Listen to the podcast here.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a hot topic these days. Some predict humanity will see superhuman AI by 2020, and people like Elon Musk view it as a major threat to watch out for. Earlier we wrote about AI because most people don’t know what to look for, so most people can’t see what we have achieved already. I will repeat part of the earlier post here.

First to understand AI, one needs to get a grasp what intelligence is. To me it is ARGO, Autonomous Robust Goal Orientation. Intelligence is a property of a class of systems, including humans and machines. The system classes are

1. The Tool (can be anything)

2. The Cybernetic system (a mechanism that has an internal target parameter and responds to deviations from that parameter)

3. The Intelligent system (A system that strives for a goal, which is a specific combination of parameters, The more autonomous and robust the system is the more intelligent)

4 The Aware system. (A system that can adapt and prioritize its goals to fulfill its fundamental needs)

An electric drill is a tool, if it has systems to maintain RPM and manage battery life it is a cybernetic system, if it does so robustly it becomes borderline intelligent, and if it would selectively distribute perception to detect wheter it should optimize RPM or Battery life at any time it would be rudimentary aware. In most cases though an electric drill lacks robustnes to be intelligent, so awareness would be very fragile.

Robustness is perhaps the most significant aspect that is commonly ignored in AI research. It matters not whether a computer can solve a complex problem, or talk like a human, althought there is a relation between a choice of viable responses and the number of independent ways a response can be produced (robustness). The human brain is vastly redundant. It is build out of neurons that can die for many reasons, and are expected to do so without risk to the person involved. Open up a computer and stick a screwdriver in the wrong place, and the whole thing grinds to a halt. The same goes when a line of code running AI contains an error. The same even goes when a neural network is implemented on a massively parallel computer. We would be seriously scared if a computer manages to survive and achieve its purpose even if we try hard to stop it, that is not how computers behave. Robustness is what super human AI interested are so worried about. apart from the fact that the goals set by the AI most likely don’t align with the ones keeping us going. The threat of an autonomous robust AI with any real power to manipulate our world is real, just think of the animal kingdom as examples of ARGO. How many animals are friendly to us? They are either scared of us or ready to eat us.

But the people enthousiastic about the prospect of AI often ignore the AI we already have, that we basicaly inhabit. Because most people don’t view humans as mindless drones or computational resources (except perhaps Amazon which launched a mechanica turk service). Humans are aware organisms that can adapt their goals in order to make them align with their fundamental needs, our motivation to drink, eat, have sex etc. It is probably true that many animals can be demonstrated to have the ability to strive for a goal that has nothing to do with their normal behaviour in their natural habitat (even though they would be limited to their motoric repertoire). Humans can be trained to strive for goals that are  symbolic, that don’t satisfy any need right now. Therein lies a weakness in the integrity of the human mind, because for those that know how to condition responses to symbols of future ‘need satisfaction’ the possibilities are endless. Examples of symbols most people are conditioned to are banknotes and coins. We can’t eat them, they don’t give us shelter, the don’t give us satisfaction, but they symbolize our power to get all those things. This is the problem : Most of us respond strongly to a symbol that privided it is promissed or supplied in the right quantit can make us accept almost any goal.

It is enough of a threat to our sanity that we can be conditioned to strive for symbolic goals. This already makes us a material for AI without awareness, in the role of mindless drones. Awareness is a process of information amplification that allow us to distinguish between behavioural options (relative to our knowledge and needs) or goals. If we accept goals that we don’t generate ourselves, we can turn into servants for an awareness that may not take human survival into account. Domination of slaves by slavedrivers is a good example. The master wants the cotton, the slave may die in the field.The masters mind being as warped by symbolic greed as the slave’s by elimination of free awareness.

Language and words are symbols, but that does not mean words and language are a high risk, because what determines the risk of symbols is how we are conditioned to respond to them, If someone you believe comes up to you and tells you you can become a milljonair if you stand on your head, it is you being conditioned to the implications of being a miljonair that will (probably) make you stand on your head. Our leaders are people that have conditioned us to respond to their their symbolism, usually by adopting language we have been conditioned to, other times by using symbols of intimidation, fear and danger to give us the proper conditioning response. Conditioned words are a currency all by themselves.

The power of other symbols like money hands a similar conditioning tool to the people that control it. It is in their interest to condition us to this symbol, to make money essential in our lives, to make it important in our minds. This is done on the one hand by putting a price on everything we may be interested in, and making it hard to come by. On the other hand we are conditioned by the marketing industry, selling us lifestyle goals, materialistic ideals, social pressuring us to own tons of useless stuff, all the time using our fundamental needs such as the need to belong, our need for freedom.

When the question is asked “Does our economy constitute an AI” then the answer must be yes. This is easy to see, because our economy has goals, namely the growth of GDP, and many secondary goals set by different organizations that are part of its system (mainly the financial and banking system) have nothing to do with our needs. Within the conditioned symbolic framework of ‘the economy’ we are expected to cheer when banks do well, when Wallstreet is up, and mourn when export is down etc. While some causal relationship between the wealth we thus help to create and the part of it we recieve exists. No relationship between our health and security and the achievemet of symbols like a greater GDP are guaranteed, in fact, we see countries with decades of ‘growth’ sink into sudden dispair. Economic goals are alien to us even though close to us they overlap with basic barer and trade, sharing of effort in production of wealth. But economics is not about that we will see.

When the question is asked “Is our economy aware” the answer is also yes. It is adapive to its substrate, which is sufficient fossil fuels supplied to the manufacturers, ensuring cashflow and profit which ultimately determines the GDP and other values of economic theory. It is aware by borrowing human awareness, moments of abstract thought. An analyst with a bank will analyze a specific region for possible profit from logging for instance, driven by many conditioned goals that have at their pinacle some economic prosperity ideal for locals, but also the analyst salary. The more abstract, materialistic and egocentric the analyst, the better he/she will function on the job, because the easier it is to utilize his/her mind.

Awareness is te ability to adapt behaviour to a chosen sensory experience out of the total at any time, be it through speech (saying ‘I see a bird”) or some other motoric activity (like pointing to it). We are aware of something before we commit to an action, then once we act and we become aware of new things amongst which the experience of the act. What awareness does is modulate our perception in a dynamic interaction with all our other (relevant) goals and constraints so that a decision about what action tot take results. Once we have processed a situation with a certain resulting decision a number of times we  lose awareness of that situation when it occurs, our behaviour becomes automatic. The AI called economics is aware because it does analyse, through the use of analysts, computers and economists, what the best option or goal should be in order to sustain its dominance, and if the data is insufficient to make a decision more data is sought and different opinions and options are weighted against each other. When the human (and increasingly silicon) symbol manipulators finally come to a clear advantages of one of the actions, they become policy, in the interestof the survival of economics.

Sure there are many individual beneficiaries of economic theory, but they are interchangeable, the bank CEOs, the economicsts, directors etc. all take away a stash of ‘symbols’ which in itself conditions others to want to do the same. ‘Stealing’ bankers make us angry because WE want that money. While really we don’t want to need it, which is something different. But economic theory and economics is not controlled by anyone, that makes it so robust, It is a system to be trusted and participated in, one religiously defended by people that don’t even benefit from it. It is an aware Super human AI that controls large parts of humanity.

It is not principally necessary for people to disengage from this AI as long as the overal trajectory it sets humanity on is aligned with our fundamental needs, so at the end of the rainbow there should be food to eat, water to drink, grass to lay down on, and life to enjoy. Sadly this is not the case. We are stuck with a system that is achieving the opposite, even if many of us are fine at the moment.  We are lending our cognitive abilities to a mechanism that does NOT care about us because it only looks at abstract parameters, because the humans that do its bidding have been conditioned to want money, no qualitatively superior outcomes for themselves and others.

Economics has an Achilles heel though, namely the requirement that plenty of fossil fuel is available. A short definition of economics is “A theory to maximize the utilization of fossil fuels” which was considered a harmless goal to bring prosperity to the masses using a plentifull gift from the gods. No wonder economic forces work against renewables. Without fossil fuels there can be no sudden increases in productivity and manufacturing capacity, no cashflow, no credit. The unique property of a fossil fuel is that it is dormant production power. It is storage in itself. Like having a massive charged clone army that can be let loose on any problem or ambition at any moment. Production capacity and speed can reach any value as long as there is enough fossil fuel credit. Hence in our fossil fuel based economy one can suddenly deploy many workers and machines because the energy is waiting, stored, ready to be activated with ‘carboncredit’.

Right now it is clear that economics and free market theory (which is not praticed most of the time) is not leading us to a more prosperous and secure future. The main culprit is the abundance of fossil fuels, which removes limits on the speed at which resources are harvested. The only limits are 1. fossil fuel security and international distribution of its consumption and 2. the financial system, so the availbility of credit to distribute the fuels. But the world economy is like a lawnmower that is programmed to never stop, and you and I are its computational minions.

Because economic goals are often aligned with individual goals of the people involved (when they earn enough or believe to have the chance to do so) it is hard to deprogram enough people to return to a more sane goal set, one produced by human values, not money symbolism. Many people believe they can do social and climate ‘good’ using economic principles, while in fact, they can’t because they (who may not be a serving of the Economic AI) by lending and making profit and importing and marketing etc., feed into the AI that has thousands of people working for it, maximizing cashflow, utlization of fossil fuels, depleting resources where they can be found and moving on like a buch of locusts.

The answer to resouce destroying economics is extraeconomics

To turn this around the rules of economics need to change, so that people that are captured by its incentive structure, that will work to give its goals and ideals life, do not in fact clearcut our planet and ruin prospects for humanity. It is impossible to fight the AI because there is an overlap with the real economy that hide the destructiveness of the marcoeconomic effects. It has become a part of many minds much like some medieval bloodletting in its day, precieved to be a healthy burden.

Rule change : Maximize life, not cashflow or GDP. This means all life.  Resources can be used, and value of them be accounted in the usual economic way, but the value of a project or asset depends on its ability to increase the variety and abundance of life (lets say natural to the region), and credit goes to those projects or companies that maximize life the best. Life of people, animals, plants, oceans..

Maximizing life will also minimize destructive practices like the use of fossil fuels, and promote energy harvesting methods compatible with life like wind, solar, tidal etc. It calls for maximizing the amount as well as the variety of species, something that will disadvantage fossil fuel intensive industrial farming and prepare the species of earth for the selective process of global warming.

The choice when allocating resources to one project or another, should be based on the ability of each to increase the variety and abundance of life.

The Life Maximizing Economy could have a currency representing life, and have lie futures that can fund reforestation, ocean restoration and other projects (meaning take a piece of the fossil fuel pie to start them up). Of course the threat of old Economics AI looms large as long as fossil fuels are used, so banning and phasing those out should be priority nr. 1. Once selling as much fuel as long as possible is nobodies goal anymore, production will start to depend on humanities fundamental needs again.

Maximizing life is not an incongruous goal, after all, economics always lies that it tries to maximize ‘growth’. It thus claims to do wat we should make it do.

It is simple, we may be hijjacked to serve an economic philosophy that is killing off life on this planet, but we are also capable of adapting the program in our minds to make it secure for us, our decendants, and all other living creatures on Earth. Thus we will learn for the first time to recognize and defeat a Aware Superhuman AI.

 

 

This is a list of all the forms of suffering caused by the continued freedom of fossil fuel exploring and exploiting companies. It is a undisputed fact we don not need to use these fuels. If you have a suggestion please send us an email at info@greencheck.nl

Lung disease

Many cancers

Rain forrest clearing

Killing of tribes in the rainforrest

Ocean pollution

Ocean noise pollution

Loss of landscape

Melting of ice caps

Severe storms

Severe droughts

Seagulls eating plastic

Human ingestion of micro plastic

Heavy metal pollution of water

Toxic sludge with carcinogens

Astma

Drowing in an oil spill

Neural damage due to oil spill cleanup activity

Depletion of soil nutrients due to use of gas based fertilizer systems

 

De regeling die het voor mensen mogelijk maakt om te investeren in zonnepanelen op een dak in hun postcode gebied (of een direct aangrenzend gebied), de zogenaamde Postcoderoos regeling is geen succes. Het maximaal geinstalleerd vermogen is laag waardoor een individuele eigenaar volledig gesaldeerd zou worden a 0.23 Euro per KWh, maar door de regeling blijft er maar rond de 0.16 per KWh over, en dat verlaagt het rendement aanzienlijk. Daarbij zijn er extra kosten voor een extra aansluiting en de cooperatie die de panelen in eigendom heeft en kost een en ander veel tijd en organisatie. Waar om werd gevraagd was een manier om de opbrengst van panelen die ergens achter een meter geinstalleerd waren te verrekenen met verbruikers aan andere adressen. Dat kan zeer eenvoudig, met het berekenen van zogenaamde ‘meelifters’ hebben energie bedrijven al decennia ervaring. Faal dus en dit remt veel cooperatieven in hun initiatieven.

Onderhands lenen is gratis 😉

Wij hebben een paar jaar geleden een andere werkwijze bedacht, namelijk een die gebruik maakt van onderhandse leningen. Dit houdt in dat iemand een installatie aanschaft, en daar de kosten en opbrengst van tevoren goed heeft ingeschat (info@greencheck.nl). Vervolgens worden lenigen opgesteld met een standaard waarde van bv. 100,- of 500,- euro. Deze worden verkocht aan de deelnemers aan deze ‘cooperatie’ al is het oprichten van een cooperatie niet verplicht. De panelen worden geinstalleerd, de opbrengst komt binnen en daarmee wordt jaarlijks rendement op de leningen betaald, en aflossing binnen een bepaalde periode. Aan het geheel komt niet eens een notaris te pas.

Een onderhandse lening is een lening tussen twee burgers, zonder tussenkomst van een notaris. Er kan echter wel een contract worden opgesteld en dat is ook 100% rechtsgeldig.

Er zijn zelfs voordelen aan deze constructie, waarbij deelnemers bedragen van 6,- of 8,- euro per ‘contract’ per jaar ontvangen voor een ‘inleg’ van bv. 100,- Euro. Een vet rendement vergeleken met de gemiddelde spaarrente. Er is wat organisatorisch overzicht nodig om eea in goede banen te leiden, en dat kan via een stichting worden geregeld. Het eerste echte voordeel is dat men de lening bij de belasting kan melden als een soort hypotheekschuld. Dat betekend dat de rente ook aftrekbaar is. De lendende partij heeft dus prettig meer rendement dan normaal, en kan het rendement dus groter maken dan strikt van de panelen afkomstig! Win win dus. Een tweede voordeel is dat de contracten overdraagbaar zijn. zelfs verhandelbaar. Dit creert een waardepapier van zonnerendement dat zich ver buiten het postcode gebied waar de panelen zich bevinden kan verspreiden. Alles legaal en volgens de regels.

Zonleningen demo site

De site is in aanbouw, U kunt wel uw gegevens invullen. Heeft u interesse dan kunt u ons emailen via info@greencheck.nl. Een donatie is ook zeer welkom.

Greencheck heeft voor de administratie van dit soort onderhandse investeringen in zonnepanelen een website gebouwd, en zoekt kandidaten die panelen willen laten installeren en via deze regeling financieren. Om het voordeel te genieten heeft u een hypotheek nodig, maar huurders en verhuurders genieten vanaf komend jaar ook stimulerende voordelen en zijn niet minder geschikt. Voor bedrijven geldt hetzelfde maar daar moet de schuld die ontstaat tov de deelnemers goed in de boeken worden bijgehouden. Die schuld heeft overigens voordelen en er bestaat de Energie Investerings Aftrek die vaak ~10% korting op de investering tot gevolg heeft mits er winst wordt gemaakt.

De administratie kan door de installateur in de gaten worden gehouden. Die houdt dan zelf een paar contracten achter de hand, als korting op de installatiekosten. Alternatief zou hij voor zijn diensten een vergoeding krijgen. Aangezien er geen oprichtings kosten voor een cooperatie nodig zijn (~900.-) en onderhoud e.d. toch nodig zijn is dat alsnog voordeliger. De Postcoderoos regeling lijkt niet eens nodig voor het samen in eigendom hebben van panelen, het kan makkelijk en zelfs met medewerking van de belastingdienst!

Nederland houdt zich dood als het om de transitie naar hernieuwbare energie gaat. Op Europees en nationaal niveau wordt niet doorgedacht tav wind en zonne energie, voornamelijk door twee factoren, ten eerste de eigen gas lobby, ten tweede de (geopolitieke) ambities van de VS. VVDers en VVD ministers doen een dansje rond de linkse fracties die zelf maar zwakjes actie voeren voor meer duurzame energie. Hierdoor wordt onze economie geschaad, dwz de controle van Nederland over de eigen welvaart.

Historisch gezien is het geen nieuws dat monopolies en handelsposities en -overeenkomsten definierend kunnen zijn voor de ontwikkeling van een land. Deste zekerder de behoefte aan een product, deste veiliger en machtiger de producent, en Nederland heeft zich altijd verzekerd van een invloedrijke positie. De laatste eeuw was dit zeker het geval met de ontwikkeling van ons land als distributie hub voor fossiele brandstoffen en chemicalien. Royal Dutch Shell nam een deel van de wereldwijde olie productie voor zijn rekening. Koninklijke Vopak zorgde voor het vervoer, en zo kan men doorgaan over de bedrijven die onze natie zo welvarend maakten en vaak nog steeds maken.

Helaas blijkt dat men de prodctie van olie, chemicalien, plastic, etc. in Nederland en elders niet langer blindelings mag proberen op te voeren. Onze atmosfeer is al te ver met CO2 vervuilt om onze huidige evolutionaire lichting gezond in leven te houden, de gevolgen zijn overal op aarde waarneembaar. Het blijven toepassen van fossiel om meer producten te maken zodat meer mensen een in hun ogen welvarend leven kunnen leiden volgens de regels van de economie heeft het fundament onder ons bestaan verzwakt. Het is net als zoute pinda’s : Lekker tot je er teveel van eet, funest als je niks anders eet. De pinda boer heeft ons allemaal geleerd dat als we maar veel pindas eten alles goed komt, maar dat is niet zo, we gaan er kapot aan.

Logischerwijs zou men moeten zoeken naar een nieuw monopolie, of iig een product waarbij de vraag niet snel verdwijnt. Nederland heeft een superhaven die naast onze chemicalieen en fossiele brandstoffen ook de waardevolle producten vanuit Duitsland over de wereld verscheept. Mochten wij iets maken dat waardevol is dan kunnen we daar makkelijk de wereld mee veroveren. Waarom zou Nederland geen batterijenproducent van wereld formaat worden? Het zou de techniek zelf kunnen optimaliseren, het zou de grondstoffen makkelijk kunnen importeren, en vervolgens de batterypacks, power packs, wereldwijd kunnen afzetten. Waarom bloemen en tulpen met grote gas investeringen produceren en naar elke uithoek verhandelen, een hobby waar we op den duur niet veel beter van worden, maar niet producten maken die werkelijk waardevol zijn, zoals bv. batterijen. Accu’s van gezinsformaat , units voor de straat, wijk, stad om de verzamelde zonne- wind- en geothermische energie op te slaan zodat deze door een consument of producent benut kan worden wanneer het het beste uitkomt.

Duurzame stroom behoeft opslag, iets dat vrijwel zonder verlies aan materialen kan worden ingericht. Als een LithiumIon batterij van vandaag 10 jaar meegaat is het geen afval geworden, maak kan hij 100% worden gerecycled. Iets dat in de kosten kan worden meegenomen, dwz dat batterijen eeuwig functioneren. Welk land wil niet wereldwijd diensten op dit gebied aanbieden om zo de vruchten van productie over de hele wereld mee te pikken, wat we voorheen met bv. cocaine, koffie, tabak, en aardolie deden. Het eerste land dat betaalbare ‘eternal’ batteries op de markt brengt en zijn industrie inricht op het produceren en distribueren ervan, verankert zichzelf stevig in de onvermijdelijke vooruitgang richting hernieuwbaar, groen en duurzaam.

In tegenstelling tot het blijvend fossiel afhankelijk zijn, wat op allerlei niveau leidt tot verkeerde, pijnlijke en misschien zelfs fatale beslissingen is een keuze voor facilitatie van de toekomst op basis van zon, wind, wave etc. gelijk heilzaam en sterker makend. Heilzaam omdat we onze eigen behoeften kunnen bedienen (en tegen de onbetrouwbare fossiele markt beschermen) tegen een voordelige prijs, en sterker makend omdat we ons nuttig maken tov een wereld die de enorme potentie van wind, solar e.d. aanboort. In een wereld economie die de prijzen van deze oplossingen hoog houdt is er zeker plaats voor een land dat zijn subsidie richt op deze technologie en eigenlijk is Nederland daar een ideaal land voor.

Elon Musk in de VS bouwt een mega fabriek, simpelweg omdat hij niet ziet waar hij de auto batterijen voor zijn Tesla auto’s vandaan zou moeten halen tegn de tijd dat hij ze moet produceren. Die capaciteit is dus al besproken (en hij bouwt meer capaciteit dan er nu bestaat). Tesla maakt echter ook units voor huis- of bedrijfs- gebruik, die zeer robuust zijn, ze zijn namelijk kopieen van de vloeistofgekoelde/verwarmde batterijen die in de Tesla autos worden gebruikt, die honderduizenden kilometers snel ladend en ontladend over de wegen razen zonder kapot te gaan. Deze baterijen zijn ook 100% recyclebaar als ze uiteindelijk kapot gaan.

Elon Musk zal op gegeven moment een europese ‘Megafabriek’ bouwen, en dan is het voor Nederland te laat. Nu een ‘Batteryvalley’ starten, Phillips erbij halen, en bouwen die fabriek. Het is een absolute no-brainer. Het doel? Opslag voor huis gebruik concurrerent maken met afname van het net. Henk Kamp kan dan de kwakkelende ‘postcode roos’ (regeling voor plaatsen van panelen op afstand van eigen woning) oplappen om de weg vrij te maken naar een marktgedreven verbreiding. De bouw kan zelfs worden gefinancierd door consumenten die over een aantal jaar de opslag vooruit betalen om zo van de eigen aansluiting af te komen (waarbij een aansluiting per straat overblijft). Wie staan in de weg? De energie bedrijven en voorstanders van de energiemarkt, want het gebrek aan opslag geeft dynamiek aan de markt en houdt zon en wind opwekking problematisch. Maar hoeveel kiezers zijn dat? Dus wie stemt tegen?

Overigens moeten we niet te veel naar onze wetenschappers luisteren, niet als ze generaliseren zoals Fokke Mulder. Wetenschappers hebben natuurlijk ook een politieke mening. Als ze specifiek onderzoek doen naar een of andere techniek kunnen we de bevindingen toetsen en indien correct benutten. We hoeven het wiel niet opnieuw uit te vinden, dan wel extreem te innoveren, veel patenten zijn al verlopen. Er is momenteel niet genoeg batterijproductiecapaciteit. Maak het eenzelfde omslag als de introductie van aardgas in de 50er jaren. Bedien Nederland, en de ervaring zal ons wereld producent maken.

Tesla factory

 

 

 

 

 

Nieuwe pensioen regels worden niet behandeld door de senaat omdat de leden eerst antwoord willen op een aantal vragen van Jetta Klijnsma. Die wil dat de pensioen fondsen meer ‘reserves’ aanhouden zodat ze minder snel in de problemen komen. Het is abacadabra voor iemand die iets snapt van de financiele markten en de schijnzekerheid die ze bieden.

Kleinsma wil dat de regels 1 januari ingaan, dus de senaat moet haasten, wat een onzin, de senaat is de onderdeel van ons wetgevend orgaan, en wetten komen er pas als deze zijn behandeld. Maar waarom is het zo’n abacadabra?

Ten eerste, als men in het spel van de pensioenen gelooft, kan het niet zo zijn dat pensioenen zichzelf meer zekerheid geven door reserves op te bouwen. Het vermogen hoort te groeien door slim te beleggen, en reserves aanleggen betekent minder beleggen, minder rendement dus minder ‘dekkingsgraad’. Natuurlijk kan dit dus alleen maar door minder pensioen uit te keren, wat neerkomt op stelen van de huidige pensionados en veronderstellen dat dit geld niet sneller weginfleert dan het rendement kan opleveren, wat het niet doet omdat het niet belegd is (nemen we aan).

De enige logica die achter deze nieuwe regels zit is die van het korten van consumptie door de huidige generatie. Dat betekent minder fossiel brandstof gebruik, dus meer fossiel voor de industrie, lagere brandstof prijzen, meer handel waar de financiele instellingen meer interesse in hebben dan de oude dags voorziening van de pensioen gerechtigden. Dit is het kerndoel van de nu 6 jaar oude economische crisis, brandstof besparen door het bv. bij Spanje, Griekenland, Italie weg te halen dmv financieele manouvres.

Momenteel is er een overschot aan fossiele brandstoffen op de markt. het Midden Oosten wil de VS terugdringen van de markt, de VS kan niet opgeven omdat het anders geen macht heeft, en Rusland staat aan de zijlijn te kijken, spijt hebbend van de economische verstrengelingen (die echter de vrede lijken te bevorderen). Stel dat je nu pensioen geniet, dan kun je lekker goedkoop leven. Er is deflatie, dus als je nu zou kunnen inslaan voor de komende 10 jaar zou dat meer weelde opleveren dan wachten op de payoff van Kleinsma, maar dat kan niet want de olie moet ‘economische groei’ bevorderen, dwz meer fossiele consumptie onder consumenten, verspilling dus.

De VS zal niet opgeven, Saudi Arabie ziet echter het eind van zijn olie al, dus stel dat we over 10 jaar in een wereld leven waarin Saudi Arabi zijn olie houdt, China en Rusland de olie uit Iran, Syrie enz verdelen. De VS heeft zich terug getrokken en Europa heeft weinig duurzame energie dankzij de gaslobby, echter het gas is op en Shell haalt niks van de Noord of Zuidpool, omdat ze daar opzij zijn gezet door de grote jongens.

Zonder veel wind, zon en geothermie zijn onze Euro’s dan weinig waard. Dus ook onze pensioenen. Alleen hernieuwbare energie kan zorgen dat toekomstige pensioen gerechtigden zeker kunnen zijn van eten, drinken en een warm huis. Met miljarden op de bank, geen gas en een enkele windmolen zou het gierend duidelijk zijn dat geld, hoeveel je er ook van opzij zet, alleen zoveel waard is als er in de markt kan worden geproduceerd, en zonder energie is dat ziltch. Niks, nada. Noorwegen gaat het ook meemaken.

Sparen van geld kan niet. Het opbouwen van reserves in cash vorm geeft geen enkele zekerheid tav de weelde die met dat geld verkregen kan worden. Investeren in bedrijven die niet voor nieuwe energie zorgen is ook nergens goed voor. Je rendement stopt op het moment dat de energie die de bedrijven gebruikt op is of elders wordt verkocht. De wereld bank had deze analyse ook tav voedsel (energie voor mensen). Het zei dat prijzen zouden stijgen, maar dalen als landen niet meer in staat bleken te kopen. Dit is natuurlijk momenteel het geval net fossiel. Landen vallen af (dit is de trend, misschien wijkt er een dag af). Door wapen gekletter kan de fossiele verdeling wijzigen, maar de trend is duidelijk, meer vraag, minder aanbod, en mensen die er genoeg van hebben (gelukkig).

In plaats van pensioenen te beschouwen als spaarpotten met geld die iets waard zijn (wat niet zeker is), zou onze regering voorzieningen moeten treffen voor huidige en toekomstige gepensioeneerden. Dat is vele malen goedkoper dan sparen/beleggen. De vraag die centraal staat is ongeveer “hoe voeden, huisvesten, en geven we vrijheid aan degene die te oud zijn om bij te dragen aan de productie van weelde”..De groep die te jong is of onnodig mag nog worden toegevoegd (zie stuk over Asscher). het antwoord is simpel : Verduurzaming, de creatie van energie bronnen en productie keten die nodig is. Met 10 jaar investeringen op het niveau van de pensioen premie kan elke komende pensionado in de behoeften gedekt worden. De voorwaarde is dat het systeem dat de senioren ondersteunt goed wordt doordacht, en helemaal vrij wordt gehouden van fossiele input (terugkerende kosten want de brandstof wordt verbrand) en financialisering (terugkerende kosten van rente, hogere prijzen etc.). Het streven is naar een ‘extraeconomische’ oplossing, een die buiten de wereldwijd verbreide schuld economie staat. Om dit te doen is zoveel geld beschikbaar, en nu de fossiele energie goedkoop is kan daar nog veel hernieuwbaar energie rendement mee gehaald worden. Het moment om een nieuwe levensavond te ontwerpen is nu, op deze manier wordt het een doodlopende lijdensweg.

 

 

 

 

 

Our media are strongly biased in favor of industry. We don’t notice that the language used for things we are expected to be interested in covers more than we usually bargain for. If we move into a house, the butcher doesn’t come ringing to make arrangements for next years meat budget. If we ‘govern’ our homes and manage our household purse we only have to deal with advertisements and of course a biased media. We can make choices that keep us healthy and maximizes our happyness and we don’t expect ruthless commecial interest to bother us. In our governments that is the norm, it -almost seems the be the raison d’être of government.

Of course every household is already in the grip of several big business conglomerates, to start with the banking system. The fear people have of the big thing called buying or selling a house plus the ability of banks to create money when an asset is given as collateral has suckered most home owners into owning a home with a mortgage. Taxes are based on that mortgage (the ‘value’ of the home), so local and national governments have a stake in high house prices, and everyone has to work to earn money to buy their mortgage. How it happened that houses used to cost a fraction of what they cost today? One is tempted to say it was the work of government. We think it is to broad a term, we want to split ‘government’ up.

There are numerous examples of how our impulse to be human, for instance our impulse to care for something, leads to economic gain through carefull framing of the economically profitable thing in terms of our impulse to care. If we don’t care we are taught to care. For instance about our economy. Like a tamagotchi we are regularly updated on its condition. Because nobody has control this makes us all feel powerless, and then we are told banker this and that will nourish our economy, kick start it like a patient in cardiac arrest. Heroic. What did it mean? Of course NOTHING. But the virtual mythical being ‘the economy’ is often referred to, we need to heed its existence, while the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer.

We earlier explained what the economy is, it is a process of maximizing the utilization of fossil fuels, a process in which humans are less and less usefull. Certainly not all humans. Accepting this is more like the definition of a problem we will here try to offer a solution. The solution consist of calling things by their name, not buching them together so that a fair discussion becomes impossible. Government and its policy needs to be recognized to serve two main goals, 1. the Demoment, the health and wellbeing of the people. 2. The Economent, meaning the maximization of cashflow.

Many people think there is only the Demoment. They think all decisions are made to improve the lives and health of the people. More jobs mean more happy healthy people, more modern products means the same. Laws to control the markets protect us from dangerous situations. The economy will grow and that is good for everyone. Many expect government to be a Demoment, even if at times it doesn’t behave as such. It is supposed to be its ultimate goal.

But if our government only cared for the health and wellbeing of us, it would move singularly aggressively towards a clean energy society. It would crush any producer of poisons that kill birds, bees, people. It would prevent long logistics chains if they mean people lose their jobs, pollution rises and knowledge (and the joy of knowing a craft) is lost. It would not let poeple go hungry as tons of food is thrown away, as loss giving activities are subsidized. It would follow a roadmap to the most happy, local oriented society with maximum ownership, minimal debt, maximal life in every corner..

We see this is not the case. We see our government for some reason slowly moves our society into a prettyfied up workcamp with the managing rich, the working consumers and the working convicts. The US has this pattern clearly, with commercial jails forming a significant part of its economy. The principles at work are economic. Economics is about maximizing the utilization of fossil fuels, for banks it is about maximizing cashflow (which increases with the utilization of fossil fuels). It seeks to put a price on everything so trade in it generates cashflow, desire to purchase a prized asset creats loans, and every move anyone makes puts more power in the hands of the banks. These in turn teach us the economy should grow, debt should be repayed, house prices should rise etc. etc. Cashflow is the deciding criterium. Not human happyness or welbeing. Right now our governments are overwhelmingly Economents.

The problem with Economents is that their purpose is 1. not to support human lives 2. Not to respect limitations of our ecosystem. Economics tells people to compete, it expects companies, corporations to do that. Why? Becuase it is inefficient, it forces companies to go into debt, it creates individuals that all need exactly the same stuff, and share very little. When there is a resource that can be exploited to generate cash flow, it is exploited with the use of fossil fuels, until it is depleted and gone. Time to move on. Recently the activity of shale gas drilling, not even profitable, boomed because it allowed banks to extend credit, increasing cashflow while devestating landscapes and polluting ground and surface water. That’s the definition of a boom, a device created by banks to generate cashflow through inflation of valuations, made to come through through bank loans.

Instead of bunching Demoment and Economent into one term, ‘Government’, misleading people about the purpose of suggested policies as producing biased indicators, we should Be very clear about which politician serves which part of government. That way we can find solutions to problems without automatically using economic principles, which cause many problems. By separating Demoment from Economent we can also allow other methods of managing assets and resource to serve the goals of Demoment. If something needs to happen like building a road, one can go for the ecnomically designed solution, expensive big companies that lobby for work and are integrated with departments, or maybe use a more spontaneous and locally originating cooperative that may not even want to get payed for building a local road.

JB Straubel talks about tesla’s battery technology, the future and potential of electricty storage.

Our atmosphere is warming up and that process needs to stop. Around the world changes are made that will help reduce warming even if they’re not motivated by that explicit reason. The ambition to manage average atmospheric temperatures has become explicit in climate targets, for instance although nobody seems to understand it requires more effort and sacrifice the longer we wait.

There is however a paradox. Global centrally decided and agreed upon maxima are supposed to be enforced locally. There are several ways to do that, one is by monitoring economic parameters, industry standards, so that one can either punish or reward changes made. For example, european standards will ban high wattage vacuum cleaners, because they are overkill and to reduce emissions. Energy standards for homes will create more energy efficient or even carbon neural homes to be build reducing emissions. All these goals are set and it seems to work so where’s the paradox?

The current control system is fossil credit economic, and therefore driving more CO2 emissions

The paradox is in the control system that drives these changes. If we distinguish two systems, one the economic system, second the military industrial complex and police force. They represent the spectrum from reward to punishment. In life, as you explore your opportunities and achieve your dreams, you can be fined, go to jail or (if you really threaten fossil fuel dominance)  or f.i. get bombed. If you are a country that wants to go its own way (especially when it concerns your own resources) you either get bombed or some civil war gets fomented to tear you up from the inside. This is because the military and police still serve economic interests.

The economic and military industrial systems do one thing extremely well : maintain the dominance of the fossil fuel paradigm. Why? Because fossil fuels are in easy reach of anyone with money, and money is constantly being made more essential for survival. This people have to forgo their own moral judgement and do any job, even if it threatens their future to earn it.

We are controlled by a system we can’t control

The control paradox is that we are controlled by an economic system that does not want to go green, depends on the opposite. There isn’t even a global elite that can control it, they become elite by serving the economic mechanisms. This centrally managed system is incapable of effecting climate action, because it is based on distributing fossil fuels, which cause climate change. To enable regions to become carbon neutral or negative, they need to be allowed to escape central economic control. This however creates a patchwork of independent regions, which is the nightmare of the globalist and those that believe economics is a force for peace.

The only force that can disrupt the economic machine is a military machine thinking of its own survival and that of the people they currently serve.

If you want a world that deals with climate change, you have to allow it to become a non cooperative swamp. You have to allow something to happen that is the complete opposite of globalization.  This is a direct result of the introduction of local energy production, making local energy consumption and production of goods and services more easy. Logistics become less necessary and global media will disappear. The global village dominated by the financial markets will turn into a patchwork of local realms of influence of a few.

There is no way any authority can set a global target to be executed under a global order. It requires either agreement or tyranny and both are not needed to achieve the goal.

The paradox is that the exit from fossil fuel and effective climate action can not be achieved by global penalties or incentives. It can only be achieved by letting go of global coherence.

First option : The Global Standdown

This paradox has two optional solutions one of which we wrote about some years ago, and we called it the “Global Standdown”. Simply said it entails the unifying of all armies into one controlling force that will then create the patchwork mentioned above. The force will not be loyal to any specific region and won’t enforce law anywhere. Countries will dissolve to the level of regions willing to cooperate.

The global united military creates conditions in which the patchwork can make the transition : Peace, assistance, and no reversal

The global force will set the rules that will force regions to go autonomous fast because it will control all fossil fuel resources and keep the use of them to the minimum as it implements rapid adoption of renewable energy sources everywhere. The production of renewables can be renewable energy powered, so as soon as that is the case the use of fossil fuels will be the privilege of this unified military force only. In a more sci-fi version of the concept the world would be dominated by this military through drones, using the (involuntary) relocation of people as the primary means of control (as the patchwork of autonomous regions doesn’t make migration easy and function as a de facto open prison system). This means it doesn’t have to use lethal force at all.

We can’t reach a stable climate that supports the life evolved until 1900 if something akin to the intervention described above or the second option is not done. The advantage of creating a unified military is that there will be a positive outcome, and there won’t be chaos and limping towards the expiration of our biosphere (runaway warming is already a risk, but it would be hard to fight). It also protects the state of our civilization, which could certainly regress under constant and widespread conflict.

Desire for control over fossil fuel resources creates most if not all tensions we see in the world today

Second option : Extra-Economic Zones

The second option is to realize a centralized renewable energy production facility that will enter/replace the current fossil fuel energy streams as if nothing happened. The trouble is that it is not easily achieved in an environment shared with fossil energy producers which through its scarcity drives a struggle that seeks to exploit any resource one can possible exploit. The solution to this problem is to use Extraeconomic (spelling likes Extra-Economic) zone, zones that are protected against the forces of the world economy (operate outside it). They can capture carbon, produce forests, foster ocean life, without any of the gain being consumed by the general population or industry.

Optimal Approach

The optimal approach is probably a combination of the two options : 1. a united force to control the exit from fossil fuels, trying to land regions in one piece, which may include exchanges of human recources and technology but not allowing anyone to fight to for gain as armies do.

At the same time extraeconomic zones are created and protected, they will also need to be populated and will generate biodiversity and capture CO2 where nobody imagined it happening before. A good example of a region in which this can happen is the deserts of the world. There is no technical reason why they  could not be lush and green.

What doesn’t work, what we don’t have time for, is using the economy without intervention into its central driver : The increase of utilization of fossil fuels. It is like asking a person to find water outside when he is next to a faucet that has clean drinking water. The immediacy of reward from using the economic system never wins over the future day of reconning. People are more involved with what they want over what they fear, or they would not leave their homes. We need to make it so that they reduce the risks to their existence automatically, and this can only be achieved by challenging them to become locally autonomous and fossil fuel independent.

Agoracentric world

The result has been suggested by other people, sometimes with a reference to new computer technologies for interconnection (See f.i. Rifkin). The shift to a more virtual existence is however one of the economic capture mechanisms : Less freedom, more control of the consumer. It goes hand in hand with the rise of eugenic forces, also in the interest of driving better economic parameters. The real solution is much more about using humans as they where intended, as active working people for their own good, even if aided with technology.

Agoracentric : The village is the center of attention

The step into a fragmented autonomous world does not mean people need to be isolated, they can travel freely (at next to no cost as Tesla already demonstrates), share experiences, but need to show they can manage their region with (hopefully carbon negative) effects. Competition between regions can exist on quality and style. Forming blocks with armies has to be actively combated by the united military.

Where to start

To start this process an alliance of armies big enough to defeat all others has to come together and coordinate force to start the division of regions, the initiation of extra-economic zones, the disarmament of all others, the appropriation of all fossil resources under a central authority that directs it so the need for it is eliminated as soon as possible. Banks now hold control over the distribution of fossil fuels, and this authority needs to be surmounted.

An alliance of armies motivated by the desire to create the agoracentric, extraeconmic and roboeconomic world world can be formed today. The standdown can start today.

It is either people become products of economic forces, which drives a division between docile consumers and a controlling elite (which through automation may not even have any influence anymore), or they become adequate to survive in their regions, limited by a global force that consists of equally capable people. In both cases humanity will go through a change, in one where it readies itself for extinction, in the other where it prepares to survive.