Reality Dimensions and Ordinal-tropic Travel: A Wild Trip

Preface: Go figure, I am not always right.

In previous posts about the Reality Unification Theory (RUT), I have alluded to the idea that reality needs to evolve over time. I have now realized such a line of thought has at least one tiny little flaw which I am going to explore in this post.

A warning to the physicists: I am not one of you. This post may not make any sense from the Physics point-of-view. Please, turn on your b%$&s#@* sensors and let me know if they detect huge offenses to the state-of-the-art in Theoretical Physics. Or, alternatively, turn it off and enjoy the read as much as possible. :) For the non-physicists, don't be intimidated by the title. My post is not as complicated as the title reads...at least that is what I hope.

The flaw in RUT is the following. If Reality is everything, than why is time not part of reality. For reality to evolve, it needs to evolve over time. This means that time itself is not something that is part of reality, but rather something on which reality depends in order to evolve. In other words, reality is everything but time. Time rules over reality.  Therefore, time is awesome and reality is a sucker?! This idea does not seem to make sense to me.

If reality is supposed to be everything, it should include time itself. The implications of that claim however are numerous and they go against many concepts proposed in RUT. I will try to describe my thoughts on this matter next.

Space and Time

If reality includes time then reality no longer evolves over time. Instead time becomes part of the reality in the same way that space does. This means I am on the same boat as Einstein and Minkowski when they say that time and space are interrelated. I mean, the guys were geniuses, who would disagree with them? However, I am not sure if they really are a single dimension (spacetime), and this is probably because I haven't read enough on that topic to be honest. Nevertheless, I believe that if space is finite, time should also be finite. If space is infinite, time should also be infinite. If space is cyclical, time should also be cyclical.

Much like we can associate X, Y and Z as coordinates of space, we could create X,Y, Z, T (for time) as coordinates in universe or reality space. Sounds reasonable right? And, obviously, it is not a new idea. Most of us know  or seem to agree that the fourth dimension of the universe is time. But is that all? Is there really only four dimensions? Is time a dimension or simply the effect perceived by the change of other dimensions? Aren't there other dimensions out there just waiting to be discovered. I know, I should go read some string theory before I continue. Well, I believe there are at least a few more dimensions there, such as the order and tropic dimensions, the latter potentially being a set of dimensions. Let us step through it slowly so that neither you, the reader, nor me, the writer, gets confused in the process of explaining it.

The Present, the Laws of Nature and the Initial State of the Universe

Imagine that, at a certain moment in you life, you have to make a decision whose choices may lead you through completely different paths in your life. Depending on the decision you take, your life will develop differently, right? Now, imagine that all possible options that you have to choose could be organized in a tree-like structure that sorts them over time. That would be a pretty big tree, huh? I mean, at a single moment in time, there are an uncountable number of paths or actions one could take, what to say about the paths across your entire life? And if time is continuous, there is no such thing as taking a path at a certain point in time. Therefore, there is really no such tree, or if it exists, it has an infinite number of branches distributed along the continuity of time. And that is where the fifth dimension comes in. It is the dimension of possibility, the tropic dimension. But do possibilities really exist or is everything predetermined?

Now, Let us assume for a moment that we don't have free-will. In other words, all of our actions and the actions of other sensory and non-sensory entities are defined by a set of complex inter-being inter-matter physico-chemical interactions that result in us deciding to take one path or another in each and every point in our lives. Whether the rules allow for random processes to occur is just a matter of how the rules are defined. For the sake of simplification, let us assume for now that there is no randomness events in any reality level, be it at the subatomic or any other level. This means that the current state of reality, what is ordinarily called the present, is predetermined by the repercussion of applying the laws of nature to a certain initial universe state over time.

But what defines the initial state of the universe? What defines the rules of nature? Could they be defined by multiple reality dimensions? What are they composed of? Ok, here is my software-engineer-biased take on this. Are you ready?

A Classification of Variables in the Experiment of Reality

Call it whatever you want: dimensions, properties or variables. They are the aspects of the universe that have some influence on the way things are or will be. I like to see them as knobs in the huge panel of reality. Hence I am going to call them variables, which make part of a huge reality experiment.

Based on my assertions on the previous subsections, I believe the variables that define reality can be divided into the following groups: state, order, transition rate and tropic variables.

State Variables

These are the ones that define a state of the universe and are currently known as the three dimensions. At least these are the ones I am aware of. Maybe physicists have found others. They define a static state for reality. State variables can be changed because their changes is what differentiates one reality state from another.

State Order Variables

It is a single variable and defines the order between different states of reality. States do not have to be counted. The order variable does not need a number, it just needs to define an order for the states of reality. The state order variable cannot be changed. Although it can be confounded with time, it is not. A previous state of reality can re-occur in the future, and thus give the impression of a change backwards in time without nevertheless affecting the value of the state order variable itself.

A change in the state order variable would simply affect the way reality states transition. In other words, it could affect how much reality will transition at each step. Reality could either not transition at all, or it could transition to multiple states simultaneously. And, if I am not mistaken, if reality transitions to all other plausible states according to the rules defined by the tropic variables (see more below), then we would have what is called a multiverse, which defines all possible states of the same reality.

Transition Variable

Simply put, it defines how fast reality transitions between subsequent states. Again, multiple transitions can happen at the same time or not. In computer terms, this would be the frame rate of reality. Time would then be the perceived as the effect of reality state transitions. Since things can only happen as fast as realty state transitions can take place, the speed of transition becomes time itself. There is no other measure, since we can't measure what happens between states of the universe, because the state transition is the fastest thing that can happen. The question now is how does that relate to the speed to light? Can the speed of light be used to measure how fast reality transitions between subsequent states?

Tropic Variables

These are the main variables that define the rules behind transitioning of reality states. The tropic variables literally rule the world... and the rest of reality. They are the ones that determine how transition between states of reality take place. The rules that determine how gravity affects mass, how particles behave, how fast light travels, etc. It determines the behavior of reality state variables and to what state reality should transition.

They are called tropic instead of entropic or syntropic simply because they can turn the reality into either the way of chaos or order. It does not really matter, as long as they determine the next state reality should be in.

Controlling the Variables of Reality

You might now wonder, if there are variables, then there is someone or something that has control over them. Who or what is it? Do we have any control over it?

Do you think you can alter reality state variables? Can you distort spacetime? I think that simply by existing we already do that. We are capable of altering spacetime and whatever other state variables are, though in a pretty small scale. So yes, I would say we cal alter state variables.

What about the order and tropic variables? Now that would be really cool to do. Can you imagine being able to change the rules of the universe? Better yet, to affect to how many states the universe transitions to? What about changing the randomness of quantum physics?

If we could control the tropic variables, we could potentially go back to a previous state (time travel) or determine our own  and everything else's future. Now, while some have already claimed to know how to do part of that using the power of the mind, I must admit to still be "a little bit" skeptical about the whole process. Others have even attracted UFOs using meditation techniques. I mean, we can't deny the powers these guys claim to have are awesome.

That being said, I am not saying any of that is either possible or impossible. In fact, in previous posts I myself have proposed a theory of reality in which this was possible. Moreover, if you think about it, the more we expand our concepts of how the universe works and identify ways to affect some of its dimensions/variables, the more variables that are used to control these variables are going to be found. This way, there might be an endless quest for the ultimate controller variable for everything. The only way to go around this issue would be if there were a cycle between controller and controlled. And that's where I see some truth in these "power-of-the-mind" experiments we see nowadays. It allows reality itself to control its own behavior.

The Imperceptible and the Perceptible Control of Reality

In the same way we can control the visible dimensions by controlling ours and other bodies or mass, I don't think it is not impossible that our mind (or thoughts, or soul or whatever you want to call it) is capable of controlling other reality dimensions. After all, we really don't know much about what our brain can do, other than what is associated with activities in the visible reality.

Having the guts of reality (us and everything else int it) control the future of reality makes perfect sense to me. We already know that for a fact. You can control your own fate at least in good part through the actions you take in your own life. In fact, we constantly affect the physical world and other beings around us by simply existing or by interacting with them.

To me, being able to affect other dimensions of reality is a mere extension of what we already know to be true. Simply because we cannot yet use well enough our senses (five or more?) and capabilities, it does not mean we are not doing it  "involuntarily" and affecting a multitude (all) of reality dimensions.  I mean, we have no idea of all the consequences of our actions even when we are consciously taking them anyway.

Additionally, perhaps the effects of our extra-sensory actions may not impact us directly, but still have an impact in reality overall. It would be similar to the wind, which cannot be seen, but its effects can be perceived. There are some things that we see happen without knowing the reason behind them. I am not saying that somethings are not caused by an overwhelming amount of factors that are visible but cannot be humanly comprehended at once. I am saying that there might be forces of Nature (reality) that we are not yet fully aware of. I mean, we did not know subatomic particles or dark matter until a few "moments" ago right.

Criticized though I may be by close and distant readers, I believe there is some truth to meditation and control and exploration of the mind in that regard. I believe it goes beyond affecting our body's well being. It teaches us mind skills which I have the impression are more than ordinary relaxation techniques. I think it is a gateway to something more. Meditation and its derivative activities might be an initial step towards livening a dormant part of ourselves, which might be capable of unimaginable things, including controlling unknown reality variables.

Perhaps we can alter time or tweak the rules of nature. Perhaps the powers of Jesus and other religious heroes are actually attainable by all ordinary men. Perhaps it is just a matter of really knowing other parts of reality and inner parts of ourselves.

Navigating Reality Towards a Safe Shore

I believe we can always change reality, be it only at the state, order or tropic level. It only depends on us to decide what is going to be the next state we want the reality around us to be, and then take the action towards making that real. Let us use our knowledge of reality to move it towards the right direction; a direction with less suffering and more justice, joy and peace. Believe in your powers! Be a reality hero... for real!

As a final remark, I have been concentrating a lot lately on one single thought: winning the lottery! :) If it happens, then we will know for sure that some truth to all I just mentioned above; that there is more to the mind than just philosophy, arts, sciences and the five senses. Or maybe it was just that I got lucky... :)

The Gist of The Just Society

I could be writing endless more subtopics on the Just Society and its inner workings similarly to all my other previous posts on the subject. However, I feel that prolonging the description of this society model across a multitude of posts makes understanding its underlying ideas more difficult. Besides, it makes the blog content repetitive, as well as even more boring than it already is.

Therefore, I have decided to use this post to summarize all the ideas presented in my previous posts about the Just Society as a way to wrap things up. If any other important ideas come to my mind that were not yet mentioned, I will add them somewhere in one of the previous posts and then reference them back here.

Society Purpose

The Just Society model is designed with two main purposes in mind.

1. To deal with the natural human lazyness;
2. To be fair to all.

A set of thirteen tenets were devised so that this society can fulfill these two purposes. They are listed in the first Just Society post. Their core ideas are to provide the same amount of resources, including services and opportunities, to everyone that is part of the society in a fair (or just) way.

The Toolbox

Knowing about man's nature and the lazyman's rule, I have attempted to design this society model by dividing it into subsection and coming up with  tools that facilitate the enforcement of fair and respectful treatment, the management of resource distribution and the positive nurture and education of citizens. These tools are listed and illustrated below, along with their relationships to different sectors of society and links to the previous posts they were described in.

• Management and monitoring tools: these are the overarching tools whose use is in the core of this society. They help support other tools in the accomplishment of their goals.
• System for Accountability Management (SAM);
• Signature of Universal Effect (SUE).
• Politics and Services: the first one should help manage all social services not directly mentioned in previous posts with the help of SAM and SARA (listed next).
• Universal Public Service System (UPSS);
• Community-driven politics.
• Economics:
• Healthy and universal meal currency (HUM$);
• System for Allocation of Resources and Amenities (SARA);
• Five-Step salary ladder.
• Education:
• Decision-focused approach.
• Safety and Security:
• Defense-oriented security (DOS) system. 
• Transportation:
• The Expensive Utopian Sci-Fi solution.

These tools emphasize some of the services society provides (e.g., security, education), but not others (health, entertainment). It is important to notice, nonetheless, that the non-mentioned services are as relevant for the proper functioning of society as the ones favored in my posts.

The overall idea behind the implementation of other non-mentioned services is that they should be provided to citizens at affordable prices. Notice, they are not free. One could argue that health services, for example, should be provided for free. The truth of the matter is that nothing is free. Even public services have a cost. And since in a Just Society, the economy is not-for-profit (see more on the Economics of a Just Society), saying a service is managed by the government or a private company does not really matter in the Just Society. Either of them is going to provide similar services at potentially similar affordable prices because of the lack of profit-driven motivation, but also due the close monitoring of the business by the public with the help of the SAM tool.

The Just Society is a dream of my own. It is a compilation of the many ideas I have had of what I think a perfect world could be. Would I like to have them implemented in real-life? Yes, of course. Will they ever? Right... is that really a question? I mean, I am dreamer, but I am aware of who I am.

Still, I hope that by writing these ideas in here, at some point, someone will read them and feel inspired to turn this world into one with less suffering, and more joy and peace. In the meanwhile, like a hummingbird putting out forest fire, I will keep fighting  the best way I can to bring that world closer to reality. Hopefully, others will gradually join me (us, really) in this long and seemingly never-ending fight. Will you be one of them?

Law Enforcement and Safety in a Just Society

Even in a Just Society, there will always be those trying to go against the rules. Hence, a system of law enforcement and safety maintenance must exist to deal with it. This post is an unpretentious attempt to sketch ideas for improvements to the law enforcement and safety system in our society.

The DOS System

In a Just Society, law enforcement should take an approach which I like to call the defense-oriented security (DOS) system (Am I going to be sued for using this acronym? I am not sure). Threats will be perceived and dealt with as they become menaces to the security and safety of citizens. Elimination of human lives should never intentionally occur and destruction of property should be minimized as much as possible. A nation should develop a modern over and inner-reaching "iron curtain", which absorbs and scrapes off all local and foreign threats from society and guarantees safety to all citizens. Not much of an iron iron curtain, but more of a steel sponge. :)

In order to accomplish that at either the military or police enforcement levels, a great deal of investigative work has to be done, so that harmful situations can be predicted and avoided as early as possible. Together with SAM, the DOS system should provide technological tools to facilitate the monitoring, investigation and retention of information associated with criminal events. Nonetheless, this work should be done without interfering with another nations' sovereignty. More importantly, the system should be designed with the priority of defending citizens over purging law infractors.

Weapons and War

At a military level, a country should never go to war. Instead, it should defend its territory and citizens from foreign and local threats in the best way it can. No more going to foreign lands and fighting terrorists or radicals. Enough of using war as an excuse to invade countries and exploit their resources. Instead, the government should direct its efforts towards ensuring their country is safe from security threats within and without, while maintaining position in their soil.

Much as weapons are useful, in a Just Society, weapons should only  be used as tools for self-defense, not for killing. Weapons should be used as means to control harmful situations and neutralize harmful threats, and not to annihilate enemies and transgressors.

For that to be successfully accomplished, however, a society requires that the use of fire weapons and explosives be deemed illegal and forbidden, even in law enforcement. The use of tasers, water cannons or high-end tranquilizer guns can potentially be used though. Fire weapons and explosives would only be allowed if they are used as high-end defense-only mechanisms, such as iron curtains or anti-aircraft batteries.

The use of cold weapons would be allowed, but restrictions on their use, especially range weapons, should be based on the reasons for carrying and using them. A few (poor?) examples: bows an arrows should only be allowed to be used by bow sportsmen and licensed hunters. Range weapons such as tasers and tranquillizers should be restricted to law enforcement. Other weapons such as compressed air guns should also have their access restricted or even forbidden. Removing fire weapons and explosives from society and restricting access to cold weapons would drastically limit the amount of damage an ill intended person could do to others.

Community Empowerment and Enforcement

Ultimately, as citizens become gradually more educated on ethics, moral principles and societal rules, it is expected that law enforcement gradually becomes less and less of a necessity. Instead, citizens will evermore avoid performing harmful actions. Moreover, citizens themselves will help enforce law and denounce improper or harmful behavior.

Not only that, and perhaps more importantly, communities will also participate in the daily education of their fellow members, so that, should any safety or security issues arise, be them caused by social, psychological or other problems, they can be resolved before they escalate to a serious and harmful situation that may threaten the lives of  citizens.

Safety Is about Minimizing Risks

No security system will ever be perfect. It does not matter the security control and monitoring technology used or how many are involved in maintaining such security and safety. Human behavior is very difficult to predict. The best that law enforcement can do is monitor and track potential threats in the hope that, by properly tackling them, it will be resolving as much of the actual threats as possible. At the end of the day, the key to improving safety and security is really in educating citizens and providing them with a high quality of life.

Let me end here with one final summarizing thought:

Negotiation and welfare are the ultimate weapons against conflict and warfare.

A Tomorrow that Never Comes: Quality Education

This is a brief post on the education in an ideal Just Society. Please, see previous posts on the topic to know about the dogmas and systems this kind of "futuristic" society entails.

Disclaimer: No, I am not an educator. I am just a normal person, a computer programmer, who happens to think about all kinds of stuff. Moreover, as an attempt to improve my communication skills, I practice writing on this blog. Hence, the content you are about to read is not the words of an expert or the result of dozens of educational studies. It is solely my perspective on the topic.

Is There Really a Problem?

I would say so. In my view, education must be more than simply acquiring knowledge. Education is about giving people enough light so they can see all the paths that light illuminates, any of which they can take at any moment in their lives. It is also about letting them taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that is, allowing them to distinguish between good and evil, but not necessarily in the sense exposed by religion.

I believe today's society is educating us to be technical experts, but not rightful and prudent citizens. There is little effort in educating people to live morally in society. We learn science, language, history, but there is not much emphasis on ethics and moral principles. Moreover, even the current good technical education is not free, regardless of its level.  Therefore, I believe a good educational system should:

1. Help people make educated decisions;
2. Help them distinguish between right and wrong;
3. Be accessible to everyone;
4. Allow people to acquire knowledge to perform a useful task in society.

This is the list of educational goals society should attempt to tackle, and do so in a top-down order. This would be an educational approach which I like to call decision-focused, because it prioritizes helping people making correct and educated decisions over providing them knowledge to perform a certain task in society.

Nowadays, I feel we are approaching these goals upside-down, an education approach I like to call knowledge-focused. We are currently attempting to provide education according to market and industry demands. As it is, however, we haven't even successfully and fully tackled the issue of education accessibility yet. Therefore, as it is, society is far from being able to seriously tackle goals 2 and 1.

And You Have a Solution to All of It, Right?

Well, I have ideas. Whether they are solutions or not it is up to the reader. First of all, to make education free for all, we need to make all educational institutions non-profit or public. This would require them to live off of government funds or donations.

However, you may ask, wouldn't this lead to a melt-down of the educational system? I mean, do you really think public money and donations can fully support high-quality education? I don't know. What I do know is that profiting from education does not sound right. Many people either can't have access to quality education or have a lifetime of debt due to having it. Neither situation is acceptable and the only way to solve it is to make it free. Making education free levels the play field for students of all social classes and potentially mitigates the issue of social class stratification in the long term.

In order to make rightful citizens out of ordinary people, in addition to simply turning them into technical experts, more radical changes in the educational curriculum needs to be made. Students should be required to take classes on ethics, moral principles, politics, philosophy and problem solving from early ages up to college. This will help them form critical thinking and question results based on their perspectives on a variety of topics. It may also help them build social skills as they work together to resolve problems. Last, citizens will better know their rights as citizens and how to protect those rights or protest when these are in jeopardy.

Being able to know and do all these things are all very important in the formation of a citizen, regardless of the professional role one assumes in society. It helps keep citizens in control of society instead of having it be controlled by corrupt politicians and other governmental evil doers.

Does Education Have a Future?

The future of education is in the hands of every citizen in every society. The right for education should be universal and all of us should demand from our governments that they play their role in protecting this right. Life is a struggle, a battle, but changes only come if one takes action. Look into you naked soul, what is it really telling you? Educate yourself, envision all the paths you can take, and make a decision.

I hope this post has been educational to the reader. :) At the very least, it was much shorter than previous ones, which is also be a good thing. Happy holidays to you, the invisible reader, and may 2016 be filled with enlightened decisions and life-changing actions.

The Path of the Vegan

For this post, I have decided to take a break from the Just Society related posts and speak a little bit about another topic. I will get back to the Just Society discussions in later posts.

For long I have been thinking about writing on the topic of veganism. I have been hesitant about doing it mostly because of the ideas associated with the following quote that got stuck in my mind after I heard it on a documentary. It goes more or less like this:

"The unwise man tries to change others.
The not-so-wise man tries to change the world.
The wise man tries to change oneself."

I could not write about veganism without at least being a vegan. Admittedly, I cannot want to change others and the world without first changing myself. Now that I am almost a complete vegan (at least in terms of the food I eat), I have found the strength and inspiration to write (or preach?) a little bit about it. I was further motivated by a thought that could not leave my mind and that is in line with the following quote:
 
"Without marketing, your business is doomed to fail"

Maybe I am not the wisest of men, but if I think it is not enough to do the right thing. If you want people to do the same, you need to let them know about what is the right thing to do. I think that leading by example is not simply doing the right thing, but also advertising about it.

In the spirit of the blog subtitle, I have finally put my ideas together in a way that actually allows me to (de)code them into words. At the end, this post may sound slightly  arrogant or egocentric, but I really hope that does not happen. I just want to expose my perspective as a pro-animal-life person. Arrogance is not in my genes. If anything, my genes have given me poor communication skills. But enough of a preface, let us talk about veganism.

Non-vegan Behavior and the Invisible Wall

Assuming a vegan diet is not the easiest of tasks, especially when you were grown accustomed to serving barbecue during your birthday parties. However, once you are convinced that it is good for you and the others, and by others I mean other species of animals, there is really no turning back.

The hardest part in becoming a vegan isn't really the fact that you can't eat delicious meat, dairy-based products or even an omelet. At least, that is not what makes it difficult for me. What really makes it difficult is finding the answers to the questions that appear in your head on a daily basis once you assume the role of being vegan. In my case, the core questions currently are:

1. Is my vegan effort really making a dent on the current animal-based-product industry?
2. Will I be able to accept and live with meat-eaters without judgement on their own actions?
3. Why are there some many people aware of the unfair situation for animals in the animal-based industry, but yet they do nothing about it? 

The first question is really the easiest to cope with and answer. I mean, I know the power of us as individuals to affect the grand scheme of things is out there. The consumer power is out there. Whether it is in the hands of the consumer themselves or being "puppeteered" by the marketing teams and the interest of large companies, that is a different story. However, I am certain that if enough people would become vegan, we could change this world into a less cruel one. Nowadays, however, being a vegan is not the most fashionable of roles to assume, in the same way that it is not trendy to take public transportation to reduce global warming. Again, the lazyman rule casts its shadow on these aspects of modern life.

The second question is a little bit harder to answer. I must admit that I sometimes feel like just arguing with all non-vegan people I know (everyone I know really) about how wrong it is what they are doing. I like to call this argumentation urge the vegan attitude (a cute
funny name, thank you). Most of the time, I can control it, but it gets really hard when others start criticizing about my diet. The line of thought that leads to this sometimes aggresive attitude is the following.

Eating meat, dairy, eggs, seafood, etc. is imposing a live of slavery and misery to a multitude of species. It is treating them as resources not as sentient beings with feelings and emotions. It is removing life from another sentient being. How can anyone not see this as they look at their plates every day? Well, I know why. I was one of them at some point. You just don't think about it. You dissociate the word meat from the concept of the body part of an enslaved and tortured animal that is used to sustain an unnecessary culinary luxury for our taste buds. Let me just tell you this, it is hard to be a quiet vegan. The vegan attitude always tends to show up at some point and transform a conversation into a row.

The third question however, is the one that brings me the most indignation. How can people who actually know what goes on behind the scenes of the meat and dairy industry still not change their eating habits? How can they not feel guilty for participating in the atrocious animal genocide that is involved in consuming these animal products? How can they live with that? It is hard for me to believe that all humans have good in their hearts when I see this happen. It is not a matter of being narrow-minded or disinformed. It is cynicism, indifference, apathy, or as C. Wright Mills would accurately say, organized irresponsibility. I mean, wake up, people! Look into you naked souls and let it tell if this feeding behavior is really in tune with your own principles! I mean, do you follow any principles? Hm...I am kind of losing control of myself right now. My vegan attitude taking control again. Let me give a few long, paused breaths for a little bit...

Ok... I feel much better now. :) The thinking about these question creates what I call an invisible wall that separates us vegan from everyone else. Being a vegan is seeing normal social behavior as abnormal. It is putting yourself in a position that feels in line with your inner principles and, at the same time, noticing that the rest of human race has not even dared to consider that position. Even though you feel good about yourself, you feel sorry about anyone else who is not following that path. Yes, this may sound a little pretentious, I know, and I am sorry for that. It is not my intention. It is just a fact. You feel sorry for others, how much they could do to make this world a better place with less suffering. And it is this constant comparison between a vegan and others that creates this wall that permeates all of a vegan's social interactions. And even though it may not be perceived by most people who a vegan interacts with, its presence is felt by the vegan and it affects the way (s)he perceives the surrounding world and other fellow human beings.

I would say that learning to deal with this invisible wall is one of the most important lessons for an apprentice of veganism. It is a lesson of respect and tolerance for differences, no matter of what kind.

The Whys

Well, the purpose of this post is not only to express my opinion on the path of veganism, but also to condense in a single piece of text explanations for why one should follow such path. Attempting to do this is obviously not new. Many vegans have done the same thing in the past. And this is why I am going to leverage from their knowledge in this post. In order to make my life a little easier and the post a little shorter, I am going to be adding links to the text with many explanations to justify veganism. Hopefully the interested reader will follow them along and read their content. Believe, the text is of much higher quality than the one you are reading right now. :)

My hope is that, by putting this information together, whenever someone attempts to lead me astray from the vegan path by asking me why this, why that, I can refer them to my blog, instead of using the g word,  telling them to go g***** (search it) themselves. And who knows, maybe I will persuade a few of the readers to join me in the wild vegan ride (comment to self: a few out of 0 readers is still 0. You know that, right?).

The list below is divided based upon the type of animal-based products, and it may get extended over time, time will tell. A warning: the links below present content that is potentially inappropriate for children and the faint of heart. Nothing unbearable, but definitely thought provoking. I would probably finish eating before clicking on any of them if I were you.

1. Why not eating meat?
   I mean, seriously? Do you think meat grows on trees? Well...not really. We kill other sentient and emotion-capable beings to acquire it, not to mention the torture these beings endure during the hideous production process it entails. No further external content required to understand that, but please feel free to search on-line for more information on the topic.
   
2. Why not eat eggs?
   Eggs contains a lot of good stuff (vitamins, fat, etc.) in it, correct? Additionally, they are just chicken abortions (female period left over?), so if you are OK with the idea of eating an unsuccessful fetus-to-be, theoretically, you should not be harming animals at all in the process, right? Well... not really. In the next link is a nicely summarized EXPLANATION of the reasons why animal-loving folks like me should not eat eggs. Hence, next time you go buy, order or eat an egg, think about what you just read on that link.
3. Why not have dairies (milk, cheese, butter, etc.)?
   I mean, it is not even about abortions any more, it is just milk. Cows don't suffer when they give away milk. It is just something they produce painlessly. Besides, they get free food, shelter from the farmers and in general, live a good life, right? Well...not really. In the next link is yet another good EXPLANATION for why the life of a domesticated cow is far from the better life it would have in the wild. And because vegans care about the means necessary to reach an end, we avoid as much as we can any kind of product whose production involves animals.
4. Why not use products tested in animals?
   I mean, look how much good vivisection (animal testing) has brought us. Wouldn't it be justifiable to kill just a few animals to the benefit of millions of humans and even other species as well? Well...not really. I mean, would you want to volunteer for a lab testing where you could potentially die? I know I wouldn't. And not wanting to be part of these tests is not the only reason, though it should be enough of a justification to forbid vivisection. Please read both EXPLANATION1 and EXPLANATION2 to understand why vegans avoid products associated with animal testing.

The Path Less Travelled

The path of the vegan is not only the path of animal compassion, but also the path of tolerance and respect for other fellow humans and beings. It is the path of fighting against organized irresponsibility. A path that leads human kind to the creation of a more civilized global society. It is not an easy path, but I believe it is a path that takes us in the right direction.

I am going to wrap this post up with a few quotes to further inspire the undecided vegans to-be (if any).

It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change - See more at: http://www.lookupquotes.com/quotes/it-is-only-the-wisest-and-the-stupidest-that-cannot-change/21495/#sthash.KynaM2zS.dpuf

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”
Peter Drucker.

“Life is a sum of all your choices.”
Albert Camus.

Look into yourself and admire your naked soul.
What is it asking from you?

The Politics of Transparency and Communication: Overcoming the Lazyman Rule

I have mentioned in a previous post how the lazyman rule affects our lives in more ways than we can imagine. In  particular, it affects our behavior and development as a society. In the previous two posts I have described a few ideas on how to cope with the consequences of that rule in the areas of economics and other sub-areas of societal management. In this post, my plan is to provide the reader with a few more ideas on the area of  politics.

Public Monitoring

Monitoring the performance of government is of the utmost importance if we ought to have a corruption-free government. The System for Accountability Management (SAM) is one way to achieve that, whereby every single public work is monitored in digital form and available for review by the public.

SAM also keeps track of the political career of public servants. Therefore, it can be used as a tool for investigating and deciding on which candidate to vote or avoid voting in upcoming elections.

Last, every political decision, be it the creation and update of laws or the spending of public money is also going to be managed electronically. This will allow citizens to monitor every single aspect of political decisions, and also take part in it, as further discussed next.

More Power to the People

Another important change that needs to be made in the political process is  having the people intervene in any sphere of power whenever they deem necessary. Let me give a few examples to clarify that idea.

Let us say a community is represented by certain politician for designing and  implementing laws. In the political system of a Just Society, if the people feels the politician is poorly representing their will, they can change the political process very efficiently so it reflects their desires. There are a few measures they can take to mend the situation.

Firstly, they can participate in any vote the political representative participates. If a certain percentage of the citizens the politician represents (25%, 33%, or 51% of the population?) casts a vote and agrees on a certain decision (51% or more of every vote?), then they can override the politicians vote. Remember, all these results go on-line and if a politicians vote keeps mismatching the citizens decision, this is recorded in their political profile as well. Therefore, it is in the interest of the politician to be in-line with the citizens desires and demands.

Another option is to allow citizens to request the replacement of the politician in case they are deeply dissatisfied with him or her. This is already possible in some political models nowadays, but the process is generally slow. With the digitization of the political process, it is expected that changes in representatives are made more efficiently. Note that such change must be taken very seriously and would have to be triggered by a majority vote by the entire population. And because it requires the involvement of all the population associated with the politician, the process may endure more than desired.

Community Politics

In large population agglomerations, it is often difficult to understand who is in charge of representing the people of a certain community in specific issues. Communities themselves must have a better way to represent themselves in the spheres of power so they are capable of demanding their rights and desires from the public decision makers.

In the political system of a Just society, the decisions should be made bottom-up, that is, from the people to the politicians. The community leaders would gather the citizens desires about a  certain topic, and pass that on to the mayor or legislative representative for that community. The representative would bring to fruition laws that better reflect the citizen's will, and as long as they don't go against the core societal tenets. Similarly, a mayor (or governor or president) would allocate resources in a way that best satisfies all the communities associated with its town or state.

I know that I am over-simplifying the political process.  The political ladder has many more steps than the ones just mentioned. The point I would like to make is that the community leaders should have more influence on the decision-making process. Again, how much every politician and community leader can satisfy the community demands is reflected on his political profile and therefore highlights his or her skills as a competent or incompetent politician.

Minute Changes, Long-Term Progress

Honestly, I believe all these changes are doable nowadays, even without a complete overwrite of the current political system. They really try to cope with two main deficiencies in our political system: transparency and communication between citizens and their representatives.

If we use the existing technology, we can improve upon the solutions to these problems. We just need to overcome the lobbying and greed from the military-industrial complex and our current and already corrupted politicians in power. But that shouldn't be too hard though, should it? :) Well, when working together people can accomplish grand feats and overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. All we need is the will to do so.

The #1 Solution to the Economy: Make it Unprofitable

Let me start by saying that I think that any economic or political model can work well as long as it is guided by the golden rule, common-sense, compassion and tolerance. These are the underlying ideas behind the economic model that I am about to propose. It will contain a few references to the tenets and tools I have written about in previous posts. In case the reader is lost, please, feel free to review these.

The Five-Step Salary Ladder

In a just society, the concept of profit is completely banished. People are going to work for the pleasure of working and serving society.  The salary a person receives is going to be solely dependent on two factors:

1. The amount of knowledge and specialization required to do that work;
2. The amount of time the person spends periodically performing such work.

Therefore, in the Just Society, you can only earn more if either you work more or have a very specialized job. The categorization for the degree of specialization should not be a very complex one. It should follow the levels of education the job demands and could look something like the following:

1. No education required (e,g.,: public cleaning household jobs );
2. Reading and writing required ( e.g., driving and cooking jobs);
3. High school or technical specialization required (e.g.: office related jobs, crafts and technical jobs such as plumbing, mechanics, etc.);
4. University or high skills requirements (school teacher, lab assistant, factory manager, politician, etc.);
5. Specialized high-skill jobs (e.g.: biodiversity consultant, socio-political analyst, rocket scientist);

You can see that the qualifications are in-line with the amount of education one gets. It is also in-line with the amount of knowledge a job requires in order to be performed. Being the academic that I am, it is obvious I love this model, since I would be making the highest level salary, the highest in the market, that is, if I find a position! :)

This system not only guarantees a fair salary for everyone, but it also removes the personal greed and work exploitation since it won't lead to higher income to the upper level management to detriment of the uneducated labor class.

You may ask yourself: what will motivate people to go to work, if they are not going to make a lot of money? Well, there is indeed a concern that society production may come to a stall because of this restriction of the amount of money one can make in a job. Besides, if they can have their basic rights assured by the government, why should they care about working at all? Well, for one, the government will be watching you, if you can work and are not, you are out of society. Moreover, market competition is still out there. The person who does the best service will still be the one most requested to do a certain job an therefore be able to maintain a high level pay for longer periods of time. Competition itself is a motivator for doing good work and serving well others.
 
Moreover, there are techniques that can be used to mitigate such restriction on profit. For example, the employee-of-the-month approach used by many companies nowadays could be applied to all kinds of jobs. It could grant periodic bonuses to those employees that were elected by others as the most helpful and productive. The good part about this model is that in order to make more money, you need to be more educated and a better worker. This direct link between learning more and earning more is very important for the generation of a society of educated citizens.

Another motivator is that, if there are less working positions than people willing to work on that position, the position, the work hours get split among qualified unemployed candidates until everyone can work at least a few hours a week. While this might lead to a management nightmare, which might be overcome using technology, it would let everyone work their share, contribute to society, have their income and still have more free time. What is not to like about that?

Then you ask: what if there are jobs that no one wants to work on, like banking or financial management for example? Well, in these cases, the job is going to a community service pool. Citizens will be randomly pulled to perform these duties until their annual community service quota is filled. The amount of quota for each individual is computed using the ratio between the amount of work hours required to complete all the available and undesired jobs in the pool and the amount of citizens capable of completing that job. A citizen cannot be called to lecture a class in micro-biology unless he has the knowledge to do so. In extreme scarcity cases, training and education could be part of the hiring process.

What about political jobs? Who is going to want them anyway? They are probably not going to be the best paying jobs, because they don't require a lot of expertise, and they are going to demand a lot of work to understand the public demands, and make public money work in the right direction. Well, the beauty of this model is that people are going to work in the areas that are the most pleasurable for them. If you are doing a job because of the money you make, you should probably not be in that job. People should work on a job they like. And this is actually a good thing. This will make people who really want to be with people, and communicate and, help others to be the politicians, the ones managing society. Can you imagine a world where all the politicians are passionately working to serve their communities? That would be a dream come true, wouldn't it?

A Universal Public Service System

Dealing with individual salaries is a tiny bit and a somewhat easy to handle  part of the whole economic process. But what about private companies? How are their profit going to be controlled? Yes. You, the reader, is right again. I was procrastinating on that topic so as not to scare you and other readers right in the first paragraph of this post. However, I feel that now may be the right time do it. :) There will be no for-profit private companies! Andcall companies will be publibly monitored. In other words, all companies will become public nonprofits. And before you say I am crazy, please, think with me for a moment. What do private or public companies do? They provide a service to society. A company should not  and will not be able to do any more than that in a Just society. For example, they will not make their CEOs filthy rich because of the salary ladder imposed above. Every business, that is, a business that involves interaction between more than one person is a social service. Thus, it should not be a minoriry enrichment machine, but rather a society enrichment one.

This simple claim has an enormous, and positive, repercussion in the way we do business. It implies that, whether you are mowing your neighbor's lawn, selling bread, or managing a global IT company, your business will be public an monitored by a public System for Accountability Management (SAM, mentioned in a previous post). Every business will be potentially monitored and therefore be under the scrutiny of the public eye.

And what happens to a company's profit? Let us say a company makes more money than the amount necessary to maintain its infrastructure and pay its employees (whose salary are now fixed based on the above mentioned salary categorization above)? Where does the rest of the money go? There are a few possible destinations for this leftover:

1. The money is invested in new infrastructure to expand the amount and quality of the services provided by the company or reduce the cost of the service or product provided. 
2. If that is not done, then the money goes to SARA and is invested in public welfare according to the Just Society tenets.

The pressure in the workspace is not removed but replaced by a healthier one, the right one: to do the best job possible as efficiently as possible so as to provide the best service to everyone. Therefore, you might still have your manager breathing on your neck with this kind of system unfortunately. What can I say, nothing is perfect. However, at least now your manager will be motivated by the best of intentions.

A New Age of Social Consciousness

With this system implemented, the veil of institutional profit is removed and personal greed is uprooted from the socio-economic system. The system now works with the sole purpose of better providing services to citizens. People will be motivated to do better, to serve better and to be recognized for that. It sounds more of an oneiric economic system than anything else...and it probably is. Well, I really wanted to finish this post with a positive attitude towards my proposed economic model, but that would be too hypocritical of my part.

The fact is that if people are not willing to think of society as a group system designed to help one another, it really does not matter what kind of socio-politic-economic model one uses or proposes. People will always find loopholes and other ways to game the system and make it suit their egotistic self-serving purposes.

Therefore, in a sense, this post and many others preceding this one are useless if people are not willing to change their mentality towards helping one another. Whether this change is possible or not is a matter of faith. It is about believing humans want to fight their internal biological, survivalist or whatever-else forces that compel them to acting to their sole benefit. Are they willing to share their bread? Are they willing to lend their hand? Are they willing to sacrifice themselves in favor of others. Are they willing to put up with suffering so that others suffer less?

The answer to all of these crucial question is, from my view, at the present moment, a resounding no. No, because most people don't even think about these things, even after thousands of years of societal interaction. No, because I don't see a trend that this mentality is changing.

Few are the people who actually care about the people who they don't know, but who they know are in need for help. Human rights might seem to have evolved in some parts of the world, but at the cost of the exploitation and lack of human rights in other areas. Some countries may have become more civilized, but others are going through ever increasing revolutions, famine, plagues and public discontent. These countries are in two different sides of the coin. And regardless of how alike or different they may be at any point in history, the average result always point to the same idea: that the human behavior is ruled by the need for self-preservation. Self-preservation over social-preservation. There has never been a battle between these too, the former has always won.

Denying the prevalence of self-preservation over social preservation is denying our own nature. Accepting it and learning to deal with it is the path to growth and to building a better society. Whether the ideas proposed in this post are capable of being the solution to such a behavior is an open question. I will leave it to you, the reader to analyse these ideas figure out the correct answer to that.

Modern Tools for a Just Society

To reduce the amount of bureaucracy and human error, the management of the basic services provided to citizens in a Just Society needs to heavily rely on technology in order to guarantee the fair distribution of resources and provision of services to all citizens. A few of the tools that are going to be used in this new society are described in this post. Please, note how these tools are made generic enough so that they can be applied to a society in practically any state or federation.

The Big Brother: Digitalization and Public Monitoring

Whenever you are dealing with a messy situation, the first step is always to clean up and organize things so you can better understand what is going on. The first step towards revolutionizing the economy is digitizing every single transaction in society and make all of them globally accessible in a partially restricted manner. This is going to be done using what I like to call the System for Accountability Management (SAM). Whatever is related to the economy must be processed, logged and backed up by this computer system.

The digitization process will lead to a consistent history of the economy. It will help us do a post-analysis on the causes and effects of certain economic events from a micro and macroscopic scale. Citizens could also benefit from that, for this would help them better monitor their finances related to the  many interactions with the rest of the economy and monitor how politicians are spending money on their community. Therefore, SAM is not a bad guy, but is here to help everyone. It is a big brother, but a big brother that will protect everyone and keep them in line.

But this is really not a novel idea. This has already going on to a greater extent. Governments have websites to present reports and data on their spending. Nevertheless, most of the minute details of each individual service is still kept out of the public eyes. And that is where corruption creeps into the public machine. In a new economic society, every single cent that is spent in public affairs must be properly reported and logged in a digital system and made public for anyone to see. This will allow anyone in society to monitor the system and detect potential frauds by societal management.

One concern is obvious in this case, which is the privacy of the parties involved in each of the transactions being monitored. To protect privacy, the personal information (e.g., personal IDs) associated with the ones involved in the provision of public service should only be revealed privately for auditors in case of suspicion of fraudulent behavior.

SAM will not only monitor how money is spent on the provision of public services. It will also keep track of citizens contribution while performing societal jobs. If you steal, bribe, or commit any kind of misbehavior, you are going to get caught. On the other hand, if one works extra hard or contribute more than what is expected, this also goes on your file. And if you are on a political position, guess what happens? As a public servant, your professional profile becomes public for everyone to check it out during election times. And of course, records cannot be deleted, only mended with rectifying notes. This system will not only keep politicians on their leash, but will keep the leash on citizens' hand. It will also enable to help police and health managers identify citizens that have problems and may need social assistance.

Signature of Universal Effect

Every citizen within the society is going to have a unique ID that will allow them to perform all of society associated tasks. Let us call the Signature of Universal Effect (SUE). Sorry, but I am in the acronym-creating mood today. A SUE is directly associated with a DNA sample taken after the birth of each individual. A unique numerical representation of the DNA (a hash code) is generated using a special mathematical function (hash function). This number is then associated with an ID number that is given to the citizen. If an ID is lost, another can be retrieved through a DNA sample. If the DNA sample generated the same hash code, a new ID is given to the citizen. If not, whatever ID was associated with the generated hash code gets updated to a new one and the old one gets black listed. If the hash code is not identified, that is bad. It means the citizen was not registered yet.

Although the system would still allow for identity theft, it guarantees the person is who (s)he person claims to be...unless there are two people with the same DNA, which should only happen in the case of identical twins. And even in that case, this may not be a problem over time. For these special cases, one base hash function is used for one twin and a backup secondary hash functions are used for the other(s). Or perhaps a simple permanent and well-hidden body mark could be made on the twins individuals to identify which key they are associated with.

If the reader thinks that the DNA based approach is not enough, for it does not cover well enough the twins case or is too bodily intrusive and easily corruptible, there is still another possibility, which could be used together with the DNA id. It is what I like to call the brain ID. The idea is to use the anatomy of the surface of the brain to identify us as individuals, much like fingerprints. Since the brain develops its shape as each person develops their own personal experiences, it is expected that every single person will have brains anatomically different, even twins.  This will guarantee a unique identification mechanism for the fringe cases the DNA identification cannot cover. The only flaw with the brain ID is that, since the brain changes anatomically as time passes, monitoring of such changes must be made constantly as to guarantee the proper identification of the individual over time. This would require periodic scans for each of these special-case individuals. Because this might end up being costly, the brain ID better be used only to resolve cases that the DNA Id can't.

While this set of approaches to unique identification is not perfect, they provide a very reliable identification system that prevents long term identity theft. And whenever you need her, SUE will be there so you can know who to sue. :)

It's Just Money: A Global Measure for Resources and Production

From my view, the main issue with a monetary system is on what to base its value upon. A good idea is to have its value based on a non-perishable resource whose production process value is well defined and stable, such as gold. This has been used in the past, but has been replaced in part by the use of the dollar for similar reasons (and other reasons we don't want to know about).

The main problem is that even these are all affected by fluctuations in their associated markets. There is really no perfect solution to it. Therefore, I would like to propose my own base resource for fixing the monetary system in a Just Society. I am going to use a more ordinary resource that is accessible worldwide. I am talking about a healthy and universal meal (HUM$). Specifically, one out of the three meals one needs to have in order to sustain his/her body on a 2000 calorie diet.

What kind of food composes this meal may vary greatly from place to place, but the important part is that it is healthy. Therefore, it is based not only on one resource, but on a multitude of resources. Because of that, the meal can also adjust itself to the fluctuations of prices by using different ingredients depending on their scarcity or abundance. The important concept to take, however, is that, the value of every resource is based upon the value of a healthy meal and that the meal always provide the same amount of nutrients and energy to individuals.

Let us put the HUM currency to use now with an example. Let us say you have a deal to mow Miss McGrath’s lawn, a senior neighbor of yours. How much should you charge for it? We could think the value would be based only on the amount of calories your body has spent to perform the task. Then we could compute the average amount of calories in a healthy meal and then know exactly how much we should charge for completing such a task. Well, if you actually could know how many calories you have spent, then this would be a piece of cake. However, appealing as this methodical approach to computing the price of tasks may seem, it is far too simplistic to solve the multitude of situations that happen in real life.

The price of an activity includes not only the calorie factor, but also the price to be willing to perform the task. Some people may think that mowing the lawn is more of a burden than others. Hence, they are willing to pay more than the amount of calories necessary to do the activity because they dislike doing it so much. Moreover, you may spend a lot of calories mowing the lawn, but still end up with a terrible result because you just don't know how to do it. On the other hand, your other neighbor, Brett, may be a skilled lawn mower and spends much less calories while doing a much better job. Brett also has the latest lawn mower model which is easier to use and almost noiseless, thus making the lawn mowing experience much more pleasant for Miss McGrath. The reader can now see that the value of mowed lawn can vary depending on the type and quality of the service provided. Therefore, there is a lot of subjectivity involved in giving a price to an activity or product, which is to be expected. That is, in part, what moves the economy.

The important point to take, however, is that, whatever activity you do, you would have a very good measure of how much it would cost. Continuing with the example above, if you mow a neighbor's lawn for HUM$ 5.00 (5 healthy and universal meals), you know that by mowing one lawn everyday you would be able to support yourself reasonably well for a day and still have some leftover to use for something else to avoid working on weekends.

The beauty of this model is that it is common and accessible to everyone. It is also not attached to any specific resource, but rather to whatever resource is available to provide a healthy meal, which makes it a much more stable unit of measure, since it is the average of the value of multiple resources. It is also nation agnostic, that is, independent of a specific nation's economy health.

But how do we transition to this monetary unit? Well, we can come up with conversion units for each nation's currency based on the cost of  resources that are locally available and  necessary to produce a healthy meal.

But who picks what constitutes a healthy meal? Well, definitely not politicians or economists. Rather doctors and nutritionists who are hopefully more akin to the idea of keeping citizens healthy.

This healthy meal monetary unit will be the basis for a new economic model which will be described in a post to follow.

The Tax that Returns to Everyone

It is a fact: governments, people, or any other institution for that matter, need resources in order to serve society and accomplish whatever goals they set upon themselves.

Let us focus on governments for a moment, since they are at the heart, if not the heart itself, of a stable and healthy society. The government is responsible for ensuring the central tenets of a Just Society are properly applied to every citizen.

And that is where a System for Allocation of Resources and Amenities (SARA) comes into play.  This system will help automate the process of resource distribution across all the spheres of society. Together with SAM, SARA will help the government collect and allocate resources so that these are used to ensure the application of the Just Society core tenets.

SARA is going to contain algorithms that will help allocate the available resources to guarantee that the rights for all citizens are followed. The allocation of these resources cannot be fiddled with by government agents. If the SARA says a billion HUMs (remember, healthy and universal meals) need to be allocated in order to guarantee housing for all citizens, that is what has to be spent on that area. However, how that amount of resources is going to be spent is up to the governments agents who are in power. Please, also notice that the amount of resources is also distributed from the federal to the state and community levels by SARA depending on factors such as population, land area and others.

The main purpose of SARA is to guarantee that all citizens have their basic rights assured. And sometimes that even may require increasing the amount each citizen contributes to society (tax increase! Oh, no...).

Well, an important point to make is that, since every citizen needs to contribute a certain amount of the resources they make to society, every citizen is guaranteed that they will have as much of the basic resources as any anyone else. Please, let me give an example.

Let us say a poor citizen makes only HUM$400.00 a month. However, every citizen needs to give in HUM$1000.00 a month to SARA. What is this citizen supposed to do? Well, his/her entire income is going to SARA! Isn't that awesome! :) Talk about taxing citizens. But, hold on a minute, that is not the entire story. Let me explain.

Because his/her source of income is smaller than the minimum amount estimated by SARA necessary for a citizen to support  oneself, this citizen will receive from SARA extra credit to guarantee him/her access to potable water, food, shelter, sanitation, health treatment, safety, energy, work and leisure. Some of these services will be free of charge (e.g., public leisurely events), others won't. Therefore, in the end, SARA may even return to that citizen more than what (s)he has contributed, say HUM$700.00. And the idea behind this system is that, at the end of the month, every one that is part of society has enough money to live a decent life style that complies with the Just Society tenets as much as possible.

This sounds a lot like the idea of a minimum wage. The difference is that now the calculation involves all the necessary factors required to provide citizens with a good quality of life. Additionally, this contribution and reimbursement process is going to be somewhat seamless for citizens since all the processing takes place before any credit is received by them at the beginning of each month.

The catch of this system is that SARA is obviously going to detect which citizen are being unable to fully support themselves. Therefore, these citizens need to be more closely monitored by social agents, so that they can provide the appropriate help in order for them to become fully socially productive as well as self-supporting. And this is an idea that no everyone may like, once again, because of the Big Brotherish feel to it. I would argue, once again, that the intent of SARA is only that, as a society we should help each other, so all of us can work together to improve our chances of survival and quality of life.

The computation and redistribution of resoruces is a task that is much easier said than done. A simple example that exemplify the complication of such computations is the fact that people live and work in places whose distance differ. How is SARA going to compute how much money is necessary for one to spend on transportation? What if someone has a disease that requires special more expensive diet? Well, all of these factors could serve as input to SARA's credit distribution algorithm and make the minimum wage a custom one depending on each others situation. I mean, the same adaptation already takes place in tax return nowadays. I am sure adaptive Artificial Intelligence algorithms would have to be applied in order to adjust to the current global economic state. Moreover, SARA would have to be trained very well using simulation before it was actually be put to use.

There is one last idea I need to mention about SARA. Part of it is going to be controlled by governing parties. SARA allocates resources at a higher level, but the minute conversion of resources into services that benefits people would have to be done by elected officials. This guarantees that democratic process is still kept intact and alive. Citizens can elect candidates who they think are going to better put the credits to work in a way that most pleases them. An interesting consequence of this is that all elected officials would now have to master the use of SARA's system. Yes, they would have to know office, excel and SARA. :)

In summary, SARA can be understood as a larger and more powerful version of the U.S.A.'s Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It will put all resources in a single big heap and then distribute them in a fairly manner to guarantee all citizens have their rights guaranteed.

Reader, Are You Still There?

Yes, this was indeed too much for a single blog post, but at least I have covered all the ideas for societal tools I have been thinking (so far...). Let us end it here. I will continue providing more details on the inner working of the Just Society in the coming posts.

Fixing Humankind Simply Put: The Just Society

Over the past few years, I watched many interesting documentaries clearly depicting the greed of humankind such as Let's Make Money and Darwin's Nightmare. They helped open my eyes to a part of the economic reality of which most of us are unaware. However, after watching an interview
with the economic hit man John Perkins. I have decided that I have seen enough. I mean, enough to start thinking about a solution to this crazy economic world which a few of us has created to probably benefit the same few of us.

I have been thinking about this idea for a little while and I still haven't come up with a full blown solution to the problem. Hopefully, as I write this post, I will start asking myself the right questions and filling up the holes. Otherwise, I will let the reader fill up the blanks or request me to fill them up.

In a previous post, I have alluded to the idea that "Human existence and civilization is the endless conflict between nature and nurture". This could also be called lazy-man rule or the least-amount-of-effort rule. I identify better with the first name. It is also more concise, so I will stick with it for the remainder of the post.

From my point of view, an effective economic model for humans must be able to find a reasonable solution for dealing with the lazy-man rule, for it is this rule that makes us want more and more with the least amount of effort, even if laws need to be "bent" or broken. In fact, this model cannot be purely economic, but rather social, politic and economic, because these three subjects are so intertwined in defining how our society works. It is going to be difficult to explain any point related to one of these three aspects governing our society without mentioning its implications on the other two.

Moreover, and perhaps, more importantly, this model should give everyone the same amount of fair treatment. After all, the fundamental motivation of living in society is so that all of us can be better off than if we were on our own out in the world. And to emphasize the importance of this aspect of the the socio-politic-economic model I am about to propose, I am going to call it The Just Society Model (JSM) or, if referring to the results of its application to humankind, The Just Society. I also like this name because it is a subtle reminder for myself to write just what is needed to explain the model, since I tend to be rather prolific at times. After all, the simplest solutions tend to be more well accepted and implementable than complicated ones.

In summary, the JSM will hopefully be able achieve the following two goals:

1. Mitigate the existence of the lazyman rule;
2. Set a foundation of fair treatment across all aspects of society. 

That being said, I am certain that most of the readers will think that the model will either not go far enough or go way to far to accomplish these goals. I will let the readers decide on what the consequences of implementing such model are. And if at the end of reading this, the reader thinks the author is a lunatic, well, I hope the reading of it will at least have served as an amusement for the reader in his/her spare time. :)

By now, the same reader must have realized that this Just Society topic is going be a long one. Yes, indeed. It will require many  posts to be fully covered, since it is going to contain a multitude of considerations about our current society, as well an equally large set of  propositions for socio-politic-economic improvements, which are, more often than not, frail and ingenuous (No, not at all. Actually, ingenious! :) ).

In this post, I am going to start with a list of the core ideas or tenets this model will base itself upon. In the following posts I will then elaborate more on sub-topics and refer back to this list.

Tenets for a Just Society

Perhaps predictably, these tenets borrow ideas from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ten commandments, but I believe they go a little further and broader than those. Perhaps, they are simply less concise! The tenets are the following:

1. All citizens have the right of access to basic resources, namely: potable water, food, shelter, sanitation, health treatment, safety, energy, work and leisure.
   
2. All citizens with basic education have the right to participate in socio-political decisions. These citizens also have the right to assume socio-political managerial positions.
   
3. All citizens have the right to form and participate in gatherings of any purpose (e.g.,  familiar, communitarian, sports-related, etc.) as long as all participating members agree upon the gathering norms and take responsibility for the consequences of such gatherings. Gatherings norms should not go against the societal tenets.
   
4. All citizens have the right to basic and higher education.
   
5. Once adult age is reached, and unless deemed incapable, all citizens must contribute to the improvement and maintenance of society. 
   
6. Unless deemed incapable, all citizens must complete the basic education level, which shall include not only classes in arts, sciences and languages, but also moral, ethics, politics, economics, philosophy and religions.
   
7. All citizens must respect other citizens' freedom of expression, religion, and philosophy.
   
8. All citizens must always put their best effort to act fairly and tell the truth as far as they are aware of it.
   
9. A citizen must always look to help other citizens. He must not intentionally act in any way that harms another citizen, unless as a consequence of societal punishment for breaking these tenets. Euthanasia is permitted as long as the euthanized citizen is not deemed incapable to make such a decision.
   
10. In situations of scarcity of basic resources (see 1), citizens must fairly share their basic resources to guarantee that other citizens also have access to them.
    
11. Citizens may be awarded with special resources as elected by the majority of other citizens that participate in the same community at different geopolitical levels based on their contributions to societal progress towards achieving these tenets. 
    
12. Citizens that do not comply with these tenets lose their rights and benefits that are provided by these same tenets. A three infraction lenience system should be applied. A re-inclusion system should also be provided for transgressors.
    
13. For cases not covered by these tenets, compassion, tolerance and common-sense applies.

These tenets are visibly divided into rights (1 - 4), obligations (5-10) and relational and plan-B tenets (11 and 13).

I gave some thought on preparing these tenets to ensure they covered all important areas our society, but, again, I might have missed something. I will let the reader comment on them while I continue to detail how these are going to be used in the remodeling of our society into a Just Society.

Fixing Humankind: Transportation

Transportation has become miraculously effective nowadays. We can go wherever we want in less than a couple of days. We can also obtain products from around the world at arguably affordable prices. Transportation enabled us to plan our activities using as a target a much broader, even global, geographical scope. This was mostly due to the invention and pipeline production of the combustion engine.

But this all came at a cost. Due to its effectiveness and convenience, motorized transportation permeated our cities in a widespread manner and brought with it air, sound and urban landscape pollution. In many places, pedestrians are not treated with the respect they deserve. Moreover, vehicles potential for harm is many a time neglected, causing many accidents which are currently one of the leading causes of human and non-human fatalities.

There must be some way to benefit from effective and efficient transportation without detriment to the urban environment and lifestyle. I have tried to come up with a solution for the problem that leverages from as much new technology as possible. After a while, however, I have realized that a less utopian, simpler solution would be the best. I have decided to post both of these ideas here and give my analysis in terms of their feasibility and benefits.

The Expensive Utopian Sci-Fi Solution

In this solution, vehicles would drive themselves. This would drastically reduce the amount of accidents that occur nowadays. Best of all, people could get drunk as much as they want and still go back home :). In addition to that, there would be no more honking on the street, highly accelerated engine noises, and screeching tire that are now part of urban cacophony. The vehicle users would indicate one or more destinations and the vehicle would optimally drive the users around taking into account traffic and road topology. The technology already exists, it is only a matter of investment and building up the required infrastructure.

Roads would go underground much like subways nowadays. Because drivers would not be driving the vehicles, no day light nor even headlights would be needed to drive around, unless in case of  emergencies or faults. For longer distance dislocation, vehicles would get into train wagons and be carried along a high-speed underground rail network connecting major urban points in a state or nation. For that to be possible, vehicles would also have to be smaller, so that more of them can fit in less space. This would optimize flow in roads and optimize vehicle transportation.

Vehicles and trains would all be moved by electricity. While trains would be connected to the power grid all the time, the same would not be true for the vehicles. The latter would be connected to the grid when being carried on a train, but also when driving in metropolitan areas were the grid infrastructure would be more readily available and maintained or in higher speed roadways where the vehicle energy demands would increase due to higher speeds.

Most importantly, all transportation would be public. Vehicle stops would be homogeneously available in every city. Dispersion of vehicles would be determined by a computer-controlled system, which would optimize idle vehicles distribution based on their location.

Vehicles would be composed of 3 to 5 interconnected compartments, but with enough room for privacy and storage of belongings. They would look like a small subway wagon. A single vehicle could then carry multiple groups of people with similar destinations on only one trip.

A vehicle user would have a digital ID that would be scanned on a machine in the vehicle stop. He would input his destination and whether more than one seat would be required by adding other users IDs. Such information would then go to a central server to compute which vehicle the user should take.

If this transportation system was in use, the number of vehicles in the streets would be drastically reduced. Not only more than one group of people would be using the same vehicle at once, but a single vehicle could also be used multiple times during a single day. No more vehicles would be stopped all day long in a parking lot. Actually, parking lots would not exist, since vehicles would always be on the move or in stops ready to serve the population. The space of parking lots could then be used for other purposes. Parking lot structures could be used for schools, public gardens and markets or other  structures that would enhance the quality of life of the community in that area.

This mix of autonomous electric vehicles and trains would reduce all kinds of  urban pollution caused by our current transportation system. It would also remove the necessity for a Registry of Motor Vehicles to monitor the driving behaviour of citizens. Such an entity would then be solely responsible for maintaining the autonomous vehicle infrastructure.

Even if the power grid would still be dependent on coal, oil or other dirty sources to generate electric energy, the energy generation would be given in a small set of spots spread around along the grid. The integration of the energy demands of transportation to the electric grid would remove the costs involved in transporting gas and maintaining gas stations. It would also facilitate pollution monitoring and management. This would motivate collaboration between energy companies and governments in moving this project forward. However, the ideal would be to reduce dependence on carbon-related fuels over time.

In the automotive industry, companies would have to compete for better quality models of vehicles and compete for chunks of the public "autonomous cab" market. This would be a transition hard to accomplish. These companies would then be funded by the government, and would be responsible for maintaining their own vehicles in the public infrastructure. The competition would ensure the quality of the service provided by these companies.

The Cheaper More Practical Solution

Much as I would like to have the above solution implemented, I think not even the richest of governments would have the guts to do it. A drastic change would have to take place not only in the transportation system, but also in the vehicle, energy and other interdependent industries.

But there is another way which is, if not less impacting or revolutionary, at least more cost-effective. The solution is simple: let's replace the above-described autonomous vehicles with bicycles.

Bicycles would still be public and spread all over the place for anyone to use them. It is true, they would not autonomously lead the way. But, looking at the bright side, transportation users will stop being lazy and actually learn more about the local road network and the city they live in and work.

In addition, they would also be constantly exercising. This in itself would be a huge advantage over autonomous vehicles. An exercised population would have reduced stress levels and less chance of heart attacks and other health problems. Ultimately, it would lead to a reduction in public health costs.

Bicycles are also pretty small compared to current cars. Even if parking lots would still be required for them, they would be able to contain far more bicycles. In addition, bicycles would always be reused and hence there would be less vehicles stopped overall. Again, similar transportation systems are already being implemented in some cities.

Special cyclist wagons could be added to the current subway and train system available for bikers who want to either use their own bicycles to work instead of leaving them in the nearby station and having to take a public bicycle when they get at their destination. This would also be more enticing for transitioning users who would not be willing to rely on public bicycles that could not be as energy efficient from a calories-per-cycle standpoint (not enough gears) or may not be available when needed during rush hours.

With a small investment in both the current train, subway and road infrastructure to make them more bicycle friendly and the help of the increasing gas costs, more people would gradually transition to bicycles. Similar benefits for cyclists could be provided as for those with electric cars, such as tax discounts or special easy to park spots, or even parking lots with no parking fees.

But even assuming everything would go well and all commuters would transition to the bicycle commuting system, this would not solve all problems. The current road infra-structure would still be required for transportation of goods and for special transportation situations such as for disabled people, elderly, or just for providing ride to the airport with one's personal luggage. However, using bicycles would be an interesting midway transition before the entire road system can actually be modified to the utopian transportation solution. The investments and changes in infrastructure and urban lifestyle would be more gradual.

And, after all, bicycles are very energy efficient and inexpensive. There is no more energy optimized system than our body. Instead of paying for gas, people would have to pay for a little bit more food. But eating a little bit more everyday to compensate for the calories spent in commuting can never be a bad thing to do.

Furthermore, using bicycles for transportation is a change that is not entirely in the hands of a government. It is in the hands of the population. As long as the population starts using bicycles, it will demand from the government to create more infrastructure for them, and the industry would then follow along. Hence, it is a type of change in the transportation system that is much less hindered by the lobbying power of big corporations. It is only a matter of the population desiring that change to happen.

The Final Question

Everyday we experience stress, pollution and other annoyances due to our current transportation system. We also hear about the impact the carbon emissions have on the environment and how this is leading to a change in our biosphere. Yet, most of us persist in blaming authorities for complying with the pressure from the dirty energy industries while doing nothing about it. We tend to forget that, at the end of the day, the final consumers of a good part of that energy are no one but ourselves.

When will we, as global citizens, take matters into our hands, get our butts out of our car seats and start doing something about the problem? Riding a bicycle only brings us benefits. No more paying for the gym, no more wasting time in the gym, no more paying tons of money to fill a tank with gas or paying to maintain your "oldsmobile". One can exercise while commuting and also enjoy the sight. And if the bike breaks, you can fix  it, yourself! How cool is that?

Citizens of the world, take action to change this world into a better one. Start it by riding a bicycle.