You say you want a revolution?

18 January 2014
2 Comments


A reader asks about..
RQ: Social media might be defining for the current young generation, who grew up with it as normal
and are likely to innovate and revolutionize it to do things never considered by inventors or first adult
users. The gap between the rich and poor is growing; more importantly the same gap is widening
between first world nations and those considered second and third world countries.
My hope and first question is: how likely is social media to help overcome the built-in apathy in our first
world nation cultures to suppress these issues and just live fat and happy in a bubble? If social media can
create public opinion to address world inequality which cannot be ignored by world leaders, how would
they attempt to address the issue initially?

My hope is public opinion concerned for a better "ground floor" for general living conditions as the
result of an old opinion that societies should be judged by how they treat the most unfortunate of their
populace could become re-entrenched in the psyche of first world nations. An attitude that one cannot
be satisfied with a standard of living partly at the expense of others elsewhere on Earth; and that
businessman should not be allowed to play the shell game of creating unnatural markets for goods and
services in the first world by exploiting the pain and suffering in the second and third worlds.

To me it is not even a morality over money; if businesspeople could see beyond a few financial quarters,
they could make the long term calculations to see that while in the short term they lose money, they could
sink the money needed to raise the standard of living, improve the governmental and citizenry's
disposition towards them, and make customers out of what they thought was only a country with nothing
but a natural resources to take back to first world nations.

On a larger scale, nations could pool resources just like businesspeople and spread risk and improve
benefits even further. Realistically, maybe even a percentage number of likelihood, how probable is this
scenario?

C: Many topics are covered here, we shall begin with first and third world nations; political divisions
humans create are not the source of wealth; human trust and belief in one another are the source. Physical
material in your dimensions of Earth existence all exist; manufacturing manipulates what exists
physically, matter and material are not created. Services which employ less material reveal this. We
suggest your functions of banking and insurance, which supply value vouchers received for service or
material, materials themselves the result of service. The value vouchers worth what humanity chooses it
shall be.

Absent concepts of national borders, creating a disappearance of developed nation and otherwise, what
would change on Earth? How willing is a nation to modify habits, customs, practices what is called
culture in exchange for more service or investment?

Social media, the recent increase in quicker, more detailed communication brings humanity closer to its
true nature of communication. We suggest consideration of ability for all there would be known about any
one of you to be understood by any other one who might come into your view or who might think of you;
this is your true home. Social media allows this where you offer the information, and it reduces perceived
delays. We say, social media will not change society as automobiles did not; your attitudes and use are the
change and these are you, not the object or function. The faculty to use, not use or misuse remains.

There exists no apathy as you suggest, yet examples can create this view. No error is committed by
seeking contentment, bubbled or uncontained.

Human choice creates and distributes wealth; make other choices. To the frustrated who perceive
disparity, we suggest choices and responses that create it be set aside, replaced. Patronize not the
purveyor of service or product who gains wealth as humanity defines it and the distribution will be
more even and we offer it will be reduced generally. If a lesser accumulation for the few creates a lowered
opportunity for the many, this might be a consequence. The choice and outcomes are yours, collectively.

To address what you name inequality, we ask consideration of its definition. Once agreed, causes can be
examined; what conditions allow accumulation and scarcity? Change them, if you choose.

The suggestion beneficence towards the disadvantaged defines goodwill and could be expanded between
nations implies a disappearance of those nations, identities erased. The perceived recipient nation will
maintain a currency or accept a different one from its helper? What effects will result, from either choice?

We suggest much of your ruminations and proposals will not come to pass; Earth enters a period of
economic change, simply a reflection of societal change. Economics mirror beliefs, ideas, attitudes and
the expectations created. Change comes to these as you read these words; we suggest a recent decision in
the USA to spend one trillion one hundred billion of the nation's currency units, during this solar
revolution; complaints the proposal was not read have been many and we suggest, examining not the
nature, source and effects of such procedure are an example of the change that comes.

Physical symptoms of the shifts in energies form part of this, and physical effects we refer to the lower
rainfall in the western portion of the USA as one small example, colder weather as another, volcanic
eruptions in the nation of Indonesia a third current example all foretell changes to come shifting
economic behavior. These will make the many questions here less relevant.

Comments
George 18/01/2014 5:34pm
Even before I read the answer: WHAT A PROBING, THOUGHTFUL question!

garrett
20/01/2014 4:53pm
Awesome. How easily The Committee sweeps away human constructs to get to the core of humanity and
our behavior to answer questions.