Archive for the ‘Manila Home Page Archive’ Category

Front Page

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

The moto of this website is: “Always tell only the truth, and all the truth, and do so promptly – right now.” This statement by Buckminster Fuller cannot be emphasized too much. The following article from the SynEARTH Archives was the first in a series on synergic disarmament. Synergic disarmament, a powerful mechanism for containing adversary behavior, will be developed as the series is presented. We start off by making the case for a paradigm shift that can move us Beyond Crime and Punishment. Only then will we find the mechanims to end the insanity of war.

Beyond Crime and Punishment

In our present world, it is widely believed that mistakes are the result of badness. So when mistakes occur, we investigate, blame and punish. This belief has resulted in a world where violence, hate and judgment are common.

Synergic science reveals that mistakes are in fact the result of ignorance. If we understand this, then when a mistake occurs, we would analyze, determine responsibility, and educate. This could soon lead to a world where public safety, love and compassion are common.

The Uncertainty of Human Knowing

Timothy Wilken, MD

We can never know all there is to know about anything — this is a fundamental ‘law’ of Nature. This is in fact is the only cause of mistakes.

Ignorance is the word that best describes the human condition. Alfred Korzybski explained this condition scientifically as the  Principle of Non-Allness. By this he meant that we humans make all of our decisions with incomplete and imperfect knowing. We make every choice without all the information. All humans live and act in state of ignorance. Korzybski felt that developing an awareness of this ‘law’ of Nature was so fundamentally important to all humans, that he developed a lesson especially for children. Korzybski would explain:

“Children, today we want to learn all about the apple.”

IMAGE UCS2-51.jpg

He would place an apple in view of the children, “Do you children know about the apple?”

“I do!”, “I do!”, “Yes, I know about apples!”

“Good” Korzybski moved to the blackboard. , “Come, tell me about the apple?”

“The Apple is a fruit.”, “The apple is red.”, “The apple grows on a tree.”

Korzybski would begin to list the characteristics described by the children on the blackboard.

The children continued, “An apple a day keeps the Doctor away.”

Korzybski continued listing the children’s answers until they run out of ideas, then he would ask, “Is that all we can say about the apple?

When the children answered in the affirmative, Korzybski would remove his pocket-knife and cut the apple in half, passing the parts among the children.

“Now, children can we say more about the apple?

“The apple smells good.” “The juices are sweet.” “The apple has seeds.” “Its pulp is white.” “Mother makes apple pie.

Finally when the children had again run out of answers, Korzybski would ask, “Now, is that all-we can say about the apple?” When the children agreed that it was all that could be said, he would again go into his pocket only this time he removed a ten power magnifying lens and passed it to the children. The children would examine the apple, and again respond:

“The apple pulp has a pattern and a structure.” “The skin of the apple has pores.” “The leaves have fuzz on them.” “The seeds have coats.”

Thus Korzybski would teach the children the lesson of Non-ALLness.

Now we could continue to examine the apple—with a light microscope, x-ray crystallography, and eventually the electron microscope. We would continue to discover more to say about the apple. However, we can never know ALL there is to know about anything in Nature. We humans have the power to know about Nature, but not to know ALL.

Knowing is without limit, but knowing is not total. Universe is our human model of Nature. Our ‘knowing’ can grow evermore complete. It can grow closer and closer to the ‘Truth’, but it cannot equal the ‘Truth’. It must always be incomplete. We are not ‘GOD’. We cannot see and know ALL.

Jacob Bronowski speaking in 1976 his famous public television series the Ascent of Man said:

“One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the Twentieth Century has been to prove that that aim is unattainable. There is no absolute knowledge and those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy. All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility. This is the human condition; and that is what Quantum Physics says. I mean that literally.

“Let us examine an object with the best tool we have today, the electron microscope, where the rays are so concentrated that we no longer know whether to call them waves or particles. Electrons are fired at an object, and they trace its outline like a knife-thrower at a fair. The smallest object that has ever been seen is a single atom of thorium. It is spectacular.

And yet the soft image confirms that, like the knives that graze the girl at the fair, even the hardest electrons do not give a hard outline. The perfect image is still as remote as the distant stars.

“We are here face to face with the crucial paradox of knowledge. Year by year we devise more precise instruments with which to observe nature with more fineness and when we look at the observations, we are discomfited to see that they are still fuzzy, and we feel that we are as uncertain as ever. 

“We seem to be running after a goal which lurches away from us to infinity every time we come within sight of it. 

IMAGE ProtectingHumanity04.jpg

IMAGE ProtectingHumanity05.jpg

IMAGE ProtectingHumanity06.jpg

IMAGE ProtectingHumanity07.jpg   

“The paradox of knowledge is not confined to the small, atomic scale; on the contrary, it is as cogent on the scale of man, and even of the stars.

“Let me put it in the context of an astronomical observatory. Karl Freidrich Gauss’ observatory at Gˆttingen was built about 1807. Throughout his life and ever since (the best part of 200 years) astronomical instruments have been improved.

“We look at the position of a star as it was determined then and now, and it seems to us that we are closer and closer to finding it precisely. But when we actually compare our individual observations today, we are astonished and chagrined to find them as scattered within themselves as ever.

“We had hoped that the human errors would disappear, and that we would ourselves have God’s view. But it turns out that the errors cannot be taken out of the observations. And that is true of stars, or atoms, or just looking at somebody’s picture, or hearing the report of somebody’s speech.”

Incomplete and imperfect knowing means that every human belief is an assumption. We can never know for sure. We can never know ALL.

As you sit in your chair reading these words, you assumed the chair would hold you. You did not check under the chair to see if it had broken since its last use. When you ate lunch at your favorite restaurant last week, you assumed the waitress had washed her hands. You assumed the cook did not have hepatitis. If you had assumed otherwise, you would not have walked into that restaurant. You would not have eaten your lunch. We humans assume. Herein lies our uncertainty — that’s all we humans can do. There is nothing wrong in our assuming, we are simply obeying a fundamental ‘law’ of Nature.

We humans have always believed that mistakes are bad. We have always believed that those who make mistakes are bad. They are stupid or careless — lazy or incompetent — just no damn good. If they were good, they wouldn’t make mistakes. Everyone knows that. Decent people don’t make mistakes. This is nearly a universal belief.

Mistakes = Badness

Korzybski coined the word space-binding to describe the world of the animal. In the world of the animal, cause and effect can not be distinguished from each other. They are the same — they equal each other — they are identical. If the effect of a mistake is bad, then the cause of a mistake is also bad. Human intelligence is build on animal intelligence. All humans have a space-mind. It is a powerful and often dominant part of our human intelligence. As children the space-mind is primary. The uniquely human mind creates what Korzybski called the world of Time-binding. The time-mind doesn’t even begin to become operational in children until they reach the age of four.

So our human belief that mistakes are ‘bad’ is legitimate. Most of us learn about mistakes as small children. If I stumble while running, I get hurt and that is bad. If an animal is running for its life and stumbles, it dies and that is bad. For space-binders, mistakes are a part of bad space.

In the world of space-binding, a mistake can cost not only the life of the individual space-binder, but also the lives of others in the group — pack, pride, herd, or troop. Therefore the result of a mistake was often bad, and not just for the individual, but for others in the group as well. Since 99.9% of all human history has been adversary — 99.9% of our history dominated by space-binding, it is no wonder that we humans have believed for countless centuries that mistakes are bad.

The belief in the badness of mistakes was further reinforced and given Divine sanction by our human religions. God is good. God is omniscience — ALL knowing. God makes no mistakes. He is perfect. We humans are admonished to be as God-like as possible. If making no mistakes is ‘good’, then obviously making mistakes is ‘bad’. Our religions institutionalized the adversary processing of mistakes — Sin, Hellfire, and Damnation.

Science has also added credence to the ‘badness’ of mistakes. The world view created by the ‘objective science’ of Galileo, Kepler, Hooke, and Newton was a ‘perfect’ Universe. Newton’s System of the Worlds described a precision clockwork perfection that controlled all in Universe. If the Universe is perfect, then humans too must evolve towards perfection.

Dealing with badness

Since mistakes are bad, when one occurs, we investigate to determine who is at fault. Who made the mistake? Once that is determined, we blame those responsible. Following blame, we are ready to punish. More pain and suffering has been inflicted on humankind for making mistakes than for any other cause. This should not surprise us.

Punishment is the proper way to deal with ‘badness’. And,if we are anything, we are fair. So when we are the one who made the mistake, we self-punish. Self-punishment is called “guilt”. Humans are the only class of living systems that feels guilty. The only class of living systems that teaches their pets to feel guilty. 

MISTAKES = Badness
PUNISH —> self punish

Korzybski’s Error of Identity

When humans rely only on their spacial intelligence, they see cause as being identical to effect. They are in essence time-blind, and so they confuse cause with effect.

Korzybski explained that when humans see things as being identical that are not identical, they are making an identification that is false to facts. Korzybski called this the Error of Identity.

When we confuse cause with effect, we are making the error of identity. Today most humans make this error. We assume without analysis that cause and effect are the same — that they are equal — that they are identical. If the effect of a mistake is bad then the cause of that mistake must also be bad.

We don’t analyze the event for sequence. We don’t use our time-binding power to understand. And so,we act without hesitation, without doubt on our belief. We act in certainty. And, certainty as explained earlier by Korzybski, Heisenberg, Eddington and Bronowski is not possible, because knowing is uncertain.


We humans always act without all the information. We humans are always assuming. If we are unaware that we are assuming, then we are ignorant of our ignorance. Certainty means that we don’t know that we don’t know. We cannot seek knowing when we believe our ignorance is knowing. Ignorance of ignorance is leveraged ignorance — ignorance masquerading as knowledge. Ignorance of ignorance is certainty.

When we are certain, we are surprised and disheartened by our mistakes. This attitude toward human error is the most damaging of human ignorances. We humans make mistakes because, we make all our decisions without ALL the information. This is a major point that all humans must understand. The only cause of mistakes is ignorance.

We humans must become aware of our ignorance. When we humans have knowledge of our ignorance, we can learn from our mistakes and protect ourselves in the future. When an individual knows he doesn’t know, he is wise. Wisdom is the opposite of certainty. The knowledge of our ignorance is wisdom.

To error is the human condition

This truth, whether we call it the Principle of Non-Allness, the Principle of Uncertainty, the Principle of Indeterminacy, or the Principle of Tolerance, leads us to the conclusion that to error is human, and there is no need too ask forgiveness. All mistakes are innocent.

Universe is not certain — it is not structured as we humans have believed for countless centuries. Religion and the objective scientists were wrong. The physics of relativity and quantum mechanics describe a Universe in which things are not and cannot be perfect. A Universe in which, we humans are constrained to make all our choices without ALL the information. Mistakes are simply holes or gaps in our knowing — lapses in our understanding.

I am often asked, “But, what if I knew better?” If I knew better and then make a mistake. Isn’t that the result of stupidity. If I knew better, but still made an error, then surely that is my fault and not the result of ignorance.

What if I knew better?

I recall a young women I once treated. She had opened her hotel room door to a man claiming to be a maintenance worker, who then attacked and raped her. The attacker has stolen a hotel uniform from a laundry hamper and so seemed legitimate. However, something about his appearance disturbed her, but on second thought, she assumed she was just being silly and so unlocked her door. When I saw her several months later she was still struggling with guilt.

“Doctor, it was my own fault. I was so stupid. I shouldn’t have opened the door. I knew something was wrong. I was so stupid. I knew better, but I opened the door anyway.”

I responded, “You weren’t stupid. You were only ignorant.”

She replied, “No, Dr. Wilken, I knew better, I should never have opened the door, I was just so stupid.”

“NO!”, I told her, “You weren’t stupid, you were only ignorant and I can prove it with one simple question. She looked deep into my eyes desperate to know what I meant.

I asked: “If you had known that the man behind the door intended to rape you, would you have opened it?”

“No, of course not.”

No of course not. None of us would make a mistake if we knew we were about to make a mistake. Even when we humans repeat our mistakes, it is because we assume the mistake will not happen this time. We are ignorant of what will happen this time. As I have stated, the only cause of human error — the only cause of human mistakes is ignorance.

Scientists as well as non-scientists who seek to know must therefore embrace humility when we stand before the totality of Nature.

The Principle of Non-Allness is a fundamental law of Nature. And the first corollary to the Principle of Non-Allness is what I call the Principle of Innocence.

Principle of Innocence

All actions occur in ignorance. All human actions and all human choices are made without all the information. We are always acting and choosing without ALL the information. What we don’t know we must ignore and what we ignore may hurt us. Therefore all errors and and all mistakes are made in innocence.

Good news

I don’t mean that mistakes are good things or that getting hurt is a good thing. I mean that since the cause of mistakes is ignorance and the proper response to ignorance is education, then we can learn from our mistakes.

We can acknowledge the mistakes of history and those that are occurring in our present world and work to correct them. This is good news. It will make it infinitely easier to build a better world.

When we understand the truth of “to error is human”, we can then begin to process our mistakes in a synergic manner. The human who understands that mistakes are a natural part of life does not investigate the mistakes like a detective, he analyzes the mistake as a scientist. He does not blame when a mistake occurs, he seeks to learn from the mistake and to learn he must accept responsibility and seek responsibility in others for their mistakes. Once he knows who is responsible for the mistake he educates.

IMAGE ProtectingHumanity11.jpg

Education is the proper response to ignorance. Education and learning is the synergic alternative to adversary punishment and guilt. However there is something in guilt worth keeping. It is certainly not the badness, it is certainly not the blame, and of course it is not the punishment.

Guilt also contains regret and this is worth keeping. When a mistake happens there is always regret. In the adversary world where there is blame and punishment of course I might regret being blamed and punished. I also might regret being considered bad by those who are blaming and punishing me. But there is almost always another component of regret. When I make a mistake that hurts someone else, I regret that as well. This is the regret worth keeping.

And, this is often why we humans tend to hang onto our guilt feelings when we make a mistake. We regret injuring others. We can solve this dilemma by moving regret over into the synergic processing of mistakes, where it is called restitution. Restitution means to restore, to repair the damage caused by the ignorance of our behavior.

The synergist does not feel guilty when he makes a mistake, but he is sorry if his ignorance injured other. As a synergist, he will freely try to repair things. He will freely offer restitution.  



MISTAKES = Badness MISTAKES = Ignorance


—> self-punish


—> self-educate





We humans have a choice as to how to deal with mistakes. If we process our mistakes adversarily we get pain and no learning. If we process our mistakes synergically, we get learning and no pain.
In fact, you cannot learn when you adversarily process mistakes. We humans cannot tolerate the pain of blame, punishment, and guilt. We will deny that we make a mistake. We will project the blame for the mistake onto others. “I didn’t do it.” — “It wasn’t my fault.” — “And, if it isn’t my fault, why should I have to learn anything.”

In fact, if I am to learn from a mistake, I must first admit it was my fault. This is the real force behind what I call the “anti-learning barrier”. If I am to learn from my mistake I am trapped into accepting responsibility for my error. If I am adversarily processing the mistake, I cannot accept responsibility without feeling guilty. To avoid guilt I must deny responsibility. And if I wasn’t responsible then I have nothing to learn.

The “anti-learning barrier”

This barrier became evident to me by another one of my patients. I once had the occasion to treat a young woman in the early stages of her fifth pregnancy. She informed me she had had four abortions previously and was pregnant and planning to abort this pregnancy as well. I thought to myself, why can’t she learn to use birth control?

If we examine her situation in light of our new understanding, we see that for her to use birth control, she would have to admit that it is her responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That admission would lead her to the further conclusion that she was then also responsible for her previous unwanted pregnancies and their abortions.

This young woman was a Catholic and to admit responsibility for unwanted pregnancies and abortions were far too painful for her. She opted to deny any responsibility. “My boy friend got me drunk, and made me pregnant. It wasn’t my fault, so I don’t need to take birth control. Besides using birth control is a sin, I would never do that.”

The human brain is the most powerfully precise computer in the Universe. If we program it to believe mistakes are bad, it will function to prove it does not make mistakes. The human brain rebels at the idea that mistakes are bad. It will defend itself in any way possible, it will defend itself by lying. When I am accused of badness, I must lie to protect myself — to protect myself from blame and punishment — to protect myself from guilt. Confronted with an adversary reality that we live with today, it is rational to lie. Lying leads to distrust — “I assume you are my enemy”. Thus, the processing of mistakes as bad always leads to conflict and adversary behavior.

If on the other hand, I process my mistakes in a more scientific manner — as simply ignorant — choices made without all the information, then I must tell the truth to protect myself — to protect myself from repeating the mistake — to protect myself and others from further injury — to protect myself from paying unnecessary restitution.

Telling the truth leads to trust — “I assume you are my friend”. Processing mistakes as ignorance leads to co-Operation and synergic behavior.



MISTAKES = Badness MISTAKES = Ignorance


—> self-punish


—> self-educate





I must lie to protect myself.

I must tell the truth to protect myself.

I assume you are my enemy.

I assume you are my friend.





Scientists and all humans who seek to know must embrace humility when they stand before the totality of Nature. The principle of Non-Allness is a fundamental law of nature.

The fact that all actions occur in ignorance is a fundamental ‘knowing’ derived from the Principle of Non-Allness.

And the first corollary of that principle — the Principle of Innocence is an even more important extension of our human ‘knowing’. If we understand that all errors are committed in innocence, then how we treat those who err will change forever.

What about Bin Laden ?

How could the attack on the World Trade Towers have resulted from ignorance. How could those behind the murder of 3000+ thousand innocents themselves be innocent?

What don’t they know?

They don’t know that “As you sow, so shall you reap”. They don’t know that:

Adversary action usually provokes adversary reaction ending in an adversary resultant or loss.

They don’t know how powerful the United States really is. They have forgotten the lessons learned by Japan and Germany by the end of World War II. They to have wakened the sleeping Giant. Their acts will not make the world better and safer for themselves or for those they claim to represent. They don’t know that the end never justifies the means. In fact, the means always end up becoming the ends.

They don’t know that there is no heaven for murderers. They don’t know that an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, ends up with no winners only losers in a modern world with high technology and knowledge.

They don’t know that:

Progress + Warfare = Human Extinction 

We humans are Time-binders, we have the power to create knowledge without limit. When knowledge is incorporated into matter-energy, it becomes a tool. As Andrew J. Galambos explained:

“Humans develop evermore powerful knowledge and therefore evermore powerful tools. When tools are used to harm other humans they are called weapons. Since human knowledge can grow without limit then tools themselves can be made without limit. And limitless tools can will produce limitless weapons.”

And, limitless weapons (progress) combined with leveraged adversity (warfare) must by all definitions and understanding of science produce human extinction.

All of today’s law enforcement agencies use adversary processing in an attempt to protect the public safety. Unfortunately, adversary processing results only in pain and no learning. The war on crime has been lost and always will be lost. Adversary behavior cannot be stopped with adversary behavior. The means always become the ends. The abolition of crime will require the abolition of punishment.

Only then can we move towards a world where, love, wisdom and compassion will replace hate, ignorance and judgment. Only then can we move beyond crime and punishment.

Read Timothy Wilken’s A Limit to Knowing.

Read Timothy Wilken’s Protecting Humanity.

Front Page

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

In the study of Religious Science, you learn a powerful form of affirmative prayer called TREATMENT.

All Gifts are Self-Gifts

Timothy Wilken, MD

ALL is ONE — ONE is ALL. Reality is whole — both physical and metaphysical. Reality is UNITY — both recognized and unrecognized — One God — One Spirit — One Consciousness. ALL is ONE — ONE is ALL.

I am the Individualization of that Oneness. Right Here, Right Now. Consciousness in me, as me, is me. Spirit in me, as me, is me. God in me, as me, is me.

I am awake now and know who I am. I am awake now and know who you are. We are the same. I am you and you are me. I am self and I am other. I am one and I am all. I am me and I am you.

When I help you, I help myself. All Help is self-help.
When I protect you, I protect myself. All protection is self-protection.
When I forgive you, I forgive myself. All forgiveness is self-forgiveness.
When I love you, I love myself. All love is self-love.

And, so I help you always, protect you always, forgive you always, and love you always.

All gifts are self-gifts. We are ONE. All gifts to you are also gifts to me.

For this truth, I am deeply grateful. I accept our oneness as true and valid. I accept our unity as here and now. I accept our wholeness as natural and necessary.

And, so it is. …


GIFTegrity Defined  (PDF)
Specifications Of

Science Behind


Jump into synergic science by reading We Can All Win!, If you are creating a new organization, or desire to synergize an old one, read Ortegrity. If you’re interested in how to make decisions in a win-win world read Sociocracy.

Looking for a guide to synergic decision, read a  Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Read the Protecting the Future Series:
1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding 5) Trustegrities — Protecting the Future and 6) Synergic Guardians — Protecting the Future.

Front Page

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

As a synergic scientist, I have studied the work of many scientists. One of the most important in my field was Buckminster Fuller. Are you familiar with his work?

Synergic Pioneer

E.J. Applewhite

Buckminster Fuller had one of the most fascinating and original minds of his century. Born in 1895 in Milton, Massachusetts, he was the latest–if not the last–of the New England Transcendentalists. Like the transcendentalists, Fuller rejected the established religious and political notions of the past and adhered to an idealistic system of thought based on the essential unity of the natural world and the use of experiment and intuition as a means of understanding it. But, departing from the pattern of his New England predecessors, he proposed that only an understanding of technology in the deepest sense would afford humans a proper guide to individual conduct and the eventual salvation of society. Industrial and scientific technology, despite their disruption of established habits and values, was not a blight on the landscape, but in fact for Fuller they have a redeeming humanitarian role.

Fuller rejected the conventional disciplines of the universities by ignoring them. In their place he imposed his own self-discipline and his own novel way of thinking in a deliberate attempt–as poets and artists do–to change his generation’s perception of the world. To this end he created the term Spaceship Earth to convince all his fellow passengers that they would have to work together as the crew of a ship. His was an earnest, even compulsive, program to convince his listeners that humans had a function in universe. Humans have a destiny to serve as “local problem solvers”converting their experience to the highest advantage of others.

Fuller’s favorite method of teaching–in the tradition of all great teachers since the Greek philosophers–was lecturing to large and youthful audiences. Though his penchant for talking for hours on end was notorious, he really regarded all communication as a two-way street, and he was remarkably sensitive to individual reactions–well beyond those in the front row. He tuned his always extemporaneous discourse to the rate he could see it being absorbed and digested. In the 1960s and 70s a generation seized on his prescription that there was no need to “earn a living”–often disregarding the other side of the coin: the need for individual initiative in “doing what needs to be done.” In this spirit he advanced “design science” as the solution for worldwide social and ecological problems.

Fuller was an architect, though he never got a degree and in fact didn’t even get a license until he was awarded one as an honor when he was in his late 60s. This did not prevent him from designing the geodesic dome: the only kind of building that can be set on the ground as a complete structure–and with no limiting dimension. The strength of the frame actually increases in ratio to its size, enclosing the largest volume of space with the least area of surface. This was his virtuoso invention, and he said it illustrated his strategy of “starting with wholes” rather than parts.

He was also a poet, philosopher, inventor and mathematician, as documented amply in many other web sites on the net.

America has been in the middle of a love-hate affair with technology–and Fuller is right in the middle of it. He introduced not only a unique rationale for technology, but an esthetic of it. Likewise his synergetic geometry bears for Fuller an imperative with an ethical content for humans to reappraise their relationship to the physical universe. Manifest together as design science, they offer the prospect of a kind of secular salvation.

See also:

Front Page

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Does the concept of race have any value in a positive future?

As a physician and scientist, I have a deep training in biology. It has amazed me that we humans seem to relate to our dogs and cats in a much more accepting way than we do with each other. We are not, in any real since, bothered by the color, shape, or size of our animals. We would all think that making a big deal about a pet’s genetics before loving it was silly.

Looked at it from this perspective, the biological differences between humans, whether they are called whites, browns, blacks, yellows, or reds, are obviously minor and inconsequential.

I originally posted an excerpt from the following article on this website in 2001. Eight years later we have a racially mixed President, and a black First Lady. Perhaps now is a good time to revisit the author’s thoughts.

Childhood’s End

James A. Landrith, Jr.

A lot of talk has been occuring lately at The Multiracial Activist and INTERRACIAL VOICE regarding shedding “racial identity” and championing free will. Make no mistake, there is a real movement in the makings. The fight to free Humanity of “race” will be considered a landmark event in our development as a species. The time has come to fully commit to establishing, as Janet Jackson so eloquently sang on Rhythm Nation 1814, “a world free of colorlines.”

Those who came before us blazed a trail that has led us to this point in time. The ending of segregation, the fight for voting rights and the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws were major battles in the war against
“race.” There is, however, more to do.

This task has taken and will likely take many more decades, but will eventually result in finishing off America’s unhealthy obsession with skin color and false notions of “racial” purity. As a people, we have to grow up and out of such childish notions as biologically different “races.”

Sadly, many of the organizations that got us to this historic turning point, now wish to turn back the clock. The NAACP, National Urban League and National Council of La Raza are a few of the organizations currently promoting “one-drop” philosophy with regards to “racial” identity. These organizations quite simply fear miscegenation, and well they should. Miscegenation and the abandonment of static “racial” identities by “multiracial” people will bring about the complete destruction of their powerbase and force their racialist designs into the dustbin of history where they belong – right next to Mein Kampf.

A transformation is occuring in the American mindset regarding the concept of blurred “racial” lines. Simply put, many people can’t grasp the concept of no “races” and therefore require a middle ground in order to move on to greater truths. The middle ground is/was the
“multiracial” movement, which sought to remove the one-drop rule from the Census and all other forms that collect “racial” data for the government. The “check-all-that-apply” method adopted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has mucked up the Census’ racial categories in ways many of us did not imagine. The object was to allow people to self-identify in a manner they’d never been able to before. The result, however, was a mish-mash of vague and contradictory regulations and policies from the OMB that only further proves the ridiculousness of classifying people by “race.” If the U.S. government, who manufactured America’s current “racial” classification mess don’t know what they are doing, then how is anyone else supposed to figure it out?

The next logical step, then, consists of abolishing all forms of government mandated “racial” classifications. Whether these perverse classifications come in the form of college applications, grade school admissions forms, birth certificates, or the decennial Census, they exist for only one purpose – keeping people separated.

There can be no compromises or backroom deals with the proponents of these nasty little classifications. Continuing to count “race” under the guise of eliminating “racism” is a specious argument. “Racism” is a natural by-product of “race.” Continued allegiance to “race” is not going to yield the much wanted victory that anti-racists are seeking. The only way to cure Humanity of the plague of “racism” is to go after the disease, which is “race.” Anything else is an exercise in futility.

The Cult of “Race”

For far too many years, Americans have been programmed en masse to believe that the existence of “racism” justifies continuing our unhealthy obsession with classifying our fellow sapients by “race.” The high clerics of this cult would have you believe that continued mandatory classification by “race” will somehow allow us to end “racism.” The argument that tracking “race” will allow us to end “racism” is the equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. We keep bleeding, but we don’t know why.

Opponents to ending government enforced racial classification like to bring up a few pet examples for why classification must continue. First on the list is “racial profiling/Driving While Black or Brown.” In order to end racial profiling and Driving While Black or Brown, we first have to get rid of it’s creator, which is “The Drug War.” Local and federal jurisdictions love The Drug War. Why? It keeps their coffers flush with cash. It allows no-knock raids on anyone at anytime and almost unfettered asset seizure. The 4th and 5th amendments become irrelevant in the name of The Drug War. “Racial” classification, which has existed far longer than “racial” profiling (a descendent of The Drug War), isn’t going to magically solve this decades old problem.

Next of course, is the old standby of “checking two boxes won’t get you a taxi, all the cab driver is going to see is BLACK.” Well, how does checking “black”resolve that issue? It doesn’t. That’s right, cab drivers don’t care which box you checked, so checking “black” doesn’t resolve the issue.
“Racial” classifications aren’t going to get you a taxi no matter what box you check. Proponents of this argument never elaborate as to why they feel it is relevant or how checking “black” will resolve the issue. They are simply employing scare tactics in an effort to enforce their collectivist beliefs. The whole argument is an exercise in stupidity and fear. They should be ashamed.

Those who fight the future will be judged accordingly by history. Kweisi Mfume, Hugh Price, are you paying attention?

Action Follows Belief

You cannot commit racism without first being brainwashed into believing in
“race.” Belief comes first, then the action. All that classification does is continue to reinforce that hideous belief system. By telling people that there are different “races” and that we must classify ourselves by these “races,” and then telling people not to assign behaviours and traits based on these classifications is wishful thinking. You first say “we” are different from “them.” Then you say don’t treat us differently.

Demanding that “racial” differences be acknowledged when the biological evidence says otherwise is cause to question the motives of the individual or organization promoting the myth of “racial” differences. Aside from that, using government to force “racial” classifications on others is a form of fascist collectivism. These “racial” classifications serve one purpose only – to classify (read: forcibly divide) people into groups, by decree of government. Then when these government created groups compete against each other causing “racial” tensions in a battle for taxpayer monies, we sit around naively asking why. Hmmm. Let me reiterate this simple point – “racism” exists as a natural by-product of “race.”Continued use of the government to enforce “racial” classification schemes is not going to end “racism.” Ending “racial” classification will not end “racism” overnight either, but it is a necessary first step in a process that may well take decades. Do not say you are ready to end “racism” unless you are fully committed to ending “race.” There must be a point when we say, this stops NOW. I’m going to say it, are you listening? THIS STOPS NOW.

The Future

We don’t have the time to continue fighting each other over nineteenth century falsehoods like the concept of biological “races.” We have much more important work to do and we will need our best minds, operating at the top of their potential. Deconstruction of all “racial” classifications must begin in earnest NOW if Humanity is to progress further. We are one Race and must accept that, then we can decide where to go from there.

Technology is evolving faster than we are, which is not necessarily bad. Our power to have a positive impact or negative impact on people’s lives lies solely in what we do with it. The old divisions are going to have be erased in order for us to keep up with our expanding possibilities. With so many new possibilities both positive and negative opening up, we have to evolve our thinking or our world WILL get away from us:

    Globalization is blurring national boundaries with the power to erase old hatreds or spark new ones. Genetically altered foods present new possibilities in fighting famine and hunger. Eugenics is enjoying new life due to the mapping of the human genome. On the other hand the ability of fascist regimes to monitor their citizenry by camera, infrared, face-scanning technologies, has also increased. Within the next twenty-five years Humanity will likely set foot on Mars. Lunar colonies are no longer just a figment of our imaginations, they are actually being planned. The Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate and made it possible for people who have never been face to face to work together for a common goal.

We are going to have to be on top of our game and in touch with ourselves if we are going to survive our creations. It’s time to get on with the business of Humanity. We have a lot of work to do and fighting the same battles over and over is holding the whole species back.. We are not our ancestors or their sins. We are a whole new “breed” and it’s time we came to grips with it and the responsibilities/opportunities that entails. I have a lot of faith in what we can do as a whole, unencumbered by the irrational belief systems some of us hold now, but I know that first things come first and destroying these false boundaries in whatever form they take is an essential first step.

“Multiracial” America, your childhood’s over. Put away the toys. We have work to do.

More about the author James A. Landrith, Jr. 

Front Page

Friday, March 13th, 2009

It is wonderful to have a President who is sensitive to the value of science to human welfare.  Reposted from the New York Times.

Advancing the Cause of Science in America

President Barack Obama

Today, with the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. (Applause.) We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. (Applause.) And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions: to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome — that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It’s a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans — from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs — have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. And that is why I am signing this executive order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend all of them who are here for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them — actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new front of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. (Applause.)

By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. And that is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

And that’s why today I’m also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making — (applause) — to ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That’s how we’ll harness the power of science to achieve our goals — to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science and expand funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized and raised awareness and kept on fighting — even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause — people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher’s friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. And it read: “For everyone who thought I couldn’t do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn’t do it. For everyone who said it’s impossible. See you at the finish line.”

Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: If you came back here 10 — “If you came back here in 10 years, I expect that I’d walk to the door to greet you.”

Now, Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day — maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children’s lifetime — but maybe one day, others like Christopher Reeves might.

There’s no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us — the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like “terminal”and “incurable” are potentially retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Front Page

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Long time reader, Dexter Graphic recently forwarded me an article about Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s proposal for a Second Bill of Rights initially suggested during his campaign for the American Presidency in 1932. The proposal was lost in the shuffle of getting America out of The Great Depression and then successfully through WWII.

Twelve years later, President Roosevelt returned to his proposal for a Second Bill of Rights. Those proposed rights were enumerated during his State of the Union address to the Congress on January 11, 1944:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

As you may recall, Roosevelt did not survive to see the end of World War II. On March 30, 1945, he went to Warm Springs to rest before his anticipated appearance at the founding conference of the United Nations. On the afternoon of April 12, Roosevelt said, “I have a terrific headache” and was carried into his bedroom. The doctor diagnosed that he had suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Later that day, he died. As Allen Drury later said, “so ended an era, and so began another.”

Harry S. Truman succeeded Roosevelt, and when informed of the existence of the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons decided to end the war by destroying Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945 with nuclear fire. This experiment in mass killing ended the lives of over two hundred thousand men, women, and children.

Too bad. Where might we be today, if Roosevelt had lived a few more years.

A Synergic Bill of Rights for all Humanity

Timothy Wilken, MD

Independently of Roosevelt, I first suggested a “bill of rights” for all humans based on the principles of synergic science. The preamble to this “bill of rights” can be read in the Protecting the Future Series: 1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth and 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding. The following words are from the last two installments of that series 5) Trustegrities and 6) Synergic Guardians first published in 2001.


It must now be obvious to the reader, that most of human wealth is a gift and cannot be claimed as property by any individual or group of individuals. I have divided this gift into three categories — the Earth Trust, the Life Trust and the Time-binding Trust.

I propose the creation of synergic trustee organizations charged with the responsibility to protect, conserve and administer the synergic trusts for the benefit of all humanity — both the living and the unborn. This organization could make use of the Organizational Tensegrity synergic mechanism which utilizes synergic consensus and the synergic veto to elimnate conflict. These Synergic Trust Organizational Tensegrities will simply be called the “Trustegrities”. The Trustegrities could form the basis for a synergic government in the future. They could perform all the positive functions of present government with none of the negative consequences. The Trustegrities would exist to serve humanity as community as well as humanity as individual.

The Trustegrities will be three with separate but complimentary missions in service to humankind. 

The Earth Trustegrity will provide:

1) Access to land and natural resources for personal use at minimal or no cost, and

2) Access to land and natural resources for synergic production with appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. All rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Life Trustegrity will provide:

3) Safety from crime and war, and full access to:

4) Comfortable, safe, healthy housing.

5) Good nutritious food

6) Good preventitive health services and comprehensive cradle to grave medical care, and access to the privilege of Reproduction based on fairness, equality, and mutual benefit to both humanity as Individuals and humanity as Community. This would include monitoring administrating, adjudicating the Trust privilege of Reproduction.

7) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for personal use at minimum or no cost.

8) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production with approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares. All payments made are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Time-binding Trustegrity will provide:

9) Full education to an individual’s ability and interest regardless of age,

10) The opportunity to participate in synergic organization and invest their action and leverage to earn revenue shares and acquire property throughout their full lifetime.

11) Access to communication with humanity as individuals and to humanity as community for personal reasons, for synergic production and consumption, and for synergic consensus utilizing Unanimous Rule Democracy.

12) Protection of the intellectual discoveries and inventions of Time-binding whether they be in the Time-binding Trust, or the Property of living humans.

Funding the Synergic Trustegrities

Future Positive was established to help humanity transition from the present adversary-neutral political-economic mechanisms dominating human life in 2002 to synergic alternative mechanisms available in a Synergic Future. In such a future the entire human species could be organized as a single organization, then there would be no need for politics, economics, or even money. Certainly the forty trillion cells in the synergic organization which comprise our bodies do quite well without politics, economics or money.

As I said earlier, if we humans synergically reorganized, we could all be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. If we were to take all the wealth on planet Earth today, 2002 and divide it equally among the 6+ billions of us living on the planet, we would discover to our surprise and amazement that every man, woman, and child is a billionaire. There would never be any need for humans to earn their livings again. With synergic reorganization, and careful utilization of the Earth, Life and Time-binding Trusts, the Earth could comfortably support all of humanity. And this is without any need to damage or degrade our environment.

Our Time-binding Trust is so enormously powerful and gives those of us living today such enormous leverage that it is scientifically possible to solve all our human problems and meet all of our needs.

We humans are bound to the Earth, and our individual fates are linked together — we share a common fate. We can survive and prosper together as a unified species, or we can perish as individuals fighting and fleeing like the animals. There is no separate peace and no separate solutions.

All the land and all the natural resources of the Earth are needed for our species to survive. They cannot be held and used to serve any individual or group of individuals. The land and natural resources are not property, they cannot be owned by anyone. They are a Trust to be shared and carefully utilized by all living humans. They are a Trust to be conserved for all yet unborn humanity. 

Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”

–Adam Smith (1723 – 1790)

Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.” 

–Tom Paine (1737 – 1809)

The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water.”

–Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

Henry George

The American writer, Henry George published Progress and Poverty in 1879, in which he made one of the first arguments for the common ownership of land by all people. He seriously argued for the full return of the land to humanity as community. He even suggested a mechanism for that transition. Here in his own words:

“There is but one way to remove an evil and that is to remove its cause. To extirpate poverty, to make wages what justice commands they should be, the full earnings of the labourer, we must substitute for the individual ownership of land a common ownership. Nothing else will go to the cause of the evil, in nothing else is there the slightest hope.

“But this is a truth which, in the present state of society, will arouse the most bitter antagonism, and must fight its way, inch by inch. It will be necessary, therefore, to meet the objections of those who, even when driven to admit this truth, will declare that it cannot be practically applied.

“In doing this we shall bring our previous reasoning to a new and crucial test. Just as we try addition by subtraction and multiplication by division, so may we, by testing the sufficiency of the remedy, prove the correctness of our conclusions as to the cause of the evil.

“The laws of the universe are harmonious. And if the remedy to which we have been led is the true one, it must be consistent with justice; it must be practicable of application; it must accord with the tendencies of social development and it must harmonize with other reform.

“I propose to show that this simple measure is not only easy of application, but that it is a sufficient remedy for all the evils which, as modern progress goes on, arise from the greater and greater inequality in the distribution of wealth—that it will substitute equality for inequality, plenty for want, justice for injustice, social strength for social weakness, and will open the way to grander and nobler advances of civilization.

“But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?

“We should satisfy the law of justice, we should meet all economic requirements, by at one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring all land public property, and letting it out to the highest bidders in lots to suit, under such conditions as would sacredly guard the private right to improvements.

“Thus we should secure, in a more complex state of society, the same equality of rights that in a ruder state were secured by equal partitions of the soil and, by giving the use of the land to whoever could procure the most from it, we should secure the greatest production.

“But such a plan, though perfectly feasible, does not seem to me the best.

“To do that would involve a needless shock to present customs and habits of thought—which is to be avoided.

“To do that would involve a needless extension of governmental machinery—which is to be avoided.

“It is an axiom of statesmanship, which the successful founders of tyranny have understood and acted upon, that great changes can best be brought about under old forms. We, who would free men, should heed the same truth. It is the natural method. When nature would make a higher type, she takes a lower one and develops it. This is the law also of social growth. Let us work by it. With the current we may glide fast and far. Against it, it is hard pulling and slow progress.

“I do not propose either the purchase or the confiscation of private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.

“Nor to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the state should bother with the letting of lands. It is not necessary that any new machinery should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it. By making use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock, assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses.

“We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.

“Therefore, what I propose is—to appropriate rent by taxation.

“In form, the ownership of land would remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one could hold. For, rent being taken by the state in taxes, land, no matter in whose name it stood or in what parcels it was field, would be really common property, and every member of the community would participate in the advantages of its ownership.

“Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by proposing to abolish all taxation save that upon land values.

“As we have seen, the value of land is at the beginning of society nothing, but as society develops by the increase of population and the advance of the arts, it becomes greater and greater. Hence it will not be enough merely to place all taxes upon the value of land. It will be necessary, where rent exceeds the present governmental revenues, to increase commensurately the amount demanded in taxation, and to continue this increase as society progresses and rent advances. But this is so natural and easy a matter, that it may be considered as involved, or at least understood, in the proposition to put an taxes on the value of land.

“Wherever the idea of concentrating all taxation upon land values finds lodgment sufficient to induce consideration, it invariably makes way, but there are few of the classes most to be benefited by it, who at first, or even for a long time afterwards, see its full significance and power. It is difficult for working-men to get over the idea that there is a real antagonism between capital and labour. It is difficult for small farmers and homestead owners to get over the idea that to put all taxes on the value of land would be to tax them unduly. It is difficult for both classes to get over the idea that to exempt capital from taxation would be to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. These ideas spring from confused thought. But behind ignorance and prejudice there is a powerful interest, which has hitherto dominated literature, education and opinion. A great wrong always dies hard, and the great wrong which in every civilized country condemns the masses of men to poverty and want will not die without a bitter struggle.

 “It is impossible for anyone to study Political Economy, or to think at all upon the production and distribution of wealth, without seeing that property in land differs from property in things of human production.

“This is admitted, either expressly or tacitly, in every standard work on Political Economy, but in general only by vague admission or omission. Attention is in general called away from the truth, as a lecturer on moral philosophy in a slave-holding community might call away attention from too close a consideration of the natural rights of men; and private property in land is accepted without comment, as an existing fact, or is assumed to be necessary to the proper use of land and the existence of the civilized state.

“The consideration that seems to cause hesitation is the idea that having permitted land to be treated as private property for so long, we should in abolishing it be doing a wrong to those who have been suffered to base their calculations upon its permanence; that having permitted land to be held as rightful property we should by the resumption of common rights be doing injustice to those who have purchased it with what was unquestionably their rightful property.

“Thus it is held that if we abolish private property in land, justice requires that we should fully compensate those who now possess it, as the British government, in abolishing the purchase and sale of military commissions, felt itself bound to compensate those who held commissions which they had purchased in the belief that they could sell them again; or as, in abolishing slavery in the British West Indies, the sum of 20,000,000 pounds was paid to the slaveholders.

“Herbert Spencer wrote in Social Statics, published in 1864 “Had we to deal with the parties who originally robbed the human race of its heritage, we might make short work of the matter.”

“Why not make short work of the matter anyhow? This robbery is not like theft of a horse or a sum of money that ceases with the act. It is a fresh and continuous robbery that goes on every day and every hour. It is not from the produce of the past that rent is drawn; it is from the produce of the present. It is a toll levied upon labour constantly and continuously. Every blow of the hammer, every stroke of the pick, every thrust of the shuttle, every throb of the steam engine, pays its tribute. It levies upon the earnings of those men who, deep underground, risk their lives, and of those who over white surges hang to reeling masts. It robs the shivering, of warmth; the hungry, of food; the sick, of medicine; the anxious, of peace. It debases, and embrutes, and embitters. It crowds families of eight and ten into a single squalid room. It makes lads who might be useful men candidates for prisons and penitentiaries. It sends greed and all evil passions prowling through society as a hard winter drives the wolves to the abodes of men. It darkens faith in the human soul, and across the reflection of a just and merciful Creator draws the veil of a hard, and blind, and cruel fate.

“It is not merely a robbery in the past; it is a robbery in the present—a robbery that deprives of their birthright the infants that are now coming into the world. Why should we hesitate about making short work of such a system? Because you were robbed yesterday and the day before, and the day before that, is that any reason why you should suffer yourself to be robbed today and tomorrow? Any reason why you should conclude that the robber has acquired a vested right to rob you?

“If the land belong to the people, why continue to permit landowners to take the rent, or compensate them in any manner for the loss of rent? Consider what rent is. It does not arise spontaneously from land; it is due to nothing that the landowners have done. It represents a value created by the whole community. Let the landholders have, if you please, all that the possession of the land would give them in the absence of the rest of the community. But rent, the creation of the whole community, necessarily belongs to the whole community.

“The common law we are told is the perfection of reason, and certainly the landowners cannot complain of its decision, for it has been built up by and for landowners. Now what does the law allow to the innocent possessor when the land for which he paid his money is adjudged to belong rightfully to another? Nothing at all.
“The law simply says: “The land belongs to A, let the Sheriff put him in possession!” It gives the innocent purchaser of a wrongful title no claim, it allows him no compensation. And not only this, it takes from him all the improvements that he has in good faith made upon the land.

“You may have paid a high price for land, making every exertion to see that the title is good; you may have held it in undisturbed possession for years without thought or hint of an adverse claimant; made it fruitful by your toil or erected upon it a costly building of greater value than the land itself, or a modest home in which you hope, surrounded by the fig trees you have planted and the vines you have dressed, to pass your declining days. Yet if Quirk, Gammon and Snap can mouse out a technical flaw in your parchments or hunt up some forgotten heir who never dreamed of his rights, not merely the land, but all your improvements, may be taken away from you. And not merely that. According to the common law, when you have surrendered the land and given up your improvements, you may be called upon to account for the profits you derived from the land during the time you had it.

“Now if we were to apply to this case of The People v. The Landowners the same maxims of justice that have been formulated by landowners into law, and are applied every day in English and American courts to disputes between man and man, we should not only not think of giving the landholders any compensation for the land, but should take all the improvements and whatever else they might have as well.

“But I do not propose, and I do not suppose that anyone else will propose, to go so far. It is sufficient if the people resume ownership of the rent of land. Let the landowners retain their improvements and personal property in secure possession.

“And in this measure of justice would be no oppression, no injury to any class. The great cause of the present unequal distribution of wealth, with the suffering, degradation and waste that it entails, would be swept away. Even landholders would share in the general gain. The gain of even the large landholders would be a real one. The gain of the small landholders would be enormous. For in welcoming justice, men welcome the handmaid of Love. Peace and Plenty follow in her train, bringing their good gifts, not to some, but to all.”

Henry George was born in Philadelphia, PA in 1839, the Earth’s human population had just passed 1,000,000,000 individuals. It is one hundred and twenty years since Henry George wrote his book Progress and Poverty. Since then the Earth’s human population has increased six times.

The truth is especially hard to believe if it requires that we take action≠if it requires that we change. If humanity is to have a future, we must take action≠we must change. If humanity is to have a future, we must believe the truth.

The wealth represented by the land and water, native plants and wildlife, chemical, mineral, and metal natural resources is so enormous that when it is rescued from the plunderers and returned to the Synergic Trust to benefit every human it will easily sustain the needs of all humanity.

The Synergic Trusts would make Land and Natural Resources available to individuals and organizations. The Trustegrity could be funded entirely by rent receipts from the lease and utilization of Land, and from the licensing fees and revenue shares it receives for use of Natural Resources from the Life and Earth Trusts. This leasing of land and licensing of renewable natural resources would provide the revenue base for all of the beneficial services to humanity as community and to humanity as individuals.

Basic shelter, food, education and medical care would supplied without charge to individual humanity.

Only those individuals wanting to use land and natural resources for synergic production would pay appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. Only those individuals wanting to use animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production would pay approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares.

Only those making non-personal  use of the Earth and Life Trusts are charged fees and/or revenue shares. The rents and licensing fees charged by the Trustegrity and paid to the Synergic Trusts are not taxes, since the rentor or licensee is recieving valuable access to and use of the Earth, Natual Resources, Plants and Animals, wealth belonging to Present and Future Humanity as Community in exchange for the fees and revenue shares that they pay.

Thus the Trustegrities would abolish all taxation.


Synergic Guardians

Science fiction is a form of Time-binding. “Science fiction differs from science fantasy in that science fiction must obey the Laws of Nature.” A simple example is found in motion picture films. ≠In Gary Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy we hear explosions of battle in the vacuum of Space although sound cannot be conducted in a vacuum. However, in Stanley Kubick’s 2002 all the scenes in space were truly silent. The film 2002 is science fiction while Star Wars is science fantasy.

The best science fiction writers are always good scientists. And the best science fiction often predicts future science. Many scientific discoveries and technologies are described in science fiction stories years or even decades before they become realities. Jules Vern, described travel from the earth to the moon in 1865 and ocean going nuclear submarines in 1869.

Issac Asimov is perhaps one of the best examples of both a great science fiction writer, and a good scientist. His interest in science and writing developed in tandem.


He wrote his first story when he was only 11 years old, his first published writing was a column he did for his high school newspaper. While he continued writing, Asimov also attended college and managed to graduate from Columbia University with a B.S. in Chemistry in 1939, and two years later earned his M.A. in Chemistry. He continued studying at Columbia in a Ph.D. program, but with time off for WWII, he was not awarded his Doctorate in Biochemistry until May 1948. During this same period, he also managed to write 36 science fiction stories.

Asimov is most famous for his Robot stories. Asimov’s Robots were something very special. They could take any form, from a small household appliance to large space craft carrying tens of thousands of human travelers. Their most common form however was humiform. Examples of humiform robots are seen in recent science fiction movies. Most notably 3CPO the intergalactic translator in Gary Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy, Arnold Swartzenegger’s performances as terminators in James Cameron’s The Terminator films, Brent Spiner’s performances as Lt. Commander Data in Gene Rodenberry’s Star Trek — The Second Generation, and most recently Robin Williams’ performance of The Bicentennial Man based on an original Asimov story.


Asimov’s robots were highly intelligent, spoke and understood all human languages, were highly mobile, physically strong and enormously powerful. They were awesome machines. If they had wanted to hurt human beings they could have in an eyeblink. But Asimov’s robots never wanted to hurt humans. Their powerful “positronic” brains were constrained by the Three Laws of Robotics. These laws first appeared in print in 1942 as follows.

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics (1942)

1) A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Here we see that Asimov’s First Law of Robotics contains the commitment to helping. Not only must the robot not injure a human being it must protect the human being from harm. This is a requirement for helping. His Second Law of Robotics states again that the Robot must help human beings by obeying their orders. In Asimov’s stories the robots were often owned by the human beings they served. Asimov’s robots were almost always very decent and caring individuals, while their owner’s were often only too human. The robots were treated in the best of circumstances as respected and valuable friends, and in the worst as victims and slaves.

Asimov’s robot stories were remarkably interesting and intelligent. He fully explored the ramifications resulting when his robot’s intelligence evolved to a point that it equaled human intelligence and finally surpassed it.

Writing in 1942, Issac Asimov described a futurescape, where Robots had been invented in 2007. He invented the Three Laws Of Robotics to insure that this servant class of robots were safe to be with human beings. His futurescape spanned 6 decades and by 2064, positronic robots governed by the three laws of robotics were a widespread and common phenomena on Earth. They were especially important in humanity’s expansion into space and the colonization of other planets.

Forty-five years later, Asimov was still writing robot stories, but things had changed.

Twelve centuries had passed in his imagined futurescape, the science of robotics had progressed as rapidly as Moore’s Law drives computer design on Earth today. Robots were smaller more intelligent and could be made to look exactly like humans. Theoretically, a robot’s lifespan was unlimited. Robots had an endless opportunity to learn and to think about what they had learned. They were more intelligent than most humans, and their long life experiences meant they were usually much wiser.

It became obvious that the laws of robotics needed to be advanced as well. Asimov rose to the occasion by creating an additional or fourth law of Robotics. It was called the Zeroth Law because although it was created fourth chronologically, it was logically the First Law.

Asimov’s Four Laws of Robotics (1985)

0) A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1) A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth Law.

2) A robot must obey orders given it by a human being, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth and First Laws.

3) A robot must protect its own existence except where that would conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Laws.

Robots in Asimov’s earlier stories then became known as 3-Law Robots in contrast to these new more powerful 4-Law Robots.


Recall that Asimov’s First Law of Robotics contains the commitment to helping. Not only must the robot not injure a human being it must protect the human being from harm. This is a requirement for helping. His Second Law of Robotics states again that the Robot must help human beings by obeying their orders. Thus within the original Three Laws of Robotics, we see a strong commitment to helping humans. This commitment to helping is expanded with the Zeroth Law.

As 20,000 year old 4-Law Robot Daneel Olivaw explained:

The Zeroth Law is a corollary of the First Law, for how can a human being best be kept from injury, if not by ensuring that human society in general is protected and kept functioning?”

The Zeroth Law of Robotics introduced the concept of responsibility to and for the entire human species. Now Asimov’s robots were required not only to care for and protect the individual human beings that owned them, but also to protect all human beings and by extension the ecosystem and the earth itself.

Protecting Humanity

Asimov’s Four Laws of Robotics can serve as the basis for developing a code for the Synergic Guardians of the Trustegrities. We can eliminate Asimov’s Second law which does not apply since humans are not property and cannot be slaves, and we can elimate the Third law as redundant since a Synergic Guardian is a human being and so is protected by the First law. This leaves us with only two laws necessary to protect humanity as community and humanity as individuals.

  • A Synergic Guardian may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
  • A Synergic Guardian may not injure an individual human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First Law. 

The Needs of the Many

In Gene Roddenberry’s original Star Trek,  Mr. Spock, the Vulcan Science Officer from a race ruled by logic, would remind his shipmates that: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one.”


The human body is a community of 40 trillion individual cells. The individual cells are organized synergically to be interdependent upon each other. They cannot separate themselves from the body as community. The survival of the cells depends on the survival of the body. The needs and safety of the body precedes the needs and safety of the individual cells. Sometimes individual cells are injured or even sacrificed to protect and insure the survival of the body as a whole. The needs and safety of the community of cells takes precedence over the needs and safety of the cells as individuals.

With the discovery that humanity is an interdependent species comes the realization that we humans can no longer separate ourselves from community. Humanity as community is larger and contains humanity as individuals. The needs and safety of humanity as community must precede the needs and safety of humanity as individuals.

Our present culture based on the false premise of human independence often places individual needs and safety over community needs and safety. This will shift dramatically in a synergic culture.

The first law of the of the Guardian Trust Code commits to protect Humanity as Community. The second law commits to protect Humanity as Individuals. This represents a major shift in human values from today’s focus with the individual as primary to tomorrow’s focus with community as primary.

While the Trustegrity Guardians are responsible for the safety of both humanity as community and humanity as individuals, the needs and safety of community take precedent over the needs and safety of individuals.

This does not suggest a casual attitude towards the rights of individuals. Trustegrity Guardians may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would cause injury to humanity as a whole — except where that would cause injury to humanity as community. When an adversary event presents no risk to humanity as community then the Trustegrity Guardians’ first responsibility is to the safety of the individual. 

The Bigger Picture

Within synergic community, it is understood that actions that injure the EARTH and environement—the natural resources, fertile soils, waters, minerals, ores, metals, and the very air we breathealso injures humanity.


It is understood that actions that injures LIFEthe plants and animals and the biodiversity of all non-human Lifealso injures humanity.


It is understood that actions than injures the wealth produced by human action—whether in the form of Time-binding Trust or Property of living humansalso injures humanity.


Therefore, synergic community desires the protection of  all Synergic Wealth:

1) the Earth Trust—the planet and all natural resources,

2) the Life Trust—All plants, animals and humans,

3) the Time-binding Trust—the accumulated ‘knowing’ from the time-binding of all the humans who have ever lived and died. Our inherited Wisdom, Knowledge, and Information including Architecture, Art, Literature, Music, Science, and Technology,

4) Human Action—Mental and Physical—Thinking, Action, and Behavior—Primary Property of Living Humans 

5) Human Leverage—Mental and Physical—Intellectual Property in the forms of Theories, Discoveries, and Technology Designs—Primary Property, and Physical Property such as Tools, Technology Artifacts, and Products—Secondary Property of living humans.

This then forms the basis for a code of behavior for the Synergic Guardians of the Trustegrities.

Code of the Synergic Guardians

1) A Synergic Guardian may not injure the EARTH or, through inaction, allow the EARTH to come to harm.

2) A Synergic Guardian may not injure LIFE or, through inaction, allow LIFE to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First Law. 

3) A Synergic Guardian may not injure HUMANITY or, through inaction, allow HUMANITY to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First or Second Laws.

4) A Synergic Guardian may not injure an individual HUMAN, or through inaction, allow an individual HUMAN to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First, Second or Third Laws. 

5) A Synergic Guardian may not injure the Time-binding Trust and/or Primary or Secondary Property, or through inaction, allow the Time-binding Trust and/or Primary or Secondary Property to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First, Second, Third or Fourth Laws.  

Best of the Best

The Synergic Trustegrities will seek to attract the best of the best as candidates for Trustegrity Guardianship. Once selected these Trustegrity Guardians would have greater trusteeship privileges with concomitant authority and responsibilities for and to the Synergic Trustegrities. Once selected Trustegrity Guardians can serve in one of the three branches of the Synergic Trustegrities — the Earth Trust, the Life Trust, or the Time-binding Trust.

Trustegrity Guardian Candidates should have repeatedly demonstrated both personal and public honesty, and should have a history demonstrating synergic morality and behavior. In the future, Universities will offer degrees in Trustegrity and Guardian Science to prepare those young humans to desire to serve Humanity as Community. A careful selection process will be developed to select the very best which could include Trustegrity Guardian Academies.

Synergic Guardians of the Trustegritys

Recall the Trustegrities are structured using the principles and mechanism of the Organizational Tensegrity. Decisions are made in heterarchy using synergic consensus. Loss within the organization is eliminated with the synergic veto. Action is carried out by negotiated hierarchical. This eliminates conflict. The three trustegrities would work together. They would be guided by Humanity as Community using Synocracy.

The Earth Trust Guardians would protect and preserve the Earth Trust including the Earth and all natural resources. The Trust would be administered to best serve present and future humanity. 

The Life Trust Guardians would protect the Life Trust including all living systems — all life forms — this includes all humans, all animals, and all plants.

And, thirdly the Time-binding Trust Guardians would protect and preserve the Time-binding Trust — the accumulated “knowing” from the lives and actions of all the humans who have ever lived and died. Our inherited Wisdom, Knowledge, and Information including Architecture, Art, Literature, Music, Science, and Technology. Because of their committment to protecting all who have lived and who have died, they also protect the new  “knowing”of  humanity — the Intellectual Property of  living humans.

Synergic Guardians are not allowed to hurt anyone through their control of the Synergic Trusts. But in addition they are required to protect and conserve the Synergic Trusts. Further, they are required to help others and to insure that all humans have the basic needs of life —both survival and meaning. This is a binding obligation. Failure to meet these obligations results in the immediate loss of Synergic Trustee privileges. 
They will protect and conserve the Earth and the natural resources — including both the renewable resources — soils, water, and minerals — and the nonrenewable resources — coal, petroleum, natural gas, metals and other mineral ores.

They will protect Life — plant, animal and human.  

The Life and Earth Trusts are finite and fragile. Once a species of plant or animal becomes extinct, it is lost forever. Once our nonrenewable resources are consumed they are lost forever. And even the renewable resources can be damaged by careless use. And once damaged, they may not be repairable.

The Synergic Trustegrities hold all land and all the natural resources including native plants and wildlife in synergic trust. Land and natural resources cannot be owned. Land may leased as living sites for individuals and families. Land may be invested as production sites for manufacturing and commerce and earn revenue shares on behalf of the Trust. Natural resources may be invested in synergic production if it serves the interests of humanity as community and public welfare. Such investment would earn revenue shares on behalf of the Synergic Trustegrities.

The revenues the Synergic Trustegrities receive from their leases and investments are used not only to protect and preserve the synergic trusts, but also to help others.

The Synergic Guardians accept as their primary responsibility the protection of humanity as community and humanity as individual. They will seek to ensure that all humans are safe from crime and war; that all humans have access to shelter, nutrition, medical care, and education. They will further accept responsibilty for the provision of good care and life support for all humans in need — children and adults — the ill and injured, the poor and destitute, and the homeless.

On behalf of the Earth Trustegrity, they will provide:

1) Access to land and natural resources for personal use at minimal or no cost, and

2) Access to land and natural resources for synergic production with appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. All rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares are entrusted to the Synergic Trustegrities for Humanity as Community.

On behalf of the Life Trustegrity, they will provide:

3) Safety from crime and war, and full access to:

4) Comfortable, safe, healthy housing.

5) Good nutritious food

6) Good preventitive health services and comprehensive cradle to grave medical care, and access to the privilege of Reproduction based on fairness, equality, and mutual benefit to both humanity as Individuals and humanity as Community. This would include monitoring administrating, adjudicating the Trust privilege of Reproduction.

7) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for personal use at minimum or no cost.

8) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production with approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares. All payments made are entrusted to the Synergic Trustegrites for Humanity as Community.

On behalf of the Time-binding Trustegrity, they will provide:

9) Full education to an individual’s ability and interest regardless of age,

10) The opportunity to participate in synergic organization and invest their action and leverage to earn revenue shares and acquire property throughout their full lifetime.

11) Access to communication with humanity as individuals and to humanity as community for personal reasons, for synergic production and consumption, and for synergic consensus utilizing Unanimous Rule Democracy.

12) Protection of the intellectual discoveries and inventions of Time-binding whether they be in the Time-binding Trust, or the Intellectual Property of living humans.

Jump into synergic science by reading We Can All Win!, If you are creating a new organization, or desire to synergize an old one, read Ortegrity. If you’re interested in how to make decisions in a win-win world read Sociocracy.

Looking for a guide to synergic decision, read a  Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Read the Protecting the Future Series:
1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding 5) Trustegrities — Protecting the Future and 6) Synergic Guardians — Protecting the Future.

Front Page

Saturday, February 28th, 2009

Recently, I have been telling people that we don’t need to rescue the auto industry, just those humans working for the auto industry. It would cost a lot less to close all the showrooms and factories and simply pay the salaries of those former employees for five years while they retrain, and find opportunity in activities that support a Future Positive. … This morning’s author makes my point quite well. Reposted from Curious Green.

The Myth of the Fuel Efficient Car

Alec Dubro

Let’s get something straight about green industry: in its basic form it means we all have to buy new stuff Ö lots of it. As an industrial policy that will create jobs and increase spending, it’s pretty sound. As an environmental policy, it’s largely a fraud.

Nowhere is it more disingenuous than the pursuit of the fuel-efficient car. In their effort to stave off collapse of their industry, auto executives have continually cited their efforts are building the high-efficiency cars of the future. The problem is, there are no cars of the future, and the looming catastrophe of global pollution, including climate change, will never be solved by building more cars – efficient or otherwise.

We’d desperately like to believe that there is a way to preserve our car-centered civilization, while simultaneously placating the gods of atmospheric warming. Even the president-elect believes it, and Obama made fuel-efficient cars a central part of his energy policy. He promised a $7,000 tax credit to hybrid car buyers, aiming for a million plug-in hybrids, getting 150 mpg, by 2015. He wants to put an additional million completely plug-in vehicles by the same year. And he’s willing to federal funds up for research, or at least he was before we lost all our money.

Even on its face, this seems like a tepid response to climate change. At the moment there are upward of 250,000,000 registered vehicles in the United States – more than there are licensed drivers. Converting one percent or so of them to greater fuel efficiency is not likely to do very much in the time needed to act. Nevertheless, the hope is that introduction of a new generation of electric and semi-electric will eventually lead to a replacement of our entire fleet of gas-guzzlers. Maybe. But the bigger problem is that increasing fuel efficiency has never led to an overall reduction in pollutants. In fact, efficiency has always led to more production and consumption.

But there’s an even more profound problem with building more efficient cars. In 1865, English economist William Stanley Jevons discovered an efficiency paradox: the more efficient you make machines, the more energy they use. Why? Because the more efficient they are, the better they are, the cheaper they are and more people buy them, and the more they’ll use them. Now, that’s good for manufacturers and maybe good for consumers, but if the problem is energy consumption or pollution, it’s not good.

The so-called Jevons Paradox was resurrected in the 1980s by a variety of environmentalists and is occasionally referred to as the Khazoom-Brookes postulate or the more explicative rebound effect. It’s been neatly summarized as, “those energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macro level.” Or, in short, you make money on each transaction and lose it in volume.

The rebound effect is not an immutable scientific law, but it’s a widely observed phenomenon and has held true in the most energy-intensive consumer activities. The most commonly cited example is in lighting. As the Encyclopedia of Earth puts it, “For instance, if a 18W compact fluorescent bulb replaces a 75W incandescent bulb, the energy saving should be 76%. However, it seldom is. Consumers, realizing that the lighting now costs less per hour to run, are often less concerned with switching it off; in fact, they may intentionally leave it on all night.” I know I have at times.

The same effect has occurred with cars. Automobiles have become more efficient over the years. Led by the Japanese, carmakers have increased the fuel to weight ration, decreased damaging vibration and vastly increased reliability. In the 1950s, a car that lived to drive 100,000 miles was a rarity; today they routinely last 150,000. The result? Increasing fuel consumption. And not just because more people in the developing world are buying cars, either. People everywhere are buying more of the better, cheaper more efficient cars and – here’s the problem – driving them more. And that was even so when gas peaked there at $8 a gallon in Europe.

The real problem is, though, cars don’t move people, cars move cars. The average car or light truck is two tons or so: 4000-plus pounds to move 200 pounds of people. OK, everybody out of the SUVs and F-150s and into a nice, green Prius. However, the curb weight of an unladen Prius is 2765 pounds, which means a ton and a half around to get you and a bag of groceries home. Not good.

Environmentalists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and green business advocate Paul Hawken have generated a lot of press with a proposed 100 mpg lightweight, plastic composite called the hypercar. But all the drawings of the hypercar very much resembleÖa car. Tires, windows, bodywork, engine and drive train. Even if everything is paper-thin – something the public won’t easily warm to –you’re still driving five times body weight around.

Even if we were able to produce a 100 mpg, zero pollution vehicle, we’d still need to maintain the infrastructure of roads, bridges, and energy distribution. That means steel, concrete, asphalt and plastics. Just concrete production alone generates as much as 10 percent of all greenhouse gas. In 2007, the U.S. produced 95 million tons of cement by burning fossil fuels and, according to the EPA, is the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. (Scientific America, August 7, 2008) The production of asphalt – a petroleum product – also creates carbon. As does the production of motor oil, tires, and on and on.

And there’s another intractable problem: the very thing that makes tires so useful – comfort, stability, adhesion – also produces immense rolling friction. In order for us to makes cars that are maneuverable and relatively safe, they have to grip the road, which takes buckets of energy to overcome. One reason trains are able to transport people using far less energy per passenger mile is that there are fewer wheels per person and steel wheels have much less rolling friction.

Without divine intervention – which seems to be the basis for most energy reduction schemes – there is simply no way to maintain both the atmosphere and personal transportation. Even if the population were frozen at its present level, even if economic growth stopped the sheer number of people wanting – and under the present regime, need – personal transportation makes any plan to reduce car pollution by increasing efficiency is futile. The personal automobile must be abandoned, and quickly.

It would be better to do this in a measured and humane way, easing both automobile workers and users into a post-car world. It needs a societal consensus, requiring major shifts of goals and expectations, and few of us will take these steps on our own. But this change will eventually happen to us whether we like it or not, perhaps in time to stave off climactic disaster.

There are already attempts at designing a post-car future. City planners have been pushing the “20-minute neighborhood,” where home, work, shopping and recreation are all within a 20 minute walk. Places like Portland, Oregon, are encouraging this kind of development with planning codes and tax breaks. These more compact, walkable neighborhoods would seem to point us in the right direction, but so far they’re extremely limited. Most people prefer car culture. And that includes Europe, and certainly Asia, as well. Unless the various governments enact explicit and enforceable sprawl restrictions, growth will trump any specific increases in efficiencies.

The one step we ought to take right now is to withdraw our support – financial, political and emotional – from the pursuit of an energy-efficient car. We’d have better luck creating a perpetual motion machine.

Alec Dubro is a veteran Washington DC-based writer specializing in labor and nonprofits. He also publishes The Washington Pox (

Front Page

Sunday, February 22nd, 2009
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. ”

— Albert Einstein

Today, our human crisis has become visible to most humans. It is now affecting nearly everyone and every form of life on the planet. This crisis did not begin in 2008 or 2009. To some of our wisest humans, it has been visible for decades. … As I have written elsewhere, to fix this crisis, all we have to do is change our minds. We simply have to understand our place in Universe, and then the rules for a sustainable and long life will become apparent.

In 2002, I wrote an article-essay to help my fellow humans understand our proper role in Universe. I am gratified to see that my article is still being circulated on the web. Perhaps as our growing crisis wakens more of our sleeping brethren, it will find even more interest. It is a long article by Internet standards, but understanding sometimes takes a little time. … From the SynEARTH Archives.

Understanding Humanity in Universe

Timothy Wilken, MD

The human story cannot be understood separate from the story of Universe. It is really one story. Our story begins approximately 15 billion years ago in — DARKNESS and HEAVINESS. In the beginning there was only darkness and heaviness. And then suddenly, there was light. Physicist Brian Swimme explains.

“To speak of the Universe’s origin is to bring to mind the great silent fire at the beginning of time. Imagine that furnace out of which everything came forth. This was a fire that filled the Universe — that was the Universe. There was no place in the Universe free from it. Every point of the cosmos was a point of this explosion of light. And all the particles of the Universe churned in extremes of heat and pressure, all that we see about us, all that now exists was there at the beginning, in that great burning explosion of light.

“How do we know about it?

“We can see it! We can see the light from the primeval fireball. Or at least the light from its edge, for it burned for nearly a million years. We can see the dawn of the Universe because the light from its edge reaches us only now, after traveling twenty billion years to get here. Scientists have only just learned to see the fireball. The light has always been there, but the ability to respond to it required a tremendous development of the human senses. It took millions of years to develop, but humans can now interact with the cosmic radiation from the origin of the Universe. We can now see the beginnings of time.” (1)

Arthur Young’s Theory of Process (2)

Arthur Young explained that the evolution of Universe occurs in seven discrete states of process. These seven stages are Light, Particles, Atoms, Molecules, Plants, Animals, and Humans. In the evolution of the seven stages of process in Universe we see that each stage develops a new power, a power that is characteristic of its stage and that differentiates it from the other stages.

And these powers are cumulative; each stage of process retains the powers developed in the previous stages. Universe is created by the dance of process. A dance between choice and restraint. The first stage of process, light has maximum motion and maximum freedom.

Arc of Process


The Arc of Process is created by the dance of choice and restraint, a dance which results in the dissipation of motion. Not a gradual dissipation of motion but a dissipation of motion which occurs in jumps or quanta. Young writing in 1976 explained:

“The evolution of process occurs in steps. In the first three steps there is a fall towards determinancy. With each step there is a loss of freedom. Let us imagine that you are trying to capture a wildcat that has climbed a tree. You lasso him with a rope and make the rope secure. The wildcat can still move about, but he can’t get away. Then you lasso him again and make the second rope fast. The wildcat can still move, but whereas his movement was first confined to a sphere, the pull of the two ropes will constrain it to a circular orbit on a plane. (A circle is the locus of a point equidistant from two given points.) A third rope will complete the process and hold the wildcat in one position.

“Similarly, the step down from light to the level of nuclear particles constrains the particle to motion within a sphere (which is the orbit of uncertainty of the electron as described by Heisenberg); the second downward step confines the electron to movement in a circle around the nucleus of the atom; then third to a fixed position of the atom , as in a crystal.” (3)

This phenomena of jumps or quanta in the changes of process was discovered most fundamentally in 1900 by the German scientist Max Planck. In that year he reluctantly presented a paper to his scientific colleagues which made him famous throughout the world. His theory explained that process changes speed in jumps or quanta, that process is granular or discontinuous. Arthur Young writing in 1990 stated elsewhere:

“Max Plank’s discovery of the quantum of action revolutionized physics and revised the very basis of scientific thought. This discovery provides the possibility of an entirely new view of the Universe. The older concept of a Universe made up of physical particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings that action rather than matter is basic.” (4)

Random Choice

And action begins with light.

Light ï
First born in Universe was light. All there was was light. And with light came came motion. So much light. So much motion. Radiant energy everywhere.

And the motion was free. For light is free of time, free of space, and free of energy. Light makes random choices in time, space, and energy. The cosmic dance had begun at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. And the dance was random, for light chooses without knowledge. A photon once released can be anywhere within a sphere of 186,000 miles in one second. It has just as much energy at the end of the journey as at the beginning, even a million million years later. This is the power of light, a power explained by human knowledge2000.

And the power of the first born in Universe was potential. Light held a promise in its speed, a promise in its freedom. From the cosmic dance of choice and restraint, a dance begun by light, six further stages of process world emerge. And the seventh stage of process, humans would realize the promise of light’s potential 15 billion years later.

The history of Universe is the history of humankind. We are Universe come alive. We are the Universe become intelligent. We are the children of light with the power to control time, to control space, and to control energy. But the story of seventh born of Universe, the human species, comes much later.

The second stage of process, the particles are more restrained in motion. There is no longer maximum motion and maximum freedom. The particles change speed in a jump or a quanta. This dissipation of motion results in a loss of freedom. Particles make random choices in space and energy, but they have lost their freedom from time. They are said to have two degrees of freedom.

Particles ïï
In primordial Universe, in the midst of all that light and motion, there was heat. Heat produced by the timeless dance of countless photons making random choices at 186,000 miles per second.

The high energy radiation was so intense, the Universe glowed from the heat. All was a thermonuclear explosion. And in this heat, the dance slowed, not gradually, but in a jump as the fast moving photons collided. The dance slowed to subluminal speed and space cooled with the emergence of particles.

Today, the creation of particles by colliding photons is believed to take place in some stars, but it was never observed in a laboratory before 1997. The energy required for such an experiment had always been beyond the reach of human scientists. Malcolm Browne writing in1997 describes this event:

“A trail blazing experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California has confirmed a longstanding prediction by theorists that light beams colliding with each other can goad the empty vacuum into creating something out of nothing. The weaker of the two light beams was produced by a trillion-watt green laser. The opposing beam of radiation was boosted by 47-billion-electronvolt electrons shot from the two-mile-long Stanford accelerator until it was some 10 billion times as powerful as the green laser beam. The collision resulted in the creation of two tiny specks of matter — an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron.” (5)

Within minutes of the birth of light, second born of Universe appeared — the particles. Countless collisions between photons produced protons and electrons in abundance and the particles joined light in Universe. The subluminal speed of particles, produced by the dissipation of motion was to grant particles the second power of Universe — the power of binding.

Second born of Universe was to have charge and mass. Charge allows the particles to bind one to another, allows protons to bind to electrons and creates the first condition for the emergence of matter. But the power of binding did not come without a price. The particles are not free from time. And the cosmic dance became linear in time.

The power of binding was itself restrained by time. What happened in one instant determined what could happen in the next. The particles still retained freedom from space and freedom from energy. We are uncertain of the position and momentum of particles.

Second born randomly chooses where it will go in space and when it will release or absorb energy. It is free from space and free from energy. With charge and mass, the particles create the conditions for the birth of matter in the next stage of process.

The third stage of process, the atoms are even more restrained and less free. The motion of atoms are even more limited. They have changed their motion in a jump or quantum. The atoms make random choices in energy. They are no longer free from space or free from time They are said to have one degree of freedom.

Atoms ïïï
Within an hour of the birth of light, the third born of Universe — atoms emerged. The abundant protons and electrons in Universe joined, bound together by their charge, and matter was created and all of the elements formed.

With the creation of the atoms, substance took on a center. Universe for the first time had form. Universe had identity. Atoms can be tagged, located in space, identified with distinct properties of their own. An atom is either oxygen or sodium. It is either gold or lead, its form gives it identity and the third power of Universe is identity. In trade for the power of identity, the dissipation of motion required for particles to become atoms results in the loss of the freedom in space. Identity requires certainty of location.

The third stage of process retains only one degree of freedom. Atoms retain the freedom of energy, the freedom to make random choices within their energy state. The atom can absorb or release its energy without prompting from from the outside. It makes random choices within its energy state.

With the emergence of third born Universe takes a rest. Light predominates in Universe for the next 30 million years. During these years, matter is a gas with a density comparable to the rare air of our earth’s upper atmosphere. The gas consisting of newly formed atoms, continued to expand, and the temperature dropped with the dissipation of motion.

With the rise of matter in Universe, gravity became the major restraint to choice. As gravity exerted its force, strain appeared in the homogenous matter-gas. Large fragments broke away creating the protogalaxies. And over the next several hundred million years, the protogalaxies condensed into the stars and the planets which are found in our Universe today.


The fourth stage of process, the molecules, make no choices. They have lost their freedom from time, space and energy. All is determined. The molecules complete the descent of the arc and are the stage of process where the “turn” occurs. And while random choice is lost to simple molecules as complexity increases they gain the power of controlled choice. It is here that life begins with the emergence of control. It is this point in the evolution of process that the arc begins to ascend back upwards and with the ascent of the arc we will see the return of freedoms in the next three stages of process.

Molecules ïïïï
The planet and Universe slowly cooled. The fourth stage of process, the molecules can only be created within a narrow range of temperature. And so after 15 billion years of gestation, Universe cooled enough to allow her to deliver her fourth born, the molecules.

With the evolution of the molecules Universe ends its fall into determinism. The last freedom, the freedom from energy, is given up in a jump. This freedom of random choice is trade for the power of combination. Whereas the atom organizes proton-electron pairs, the molecule combines atoms. There are only about 100 kinds of atoms; there are countless kinds of molecules. If we are to make atoms analogous to the letters of the alphabet, then molecules, being combinations of atoms, are analogous to words. Atoms, like letters, are limited in number; molecules , like words, may be constructed endlessly.

Molecules complete the descent of the arc of process. They are fully determined, they obey all the laws of Nature in a predictable way. They are constrained by time, space, and energy. The energy of molecules are locked in the covalent bond. The electrons shared in the bond are predictably held within the constraints of time, space and energy. There is no more freedom of random choice at the stage of process called the molecules. And while this fall into determinism would appear a one-way journey, we see the emergence of a much more powerful freedom.

This new freedom that emerges in molecules is not the random freedoms of light, particles or atoms. It is a hidden freedom, the hidden freedom of molecules — the freedom of timing.

With the freedom of timing comes the ability for process to control. In the complexity of the molecular stage of process we see the emergence of a new kind of choice, a controlled choice, choice made with knowledge. The molecule begins in the area of energy and has the ability to time the release and the absorption of energy. This ability is what allows the power of the molecular stage to operate the power of organization. By collecting energy it becomes possible to utilize that energy in the organization of structure and this process begins the ascent of the arc of process backwards back towards freedom, but a different kind of freedom ? controlled freedom. Timing is the ingredient that marks success in all human fields, whether it is the wrestler who overcomes a more powerful opponent, the success of a business venture, the performance of a musical composition. It is not energy; it is not force, now even the control of force; it is the correctly timed control of force, and this has to be learned. The fact that it has to be learned is important. The freedom of the ascent of process is not random choice. It is controlled choice. Choice made with knowledge.

Control begins with life and the next major contribution Young makes to our understanding of Universe in 2002, results from his discovery of the emergence of control in the “Arc of Process”.

Controlled Choice
This freedom of timing meant everything to the hierarchical development of the ascent of process. Energy could be collected, stored, and released in a nonrandom fashion ? in a timed and controlled way. This enables the molecule to communicate with its environment and process information. This enables the molecule to become alive. The dissipation of motion could now be controlled and directed. The integration of matter was now controlled, Universe was alive, the arc of process was now ascending.

Arthur Young on Control
One of the most important contributions to our understanding of Universe and Humanity is the discovery of the scientific basis for control. Young explained:

“Modern science had its origin in Isaac Newton’s extension of geometry to include motion. Until then geometry had been a science of position. The first order of motion was velocity, the rate of change of position with respect to time, or, as Newton called it, a fluxion. The second order of motion was the ratio of change of velocity to time, or acceleration. Gottfried Leibniz made the same discovery, and his name for these ratios, derivatives, is the term now used. Through the use of these derivatives Newton defined force as mass times acceleration, and momentum as mass times velocity. Energy, or work, was later found to be distance times force — or feet (distance) times pounds (force). Power was the rate of doing work, the derivative of energy.

“The quantities, most of which are derivatives with respect to time constituting the measure formulae of physics, have become the basic vocabulary of the science of motion. They make it possible to describe and predict the motion not only of the planets but of any inert body. This led to the philosophy of determinism, the theory that an all-knowing mathematician, the LaPlace mathematician, knowing the velocity and position of all the particles in the Universe, could predict their future.

“Note that these measure formulae, made possible by the concept of derivatives, with the exception of power, do not go beyond the second derivative. Energy is ML2/T3 (THE FAMOUS E=MC2), and power is ML2/T3, the third derivative of moment of inertia. Are there other third and higher derivatives? While in theory they would exist, such derivatives are not used, and have been ignored by theoretical science. To see why, we must remember the the laws of motion are considered to apply only when energy is not added to or subtracted from the system. Thus the laws of motion prescribe that a pendulum will swing indefinitely provided there is no friction. Science thus deals with a hands-off or ideal case. Newton thought the orderly motion of the planets was evidence of God, but Peirre LaPlace told Napoleon that their orderly motion made the hypothesis of God unnecessary. There began to be a split between science and free will, with science holding to the view that the laws of motion, which correctly predicted the behavior of most bodies, could also account for living organisms. As Albert Szent-Gyorgyi put it, “As scientists we cannot believe that the laws of nature lose their validity at the surface of the skin.”Szent-Gyorgyi didn’t leave it at that, but went on to show that something else, some drive, was needed.

“This split becomes apparent in the difference between science and engineering. The scientist tends to think of the laws of nature as inviolate; the engineer thinks of the laws of nature as something to be used to make machines that work. It does not occur to either of them that when they control a mechanical device — by adding or subtracting energy from the system — that this interference does not involve any violation of nature’s laws.

“Thus it is possible to control nature and make it do what you want it to do. While it would not be practical to cause Mars to change its orbit, it has been possible to control an orbiting satellite to fly past Mars, to visit Jupiter, and by guiding the satellite to take advantage of Jupiter’s gravitational field, to get the extra impetus to carry it to Saturn and beyond.

“But how, if the laws of nature are inviolate, can they be taken advantage of? How do we square this opportunism with Newton? How can creatures, themselves the product of laws, produce results that could not occur in nature as interpreted by science?

“To answer this question consider the derivatives beyond the first and second. What would the third derivative be? The first, or velocity, is rate of change of position (governs position). The second, acceleration, is rate of change of velocity. It follows that the third is the rate of change of acceleration. Now change of acceleration is what we do when we drive a car, by pushing more or less on the accelerator pedal, pushing the brake pedal, or steering. It is our control of the car, and is effected either by adding energy to the system or by withdrawing it. Control is a free option, to be used by the driver.


“So the laws of nature, so often invoked to support determinism, do nothing of the kind. The third derivative, or control, has the same right to status as velocity and acceleration. It is not so much one of the laws of nature as it is an implicit permission to use nature’s laws.

“But why is control ignored by theoretical science? It is true that since it is an option, it cannot be measured as can velocity ad acceleration. It may also be true that it does not contribute to the edifice of exact laws so respected by science. This does not justify the neglect of control in cosmology in the old sense, one that includes life, where the belief indeterminism would make self-maintenance, or control, an illusion. Surely plants grow and store energy against entropy by controlling their metabolism; and animals, while subject to instinctive drives, must use control in pursuit of prey or to avoid capture.

“Here we might take time to answer the claims of behaviorism, whose prestige is based on the assertion that living creatures are subject to “drives” just as inert bodies are subject to laws, and that therefore consciousness is superfluous or erroneous notion. But hold on a minute. Let us admit that when, say, a seal migrates northward in summer for breeding purposes, it does so in response to a drive triggered by the seasons. Even if this were interpreted to mean the seal has no free will, note that the seal is an organization of many trillions of cells, and each cell an organization of trillions of molecules. this enormously complex association of molecules behaves in unitary fashion, and not according to the Newtonian determinism that would apply to the individual molecules if they were not so organized. How does the seal control all those molecules in a way that Newton’s laws would not? Even if we say the seal has no free will, it does have control of its own metabolism, of its musculature, or its growth and self reproduction. Instinct is not due to laws of gravitation and electromagnetism.

“While we cannot release the behaviorist from some responsibility for his interpretation of instinct as equivalent to Newton’s laws, the real blame falls on the theoretical physicist who draws his credo, his dogma, from a partial reading of the derivatives.

“Of course the physicist is entitled to define his own discipline, and if he wants to base this discipline on the first two derivatives only, he is at liberty to do do so. By the same token, he cannot claim to know the workings of a Universe that includes life.

“What about the derivatives beyond the third: It might be thought that since the third derivative is an option, there is no point in going further. We cannot even measure free option, much less find its derivative, but a closer scrutiny shows that there is the equivalent of a fourth derivative. What is it that changes (governs) control? While control is an option, or at least not mechanically determined, it is also not completely free. If a child runs in front of the car, we steer to the side or put on the brakes. If the road curves, we steer accordingly. Out control of the car is continually governed by its position relative to other cars and objects. If fact, our destination is the ultimate governing factor.

“Our destination is a position — not the position we started with, but the same kind of measure. It is something we observe — it is not velocity, which we can compute, nor acceleration, which we feel; nor is it control, which we exercise. If the fourth derivative takes us back to position, which was the zeroth derivative, we have what is called a four-operator. After four 90∞ steps, we get back to the starting point, position.


“This concept has important implications for science. Not only does it limit the time derivatives to four, but it permits an important step in finding a definition of dimension in terms of angle. Since dividing by time four times brings us back to the start, we can equate division by time to a rotation of 90 degrees.” (6)

Young’s discovery of the scientific basis for control is enormously important in Universe2000. Control is the very basis of LIFE. Returning to our earlier discussion of choice, when a living system makes a choice based on the knowledge of its needs, based on the knowledge of its abilities it is making a controlled choice. When a living system chooses with knowledge, it is making a controlled choice — a choice made with knowledge.

So when does life start? When does physics become biology?

Life begins within the molecular stage of process. The primal power of life is memory. Memory is the power on which all other living powers depend. Memory is necessary for learning. and learning is necessary for timing. And timing is necessary for control, and life begins with control. Living systems make controlled choices, choices made with knowledge. This is why “the turn” occurs at the molecular stage of process. Universe comes alive at “the turn”.

The DNA molecule is clearly an example of molecular life. Although the simpler polymers exhibit many characteristics of life including this syntropic processing, it is the DNA molecule that is the masterpiece of living molecules. The gem of molecular wisdom, this crystal of intelligence makes decisions based on information. DNA remembers, DNA learns, and DNA controls. DNA controls its environment by making choices. At a simple level DNA thinks. It makes the system it controls more orderly, more structured, and more organized. It does this by observing and thinking — by thinking and deciding.

Life begins in the molecular stage of process and creates “the turn” in the arc of process. The three stages of process located on the ascent of the arc are alive and form the three great classes of life — plants, animals, and humans.

Then we see the ascent of the arc and the arc begins to ascend back upwards towards freedom. Plants have one degree of freedom, animals have two degrees of freedom, and humans, like light, have three degrees of freedom. However, the freedoms on the left hand side of the arc are very different than the freedoms on the right hand side. The freedoms on the left side of the arc are freedom to choose but to choose randomly. The freedoms on the the right side of the arc are freedoms to choose but to make controlled choices. Choices made with knowledge.

If we now examine Arthur Young’s “Arc of Process” we see that the arc first descends towards determinancy. Light has three freedoms, particles two, atoms one, molecules have lost all freedom and are fully restrained. In the realm of molecules there is a point in molecular evolution when a molecule starts to build up energy and begins to ascend back to freedom. Arthur Young denotes this point as the turn. It is when process becomes intelligent. It is when process makes controlled choices based on knowledge rather than random choices based on chance. This change becomes possible because of memory.


Life begins in the molecular stage of process and creates “the turn” in the arc of process. The three stages of process located on the ascent of the arc are alive and form the three great classes of life — plants, animals, and humans.

Then we see the ascent of the arc and the arc begins to ascend back upwards towards freedom. Plants have one degree of freedom, animals have two degrees of freedom, and humans, like light, have three degrees of freedom. However, the freedoms on the left hand side of the arc are very different than the freedoms on the right hand side. The freedoms on the left side of the arc are freedom to choose but to choose randomly. The freedoms on the the right side of the arc are freedoms to choose but to make controlled choices. Choices made with knowledge.

If we now examine Arthur Young’s “Arc of Process” we see that the arc first descends towards determinancy. Light has three freedoms, particles two, atoms one, molecules have lost all freedom and are fully restrained. In the realm of molecules there is a point in molecular evolution when a molecule starts to build up energy and begins to ascend back to freedom. Arthur Young denotes this point as the turn. It is when process becomes intelligent. It is when process makes controlled choices based on knowledge rather than random choices based on chance. This change becomes possible because of memory.


Plants ïïïïï

The fifth stage of process, the plants, make controlled choices in energy. Controlled choices require knowledge. For the plants it is a knowledge of energy. But the plants do not have the freedom to make controlled choices in space or time. The plants are said to have one degree of freedom.

Recall Alfred Korzybski’s General Theory of Time-binding (7) in which he designated the plants as energy-binders he explained that plants adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of energy. 


The power of plants is transformation, growth, and organization.

Plants have the ability to transform solar energy to organic chemical energy. The plant is a solar collector. It spreads its leaves and harvests the ultraviolet rays directly from the sun.

Energy-binders have the power of growth. The plant draws water and minerals from the soil organizes this energy and nutrients into growth through cell division. The growth of the energy-binder and its self-propagation through progeny are the resultant of cell division — if the cells remain together we have growth; if they split off into a separate entity we have progeny.

Energy-bindings have the power of organization. Organization possible through the ability to time the release and binding of energy. Timing based on knowledge — energy knowledge.

Recall life requires complexity. Take one of the simplest of energy-binders — a single celled bacteria.

We are looking at a simple rod-shaped one celled plant which can avoid dangers and seize opportunities. Inside this simple one celled plant — there are four “boss” molecules. These DNA molecules have a molecular weight of 2.5 billion each. Then we find 400,000 assistants to the bosses, RNA molecules of over 1000 types with an average molecular weight of 2 million each. Packed between all of these molecules are about 1 million protein molecules of over 2000 different types with an average molecular weight of 40,000 each. And to complete this simple cell we find 500 million smaller molecules of approximately 700 types with an average molecular weight of 300 each. All of these units working together to bind energy, making controlled choices, adapting to their environment, avoiding danger and embracing opportunity.

This description of a simple one celled energy-binder is mind boggling; but to keep our sense of proportion, we must recognize that life requires complexity. Energy-binders represent a much more complex order of organization that the most complex of nonliving molecules. If a molecule were likened to an automobile, then a cell is like an automotive factory — a vast organization of men, machines, and computers.

And so plants — the energy-binders are energy aware. They are aware and they process information about energy. They remember energy events and from that memory make controlled choices — energy choices. The plants think and decide.

This is not human thinking, not even animal thinking, but it is a form of intelligence — very powerful energy intelligence. The plants use their power to bind energy — to organize, to adapt to their environment. They must adapt by making controlled choices, which keep them within the narrow corridor of life or they will die. They must avoid the dangers threatening their survival and embrace the opportunities for growth and reproduction.

While the energy-binders have the power to collect and store energy, to make controlled choices of the use of that energy, they have limited adaptability. Limited because they cannot move. Plants are rooted to their environment. If a plant roots in the shade, it cannot move to a sunnier place. If it is dying for lack of water, it cannot move to a rainier spot. Plants lack the power of mobility.

Plant growth is movement, but movement towards an infinitely remote goal — the sun. Plant motion is in a constant direction, either away from gravity or towards the sun.


Neutral relationships originate in the plant world.

Sunlight provides unlimited energy for the plants. Each individual plant needs only the sun, and adequate water and minerals to survive. Plants are solar energy collectors. They use the sun’s radiant energy in photosynthesis to manufacture glucose, carbohydrate and other plant cells.

Individual plants do not relate to each other. They relate only to the earth and the sun.

Plant survival does not require any relationship with other. The plants unique ability to utilize sunlight directly to synthesize organic tissue frees them from the need for others. This fact makes plants the independent class of life — independent of other.

While no plant will deliberately hurt another plant, it will also never help another plant. A plant’s success or failure depends solely on its own efforts and talents. Individual plants have no relationship with each other. Plants have no awareness of each other, they ignore each other. To survive as a plant, you must be self-sufficient.

Plants are the only form of life that are truly independent.

If we analyze neutral relationships, we discover that individuals are unchanged by their relationship. They are neither less nor more after the relationship. They are the same. (1+1) = 2. Choices which do not hurt or help are neutral. Actions which do not hurt or help are neutral. Relationships which do not hurt or help are neutral.

Animals ïïïïïï

The sixth stage of process, the animals, make controlled choices in energy and space. The animals do not make controlled choices in time. Animals are said to have two degrees of freedom.

Recall Korzybski designated the animals as space-binders, he explained that the animals adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of space.


The power of space-binding is mobility — the ability to move about in space. This is not the simple motion of plants. This is mobility — running, jumping, leaping, swinging, swimming, creeping, stalking, crawling, diving, and flying.

The space-binder moves towards a specific and attainable goal — water, food, a mate, shelter — and in any direction. The mobility of the space-binder is not just motion, it is controlled motion. The space-binder moves in search of food. For grazing animals the quest is continuous; for predators, occasional but more strenuous. And all animals are under constant threat from natural enemies. The animal, therefore, requires sense awareness — awareness of the space in which he lives. The space-binder uses his awareness to find food and to warn him of the approach of enemies. A deer may be motivated by thirst to go to a waterhole, but if it senses a lion, it will refrain. It must continuously evaluate conflicting stimuli and choose between alternatives, alternatives of pleasure or pain, alternatives of good space or bad space. Space-binders are aware of space, they are aware and they think, they think and they decide — constantly making controlled choices as to where and when to move.

Thinking for the space-binder is wholistic. The animals base their decisions on the whole situation. When the rabbit hears a sound in the thicket, he must react instantly, “fight or flight” and the decision must be made now, based on the whole situation. There is no time for analysis. Only wholistic thinking has the rapidity and flexibility to allow survival in the adversary world of space-binders.

Spacial intelligence allows the animal to move instantly towards good space —  space that enables one to survive, and away from bad space — space that produces injury or death.

But the animals are not only space-binders, they also have some of the power of energy-binders. While they cannot transform solar energy directly into organic chemical energy, they can transform the tissues from the plants and animals they eat into organic chemical energy, they can also grow, and they can also organize energy.

To the fox who sees the rabbit, success at seizing this opportunity for a meal depends not just on his ability to know when and where to move, but also on his ability to control the energy which he will need to power his movement. He must have adequate energy stored so that he can release it at the proper moment to catch the rabbit. And the rabbit can only escape if it uses its knowledge of both space and energy effectively.


Adversary relationship originates on earth in the animal world. Earth supplies limited space for the animals. Space is finite. Good space is even more finite. It is very limited. There is only so much good water, so much good grazing land, so much good shelter, and so much good potential food. There is not enough to go around. The space-binders must compete for this limited amount of good space. They compete adversarily. They compete by fighting and flighting. They compete by attacking and killing other space-binders. They compete by devouring the energy-binders. The natural law of animals is adversity.

Animal survival depends entirely on finding others to eat. The herbivores depend on finding plants to eat. The carnivores depend on finding other animals to eat. The animals inability to utilize sunlight to synthesize organic tissue means they must eat organic tissue. Animals survive by eating either plants or animals. Animals are completely dependent on other for survival. This fact makes animals the dependent class of life — dependent on other.

Imagine a fox chasing a rabbit, if the fox is quick enough, it will win a meal, at the expense of the rabbit who loses its life. On the other hand, if the rabbit is quicker, the fox loses a meal, and the rabbit wins its life.

The animals live in an adversary world of losers and winners. This is a world of fighting and flighting — of pain and dying. To win in this world someone must lose. Winning is always at the cost of another.

All animals, from the smallest insect to the largest whale are struggling to avoid losing — struggling to avoid being hurt.

CONFLICT —def—> The struggle to avoid loss — the struggle to avoid being hurt.

The animals must fight and flee to stay alive, and they do. Always ready at a moments notice to go tooth and nail to avoid losing — to avoid death. Losers/winners is the harshest of games. Winning is always at the cost of another’s life.

The loser tends to resist with all of its might occasionally prevailing by killing or wounding its attacker. So both parties can lose, turning the game — losers/winners into losers/losers.

If we analyze adversary relationships, we discover that individuals are less after the relationship. (1+1) < 2. In the animal world where the loser forfeits its life (1+1) = 1. Or in the end game of losers/losers, both adversaries may die in battle, then (1+1) = 0.

Adversity is completely natural in the animal world. It is the law of Nature for dependent live forms. It is the way of all animal life. The adversary way is not bad for the animals, it is Nature’s way.

The animals have acquired the ability to move voluntarily, but they lack the ability to understand their environment. Their inability to understand locks them into the adversary world.

To be complete, some plants do not have chlorophyll. They cannot convert radiant energy to chemical energy. They lack the full power of energy-binding. They are dependent life forms like the animals and survive through adversary relationships with other forms of life. This includes pathological bacteria and parasitic plants. This also includes the carnivorous plants which possess a primitive form of mobility.

Humans ïïïïïïï

The seventh stage of process, the humans, make controlled choices in energy, space and time. This requires knowledge, knowledge of energy, knowledge of space and knowledge of time. Humans are said to have three degrees of freedom.

Recall Korzybski designated humans as time-binders, he explained that we humans adapt to our environment through our awareness and control of time.


The power of time-binding is understanding. With understanding the time-binder gains the ability to control their environment. On earth, we humans possess the power to understand and through that understanding to control and dominate our earth.

Understanding is what makes life meaningful. Without understanding life has no meaning.

Understanding becomes possible when an organism can observe and remember change over time. Understanding comes from the awareness of time — an awareness that allows the experience of time as sequential or linear.

Tomorrow follows today as today followed yesterday. Time always moves from the past to the present, from the present to the future. Change is bound in time. And time-binders can understand change in space because of their awareness of time.

Time-binding is a way of thinking — analytical thinking. The time-binder can make decisions based on understanding changes in his environment over time. Time-binding analysis is sequential analysis — linear analysis — focused on the parts rather than the whole.

Analytical thinking recognizes cause and effect. Time-binders are the masters of cause and effect. When humans understand cause and effect, they make scientific discovery. They make knowledge. When humans make choices based on knowledge, they make inventions. They make technology. Time-binders are the creators of knowledge and technology. When knowledge is incorporated into matter-energy, it becomes a tool.

Humans are above all else toolmakers. Most of our knowledge is embedded in our tools. Human knowledge grows continuously and without limit. As we incorporate our evermore powerful knowledge into our tools. We produce evermore powerful tools.

Head start

Time-binding is also that unique ability to pass that ‘knowing’ from one generation to the next generation. Both animal and human offspring begin their lives in nearly total ignorance. The differences that exist between them are small, but what advantage in ‘knowing’ that does exist belongs clearly to the animal. While the animal seems to begin life with a greater store of inherited ‘knowing’, it possesses little ability to learn from its parents. The animal is condemned to rediscover over and over, every generation must discover anew the ‘knowings’ of its parents. The wise old owl may know a great deal, but he has no way to pass what he knows to his offspring and they have no way to receive it. We humans are very different in that respect. We can and do pass our knowing from one generation to the next.

My grandmother was born in a house without telephone, radio, television, electricity, or running water. My mother was born in the same house, but with the addition of electricity, running water, and radio. I was born in a modern hospital, my mother was put to sleep for the delivery and I grew up in a house with electricity, running water, flush toilets, radios, and telephone, and when I was eight, we got a television.

My daughters were born in a hospital home birth center with my wife awake and participating. My daughters have grown up in a house with three televisions, two stereos, three radios, several telephones, two video recorders, and three personal computers.

We humans do not start our ‘knowing’ over every generation. My paternal grandfather had a 3rd grade education; my maternal grandfather had an 8th grade education. My parents were high school graduates. I have 26 years of formal education and a doctorate. My wife’s mother has a grade school education; her father finished high school. My wife completed 23 years of formal education and has a graduate degree.

Our two daughters are now teenagers attending college, but both were involved in organized and systematic educational programs since their births. I am not smarter than my grandparents or my parents, I am simply later. Present humanity is not smarter than past humanity, they are simply later. As Alfred Korzybski explained in 1921:

“Human beings possess a most remarkable capacity which is entirely peculiar to them — I mean the capacity to summarize, digest and appropriate the labors and experiences of the past; I mean the capacity to use the fruits of past labors and experiences as intellectual or spiritual capital for developments in the present; I mean the capacity to employ as instruments of increasing power the accumulated achievements of the all-previous lives of the past generations spent in trial and error, trial and success; I mean the capacity of human beings to conduct their lives in the ever increasing light of inherited wisdom; I mean the capacity in virtue of which man is at once the inheritor of the bygone ages and the trustee of posterity. And because humanity is just this magnificent natural agency by which the past lives in the present and the present for the future, I define humanity, in the universal tongue of mathematics and mechanics, to be the time-binding class of life.” (8)

We humans bind time and are bound together in time. The record of our time-binding is everywhere. It is in all that activity that we so innocently call progress. It is the very motor of obsolescence. It is embedded in just about everything associated with humans and yet most humans are unaware of the very power that makes them human. We humans catalogue and store our various knowings in libraries, universities, colleges, data banks, and information services. We store our knowing in many formats — books, tapes, films, movies, newspapers, magazines, video, microfilm, photos, computer files, etc., etc., etc..

We are time-binders and the mark of our human power is everywhere

But, humans are more than just time-binders with the power to understand. We also have the power of space-binding — mobility and the ability to think wholistically, and the power of energy-binding — conversion of plant and animal tissue to organic chemical energy, growth and organization of energy.

Human success depends not just on understanding, but also on knowing when, where and how to be mobile. And also on the ability to control the energy which we will need to power our movement. We must have adequate energy stored so that we can release it at the proper moment to adapt to our environment.


The synergic relationship originates in the human world. As Korzybski foresaw:

“The human class of life is a part and a product of nature, therefore, there must be fundamental laws which are natural for this class of life. A stone obeys the natural laws of stones; a liquid conforms to the natural law of liquids; a plant, to the natural laws of plants; an animal, to the natural laws of animals; it follows inevitably that there must be natural laws for humans.” (9)

Universe provides unlimited time for humans. This is in the sense of time-binding. Human lives are finite, but human ‘knowing’ is not. Humans discovered control of fire ~1.5 million years ago, and it has been in daily use since then.

Humans invented the wheel ~5500 years ago and its use is everywhere today. Because humans pass their knowing to their descendants, in a sense, collective human life is not limited. Understanding is not limited. Knowing is not limited. Technology is not limited. Quality of human life based on knowing and technology is not limited.

We first discover synergic relationship in the microscopic universe. It is the basis of human cellular organization. Each of us has approximately 40 trillion cells organized within our bodies. These cells are related synergically, each acting in a highly co-Operative way.

Synergic relationship becomes available to human individuals because of time-binding. Our ability to invent and to understand new ways of doing things creates a new possibility for co-Operation which does not exist in the world of the plants and animals.

Co-OPERATION —def—> Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses. The negotiation to insure that both parties are helped, and that neither party is hurt.

Cooperation is an old word with lots of different meanings and feelings attached to it. Similar words are uniting, banding, combining, concurring, conjoining, and leaguing. Individuals who cooperate are affiliates, allies, associates, or confederates.

To some “cooperation” seems a losing word associated with socialism and communism. This is not what I mean. Co-Operation in synergic relationship means operating together to insure a win-win outcome.

Co-Operation is the mechanism of action necessary whenever an individual desires to accomplish a task beyond his individual abilities.

Imagine, you and a friend are moving a heavy piece of furniture. Neither of you are strong enough to move the furniture by yourself. You decide to co-operate. You decide to operate together during the lifting. You would negotiate to insure that both of you win — to insure that both of you are helped.

The conversation might go like this, “Are you ready?”    “OK.”    “Ready, 1.. 2.. 3.. lift!”, and if things are going well you continue the lift, but if one end gets too heavy then synergic co-Operation requires that you also protect each other from loss. “Whoops! Set it down.”

This is the synergic veto. This is the true meaning of co-Operation. The negotiation to insure that both parties win, and the synergic veto to stop the action if either party is losing.

A very limited form of cooperation exists among some animals. We see it the hunting pride of lions and within the hyena pack. Human co-Operation is a much more powerful mechanism. Animals have no voice with which to negotiate an action in which they win. They have no voice to veto an action in which they lose. Their primitive cooperation is guided by instinct, and it is quick to breakdown into the fighting and flighting of the adversary way.

We humans share the animal body, to survive we must also eat. We are omnivores. We meet our basic needs and survive by eating both plants and animals. Physiologically, we humans are also a dependent class of life. So adversary behavior comes to humans legitimately. But we humans are much more intelligent than the animals and that intelligence gives us the synergic option to avoid fighting or flighting.

True co-Operation — working together, teamwork, joint effort, alliances — these are only possible to a life form with symbolic intelligence — to a life form with a voice and with language — to a life form able to negotiate and veto. On earth, synergic relationships are only available only to humans.

Synergic relationship means sometimes I depend on other and sometimes other depends on me. Synergic relationship makes humans the interdependent class of life — interdependent on each other. Today, synergic relationship exists only within small groups of humans.

Today, we find synergic relationships within families, occasionally within small businesses. But, there are no examples of institutionalized Synergy. There are no synergic governments.

Co-Operation results when there are no losers and no one is ignored. When humans behave synergically, they seek their goals and needs as allies rather than as competitors. Human intelligence is most useful when we humans think of ways where all parties can win and where there is no need for losers. Synergic relationships can produce all-win scenarios. And when humans begin to co-Operate wonderful things can happen. When we analyze synergic relationships, we find that (1+1) > 2 , frequently it’s much greater (1+1) >> 2.

Synergic mechanism is basic to Life. Synergy is present in the energy-binders. If we examine the plants microscopically, we find that every cell within a plant is organized to work together, each contributing to the integrity of the whole plant. The whole plant is more than an accumulation of vegetable cells. However at the macroscopic level the plant is neutral. It has no relationship with other plants.

Synergy is present in the space-binders as well. If we examine the animals we will find that microscopically they are synergically organized. Their organelles are synergized into cells, their cells are synergized into tissues, their tissues are synergized into organs, their organs are synergized into the organism-as-a-whole. Every cell interacting synergistically with every other cell. But for space-binders this is where synergy stops. The space-binder is behaviorally an adversary — the very opposite of synergy.

The intelligence of space-binding is inadequate to allow space-binders to organize themselves into a synergic community. The lion kills the zebra with no thought of the effect on the community of animals. The space-binder is not irresponsible he is aresponsible. His adversary behavior is the result of innocence. He sees himself as the only “whole”. In the adversary world, there is only good space or bad space. The animal lives the life of true dependence. If he is to eat, he must kill other.

We humans are also microscopic synergies. However, on the macroscopic or behavioral level we have a choice as how to behave. We can choose Adversity, Neutrality or Synergy. Today2000 most of us choose Adversity and Neutrality, and most of our relationships are adversary and neutral.

Living Powers are Cumulative

Arthur Young delineates the powers of process as follows: Light has the power of potential. Particles develop the power of binding but retain the power of potential. Atoms develop the power of identity but retain the powers of binding and potential. Molecules develop the power of combination but retain the powers of identity, binding and potential. The plants develop the power of growth but retain the power of combination, identity, binding and potential. The animals develop the power of mobility but retain the powers of growth, combination, identity, binding and potential. And humans develop the power of understanding and understanding leads to dominion over the other stages of process, but humans retain the powers of mobility, growth, combination, identity, binding and potential.

Synergy is the associated behavior of ‘wholes’, not predicted by examination of the ‘parts’.

We can examine light, but we will not predict the binding of particles. We can examine particles, but we will not predict the identity of atoms. We can examine atoms, but we will not predict the combination of molecules. We can examine molecules, but we will not predict the growth of plants. We can examine plants, but we will not predict the mobility of animals. We can examine animals, but we will not predict the understanding of humans. This is synergy — a major truth of Nature. This is what Universe is.

Universe as Synergy

The hierarchy of Universe begins with light. Universe is a unity of unities — Universe is a synergy of synergies.

First cause in Universe is light. Light is the first unity — the first synergy. Light is first ‘whole’ in Universe. But light is also the ‘part’ that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of particles.

Particles are the second unity — the second synergy of Universe. Particles are the second ‘whole’ in Universe. But Particles are also the ‘parts’ that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of atoms.

Atoms are the third unity — the third synergy of Universe. Atoms are the third ‘whole’ in Universe. Atoms are also the ‘parts’ that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of molecules.

Molecules are the fourth unity — the fourth synergy of Universe. Molecules are the fourth ‘whole’ in Universe. Molecules are also the ‘parts; that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of plants.

Plants are the fifth unity — the fifth synergy of Universe. Plants are the fifth ‘whole’ in Universe. Plants are also the ‘parts’ that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of animals.

Animals are the sixth unity — the sixth synergy of Universe. Animals are the sixth ‘whole’ in Universe. Animals are also the ‘parts’ that synergizes to form the ‘whole’ of humans.

And finally, Humans are the seventh unity — the seventh synergy of Universe. Humans are the seventh ‘whole’ in Universe.

The first half of the arc is where we find classical physics — focused on the processes of Light, Particles, Atoms, and simple Molecules. This is where the descent into determinancy occurs. This is where entropy—the trend to disorder prevails. Our knowledge of entropy comes from one of the major discoveries of classical physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The second half of the arc is where we will find synergic physics — focused on the living processes of complex Molecules, Plants, Animals, and Humans. This is where the ascent back to freedom occurs. This is where syntropy—the trend to order can prevail.

All that exists in space-time has both substance and form. The substance is matter-energy, and form is the order, organization, and pattern of that matter-energy. Jules Henri PoincarÈ stated in 1908:

“Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” (10)

It is the order, organization, and pattern of the facts that make a science; and the order, organization, and pattern of the stones that make a house.

An understanding of this concept of syntropy or order — structure, organization, pattern, and form; and its opposite concept entropy or disorder — structurelessness, disorganization, patternlessness, and formlessness; is essential to a full understanding of Young’s Theory of Process.

The Universe is heterogeneous — some regions within the Universe are very hot (stars, nova, suns, etc.), and some regions within the Universe are very cold (open space). The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the hot regions are steadily cooling down, and the cold regions are steadily warming up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, no process can occur that increases the net order (or decreases the net disorder) of the system.

Thermodynamics distinguishes between open and closed systems. A closed system is isolated from the rest of the environment and exchanges neither matter-energy or information with its surroundings. Classical physicists considered the Universe in its entirety to be a closed system. If this was true then the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicted that eventually the Universe as a whole would reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium when everything in the Universe is the same temperature. At this point, all physical-chemical reactions would stop. This would be a state of maximum disorder — maximum entropy. They called this state of complete randomness and homogeneity without any order, or pattern the heat death of the Universe. This belief has dominated science for the past 150 years and still casts a dark shadow over the human spirit. If the end of the human story is oblivion, then all human action is in the end meaningless.

As Winifred Babcock1971 explains:

“For a hundred years, the drums of the Religion of Science have been rolling one note that accompanies every trill of discovery: Nihilism. Here is its pitch: Nature’s supreme law, the second law of thermodynamics, which has been found to govern every expression of energy — and to be involved even in the expression of the word, in communication — says that the Universe is dying a heat-death. Every celestial body in the system is dying. The organization of energy which provides the fuel that is consumed to supply the warmth that life needs is being constantly disorganized with subsequent loss of temperature — in every move made, or even if a system is left to itself — and there is no evidence in the purely physical sense that it is being reorganized.

“Let us hasten to say that not all scientists hold this view. In fact, more and more of them are now refusing it. But for a long time it held sway. This is the doctrine of an ungodly materialism wherein it is presumed that everything in creation feeds like a parasite upon the stuff of its Cosmic host until the host’s energy is consumed and both go down to destruction.

“Relatively speaking, not a handful of people on this planet have any idea of what nature’s supreme law is or how it works — not even the most highly educated people. But it is the scientists’ interpretation of this law that is grinding like the salt mill at the bottom of the ocean of modern knowledge, flavoring the whole of it so that it is no longer potable for man’s soul. Artists may not be aware of this law, but they are aware of the despair that flavors life; and they are aware of the repudiation by the young not only of today’s value system, but their repudiation of the idea that there can be a valid value system if life, evolution, and the Universe are meaningless and purely materialistic.

“To the degree that man believes he is a thing, product of blind and purposeless nature that is moving toward senseless oblivion, be assured that he will act according to this belief. Life is bereft of a motivating principle.

“Space age in a dying Universe? So what? An unmotivated audience amuses itself. And “happenings,” hapless, light the dark theater like fireflies on a warm June night. The bright promises of Science and technology fall on deaf ears. What value can there be in such a system, even if it will take billions of years before its witless curse is run? If this is actually the condition of the Universe, it hold forth no reason, no promise, to man.” (11)

Fortunately, Universe is not a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics is not the whole story, as R. Buckminster Fuller1975 explains:

“The mid-19th-century development of thermodynamics, and in particular its second law, introduced the concept that all systems always lose energy and do so in ever-increasingly disorderly and expansive ways. The academicians spontaneously interpreted the instantaneity and simultaneity of Universe as requiring that the Universe too must be categorized as a system; the academicians assumed that as a system Universe itself must be losing energy in increasingly expansive and disorderly ways. Any expenditure of energy by humans on Earth — to whom the stars in the heavens were just so much romantic scenery; no more, no less — would hasten the end of the Universe. This concept was the foundation of classical conservatism — economic, political, and philosophical. Those who “spent” energy were abhorred.

“This viewpoint was fortified by the hundred-years-earlier concept of classical science’s giant, Isaac Newton, who in his first law of motion stated that all bodies persist in a state of rest, or in a line of motion, except as affected by other bodies. This law posits a cosmic norm of at rest: change is abnormal. This viewpoint as yet persists in all the graphic-chart coordinates used by society today for plotting performance magnitudes against a time background wherein the baseline of “no change” is the norm. Change is taken spontaneously as being inherently abnormal and is as yet interpreted by many as being cause for fundamental social concern.

“In the era before the measurement of the speed of light scientists assumed an instant, unitarily conceptual, normally-at-rest (but for the moment, and only locally, perversely restless) Universe. Before the 20th-century discoveries of other galaxies and in the early days of thermodynamics and its disclosure of entropy — the inexorable systemic loss of energy — the scientists were prone to assume that the vast instantaneous cosmic machine as a thermodynamic system must itself be “running down” — that is, continually spending itself entropically and trending eventually to self-annihilation.

“Boltzmann contradicted that assumption by saying in effect that the a priori fact of the existence of billions of stars radiantly and entropically broadcasting their energies must require an as-yet-undiscovered but obviously operative energy redistribution system by which stars are elsewhere and elsewhen assemblingly formed. Boltzmann therefore assumed a cosmic complex of invisible energy-importing centers whose nonsimultaneous formations but sum-total, long-run energy importing exactly balances all the long-run cosmic exportings. The entropic radiance of the exporting centers makes them visible to us, while the importing centers are inherently invisible, except when starlight bounces reflectively off them as does Sunlight make the Moon — and the planets Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn — reflectively visible to us Earthians.

“Because Boltzmann could not demonstrate the astrophysical presence of such inherently invisible importing centers, his concept was not widely accepted by other scientists. Einstein, however, later supported Boltzmann’s concept as constituting a logical corollary of Einstein’s own implicit concept of the Universe as an aggregate of nonsimultaneous, variously enduring, and only partially overlapping energy events.

“With the accurate measurement, in 1887, of the speed of light in vacuo, science had comprehensively new, experimentally redemonstrable challenges to its cosmogony and cosmology. Inspired by the combined discoveries of the Brownian movement, black body radiation, and the photon of light, Einstein, Planck, and others recognized that energy-as-radiation has a top speed — ergo, is finitely terminated — but among them, Einstein seems to have convinced himself that his own cosmological deliberations should assume Boltzmann’s concept to be valid — ergo, always to be included in his own exploratory thoughts. There being no experimental evidence of energy ever being created or lost, universal energy is apparently conserved. Wherefore Boltzmann had hypothesized that energy progressively and broadcastingly exported from various localities in Universe must be progressively imported and reassembled at other localities in Universe.

“Boltzmann’s concept was analogous to that upon which was developed the theory and practice of the 20th-century meteorological weather forecasting, which recognizes that our terrestrial atmosphere’s plurality of high-pressure areas are being progressively exhausted at different rates by a plurality of neighboring low-pressure areas, which accumulate atmospheric molecules and energy until they in turn become new high- pressure areas, which are next to be progressively exhausted by other newly initiated low- pressure areas. The interpatterning of the various importing-exporting centers always changes kaleidoscopically because of varying speeds of moisture formation or precipitation, speeds and directions of travel, and local thermal conditions.

“Though they did not say it that way, the 20th-century leaders of scientific thinking inferred that physical Universe is apparently eternally regenerative.

“Einstein assumed hypothetically that energies given off omnidirectionally with the ever-increasing disorder of entropy by all the stars were being antientropically imported, sorted, and accumulated in various other elsewheres. He showed that when radiant energy interferes with itself, it can, and probably does, tie itself precessionally into local and orderly knots. Einstein must have noted that on Earth children do not disintegrate entropically but multiply their hydrocarbon molecules in an orderly fashion; little saplings grow in an orderly way to become big trees. Einstein assumed Earthian biology to be reverse entropy.” (12)

Life is Syntropic — Trending Towards Order

Living systems are clearly ordered. Living systems can be seen as localized regions in space-time where there is a continuous increase in order. Living systems are open systems. An open system is one in which exchanges of matter-energy and information occur.

Entropy, the trend towards disorder was discovered long before syntropy — the trend towards order was found. Classical Physics is much older than Synergic Physics. This difference in age resulted in the classical physicists calling syntropy either negative entropy or negentropy. Synergic Physicists have now all but abandoned the use of these double negative terms for syntropy. So while you may still see references to negentropy or negative entropy, a better term is syntropy.

Life is syntropic in part because of its ability to take in matter-energy of higher order than it excretes. Erwin Schrˆdinger1945 proposed this connection between life and Thermodynamics when he wrote:

“It (a living system) can only keep … alive by continually drawing from its environment negative entropy (syntropy)… What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy (syntropy) .” (13)

James G. Miller states that:

“Living systems maintain a steady state of negentropy (syntropy) even though entropic changes occur in them as they do everywhere else. They accomplish this by taking in inputs of foods or fuels, matter-energy higher in complexity or organization or negentropy (syntropy) (i.e.,lower in entropy) than their outputs.” (14)

While both Schrˆdinger and Miller are correct in their statements that life has the ability to take in matter-energy of higher order than it excretes. The synergic power of life is much greater than this.

Science2000 finds that life is much more than a filter for syntropy. Life is quite capable of creating syntropy within itself. It does this by making controlled choices. Choices based on knowledge.

Complex molecules and plants create syntropy by making controlled choices in energy. Controlled choices requiring knowledge of energy.

The animals create syntropy by making controlled choices in energy and space. Controlled choices requiring knowledge of energy and space.

We humans create syntropy by making controlled choices in energy, space and time. Controlled choices requiring knowledge of energy, space and time.

Science2002 further finds that both entropy and syntropy exist at every stage of process. Although entropy predominates in “dead”Universe — light, particles, atoms, and simple molecules, syntropy exists there as well. And while, syntropy predominates in “live”Universe — complex molecules, plants, animals, and humans, entropy exists here as well. All stages of process in the descent of the arc are predominately entropic. Light, particles,and atoms and simple molecules are decaying. This means their order, organization, pattern, and form are deteriorating. They move towards ever-increasing entropy or disorder — disorganization, chaos, randomness, patternlessness, formlessness, and homogeneity.

All stages of process in the ascent of the arc are predominately syntropic. Complex molecules, plants, animals, and humans are primarily syntropic — this means they are growing.

Life’s power is to create syntropy. This ability to ever increase order, organization, pattern, and form is the definition of evolution. Life evolves towards ever-increasing syntropy — ever increasing order — ever increasing organization, form, pattern, and heterogeneity.

Synergic Evolution then is one of the defining characteristics of life.

Synergic Evolution — def — > The transition of process from a state of lower syntropy — order, organization, pattern, and form to a state of higher syntropy — order, organization, pattern and form.


(1)  Brian Swimme, The Universe is a Green Dragon, Bear & Company, Inc., Santa Fe, 1985 

(2)  Arthur Young, The Reflexive Universe, Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, 1976 

(3) Arthur Young, The Reflexive Universe, 1976, ibid

(4) Arthur Young, Mathematics, Physics & Reality, Robert Briggs Associates, Portland, Oregon, 1990 

(5)  Malcolm Browne, Scientists Use Light to Create Particles, New York Times, September 16, 1997 

(6) Arthur Young, The Geometry of Meaning, Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, 1976

7) Alfred Korzybski, The Manhood of Humanity, E.P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1921

8) Alfred Korzybski, The Manhood of Humanity, 1921, ibid<

9) Alfred Korzybski, The Manhood of Humanity, 1921, ibid

10) Winifed Babcock, The Single Reality, A Harold Institute Book—Dodd, Mead & Co.,New York, 1971

11) Ludwig Boltzmann, An Austrian physicist born in 1844. He worked on statistical mechanics using probability to describe how the properties of atoms determine the properties of matter. In particular his work relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which he derived from the principles of mechanics in the 1890s. Boltzmann asserted that entropy increases almost always, rather than always. Boltzmann’s ideas which were opposed by many European scientists; they misunderstood them, not fully grasping the statistical nature of his reasoning. Depressed and in bad health, Boltzmann committed suicide just before experiment verified his work in 1906.

12) R. Buckminster Fuller, SYNERGETICS—Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Volumes I & II, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1975, 1979

13) Edwin Schrˆdinger, What is Life?, Private Monogram, 1945

14) James G. Miller, Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978

Outline of Arthur Young’s Theory of Process

1) The Universe is a process put in motion by purpose.

2) The development of process occurs in stages.

3) There are seven stages.

4) Each stage develops a new power.

5) Powers are cumulative; each one retains the powers developed in the previous stages.

6) Powers are evolved sequentially in what are called kingdoms.


1.  Potential Light

2.  Binding (substance) Particles

3. Identity (form) Atoms

4. Combination Molecules

5. Growth (organization) Plants

6. Mobility Animals

7. Understanding (dominion) Humans

7) Arc of process: the early stages of process take on increasing constraint until constraint becomes maximal, at which point there is a turn. The later stages of process see the conquest of the constraints and the development of freedom. Freedom in the first half is random, in the last controlled. 


8) Levels: the descent and ascent pass through four levels in a V-shaped arc. Levels have successively zero, one, two, and three degrees of constraint, and three, two, one, and zero degrees of freedom. The stages on the right- and left-hand branches of the are at the same level have properties in common:

Level I Light 3∞ of freedom 0∞ of constraint  Humans
Level II Particles 2∞ of freedom 1∞ of constraint Animals
Level III Atoms 1∞ of freedom 2∞ of constraint  Plants
Level IV Molecules 0∞ of freedom 3∞ of constraint

Front Page

Friday, February 20th, 2009

The following is an excerpt from HUMAN SYNERGETICS by one of the pioneers of synergic science. Enjoy!

What is the Synergic Mode of Thinking?

N. Arthur Coulter, MD

There is available to every human mind a state of advanced consciousness and well-being that is exciting, vigorous and incredibly beautiful. It is characterized by an expansion of awareness, by an enhancement of rationality and by a remarkable phenomenon called think-feel synergy. This state is called the synergic mode of function.

The word “synergy” means, literally, “working together.” In medicine, it has long been used to denote the working together of two or more drugs, or of two or more muscles acting about a joint. Applied to the human mind, “synergy” denotes the working together of the enormous variety of functions that comprise the mind, producing a new whole that is greater than the mere sum of its parts.

When the synergic mode turns on, the mind lights up. Perceptions grow more vivid and acute, with “flash-grasp” of complex situations a not infrequent occurrence. Thinking becomes faster, more accurate and remarkably clear. Often thought-trains race along several tracks at once. Actions become more apt and multipurposed, with a high gain-to-effort ratio. Emotional tone ranges from cheerfulness to enthusiasm, with a harmonious blending of thought and emotion that is highly exhilarating. Abilities long dormant or even unsuspected are activated as the wave of synergy surges into the hidden depths of the mind.

So much goes on so fast that it is impossible to describe it adequately; the concrete experience is so vivid and multifaceted that it evades all efforts to define it in words. But there is one remarkable feature of the synergic mode that stands out above all others and that bodes well for the future of humanity: it is literally and logically impossible for a person operating in the synergic mode to perform an unethical act.

The reason for this is easy to see. Synergy involves the working together of the parts of any complex system; and each person is not only an individual, but a part of the various groups and organizations to which he belongs, and to society as a whole. In the synergic mode, a human being acts naturally so as not only to achieve his own goals, but also, wherever feasible, to promote the goals of others, with least impedance to anyone. The Golden Rule–“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”–becomes not a moral commandment to be obeyed, but a natural and logical consequence of his mode of being, as natural as breathing, sleeping or sexual activity.

The prevailing outlook of a synergic being may be described as one of synergic altruism. He is not selfish, as this is commonly understood, but always considerate of the needs and interests of others, and ever ready to engage in cooperative enterprise. On the other hand, he is not selfless, sacrificing himself needlessly for others; he selects his own goals and pursues them vigorously, overcoming obstacles in his way.

The synergic mode of function has been experienced by many people in the course of history; doubtless many readers have felt it turn on at one time or another, without identifying it as synergy. But most would agree that it is not characteristic of the average person today. When I first experienced the synergic mode, early in 1952, I wondered about this. And I was disappointed that the state did not last. This led to the concept of a science of synergy–namely, human synergetics.

Jump into synergic science by reading We Can All Win!, If you are creating a new organization, or desire to synergize an old one, read Ortegrity. If you’re interested in how to make decisions in a win-win world read Sociocracy.

Looking for a guide to synergic decision, read a  Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Read the Synergic Future Series:
1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding 5) Trustegrities — Protecting the Future and 6) Synergic Guardians — Protecting the Future.

Front Page

Monday, February 9th, 2009

CRISIS: Danger & Opportunity

Timothy Wilken

The Chinese word for crisis is written by joining two ideograms together. When these ideograms, are presented separately they stand for danger and opportunity.

Crisis-chinese word:

DANGER—Danger of injury if we humans fail to understand. Danger of extinction if we humans act in ignorance.

OPPORTUNITY—Opportunity for growth if we humans understand. Opportunity for survival if we humans act in knowledge.

If we examine our crisis in terms of life, things will become more clear. Crisis is not unique to humankind. Crisis is the general condition of all life forms. It is the driving force of evolution. Risk and opportunity. Survival of the fittest. The life form that survives and evolves is the one that can grasp the opportunity and avoid the risk. This is the very process of life. It is the engine of evolution. Today’s crisis is simply our turn. We humans are at a point of major transformation. If we humans are to have a future, we must begin by facing the truth.


One of the tenets of wisdom, is that the events in our lives always offer us an opportunity for growth and greater understanding. Sometimes we grow the most in response to the greatest adversity and difficulty. My wife Judy says this bit of wisdom can be thought of as a psychological corollary of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

So we might state Judy’s corollary as: For every negative action in our lives, we can choose a positive reaction. Herein lies the opportunity. When an adverse event occurs in my life, I can ask, “What am I supposed to learn from this event. How am I supposed to grow and become stronger by the lessons that can be harvested from this event.”

Today our world is filled with a great many adverse and difficult events. You may know that I believe that much of present humanity is committed to adversary and neutral mechanisms that no longer work. Humans using adversay and neutral mechanisms must by definition produce adversary and neutral results. Our collective actions create an evermore powerful force for disorder on planet Earth. This force is anti-Human, anti-Life, and even anti-Planet.

The negative impact we humans are having with our adversary and neutral actions is highly leveraged by our ever-growing numbers. Stated simply, there are too many of us. In a word—overpopulation.

Too many humans choosing adversary and neutral actions levered by our advanced technology generating highly leveraged adversary and neutral effects including climate change, global warming, mass extinction, and declining biodiversity.

In addition to negative effects on the planet, we are generating many negative effects on each other. Adversity is the result when humans work against each other. Adversity produces CONFLICT — war, terrorism, crime, poverty, and homelessness.

Humanity is at breakpoint! We must grow up. We must put away adversity. We must move to synergy. And, we best do it NOW!

Jump into synergic science by reading We Can All Win!, If you are creating a new organization, or desire to synergize an old one, read Ortegrity. If you’re interested in how to make decisions in a win-win world read about Synocracy & Sociocracy.

Looking for a guide to synergic decision, read a  Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Read the Synergic Future Series:
1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding 5) Trustegrities — Protecting the Future and 6) Synergic Guardians — Protecting the Future.