mankind have the right, rather the duty to alter and modify any such system until it is harnessed to work for mankind as a whole, and not a small percentage of people?  Aren't people taking advantage of this system at the expense of their fellow human beings in violation of the second imperative of life, species preservation, and so can be adjudged as mentally ill?

     In fact, psychiatric science recently revamped its standards and definitions for mental illness so that people who used to exhibit sociopathic behavior now are seen as normal, since it takes this sort of sociopathic behavior to create "success", which of course is measured in wealth.  Didn't they just take a mental illness, the need to acquire wealth, and turn it into an acceptable mental condition?  In so doing didn't they inadvertently declare those who need to generate personal wealth are actually mentally ill?  Wouldn't at last declaring this condition, the need to possess more than anyone else, and be exclusive, to be what it is, a perversion of evolved human intelligence be a professional duty these people shirked in order to justify their own incomes they make from this process, making them complicit in it and negating them from the right to call themselves "scientists"?

     Even this health care discussion:  When has anyone heard anyone discuss anything to do with health care?  Haven't they been discussing paying insurance companies, and forcing people to buy from insurance companies as a requisite to being "eligible" for health care?  Just being a human who has contributed in however a small way to the collective achievement of realizing the evolutionary step of developing science is not enough of a qualification for "eligibility" to what they helped to create?  There's a further step?  You need enough money?  Doesn't this process disqualify medical doctors from claiming they have anything to do at all with science, as they have allowed themselves to become shills for the insurance "industry"?  Isn't it difficult to allow any of these people to assert they have integrity when they have been so fundamentally compromised?

     I'm not going to go too far into the notion that yes, if we weren't spending untold trillions on military apparatus for participation in violence predicated on where the oil is located and the addiction to the petro-dollar, there would be enough money generated by our collective enterprise as humans to actually pay for this feature of advanced civilization we've all worked so hard to achieve - medical care.  Just being able to say that unequivocally without fear of contradiction by any rational, objective person who doesn't have "skin in the game" slams the door on this as a debatable subject.  The question is, when are people going to at last rise up and throw off the yoke of these "wealthy" people who have at last taken us over?  Or, are we going to endlessly throw out heartfelt, well-considered speculative diatribes declaiming the symptoms of this greater problem - the symptoms of warfare, deprivation, disease, "economic" inequality, social injustice...isn't it time we took another look at our "fundamental truths" to see if some of these aren't really truths at all, rather, just dogma served up by the wealthy to keep us generating the effort to keep them in their places?

     Think about it.  If this is true, then it doesn't matter how much effort you put in, how well-meaning or charitable anyone's efforts may be, or what kind of technology we've managed to develop, this predation on humans by humans will persist, as they are then ingrained into the system we've adopted to organize our efforts.  Human attempts to "fix it" then amount to being the stone of Sisyphus.

-30-