Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: innovation – Page 269

DARPA’s jetpack will help soldiers run faster, stronger (video)

by Mariella Moon

We’ve seen several attempts at making jetpacks that fly, but over at Arizona State University, a team is developing one for those who prefer staying closer to the ground. The DARPA-funded project (naturally) is called 4MM or 4 minute mile, and it aims to develop a jetpack that can provide soldiers that extra boost needed to run a full mile within four minutes. Sure, soldiers are physically fit, but the jetpack will make sure each one can do a 4-minute mile, even if they’re not particularly fast runners, and even if they’re carrying heavy equipment and armor.

Thus far, testers have been shaving seconds off their running time even while carrying the 11-pound jetpack, though the ASU researchers still have a ways to go to achieve their goal. Since being able to move fast without much rest can save your life in the battlefield, Harvard’s Soft Exosuit inventors should totally get together with these ASU researchers to make the ultimate getaway suit.

Read more

Jacque Fresco’s book “Designing the Future” (2007)

Via @ClubOfINFO
Jacque Fresco’s futurist book, Designing the Future which serves as something of an introduction the revolutionary Venus Project, is a manifesto for redesigning civilization itself.
Jacque makes a call for a renewed modernism: “The application of scientific principles, for better or worse, accounts for every single advance that has improved people’s lives.” However, the real aim of the Venus Project is the abolition of money, which is described by Jacque as nothing but a source of debt, servitude and other injustice.
The book elaborates an anti-war and one-world vision that is very difficult to oppose. Indeed, its statements reflect some of the most enlightened views in the world today, with its staunch opposition to nationalism. Conflict, Fresco states, “is now totally unacceptable and dangerous because of war’s extreme human and environmental costs.” Even more appealing is Fresco’s encouragement that we treat the world as an “interrelated system with all its people as one family.” This amounts to an open-borders and anti-militarist position that I think reflects the aspirations of some of the most desperate and mistreated people on Earth and could lead to a profound reduction of hostility for all (p. 4–5).
Jacque writes that we need “new outlooks and approaches” and we should “direct the future”. This is a call for everyone to get involved – not just the elite. He challenges us to think how we might organize the world, if it were up to us. Personally, I do not feel qualified to organize the world, although I do think we can all say what we don’t think should happen. The solution, Jacque writes, must be “free of bias and nationalism”, which translates to an acknowledgment that Nineteenth Century nation-states are well beyond their best-before date.
In recognizing that nation-states are obsolete, Jacque warns we should still avoid generating “bad feelings” (p. 6–7). Jacque forewarns that what he is advocating is a “difficult project requiring input from many disciplines”. This recognition of the academic side of what he is advocating makes me bring in another respected theorist, Immanuel Wallerstein, whose work has focused on “reconceptualizing” the world to understand things like nation-states and vast global inequalities as production relations.
In a way, I am fully onboard with what Jacque is advocating already. If we could reconceptualize global society at a more popular level, rather than purely at an academic level, our task would be somewhat similar to the popularization of science attempted by such people as Carl Sagan. Nations, within the global social system, are only fleeting entities. If we could get people to accept that interpretation of society, we would accomplish what Jacque Fresco is talking about, but it is hard. I consider my own anti-statist essays as a contribution in that direction, and I would encourage other commentators to do their part, using whatever rhetoric or teaching methods they think best.
Jacque puts forward the idea that the scientific method should be rigorously applied to avert some of the biggest killers in modern life, e.g. car crashes (p. 15–17). This is a fairly convincing case, and one that I think has not been advocated yet by any other theorist, so Jacque deserves a lot of credit for it. The way to achieve it would probably involve integrating the local authorities with scientific advisory boards and ethics committees. This would have the added benefit of creating nice jobs for a lot of the students who tend to be thrown into positions that do not let them fulfil their true potential. One could argue that there are already plenty of science committees influencing governments, but it is not unreasonable to advocate there should be more, and at more local levels.
Matching what many intellectuals have pointed out, Jacque says “technology is moving forward but our societies are still based on concepts and methods devised centuries ago”, calling out the “obsolete values” that still shape many countries (the US not least of all) (p. 9). Another grievance mentioned is the corporate takeover of government, as protested against by the #Occupy movements. There are, today, “common threats that transcend national boundaries”, e.g. hunger, natural disasters of the kind that UN agencies are already attempting to combat (p. 10).
One of Jacque’s ideas resembles extropy, as articulated by Kevin Kelly. He states, “The history of civilization is the story of change from the simple to the more complex” (p. 13–14). Change is the “only constant”, the biggest enemy of which is the people in power who have trade advantages over others and strong reasons to maintain the status quo.
The best side of Jacque’s book is found in the compelling images of future architecture and design solutions that would reflect an economy geared towards human needs rather than profit. At least some of these principles will almost certainly become a reality in the future (p. 29–44, 48–52). However, Jacque’s ideas can be attacked from many angles, and these make it hard to accept the abolition of money that is really the core of his thesis:

“A much higher standard of living for everyone all over the world can be achieved when the entire Earth’s resources are connected, organized, monitored, and used efficiently for everyone’s benefit as a total global system – not just for a relatively small number of people.”

The problem with the above is that it is advocating globalization as it already exists, but neglecting a very fundamental element of that globalization: financial globalization. It is harder to believe that we can connect the entire world together solely in terms of resources than that we can connect it together financially. It is likely that going back to resource-based disparity rather than money disparity would lead to a more localized and therefore tribal existence with states becoming more possessive over natural resources. This would not be consistent with globalization as we have seen it thus far.
Jacque expresses the view that rather than laws and ethical people (as envisaged since as far back as Aristotle), we only need “a way of intelligently managing the Earth’s resources for everyone’s wellbeing” (p. 18–21). He is of the school of thought that “when we look at things scientifically, there is more than enough food and material goods on Earth to take care of all people’s needs – if managed correctly” (p. 19). This is also a view articulated by Ramez Naam in The Infinite Resource (2013), and that I have responded to in the past. The only problem is, it isn’t true. There are almost no distinguished scientists and scientific bodies who have stated that there are enough resources as we currently understand them to support the expanding population. There are even some prominent scientific bodies like the Club of Rome and various committees warning about our dwindling resources, constantly stating the exact opposite of what Jacque and Ramez have stated.
As much as I agree with what Jacque is trying to accomplish, it is patently false to say that looking “at things scientifically” is the same as using the scientific method, or that the scientific methods leads to redistributing resources to support everyone. Most scientists would disagree with what Jacque is saying. However, I am not arguing that they are right. I am arguing that we need to learn to tolerate how radical the idea of supporting everyone on the planet through the intelligent application of emerging technologies is, and how hazardous it could actually be. If we take the leap, we must wholeheartedly take any burdens and possible hazards into account as we do so. Humanity must know the risks, and not be persuaded to walk blithely towards something that still has so many unknowns.
Jacque lays out his case for abolishing all money. He gives 14 succinct grievances against the monetary economy that has been the norm for quite a few centuries. Most of these 14 points reiterate the same basic grievance that money enables people to be super-rich and others laden with debt, because… the rich people control it. However, in repeating these grievances against money and giving each of them more credit than they deserve, Jacque neglects the good points about money. It is still the only thing a lot of poor people have, and is the only way they can get their next meal.
It is not the unfair distribution of money, but the unfair distribution of resources, which keeps people and states poor or powerless. The rich are not rich because they have more money in their pockets, but because they physically control the resources that make money. They own keys to the factories and stockpiles. Rich states physically possess and control the world’s mineral wealth, and the labs where high-tech products are designed and tested. They use money merely as a way of throwing scraps to poor people where it would have been too inconvenient to give shares of their resources. So, if anything, money exists as a tool of remuneration to poor people, and would actually be a necessary component in any scheme to create more equality.
I, unlike Jacque, am what most people would call poor. If my money became worthless tomorrow, I would not be grateful. In fact, I would have few means of survival, and would wander the world begging for actual food and other resources from people and providers who are fortunate to possess a stockpile of resources. These providers in turn would wander the world begging for supplies, and other essentials they require to stay active. Therefore, the vacuum left by abolishing money would be more oppressive than any amount of debt, and it would also consume a lot more time and energy for everyone.
Not only would the abolition advocated by Jacque make life a lot more difficult for most poor people and businesses, but it would lead to the loss of a very basic source of dignity for the poor – the only medium with which they could actually buy and share resources. No matter how detrimental monetary greed can be, a poor man or business will always be grateful he can carry a wad of money around. He can’t pick up and carry a resource. One would hope that Jacque would at least try to overcome this terrible paradox of what is going to take the place of that money in a poor person’s hand, but he doesn’t. What is advocated instead is idealistic at best, and leaves one feeling hungry for the pizza that is probably never going to be delivered to your door by a drone if we really do get rid of money.
In fact, the form of remuneration posited by Jacque relies on “distribution centers” from which anyone can order an unlimited quantity of anything to their very door due to the unlimited capacity of the technology of the future (p. 76–78). If such a thing is inevitable from existing engineering trends, then we should be in awe of that technology, and not the Venus Project.
Something similar to the above occurs when Jacque states “Machines of the future are capable of self-replication and improvement, and can repair themselves and update their own circuitry.” Once again, this makes me ask, why then advocate Resource-Based Economy, if in the end we are always going to stand in awe of the machines and get unlimited free pizzas delivered to our doors anyway?
In a Resource-Based Economy, it is established there is no money, no credits, no debt, and no servitude. Here, “all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people” (p. 21). Unfortunately, the thing getting in the way of declaring our resources as a common heritage isn’t money, but the resources themselves. Just look how some states and firms have better resources than others, be it in the form of more high-tech facilities or more qualified personnel. One can’t just declare these people and things to be equally owned by all, or change their status in any significant way, by abolishing money, because they are still physically located in certain more advanced states (usually the US).
When it comes to how the RBE would manifest in practice, Jacque argues that all wealth and wellbeing should be based on immediate resources, such as water and fertile land. Unfortunately, this means areas with more resources would be better-off than those without, which takes us back to the problem already highlighted above.
Jacque says that increasing automation and peak oil are signs of “collapse” (p. 22), and that this collapse will provoke people to “lose confidence” in monetary economics. People will then turn to a global Resource-Based Economy as the solution. Unfortunately, this is not what usually happens in a collapse. In a collapse, people do not actually grasp at the most ideal solutions, never mind solutions prematurely based on future technologies. Just look at Iraq and Syria, where the failures of the state did not lead to a utopia but to a vacuum filled by pseudo-religious terrorist authorities.
The prediction that removing capitalistic competition by getting rid of money would result in the hippie-like outcome of peace and harmony (p. 69–76) is not convincing. If Christianity got one thing right, it is that humans are prone to sin. Even in a system with unlimited resources, there would be factionalism, security concerns, hoarding, vanity, greed, jealousy, power-mania, sex offenses, plain insanity and a plethora of other reasons for people to do evil. In sum, law enforcement and compliance would still be necessary.
Rethinking society is important, but the catalyst should be technology itself and the results spontaneous, rather than someone’s grand design. People should be in awe of the amazing things being made possible by nanotechnology and biotechnology, but they should be advocating that people invest in these technologies. Abundance is almost certainly going to rely on biotechnology, but there are many grievances against this field and promoting it might involve tolerating the directions taken by some large and rather controversial corporations.
Transhumanism differs from social design in that transhumanism is advocating the redesign of the human individual; a departure from our biological limits themselves as a way of escaping scarcity. Transhumanism is about maximizing the available choices and chances of survival of every human individual. We could go even further, and biologically re-engineer the world to access more resources, as I argued in my outlandish “terra-enhancement” article.

By Harry J. Bentham - More articles by Harry J. Bentham

Originally published at h+ Magazine on 19 August 2014

Getting Sexy and the Undivided Attention of Your Fortune-500 Client CEOs! Aug 22 2014

Getting Sexy and the Undivided Attention of Your Fortune-500 Client CEOs! (Excerpt from the White Swan book) By Andres Agostini at www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini

(1.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Procter & Gamble, talk to them through the notions of and by Process Re-engineering.

(2.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at GE, talk to them through the notions of and by Six Sigma, and Peter F. Drucker’s Management by Objective (MBO). While you are with them, remember to commend on the Jack Welch’ and Jeff Immelt’s master lectures at GE’s Crotonville.

(3.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at RAND Corporation and HUDSON Institute, talk to them through the notions of and by Herman Khan’s (Dr. Strangeloves’) Scenario Methodology.

(4.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Mitsubishi Motors and Honda and Daimler-Chrysler’s Mercedes-Benz, talk to them through the notions of and by Kaisen.

(5.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at NASA and DARPA and the Industrial-Military Complex, talk to them through the notions of and by Systems Approach with the Perspective of Applied Non-Theological Omniscience. And, also, want to get funded by DARPA? How? The pathway is extremely easy and promissory. Just give them an unimpeachable real-life demonstration of how to “violate” the Laws of Physics correctly and frequently, for Life!

(6.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Lockheed Martin, talk to them through the notions of and by Lean, Six Sigma and Skunk Works.

(7.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Toyota, talk to them through the notions of and by Toyota Production System (methodology).

(8.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Royal Dutch Shell, talk to them through the notions of and by Pierre Wack’s Scenario Methodology.

(9.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Mayo Clinic, talk to them through the notions of and by Dr. Joseph Juran’s (Total Quality Assurance) Prescription (ISBN: 978–0787900960). Also remember to conjointly speak, at all times, of efficiency, productivity, and ROI as it stems in the incessant real-time reckoning of man-hours per patient cured and healed. To this end, you might wish to peruse this great title: The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management by Peter F. Drucker (ISBN: 978–0061345012).

(10.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Google, talk to them through the notions of and by Strong Quantum Supercomputing and Reversing of Human Death.

(11.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Xerox, talk to them through the notions of and by PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated).

(12.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at ExxonMobil, talk to them through the notions of and by Efficiency and Productivity as well as Return On Investment (ROI) per Petroleum Barrel produced (outputted), and Project Management.

(13.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Boeing, talk to them through the notions of and by Aerospace Engineering, Avionics, Systems Engineering, Reliability Engineering, Safety Engineering, Industrial Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.

(14.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence), talk to them through the notions of and by Superintelligence entrenched, in “plain sight,” in the covert realm of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

(15.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Loyd’s of London, Swiss RE, Munich RE, and Allianz, talk to them through the notions of and by Minimax, Statistics, Actuarial Science, Predictive Analytics, and Systems Engineering.

(16.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Amazon, talk to them through the notions of and by Low-Cost And High-End Online Commerce, Content Creation, Hi-Tech, Quadcopters (Commercial Flying Drones) and Eternal Staggering Innovation. Don’t forget to mention the Mechanical Turk.

(17.- of 17 ).- If you want to seize the undivided attention of top executives at Northrop Grumman Corporation, talk to them through the notions of and by State of the Art: Quality, Continuous Improvement, Customer Satisfaction, Leadership (Man Management), Integrity, People, Suppliers, Sound Business Management, “Best in Class” Products and Services, and how to preemptively countermeasure Chinese penetrations and otherwise of both commercial and government networks in the United States.

NOTE: I know great consulting incumbents and other professional service providers who want to get the undivided attention of 90% of the CEOs above at once. Ergo, they really need to get ready to be multidimensional and cross-functional. There is no Internet resource, nor an online book or article giving you this most-profound advice, never ever. TO DO THIS, YOU NEVER NEED SO-CALLED “LEADERSHIP,” BUT I.Q.-CENTRIC STATESMANSHIP OR MAN-MANAGEMENT.

By Mr. Andres Agostini
Author of the White Swan Book
www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini

Professor of Chemistry Turns India’s Plastic Trash into Useable Roadways

Christina Sarich — Nation of Change

Scenes from the movie Slumdog Millionaire accurately depict India’s latest consumer-influenced economy. Tree groves are littered with a rainbow color of plastic bags like some kind of ominous carnival wreckage. Plastic bottles, candy wrappers, and other ‘garbage’ liters the streets in a land where city officials have long forsaken their duties of providing a pristine infrastructure to its inhabitants, but a professor of chemistry in Madurai, India thinks that the trash lining his country’s roads and fields could be utilized as a ‘wonderful resource,” transforming common plastic liter, from thicker acrylics to bottles and grocery bags, into a substitute for bitumen in asphalt.

The ‘Plastic Man,’ as Rajagopalan Vasudevan is known in India, travels throughout the country instructing engineers how to apply his technology to recycle the trash copiously littering streets from Punjab to Tamil Nadu. To date, more than 3000 miles of plastic roads have been laid in at least 11 states.

Read more

Tesla Versus Chevy Volt, Case Study Part 2

A presentation of the future strategic options available to both Tesla and Chevy Volt, using the Holistic Business Model, as published in the book, Reengineering Strategies & Tactics. Note, correction that GM will be investing an $449 million not $1.4 billion I had stated in the video.

In Part 1, I show the strategic structural positions Tesla & Chevy Volt occupy. In Part 2, I show the future strategic options available to both, and potential mistakes they could be making.

If after reviewing the videos you would like to a similar 1/2 day review of your business, please do contact me.

Tesla Versus Chevy Volt, Case Study Part 1

A presentation of the future strategic options available to both Tesla and Chevy Volt, using the Holistic Business Model, as published in the book, Reengineering Strategies & Tactics. Note, correction that GM will be investing an $449 million not $1.4 billion I had stated in the video.

In Part 1, I show the strategic structural positions Tesla & Chevy Volt occupy. In Part 2, I show the future strategic options available to both, and potential mistakes they could be making.

If after reviewing the videos you would like to a similar 1/2 day review of your business, please do contact me.

Reengineering Strategies & Tactics

I am very pleased to announce the publication of my book “Reengineering Strategies & Tactics”.

The book is based on more than 2 decades in manufacturing & management consulting, and presents the new business model, the Holistic Business Model, that ties together operations, revenue generation and business strategy. It also enables one to do strategy sensitivity analysis, and much more. Watch the video. Buy the book & enjoy rethinking & re-strategizing your company.

I might add that this is much better than anything you can get out of McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Booz Allen Hamilton or Bain Capital.

The book details are:

Book details are:
Title: Reengineering Strategies & Tactics
Sub Title: Know Your Company’s and Your Competitors’ Strategies and Tactics Using Public Information
Publisher: Universal Publishers
Date: July, 2014
Pages: 315
ISBN-10: 1627340157
ISBN-13: 9781627340151

Publisher’s Link: http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1627340157

1st 25 pages(free): http://www.bookpump.com/upb/pdf-b/7340157b.pdf

Synopsys:
The Holistic Business Model identifies, in a structured manner, the 48 structural positions and 32 strategies your company can effect, resulting in 2 million variations in your company’s strategic environment. This complexity is handled by three layers, consisting of the Operations Layer, the Revenue Transaction Layer and the Business Management Layer.

Strategy is the migration from one structural position to another in the Business Management Layer. Therefore, the Model prevents investors, business owners and corporate managers from making incorrect moves, while both, enabling them to see their future options, and enhancing the quality of their management decisions.

The Operations Layer explains why lean manufacturing (JIT and Kanbans) works when it does, when it does not, and the important considerations when setting up a manufacturing operation using lessons learned from the semiconductor and Fast Moving Consumer Goods industries. The Revenue Transaction Layer identifies how your company generates its revenue.

Based on 20+ years in manufacturing and management consulting in multinational, large, medium & small companies, Solomon invented the Holistic Business Model that only requires public information to determine your company’s and your competitors’ strategies. Four case studies are presented: a manufacturing operation, a home builder, a non-profit and a sea port.

Gravity Modification Workshop Schedule (Final)

The Xodus One Foundation will be conducting workshops on Gravity Modification, based on Ben Solomon’s 12-year study titled “An Introduction to Gravity Modification” and other later peer reviewed papers. And has been vetted by the Foundation’s Chief Science Office, Dr. Andrew Beckwith.

This thought provoking & bleeding edge physics/technology workshop will assists attendees to understand how the future of propulsion technology is changing. And therefore, adjust their corporate programs to expect these future technologies and research programs.

Note, my peer reviewed paper “New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories”, Journal of Modern Physics, Volume 4, Number 8A, August 2013 (Special Issue on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology) has as of August 05, 2014, had 3,482 downloads since publication August 27, 2013. This paper details the issues with contemporary physics that has hampered the discovery of gravity modification physics and proposes possible solutions.

————————————————————————————————

FAQ:
1. Types of Workshops:: There are 2 types, the Short 1-day and the Long 2-day.
2. Who Should Attend: Engineers, Physicists & Corporate Managers responsible for propulsion research programs.
3. Workshop Fees: See respective brochures, below. Workshop fees are tax deductible.
4. Workshop Payment: Uses secure Amazon Payments. If you don’t have an account please sign up a head of time, prior to making tax deductible workshop fee payments.
5. Seating: On a First Come First Served basis, based on payment dates. In the event of overbooking, later registrants will placed in the next business day workshops. If you are attending the Long workshop, please confirm seating dates before finalizing travel arrangements.
6. Future Schedule: Link to Future Schedule
7. Some Comments: Thorough, Well Thought Out, Brilliant …

————————————————————————————————

Short Workshop:
Type: This is a 1-day workshop.
Brochure: Link to brochure.
Location: Webcast
Workshop Date: August 20, 2014. Future dates to be determined.
Pay By Date: August 13, 2014. Future dates to be determined
Payment: Use donate button below to make $100 payment via Amazon Payments

————————————————————————————————

Long Workshop:
Type: This is a 2-day workshop, still under development:
Brochure: See tentative brochure.
Location: 1624 Market St., #202, Denver, CO 80202.
Workshop Date: To Be Determined
Pay By Date: To Be Determined
Payment: Payment button coming soon.

————————————————————————————————

GMOs are not the problem, per se

. @hjbentham . @clubofinfo . @dissidentvoice_ .#tech .#gmo .#ethics . @ieet .

Since giving my support to the May 24 march against Monsanto, I have taken the time to review some of the more unusual opinions in the debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The enthusiasts for technological development as a means of eliminating scarcity and disparity view GMOs favorably. These enthusiasts include Ramez Naam, whose book The Infinite Resource (2013) argues for human ingenuity as a sufficient force to overcome all resources shortages.
On the other end of the spectrum, alarmists like Daniel Estulin and William Engdahl argue that GMOs are actually part of a deliberate plot to burden poor nations and reduce their populations by creating illness and infertility. Such fringe figures in the alter-globalization movement regard big pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies and agri-giants as involved in a conspiracy to create a docile and dependent population. Are the opinions of either Naam or Estulin well-informed, or are they both too sensational?
Most commentators on the GMO controversy, unfortunately, seem to lean towards either the enthusiast or alarmist categories as described. Reason is often lacking on both sides, as people either blindly leap onto the GMO bandwagon as something tantamount to human progress, or they reject all biotechnology as evil by renewing the fallacy that unnatural actions are necessarily bad. The only thing both sides seem to have in common is their resistance to the Malthusian Club of Rome’s insinuations that overpopulation has to be rolled back to save the Earth’s resources.
Ramez Naam persuades us that the fire of human intellect can overcome our limited resources and allow tens of billions of people to exist on our planet without consuming all natural resources. Estulin and Engdahl reject the Club of Rome on the basis that resource limitations do not really exist and the analysis of the Club of Rome is simply aimed at justifying control of the Earth’s resources by the cherished few “elites”.
The truth rests somewhere between what the alarmist fringe critics of GMOs and the techno-progressive enthusiasts are trying to tell us. To be truthful, there is a serious controversy involving GMOs, but it is no outlandish conspiracy in any sense. It is merely an extension of the problem of greed that has burdened mankind for as long as feudal lords or capitalists have been privileged to put their selfish interests above the common good. The problem with GMOs is neither the nature of GM technology, nor something mysterious that takes place in the process of genetic modification. It is the nature of the businesses tasked with running this industry.
Whether or not certain GMOs on the market today actually cause cancer and infertility is irrelevant to the real debate. The problem is that we can guarantee that the companies engineering these organisms do not care if they cause health problems. They are only interested in downplaying or blocking bad news, and putting out constant marketing and good news about themselves. Typical of any fiercely monopolistic firm, this is not an honest relationship with the public, and corresponds to the prevailing belief in profit as the exclusive priority. For their game to be worth playing, they have to put increasing yields, shelf life and resistance to pathogens above anything else when designing crops. They have no choice than to do this, from their perspective, because the alternative is to allow themselves to be outperformed by their rivals.
The fact that corporations put their own profit above health is a systemic issue in the world economy, and it is already known to the majority of consumers. We face it every day. Most of the fast food served by multinational fast food companies is accepted to be unhealthy, so the claim that giant food companies have little interest in our health is not a conspiracy theory. It is only a rational suspicion that the agricultural producers of seeds will also put profit over the long-term health of consumers and the interests of local farmers.
In theory, genetic modification could lead not only to higher yields but healthier food. Unfortunately, the businesses involved only really care about beating competition and becoming the best supplier. This behavior poisons everything, perhaps literally, now that these companies have been entrusted to define the toxicity in crops as a defense against pests. What we can learn from this that the problem is not GMOs per se, but the aggressive greed of the corporations who desire the oligopoly on food production via GM technology.
The public harm caused by giant firms, especially when they practice their ability to lobby the state itself, already runs very deep in most facets of life. The more significant the tools made available to such firms, the greater the potential for harm. Even if specific specimens are not harmful and can be proven completely benign, the fact is that GMOs open up an unacceptable avenue for unprecedented harm and malignant corporate interests invading people’s innards. It is this, rather than the whole science of genetic modification, that should be opposed and protested against.
Genetic modification and synthetic biology do not need to be new instruments of oligopoly and monopoly. There is a benign alternative to foolishly entrusting the mastery and ownership of living organisms to greedy multinational leviathans. We can look into “biohacking”, as popularized by science and technology enthusiasts who favor the empowerment of individuals and small businesses rather than corporations. There is a strong nod in this direction in J. Craig Venter’s book, Life at the Speed of Light (2013), in which he envisages living organisms being quickly customized and modified by lone individuals with the technology of synthetic biology. Such a development would transform society for the better, eliminating any need to trust an unsympathetic and self-interested corporation like Monsanto.
DIY genetic engineering is already possible. DIY means the product will be entirely disinfected from corporate greed, and adhere to your own specifications. They would not be able to put their profit above your health, because they would not get the chance. With this, biohackers can already genetically modify organisms for their own benefit. The extent to which farmers can begin to modify their own crops using comparable technology is not yet clear, but the development nevertheless represents an extraordinary possibility.
What if farmers and consumers could decide genetically modify their own food? In that case, it would not be the profit-oriented poison that is being consumed at so many different levels as a result of corporate greed. Crops would be modified only insofar as the modification will meet the farmer’s own needs, and all the technology for this process could be open-source. This hypothetical struggle for DIY genetic engineering rather than corporate genetic engineering would be comparable to the open-source and piracy battles already raging over digital technology.
Of course, some new hazards could still conceivably emerge from DIY genetic modification, if the technology for it should become ubiquitous. However, the only risk would be from individual farmers rather than unaccountable corporations. This way, we would be moving away from giving irresponsible and vicious companies the ability to threaten health. Instead, we would be moving towards giving back individuals more control over their own diets. Of course, abuse would still occur, but it would not have global consequences or frighten millions of people in the way that current genetic engineering does.
In sum, there is no reason to complain that genetic modification is perilous in its own right. However, there is always peril in giving a great social responsibility to a profit-hungry corporation. In much the same way that large firms have captured the state machinery of our liberal democratic states to serve their greedy interests, we should expect them to be subverting health and the public good for profit.
The complex dilemma over GMOs requires not an anti-scientific or neo-Luddite reaction, but an acknowledgement that intertwined monopolistic, statist and hegemonic ambitions lead to the retardation of technology rather than progress. I have made this very case in an essay at the techno-politics magazine ClubOfINFO, and I consider it to be an important detail to keep in mind as the GMO controversy rages.

By Harry J. Bentham - More articles by Harry J. Bentham

Originally published at Dissident Voice on 23 June 2014

AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CEO AND THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CHIEF STRATEGIST!

AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CEO AND THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CHIEF STRATEGIST!

AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CEO AND THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CHIEF STRATEGIST!

QUESTION: HOW CAN WE ILLUSTRATE MR. ANDRES AGOSTINI’S CONCURRENT COORDINATED CONVERGENT SYSTEMS THINKING (CCCST): ARTICULATED UNDER INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION AND AMPLIFICATION (IAA) VIA ASIN: B00KNL02ZE ANSWER: BY PAYING ATTENTION TO AN INDOORS INTERVIEW BY THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL HERE:

Many world-class zillion-dollars corporations go to huge unknown distances to make a difference in sustaining and guaranteeing their For-Lucre Competitive Advantage. Shell, as many others are a good example of this, through many, many decades to date. I was fully trained and thoroughly indoctrinated by Shell to this end a long time ago while I keep always researching their latest canonical milestones. However, my ongoing research considers and analyzes the findings of many other zillion-dollar corporations beyond, by far, those of Royal Dutch Shell.

Governments, governmental agencies, political bodies, universities (including those into strong R&D&I), as well as a myriad of other companies, supranationals and NGOs, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO DO THIS. THEY THINK THAT SEEKING KNOWLEDGE THIS WAY IS A CLEAR SIGN OF INSANITY.

Nothing, and nothing at all, will preclude Shell and other Fortune-7 Corporations to seek out and seize boundaryless knowledge.

All of my assertions are backed by most-updated brick-and-mortar books and manuals. I can give you a brief general idea, but my time and researched proprietary findings are extremely expensive for me to tell you about where to find those contents.

The combined knowledge of my research is a part of an infinitely larger ongoing proprietary research effort by me. Through many, many years, these books and manuals and handbooks have been physically published but you did not found out then. But many publications were only found through proprietary literature only.

When you want to access proprietary literature, you handsomely pay for it. Otherwise, it is impossible to gain access to that.

Everything I have or have had, I capitalistically paid for CASH AND IN FULL. If you are a commie, this is not for you or any other forms of hippies and chronies.

FOR INSTANCE:

Star Trek’s Captain Spock told James T. Kirk: “… Jim, the problem with you is that you always proceed from false assumptions … And being a Volcan and thus different from you, I have no ego to bruise …”

LET US NOW GET BACK TO OUR REAL-LIFE EXCHANGE AS PER ROYAL DUTCH SHELL:

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Okay, How is the strategic planning going along for the forthcoming year? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Very well, sir…We are introducing some novelties to our corporation-wide strategic planning, strategizing and strategic execution …!…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Can you give me some specifics? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Well, sir, our most unconventional and heterodox thinking and strategizing have always gone to a far-fetched fringe, spurting twilight-zones mind-sets while ridiculing the minimal and precarious notion of so-called ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking … So, this year we have a roaster of out-of-this-world people to interview in order to underpin our strategy and outsmart Exxon-Mobil and the like in the process. All of the interviews will be heavily documented for continuous close examination …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, I really like you rationale…Who is your first person to interview? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Thank you. The first one will be a Maharishi, the so-called ‘Great Seer’ …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Drashtara, Sanskrit for the Techno-Harbinger …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…The Awaken Ones …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Auspiciousness, a female spiritual leader of great audiences in the East and West …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Catholic Bishop…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Tel-avid Rabbi …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Lama …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “ … An Ayatollah …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Witch…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Saucerer…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…You list is nice but a bit too conventional for my profitable ambitions. What are you exactly going to do about it to fundamentally solve your shortcomings? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Sir, we are going to interview, as well, many other thought leaders, including many purposeful mentally-ill ponderers!…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Like whom? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Sir, a Schizophrenic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… One person undergoing Clinical Delusional Disorder …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Someone into Clinical Hallucinations …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Someone into Clinical Histrionic or Narcissistic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Guru from India …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Yogi from India …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… An Oracle from the Tibet …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Kabbalah Mystic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Witch …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Brazilian Shaman …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Brazilian Shaman…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Saucerer …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Savant…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Knowledgist …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Beggar …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Homeless …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Gigolo …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Wizard …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Magician …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Autistic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…One undergoing Asperger’s …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Every Student proactive in most-recondite Ivy-League own on-site Secret Societies … Several Prostitutes and several Tarot-card Readers, Soothsayers, Divinators, Foretellers, Predictioneers, Futilitarians, Hunches-tellers, First-Guessers, Second-Guessers, Fortunetellers, Prophets, Presagers, Premonitionists, Dictators, Anarchists, among many other savants.

Now, you can understand why people of The Netherlands OUTSMART MOTHER NATURE and are so intelligent, shrewd and mordant, as well as victorious, ready to “kill” petroleum as source of energy and impose Energy “X”.

Many, many zillion-dollars-corporations RELENTLESSLY exercise their Intellects and Strategies BY INCESSANTLY SEEKING OMNISCIENCE IN IGNORED FLANKS AND NOVEL QUADRANTS AND SPHERES. AND THROUGH THE PRECEDING, THEY MERIT AND DESERVE TO OUT-RULE THE WORLD, THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE.

NOTHING, AND NOTHING AT ALL, WILL PRECLUDE SHELL AND OTHER FORTUNE-7 CORPORATIONS TO SEEK OUT AND SEIZE BOUNDARYLESS KNOWLEDGE.

ONLY SOURCE: Andres Agostini’s own Book:

Concurrent Coordinated Convergent Systems Thinking (CCCST): Articulated under Intelligence Augmentation and Amplification (IAA)
ASIN: B00KNL02ZE
http://amzn.to/1owe52O

By Mr. Andres Agostini
www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini

/* */