Stories

I - The established order can be shaped over time.

1.    Introduction – published 8.4.22
This is a series about making changes. Necessary changes to the established order over time. Necessary because problems caused by the way people inhabit the earth is taunting catastrophe for the many to the benefit of the few. 
Examples such as global warming, an accepted challenge that affects the whole planet, people included. The covid pandemic affected people around the world and demonstrated that we live in a global village. Or war as we now have on European soil. For the first time since the second world war, an imperialist war was started by Russia on sovereign Ukraine. 
All these examples turn out to be a perfect opportunity to make money as we try to stave off catastrophe. The cost of trying to slow down global warming is enormous in terms of cost to society and impact on nature. It also clears the road for a reintroduction of nuclear power investment. The pandemic was a great money spinner for some at huge costs to others. The war now threatens economic stability. Inflation is on the rise, but the arms industry is secretly celebrating as defence budgets around the globe are increased.
All these issues are managed with the impact on the economy as a very major element of decision. Jobs are be lost, people on benefits suffer disproportionally and all the while the rich get richer. The established order puts the needs for growth of the economy as a blanket over society and the planet. 
We need a better balance between the planet, the social and the economy. The planet should provide in a sustainable manner for the total of its inhabitants, the living species, with the economy not as a goal, but to regulate the relations between people and the burden people place on the planet.
 

I am planning a series of short comments like this. I believe they can make a valuable contribution to much needed change. They will be no more than 300 words per instalment. That means topical and hopefully challenging, but not scientifically correct. In some future instalment I will explain why. Please like it if it makes you think, share it if you feel it could challenge the thoughts of others as well. 

 
2.    The Social – Published 9.4.22
The Global Village is committed to the established order, a system where a small number of world leaders and entrepreneurs jockey for position. This competition exists at the expense of the masses, pawns in a bigger game. If the masses, the social, want to be taken seriously they must invest in their right to be heard. To achieve that effort is needed, effort over time. I think in terms of a century. Hundred years of building towards a different society that can be fair and sustainable, something that capitalism is not and cannot be.
Capitalism is about maximising individual wealth and comes at the expense of the people that create such wealth. Capitalism depends on unlimited growth from a limited planet. That is a fundamentally flawed. It puts materialism above all, and thus the ‘haves’ above all. It is inherently supremacist and makes greed and selfishness a necessity for success. 
I will come back to these broad statements in more detail further down the road, but for now please realise the importance of the notion: We live on a finite planet under a system that requires infinite growth. Leaders live in denial to that mathematical impossibility and as such base their actions on wishful thinking. They feel themselves invulnerable to the consequences of their actions as they stand above the masses.  
We do not really have a century to improve society and changing the face of the established order into a more balanced society. This is not a call for inaction for the next hundred years. The urgency to start is real, but it will take generations to develop a society that hangs on to the good and does away with what’s bad. We need a century.
Building the strength of the social will take time. During that time priorities will emerge, and choices can be made. The priority for now is to work towards better understanding. It will be easy to dismiss everything I suggest and challenging to try and understand what is truly meant. 
 

Please like it if it makes you think, share it if you feel it could challenge the thoughts of others as well. If you disagree with anything I say, please ask questions rather than reject considered thought off hand.

 
3.    The social allows itself to be used – Published 10.4.22
The image below is a schematic rendition of the three basic layers of society. It portrays the chief beneficiaries of the established order as living in the clouds. Their position is both enabled and safeguarded by people climbing the ladder of society. They make things happen for the people in the cloud by using, and, if need be, by abusing “the masses”. Yet these masses are the foundations of society. They are the people that produce things and provide services. They are creating value.

The foundations of society make everything possible whereas the superstructure organises the foundations. They do so to satisfy those in the cloud who always want more from a limited planet. It is an unlimited competition for more and not a sport where losing can be honourable. It is the toughest game of all, devoid of sensible morals. 
The result is geopolitical instability, global warming, health crisis and uncertain economic prospects to name a few. All of such proportions that the established order is reduced to combatting the effects of what is an inherently unstable system. That puts those responsible for maintaining the established order on the defence. Defending the indefensible, hiding behind a superior attitude, using debating tactics that dominate the public discourse. Justified by moral values stemming from ideologies, religions, nationalism, ethnicity, gender or whatever means of divvying up the social. 
Divide and conquer is an ancient tactic to reduce the voice of the social. The problem is of course that the social is never unified, never should be unified. People are different by nature. It is a cultural necessity to unify to control the people. Those different cultures can be alienated towards another, moving people away from their natural morals. The lone person, pretty much like me in this discourse, is crying in the wilderness. Making every challenge to the established order suspect is a debating tool that can only be overcome if the social can embrace variety as the spice of life and not as a ground for ridicule.

 

4.    How to give a voice to the social – Published 11.4.22
The masses are used to being ruled. That does not mean they are meant to be ruled, not in all aspects of life. The individuals that make up the masses have many talents that are suppressed from an early age. Anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901-1978) already noticed that our schooling is all about what we should think. We are not educated on how to think. Thinking is a discipline that can be taught, a skill that can be acquired. Often people don’t bother with the sometimes-painful process of thought and arrive at decisions or choices on autopilot. Preconceived ideas that are part of our tradition, our education, our belief system doesn’t get challenged the way it should, as society moves closer to its limitations. 
Schooling is in the hands of government. People are being schooled to become good citizens and not to educate them to be critical thinkers. From an early age people are submitted to a hierarchical system with their worth determined by grades. Graded on skills such as accumulating knowledge. Some are better than others and get higher grades, gaining them esteem within the established order. Knowledge is power in today’s established order. But what does this accumulated knowledge do for society? What does power do with people if not lording it over their perceived inferiors. What does knowledge do for morality? 
Most schooling is hierarchical. The teacher is right, like parents during the children’s formative years. The church, the football coach, the bully in class, the kid with the highest grades, they all exercise their hierarchical might. You must be prepared to stand up to it to be heard. The winner of the debating contest is not the most worthwhile contributor to the social. He or she will serve the ego but is listening towards finding fault in an argument rather than discovering its meaning. The value of thinking and of discussion should be part of the educational curriculum to help all gain a voice in and a contribution to society.
 

 

5.    Age… We need to recognise where it brings us – Published 12.4.22
This is a personal intermezzo that may underline that it is not easy to do away with a lifetime of indoctrination and to admit things could and should be very different. Not to change it ourselves, but to pave the way for future development. To get away from combatting the symptoms of a failing system towards rebuilding towards a more balanced society. To address the system the current leading generation has been instrumental in bringing about will need different thinkers. Let’s educate them.
I am 70 and have dedicated the last decade or so on this type of thought. A rare luxury that most people I talk to haven’t had. Yet most of them immediately know why I am wrong, idealistic, naïve, or downright stupid. Having lived in a hierarchical debating society for all our lives that is our defence mechanism. It is scary to admit that the progress we thought we were realising has some serious flaws as well as having brought a lot of good. Unfortunately, the flaws rapidly push us of the cliff of our own logic. Allow me to talk about my road towards discovery. 
The first time I thought about clarifying my own mind was in 1982, after graduating at Imede for my MBA. My father, a university professor, used to say that such a degree amounted to no more than the right to pursue a PHD. I thought about that. I wanted to write about a zero-growth economy. In my best handwriting (times are changing) I crafted a proposal that my father kindly placed in the hands of a colleague. Not much later I got it back marked in red all over. Disappointed I thought that was it and dropped the project. 
Months later my father reminded me of his colleagues’ efforts, and I explained him he had basically killed it. That was my bad. The colleague had formulated serious questions and proclaimed to be seriously interested. I had unfortunately in the meantime ditched the draft and started climbing the ladder of society. I enjoyed the jobs that brought me as well as the spoils that went with it. I gave up, but my thoughts never gave up on me. 

 

 

6.    Giving up is not an option – Published 13.4.22
The unease with our established order however never went away and, as I got more time on my hands, I took up thinking again. To make sense of my thoughts I write things down. Deep thought needs schematic writing to cover all angles and to maintain an overview. I locked myself up in a convent to force my flighty mind to concentrate on getting away from the thoughts I grew up with. 
I got my answers and decided to write them in book form: The Power of Ten: A Blueprint for 21st Century People-Power available as an e-book. It got a few pretty good reviews and then it stalled. I probably should have done more to promote the book, but I figured it maybe wasn’t good enough. Written by an amateur without a lot of background in theoretical philosophy. I decided to enter the university to study philosophy. 
I learned a hell of a lot. Especially that I wasn’t the first to doubt the wisdom of the established order. I was introduced to Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who understood the ridicule of the Summum Bonum as damaging to society and instead advocated a life that was Good Enough as that could be lived within the natural limits of our planet. Throughout history the voice of Epicurus, mainly handed down in Latin by Lucretius, keeps coming back in philosophy. His thinking was the backbone for my thesis about philosophical starting points. It is in Dutch, but I will translate it into English. 
I think it is a worthwhile read as it shows that philosophy often starts from and serves the established order. Even people like Marx only think about different ways of managing the established order rather than accepting its limitations. And although the ethical thoughts of Spinoza are probably still very valuable today, his political thoughts dismiss the people. Maybe understandable in his day and age, but things have changed. The general population is far more capable than it was in the 17th century. 
On top of that, the elite may have been reasonably capable in understanding the world a few centuries ago, but the current complexity of the society is way beyond control of politicians. Without artificial intelligence and algorithms, without those black boxes with their pre-programmed morality, it is impossible to get an overview, thus allowing rhetoric to take over from considered thought. If we want our great grandchildren as part of the general population to have a nice life we simply cannot give up. We should think.
 

 

7.    Developing the social depends on the people themselves – Published 14.2.22
In these first instalments I have made the call that the responsibility for change must come from an emancipation of the people. Having been used to being led by different kinds of leaders we subject far too easily to the established order. The ethical limits of the playing field of our global society can no longer be left to a power-structure that mainly serves the leading elite at the expense of the masses. We must get away from a system of unlimited greed to be satisfied from a finite planet and work towards a more balanced society. To that effect the masses must make themselves be heard, speak up for themselves, be taken seriously. 
Over the next century the social must deserve a position that allows that social to set the ethical limits for a balanced society within the means of the planet. I will make the case that this can be achieved by adapting education. To that the people should take the responsibility for schooling away from the self-serving hierarchy. It can be developed into an education that allows the value of the voice of society to become vocal. It is a challenge to take this possibility serious. We have lived our entire lives subjugated to the current system; this established order. The default attitude is denial and in a way that is comforting, because acceptance of the fact that the established order has reached its limits makes inaction unacceptable.
The social climate of the established order doesn’t help. It is self-destructive in a hierarchical society. The established order is in the hands of the economy. The economy lies at the heart of all decision making. Basically, money talks. However, money knows nothing, has no morals. A society measured in monetary terms has no real lasting conscience. Conscience is a luxury most people cannot afford. Speaking up for what someone believes is right is hard if the mortgage is at stake or the job is under threat. Everyone must listen to the boss as he or she must listen to her boss. The higher up in the hierarchy the more extreme becomes the value of the economic argument based on infinite need or greed.

 

8.    Determine the size of the economy – Published 15.4.22
Unlimited growth being an impossibility, the obvious consequence is that the size of the economy must be restricted. Restricted by the capacity of our planet to provide and to absorb. Those are rather absolute quantities that can be determined scientifically. With how many people we have to share those quantities is another but very relevant theme altogether, to be addressed later. 
Just as a working hypothesis, as an example of the type of calculation that could be at the base of the size of the economy, let’s look at oil. It is the sort of commodity we do not want to run out of. We have knowledge of the reserves of oil and of the current levels of consumption. We should manage our consumption based on a sensible horizon of availability. 
Let’s assume 100 years as a sensible horizon. That means a maximum of 1/100 may be consumed in year one. At that level of consumption, the following year the reserves would only stretch for 99 years and therefore a reduction of consumption will be needed to bring the horizon at that level back to 100 years. Of course, the established order would counter such a rule by increasing exploration efforts to all vulnerable places on our planet so that must be regulated as well. 
In the current established order, exploration of raw materials is seen as a way to make money that needs to be maximised. That leads to the beneficiaries of the sales of those raw materials, to questions about ownership of the resources of the planet. Now why would any one individual be more entitled to own bits of the planet than anybody else just because it formed under his or her feet? Why would one government have claim to iron ore, salt mines, gold deposits, oil wells or whatever deposits that happened to have formed within its borders? The planet is home to us all and belongs to us all. A defensible point of view that can be enforced if the people of the planet feel responsible – they are most certainly accountable – for the way we use our living quarters. 
 

 

9.    Ownership should be global, production is local – Published 16.4.22
The fact that something can be found somewhere does not separate it from being a part of the planet. The planet and all its valuables belong to us all. Adding value through extraction or other ways of making a resource available is another thing. That involves particular people, specific equipment, investment, and organisation. That could and should be rewarded to those who commit themselves to it. So, if a company gets permission to develop a certain resource, it buys said resource from the people at large and makes returns from adding value by making it into a product. The revenue from the raw base material should be distributed amongst the people. More about that later.
Obviously, the current beneficiaries, whether governments, corporations, or individuals, will disagree. They will only admit to such changes against an overwhelming majority of the people. That cannot be achieved from one day to the next, but if the people start organising their unified voice and begin working on building the strength of the social the inevitability of such change will become apparent and one thing is nice about market forces, they are unstoppable. In fact, as soon as said governments, corporations, and individuals start seeing the inevitability of a more balanced society, the benefits of such a more sustainable way of living, they will start working towards adapting to it and securing their place in it. They will put up a fight at first, but ultimately the people, the 90%, can have the power needed to realise change. 
To stake a claim to that power we the people will have to build confidence and at the same time do away with the hero worship for those in power today. It is a confidence game. We confide undeserved trust in people who claim to have all the answers whereas they are not different from those who are not prepared to overextend themselves. I will elaborate on this broad statement further on, but basically what someone can know is limited. What is to be known is unlimited. Complexity of society is mushrooming and people like politicians are suggesting they can make sense of that complexity, but they do so from their perspective. Their skill is selling that perspective, like selling snake oil.
 

10.    Is it possible to unite the people on anything? – Published 17.4.22
This is of course the crux of the matter. Can we respect our differences enough in order not to get in the way of our common interest? The difference in cultures of the world’s population lead to very different moral and ethical feelings of righteousness. Differences among many different beliefs divvy up the social; justified by moral values stemming from ideologies, religions, nationalism, ethnicity, gender or even adherence to the fan base of a football club. All these differences turn into self-righteousness when they are made prevalent to the right of nature to live. They turn into supremacism if combined with a sense of entitlement to prevail. It is that sentiment the established order is calling upon when they make people fight their fight for more. Ever more from a limited planet. 
It is in that sense that religions strived for numerical superiority by teaching their followers to go home and multiply. When science however achieved true progress in healthcare the life expectancy of people increased dramatically. Child mortality rates tumbled. And, notwithstanding the grief any shortfalls of this success may cause, religions did not respond by changing their message. They refused to accept that people want to have sex just for fun and denied, forcefully denied, the right to or the necessity of birth control. The population of our planet exploded, doubling in the last 50 years and on a trajectory to do so again over the next half century. 
That probably won’t happen because of health crises or violent conflict, but whatever the case, it means sharing a decreasing availability of goods with an increasing number of people. Decreasing availability as we continue to overconsume, that is, as the “developed” world is continuing to overconsume and the developing nations are keen to follow its sad example. The harsh reality of continuing that course will mean more suffering for the people as the high and mighty withdraw in their temples of fortune. 
The acceptance of these logical facts should be strong enough to unite the people towards a course of sharing what is sustainably available, whilst understanding and accepting the necessity of embracing our differences.
 

 

11.    Education will help us find a way – Published 18.4.22
Education is not just a word, but it means embracing a different way of growing up, both for the young and the old. Our current schooling is controlled by government and education is in the hands of the parents, schooled and formed by the established order. That means we are perpetuating the established order rather than develop it towards something more socially balanced and sustainable. Control of the foundation of the social for the future, control of education, should be taken away from government and be assumed by the people themselves. 
A friend of mine, a theoretical physicist and philosophy professor, does not disagree with the logic of the doomsday scenario that infinite demand from a finite planet could cause. He is however incapable of sharing my optimism that we could do something about it yet keeps challenging me. He has a basic distrust in the moral qualities of people and therefore thinks people will end up fighting for survival and superiority. 
He is living proof that this is nonsense. He is a nice guy and there are many more like him, but we must work towards change. Change will not come easy. It will take time and dedicated effort. The belief system of the intelligentsia may lack the creativity needed for change. That freedom of thought must be reintroduced in our education and should draw on the entire population, not just on people confused about safeguarding their position in the social pecking order (Par. 3). 
A different organisation will enable moving away from schooling towards true education. People deserve to grow up as confident independent critical thinkers, not as loyal contributors to a failing system. The general idea is to organise education in such a way that it can help to think ahead, not just to fit in. To organise it in such a way that future generations can become such independent thinkers and, in the process, help the adults in charge of education to be permanently educated as well. Because let’s dare face it, the established order needs to be educated about the limits of the society it is helping create. 

 

12.    It starts with a willingness to doubt – Published 19.4.22
We are not allowed to doubt. We live in a debating society where you have to know. Debating is something people train for, and it is even organised as a competitive sport. It is about winning and losing and has been since antiquity. Contestants don’t listen to try and understand what someone is trying to bring across, but to find fault. Beating someone in debate makes the winner superior and is beneficial to personal standing and status in our hierarchical society. Debating is too often about defending or gaining a place on the ladder of society and not about finding common ground.
There is a time and a place for debate or even dictate. It depends on the urgency and risk of the relevant case. If a house is on fire, no time may be lost, and the fire brigade is run in accordance with the emergency. However, there are also very relevant issues that have a totally different horizon regarding necessary decisions. For instance, the afterlife. Is there life after death? Should it change your conduct in life whether you do or do not believe in an afterlife and if yes in what form? Basically, you have a lifetime to grapple with that question and the answer will only be revealed when it is too late to report about it. Yet people invest their belief in such matters. It becomes a dogma. I will come back to this later, for now let’s please not allow a personal dogma to dictate other people’s thinking.
The basic premise of this entire series is about the necessity to make changes. A consequence of the logical fact that you cannot fulfil unlimited growth from a finite planet. That argument lies at the basis for the need of a more balanced society. The established order puts the needs for growth of the economy as a blanket over society and the planet. We need a better balance between the planet, the social and the economy. That will need the support of the people. 
This is a paradigmatic change that can be set in motion during our lifetimes. Disbelieving that people will be capable, willing or allowed to contribute to such change means capitulating without even trying. A resignation because of surrendering to an unfounded and untested belief. That is the type of belief that deserves a willingness to doubt. Doubt that will create room for a different curriculum of education.

 

13.    Doubt is a luxury not all can afford. Published 20.4.22
A lot of trust is put in the higher educated. I have higher education and have worked and studied with many who can claim the same. However, the higher educated do not have a lot in common when it comes to the morality or ethics of society. In fact, they are as divided as the rest of the people, but maybe better at expressing their personal views. There is no unity amongst the higher educated except maybe for the contingent arrogance that comes with that label.
I studied with a professor who got very stroppy if I confronted him with thoughts by Karl Popper, a philosopher I greatly admire for some of his work. The prof said in class that he didn’t like Popper. He disqualified the man and with it his thoughts. Popper gave great thought to science and non-science, and I am sure I will come back to him in the future of this series, because of his work against ideologies. This is just an illustration how respected individuals can have very different viewpoints and how their learned status does not give them a handle on truth. They voice opinions with more power, but not necessarily more body. 
This series is basically about the social, about the way people live with, for or off each other. It feels really weird how the higher educated continue to lord it over the common man. The common man who has benefited from a lot more education than his predecessors centuries ago. Who is no longer the provider for his wife and kids, but whose wife has joined him in a more worldly outlook. Life is hard for the common people of their dependence on the economy with its sole interest in profit maximalisation. The concomitant productivity drive always puts their jobs at risk, making the common people more subservient to a system that doesn’t care about them. Fear is an important element of the social. 
That same fear also has great influence on people in the higher echelons of society, on the social ladder. As soon as someone provides for a family and has to service a mortgage, without the benefit of substantial private wealth, he or she becomes dependent on job and employability. That will force many, if not most, to make concessions to personal morals or convictions. Voicing doubt about the sustainability of our established order may not come easy. Hypocrisy may be easier, if hard, to stomach.
 

 
14.    People are capable. A crucial qualification. – Published 21.4.22
It is difficult in the hierarchical established order to admit to personal limitations. Managers usually agree with their superiors (as they do) rather than upset them, even if it could be beneficial. A lot of valuable contribution goes lost in the supremacist social. Knowledge largely depends on schooling and experience, thinking depends on other things like creativity, raw intellect, empathy, the ability to listen and understand, but also on the ability to doubt and the discipline of thought. Thinking is something that can be learned and trained. It also benefits from being inclusive. Much more about that later, as that is the goal of a different type of education
Living based on limited knowledge doesn’t work. It is limited and not a single soul on this planet knows it all. There may be leaders who would take issue with that statement, but they are the real dangers to society. We live in an increasingly complex society that even needs algorithms and artificial intelligence to make sense of it all. These digital pieces of wisdom are not neutral in any shape or form. They have been programmed by people with their moral preferences and fed with data that also have been selected with unavoidable influence on their output. 
The average intelligence of the people measured in IQ is 100. That level is upgraded every generation as people are getting smarter. The common man of antiquity may have been rather simple, but today everybody knows more about the world, has enjoyed schooling and is a target of the media industry. 

I feel that if the average citizen cannot understand what is going on, things are too complex. If the average can understand something, there is basis for trust from the rest with a below average IQ. Currently we all accept the wisdom of the highly gifted, the 0,1%, as gospel. Judging by their rhetoric, those highly gifted are overrepresented in politics and the media, as anywhere else on the social ladder. 
Anyway, the established order forces us, the common people, to function based on trust of those in power. It should not surprise anyone that some of those people place their own interest before that of the common people. If things cannot be explained to the average person, he or she should insist on more effort for explanation or demand actions that make more sense. The people deserve to be involved as they are the first to suffer the consequences of failed actions. Or better still: we the people must insist on being involved. If anything, the limitations of intelligence should underline that confidence from the people about themselves is deserved, just as much as a critical attitude towards the overconfident. 
 

15.    About the overconfident – Published 22.4.22
The overconfident, and let’s face it, this is my take on society, believe in the established order. They live their lives in denial of the dead end that the demand for continuous growth off a finite planet logically is. They either live in denial or have developed a coping skill that could be called blocking, a failure to express knowledge of a problem that is seen as unsurmountable. The dead end is stowed away as a problem for future generations or seen as too big to handle. Here I reach out mainly (see par. 3) to the 9% climbing the social ladder, the people who make a choice between serving the 1% in the cloud, and the enjoyment of the concomitant spoils it brings them personally, on the one side, or to dedicate their obvious talents towards a strengthening of the social for a sustainable future, on the other side. 
The reason for my softening of the harsh qualification of ‘the overconfident’ at the beginning lies in the apathy of the social. When I say in the previous paragraph that the common people are way more capable nowadays than they were in antiquity or even a few centuries ago, that also means they should assume more responsibility to make themselves heard. If the 90% doesn’t call upon the 9% to change their state of mind, then this 9% would have to turn proselytiser on the masses. That is too much to ask. Especially because there are no clear answers. No religions or ideologies that can replace the established order and hand it over to the living in general. 
Great philosophers and church fathers have usually served the established order. They made an analysis of society and then dreamed up ways of controlling that. It is probably hard to find fault with the analysis of society by Karl Marx that lead him to recommend the flawed ideology of communism as a solution. Rousseaux already had ideas that handing over our personal sovereignty to government would end up being better for all. He may even have believed that. Ayn Rand wrote lovely novels depicting what leads to failures in society and came up with the need for supermen (!) to lead by example. Augustine must have made a conscious decision to discard Epicurus and his Good Enough thoughts, because that would mean a call for a good life in the here and now, instead of the better life in the afterlife. Doing away with the eternal reward for a submissive life to the established order was one thing. Doing away with the eternal punishment of hell, and the resultant fear to keep people in line, was another one. 
So, apathy and overconfidence are two things that are keeping 99% at the beck and call of the 1 %. How to change that?
 

16.    Time for a recap in two parts. Part 1. – Published 23.4.22
The series started (1) explaining that it is about making changes to the way we live. Life is not just about money but to be sustainable it should be about a balance between what the planet can provide and absorb. As humans are the dominant inhabitants of the planet, they should consider themselves responsible caretakers that do not live for the economy but use the economy to regulate the relations between planet and humans as well as amongst humans. 
The impact of the way people’s lives has developed over history (2) has changed the once vast planet into a global village. What happens anywhere impacts on everywhere. The basic driver, the established order, that has formed over history and threatens to determine our future is a desire for ever more from a finite planet. That is fundamentally and logically flawed. 
This established order (3) benefits very few people, less than 1%. The maintenance of this established order is possible by those who manage it on behalf of the chief beneficiaries. Let’s assume that this managing group makes up 9% of the population. Together this 10% of the world’s population uses and abuses the remaining 90% to make their flawed policies work.
We the people are used to being ruled (4), used to a hierarchical society. That hierarchy does not have the best interests of the environment, the ecology with all its living things, at heart, but cherish their own position. Yet they control the schooling of future generations to mould them into obedient citizens rather than educate them to become critical and creative thinkers. The schooling system propagates and even reinforces hierarchy.
There are many voices, oftentimes even very vocal, preaching the need for change on elements of the established order, but it needs a more holistic approach without falling into the trap of a new ideology (5). How to unite people today? Are the elderly people prepared to admit that they have built something that will collapse? Are the productive generations prepared to sacrifice their current well-being for a better future for their children? Or do they want to make sure their children benefit from being in the upper echelons of society?
Very confusing decisions are to be made. These may be best left to a generation that is no longer brainwashed through schooling, but one that is educated (6) as a proper thinking generation. A thoughtful future organised by the people for the people. No longer organised by the authorities to further their control of society, but by the people at large. This will also enhance these people’s continuous learning possibilities.
The authorities will not lightly rescind control over their schooling of the masses, but it must be demanded and realised over time (7). Starting of course as soon as possible, as time is running out. Working towards an egalitarian society away from the self-serving hierarchy. Allowing a move away from the money society with its lack of morals and conscience and its extreme greed. 
With a goal to transition away from this system of unlimited growth from a finite planet to a system of sharing (8). The economy can measure and control that sharing, but only if we the people accept that the planet belongs to us all, is the joint responsibility of the social as the caretakers of our living environment, our ecology. 

 
17.    The recap in two parts. Part 2. – Published 24.4.22
If ownership of natural resources (9) should not be personal or national, that does not include the personal efforts of people. Adding value (even when mining a resource) is personal but valuable and should be rewarded. The revenue from raw base materials should be distributed globally. This can only be enforced if people build the confidence of their own value and do away with the worship for those in power. They are people like all of us, mortals, human beings, fallible!
People are all different (10), like their fingerprints. That is natural and that is what makes humanity attractive. Culture seeks to mitigate those differences and to unify people in groups that share, amongst other things, moral and ethical ideas. That may make managing the living more practical but cultural thoughts should not be turned into absolute truths, into divisive self-righteousness. Race, religion, ideology, and other possibly divisive characteristics like gender can all be abused to drive people apart. We should unite on the rights of others to be who they are. It also helps to realise that sharing with less means at first less problems and ultimately more prosperity.
After millennia of having been subjected to a hierarchical order of things, we the people will need to become critical of the way we grow up, both for the young and the old. Having been taught what is right all our lives we must educate ourselves (11) towards thinking about what could and should be. We must as people assume responsibility for our education or risk perpetuating the indoctrination by our leaders. Failure to assume that responsibility makes us responsible for our contribution to a failing system. The established order needs to be educated about the limits of the society it is instrumental in creating.
We live in a debating society (12). A hierarchical society where winning an argument determines status and standing or, even worse, where status and standing can suffice to win an argument. Debating is about defending or gaining a place on the ladder of society. Better solutions for a more egalitarian society, for a development of the established order, thrives on involved discussion. Not debating about what substitute thinking claims is best for all but discussing about what lives in society. Discussion can only come about when people are prepared to doubt their personal convictions, allowing the search for common ground and interest.
Doubt (13) in our hierarchical society is unfortunately a luxury some can ill afford. The higher educated often set a poor example. They confuse their excellence in their area of specialised learning with general knowledge and acumen. That may be caused by addiction to their lifestyle as they benefit from their higher learning or their talents. Unfortunately, those benefits may come at the cost of independent thought. Their role and place on the ladder of society may or will force people to accept being a mouthpiece for the established order. Voicing doubt about the root cause of the failure of the established order in its current guise may not come easy. Hypocrisy is an escape.
The arrogance of the higher educated sometimes even suggests that they see the common people (14) as uneducated or even stupid. They are not.  People are capable. These days the common people, we the people, enjoy schooling, television, and other experiences that broaden our outlook on the world. Maybe we do not understand the way the world is being run, but here’s the thing: neither do those in control. Our society becomes increasingly complex, and authorities use artificial intelligence and algorithms to make sense of it. The average of intelligence of all people on a normal distribution is an IQ of 100. That is the number of that average, but the value of that hundred increases every generation. People evolve. Now, if the average intelligent person can no longer understand what is happening, what can we then expect from half the population who have a below average IQ? 
The overconfident higher educated (15) live their lives happily with the unsurmountable problem of a failing society, based on continuous growth from a finite planet, safely tucked away. Tucked away behind their defence mechanism of denial or by blocking off the existence of this logic. Yet, I voice this mildly because I do believe that this group could and should awaken the apathy of the people by shaking up their efforts towards gaining control of their own education. 
 

18.    The conclusion of this first instalment of the series. – Published 25.4.22
We the people will have to decide for ourselves if we want to fight someone else’s competition or devote our efforts towards sharing what our mother earth can provide us with. We must make the fundamental decision between fighting, with possible winners and most certainly losers, or finding ways towards sharing what is available in a fair and egalitarian manner. A choice between continuous strife and sympathy. It is obvious where my sympathy lies.

We the people must make changes to the way we live. Humans are the responsible caretakers. Our planet has become a global village where the established order promotes a desire for infinite growth from a finite planet. That is fundamentally flawed and benefits very few people. They use and abuse the common people to make their flawed policies work. This can continue because of our hierarchical society where the higher echelons mainly cherish their own position. They use our schooling system to propagate and even reinforce hierarchy.
Different voices call for the need for change. They concentrate on elements of the established order, and that is divisive. We need a holistic approach concentrating on root causes to unite the people. Future generations should no longer be brainwashed through schooling but be educated to become proper thinkers. A thoughtful future organised by the people for the people. This should start as soon as possible. Time is running out. An inclusive education will lead towards an egalitarian society away from the self-serving hierarchy. Within a century we should transition away from this system of unlimited greed from a finite planet to a system of sharing. Towards that goal ownership of natural resources should not be personal or national but global.
Adding value is personal and valuable but the revenue from raw base materials should be distributed globally. This can only be enforced if people build the confidence of their own value and do away with the underserved worship for those in power. For that to be possible, people must accept that we are all different. That is natural. Culture seeks to mitigate those differences by forming groups. That may lead to divisive self-righteousness. Race, religion, ideology, nationalism, and other characteristics like gender can be and are abused to drive people apart. We should unite on the rights of others to be who they are. 
We the people must shake of our apathy and become critical of the way we are told to live. We must assume responsibility for our education. Failure to assume that responsibility makes us responsible for our contribution to a failing system.
We live in a debating society, a hierarchical society of winners and losers. A more egalitarian society is capable of discussion. Discussion needs people who are prepared to doubt, allowing the search for common ground and interest. Such doubt is a luxury that has no place in a hierarchical society. The higher educated should know the value of doubt, but often set a poor example, caused by addiction to their lifestyle they succumb to hypocrisy by supporting the established order. 
The higher educated sometimes suggest that the common people are not smart enough. We the people enjoy plenty options to broaden our outlook on the world and do evolve. We may not understand how the world is run, but neither do those in control. They don’t agree on many things. They also need artificial intelligence and algorithms to make sense of our complex society. Now, if the average intelligent person, with an IQ of 100, can no longer understand what is happening, where can we expect half the population with a below average IQ to place their trust? The best and the brightest may not have the highest moral standards.
The best and the brightest are also the overconfident. They live their lives happily, oblivious of the unsurmountable problem of infinite growth from a finite planet. Either enjoying the blindfold of their defence mechanism of denial or by blocking from the existence of this logic. Yet, I voice this mildly because I do believe that this group could and should shed its hypocrisy and vanquish the apathy of the people by shaking up their efforts towards gaining control of their own education.