Matter of trust

Our entire social system is based on fear and control. We're just one decision away from the trust that changes everything.

Introduction

We walk between war and peace, bull and bear markets, freedom and oppression. With the discovery of cyclical patterns based on the number pi, analyst Martin Armstrong was able to accurately predict economic events - long before they actually happen. Armstrong's deeper insight is that decisions are made based on trust in governments and the stability of currencies. But the issue of trust can be looked at much more broadly with regard to entire communities of nations and the question of what it actually means to live. The same applies to the cycles on the basis of which the entire universe and therefore we seem to tick. Ancient writings such as the Vedas (collection of Hindu texts) speak of the transition from the dark to a light age. This too can be viewed as a cycle. Perhaps we are at the point of transition from one age to the next, when old systems and ways of thinking begin to fail and new things slowly take hold.
On the following pages, the question will be discussed soberly as to whether all the ideas that form the basis of national economies and social coexistence are simply outdated constructs. It's about control, fear and the possibility of replacing it with trust. Because let's be honest: the current control approach has failed. Economically, humanly and also ethically.

We start a restart

Rich and poor, man and woman, day and night. All obvious opposites as they are ubiquitous and observable. But these dualities, which largely shape our thinking, form a unity or a cycle when viewed from a higher perspective. One causes the other and thus creates the prerequisite for the cycle. Some cycles are inevitable such as day and night, others are currently still a requirement for survival such as husband and wife, while others are avoidable such as rich and poor. This is not about criticizing economic systems or political approaches. It's about perspectives, i.e. how we look at things and derive simple actions up to highly complex social systems. It's about questioning old perspectives without assigning blame and adapting them to current possibilities. It is also about acknowledging that everything is a development in which mistakes have inevitably been and will be made.

The Society Tree

In contrast to ancient social orders, which were thought to be pyramid-like, with God at the top and people/serfs at the bottom, we should rethink society as a tree. But why actually? With God or the elite at the top projecting a putative example whose ideal is unattainable, there is always a dissonance between how society should be and how it really is.

The basis of society is built on a strong, moral network of roots, with which it is firmly anchored in life. This root network defines what it means to be human and what it means to live. It's like a compass that guides the direction of actions. This is in stark contrast to today, where things are done, what is technically possible and what generates sales - no matter how high the price for this is in the long term.
Above the root rises the trunk of society, which derives ideas, developments and common goals from the moral network of roots. These are the ideas of how economic forms are formed, which technical developments are beneficial and can thus be implemented, and also which needs must be taken into account regionally. In concrete terms, this would mean that the basic moral framework is very similar, if not the same, across regions. However, the regional developments themselves can be very different. Society's goals in Greenland are different from those in the Sahara, due to regional and climatic differences. Based on the moral framework, however, economic characteristics can never arise that are hostile to humans and animals.
The ramifications represent the organizations and the distribution within society, comparable to what the state is supposed to represent today. They are stable structures that are the extended arm of society's goals and ideas, i.e. enable them or shape them. At the end are the leaves, which represent the labor power of society. The results of the work fall to the ground and thus give feedback to society or are the fertilizer for further growth. It is a self-regulating system that eliminates toxic elements in the long run instead of promoting them like today, where profit is all that matters.

The big misunderstanding

From a capitalist and socialist point of view, work is an end in itself. No wonder, because socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. What is profit maximization for one person is the fulfillment of the plan for another. Yuval Noah Harari provides an exciting perspective on the two economic systems in Homo Deus and describes them as information processing systems. While under capitalism decisions are made in a decentralized manner, i.e. locally, in socialist systems everything is decided centrally - for example in the Politburo. The decentralized processing of information is of course much faster than the centralized one. Therefore, capitalism, or rather the market mechanism that works behind capitalism, will always enable faster decisions and be more innovative. This means that the resource work, which makes both economic systems possible in the first place, can be used much more efficiently.

However, an elementary part of the construct of work is ignored: work is a social institution, because people need a task and want their place in life to be defined. You want to help shape life. However, this is increasingly falling behind as conditions at the work site become harsher. This can be the outsourcing in capitalism combined with job loss and existential fear, or the increasingly rigid system of surveillance and repression that characterizes socialism.

Work is also one of those encounters where people exchange and develop and is therefore a fundamental part of society - if not the most fundamental. Because cooperation has made us humans successful as a species. Instead of individually ensuring survival against an aggressive environment, we joined together in communities that focused on the division of labor. Today's division of labor therefore has a purpose, even if it is difficult to see. It goes without saying that production will always be an inevitable part of work, since the basic needs of the population must be guaranteed.
The question of work becomes particularly exciting with regard to topics such as Industry 4.0 and robotics. What do we want to automate and what not? The fact that not everything that could be done technically is done is a result of the moral network of roots in future societies. Jaques Fresco postulated in Resource-based economy that machines take over the heavy and dangerous work and humans devote themselves to the aesthetic activities. What is a good idea in principle, however, ignores those who do not want to or cannot aesthetically. The author supports Fresco's idea that dangerous jobs and jobs that no one wants to do should be done by machines. Recognition for this difficult work will be important for the transition period, but also for the time after that, when it is automated. Just as it is recognized today, which brings in a lot of money, the work on the palliative care ward or in the sewage system must be valued by society. Like today, for example, a TV star or a top athlete.

The armies are already using a similar concept today. While the pay is modest relative to the risk, soldiers receive a second currency - honor and recognition in the unit. With a similar system, execution of the unpopular jobs is assured until they are automated, if they should be automated.

Class struggle 2.0

Societies are divided into upper, middle and lower classes. The upper class wants to secure their position, while the middle class wants to rise, the lower class is really only concerned with surviving. What smacks of a purely capitalist problem also affects socialist systems. Here society is divided into party and workers, the common enemy is the dissident. While the party cadres live in the lap of luxury, the worker must be careful not to become a dissident, for denunciation is omnipresent. What is solved in socialism with denunciation and the Gulag, capitalism does a little more delicately with income. So they are two sides of the same coin, each driven by ideology. They are competing products from the past millennium. Adam Smith, Karl Marx and many others have provided answers to the questions of the time. But time has not stood still, but its conceptual approaches have.

Planing economy instead of planned economy

The socialist dream of being able to plan the individual out of the Politburo is doomed to fail, since any creative spirit is denied from the ground up. In addition, officials who think in step are supposed to predict and plan the dynamics of life for several years. The history books are full of examples of planned economies not working. USSR, GDR and more recently Cuba.
Nevertheless, socialism also has interesting aspects. Namely social cohesion and the ability to plan production. Socialism achieves social cohesion through sheer necessity due to scarcity and the fear of political persecution. The ability to plan production is achieved by defining a multi-year plan, which is rarely actually achieved due to shortages.
Social cohesion can also be achieved with a common goal. This shows the realistic conflict theory of the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif. In an attempt that is now ethically questionable, he showed that with a common goal, existing conflicts can be reduced and new common ground can be found. It is known as the Robbers Cave Experiment.
The ability to plan production can now be presented very easily with IT support. For example like a payback points system. However, the data is not used to advertise more targeted products to the customer or to evaluate the social credit, but to optimize production. It should be clear that this will turn the current economic system upside down. Using advertising and PR to suggest people's needs and thus boost sales of obsolete products would no longer be necessary. In this case, the production was based on real needs, which can still be controlled via public communication, which the advertising industry has so far impressively demonstrated. Advertising, or public communication in general, is used in this case to propagate the desired values ​​and views, because for the most part people align themselves with the guidelines of the authorities. The Milgram experiments provide a blatant example of this. Alarm bells should be ringing for privacy advocates. Because all the data that would be collected could also be used excellently for monitoring. In order for this incentive to be minimized, this of course requires a solid basis of values! The IT is just a tool like a hammer, but not evil per se. With a hammer, you can hammer in a nail or a head with it. It's not the fault of the hammer. But what controls the hammer is the intention of the person using it.

Value basis

Growth above all else is the credo of the economy at the moment, because this is the only way to secure jobs. The fact that environmental destruction and various other crimes are not considered does not bother many. The fact is, however, that there should be a moral framework before any action in order to align it. Without this basic framework, action, or in a broader sense the entire economy, becomes an end in itself, where everything that is possible can be done. Current economic systems ensure that the majority of people behave like an animal that is being cornered. They are attack biased and (passively) aggressive. But where does that come from?
In the book Willpower by Baumeister and Tierney, the duration of action of a substance is compared to the length of the addict's thought cycles. The length of thought cycles correlate with the duration of action of the substance. Put simply, the addiction must be satisfied now, regardless of the long-term effects. The same applies to the income situation of most people. The bills need to be paid now, so short-term fundraising actions are taken that are harmful in the long-term such as corruption, crime, or just too stressful a job.
Survival, whether real or social, justifies actions that are strategically poisonous. And as long as we depend on the salary transfer, nothing will change. Unless people have the certainty that survival is assured, i.e. that income will come safely. That sounds like an unconditional basic income, but it isn't. It's about an economic and monetary system that offers long-term stability and thus defuses the struggle for survival, but does not bring society into line in a socialist manner.
The question remains, if the pressure is removed, why would people do anything at all? First of all, the term work has now degenerated into a struggle for survival, although work is actually an essential part of social coexistence. Another perspective is self-interest. People are intrinsically motivated to get the best out of themselves. However, this self-interest can be based on moral values ​​- according to me, the deluge or in socially more acceptable directions.

Making Errors 2.0

No matter who you are, no matter what level of education a person has, at some point something goes wrong. It doesn't matter whether this is due to misinformation or misguided emotions. It is therefore important that systems, whether technical or social, rely on passive safety. This means that they are fault-tolerant and, in extreme cases, ensure that self-regulation sets in before it bursts. What the error culture is in a society is the self-shutdown in the event of overload in technical systems. Technically, this is made possible by the appropriate design of the systems. Socially, we do this by establishing behavioral routines that acknowledge the error and appreciate reporting and fixing it. This leads to a completely new mindset, with which people no longer have to cover up their mistakes or blame others, but grow with the mistakes and learn from them. In short, it's ok if you make a mistake. But preferably only once without constant repetition in the hope that it will be better next time.

Growth, growth above all

Our current social systems revolve purely around the economy. What is important is not what is good for society or people, but what creates sales and jobs. We can therefore simply speak of economic systems. This thinking is not even wrong, since the economic systems are dependent on growth and the growing crowd must also be supplied. Capitalism is currently competing with socialism. While capitalism seems to have defeated socialism with the collapse of the USSR, in the long run it abolishes itself through the development of massive inequalities. The widening gap between rich and poor is due to money's compound interest algorithm, behind which there is also the constant demand for more growth. Wealth and debt increase automatically, but someone has to physically create this growth. That's you with your manpower!
At the moment you go to work in the confidence that you will still get something in return for your work today. Money makes it possible. While there is a stubborn belief in money that money must be backed somehow, such as gold was once linked to the dollar, the actual backing behind it is always trust. The confidence that you can acquire material assets for colorfully printed paper with minimal intrinsic value that are worth many times over. Because of that trust, you get up in the morning, go to work, and invest in your future. Until the next crisis of confidence, which ends in a crash. Economic growth is needed to delay this crash for as long as possible. When the economy is booming and people consume diligently, the cash flow is good and people reinvest. The blood of the economy is in motion - the money.
One lever to keep the economy booming is planned obsolescence. Goods are produced in such a way that they break early and something new has to be purchased. In the past, this was done with inferior components, such as undersized capacitors, but today it's simply done with software. You can easily see that with cell phones. After the end of the contract period, there are no more updates, making the device insecure and unusable. So a new one has to be purchased and the economy is booming again. In the context of economic growth, however, the fact that massive amounts of resources and work are wasted is even desirable, even if this is pointless. The growth paradigm is due on the one hand to population growth and on the other hand to our current financial system, which relies on compound interest as the money distribution mechanism.

Pay please!

Money, the blood of business. The role it will play in future social systems depends on several factors. An important one is how much and how quickly we can move away from the concept of offsetting services and consideration. After all, the principle of reconciling performance with consideration over the long term is deeply rooted in us. The social psychologist Robert Cialdini devotes an entire chapter to so-called reciprocity in his classic Influence. People feel a deep commitment to give back when they get something. Using a begging technique woven on this principle, Buddhist monks built an entire empire by giving people a flower.

The compound interest

Money is the value of a good or service in an economic system. It serves as a universal medium of exchange and thus ensures the distribution of goods. However, it has a peculiarity that no other commodity possesses: When hoarding money, there are hardly any storage costs. You can store it for a long time without losing value, at least from a physical point of view.

• A ton of apples will rot if overlaid
• The equivalent value in money can easily be kept for longer periods

If someone stores money, i.e. takes it out of the exchange cycle, this hinders the exchange of goods, since there is a total lack of money to ensure the turnover of the goods. The paradox is that the person withholding the money also collects a fee, the interest, to get it back into circulation. Interest is not just a borrowing fee. For example, if you take out a loan of 1000 euros at 1% interest over 100 years, you will pay back about twice as much in total. Let's consider the same loan at 10% interest, over the years you pay back many times the original loan.
The interest itself is not just a fee for lending the money, but a mechanism for redistributing the money to those who lend it via the compound interest effect. In the long term, capital is concentrated at the moneylenders. Interest and compound interest have exponential growth. This means that the growth curve rises slightly at the beginning, but steepens over time and thus grows more and more the longer the loan runs.
Through the creation of bank money, the money supply is being expanded more and more via lending. Bank money creation means that the bank is allowed to expand its money supply if there is a corresponding need. For example, when you sign a loan agreement. However, this is only possible if the bank actually owns a certain percentage of the borrowed money and this is deposited as security, which is called minimum reserve. Money is created out of thin air, although there must always be a certain residual amount of real money. What is necessary in the short term to generate economic growth generates money monopolies in the long term, which can have a disproportionate influence on the economy and politics.

The multiplication effect of money is all the stronger, the higher the interest rates are. As the amount of money in circulation increases over time, the value of money decreases and assets become more expensive. Because the amount of money is the equivalent of the assets available on the market. With the expansion of the money supply, the equilibrium is shifted towards increasingly expensive assets – prices rise. But you don't just pay interest when you borrow money, you always pay interest. There is an interest component in every product and service. These arise from borrowed money in production or from the interest that the company loses if the money is invested in the company instead of giving it to the bank and collecting interest on it. The more capital-intensive a company is to offer a product or service, the higher the interest that you always pay.

Wealth also means new borrowing, as owners of capital want to make the money work for them. However, money does not multiply by itself. Credit can only grow when a person pays off a loan. So it is always people who use their labor to ensure that money can multiply. This means that new ways of granting credit have to be found. This results in a return flow to the investors, who thereby accumulate even more capital. It's a never-ending cycle. Social impacts in everyday life remain invisible as long as the economy can keep up with the exponential growth of interest rates. However, since an economy can grow at most linearly, i.e. consistently, but never exponentially, it is only a matter of time before effects become visible. The constant demand for more economic growth only alleviates the problem in the short term, but strategically pours oil on the fire. In the past, these monetary systems were necessary to ensure the distribution of goods that were not in sufficient supply. Thanks to technological advances, this deficiency no longer exists - at least for basic needs - but is only artificially maintained by the continued existence of the antiquated interest money distribution mechanism.

In order to achieve a sustainable economy without an interest rate trap, a number of steps are necessary. But these steps take time, because the people who lose in the system have no lobby and those who win have no interest in changing anything. Every person in the current system is driven by the fear of possible lack or benefit driven by expectations and therefore tries to generate the suggested advantage. The distribution system itself is the problem, not the people trying unsuccessfully to control it. A new approach would be to keep everything the same except that the function of interest is reversed. Anyone who had money left over at the end of the month would then have to pay a levy, as this person keeps the money out of the economic cycle and thus hinders it. A penalty like for illegal parkers. This is the principle of Free money as postulated by the businessman Silvio Gesell. Since the majority of payments are processed electronically these days, the switch would be easy. Such negative interest currencies are not a utopia, they already existed. For example in Wörgl during the Great Depression, which is known as the Miracle of Wörgl. A similar free money existed in the Middle Ages. Known then as bracteate.

Resource-based economy

Imagine money disappearing but everything else staying the same. Companies continue to produce the goods, distribution takes place as usual, and administration controls the flow of things. Everything goes on as usual, except that nobody handles money anymore. Each person makes the contribution they are willing to make. The earth's resources are viewed as a common good, belonging to everyone and no one. The economy provides the framework for a dignified life for all people. This is the principle of the resource-based economy according to Jacque Fresco. Sounds a bit utopian and it is, because Fresco's utopia envisages that machines do the heavy work and people devote themselves to the aesthetic activities, which will not work like this. There will always be people who cannot or do not want to do aesthetics. In times of increasing automation, however, this utopia could quickly become reality, because machines are on the rise.
Politically, however, there is hardly anything that can be changed here, since politics works with the money that is available to it. Politics is there to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, the problem also lies with the people, since they prefer to accept a quick answer instead of getting involved with new ideas. When social pressures and popular suffering are great enough, quick responses easily lead to a new breed of extremism. On the other hand, one should never underestimate the transformative power of a real crisis. Especially when people realize that the emperor isn't wearing any new clothes.

Motivation

Today's motivation behind any entrepreneurial activity is profit. In order to generate this, a number of products that are not actually needed are produced and marketing creates the demand. This is a waste of resources.

• It is now cheaper to buy new equipment than to carry out repairs.
• Why not limit production to the necessary minimum? However, these products are then manufactured in the highest quality, using state-of-the-art technology.

The earth is limited as a store of resources. The cornerstone of public service is resources and their distribution, not money. In the resource-based economy, it is first necessary to take stock of which resources are sufficiently available and where there is actually a shortage. This data is collected in a publicly accessible database and can be evaluated there. Based on this data, what is necessary for the supply is produced.

In this way, the concepts of work and survival are separated from one another, since basic supplies are guaranteed. This creates space for creative development and thinking, because the only real lack that currently exists is a lack of creativity and innovative spirit. Completely new solutions are possible based on this concept. Environmentally friendly technologies, which have not been profitable up to now, will then appear in a new light. In a resource-based economy, the idea of ​​sustainability comes to the fore. Then it is more interesting to create technologies, modes of operation and buildings that correspond to the ideas of environmental sustainability, usability for people and efficiency, rather than just being cheap. It also follows from this that stupid, monotonous work is automated as far as the current state of the art allows and this is also desired. Research and business go hand in hand and provide solutions to problems to improve the living conditions of everyone. Until automation progresses, people around the world are still required to work to ensure supplies. But then with a different motivation, namely to create progress and improve living conditions instead of just accumulating money or making ends meet.
Resource-based economy does not mean that there is nothing left to do, on the contrary. There is a lot of work to be done, especially in the transition phase from current economic systems to the resource-based economy. However, this does not have to be done as quickly as possible in order to generate capital, but gradually. The idea behind it is to create an economic system that serves the people and does not re-enslave them again. There is a lot of work to be done here, on an intellectual level. As already described, we need a new set of values ​​that people can base their actions on. But what motivates people to do the necessary work when supplies and housing are guaranteed?

Today's belief that profit and competition create the incentive to work is correct. Someone wins, but at least one other person also loses as a result. It is therefore created more than just an incentive to work, namely:

• Stress
• Greed
• Crises
• War

Personalities who made a difference and created progress throughout history did not primarily do so to maximize their personal advantage, but rather to solve existing problems and create improvements. So what is the motivation of the masses if they are not forced to work by lack (of food, housing)? The will of the individual to move and change something. It is our creative spirit to become active and to shape as human beings. And of course, not everyone will want to participate. This is not the case in today's economic systems. A person who is intrinsically motivated achieves much more than a large number of people who only work for money.
This results in a (working) atmosphere that is more beneficial, productive and peaceful than today. New incentives to work would then be progress, improvement and self-realization, as well as the elimination of deficiencies and the urge to live out one's own creativity. The idea that the population is just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The incentive to work is then the work itself, no longer a few colorfully printed paper slips, which are necessary for survival. Motivation to create and move something is intrinsic. Today, however, attempts are being made to extrinsically stimulate this motivation through deficiency. The average worker is accordingly motivated.

Change

The management of the corona crisis showed some abnormalities, as Paul Schreyer describes in Chronik einer angekündigte Krise. For example, in extreme cases, trained behavior can be unwound automatically, similar to that of a military drill. Crisis management clearly shows the power of published information and authorities in everyday life. The majority of people base their behavior on a role model they trust. That's a good thing, because historically, decisions made always had to be implemented. Just as there is a queen and many workers in the animal kingdom, we have the elites and the common people.

It becomes critical when the decisive positions are held by people who are not in a position to make long-term decisions. The brain research team led by Tali Sharot from University College London found out that around 80% of all people suffer from unrealistic optimism without necessarily knowing it. This phenomenon denotes a malfunction of the frontal lobe during information processing. Affected people are very reluctant to adjust their worldview, no matter what evidence is presented. The researchers found in the MRI scanner that the unrealistic optimists use the entire power of the prefrontal cortex to distort reality. A classic example are the conspiracy theorists as well as the theorists of chance, as Schreyer so aptly points out. Where some see evil intentions and conspiracies everywhere, others deny the most banal connections as coincidental to the point of naïve do-gooders. Both are united by unrealistic optimism. This means that around 80% of people are unable to make strategic decisions. Probably also about 80% of the current elites and decision-makers. If some decide incompetently and others carry out unquestioningly, this represents a potential disaster. Viewed from another perspective, around 80% of people need a solid world view to which they can orient themselves and according to which they can act. This is where the corona crisis comes into play. Within a few months, the supposed danger of COVID-19 was conveyed to a large part of the world's population via mass communication. From shock and fear to a virus state of emergency - all of this made targeted communication possible. Accordingly, it is also possible to change the world with a newly designed information and entertainment program. Content that promotes society, critical contributions and a culture of discussion instead of clumsy propaganda in constant repetition. Mass communication works, no matter what content is transported. Fear has delivered very quick results in crisis communication. Hope doesn't work as quickly as fear, but it is more beneficial. But why adapt the media content at all? Society is a team sport. No matter what position you play, you will always encounter people whose thoughts and actions are inspired or indoctrinated by media-transported content...
Does that sound too crass to you? Here's another perspective on the issue of unrealistic optimism and its massive implications. Whether the theory behind it can be right can be empirically compared with indoctrination in authoritarian systems like the GDR. While the children were placed in state care as early as possible so that both parents could work, a desired worldview was anchored in the child at an early age. Accordingly, many grew up as well-behaved, well-adjusted GDR citizens who believed in the system. What sounds like a socialism problem at first, runs in principle everywhere. They are simply narratives, i.e. stories that give people a desired framework for action, according to which they should act. Once this framework for action has been adopted, it is hardly ever questioned, but simply acted on as if these were one's own deep convictions, which they ultimately are. What is classically understood as indoctrination is based on the mechanism of unrealistic optimism. Class enemy yesterday, corona denier today, frequent heater tomorrow...

Hostile takeover

The hostile takeover describes a concept from business administration with which a company is bought without the company wanting it itself. Similarly, changes to our social system will have to take place, for the status quo shuns change like the devil shuns holy water. People who are currently in positions of power or who benefit from the system will want to leave everything as it is. Changing things democratically is probably utopian, since capital has the upper hand and ultimately every person has their price or, in the simpler case, can be blackmailed. If both are not an option, there is still the media pillory with which credibility is destroyed by fake news. So, being good doesn't change anything. Rudi Dutschke also understood that. While his Long March was based on a long-term strategy via the indoctrination of the doctrine, the author sees a hostile takeover of the existing structures as more realistic. We cannot wait decades for a new ideology to become established in people's minds before they initiate change. Our current financial system is destroying the planet more and more obviously and coexistence is disrupted.
How offensive the hostile takeover can be will probably be determined by the suffering of the population, who will no longer be willing to take the current circumstances for granted. Here we refer to actions by environmental and animal rights organizations that may seem extreme at the moment, but are perhaps urgently needed from a strategic perspective. A more tolerable form of hostile takeover could also be the establishment of alternative structures, which simply no longer participate in the current madness and build new ones themselves. Without waiting for party X with politician Y to change something at some point in the distant future. It is the construction of parallel structures and the simultaneous drying out of the existing ones. Don't use money that promotes inequality. You don't go to the polls where you really don't have a choice. Don't shop where destruction is encouraged. The alternatives are there, even if some of them are still very uncomfortable and expandable. Transitional money could be a fork of Freicoin as a negative interest cryptocurrency. Self-help in the neighborhood instead of waiting for change from above. The organic farmer with his farm shop instead of the discounter on the street corner. In short: get out of the victim attitude and become active.

A completely unrealistic thought – reason

People trust authority to solve almost any problem and expect that they can solve it. This may still work on a small, manageable scale, but in established social systems this is only the case to a limited extent. But why at all do authorities have to intervene more and more in life and clarify questions that actually do not concern them. The state is there to create the framework conditions, but nothing more.
For the unrealistic optimist this is probably heresy, as the belief in authority runs deep. But here many people make it too easy for themselves. It's always great when a third party is at fault. Since you haven't decided anything yourself, you don't have to answer for anything yourself, but you also give up any sovereignty over your lifestyle. And here the author thinks that we should try a completely revolutionary approach: our own decisions and reason. It sounds shocking at first that you should decide fundamental things yourself and in the worst case even have to take responsibility for them. But here the circle closes. Because the current approach of outsourcing decisions to the authorities is socialist in information processing and therefore too slow. Central authorities are supposed to clarify problems on the spot, but by the time they have made a decision, the problem is no longer acute or the damage has already been done. If you make your own decisions to the best of your knowledge and belief, the decision-making paths are much shorter and problems can be solved more quickly. With an error culture, problems are minimized and people are motivated to get involved instead of protecting themselves against everything and everyone - keyword compliance. The remaining working time is used to a greater extent than before to solve the problems. But that requires trust, courage and openness. The openness to accept mistakes and the courage to commit them. As long as you learn from your mistakes and don't keep repeating those mistakes, you have a much better chance of making long-term improvements than sticking to what you know and being paralyzed. Of course, not everyone will decide everything for themselves overnight. A certain number of people will emerge who want to take over the decisions, as they do today.

The fractal essence of being

While it has been more economic and political so far, let's look at the heart of the problem. Im Teufelskreis der Lust Ingo Schymanski describes the habituation model, which explains many diseases in western societies but also shows that this makes adaptation to new circumstances possible. Schymanski's insight is that more and more makes us more and more unhappy and broken. The regulatory circuit of dopamine and Gaba release drives us to peak performance, builds empires and destroys the planet. What neurotransmitters are at the cellular level, consumption and gratification are at the economic level. But why is that exciting?
The first designs of computers, like those of today, rely on a design that is not dissimilar to the brain. RAM and long-term storage, as well as an information-processing unit, the CPU. Of course, no one has a chip in their head by default, but we have neural networks that process the information. Our brain processes data like a computer. The interesting point is that this design was developed by computers long before neurological knowledge was available. Intuitively what you are was used. In the esoteric one says, as in the small so also in the large. Mathematicians would speak of fractals, i.e. the repeating patterns within a function. Or to put it more simply, things are similar when you look very closely and when you look at them from a great distance. This groundbreaking discovery by mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot has far-reaching implications.
When things resemble each other on different levels and designs are created that correspond fundamentally to who we are, this indicates a fractal nature of being in our universe. Others would call this more of a simulation hypothesis, which has influential supporters like Elon Musk. While believers in this hypothesis believe the universe is being generated by a gigantic supercomputer, the simulation could mean anything from God to the Matrix. If we really live in a simulation, we basically have access to all and thus also to all possibilities that this fractal playground called life has to offer and thus options!

Outlook

We can continue as before, but then we shouldn't be surprised if we provoke results similar to those written in the history books. The problem is that believing in authority feels so normal and unquestioned. Perhaps we as humanity must finally reach puberty in order to rebel against existing authorities without this time beating each other's heads and burning everything down, only to dive into the next cycle of economic miracle and crisis of confidence afterwards. If we continue as before, the path on which we are moving is mapped out. Or we become daring and question approaches, take them up and adapt them to new needs. For example, the Great Reset propagated by the World Economic Forum, where everything is to be reset to zero and we simply start over with stakeholder capitalism. For politicians, the Great Reset is the answer to questions that can no longer be answered. One cannot afford to admit that previous approaches were flawed, since politics is the business of credibility.
A controversial topic, but Schwab and Malleret are right about the basic idea of ​​the great new beginning. We can't go on like this. The compound interest financial system does not work in the long term, people rush in the hamster wheel and our earth is burned for profit - infinite growth simply does not exist. We are now at a crossroads and should soon make a decision on how to proceed. But for that we have to start talking to each other instead of about each other. If we outsource the decision to the authorities again, the way is mapped out, because they are interested in staying up. If we dare to ask questions and take things into our own hands, the future may be uncertain, but it is much more promising. Technology could enable new forms of society and fundamentally change the way of life. How do you want to live tomorrow?

Final word

The analyst Martin Armstrong mentioned at the beginning uses an algorithm to manage complexity in order to make events tangible in hectic times. But the basic principle is that he tries to manage more with more. On the other hand, there is Schymanski's approach, which states that everything is far too complex to be managed centrally. Or as Harari describes it as centralized information processing, which is generally much too slow to keep up with the rhythm of ever faster life. Unless more is compensated with more, which leads to more. While Armstrong's basic insight that there is a rhythm for everything that can be understood is correct, the connection between pleasure and reward must be added, i.e. the accelerating control circuit of dopamine and gaba, so that the amplitudes, i.e. the Fluctuations in how extreme a cycle affects can be kept in check. With more and more, we get more and more of everything. The supposedly desirable and the resulting problems. Maybe artificial intelligence really will solve all problems and we just have to become a singularity via transhumanism. But perhaps it is only the final destination of folly, which tries to restore the meaning of life that has been lost through excessive gratification. As an IT-savvy person, the author sees the generation of information, which digitization ultimately offers, as an opportunity to gain insights and to fill the free time and resources that arise with meaning, which is only possible through voluntary renunciation. If we don't achieve this voluntariness, technology will enslave us, just like punched cards made it possible to operate concentration camps, only always and everywhere. The structures for this are already in place via mobile phones, social media and all-encompassing tracking. Where there is more, there will always be more control and surveillance. Therefore, more is not always better.
Do we use our free will to choose what we really want and what is good for us, or do we just let ourselves drift in search of the meaning of life? This decision can only begin with each individual. However, technology can help us to make connections more visible and thus be able to make better decisions. What technology won't be able to do, though, is make better choices for us as a species. Should the fractal nature of being be true, technology is the product of more and more, which will ultimately make the best choices for technology. It is questionable what place we as humans will then occupy.
All isms will not provide the answer to the existing problems, because they narrow the view. What is desirable for cults and adherents of ideologies is counterproductive for us as a species. Capitalism, socialism and their consequences are doomed to failure because they fuel the control loop of more and more and are thus automatically in a downward spiral. Economic systems exist only to distribute goods and create opportunities. It may be true that one or the other finds meaning in the cycle of more, but this does not apply to the masses. However, this can also create curiosity and the desire to improve, without the sense-free greed for more and more.