The concept of money

How much is enough? At what point does a person say they have enough money?

More and more, those living in developed nations are beginning to realise that money and the consumer lifestyle just isn’t doing it for them anymore. A kind of despair has taken over the faithful of the pursuit of wealth. Simply put, the pursuit of wealth doesn’t make them a lot happier.

As we watch the businessmen die from stress, stroke, heart disease and we wonder how they sleep at night with their consciences, followed by the celebrities dying from drug abuse, alcohol intake, psychosis as the hip hop artists ironically sing of the tragedy in their hoods – some of us begin to wonder if being ultra-rich is all it’s cut out to be.

We need to get money right. We need to know it’s place and put it there. Probably this arena needs a lot more thought and cleaning up, but here’s where I got to so far.

Money speaks to us on two levels; needs and wants.

The first one is our necessities. We need a certain amount of money to ensure that we are living healthily. This is an important aspect and much of the world is still trying to reach this level. However, many people have reached this level and are still striving for money. This is action is bred due to an insecurity concerning money brought over from the time where we had to strive to achieve that actual level of survival. This constant fear that we will lose that money and return to instability can be very hurtful to a person (just as any constant anxiety or fear can be).

Just like saving money is a good practice to teach our kids, we should also teach our kids not to fear it. Cultivating an understanding of what is enough will increase our efficiency of earning vs living. The second system that needs to be in place is in our policies and government, where if we can reduce the cost and ensure the availability of needs for everyone – the limit for essential wealth is reduced.

The second level is that of our wants. Sometimes, instead of being driven by a fear of lack of money, we can instead be driven by an overload of money. Like many things, too much or too little of a medium can be unhealthy. Many people believe that money can buy them everything. While it can buy them luxuries, it is rare that luxuries bring happiness. The centres of happiness and fulfilment are lit by (as neuroscientists are beginning to discover)from many other activities such as deserved treats (chocolate :D), adorable things, connecting with others (conversation, shared activities, similar values, similar plights and goals, sex (the kind that betters a relationship)), a sense of belonging, a sense of achievements, a sense of helping, a sense of appreciation and a sense of learning and growth. Many of these do not require too much money at all. As portrayed on the graph in the lecture by Nic Marks, some of the happiest places are not the richest. And the richest places stagnate at a certain point of happiness, regardless of wealth.

Money is one of those things we really need to get a grasp of. I suggest that all governments and people should strive to figure out a healthy idea of money and teach it to our children and introduce that concept in our lives that we no longer live in fear and in addiction to its potency.

Just about everything I would like to say - courtesy of TED tv

I am so relieved to see a video like this. It makes me hopeful that we as a humanity have indeed reached a stage where globally we can talk about changing our mindsets. I really don't have anything to add on the matter. I hope all of you will take the time to watch and digest this talk. I reckon this should be sent to every single politician and businessman on this earth.

The irony of putting this on my blog but check the link-

The internet might be making us stupid...

My Memetic Theory

Ever considered that an idea was a living organism? They replicate from mind to mind. They fight over resources (us) and form all kinds of weapons in order to survive. They are symbiotic, parasitic, territorial and predatory. In the book Genesis by Bernard Beckett, he postulates that the meme is the most advanced form of life - the most advanced form of a replicating being.

But perhaps, we won't go into that today.

I'm here to suggest that ideas can be at least analogous (that means taking close similarity) to life forms. Also, I think that ideas cluster together naturally. Certain ideas like to coexist with other ideas alongside. Some are dependent upon the other idea being there. Every person then, is an ideology (a cluster of ideas). Amongst every ideology, I have always wondered what the main ideas are - meaning, I theorise that without a particular idea(s), the ideology would not hold and be forced to change.

These core ideas (maybe more people call them prime directives?) determine what that person does in life. I also believe, that these core ideas are very wide spread. Entire nations and cultures will share similar prime directives. Our world might run on fewer than ten prime directives? This is just a shot in the dark. Unfortunately, I do not think there is a lot of research into this area.

But assuming that an idea can then turn to be the guiding principle of all humanity, what sort of world does that build?

This is where I continue from my last post (Marxism), the core principle(s) build the world around us. Looking at our current economical system there are a few motivating forces we have built this upon: our insistence upon individualism (although evolutionarily and historically we probably arose from a very small knit social states), the need and worship of money and our assumption that no other human being is to be trusted (especially with out money!)

Core principles might also have another funny criteria - I'm not sure they can coexist or morph into one another.

This came from our discussion of the world as it is today - driven by currency. One idea, is that we need to take things incrementally. That change was a slow process, through much trial and error. I think this is a very sound and practical way of seeing things. There is another method of change though, radical change: revolution.

My assumption is this, if the core principles do not change, then any gradual change that does occur is still within the boundaries of the core principle. The change might not be sufficient to achieve our ends in mind. That means, another core principle has to invade in order for the actual change to occur. What happens then is memetic warfare, that can often translate into physical warfare.

There is a theory that every nation moving from one state of development to another, often goes through a revolution of sorts. Often bloody and always painful. What I think this is, is two core principles suddenly fighting over the resources.

When trying to change a system right, everything gets overturned. Why? Simply because, no two ideologies build the same system. You can't try mimic one ideology's system while maintaining a different core principle. Everything builds out from the core.

After reading a book (this one by atheists concerning the origins of sexuality and human nature) and discussing with Christians (regarding how the Chistian faith would build the world), I realised that neither would fit in with today's world. Both though offered lifestyles and benefits to the human race that we are working very hard towards! (an end to lonliness, more sex!, (by the atheists), greater spiritual awareness, less anxiety and a greater purpose (by the Christians) and increased health and joy (by both!)

Yet as long as we work within the frame of our current ideology, neither world is going to be realised.

What is this blog about? As information transfer increases, the memes replicate faster. Our world will eventually become a global culture. Maybe 50 years from now. Maybe 1000 years from now. I do not know. But I believe a single dominating set of core principles will take over the earth (or at least in majority) as all the memetic ecosystems start to merge. The internecine war that we have witnessed again and again within communites, countries and nations of memetic dominance is going to happen in cyberspace and it will be a much larger memetic clash than any before. Our future (or more rightly our future culture) is going to be the result of this clash.

What sort of world will we build then? I would like this blog to help contribute to the memetic fight. I don't believe that our world has it right. So let us change our core principles. Easier said than done of course. Maybe the incremental way will prove the right way? But even incrementally, we needs must start changing some principles. If we can sort out what will help us and what won't perhaps we will refine our future culture.

A stronger world, a better world starts today. I urge all of you out there to think. Think hard about what makes you you. What are your core principles? Could you lead a greater life? Could you help even in the smallest to make this world a better place?

Speaking with some dentists positively

Yesterday, I went to a little forum of dentists. Admittedly I often avoid dental gatherings. I feel uncomfortable with them (despite being one) because I don't feel that that's where I belong. My eyes begin to glaze over when they talk about further studies and specialising and treatment plans for too long a period of time.

However, for the first time I actually had a lot of fun talking to these guys! Why? Because they were unique dentists, in that they weren't doing it for the money. Don't get me wrong, these guys each are payed pretty well, but not that fabled amounts of money possibly achieved.

I'm glad to have found dentists who could say, "I don't mind spending a lot of time with a patient to get them through something - even though that means less dollar for my hour." It's so refreshing after hearing so many dentists only go on and on about time vs amount gained issues.

Marxism (Capitalism, Communism and Socialism too!)

Through a conversation with my friend regarding the current politics in Australia (they've hung the parliament for the first time since World War 2) we fell into discussing the type of governing system we would prefer to live under. For those who are a little fuzzy over the terms, here's a review in a nutshell:

Capitalism: Everyone makes as much money as possible. The government tries to involve itself minimally. The poor have to ekk it out on their own.

Communism: The government owns everything. All businesses are controlled by the government. You are given as much as they think you deserve. (I am unsure if there any pure communist countries left)

Socialism: The more money you make, the greater your taxes. The less money you make the greater the government hand out.

Well, this is more a question for the economists than us philosophers perhaps, but what sort of system is the best? I believe there are entire schools of debate upon this matter.

However, despite the Cold War (the ideological war of Communism and Capitalism, fought largely by America and Russia on foreign soil) and America's insistence upon Capitalism being the perfect system, I believe today we can openly see how it has failed in several major aspects. One only has to do a small amount of research into its health system (try looking at the amount an average person pays over their life span in comparison to any other country in the world) and certain numbers are shocking.

What of communism? Did that work? I think it fair to say that true Communism, the type that Marx (the purported founder of communism) suggested never came to be. Perhaps, within our current economic system, cannot come to be? But Marx wasn't describing so much a system as a flow of events. He observed how riches and power became more and more decentralised as a nation became more modern. From the king to the priests, from the priests to the lords, the lords to the politicians - and he was hoping from the politicians to the people. That last step by and large has not come about (or maybe power has shifted instead to large corporations and businesses?)

Socialism goes a little bit along the way of Marxism. Not in terms of power or wealth but socialist countries try, at least, to ensure everyone has the basics. Agreed, there are myriad ways to abuse the system and so far, I don't believe it has completely irradicated crime and poverty. But here, we begin to see, what humans do when perhaps not so pressured by the need to survive (i.e. generate money). We also see interesting subcultures that only present in socialist countries. My personal favourite is the beach bum culture in Australia, who live to surf, sun, sex and have little of anything else. How would we all live if we were guaranteed all the basics of life?

Continuing this discussion with another group of friends, this time a more religious group, economic systems proved a rather trying and taxing riddle. Economists themselves are often arguing many points amongst themselves and I've heard it more than once that no one actually has a completely functioning economic theory. Maybe it is a little like physics, the extreme conditions do not conform to the general laws? So a group of people approaching it from a religious view have a difficult conundrum indeed.

Firstly, religion (save maybe in the askance of donations and funds) have not truly given any guideline to the economy. So, being unequiped to tackle the problem we are left to follow moral principles that our religion has set out and hope this to be the best.

I think this is true irregardless of which religion and still true for everyone around us who simply don't understand economy or politics (irregardless of the presence of religion!) We are often being asked to vote upon or nominate something whose complexity is deep enough to rival that of particle physics! What happens in most cases, unable to make an informed vote for the benefit of all (since no outcome is certain), we are left to vote for which party will give us the most money. (If money is considered a religion too, then this still follows above stated principle neatly: we follow the mandates of our religion - case in point: make more money!)

Further reflection with the group we came upon the interesting subject matter, that Jesus (and might I add even Buddha and Muhammad? And perhaps people could suggest other learned characters giving people meaning to life) never gave anyone an economic system to follow... But the economy is a large demanding kind of beast and affects more than just us humans on the planet. Can we actually ignore it?

I think I'll stop the post on that note. But I intend to continue that last line of thought on with a matter close to my heart, soon.

This is an extraordinarily large topic and I would love for anyone who has something to say to respond. Maybe some wise economists could enlighten us all with some insights?