Appeal of an average joe

27 Aug

I’m an individual that is struggling to provide for myself or my family. I might be relatively affluent, but am struggling to find meaning. Either way, I cannot worry about the millions who are suffering. Sometimes it’s sad when I think about it, but I don’t know them personally. How can I look out for my next door neighbour or my work colleague? I have enough to deal with by just being alive. Even if I wanted to help the homeless, I’d give up because nobody else is doing anything about it.

What we are doing to nature is beyond my comprehension. So this is threatening my survival? What isn’t threatening my survival? So I’m supposed to try and fix this when I hardly understand it, no matter what the science tells me?

WHAT is the best society-wide psychotherapy to get people functionally & willfully engaged in global improvement? Is it television? Is it wealth? Poverty? Sports? Inclusion? Politics? Trips to the zoo? Fine dining? Parties?

People are driving each other in every direction. What can we introduce to the world that people can all identify with and spark some kind of awakening?
Nothing?! Shall we leave it at that?

Klot, relaxo dancing

Mr. President, someone in the room needs to break the ice

1 Aug

arctic ice break

Dear Mr. President,
Your task to manage a nation, and indeed a planet, cannot be without compromises. To ensure global security into the future, we must strike a balance between burning oil and divesting. Were we to end drilling today, global markets would tumble and the world would enter a state of depression and widespread conflict. If we continued to drill indefinitely at the current pace, we would not only face widespread conflict and economic depression, we would altar the atmosphere’s composition to the point of eradication of our species.

You know as well as I do that the old saying, ‘no one is above the law’, is a safeguard of the powerful. The true reality of the law is that it cannot in all instances uphold the safety and happiness of all beings. The ownership to govern the physical contents of the Arctic Ice Sheet, as you are well aware, belongs equally and most particularly to each of the 7.4bn people who have chosen to live on this Earth – as its governance is central to the state and availability of all other geographical resources. As long as this affects the survival of any single being, no written agreement can deny this true ownership. Should all humans decide that they do not wish to continue to live here, they would still not be granted permission to break the ice, as they too would be threatening the right of other species to live.

Slowly but surely, albeit too slowly, the cognitively disorientated leaders of ‘our’ oil companies are realising their responsibility to ‘strike’ the right balance between stable economy and stable ecology. As they seek to strike resources of the true global commons, you struggle to convince your electorate, opposition and international brethren that these appointed taskmen have rather knowingly, repeatedly and ‘illegally’ crossed a threshold by dishonouring this balance. As long as drivers break red lights and are not incarcerated, they will continue to be legally immune. As long as smoking kills its smokers, it continues to be legally sold.

It is clear that you want to leave your legacy in the form of a pivotal climate change bill, though you would love if you could join a movement of people to achieve something far greater. Mr. President, good luck on your journey to find peace and in making the appropriate economic/ecological compromises. We are all counting on you to do ‘everything’ in your power to ensure a radical but stable divestment from all carbon positive terrestrial activities.

This is literally the wake up call from the ‘locked-in’ oil industry. Fact: someone has to break the ice!

Blessings & toasts,
Allan Stewart

State of Alienation

7 Jul

How can people be expected to live in harmony with nature if they are not in ownership of their means of production, if they are not part of the process from sourcing, to consumption, to disposal? If they do not see the effects directly, rather see them in the form of famine images on the television or in overwhelmingly vast numbers of reports and books, reality seems more like a fiction. Give people the opportunity to connect and have a say about where their food comes from, how their infrastructure is built, where their materials and energy are sourced, and they will appreciate them from cradle to grave. I, am alienated from my fellow being, from my right to decide, from my source of livelihood. Give me the chance to recirculate all things back into my local economy, to share resources with my neighbours, to show the world that there is a way for us all to live. Let’s go back to our roots and combine it with new ways of thinking and new technologies. Let’s free up the State from this alienation and join our fate with the stars.

investor ethics

21 Jun

i had a whole bunch to write about this months ago, but ended up too busy… Well, use your imagination. Whatever power each of us has, it must be matched with responsibility. That power could be unforeseeable to the individual. It is therefore the duty of anyone to be mindful of what they are directly or indirectly influencing and what opportunities they have to influence their surroundings. Should you be a slave (like livestock), then you might have very little influence other than on fellow slaves or the sight of you from others’ perceptions. But are you in the freedom of the west, albeit restricted, you have the knowledge to overcome obstacles that will put the planet back on track to accomodating humanity. So, invest consciously!….

unfinished post

How Consumption can lead to global Conflict

18 Jun

Consumption in itself is not morally wrong. You might be able to guess the many things associated with consumption that can be considered immoral.

The obvious ones are taking resources for granted while others can’t afford them, or the self gratification in achieving higher consumption than your peers. Although you have not reached the top 1%, you might be chuffed by your relative success in, for example, buying a nice car that was not an easy task and that the average person failed to achieve. Or you might just want to create some sort of status around your persona in order to impress or feel sexually dominant. Or maybe discarding old valuables for more higher quality stuff just makes you feel more complete. Without it you might feel inadequate. Or you might simply require greater utility so that you can do more exciting things with your time. Yes, your BMW not only makes you feel safer, it gets you there faster and in style. Whatever floats your boat. Nobody is perfect.

What I see as most immoral about consumption is that, contrary to what I may have convinced myself, I have undervalued my individual self by putting so much focus on what I consume as opposed to what I am or do. Excessive consumption is an attack on the self and on the people and wonder of life around you. Consumption is one of the many wonders on Earth that we must of course appreciate. But you get what I’m saying. There’s only so much of something you need before you are no longer yourself.

Now, it just so happens that there is a backlash to this behaviour. And lately it is becoming bigger than ever. It is because of our collective participation in it. When an individual over-consumes, the repercussions could be very apparent, like heart disease, or very subtle, like emotional isolation. At the very best, consuming far beyond one’s needs tricks a person into believing they are doing better than before. And that can be a good medicine, a morale booster. But depending indefinitely on this medicine does little more than give you boosts in supporting whatever projects you are doing. For example, if it is your aim to sell music records, using a lot of expensive props in your music video might aid in the project. It can also be exciting. In fact, if you are full of life you can really appreciate consumables for what they are, day after day. But then you are also in good enough condition to appreciate lots of simple things that need not require mass consumption. When it comes down to morals, the only exemption I can qualify for extraordinary consumption is one that directly supports moral developments, such as scientific exploration or owning a business that provides fulfilling jobs or spreads messages.

Take the extraordinary consumption of the masses. Not only does collective abuse of the world’s resources have direct repercussions if the consumption is immoral, but morally intended mass consumption can lead to conflict of interest. That is, one person might be working hard to do the right thing by means of consumption, while a lot of other people might be doing the same. Then you might ask yourself, is this the only way I can make a difference?

~ Post not finished ~

Are you insane?! – arguments for a rational and crazy world

16 Jun

First, you must be open to the possibility that the other person has in fact the rational competence to think through their belief system or any rash statement they have made and figure out a new perspective.

Second, you must be able to do this while at the same time seeing that that person could be completely correct, no matter how much it conflicts with your belief system.

Third, you must recognise that you are not sane because you are not capable of doing this all of the time. At least, I don’t think you can remain as a splendid individual and full of life if you make yourself “100%” objective in anything you think about.

Fourth, “100%” objectivity is insane. Why? Because sanity also requires that you appreciate the diversity of life by participating in it.

Fifth, this requires that you may choose to ignore the previous 4 steps.

A Revolution for Everyone – either you are happy and want to help or are unhappy and want change

3 Mar

When I say a revolution that suits everyone, I mean one that doesn’t involve killing as had been done in the past. Today’s rich people are just like you or me. They want happiness. And money is the least of their worries.

The money does help them stay afloat in a barbaric world. It does serve a function for those few. Put yourself in their shoes and think about how safe you might feel if you know you don’t have to spend all day convincing people of things in order to get your way. You just show them the money.

Now, if you think powerful business people are a threat to sustainable development, think again. Everyone would be happy in a world where they don’t have to produce piles and piles of crap for people to consume. The demand for crap, regardless of who created it, exists and will be exploited by the markets.

Right now I’m talking about the rich because revolutions have always involved bringing them down. This revolution, however, is simply about bringing them down to earth. But this requires us bringing ourselves down to earth. I’m not talking about a 1960’s hippy revolution. I’m talking about a well informed economic transition to a circular one, of empowerment and solidarity.

You might say people don’t want that. But that is a black and white and, frankly, misleading answer. People all grow up learning that people are the problem to the world’s problems. Most of us would rather not distract ourselves with these thoughts and simply get on with our own lives. If we were all a part of something that brought more meaning to our lives, we would all go for it. It is in fact in our nature to feel the excitement of actually having some awareness and control over how we manage the world, and the love and sharing that we can realise is better than doing it our way.

It’s just that a lot of people don’t realise this. We substitute our needs of empowerment and solidarity with materialism, and we justify it by maintaining individual relationships. However, I argue that although quite strong, our relationships with others are not entirely pure. That is because we are not inspiring each other enough to be better. Yes, we all help each other to be better as people towards each other and to be better at the things we do. But aren’t motivating each other to be better at the things we don’t do. And that is hard, because we threaten stepping over emotional barriers that are unfamiliar to us. It is difficult to be strong for each other when it is help we all need. Society must recognise this mutual dependence or interdependence.

When we not only are doing well in our personal interests, careers and abilities to treat each other well, we must also realise that being better means that you are a part of a global family, aiming to gain shared control of the world’s resources through acts of learning and loving.

How do we get there?

Now, if I have been somewhat convincing of why we need a shared revolution, how do we get there? Transition!

we need to:

– recognise our interdependence

– envision the smaller and larger goals towards transition

– then we can envision collective strategies



– Eco-valley (like silicon valley)

– self sufficient communities

– open democracy

– fulfilling work opportunities for everyone


– facilitating the necessary support for communities and other groups to transform

If you work for something sustainable, you are are creating collective value. If you are working for money, you are making individual value. Either you choose the latter for status because you don’t understand that it’s better to feel equal, or you don’t understand that choosing the former creates real economic value. So whichever category you fit in, I have to convince you that there is a more natural way (i.e. the former) by showing you real examples that are easy to understand, learn from and adopt. This requires finding and developing real examples, and compiling them into an archive of information. What platform already exists, that is open and effective? Should we build a new one or develope an existing one? Let’s choose one together so that we can begin to market it at all events and through all organisations. It has to be bottom-up governed. But a trustworthy team, elected by members, can over see it (how are such online elections investigated to ensure no corruption?).

Real examples

– we need to compile and create them

– `what kinds exist?

– how can we improve them?