- My conversations
- My comments
Page 1 of 134
-
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: What do you think of fear? Do we need? Can you take it out of your life?
Mar 17 2013: Look up our last conversation on this here at Ted. A fascinating read and lead to such contention and anger that the TED censors were very very very busy. I won't try to summarize it or characterize it except to say there were two competing points of view..one that fear is egoic and disempowering..something too be overcome..the other that fear is somehow a valid and intrinsic part of identity. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
+1A comment on Conversation: What is the most important thing you've learned on your own?
Mar 17 2013: that I possess ( we all do) an intrinsic and unique authenticity and that living from, speaking from that in a way that is turned outward to the world , to serving life, to serving humanity) is what brings me the best vibes -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: What would happen to an economy if physical precious metals were legal tender currency?
Mar 17 2013: until our war debt got bigger than our gold reserves..that's when we shifted to silver certificates and then we needed to have a bigger money supply than we had silver to back it so we went fiat. The whole problem is that our economy is premised on a non viable growth rate that requires a non sustaianable expansion of our mney supply that can never attain balance or stability. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: What would happen to an economy if physical precious metals were legal tender currency?
Mar 17 2013: 100% correct Carolyn..and not just african nations ( which includes Libya by the way) but also Iraq wanted to do that. That in combination with demanding that their petroleum be settled in their gold back currency would instantly devalue the UK and US currencies to a level that would shift the balance of power. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: What would happen to an economy if physical precious metals were legal tender currency?
Mar 17 2013: that may well be so but shifting for the U.S., the UK and all other nations on fractional reserve would create a major shift in the balance of power globally towards those countries that both posses critical global resources ( like gold & oil) and who have sufficient gold reserves to have a strong and viable gold backed currency. ( see my earlier Ted discussion on this) -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: What would happen to an economy if physical precious metals were legal tender currency?
Mar 17 2013: yes it would implode. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: What would happen to an economy if physical precious metals were legal tender currency?
Mar 17 2013: Well, the U.S.and U.K economy, among others would collapse and those who have a shot at a gold standard and are actually seeking one ( both Libya and Ira were moving towards that). We are locked into our shaky fiat system of "funny money" and we could easily be brought down if enough "players" change the game or insist that oil and other commodities be settled in their own gold backed currency..
I actually think currency should have a measureable common global value.but the U.S,and the U.K. could not conceivably willingly choose that without risking a long time of economic collapse and uncertainty
What we really need to do to stabilize our economy and make our currency "real" is figure out how to achieve sustainable balance..to get off needing to grow at 3% plus per year. Then we would be getting somewhere worth getting.. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
Mar 16 2013: lovely and very much Einsteins own sense on this question -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
+2A comment on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
Mar 16 2013: Einstein spoke as powerfully and elqouently as anyone could to this in his famous lecture at the Princeton Theological seminary.
I hesitate to summarize it without again first reading it myself but I love what he said so much I think I can do it some justice "off the top of my head"
What he basically said is that they are two different vectors of humanity..two different expressions of humanity not meant to be reconciled and not necessarily reconcilable but both essential expressions of humanity. He characterized spiritulaity as that open yearning towards something beyond what we know and "possess"..sort of the universal wordless fire in the belly of humanity that keeps us asking questions and looking for answers and evolving towards something worhy. Spirituality he said is about our aspirations and dreams and inspirations.
Please don't rely on my characterization..Please do read it. So beautiful. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
+1A comment on Conversation: Is capitalism sustainable?
Mar 16 2013: I like Iceland's answer to that question.because it actually visited that question as a nation and decided that sustainability, thrievability included so much more than capitalism and expressed that in a beuatiful, eloquent crowd sourced constituion.
Our U.S. Constiutution is actually capitalist and colonilaist..it is a far cry from the eloquently humanitarian and egalitarian vision of the declaration of independence. Jefferson actually visited that when he became president and decided that the ship f state would eventually tack towards what was expressed in the dxelaration of independence and to some extent that has happened.
By its very definition and workings capitalism eventually includes a 1% who have all the wealth and power and disenfranchised 99% . It is only that false hope that everyone has an equal shot at wealth and advancement that allows it to perpetuate. Now the 99% get that. With no riots upheaval or war the 99% are already leading us away from capitalism towards an economic and social vision that is not only sustainable but hopefully thriveable.. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: What's your outlook for Egypt after the revolution?
Jan 31 2013: Something I think about often..so much of what was the American paid for military is still in charge and still frustrating and interfering with true democracy..government "of the people"..and if that is secured..still not seeing what economically will change what brought everyone out to Tahir square to revolt.jobs and the costs of basic goods like food.
How do you see Egypt solving its economic problems.? Where are the opportunities?
And can the muslim majority accept israel's presence in the region?
A lot of problems to overcome..and America is still working out its own after more thna 200 years. ..we have a corporatocracy not a democracy and we have 47% of our people at or below the poverty level. But we do have a rich natural resources base and we can compete globally in producing any product.
What would you say Egyptians want first? -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: Have you ever played Marbles as a child?
Jan 31 2013: when I was 6&7 with my best friend Carol Schneider every day after school..she was REALLY GOOD..and the marbles were really beautiful -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: A method of associating with other TED site posters to allow those who find each other of interest to follow each others comments.
Jan 31 2013: You can just click on the page of posters you like and see what they have been commenting on..also the thumbnails are a heads up on current comments ..you can also select "comments by" under Search Conversations and you can always invite commenters to a conversation you feel their input would be great on -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: What is this strange creature?
Jan 27 2013: looks like barnacles to me with a couple of mussels in residence... -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: The Dow is steadily improving while the national quality of life is consistently worsening.
Jan 27 2013: Hey Edward..important pint and true globally..through this time of global crisis when more and more people are worse off as the folk who brought us to collapse prosper the Dow will hit a record high tomorrow)..
What that means is that the GDP of all nations is no longer connected up to creating jobs, building infrastructure, preserving the planet, creating housing opportunity, growing high quality food. We falsely feel secure when the dow hits new highs, housing starts rise, unemployment rates creep down a bit..
We are not paying attention to the thrieavbility of our economy.
We need new goals
.
New conversations about our economy that are more focused on equal opportunity and the distribution of wealth
New performance measures..a high dow does not translate to public good..to common good. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
+2A comment on Conversation: Debate: Our culture isn't adapting to our rapidly progressing technology.
Oct 23 2012: Culture changes very slowly even in response to laws..witness the lingering resentment in the deep south to civil rights legislation or lingering corporate resentment of fair wage legislation, So when culture is slow to change even to adapt the law of the land, we should not be surprised when a new , even transformational technology or innovation,n doesn't permeate culture in depth or allow the full realization of its potential.
If the purpose is to change culture ( rather than just sell product or in the ca of laws to force compliance through enforcement actions), then the cultural acceptance has to be an intentional focus at the outset (which raises its own set of questions and issues.)
Most modern constitutions do not seek or embrace the idea of cultural homogeneity even though they do reflect a new consensus on certain aspects of shared community and shared national values. The engineering of a massive cultural spiritual transformational shift is certainly beyond government and apparently beyond existing religious institutions.
As a contemplative I hear this idea of massive dynamic shift often expressed . Sometimes as the next stage of evolution of humanity, of human kind and perhaps there is some evidence here and here that this is happening but I don't really see that or expect that.
Any individual can decide to only purchase what is needed..what is durable, practical, useful, essential..to use all resources wisely ( e.g. ,not ever buy bottled water ever again. boycottingg genetically engineered food products) to be personally responsible for what we rely on institutions to do ( teach our children, care for our elderly, deal with ) and enough of us do that as individuals we will change what is produced and how it is disrtibuted and at hat proint the cultural shift will have been effected. .
We bring that shift about by making wise choices one by one not by advocating for or waiting for a shift. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A comment on Conversation: Where do we stand on on WikiLeaks?
Oct 23 2012: This is a very complicated topic.
At its heart it requires consensus on what information the public ( the global public) has a right to have.
And then it requires consensus around whether "we the global public", have a right to that information any way we can get it without an intervening process to assess whether the information at issue is in the "public domain" and how, by what procedure it should be disseminated..
Most things that are "public"involve some sort of rules of common use and access..(a park can be closed at night, prohibit vehicles etc.) So what "we te global people" might agree is "public information:" doesn't mean we can obtain it any way we want.
And then we don't have any consensus amongst "we the global people" on what supersedes rights and procedures that might otherwise determine how we gain access to what is in the public domain..e.g. global whistle blower laws"..situations in which the information is proof of violation of public trust or is about an urgent matter of public safety.
As a lifelong "good government person" who seeks and support transparency and accountability between all governing bodies and "we the people"( all government should be by our consent). Wikileaks showed us almost everyday that government was lying to "we the people" on issues of great consequence to our lives, our planet, future earth and future people. And through possession of this information we were empowered to try to re re establish accountability to us and to the truth.
There being insufficient transparency and accountability I am ill at ease at the aggressive suppression of wikileaks and its creator. Wikileaks gave us an inside view of what we had a right to know in most cases about issues of enormous significance to humanity. But fighting to save wikileaks doesn't strike me as the wisest or most fruitful response either.
So maybe "how can we" begins with discoverable truths we can seek and share. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: Why Basic Income should become a Human Right
Oct 17 2012: Pat,
I don't agree that folk should have to sell their land to acomodate gentrifiers..that's a whole other discussion and off topic for this one..
To your point on oil profits..the problem with the subsidy system for il, natural gas, etc. is that we ahre the risks through subsidy but at the other end we don't recoup that public investment and we could and should. There's no reason why allpublic income ( ege licensing fees) to do with mining and natural resources on public land should not be shared with the public equally.
Even resource extraction on private land involves a shared public risk..eg cyanide heap leach processing to extract gold.
Resources in the commons..waterways lakes, waters where fish breed and grow, wetlands that are breeding grounds for the worlds oceans, the air we all breathe are all put at risk in these endeavors. These are commons . Beyond the fees for oversight and application approval and ongoing public monitoring , could we consider whether activities that put the commons at risk to derive profit shouldn't involve some ongoing fees that benefit each and every owner of these commons ( in addition to the total public cost of protecting these commons) .
The system we have now shells out subsidy from we the people" to encourage certain endeavors deemed to have an inherent general public benefit..but we don;t earn that investment back at the other end when these endeavors start paying huge profits. The Sovereign Wealth funds are a model on how to capture some of that and the Alaska one a model of how redistribute that back.. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: Why Basic Income should become a Human Right
Oct 17 2012: Thanks for your engagement on this idea Mats.
Of course ay nation ( or fr that matter in the U.S., any state) can decide who owns public lands and how any income from public lands should be managed. One way, in addition to and side by side with any other systems of taxation and benefit t that are in place is to set up a "sovereign wealth fund" like Alaskas, where a specific portion of income is redistributed back per capita and also offsets taxes. Alaska is basically tax free ( no income taxes) and in addition every person gets a disiiribution every year from natural resources .
Alaska is one of the few Sovereign wealth funds to have this feature of distribution back to the people.
I like that it is per capita ..that every one gets the same amount. It's simple. It;s fair. Its consistent wiht the idea of civic equality that is fundamental to all democracy
(see my earlier TED conversation on this for more information and discussion) .
The equal sharing of income from a country's or a State's "commons" most likely would not be enough to meet basic needs for food, housing, medical care etc. .Even fr a very wealthy state like Alaska, the per capita distribution is only about $3,000..
It is a way though to take a step towards everyone having a basic economic stake.
In general, don't you agree, any society should build in stewardship for one another, stewardship for future generations. The idea of each of us giving back , being stewards is certainly core to the most successful societies. So in our modern capitalistic corporatocracies we could think about "monetizing" these contributions.
Already we have a credit card program called snap for food benefits. A holder of the card has a "credit limit" that is the benefit they are entitled to. They present it like any debit card for eligible food purchases .
Something like the snap card could monetize stewardship? .
I certainly don't think a free lunch society would be very worthwhile. -
Lindsay Newland Bowker
A reply on Conversation: Why Basic Income should become a Human Right
Oct 17 2012: Pat,
I don't think the idea of "private property" is inconsistent with the idea of "the commons"..a common ownership of natural resources including public lands .and a per capita distribution of public income derived from it.
Property rights are a cornerstone of America's tea party movement and obviously a fundamental aspect of most modern democracies. On my island where billionaires have descended onto a tiny fishing village of working poor where island folk work 2 or 3 jobs just be among the working poor owning property the effects of property ownership on standard of living results largely in a drain on the working poor who have owned their land for generations. Most can't afford to keep the land they inherit.
So in a system that tolerates and perpetuates income inequality and has no foundation value that all people should be free of want, property rights also are not equal., the benefits of of property ownership are not equal..
Not sure what you mean about the "tyranny of democracy" but suspect you are pointing to the same thing I am..
What we need to build into our foundation is a desire to be a "conviviocracy"
Being a democracy, at least in the way the U.S. and other nations who have copied us are, is not enough in terms of our stewardship for humanity..
