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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.