TED Conversations

Gabriel Ray

Student, The Venus Project

This conversation is closed.

A new global economy with relation to the natural world, rather than the fluctuation of 'value'.

In order to validly support the human race, we have to understand that our economy can not be based on something as trivial and abstract as value. Value is relative and has no true manifestation. While one person may be attracted to this particular golden rock, another may be just as captivated by a lump of coal. Our economy must reflect what we have on our planet, what we need for our planet, and how we can make the very most of what is available. With our current system of value, that which there is little of holds the most value. In this sense, if all the oranges in the world were to go extinct but one, it would be an incredibly valuable orange.. but what good would it do. It does not make sense to power our homes and our machines (vehicles and otherwise) on finite, limited resources such as hydrocarbon fuels. In a true economy, based on the principles of sustainability, we would focus more on what there is a lot of and what can easily be renewed and updated. Our cities, our homes, and our very way of lives, must evolve constantly with the introduction of new information if we ever hope to survive and spread through the cosmos.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 16 2011: You can not possibly think that true lasting prosperity is possible through our current world economy, can you? It's focus is on that which there is so little of because that holds the highest profit. A true economy would work towards maximizing resources and distributing them where they are needed.

    Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

    In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

    We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

    Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2011: i don't know who is "you", but i'm going to add my thoughts anyway.

      i do believe that true lasting prosperity is possible using free market capitalism. more to that, i believe that only that can provide it and be ethical at the same time.

      so we have the US wartime measures as a positive example? let me see.

      the government realized that they want to spend like 50% of the production, but people would never authorize this with paying 50-60% tax. so the government implemented a whole array of "auxiliary" measures, like:

      1. massive borrowing
      2. price fixing of many goods they wanted to buy (in the name of "preventing predatory pricing")
      3. ticket system to prevent people from consuming (in the name of "fair distribution" and "stopping hoarding")
      4. nationalization of industries (to "provide stability") which made it easier to fix prices and stop people from getting goods
      5. drafting. people was enslaved and materials were seized for "the cause".

      all of these were surrounded by massive propaganda. the american people would not tolerate such atrocities without suppressing the opposition. japanese americans, born in the US, were put in concentration camps. freedom of speech was largely suspended. upton sinclair was arrested for reading the bill of rights in public.

      during wars, people worked much more, and consumed much less. the fruits of their labor were taken away by force, and dissent was swiftly punished. if you want to copy these actions, then congratulations for you. but please leave me out. i don't want to be a part of it.
      • thumb
        Aug 16 2011: ..i'm sorry, sir, you misunderstand me. In no way would I suggest "copying these actions". What I aim to suggest is a completely new form of economy.
        • thumb
          Aug 16 2011: no it is not. we saw that many many times. just it is disguised as new.
        • Aug 17 2011: I'd like to add, if I may. That the economy of which you so resent is the sole reason America maintained a solid 'economy' during the war years. As they were providing high demand, low supply weaponry to the Allies.

          "The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power."
          That is already the case, sir. You seem to be suggesting that we follow village economics and not city economics. I can tell you that following such a line in the large urban areas, is madness and unsustainable.

          Prehaps instead of posturing you could provide us with an example of a new economical structure as opposed to dismissing the current one as out and out wrong?

          Finally I must take issue with your idea on governance.
          You seem to be aiming to push economics and governance to a Communistic stylee, and yet refute this. Would you agree, I wonder, with the idea of the Transmutation of Morales, and the ideas expounded by Plato concerning the kalos kai agathos class?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.