[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_tabs _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”|704px||||” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_tab title=”Our method of operation” _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default” tab_font_size=”15px”]<\/p>\n
\u00a0How do we get there? First of all, we believe that it is possible to use the current political framework to set in motion changes that will lead to a radical overhaul of the current system. We do not plan on perpetuating the status quo. Nothing in the conventional established institutional framework can, nor should, be considered immutable. It is our understanding that some methods\/institutions are obsolete and are the remnants of a past that doesn\u2019t reflect the world of the present. Worse, other methods\/institutions contribute to the deterioration of our current world situation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The\u00a0modern<\/em>\u00a0socioeconomic system is unnecessarily and excessively complex. Moreover, it is also fundamentally unsustainable. Given the knowledge that we now have, we feel it would be appropriate to \u201cstart from scratch\u201d and ask the basic question: \u201cWhat matters?\u201d. It appears that the number of things that matter increases as we impose\/inculcate more and more artificial divisions within a population. In order to determine our primary objectives, it was therefore important to narrow them down to the ones that could be understood and accepted by the majority. And so, regardless of a person’s ethnicity, gender, religion, social class or political affiliation, these objectives are generally considered universally desirable.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The scientific method entails questioning, observing, hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, and sharing the findings so that others can validate\/invalidate. This method has allowed us to achieve many feats, some more conducive to human wellbeing than others. Being a cognitive tool of sorts, it is important to remember that science’s endeavors are shaped by the context in which they are undertaken (social, economic, cultural, etc.). We are trying to create an appropriate context that will orient science’s focus towards human wellbeing rather than profit-making\/cost-effectiveness which tend to\u00a0also\u00a0inhibit, or neglect, fundamental research.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Presently, state interventionism is, oftentimes, palliative and reactionary. When faced with a problem, the conventional tools used by government are legislation and money-shuffling. On this last point, we see that throwing money at a problem doesn’t necessarily solve it. On the contrary, this tends to create new institutions that will seek to perpetuate themselves since the economic survival of its constituent parts depends on it. As for the legislative tool, a troublesome behaviour can somewhat be controlled through coercive measures (laws) but rendering the behaviour altogether obsolete has a higher probability of success. For instance, when it comes to the crime of stealing, the train of thought should be:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1) Let’s use science and technology to ensure that people have free universal access to material abundance.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Obviously, this clashes with the traditional approach which consists of the following train of thought:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2) Let’s create a law that will\u00a0hopefully<\/u>\u00a0dissuade people from stealing. Let’s also try to stimulate job growth to get more money into people’s pockets so that they can buy stuff.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The first approach, more direct, makes the behaviour (stealing) useless. It solves the problem by using a technical solution before the behavior takes place. The second approach relies on the hope that people will respect the law and get a job but this approach doesn\u2019t really change the preconditions that underlie the troublesome behaviour in the first place. Furthermore, the second approach tends to create negative repercussions. For example, it perpetuates our dependence on job creation (quality jobs or not) according to a logic of citizen participation as consumers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What will become of the governmental body once the transition from the old system to the new one is completed? The traditional toolkit of government comprised of laws and money will be profoundly transformed, which will have an impact on the size and relative importance of this institution.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_tab][et_pb_tab title=”The state of technology” _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”]<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Technology: Imagine yourself without any technology. That means no clothes, no house, no tools, just you and the unforgiving wilderness. You would have very little time to devote to things that aren’t directly related to your immediate survival.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Technology encompasses every tool, method, invention, material, and creation we have come up with since the beginning of our existence as a species. We use technology to create even better technology. It is the accumulation and sharing of these technologies that allows us to prosper. That being said, similarly to the relationship that people have with money, there seems to be a love\/hate relationship between people and technology. People love technology because of the advantages that it offers in terms of increased efficiency, but they hate technology when it breaks down. They love it when it’s used to save lives, to allow for more free time, to aid them in their explorations, to entertain, or to facilitate the execution of a particular task. They hate it when it’s used to kill and destroy, to isolate people from one another, or when the ridiculously high turnover rate, aside from having things end up in landfills, makes it difficult to \u201ckeep up\u201d financially (or even psychologically for some).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Considering our historical past, using technology to help us reach our goals is the most sensible and efficient solution. Still, however, it is generally difficult for people who are not \u201ctechnologically savvy\u201d to fathom that this can actually be done. Many people view today\u2019s technology, and somewhat rightly so, as unreliable. However, one must remember the context in which today\u2019s technology comes into being. The market pressures for \u201ccompetitive pricing\u201d, the manufacturer\u2019s need for turnover (hence the economy\u2019s cyclical consumption requirement), and the overall cost-cutting design practices, all contribute to the early retirement of most products. Warranties are\u00a0ecogenocidally<\/em>\u00a0short. But, again, this is principally due to the context which demands the prioritization of profits; it does not reflect our real abilities. Technology\u2019s development is hindered mainly by our outdated socioeconomic system. In other words, profitability takes precedence over durability. Currently, technology is a tool for the maximization of profit. Its utilitarian aspect and its durability hold the second and third positions on the scale of priorities. We advocate for a world where we understand that natural resources are finite and that the best way to economize those resources is to cooperate with one another to maximize their usage by sharing that which can be shared. In such a world, products will be made to last, to be updatable, recyclable, and energy-efficient.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Technology is a tool at our disposal. Like any other tool, it can be used for positive or negative purposes. The context determines the way it is used. In what kind of context does the military-industrial complex prosper? We exist today within a socioeconomic system that pits us against one another sometimes in a very clear-cut way, and sometime in a not-so-clear-cut way; insidiously. The modern necessity to acquire ones share of the monetary pie encourages the use of rationalization strategies that lead to inadequate technology and inculcates specific behaviors to adopt inside a competitive context. We hold that technology could and should be used to liberate people from forced labor, not only because it would be more efficient, but also because it is the right thing to do. Jobs that people do not want because they are repetitive, dangerous, or simply too mind-numbing, will be among the first to be automated using technology. We will come back to the concept of \u201cwork\u201d further.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_tab][et_pb_tab title=”Competition or cooperation?” _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”]<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Competition: a social arrangement in which achieving a person’s (or group of people’s) goal necessarily precludes another (or others) from achieving his own.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Cooperation: a social arrangement in which achieving a person’s (or group of people’s) goal necessarily requires the help of another (or others).<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here are the tendencies\u00a0of the two arrangements:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sadly, these tendencies are not an exaggeration. This is clearly demonstrated in the research literature and the human story tells the same tale. Where does this competition come from and is it inevitable? Is it natural? Is it desirable? Does it serve humanity\u2019s best interest? Today, competition is omnipresent. In our schools, our leisure, our businesses, this arrangement of \u201csucceeding\/winning at the expense of another\u201d is rarely questioned. We have been internalizing it since our youngest years. The modern world functions as such but are we made that way?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n First of all, in order for competition to manifest itself, an ingredient is necessary: scarcity sought by two people of more. Needless to say, our history has been rife with scarcities of all sorts, notably food, shelter, land, water, and more recently, gold, money, jobs, being in first place, certain products, etc. Because of the historical pervasiveness of competition, some people will assume that it is natural and unavoidable. The scarcity-filled context has promoted the emergence of the competitive behavior, and over centuries, these behaviors have spawned presuppositions about \u201chuman nature\u201d. Humans are considered selfish, greedy, calculating, lazy, and from this \u201cobservational evidence\u201d (without consideration for the context) was born the modern socioeconomic system. Those who benefit the most from this competitive system will tout the mythical virtuousness of laissez-faire competition, declaring that it is good and necessary, that it promotes excellence, that is drives innovation, builds character, motivates, and unites. None of these affirmations are supported by research. Competition does not promote excellence, it does not build character, it does not drive innovation and it certainly does not improve social relations. To clarify, it does not count as cooperation to have a group of people working together against another group.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Fortunately, cooperation has also been with us for a while now. The most basic of goals, surviving through our infant years, would literally be impossible without the help of another person. Cooperation within the human species has allowed us to achieve feats of unimaginable proportions. Everything that has had a positive impact on our quality of life has been the result of the cooperative arrangement somewhere along the way. Language, science, technology, general knowledge, and most of the things we take for granted would have been impossible without cooperation. Conversely, the darker sides of society are the result of competition. This shouldn\u2019t come as a surprise since within the competitive arrangement we are brought to see others as obstacles to our goals.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We are social beings, and while the current socioeconomic system demands for more competition, our social nature and our current needs as a society both require more cooperation. This cooperation allows us to see others as potential collaborators. The benefits of living in a cooperative environment are numerous. Besides seeing others as potentially helpful and trustworthy, a cooperative environment also boosts productivity, creativity, self-esteem, sharing, integrity, personal motivation and complex problem-solving. It also decreases jealousy, aggression, anxiety, inequity, and blind conformity. The current competitive monetary-market system does exactly the opposite. Because of the intrinsically scarce nature of money, we live in an intrinsically competitive society. Today\u2019s scarcity, as it pertains to the wellbeing of people, is therefore largely artificial; so is the competition that stems from it. In other words, we have enough resources to elevate the standard of living for all. We propose the adoption of a socioeconomic system that is intrinsically cooperative.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The competitive foundations of the current system allow for an unequal distribution of money, the outcome of which can only be described as a social pyramid. The multitudinous poor constitute the very large and needy base whereas the privileged few reside at the top. The social stratification and the economic disparity both have very detrimental ramifications on social health. It creates social inequality and this has been scientifically linked to higher levels of mental illness, obesity, imprisonment rates, homicides, drug use, and lower levels of trust, life expectancy, educational performance, and social mobility, to name a few. Equality is in everyone\u2019s best interest.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_tab][et_pb_tab title=”The scarce nature of money” _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n If all the money in the world instantly disappeared, the world would physically be the same. Natural resources would still allow us to live and to function.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n It isn\u2019t very controversial to state that the blood of the current system is money. As the saying goes:\u00a0money makes the world go round<\/em>. Nowadays, without monetary circulation, the system crumbles. And that usually translates into a situation where resources are available but there isn\u2019t enough money for people to buy them. That\u2019s when people\u2019s faith in the system gets shaken up. Once the situation settles, people feel lucky to simply have a job. Growing up in the modern world, two things quickly become clear, (1) money is a necessity for decent living conditions\u00a0and (2) money is scarce. This common understanding generally sums it up. What money is and how it affects society are not exactly commonplace musings. Today, the use of money is\u00a0still justified\u00a0by the historic functions it served.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Firstly<\/strong>, it began its function as a means of exchange at a time when technology and science were in their infancy and where achieving material abundance was neither technically possible nor even considered as a worthwhile objective. It served\/serves the difficult purpose of being an obstacle, often insurmountable for many, that prevents access to certain resources. In a world where people have free access to material abundance, this function becomes useless.<\/p>\n Secondly<\/strong>, money was used as a unit of account. This function would effectively put a price tag on pretty much everything according to the scarcity associated with the object or service, the demand for it, the amount of labour required for it, and the value of the currency. This function rewards those who are able to convince others that what they\u2019re selling is rare and in demand; it also rewards those who actually make what they sell rare and in demand. Furthermore, it allows for those who have a lot of money to get other people to do things that they otherwise would not. Again, in a world of abundance where labour, as we know it, is automated, the monetary value would quickly fall to the point where it becomes useless to put a price tag on things.<\/p>\n Thirdly<\/strong>, the standard of deferred payment is a function that is related to its very creation. The process by which a bank creates money, lends it, and subsequently expects to be repaid that loan with interest, is a process that accounts for the majority of money in circulation. Money is an IOU to the banks. Every dollar in existence is meant to return to the bank. That, in itself, makes money a scarce resource, but to really make it rare, interest is applied to loans and this makes the money supply\u00a0rather small compared to the amount of debts owed to banks. The only solution is to borrow even more money or file for bankruptcy. Of course, not everyone can access bank loans because not everyone can convince the banks that they will be able to repay the loan. Interestingly enough, those who have very little money have to borrow and pay interest while those with lots of money get to invest and make even more money, thus increasing economic disparity.<\/p>\n Fourthly<\/strong>\u00a0and lastly, money serves a function as a store of value. You save money and it\u2019s going to retain some of its value over time. This value is linked to its ability to be exchanged for stuff later therefore this function ties in with the means of exchange function. The \u201cvalue\u201d of money is conventional and not intrinsic, meaning you cannot eat money nor use it to power your vehicle. People\u2019s faith in the monetary system allows it to exist.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As our productive capacity increases and as technology progresses, it is becoming harder and harder to create jobs. We have reached a productive capacity that would have been considered impossible only a century ago. Additionally, we are doing this with fewer and fewer workers thanks to automation. \u201cWork\u201d is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. However, the current socioeconomic system is having a hard time adapting. Money has to circulate, and while the basic\u00a0money creation mechanisms<\/em>\u00a0force upon society such circulation, the fact that people have employment encourages spending, hence more circulation. It is no wonder that job creation seems to be a recurring theme among political parties. The creation of jobs serves to strengthen the monetary economy and perpetuates the status quo. Pragmatically speaking though, and monetary economics set aside, job destruction should be celebrated since it represents more leisure. The modern household plumbing system \u201cdestroyed\u201d jobs as we became more efficient at providing clean water to people.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Money is increasingly becoming obsolete. When we consider our automation capabilities, our current productive capacity, and our new advanced methods for managing universal access to our resources, the traditional \u201clabour for income\u201d\u00a0<\/em>model appears very dated. The social stratification, the elitism, and the economic disparity that we are increasingly seeing today do not have to exist. In fact, their very existence should help us realize that we will never be equals as long as the current system allows for some to own so much while others own so little. Sadly, profit-making is the dominant driver, as can easily be seen through conventional managerial decisions aimed toward economic efficiency (which has nothing to do with real scientific efficiency). Human and environmental concerns are secondary,\u00a0if<\/u>\u00a0they considered at all.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n While this all seems inherently self-evident, we feel it is important to specify that we do not see this as a battle between the rich and the poor; nor between the 1% and the 99%. It is in fact a struggle that pits humanity as a whole against their dangerously outdated socioeconomic system; a system which threatens social and environmental stability. We propose the organised and progressive \u201cphasing-out\u201d of money. Keeping in line with our methods of operation described previously, we will tackle each objective unhindered by the traditional constraints that governments of the past have had. We will use money to make money irrelevant. Once its scarce nature is on its way out, we will be in a position to implement cooperative foundations to the new socioeconomic system. As time moves forward and as cooperation becomes the norm, mentalities will progressively adapt to the new reality.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_tab][\/et_pb_tabs][et_pb_sidebar _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][\/et_pb_sidebar][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”] The vision [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_tabs _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”|704px||||” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_tab title=”Our method of operation” _builder_version=”4.6.1″ _module_preset=”default” tab_font_size=”15px”] \u00a0How do we get there? First of all, we believe that it is possible to use the current political framework to set in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-108","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n
\n \n Competition<\/h4>\n<\/td>\n
\n Cooperation<\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Others are obstacle to be overcome.<\/td>\n Others are collaborators.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We impede on one another.<\/td>\n We help one another.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We are wary of one another.<\/td>\n We trust one another.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We are less productive because we spend energy and concentration on trying to be better than the other.<\/td>\n We are more productive because all of our energy and concentration can be put to the task at hand with the help of others.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We must conform to ways that\u2019ll allow for victory over the other.<\/td>\n We can safely be creative without the fear of losing to someone.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Self-esteem is good if we win, bad if we lose.<\/td>\n Self-esteem is not dependant of being better than another.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We must not share ideas as others could steal them.<\/td>\n The sharing of ideas is one of our greatest strengths.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n If we can win by cheating without being caught, why not?<\/td>\n We have good personal integrity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n When there is no chance to win, why bother?<\/td>\n We have good personal motivation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Complex problems are harder to solve because energy and concentration are lost trying to beat the other.<\/td>\n Complex problems are good challenges to be tackled together and they become easier as energy and concentration are used for the task at hand.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We are jealous of winners and contemptuous towards losers.<\/td>\n We win together, we lose together.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We are more aggressive towards others. They are obstacles after all!<\/td>\n We have more empathy towards others. They are collaborators.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We are more anxious because we learn to measure our value by comparing with others.<\/td>\n We are Zen. We compare ourselves to ourselves.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n We look for an unequal balance of power in our favor.<\/td>\n Equality benefits everyone.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n