Posts Tagged ‘politics’

In this article I will discuss the notion of ‘property’, and propose a solution for how the institution of property can be changed in an Equal Money System.

Currently property is a form of control that we have created because our society is based on fear and more precisely fear of loss. This means that we have accepted ‘property’ as a means to ‘protect’ ourselves against each other, because of the underlying belief that there is not enough for everyone. Interestingly the word property sounds like poverty – because that is exactly what we have created. A system of exploitation where a small group is able to through the concept of property use and abuse the majority of human beings on this planet, where, mind you half the world exists in actual poverty and 20.000 children starve to death every day.

Yet is the belief ever questioned that ‘there isn’t enough’?

Isn’t it striking that those areas in the world that are experiencing the most dramatic poverty are often also those who are the largest exporters of Food in the world ?

So, clearly – there is something not working in our system.

This is why we propose an Equal Money System – as it is seen that the current economic system is gone out of hand and is no longer able to be adjusted in any beneficial direction. As we can see daily in the news: it is only getting worse.

An Equal Money system is based on the premise that money is merely what we agree it to be. An Equal Money System is a new socioeconomic system where the value of money will be based on the Equal Value of All Life. This means that practically speaking money will no longer be the supreme holder of value – but instead we all agree that instead Life should be valued and supported and not money for the sake of money.

What this practically means is that money will become a tool of distribution and access that will equally be made available to all. In other words: everyone will have Equal Money from birth till death, so that everyone’s practical needs are always met and no one need to experience any form of material lack ever again. This is a mathematical problem that can be worked out once it is acknowledged that there are in fact more than enough resources in the world as is confirmed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

This is just to give you a basic understanding as to what it is we are accepting in the current system and what is in fact possible, if we would agree on some new principles to guide decision-making.

So, let’s now turn to property and what property will become in an Equal Money System.

In an Equal Money System there will no longer be property as we currently know it. Here I suggest we replace it with the notion of ‘allocation’. Currently you are through money able to buy an item and then claim this item as yours. Within this you have the ‘legal right’ to dispose of your item as you please, since it is your ‘property’. Hence you are never really accountable for the way you handle that which is given to you, because as the ‘owner’ you are ‘the boss’ and your item is your slave. In an Equal Money system such inequality and abuse will no longer be acceptable, as with ‘allocation’ you are no longer the ‘owner’ of that which is given to you. Instead you become the caretaker, where you understand that there is equality between you and that which is under your care and that you must now look after the item as your child to be entitled to use it.

Let’s take housing as an example. In terms of housing, no one will ‘own’ the house they live in, as everything belongs to the earth, just as your body belongs to the earth. So, to be ‘allocated’ a house will then mean that you are given the care of that house and that you are now (alone or with others) responsible for the house. Allocation thus means an agreement between you and that which you are allocated, to take care of it in the best possible way so that it can be handed to the next person in an optimal state, just as it was given to you.

Obviously allocation will imply a great level of responsibility, which implies not only the willingness but also the practical skill to in fact be able to handle a household and to maintain a physical house. In other words there will be actual training required and practicals to be able to assess whether a person is actually ready to be allocated a house. This can be done with a system of licenses where for all kinds of items you require to have a license. In the example of housing the license could be incorporated in the general education curriculum, where for last year ‘students’, a housing area would be made available with houses for them to live in during the last six months of their year, to learn how to practically take care of a house and to through direct experience learn all the aspects that must be considered within utilizing a house. The readiness of the ‘student’ can then easily be assessed through assessments with feedback – after which a final assessment can be given after a few months to see if the suggestions and the feedback have been applied. Then the ‘student’ receives the license and is then entitled to be allocated a house.

This solution can be applied to any form of allocation, such as allocation of specific high tech materials – which require specific knowledge and maintenance, but also the allocation of animals: where you must prove your ability to take responsibility for that particular animal with full understanding.

Licenses will thus play a major role in an Equal Money System – as the licenses will be the measurement of your practical responsibility skills. Regarding the basic points that would form part of everyone’s requirement, such as housing, modules with licenses would be able to be implemented in the normal curriculum. Hence a normal curriculum will become actual ‘life-training’ – instead of merely the absorption of knowledge and information and to then be sent out into the world with no practical preparation whatsoever.

Allocation through a licensing system is but one of the many points that would drastically change the face of this world.

Fear will no longer exist in relation to you having the right to exist in this world, as Equal Money will facilitate the peaceful coexistence of all human beings – all being equally entitled to be part of this world and explore Life.

Join the research at http://equalmoney.org

Gabriël Zamora Moreno

Advertisements

It is interesting that when a country like Greece faces a high debt deficit – it is immediately regarded as an infected country – whereas a country like the US with a 12 trillion dollar debt – can without problems maintain its ‘financial position’ in the world.

This as an obvious indicator that the economy isn’t real.

There is now a popular trend that Greece should leave the Euro and possibly return to a national currency, which is causing alarm from the other European countries, as that could affect the whole euro-project.

Yet what is missed within all this, is that fundamentally this will change nothing – as the replacement of one currency with the other will not remove the agreed upon existence of the debt cycle.

For instance: In 2001 Goldman Sachs made a deal with Greece which resulted in a debt of 2.8 Billion euros + 600 million euro to be repaid additionally. Such a contract has by law real physical consequences  as there will be unimaginable amounts of labor and suffering necessary to ever be able to repay such a debt. This while the transaction itself only involved playing with numbers and digits in computers – almost like a video game.

If I now say that the whole economy is actually a video game – it becomes easy to see the messed up nature of what we as humanity are actually accepting and allowing.

Instead of realizing that the rules of this game are up to each and every single being to co-determine through collective agreement, as each one is equally being affected by it, we have accepted the rules of the game as Holy and have come to accept even the most debased agreements in the name of the Holy rules of the game. Why is the existence of debt being accepted as if it is real? Why are no economists standing up and calling the current system a scam?

If Greece were to leave the euro and return to a national form of currency – this would merely put Greece back into another level of the same video game.

The point that must be understood is that money itself has no intrinsic value. An example to prove  this is that banks are by law permitted to lend out 10 times the actual amounts of credit they have in reserve, which is called fractional reserve banking. On top of that they are entitled to interest upon this non-existent money. Lending is therefore always a fictional operation – yet with real physical consequence to the other party.

The only solution to end the current financial crisis is move away from the current accepted form of money in every way – and to create a new monetary system.

A new agreement must be made that makes money a trustworthy tool that can be used to support all human beings on this planet – instead of it being an unpredictable weapon for greed and control which only benefits a minority and impoverishes and abuses and harasses the large majority. More than half the world at this very day exists in poverty  with 1 billion going to sleep every night on an empty stomach – while there are and for a long time have been more than enough resources in this world to feed and support everyone, as is stated on paper by the United Nations Food and Agriculture organization.

It is time to stop pretending that we don’t have an answer while the answers are right here. Investigate the Equal Money system and see how that will change and transform the experience of life on Earth – as it will guarantee an equal income and equal support to every human being born on this planet, with the resources and the knowledge that are already here.

http://equalmoney.org

Gabriël Zamora Moreno

I was looking at the desire for fame and how this currently exists in the world.

I then asked myself, will such desire still exist in and Equal Money System? And if not – then why not?

I came to the conclusion that the desire for fame as it currently exists, actually expresses lack of self-acceptance. In fact, a form of absolute self-worthlessness – that one will try to compensate through the desire to be or become famous.

When looking at the question of self-value – one must look at: what is the thing that is most valued in today’s world? What is the thing that everyone in this world is striving to get? The answer to that is money. Thus through looking at how money is allocated you can see what is regarded as worthwhile and what is seen as worthless.

The fact that a baby born into this world does not automatically receive money as support, shows that the being born in this world is regarded as worthless. This may shock you as this is not how things are generally presented. In general, it is said that a baby is a new life and is ‘precious’ beyond anything. Yet, this is mere lip service and actually deception. Have a look: there is no system in place that makes sure there is more than enough money in place to welcome all the newly born children in this world. Instead the care for the newly born child is completely left up the financial capacity of the parents/caretakers – which in a few cases may mean the child will grow up in an environment of wealth and abundance – or, in most cases: it will mean the child will grow up in an environment of poverty and deprivation. As it stands currently, there are more than 20.000 children starving from hunger and preventable diseases every day. More than 3 billion people in the world are living below the poverty line and one billion go to sleep every night with an empty stomach. 

How can a child develop self-worth – when they are made clear that they do not deserve food to support themselves and that it doesn’t matter to the world whether they exist or not?

The middle class is just as affected by this, because you will note that the fact that a child does not receive unconditional support through a system of equal care for all – will cause back-chat in the minds of the parents where they start developing animosity towards the child, because ‘the child cost them so much money’. This in turn is the source of child abuse and domestic violence – because the parents start feeling like a slave to the child – and then will start abusing it. This abuse can be physical but also mental – through words and manipulation.

Thus, it is clear that the current money system is actually a system of hate and separation – and that human beings are simply not given the space to develop in a stable manner.

So – imagine now if from the start the child is welcomed with joy – and this joy is expressed through an unconditional grant that is made available to support every child. Will money ever be an issue that can be used against the child?  No. It will be made clear to EVERY CHILD BORN IN THIS WORLD that they are welcome and deserve to exist and to be supported.

Imagine that.

This is basic common sense.

A child will thus develop self-acceptance and self-worth much more easily – and it will also have an immediate sense of respect for all Life – because it was treaded as an equal part of life from day one, and thus to be ‘generous’ towards Life will be much easier.

Hence, the desire for fame will most likely fade in an equal money system – because through the platform of equal money for all, self-acceptance and self-worth will be able to be developed very effectively in children.

This doesn’t mean that there will not be any beings who are not ‘well known’ in an Equal Money system – though this will not come forth out of a desire for recognition, it will instead exist based on someone’s commitment and self-responsibility as an equal member of the system.  

Clearly, someone who has not sorted out their self-acceptance and self-value issues, should not be allowed anywhere near any position of responsibility – as their actions will simply be ego-based and not best for all, as can be seen for instance with politicians in today’s world.

For more on Equal Money as the way forward, visit: http://equalmoney.org

Gabriël Zamora Moreno

This is a quote taken from Jose Graziano de Silva’s submission program – who has now taken the office of Director General in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

“During its 65 years of life, FAO can claim to have contributed to a remarkable growth in food output. Average per capita food availability has risen by 40%. Enough food is now being produced to meet the needs of all of the world’s population that has risen in the past 65 years from 2.5 billion to almost 7 billion.

This success in expanding food output, however, has not been enough to overcome hunger. One in seven people in the world – almost one billion people – face hunger every day of their lives, and almost 3 billion more are affected by malnutrition, including health-damaging malnutrition caused by over-consumption of food. In other words, over half of the world’s population suffers from not eating properly. People are hungry, not so much because of lack of food availability, but mainly because they cannot afford the food they need for a healthy and productive life.”

The statement is clear: there is enough food for everyone – but everyone doesn’t have enough money to buy food.

The solutions in Graziano’s program indicate that he is not considering a change in the economic system as a way to change this situation.

So, I will place some perspectives here for anyone involved in governments, NGO’s or international organizations, that should by now be part of your consideration. The points I will discuss are the Basic Income Grant (BIG) and the Equal Money System (EMS).

Simplistically, BIG is a system based on redistribution of money – where the redistribution is done within the bounds and parameters of the current economic and monetary system. Under the BIG system every person in the world has the right to a basic unconditional income to cover all their basic needs. As can be seen from the quote taken from Graziano’s program – (“People are hungry, not so much because of lack of food availability, but mainly because they cannot afford the food they need for a healthy and productive life.”) – this would in effect give everyone access to food and end hunger in the world. 

The decision to implement such a social program – would be a political matter that requires world consensus. Yet, with half the world already being malnourished, it will not be too hard to find a majority who will demand equal access to basic needs, through a BIG system.

An Equal Money system goes completely beyond that – and involves a total transformation of social, political, and economic structures. Here the monetary system itself is replaced with a new monetary system – where money is no longer based on debt – but is simply made available as an abundant resource so that any project that is best for all can always be ‘sponsored’.  Under Equal Money every person in the world is supported from birth till death – to never in their life experience any form of deprivation.

These are practically feasible solutions for this world one should investigate – if one is really serious about creating a better world for All.

It should be clear by now that within the bounds of the current economic system – there will not be any change forthcoming that can stand the test of time. Hence why we propose that BIG should be used as a means to transition towards an EMS. The collapse of the current economic system is inevitable and world hunger will only escalate as long as one try and find solutions while trying to honor this system. With half the world being malnourished – we can say the current system is a holocaust and should therefore no be honored. 

I suggest one investigate BIG and EMS in considerable depth – you may be astounded at the simplicity of it all, and how come you never even heard about it.

 

http://equalmoney.org

Gabriel Zamora Moreno

I found a documentary online, “Secret Life of Japan” which I recommend everyone to watch.  It tells the story of how economic insecurity is driving high numbers of people in Japan to suicide (more than 33.000 every year). People lose their jobs due to “restructuring” of the companies and become marginalized, being unable to find new jobs or financial support.

It showed how a high level executive ended up as a bum in the park – showing how this can happen to anyone.

In a related documentary, “Aokigahara: the suicide Forest”, it is reported how every year up to a hundred people in Japan go to the forest Aokigahara and never come back.

Japan is not alone in this, a similar situation exists in India – where regions are hit with high numbers of farmer suicides due to poverty and more specifically being in debt. “Secret Life in Japan” showed how debt was a factor as well in most suicide-cases – where people simply see no other way but to end their lives, regardless of family and children.

Japan suicides are but one example of the outflows of the current system – that is operating in exactly the same way everywhere in the world. The foundation of this is the money system that is based on survival and debt. The money that comes into circulation always has negative value – it is already debt from the start – because that is how the system was arranged and agreed upon on paper. (Did you know that?) The current money-system in fact expresses humanity’s agreement that life is worthless, because there is never enough money for everyone to pay off their debts. This is why currently half the world is poor, with 20.000 children starving each day and 1 billion going to sleep every night with an empty stomach.

There is no actual scarcity, only lack of money.

Did you know that there is largely sufficient capacity to feed, clothe, educate and support every human being on earth – to the extent that everyone could lead a dignified and wealthy life?

For instance: “The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found in a 1997 study that 78% of all malnourished children under five in the developing world live in countries with food surpluses” (read full article)

Did you know that?

I suggest investigate a new system based on the value of life – where life is actually supported and cared for from birth. This is not an outrageous speculation, but a mathematical provable solution. Investigate the Equal Money system. The current system is a holocaust and you are here and part of it – so stand up and be part of the solution. Join us on www.equalmoney.org.

Gabriël Zamora Moreno

The System is designed in a polarity of have’s and have not’s through a money-system based on Debt, and the environment you are born into in is what determines your life, be it wealth or poverty – the current system is like a casino, where one’s faith depends on luck only, with winners and losers. Many justify the inequality through ‘natural selection’. But they forget this casino-reality with its casino rules is a Human creation based on Human agreement – and thus not ‘natural selection’. If natural selection really existed then Humanity would already have existed as equals all over the world, working together as one to support each other, because then they would be an effective specie.

SCRIPT OF DOCUMENTARY

— The narrative is mostly based on the historical research done by Jared Diamond – ‘Steel, Germs & Horses’ (1997) —

When looking at the world of today and looking at the differences that
exist between Human beings on earth, one could ask if there is a
particular reason as to why a specific ‘race’ or ‘country’ or
‘continent’ ended up holding a more favorable position of ‘power’ in
comparison to other ‘races’, ‘countries’, or ‘continents’.

Where through economic principles of debt, entire Nations have ended up being
enslaved to western creditors with no way out.

Where entire populations are left to starve without regard from the Western countries.

Where one half of the world is actually working to feed the other half
that live in better conditions and enjoy more wealth, health and better
education.

Was there a pre-programmed advantage involved? And if so – did it have anything
to do with the Human?

Since the times when ‘modern civilization’ came into contact with the
‘forgotten parts’ of the world, the west was faced with a peculiar
question: how come populations such as the Aboriginals in Australia had
virtually made ‘no progress’ since the Stone-Age?

People of ‘Modern civilization’ saw themselves as superior in
knowledge, science and culture – giving them a ‘Divine Right’ to either
exterminate, convert or enslave the indigenous populations. Ultimately
the reason as to why one part of the world came to hold the more
fortunate position is then attributed to the particular evolution of
knowledge, science and technology within that society.

This is how history is being taught in schools and how it is recorded
in the history books. History books will typically emphasize the
superiority of the West in terms of philosophy, religion, science and
technology, and they will meticulously trace the ‘evolutions’ thereof.
Within that, the core belief of the Western world is reinforced – that
knowledge is the actual drive of ‘evolution’, ‘change’ and ‘progress’.
Recent historical research has uncovered that this is not so. In fact,
the role of knowledge, science, technology, religion and even culture
in itself are quite irrelevant factors in the journey of Humanity that
has resulted in the extreme inequalities that we witness today.

So, then what are the relevant factors?

The biggest factors that have in fact determined the inequality between and
within Human societies of today, are Plants, Animals and Germs.

To place this into perspective we will consider the startingpoint of
when – according to the historical record – ‘Human civilization’
started. This is said to be between 13 000 and 10 000 years ago, which
is after the beginning of a new climate cycle on earth – where it
basically became warmer on earth from that point onwards. (With ‘Human
Civilization’ I refer to a new type of ‘living together’, thus I’m not
talking about the beginning of Humans ‘living together’ as such, which
existed much earlier.)

If we look at the basics of Human Life on earth, we can ask: what do Humans
primarily require to be able to exist?

According to ‘standard archeological research’, Human Beings had
typically been living as nomadic hunter gatherers, where they would
settle and move according to a temporary favorable environment. Studies
of hunter gatherers in recent centuries have shown that such people
lived in what is termed an ‘egalitarian’ form of social organization.
‘Egalitarian’ implies nothing more than that every member of the group
is equally responsible for obtaining food, because otherwise there will
simply not be enough for everyone. Hence there will be no ‘social
classes’ of any significance in such a small society. Even the one
regarded as ‘generally more or most responsible’ looks and lives
exactly the same way as every one else, simply because they cannot
afford to be or look like ‘more’ than another.

Such societies are typically very limited in their ‘cultural products’,
because they moved a lot and their only means of transport was their
back.

To put it extremely simplistically there existed two basic types of
human societies: nomadic hunter gatherers and sedentary farmers. It is
quite relevant to make that distinction because all the current
societies that are regarded as ‘more advanced’ originated from
sedentary farmer societies. So the ‘step’ from the hunter gatherer type
of society to sedentary farmers appears to be the decisive ‘step’ in
the course of Human history. The history of Farming is said to have
started 10 000 years ago – thus marking the beginning of ‘Human
civilization’.

Let’s look at this point then.

What changes had occurred as a result of humans becoming sedentary
farmers?

What generally happens is the following: at one point on the band /
tribe will find a vegetable that it can cultivate in a controlled area
of soil, which will cause the available food resources to increase.
Everywhere where the circumstances have allowed for it man has
discovered that he could manipulate certain plants to become suitable
for cultivation. A direct consequence of a heightened food production
is that the population will be able to grow and a situation will emerge
in which some are discharged of their food producing duties. A new
‘class’ is able to emerge. In all societies where farming occurred,
hierarchy and social stratification have resulted from it. It seems to
be part of the Human program.

Simplistically, inventions such as ‘writing’, ‘the wheel’ and
‘metallurgy’ could only arise in societies where such a thing as ‘free
time’ existed, allowing for (some) humans to ‘explore reality’ and to
‘play around’ as part of a new ‘specialized activity’ pertaining to a
‘specialized class’. Thus, farming allowed for heightened food
production, which led to population increases, which in turn led to a
class emerging that is able to completely be free from food related
duties.

Thus agriculture laid the foundation for modern society, in which many
are able to never in their lives have to be concerned with
food-production. In terms of practical living, farmer-societies would
develop a higher level of effectiveness than hunter gatherers. So then
why didn’t everyone on earth become farmers?

For farming to really be worth the trouble one needed two things: an
effective vegetable and a big mammal to assist with muscle power.

There exist round about 200 000 wild plant species on earth (including
non-edible ones, such as trees). Of those 200 000 wild plant species
only a few hundreds had been successfully domesticated and of those
hundreds only a few dozen are used in today’s world for world-wide
production. What does that imply? It means that Human societies did not
necessarily have access to effective vegetables for domestication and
food production. Within that, bear in mind that none of the vegetables
we eat today existed as such in nature: they were genetically modified
through a long processes of domestication thousands of years ago. That
no significant new plants have ever been domesticated in modern times,
suggests that humans did explore all available possibilities already in
ancient times. That gives us a pretty sober picture as to the apparent
‘abundance’ of the earths ‘natural resources’.

The big mammals that were used could be seen as the first ‘machines’,
with the sole difference that this ‘machine’ wasn’t ‘invented’ and
build by the human, but simply existed and walked around in humans
natural environment. All Humans had to do was to capture the thing.
Though such mammals weren’t readily available anywhere. In fact, very
few mammals have ever been available that allowed for effective
domestication. (To establish a clear definition, Domestication = an
animal bred in captivity, with controlled feeding and breeding, as
opposed to ‘taming’ which is capturing an animal born in the wild)

Having a big domesticated mammal constituted quite a big ‘advantage’
because in addition of it offering superior muscle power, it also was a
source of fertilizer, a means of transport, a source of meat and some
could also produce milk. Mammals were especially utilized to pull plows
which allowed for an exponential increase in the surface that could be
sown, instead of having to put the grains in the soil manually.

Now, amongst the 148 big herbivorous mammals, only 14 ever proved to
be effective for domestication.
– To begin with, one must be able to feed the animal (consider that the
biggest percentage of all the grains in the world today are being used
as food for cattle).
– The animal must have a fast enough growth rate.
– It must be willing to mate in captivity (which many mammals don’t ever).
– The animal must have a genetic disposition. For instance, while
horses had been successfully domesticated in Eurasia, African zebra’s
were – and are still today – impossible to domesticate. The animal
simply does not submit to the Human. And this goes for all the big
mammals of the African continent, such as rhinos, hippos, buffaloes,
elands… etc.

Much research, money and effort has been directed towards increasing
the amount of domesticated species in modern times – it has virtually
amounted to nothing. This suggests pre-programmed conditions in nature,
leading to outflows of inequality.

From that perspective different people on different continents simply
did not have an equal startingpoint: certain environments allowed for
more possibilities than others, either offering the Human ‘many
opportunities’ or either limiting him to an extreme degree.

For instance, after the time Humans firs set foot on the Australian
continent some 10 000’s of years ago, all big mammals that existed
there, went extinct. The same happened in Native America: by the time
of the arrival of humans, all big mammals – except for the llama and
the closely related alpaca – were either hunted to extinction or
perished through the climate shift.

With everything discussed so far, a pattern has now emerged. South
America had just one domesticable specie, while North America,
Australia, and Sub-Saharan Africa had none. In contrast the remaining
13 mammal species all existed on the Eurasian continent (including
North Africa), because the natural environments there were more
supportive of those species. Merely by determining the spread of these
animals, the course of history already became predictable.

Obviously once a particular technique of food production had been
found, that method was then able to spread to other peoples/societies –
crops and animals could be used outside of the area where the method
was first ‘discovered’. Though here again the environments played a
decisive role.

If one look at the size and the orientation of the big landmasses of
the earth, one will notice that there are differences. For instance the
American and the African continents have a smaller surface than
Eurasia. If we then look at the orientation of the landmasses we see
that America and Africa both have a vertical orientation on the map.
The vertical distance between the two remotest points of the continent
is called the ‘north-south axis’. Eurasia has a very broad horizontal
orientation, which is termed a ‘west-east axis’.

Why is this relevant? It has to do with the climate differences on the
different latitudes of the Earth, such as the Equator. These latitudes
run horizontally across the globe – on maps this is depicted as
horizontal strokes. This implies that on a landmass with a large
horizontal axis, the longest distance of that landmass will find itself
laying entirely within one latitude or climate. Hence Plants and
Animals that are able to live on one area within one latitude, will
most likely be able to live in other areas within that same latitude.

However with Africa and America – because of the vertical orientations
– the landmasses are more ‘divided’ by different latitudes. One merely
need to consider the desert on the equator in Africa, nearly ‘cutting
off’ the upper and the lower halfs of the continent from each other.
Thus different latitudes will ‘cut up’ the continent, making transfer
of Animals and Plants along a vertical axis more difficult. Let’s
illustrate this with a practical example: for instance, while the llama
existed as a domesticated animal in South America – and while a type of
wheel had been invented in Mexico – the two never met. As a consequence
of this, the wheel never got any practical application other than being
used for small toys. The two area’s were ‘cut off’ from each other
through the climate barrier of Central America.

Another point is that one cannot randomly move a Plant from one
location on the globe to another. For instance, plants have
pre-programmed time-cycles. If one moves a plant with a particular
time-cycle from one area on the globe to another area where the days
are shorter, the plant will not be able to survive. Similarly, Animals
that have become resistant to the germs that live in one particular
climate, will become sick in a new climate with new germs. So Animals
and plants are bound to their climatic environments, limiting their
‘free movement’.

So from that perspective the Eurasian continent has had the ‘most
favorable’ conditions, allowing for the widest and fastest spread of
domesticated Animals and Plant-crops. On top of that Eurasia has been
the continent with the most available domesticable big mammals in fact.
Thus by its very conditions, the Eurasian continent was more supportive
of the Human.

Let’s now finally turn to the subject of Germs.

Why would Germs be so important?

When the Spanish conquerors invaded Native America, they had many
points that ‘helped’ them in having a certain advantage over the Native
people: they possessed fire-arms, were mounted on horses, were
protected by metal armors and had metal swords, though they were not in
great number. The Spanish killed, conquered and converted many of the
natives – but the majority was in fact killed by Germs which the
Europeans had brought from overseas. So the cause of the near
extinction of the Native Americans was not due to the Conquerors, but
the Viruses. So who really conquered America?

Though, where did these germs come from and why didn’t the Native
American Germs kill the Spanish instead?

It seems the Europeans got their Germs from their mammals.

In the process of living together with their Animals, farmers took over
their Germs and overtime they build a resistance towards these Germs.
Amongst the diseases that have been traced to cattle-germs are: the
measles, smallpox and tuberculosis.

A second origin of new diseases was the growth of populations in itself
due to sedentary living. Because what happens with sedentary living:
groups of people start living in their own sewage, causing many
bacteria to infiltrate the drinking water. Thus the bigger the
populations, the more Germs. Cities typically have had to deal with
epidemics. The building of underground sewage systems was the first
point that allowed to really break the pattern. And only till the
beginning of the 20 th century did European cities become
self-sustaining in terms of their populations, whereas before a
constant inflow of healthy farmers from the outside was required to
compensate for deaths due to crowd diseases.

Another point that has benefited the Germs in Eurasia was the trading
routes. Since they were build in Roman times, a more easy transfer to
the different parts of the continent became possible. So now the
populations of North Africa, Europe and Asia became one large breeding
ground for microbes.

Obviously none of these points were ‘intended’ or even understood.

Thus we could push the point even further and ask whether it is really
the peoples of Modern civilization that ended up dominating the globe
at all. From a certain perspective it is the germs that are dominating
the globe. Perhaps that’s why scientists call groups of microbes
‘Microbe-Cultures’ ?

Let’s have a look at how germs operate.

Some will enter the organism and will then start modifying the organism
so as to develop what from a human perspective are ‘symptoms’ or
‘side-effects’ of the actual disease. Though from the Germs
perspective: this modification of the body is what allows him to spread
more effectively.

Some examples.

Influenza, common cold and ‘whooping cough’ microbes induce the human
to cough or to sneeze, thereby launching a cloud of microbes towards
potentially new hosts.

The cholera bacterium induces massive diarrhea allowing the bacteria to
spread through the water supply of which many will drink.

Then there is the rabies virus that on top of getting in the saliva of
an infected dog, will drive the dog into a frenzy of biting and thereby
spreading the virus.

Other bacteria will induce genital infections to spread through the human act of sex.

From that perspective it becomes difficult to ignore that more advanced
species than the Human exist in fact on earth. It is even becoming more
and more uncertain whether the human will be able to adapt to the
evolution-speed of new emerging diseases. They have been with the human
since day one, and while the human’s genetics haven’t changed since the
beginning, the germs have been mutating incessantly.

So – within establishing why The Western world has ended up having such
an advantage over other continents and peoples, we have found that
Human beings have had very little say in their particular destinies.
There has in other words been no real directiveness from the Human
within his own history, because if one really look at it – as soon as
certain conditions were in place the human would start acting in a
predictable pattern. At all times the human has been directed by fear,
greed and the desire for power. Nothing ‘revolutionary’ has ever
happened other than the human acting out his program, which has
resulted in the world we see today.

So why have Human beings never applied common sense to their reality?

For instance, with the technology, the resources, the
producing-capacity and the knowledge that exists today, one could
easily end things like starvation and poverty forever – allowing for
every human on earth to live a dignified life from Birth to Death. That
would be common sense, because then there would be no more unnecessary
suffering through things like war, exploitation and other behaviors
that are based on inequality.

Remember that ultimately, the ‘position’, ‘status’ and ‘power’ one
currently hold in this reality is a result of conditions that existed
on earth 10 000 years ago – and that it has very little to do with
one’s individual capacity. It was instead pre-programmed through the
unequal conditions of the earth. This implies that equality should be
considered, because otherwise humanity will eternally remain a slave of
the past. There is no intrinsic reason why Humans should keep
‘following’ the pre-programmed path of inequality that has been set out
since the beginning. Therefore all the suffering that is occurring as a
result of it – is completely unnecessary and it can actually be ended.
It only requires the will to do so and with the possibilities that are
currently available, humanity has really no more excuse.

It’s time to stop.

Gabriel Zamora Moreno