403
edits
Ideas: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→For your pets and plants
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 468: | Line 468: | ||
We will manage that! | We will manage that! | ||
== For our strengths == | |||
In the contemporary world of work, strength is mentioned everywhere. The strength of an employee wants to be recognized, as well as the strength of the entire organization. Once this is recognized, it's crucial to focus on the strength. The model of strength that today's economy and its players like to describe themselves with, comes from the military. This has been the case for more than 2,500 years as can be read in colleague Sun Tzu. | |||
It is thus all the more interesting to observe that the imperative to concentrate on the strength has not found its way into politics and our society as a whole. Politics, since its origin in ancient Athens, inherently possesses the quality to steer. Interesting then, that the cybernetic discipline of politics deals so ignorantly with strength. | |||
The reason for this riddle lies extremely deep, but we can quickly clarify this without going into detail. | |||
Strength is the comparison of traits. The fastest person in the world runs 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. A frail elder lays this distance in an hour. | |||
For politics as the ringmaster of equalization and even worse as the representative and leader of our society, strength is like a minefield that one prefers to avoid as much as possible. | |||
Our ideas are hidden in and especially behind the following questions: | |||
How do we measure the strength of individuals? | |||
How do we measure strength in politics and society? | |||
How do politics and society allow focus on strengths? | |||
How does politics and society promotes the strengths of individuals? | |||
One of our ideas is to rethink the promotion of highly gifted individuals. Our society defines such giftedness with successes that far exceed the average in social institutions like the university. But in doing so, we lose a hitherto unquantifiable amount of highly gifted individuals who don't even make it to this special institution. Think of Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who, despite adverse circumstances, made it from the simplest conditions in India to Cambridge and who has gifted our society with nearly 4,000 innovations in mathematics like no other mathematician. Thus, our idea is to shed light on this under-investigated area, not by demanding education worldwide for everyone, but by making everyone and each individual develop a greater sensitivity for the extraordinary instead of an appreciation for the ordinary. | |||
Another idea is to promote general physical and mental enhancement. This political idea is based on three topics that are generally known, but which we want to completely redesign. | |||
Sport for physical endurance. Strategy games for mental fitness, like chess and Go. Nutrition - that is, balanced nutrition. | |||
We are interested in the meaningful combination. Hence, we promote outdoor sports and joint walks instead of indoor meetings. City centers without noisy cars and with cycle paths, to promote meaningful movement, which offers a multitude of benefits simultaneously. | |||
How can it be that in industrialized countries millions liters of sugar water are sold and several billions are spent each year on junk food, while consumption of local fruits has been declining for years? | |||
10,000 years ago, our humanity put the idea into practice to be able to affect certain plants and animals by pairing them. This made humanity capable of suffering less hunger and eating more proteins. Today, we have developed research fields such as synthetic biology from this idea, but also created new possibilities for our species in other fields such as robotics and brain-computer interfaces. Developments like the exact prediction of protein folding by artificial intelligence suggest at first glance that these research fields are developing rapidly and therefore everything is fine. Here again, necessary care is required. We want to illustrate this with an example: In 2018, a Chinese scientist managed to deactivate the CCR5 receptor in several human embryos through genome editing to make the then born children immune to HIV. However, this contradicts international ethical guidelines. Worldwide, over half a million people die of HIV. A political and economic idea is to create the conditions so that technology can more quickly and purposefully lift the limitations of our species. We are concerned about healing diseases as well as using technology to build our strengths. Already in cattle breeding, a greater heat resistance of Holstein cows has been achieved through genome editing. | |||
Recognizing strengths anew and building strengths afresh. | |||
We will make it! | |||
For our weaknesses. | |||
Although our primary task is to recognise and build upon our strengths at all levels, this dualistic model also contains weakness. The insidious thing about strength is that we are hardly aware of it because when we utilise our strengths, things run smoothly and we achieve more than we ever assumed possible. But when a weakness appears, everything becomes difficult and we become aware of the deficit. | |||
Let us now look at three cases of how we as a society deal with our weaknesses. | |||
For all those who have landed roughly at the bottom of our society, we have planned social security systems. But anyone who now already perceives government interventions, even without being in these systems, as patronising like an annoying kindergarten teacher, should take a closer look at these social security systems. Instead of teaching the basic principles of money, wealth and investment, the state takes care of all the needs of its recipients, as long as they are properly articulated, from TV sets to gaming consoles. Just not money. This also deprives people of the very last competence in dealing with money. | |||
For all those who abuse criminal law beyond measure, our society has built large prisons, locks up offenders and then collectively looks away. We do not measure the success of the prison idea, nor do we have ideas on how to improve this whole system. | |||
Every year, nearly 8 million people die from tobacco worldwide and 3 million from alcohol. Thus, every year a city the size of New York dies. The damage from alcohol to our economy amounts to an incredible 60 billion euros per year just in Germany - 1000 euros for each citizen per year, or to draw another comparison, 3% of all state expenditures. | |||
In our eyes, however, the damage is far greater: the economic damage only takes into account sick days and accidents at work caused by alcohol. But as we know, alcohol is a poison, and as such, it reduces the ability to learn in the long term after consumption. If this damage were also taken into account, the damage would amount to several trillion euros per year. | |||
These three cases once again show a surprising degree of political incompetence. It doesn't seem like politics has the ability to deal with the weaknesses of our society. So what path should our species take to better handle our weaknesses than politics does? | |||
We believe that a strong society neither needs paternalism, punishment, nor drugs. Therefore, our idea is to rely on education and consistent action. | |||
Since we obviously do not have a strong society, but one that is diluted in its values, the idea that leads to a fundamental change is a cultural shift. Only when we pursue a large and common goal, and understand ourselves as one species, can we successively, i.e., with each strengthening of society, adjust the criminal law accordingly. This could also introduce a Universal Basic Income, which you can live on and, as the name suggests, no conditions are attached. | |||
This cultural shift is the process leading to a post-culture, as we have described in our vision. | |||
We will succeed! | |||
For our economy. | |||
The best idea for politics to boost the economy is to stay out of the way as much as possible. The less the state interferes in the workings of the economy through bureaucracy, regulation, and subsidies, the less resistance there is and the more the economy can flow. | |||
Good companies will grow and create solutions for problems, just like they have been doing for the last 200 years, and thus solve important problems of our species, such as the food crisis at the beginning of the 20th century through the invention of fertilisers. | |||
We will succeed! | |||
For our environment. | |||
In the last 50 years, environmental protection has become increasingly important. Other terms such as sustainability, ecology and climate have grown behind this term and are now omnipresent. | |||
Our first idea is - what else could it be - to question the term 'environmental protection'. | |||
Many of the political demands and many of the measures imply a restriction on freedoms. But this disproportionate attention and the one-dimensional view of the restriction is ultimately not successful. | |||
Loud cars still disturb in recreational areas, major cities still have no plan for dealing with extreme heat, and people's initiative against species extinction still lead nowhere despite electoral success. | |||
The idea following this analysis is, on the one hand, a new configuration of what we call the 'environment' and, on the other hand, new objectives for the value and protection of this environment. | |||
Environment, in the political discourse on environmental protection, refers to the surroundings as they present themselves without human intervention. Examples of this are National Parks, where nature evolves without human intervention. | |||
This concept of the environment and today's environmental protection artificially excludes humans and implicitly assumes that the goal must be nature without humans. The result of this careless consideration is that attention to climate change is focused exclusively on reducing carbon dioxide, but not on adapting to a new climate. | |||
Another result is that attention focuses on species protection, not animal protection. While one tries with immense effort - among other things the halting of construction of life-essential projects - to protect an extremely rare species of bat, an animal abuser who shot a cat with an air gun is acquitted. | |||
Our idea is a new environmental doctrine, focusing attention away from environmental protection - which is a pointless protection - towards environmental value, i.e., increasing the value of our environment. | |||
Environmental value is actually what we want to achieve with environmental protection. Just as a shareholder strives to increase the value of their portfolio, it is also our actual goal to increase the value of our environment. The question is not how can we protect the environment. The environment is not a museum. The environment is our living room. So the question is, how can we increase the value of the environment? | |||
In considering the value, it becomes obvious that there is an effort, which results in a result. The difference between effort and result is important. | |||
If we improve the quality of our air, the quality of day and night, and the quality of our water, then we can achieve great results with little effort. | |||
We think in terms of generations and want to increase the value of our environment so that many hundreds of generations will find a more valuable environment than it is today. | |||
We will also achieve this! | |||
== For our planet == | == For our planet == | ||