I have lately come to realize that capitalism has been collapsing virtually since its birth. That's because the main premise of capitalism, which is that in order to succeed every human being must take out more from our economic system than he or she puts into it (i.e. earn a profit) is flawed at its very core.
In nature, all living systems are created such that wholes must always be greater than the sum of their parts. This is particularly true if they hope to be self-sustaining. A system in which the whole is perennially bled dry for the benefit of a few individuals cannot sustain itself indefinitely. It must continually draw in new energy from new sources if it hopes to rejuvenate itself. Capitalism, with its for-profit formula, is therefore the opposite of a self-sustaining system. If everyone puts in X and tries to take out X + 1 (or X + 12, 15 or 3000!) we can never evolve into a system that works for everyone, because there can never be enough to go around. History supports this; so we must learn from our past so we're equipped to shift our system into something intentionally supportive rather than unwittingly exploitive of life.
Capitalism emerged to replace an ancient, agrarian form of economics that depended on class privilege by dividing people into nobility (the haves) and serfs (the have-nots.) The birth of a merchant middle class appeared to be a good thing, because by exchanging creativity through barter, people were able to lift themselves out of the endless cycle of poverty that had been caused by those "birthright" systems.
The problem with capitalism, however, was that the invention of paper money to facilitate barter generated the added incentive to extract more money from each other than was fair, setting up win-lose exchanges rather than win-win exchanges. Once we notice that the makers of products (labor) have only their wages, less taxes, to purchase the very same products they've just produced at their now marked-up for profit prices, we realize the labor force in its totality will never have enough cash to purchase all the products available for sale in their totality without constantly borrowing cash to keep them afloat. If laborer and consumer are one and the same, how can labor EVER afford to consume what it makes AND pay a profit to business, using only its own wages as its means?
Slavery and colonialism supported capitalism during the 1800's by enabling wealthy merchants to exploit cheap labor and ship foreign goods backto Europe, where enough money already existed to buy them. The end of both colonialism and slavery however, led to shortages and poverty in Europe. Poverty triggered social unrest and revolution abroad, and eventually led us into WWI. The various national war machines and their ensuing national debts created massive cash infusions for the various economies that jump-started capitalism for a time, culminating once again in the concentrated prosperity we observed in the Roaring 20's. That was followed by the Great Depression because wealth concentration led to massive poverty in the U.S. WWII and its federal debts conveniently eased us through the depression era, though at a terrible price.
The 50's were again a time of general prosperity as the U.S. reaped the benefits of all the added technology and industry generated by WWII, and Europe reaped the benefits of rebuilding its shattered cities and infrastructures. When family budgets once again began to grow strained toward the end of that happy decade, we abruptly inserted women en mass into the workplace. Suddenly families could sell 80 hours a week instead of 40! That new spurt of family prosperity held for a time, until prices caught up to the rise in wages by the late '70's, which is when foreign competition came knocking at our door and "stagflation" became a household word. Cheaper wages overseas meant cheaper products competing with US goods. We couldn't afford to buy what we were making here anymore, but we could still afford to buy what less developed countries were producing for our sake.
U.S. companies then made a huge push for labor productivity gains, which meant people had to do more in less time so our price per unit could fall to match those of overseas competitors. Unfortunately for us, our technological improvements could be imitated by our overseas competitors, so our ability to improve our productivity wasn't enough to hold our competitive edge over their consistently lower wages. Since we couldn't beat them at the lower price game, the '90's and 2000's brought a period of increased foreign exploitation as we began to ship US jobs overseas to those same low wage workers. Meanwhile, Americans lost buying power when we lost the ability to negotiate living wages from companies that needed to earn a profit more than they needed to support their local labor force. (That business seems to have forgotten that labor and consumer are one and the same is the delicious irony of that decision.)
What happened next was predictable. Debt skyrocketed as Americans were induced to continue to consume ever more, even as their buying power plunged and their jobs disappeared overseas. When we ran out of room on our credit cards and out of equity in our homes, the banks belatedly discovered they could no longer squeeze us for profits on that debt and the whole mess began to unravel. Our government then wound up inserting a massive amount of cash into the banking system to support the debt crash and burn that was triggered by our loss of buying power, to ensure people could continue to borrow more and continue to consume - never mind that no one can pay any of it back! (Don't even get me started on the corruptive influence of inflation, because that's a whole different blog for another day.)
Sooner or later we're going to run out of new people to exploit, new hours to sell and new sources of money with which to save a totally flawed system that deserves to fail. It deserves to fail because it is designed - however unintentionally - to endlessly exploit human life for the sake of money, rather than support all life for the sake of love and joy.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ownership or Stewardship
Human beings, more than any other creature on Earth, have been gifted with the power to create or destroy. By virtue of our brains and hands we can either build cathedrals or massacre millions with weapons of mass destruction. Which acts we choose seem in large part to be dependent upon our personal beliefs. Change our beliefs then, and our behaviors will naturally shift.
Ownership, which is a purely man-made concept, confers upon us the right to exploit this world for our personal ends. That was certainly true of slavery, which is why we've abandoned the practice. It may have taken us thousands of years, but eventually our values matured beyond the belief that any human being has the right to possess and exploit any other. Where once the ownership of people was commonplace, today it's considered shockingly immoral.
What then, of the right to own private property? Might that too be a practice humanity one day looks back upon with feelings of revulsion? While it may seem an impossible change given where we are at present, there are reasons for us to hope this may be the case.
The difference between land ownership and land stewardship is a profound one. Where property ownership conveys rights, property stewardship conveys responsibilities. Ownership declares this land is "mine" to do with as I choose, regardless of whether my choices do damage to my surrounding community. Stewardship, on the other hand, declares this land to be "ours." Therefore it must be tended with love for the benefit of all who share that space with us, including all other species. Stewardship means preserving and protecting the land for future generations, as well as maintaining awareness of our environmental impact beyond any man-made borders we may have drawn. It also means knowing how to gracefully let go of our hold on the land when we die, trusting in those still alive to decide the best usage for the space we once occupied.
A mere hundred years ago there still existed vast tracts of land to which the poor and downtrodden could freely migrate. People with nothing but hopes, dreams and a dash of courage could put down roots and provide for themselves and their families. Today, there isn't anywhere human beings can go that hasn't been sold or deeded over to someone already. A person who can't afford to buy land has no choice anymore but to become a vagabond, marginalized by society and forced to live in fear and perpetual lack. What does that say about us, and about our so-called spiritual values?
Take, for example, the inhabitants of the island nation of Tuvalu, whose very existence is now being threatened by rising ocean levels. These people are living in a waking nightmare, watching their country disappear more every day. Their peaceful fishing and farming lifestyles are not the cause of the climate change that threatens to sink their world, but theirs is a land that is suffering the most. Since they own nothing else will we allow them to sink beneath the sea?
It remains to be seen.
Despite America's fervent proclamations about the importance of the "right to life," there's nothing in our social system that guarantees anyone the right to space. That's a bizarre situation which pits our deeply held conceptual beliefs against an unforgiving reality; for without the right to actual space, of what value is our conceptual right to life?
For thousands of years property ownership has sliced and diced our world in a piecemeal fashion. It's created generations of a wealthy few and a far larger number of poor. It separates neighbor from neighbor, tribe from tribe and ultimately nation from nation. While the rules for human behavior differ widely from place to place, what happens in one locale has the power to cause lasting harm to others. One country's industrial productivity is another nation's acid rain.
The false separation of man-made boundaries and limited piecemeal thinking will no longer work in our global reality. Nor will the false belief that I can do whatever I want with "my" piece of land, despite the cost to our planet. Land isn't a toaster or car or television to be used and thrown away once we've sucked it dry; it's a complex living reality, replete with its natural rhythms and cooperative interspecies living arrangements. It doesn't recognize borders, dams, fences or walls; it doesn't acknowledge humanity's ownership rights. It breathes, grows, shifts, bends and folds according to its own geological pace and timescale, impervious to our selfish, self-serving beliefs.
To acknowledge that truth, to elevate the rights of land itself on par with the rights of humans, would empower us to be stewards instead of exploiters. It would free us to generously share our space with those less fortunate, granting them their divine rights as planetary citizens to occupy Earth's lands and to participate in her bounty. It would further encourage us to set aside our short-term interests for the sake of our higher collective and long term interests. Last but surely not least, it would render us thoughtful and moral ancestors for future generations to revere rather than abhor.
The choice is ours to make; the minds ours to change.
Ownership, which is a purely man-made concept, confers upon us the right to exploit this world for our personal ends. That was certainly true of slavery, which is why we've abandoned the practice. It may have taken us thousands of years, but eventually our values matured beyond the belief that any human being has the right to possess and exploit any other. Where once the ownership of people was commonplace, today it's considered shockingly immoral.
What then, of the right to own private property? Might that too be a practice humanity one day looks back upon with feelings of revulsion? While it may seem an impossible change given where we are at present, there are reasons for us to hope this may be the case.
The difference between land ownership and land stewardship is a profound one. Where property ownership conveys rights, property stewardship conveys responsibilities. Ownership declares this land is "mine" to do with as I choose, regardless of whether my choices do damage to my surrounding community. Stewardship, on the other hand, declares this land to be "ours." Therefore it must be tended with love for the benefit of all who share that space with us, including all other species. Stewardship means preserving and protecting the land for future generations, as well as maintaining awareness of our environmental impact beyond any man-made borders we may have drawn. It also means knowing how to gracefully let go of our hold on the land when we die, trusting in those still alive to decide the best usage for the space we once occupied.
A mere hundred years ago there still existed vast tracts of land to which the poor and downtrodden could freely migrate. People with nothing but hopes, dreams and a dash of courage could put down roots and provide for themselves and their families. Today, there isn't anywhere human beings can go that hasn't been sold or deeded over to someone already. A person who can't afford to buy land has no choice anymore but to become a vagabond, marginalized by society and forced to live in fear and perpetual lack. What does that say about us, and about our so-called spiritual values?
Take, for example, the inhabitants of the island nation of Tuvalu, whose very existence is now being threatened by rising ocean levels. These people are living in a waking nightmare, watching their country disappear more every day. Their peaceful fishing and farming lifestyles are not the cause of the climate change that threatens to sink their world, but theirs is a land that is suffering the most. Since they own nothing else will we allow them to sink beneath the sea?
It remains to be seen.
Despite America's fervent proclamations about the importance of the "right to life," there's nothing in our social system that guarantees anyone the right to space. That's a bizarre situation which pits our deeply held conceptual beliefs against an unforgiving reality; for without the right to actual space, of what value is our conceptual right to life?
For thousands of years property ownership has sliced and diced our world in a piecemeal fashion. It's created generations of a wealthy few and a far larger number of poor. It separates neighbor from neighbor, tribe from tribe and ultimately nation from nation. While the rules for human behavior differ widely from place to place, what happens in one locale has the power to cause lasting harm to others. One country's industrial productivity is another nation's acid rain.
The false separation of man-made boundaries and limited piecemeal thinking will no longer work in our global reality. Nor will the false belief that I can do whatever I want with "my" piece of land, despite the cost to our planet. Land isn't a toaster or car or television to be used and thrown away once we've sucked it dry; it's a complex living reality, replete with its natural rhythms and cooperative interspecies living arrangements. It doesn't recognize borders, dams, fences or walls; it doesn't acknowledge humanity's ownership rights. It breathes, grows, shifts, bends and folds according to its own geological pace and timescale, impervious to our selfish, self-serving beliefs.
To acknowledge that truth, to elevate the rights of land itself on par with the rights of humans, would empower us to be stewards instead of exploiters. It would free us to generously share our space with those less fortunate, granting them their divine rights as planetary citizens to occupy Earth's lands and to participate in her bounty. It would further encourage us to set aside our short-term interests for the sake of our higher collective and long term interests. Last but surely not least, it would render us thoughtful and moral ancestors for future generations to revere rather than abhor.
The choice is ours to make; the minds ours to change.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Asking the Question
The political spin and questionable rhetoric swirling around Washington these days has become downright dizzying. Depending on who we hear speaking on any given day, health care reform either offers salvation for the masses or represents the first step toward federal euthanasia of the elderly and infirm. When political opinion is that oppositional in nature, what in the world are we supposed to believe?
It's all too easy to simply attach ourselves to the opinions being spouted by the members of our own political party, absorb them and regurgitate them without giving them deeper thought. We must, however, remain cognizant of the fact that virtually all politicians direct their loyalty toward their campaign donors first, their party second and their local constituents third. Therefore, we musn't assume the language we're hearing on cable TV or reading in the newspapers is truly for our benefit - more likely it's meant to sway our opinions in support of the hidden agendas of politicians: getting reelected, supporting the corporations and individuals who fund their campaigns and ensuring their party will continue to back them for reelection in the future.
Take the case of Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania. Because Senator Spector, being of high moral standing and independent mind, chose on multiple occasions to oppose his party's platform and instead vote in ways that seemed more in alignment with what made sense for his constituents, he lost the support of the Republican power machine. Ditto for Senator Joe Lieberman. These men, however we might feel about their "politics," exemplify what happens to men of conscience if they resist the machine that is their political party. What happened to them - stripped of their committee memberships, marginalized in Washington circles - stands as a "cautionary" tale for all other members of Congress. Dare to oppose your party's agenda and you risk losing the power to stand for anything.
What are we, the people, supposed to make of the political mess in Washington today? How can we know when our politicians are making decisions for the benefit of us, the regular people, or if they're merely supporting the dominator/power structure that enables them to hold power? When they're talking are they telling the truth, or saying what they want us to hear so we'll fall in line and support their hidden agendas?
There is a question we can ask ourselves to help us "cut through" all the rhetoric, politics and hidden agendas that obscure what's really best for regular people. Unfortunately, the question requires us to set aside our easy attachment to the words of partisan politicians and actually think for ourselves. I recognize that in these days of 24 hour cable news, thinking for ourselves has nearly become obsolete, and that highly paid pundits are willing and eager to do that hard work for us. We shouldn't let them. They too are motivated by money, power, fame and the support of the corporate establishment whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.
What is this question then, that enables us to dig down deep for truth? The question, should you choose to ask it, is this: Does this program/bill/law/idea being proposed support life in all its many and varied forms, or does it exploit life so a few individuals or corporations can profit?
Health care reform presents us with an embarrassingly easy answer. To bring millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans back into the health care fold supports life - particularly the lives of those least able to care for themselves. The wealthy will always be able to afford the best health care our system has to offer, so they're basically undamaged by the proposal. It may cost them a little more in the way of taxes, but they can afford it.
On the other hand, opposition to health care reform seems designed to incite fear and division among the American people. Who's funding it, and why? Of what benefit is it for us to oppose better health care for more people in support of life, with government managing the process to ensure nobody gets left behind? The answer is, it isn't to anyone's benefit - unless they're part of the pharmaceutical or medical insurance machinery. That machinery exploits the needs and fears of the ill and infirm...for money; not out of love and with reverence for life. If you're still unsure about the motives of the health care industry, consider the insurance company policy of rejecting the claims of those with "preexisting conditions." A lover of life would ignore such a label and treat the ill with compassion. A lover of profits rejects the person in favor of the bottom line.
We hear statements from the right these days implying the government is going to "ration" healthcare and people will be denied needed treatment. Laughable really, given the millions who are already being denied the most basic and decent of treatments due to their inability to pay or to their insurance company's greed. We also hear that our deficit will skyrocket if we try to take care of everyone; again laughable, given the many trillions we've just invested to keep the banking industry afloat - for whose benefit? Has your credit card rate declined or your mortgage gotten easier to pay since we gave the banks all that money? Last but not least, we hear that government can't do anything half as efficiently as can private corporations. I ask you this: have you tried to reach anyone in customer service at a private corporation lately? Have you managed to resolve a business dispute with ease, been treated kindly and humanely or been allowed to "work out" a reasonable payment plan if your life became upended by the bank-induced recession through which we're suffering?
It's a simple question really. Does what I'm looking at support life, or does it exploit life? The moment we drop our attachment to our conceptual ideologies and allow our hearts to feel, the truth comes easy. It's why the exploitive game is to generate fear and division; fearful hearts are too constricted to open enough to feel for the lives of others. They're too busy fearing for their own survival.
Don't be fooled by the "divide and conquer" game being played in the political arena. Morality - true morality - doesn't spring from our belief in a set of ideas. It springs from opening our hearts to love and knowing what feels right for us to do, then doing that.
It's all too easy to simply attach ourselves to the opinions being spouted by the members of our own political party, absorb them and regurgitate them without giving them deeper thought. We must, however, remain cognizant of the fact that virtually all politicians direct their loyalty toward their campaign donors first, their party second and their local constituents third. Therefore, we musn't assume the language we're hearing on cable TV or reading in the newspapers is truly for our benefit - more likely it's meant to sway our opinions in support of the hidden agendas of politicians: getting reelected, supporting the corporations and individuals who fund their campaigns and ensuring their party will continue to back them for reelection in the future.
Take the case of Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania. Because Senator Spector, being of high moral standing and independent mind, chose on multiple occasions to oppose his party's platform and instead vote in ways that seemed more in alignment with what made sense for his constituents, he lost the support of the Republican power machine. Ditto for Senator Joe Lieberman. These men, however we might feel about their "politics," exemplify what happens to men of conscience if they resist the machine that is their political party. What happened to them - stripped of their committee memberships, marginalized in Washington circles - stands as a "cautionary" tale for all other members of Congress. Dare to oppose your party's agenda and you risk losing the power to stand for anything.
What are we, the people, supposed to make of the political mess in Washington today? How can we know when our politicians are making decisions for the benefit of us, the regular people, or if they're merely supporting the dominator/power structure that enables them to hold power? When they're talking are they telling the truth, or saying what they want us to hear so we'll fall in line and support their hidden agendas?
There is a question we can ask ourselves to help us "cut through" all the rhetoric, politics and hidden agendas that obscure what's really best for regular people. Unfortunately, the question requires us to set aside our easy attachment to the words of partisan politicians and actually think for ourselves. I recognize that in these days of 24 hour cable news, thinking for ourselves has nearly become obsolete, and that highly paid pundits are willing and eager to do that hard work for us. We shouldn't let them. They too are motivated by money, power, fame and the support of the corporate establishment whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.
What is this question then, that enables us to dig down deep for truth? The question, should you choose to ask it, is this: Does this program/bill/law/idea being proposed support life in all its many and varied forms, or does it exploit life so a few individuals or corporations can profit?
Health care reform presents us with an embarrassingly easy answer. To bring millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans back into the health care fold supports life - particularly the lives of those least able to care for themselves. The wealthy will always be able to afford the best health care our system has to offer, so they're basically undamaged by the proposal. It may cost them a little more in the way of taxes, but they can afford it.
On the other hand, opposition to health care reform seems designed to incite fear and division among the American people. Who's funding it, and why? Of what benefit is it for us to oppose better health care for more people in support of life, with government managing the process to ensure nobody gets left behind? The answer is, it isn't to anyone's benefit - unless they're part of the pharmaceutical or medical insurance machinery. That machinery exploits the needs and fears of the ill and infirm...for money; not out of love and with reverence for life. If you're still unsure about the motives of the health care industry, consider the insurance company policy of rejecting the claims of those with "preexisting conditions." A lover of life would ignore such a label and treat the ill with compassion. A lover of profits rejects the person in favor of the bottom line.
We hear statements from the right these days implying the government is going to "ration" healthcare and people will be denied needed treatment. Laughable really, given the millions who are already being denied the most basic and decent of treatments due to their inability to pay or to their insurance company's greed. We also hear that our deficit will skyrocket if we try to take care of everyone; again laughable, given the many trillions we've just invested to keep the banking industry afloat - for whose benefit? Has your credit card rate declined or your mortgage gotten easier to pay since we gave the banks all that money? Last but not least, we hear that government can't do anything half as efficiently as can private corporations. I ask you this: have you tried to reach anyone in customer service at a private corporation lately? Have you managed to resolve a business dispute with ease, been treated kindly and humanely or been allowed to "work out" a reasonable payment plan if your life became upended by the bank-induced recession through which we're suffering?
It's a simple question really. Does what I'm looking at support life, or does it exploit life? The moment we drop our attachment to our conceptual ideologies and allow our hearts to feel, the truth comes easy. It's why the exploitive game is to generate fear and division; fearful hearts are too constricted to open enough to feel for the lives of others. They're too busy fearing for their own survival.
Don't be fooled by the "divide and conquer" game being played in the political arena. Morality - true morality - doesn't spring from our belief in a set of ideas. It springs from opening our hearts to love and knowing what feels right for us to do, then doing that.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The 2012 problem
I'm sure many of you are by now familiar with all the hype surrounding the supposed importance of 2012. The problem I'm finding with all the chatter is that there are as many ideas out there surrounding what's "supposed to" occur in 2012 as there are people imagining they know the truth of it. For starters:
The Mayan calendar "end date" falls on December 21, 2012. Or it falls on October 31, 2011. (Take your pick. The two main calendar researchers - Calleman and Jenkins - have long been engaged in a flame war over this.)
The Mayans themselves were predicting:
1) The end of the world
2) a cataclysmic decimation of our planet and a massive loss of human life
3) a harmonic shift in human consciousness that will elevate our species
4) the apocalypse
5) the close return of our sun's twin star and its accompanying gravitational disturbances
6) our planetary alignment with the energy field in the galactic center
7) the ushering in of a new world order
8) an instantaneous resolution to all our social problems
9) the arrival of higher-dimensional visitors from other worlds: i.e. alien contact
10) the division of our species into "enlightened ones" and those who are "left behind."
11) nothing much at all - it's just another date
12) the conversion of material-bodied humans into immortal, ethereal light beings
13) a dimensional shift in our reality
14) nobody knows
Of course, not all of the above can be true. In fact its quite possible that none of them are accurate predictions of what we might experience when 2012 does roll along. These proposals are kind of like religion in that way. People have cherished many thousands of religious dogmas over the eons (most of which have long been abandoned by now.) So what are the odds that the beliefs of any current religious system will prove to be 100% correct? Why, for that matter, must we "believe in" anything at all? Why can't we just embrace the unknown and allow cosmic reality to unfold in its own sweet time?
What troubles me most about the whole 2012 thing is this: once again it looks like humanity is placing a bet on our hopes of an outside trigger to impel us to "fix" or change what needs to be done here on Earth. If 2012 is the "end times" for this incarnation of human reality, what's the point in doing any work to fix things in the here and now? I fear we place too much emphasis on messiahs, saviors, alien beings, cosmic vibrational tones, etc. and too little on turning within to discover what we can do to alleviate human suffering right now. It's a childlike approach to life, which served us well as children but doesn't do much to solve the problems we're creating as troubled juveniles.
I respectfully suggest that it's time for us to take some adult responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in, to let go of our wishful thinking about being "rescued" from ourselves, and to roll up our sleeves and decide what kind of a world we wish to build. Then we should build it and become it NOW - not wait for 2012 to bring it about so we don't have to.
It's wonderful for us to have a vision of a new humanity, but it's also imperative that we actively take steps toward creating it ourselves in this, the real world, rather than wait longingly for the universe to provide it all for us. After all, the universe has given us arms, legs and strong healthy backs; minds, hearts and a powerful intuition. These tools can be found in all our respective tool belts, and we have the skills and energy to wield them. So what on planet Earth are we waiting for?
If 2012 comes around and nothing significant happens, the tendency of the perpetual dreamers will be to come up with an alternative date for the next messianic arrival of cosmic salvation. I say instead we pull together today and begin creating the world we want to share anew. If something significant does happen in 2012, wonderful! Let's greet it with open hearts and embrace the change. If not, at least we'll have moved toward a better future for ourselves and our living planet. All this new-age business about us being able to "mind manifest" what we want doesn't work; not unless we put our shoulders to the wheel and actually do what reality reequires of us to create what we want. At least, that's the limitation we're stuck with until the cosmos decides we're ready to play with some brand new tools. I suspect it'll evolve us after we've demonstrated adequate mastery over the many and amazing tools we've already been gifted.
The Mayan calendar "end date" falls on December 21, 2012. Or it falls on October 31, 2011. (Take your pick. The two main calendar researchers - Calleman and Jenkins - have long been engaged in a flame war over this.)
The Mayans themselves were predicting:
1) The end of the world
2) a cataclysmic decimation of our planet and a massive loss of human life
3) a harmonic shift in human consciousness that will elevate our species
4) the apocalypse
5) the close return of our sun's twin star and its accompanying gravitational disturbances
6) our planetary alignment with the energy field in the galactic center
7) the ushering in of a new world order
8) an instantaneous resolution to all our social problems
9) the arrival of higher-dimensional visitors from other worlds: i.e. alien contact
10) the division of our species into "enlightened ones" and those who are "left behind."
11) nothing much at all - it's just another date
12) the conversion of material-bodied humans into immortal, ethereal light beings
13) a dimensional shift in our reality
14) nobody knows
Of course, not all of the above can be true. In fact its quite possible that none of them are accurate predictions of what we might experience when 2012 does roll along. These proposals are kind of like religion in that way. People have cherished many thousands of religious dogmas over the eons (most of which have long been abandoned by now.) So what are the odds that the beliefs of any current religious system will prove to be 100% correct? Why, for that matter, must we "believe in" anything at all? Why can't we just embrace the unknown and allow cosmic reality to unfold in its own sweet time?
What troubles me most about the whole 2012 thing is this: once again it looks like humanity is placing a bet on our hopes of an outside trigger to impel us to "fix" or change what needs to be done here on Earth. If 2012 is the "end times" for this incarnation of human reality, what's the point in doing any work to fix things in the here and now? I fear we place too much emphasis on messiahs, saviors, alien beings, cosmic vibrational tones, etc. and too little on turning within to discover what we can do to alleviate human suffering right now. It's a childlike approach to life, which served us well as children but doesn't do much to solve the problems we're creating as troubled juveniles.
I respectfully suggest that it's time for us to take some adult responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in, to let go of our wishful thinking about being "rescued" from ourselves, and to roll up our sleeves and decide what kind of a world we wish to build. Then we should build it and become it NOW - not wait for 2012 to bring it about so we don't have to.
It's wonderful for us to have a vision of a new humanity, but it's also imperative that we actively take steps toward creating it ourselves in this, the real world, rather than wait longingly for the universe to provide it all for us. After all, the universe has given us arms, legs and strong healthy backs; minds, hearts and a powerful intuition. These tools can be found in all our respective tool belts, and we have the skills and energy to wield them. So what on planet Earth are we waiting for?
If 2012 comes around and nothing significant happens, the tendency of the perpetual dreamers will be to come up with an alternative date for the next messianic arrival of cosmic salvation. I say instead we pull together today and begin creating the world we want to share anew. If something significant does happen in 2012, wonderful! Let's greet it with open hearts and embrace the change. If not, at least we'll have moved toward a better future for ourselves and our living planet. All this new-age business about us being able to "mind manifest" what we want doesn't work; not unless we put our shoulders to the wheel and actually do what reality reequires of us to create what we want. At least, that's the limitation we're stuck with until the cosmos decides we're ready to play with some brand new tools. I suspect it'll evolve us after we've demonstrated adequate mastery over the many and amazing tools we've already been gifted.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Right to Life?
When it comes to the United States Declaration of Independence, the following sentence is the line we most often hear quoted:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
My heart soars whenever I hear those words, for they are truths that resonate down to my very soul. The unalienable right to life - what a beautiful acknowledgment of the preciousness, the sanctity, the exquisite wonder of life itself. Why then, do we not honor that fundamental belief by acknowledging that every human being on the face of planet Earth is entitled - endowed by creation itself with the unalienable right! - to their own little slice of tangible space in which they can actually live?
The right to life is not merely a lofty ideal to be admired - it's the founding principle of a nation that supposedly values life above all else, including profits. The capitalistic society we've constructed however, has tilted that scale in favor of profits over the rights and needs of living human beings. When banks foreclose on distressed families, it forces them into the streets where it's illegal for them to even lay down and sleep. Vagrancy (homelessness) is against the law in most cities in this country.
How fascinating that is. We've actually made it illegal for people who can't afford to buy space to occupy any space at all. What options do we suppose are available to such people? Do they have magical anti-gravity tethers that enable them to float above the ground, so as not to "disturb?"
I surely can't be the only person who sees the nonsensical disconnect between what we as Americans say we value, and what we're doing to each other for the sake of money.
As a citizen, I've paid taxes for as long as I can remember. Those taxes have gone to support many government programs I agree with, and many more I actively dislike - including the massive banking bailout now known as "Tarp." It's an appropriate name, given that trillions of our tax dollars have been tossed beneath a blanket whose corners are being held by AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America. Those dollars then disappeared before our eyes, in a rather magical "now you see it, now you don't" kind of way. Meanwhile, those same financial institutions are conducting themselves in a "business as usual" fashion. They've raised our credit card interest rates, lifted our mortgage interest rates and added fees and fines to the bills of those who are in financial trouble. Their earnings are therefore coming back to profitability, but it's happening at the expense of the same living beings who just spent trillions to keep their businesses afloat. What were we thinking? Were we thinking? We saved the very institutions that are pressing their weight upon our necks. Perhaps it was the lack of oxygen that made us do so. But in any case, it's time we reconsider that decision for the good of us all.
I say we simply repossess the banks, cancel everyone's debts to them and redistribute all the foreclosed homes in America to those who are still in need. We can also take over the many hotels that have gone into foreclosure and are now bank-owned due to the recession, and install some homeless people in their empty rooms. Last but not least, all the national parks we currently pay to support could be turned into temporary refugee camps for the downtrodden, at least until we figure out how to provide them all with a place to live.
If we truly support and believe in the inalienable right to life, how is it possible to divorce that right from actual space to live in? On the other hand, if we'd rather continue to put private enterprise profitability before the right to life, perhaps we should write a constitutional amendment that goes something like this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men must find the means to afford to live, that our banks have been endowed by their Creators with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to pursue a profit at the expense of Humankind, to deprive people of their right to utilize our public spaces and to cut short their pursuit of Happiness unless all their bills are paid."
Think about it...please.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
My heart soars whenever I hear those words, for they are truths that resonate down to my very soul. The unalienable right to life - what a beautiful acknowledgment of the preciousness, the sanctity, the exquisite wonder of life itself. Why then, do we not honor that fundamental belief by acknowledging that every human being on the face of planet Earth is entitled - endowed by creation itself with the unalienable right! - to their own little slice of tangible space in which they can actually live?
The right to life is not merely a lofty ideal to be admired - it's the founding principle of a nation that supposedly values life above all else, including profits. The capitalistic society we've constructed however, has tilted that scale in favor of profits over the rights and needs of living human beings. When banks foreclose on distressed families, it forces them into the streets where it's illegal for them to even lay down and sleep. Vagrancy (homelessness) is against the law in most cities in this country.
How fascinating that is. We've actually made it illegal for people who can't afford to buy space to occupy any space at all. What options do we suppose are available to such people? Do they have magical anti-gravity tethers that enable them to float above the ground, so as not to "disturb?"
I surely can't be the only person who sees the nonsensical disconnect between what we as Americans say we value, and what we're doing to each other for the sake of money.
As a citizen, I've paid taxes for as long as I can remember. Those taxes have gone to support many government programs I agree with, and many more I actively dislike - including the massive banking bailout now known as "Tarp." It's an appropriate name, given that trillions of our tax dollars have been tossed beneath a blanket whose corners are being held by AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America. Those dollars then disappeared before our eyes, in a rather magical "now you see it, now you don't" kind of way. Meanwhile, those same financial institutions are conducting themselves in a "business as usual" fashion. They've raised our credit card interest rates, lifted our mortgage interest rates and added fees and fines to the bills of those who are in financial trouble. Their earnings are therefore coming back to profitability, but it's happening at the expense of the same living beings who just spent trillions to keep their businesses afloat. What were we thinking? Were we thinking? We saved the very institutions that are pressing their weight upon our necks. Perhaps it was the lack of oxygen that made us do so. But in any case, it's time we reconsider that decision for the good of us all.
I say we simply repossess the banks, cancel everyone's debts to them and redistribute all the foreclosed homes in America to those who are still in need. We can also take over the many hotels that have gone into foreclosure and are now bank-owned due to the recession, and install some homeless people in their empty rooms. Last but not least, all the national parks we currently pay to support could be turned into temporary refugee camps for the downtrodden, at least until we figure out how to provide them all with a place to live.
If we truly support and believe in the inalienable right to life, how is it possible to divorce that right from actual space to live in? On the other hand, if we'd rather continue to put private enterprise profitability before the right to life, perhaps we should write a constitutional amendment that goes something like this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men must find the means to afford to live, that our banks have been endowed by their Creators with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to pursue a profit at the expense of Humankind, to deprive people of their right to utilize our public spaces and to cut short their pursuit of Happiness unless all their bills are paid."
Think about it...please.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Welcome to the Universe Project
Welcome friends, to the Universe Project website. UP, if you're into acronyms, which we kind of are because they're mostly silly and fun. (For what it's worth, UP sounds a whole lot better to us than DOWN or OUT or HEY, so there you have it.)
Although our name may sound ambitious, the only mission of this website is to encourage people from all walks of life to come joyfully together for a single, common purpose: to do what we can to encourage our species to move more deeply into alignment with the trajectory of universal creation.
What, you ask, is the trajectory of universal creation? Good question. And the answer is...UP, at least the way we see it. You may disagree. If so, feel free to start your own website with your own acronym and ideas. We're not attached to being right, we just enjoy feeling really good about life. If you too like life then you've come to a welcoming place. Sit back and relax.
Next question...you, over there in the red t-shirt. Yes, you. Come on now, don't be shy.
How, you ask, will we know if we're stepping into the cosmic flow, or if we're stepping into something, well...much smellier and worse?
For starters, being in the cosmic flow feels good! To embrace life, to honor nature and its movement toward higher order and greater consciousness, is to recognize what we've been evolving toward since humankind took its first, stumbling steps upon this planet. It's to know ourselves as part of an infinite and eternal process, connected to all that has ever gone before us and all that will ever come later. It's to let go of the need to know all the answers, and instead be free to ask questions, like: who the heck am I, and why on Earth am I here?
It's a good idea not to strain our brains by trying to answer those questions. Any answers we come up with at this early stage in our development will only limit our capacity to change. And if there's a single constant in this immense and awesome universe of ours, it's change. So we mustn't be afraid of change, of stepping into the vast, uncharted unknown of our tomorrow. After all, there isn't anything out there but the unknown. (Another word for it is reality.)
Being afraid of reality doesn't serve much purpose. It's like being afraid of breathing. There's no percentage in fearing what we must do. Life's going to happen whether we like it or not, so we might as well figure out how to enjoy the ride, and perhaps make it better.
What we're proposing here is this: anyone who has a curious mind, an open heart and a desire to connect with others who also don't have much clue as to what it's all about but who too feel an impulse inside themselves to seek out answers - just swing by our home page now and again and offer into the mix what it is you're experiencing or wish to know. We're here to learn from each other, to share our thoughts and feelings and perhaps to teach...but mainly to learn.
Whatever comes of this endeavor, be it magnificent or the mildest of whimpers, I believe our universe is smiling down on us all, the way an indulgent parent might gaze upon its not-too-bright (yet still promising) young child, in hopes that the child will someday outgrow its obnoxious, awkward phase and come into its own - whatever that is. While we may not have an answer yet, let's hope we will make our parental unit proud.
For now then, it's over and UP.
Although our name may sound ambitious, the only mission of this website is to encourage people from all walks of life to come joyfully together for a single, common purpose: to do what we can to encourage our species to move more deeply into alignment with the trajectory of universal creation.
What, you ask, is the trajectory of universal creation? Good question. And the answer is...UP, at least the way we see it. You may disagree. If so, feel free to start your own website with your own acronym and ideas. We're not attached to being right, we just enjoy feeling really good about life. If you too like life then you've come to a welcoming place. Sit back and relax.
Next question...you, over there in the red t-shirt. Yes, you. Come on now, don't be shy.
How, you ask, will we know if we're stepping into the cosmic flow, or if we're stepping into something, well...much smellier and worse?
For starters, being in the cosmic flow feels good! To embrace life, to honor nature and its movement toward higher order and greater consciousness, is to recognize what we've been evolving toward since humankind took its first, stumbling steps upon this planet. It's to know ourselves as part of an infinite and eternal process, connected to all that has ever gone before us and all that will ever come later. It's to let go of the need to know all the answers, and instead be free to ask questions, like: who the heck am I, and why on Earth am I here?
It's a good idea not to strain our brains by trying to answer those questions. Any answers we come up with at this early stage in our development will only limit our capacity to change. And if there's a single constant in this immense and awesome universe of ours, it's change. So we mustn't be afraid of change, of stepping into the vast, uncharted unknown of our tomorrow. After all, there isn't anything out there but the unknown. (Another word for it is reality.)
Being afraid of reality doesn't serve much purpose. It's like being afraid of breathing. There's no percentage in fearing what we must do. Life's going to happen whether we like it or not, so we might as well figure out how to enjoy the ride, and perhaps make it better.
What we're proposing here is this: anyone who has a curious mind, an open heart and a desire to connect with others who also don't have much clue as to what it's all about but who too feel an impulse inside themselves to seek out answers - just swing by our home page now and again and offer into the mix what it is you're experiencing or wish to know. We're here to learn from each other, to share our thoughts and feelings and perhaps to teach...but mainly to learn.
Whatever comes of this endeavor, be it magnificent or the mildest of whimpers, I believe our universe is smiling down on us all, the way an indulgent parent might gaze upon its not-too-bright (yet still promising) young child, in hopes that the child will someday outgrow its obnoxious, awkward phase and come into its own - whatever that is. While we may not have an answer yet, let's hope we will make our parental unit proud.
For now then, it's over and UP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
