Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: existential risks – Page 121

Question: A Counterpoint to the Technological Singularity?

0 wildest

Douglas Hofstadter, a professor of cognitive science at Indiana University, indicated about The Singularity is Near Book (ISBN: 978–0143037880),

“ … A very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad …”

AND FOR INSTANCE:

“… Technology is the savior for everything. That’s the point of this course. Technology is accelerating, everything is going to be good, technology is your friend … I think that’s a load of crap …” By Dr. Jonathan White

Back to the White Swan hardcore:

That discourse can be entertained at a forthcoming Renaissance, not now. Going against this idea will be outrageously counterproductive to ascertain the non-annihilation of Earth’s locals.

People who destroy, eternally beforehand, outrageous Black Swans, engaging into super-natural and preter-natural preparations for known and unknown Outliers, thus observing — in all practicality — the successful and prevailing White Swan and Transformative and Integrative Risk Management interdisciplinary problem-solving methodology, include:

(1.-) Sir Martin Rees PhD (cosmologist and astrophysicist), Astronomer Royal, Cambridge University Professor and former Royal Society President.

(2.-) Dr. Stephen William Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA is an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge. Formerly: Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge.

(3.-) Prof. Nick Bostrom Ph.D. is a Swedish philosopher at St. Cross College, University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, the reversal test, and consequentialism. He holds a PhD from the London School of Economics (2000). He is the founding director of both The Future of Humanity Institute and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology as part of the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University.

(4.-) The US National Intelligence Council (NIC) [.…] The National Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence in his role as head of the Intelligence Community (IC) and is the IC’s center for long-term strategic analysis [.…] Since its establishment in 1979, the NIC has served as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities, a source of deep substantive expertise on intelligence issues, and a facilitator of Intelligence Community collaboration and outreach [.…] The NIC’s National Intelligence Officers — drawn from government, academia, and the private sector—are the Intelligence Community’s senior experts on a range of regional and functional issues.

(5.-) U.S. Homeland Security’s FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

(6.-) The CIA or any other U.S. Government agencies.

(7.-) Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International).

(8.-) GBN (Global Business Network).

(9.-) Royal Dutch Shell.

(10.-) British Doomsday Preppers.

(11.-) Canadian Doomsday Preppers.

(12.-) Australian Doomsday Preppers

(13.-) American Doomsday Preppers.

(14.-) Disruptional Singularity Book (ASIN: B00KQOEYLG).

(15.-) Scientific Prophets of Doom at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUe2-7jjtY

White Swans are always getting prepared for Unknown and Known Outliers, and MOST FLUIDLY changing the theater of operation by permanently updating and upgrading the designated preparations.

Authored By Copyright Mr. Andres Agostini
White Swan Book Author
www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini
www.amazon.com/author/Agostini

Among transhumanists, Nick Bostrom is well-known for promoting the idea of ‘existential risks’, potential harms which, were they come to pass, would annihilate the human condition altogether. Their probability may be relatively small, but the expected magnitude of their effects are so great, so Bostrom claims, that it is rational to devote some significant resources to safeguarding against them. (Indeed, there are now institutes for the study of existential risks on both sides of the Atlantic.) Moreover, because existential risks are intimately tied to the advancement of science and technology, their probability is likely to grow in the coming years.

Contrary to expectations, Bostrom is much less concerned with ecological suicide from humanity’s excessive carbon emissions than with the emergence of a superior brand of artificial intelligence – a ‘superintelligence’. This creature would be a human artefact, or at least descended from one. However, its self-programming capacity would have run amok in positive feedback, resulting in a maniacal, even self-destructive mission to rearrange the world in the image of its objectives. Such a superintelligence may appear to be quite ruthless in its dealings with humans, but that would only reflect the obstacles that we place, perhaps unwittingly, in the way of the realization of its objectives. Thus, this being would not conform to the science fiction stereotype of robots deliberately revolting against creators who are now seen as their inferiors.

I must confess that I find this conceptualisation of ‘existential risk’ rather un-transhumanist in spirit. Bostrom treats risk as a threat rather than as an opportunity. His risk horizon is precautionary rather than proactionary: He focuses on preventing the worst consequences rather than considering the prospects that are opened up by whatever radical changes might be inflicted by the superintelligence. This may be because in Bostrom’s key thought experiment, the superintelligence turns out to be the ultimate paper-clip collecting machine that ends up subsuming the entire planet to its task, destroying humanity along the way, almost as an afterthought.

But is this really a good starting point for thinking about existential risk? Much more likely than total human annihilation is that a substantial portion of humanity – but not everyone – is eliminated. (Certainly this captures the worst case scenarios surrounding climate change.) The Cold War remains the gold standard for this line of thought. In the US, the RAND Corporation’s chief analyst, Herman Kahn — the model for Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove – routinely, if not casually, tossed off scenarios of how, say, a US-USSR nuclear confrontation would serve to increase the tolerance for human biological diversity, due to the resulting proliferation of genetic mutations. Put in more general terms, a severe social disruption provides a unique opportunity for pursuing ideals that might otherwise be thwarted by a ‘business as usual’ policy orientation.

Here it is worth recalling that the Cold War succeeded on its own terms: None of the worst case scenarios were ever realized, even though many people were mentally prepared to make the most of the projected adversities. This is one way to think about how the internet itself arose, courtesy the US Defense Department’s interest in maintaining scientific communications in the face of attack. In other words, rather than trying to prevent every possible catastrophe, the way to deal with ‘unknown unknowns’ is to imagine that some of them have already come to pass and redesign the world accordingly so that you can carry on regardless. Thus, Herman Kahn’s projection of a thermonuclear future provided grounds in the 1960s for the promotion of, say, racially mixed marriages, disability-friendly environments, and the ‘do more with less’ mentality that came to characterize the ecology movement.

Kahn was a true proactionary thinker. For him, the threat of global nuclear war raised Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of ‘creative destruction’ to a higher plane, inspiring social innovations that would be otherwise difficult to achieve by conventional politics. Historians have long noted that modern warfare has promoted spikes in innovation that in times of peace are then subject to diffusion, as the relevant industries redeploy for civilian purposes. We might think of this tendency, in mechanical terms, as system ‘overdesign’ (i.e. preparing for the worst but benefitting even if the worst doesn’t happen) or, more organically, as a vaccine that converts a potential liability into an actual benefit.

In either case, existential risk is regarded in broadly positive terms, specifically as an unprecedented opportunity to extend the range of human capability, even under radically changed circumstances. This sense of ‘antifragility’, as the great ‘black swan’ detector Nicholas Taleb would put it, is the hallmark of our ‘risk intelligence’, the phrase that the British philosopher Dylan Evans has coined for a demonstrated capacity that people have to make step change improvements in their lives in the face of radical uncertainty. From this standpoint, Bostrom’s superintelligence concept severely underestimates the adaptive capacity of human intelligence.

Perhaps the best way to see just how much Bostrom shortchanges humanity is to note that his crucial thought experiment requires a strong ontological distinction between humans and superintelligent artefacts. Where are the cyborgs in this doomsday scenario? Reading Bostrom reminds me that science fiction did indeed make progress in the twentieth century, from the world of Karl Čapek’s Rossum’s Universal Robots in 1920 to the much subtler blending of human and computer futures in the works of William Gibson and others in more recent times.

Bostrom’s superintelligence scenario began to be handled in more sophisticated fashion after the end of the First World War, popularly under the guise of ‘runaway technology’, a topic that received its canonical formulation in Langdon Winner’s 1977 Autonomous Technology: Technics out of Control, a classic in the field of science and technology of studies. Back then the main problem with superintelligent machines was that they would ‘dehumanize’ us, less because they might dominate us but more because we might become like them – perhaps because we feel that we have invested our best qualities in them, very much like Ludwig Feuerbach’s aetiology of the Judaeo-Christian God. Marxists gave the term ‘alienation’ a popular spin to capture this sentiment in the 1960s.

Nowadays, of course, matters have been complicated by the prospect of human and machine identities merging together. This goes beyond simply implanting silicon chips in one’s brain. Rather, it involves the complex migration and enhancement of human selves in cyberspace. (Sherry Turkle has been the premier ethnographer of this process in children.) That such developments are even possible points to a prospect that Bostrom refuses to consider, namely, that to be ‘human’ is to be only contingently located in the body of Homo sapiens. The name of our species – Homo sapiens – already gives away the game, because our distinguishing feature (so claimed Linnaeus) had nothing to do with our physical morphology but with the character of our minds. And might not such a ‘sapient’ mind better exist somewhere other than in the upright ape from which we have descended?

The prospects for transhumanism hang on the answer to this question. Aubrey de Grey’s indefinite life extension project is about Homo sapiens in its normal biological form. In contrast, Ray Kurzweil’s ‘singularity’ talk of uploading our consciousness into indefinitely powerful computers suggests a complete abandonment of the ordinary human body. The lesson taught by Langdon Winner’s historical account is that our primary existential risk does not come from alien annihilation but from what social psychologists call ‘adaptive preference formation’. In other words, we come to want the sort of world that we think is most likely, simply because that offers us the greatest sense of security. Thus, the history of technology is full of cases in which humans have radically changed their lives to adjust to an innovation whose benefits they reckon outweigh the costs, even when both remain fundamentally incalculable. Success in the face such ‘existential risk’ is then largely a matter of whether people – perhaps of the following generation – have made the value shifts necessary to see the changes as positive overall. But of course, it does not follow that those who fail to survive the transition or have acquired their values before this transition would draw a similar conclusion.

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

0 ab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CERN bets the planet on the early Einstein having been wrong. Let me explain.

After having founded special relativity in mid-1905, the early Einstein held fast to the speed of light c being a global constant of nature for another 2 ½ years. Only in December of 1907 did Einstein switch to the view that c was only an everywhere locally, but not globally, valid constant of nature.

In 2008, results proving that the early Einstein of 1905 was right started to appear in the scientific literature. For example, quantum electrodynamics combined with the equivalence principle (Schwinger) shows this. Up until now, no counterproof is in the literature.

In light of this renaissance of the early Einstein, a previously noncontroversial policy of the famous CERN consortium turns out to be problematical: their refusal to update the outdated Safety Report of mid-2008. Demanding this update has become a priority issue for everyone who learns about its lack.

The return after a century to the global constancy of c of the early Einstein implies that man-made black holes – which CERN tries to produce in its soon to be re-started particle collider – are different: They are undetectable to CERN’s detectors. This fact renders the experiment strictly speaking unscientific. Most important, however: if but one specimen of the invisible hoped-for objects is slow enough not to fly away into outer space, it is going to grow exponentially inside earth to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after a silent period of a few years in accordance with the laws of exponential growth.

As long as CERN is unable to publicly contradict this scenario in an update of its famous 6 years old Safety Report, they cannot re-start the Large Hadron Collider on logical grounds.

It all boils down to the question: “Who of the two Einsteins – the early one or the 2 ½ years older one – was right?”

(For J.O.R.)

.@hjbentham . @clubofinfo. @dissidentvoice_ . @ieet. #scifi. #philosophy. #ethics.
Literature has served an indispensable purpose in exploring ethical and political themes. This remains true of sci-fi and fantasy, even if there is such a thing as reading too much politics into fictional work or over-analyzing.


Since Maquis Books published The Traveller and Pandemonium, a novel authored by me from 2011–2014, I have been responding as insightfully as possible to reviews and also discussing the book’s political and philosophical themes wherever I can. Set in a fictional alien world, much of this book’s 24 chapters are politically themed on the all too real human weakness of infighting and resorting to hardline, extremist and even messianic plans when faced with a desperate situation.

The story tells about human cultures battling to survive in a deadly alien ecosystem. There the human race, rather than keeping animals in cages, must keep their own habitats in cages as protection from the world outside. The human characters of the story live out a primitive existence not typical of science-fiction, mainly aiming at their own survival. Technological progress is nonexistent, as all human efforts have been redirected to self-defense against the threat of the alien predators.

Even though The Traveller and Pandemonium depicts humanity facing a common alien foe, the various struggling human factions still fail to cooperate. In fact, they turn ever more hostilely on each other even as the alien planet’s predators continue to close in on the last remaining human states. At the time the story is set, the human civilization on the planet is facing imminent extinction from its own infighting and extremism, as well as the aggressive native plant and animal life of the planet.

The more sinister of the factions, known as the Cult, preaches the pseudo-religious doctrine that survival on the alien world will only be possible through infusions of alien hormones and the rehabilitation of humanity to coexist with the creatures of the planet at a biological level. However, there are censored side effects of the infusions that factor into the plot, and the Cult is known for its murderous opposition to anyone who opposes its vision.

The only alternative seems to be a second faction, but it is equally violent, and comes under the leadership of an organization who call themselves the Inquisitors. In their doctrine, humans must continue to isolate themselves from the alien life of the planet, but this should extend to exterminating the alien life and the aforementioned Cult that advocates humans transmuting themselves to live safely on the planet.

I believe that this aspect of the story, a battle between two militant philosophies, serves well to capture the kind of tension and violent irrationality that can engulf humanity in the face of existential risks. There is no reason to believe that hypothetical existential risks to humanity such as a deadly asteroid impact, an extraterrestrial threat, runaway global warming, alien contact or a devastating virus would unite the planet, and there is every reason to believe that it would divide the planet. It is often the case that the more argument there is for authority and submission to a grand plan in order to survive, the greater the differences of opinion and the greater the potential for divergence and conflict.

 Social habits, politics, beliefs and even the cultural trappings of the different human cultures clinging to the alien planet are fully represented in the book. In all, the story has had significant time and care put into refining it to create a compelling and believable depiction of life in an inhospitable parallel world, and readers remarked in reviews that it is a “masterclass in world-building”.

 The central character of the story, nicknamed the Traveler, together with his companion, do not really subscribe to either of the extremist philosophies battling over humanity’s fate on the alien planet, but their ideas may be equally strange. Instead, they reject the alien world in which they live. With an almost religious naïveté, they are searching for a “better place”. It is through this part of the plot that the concepts of religious faith and hope are visited. Of course, at all times the reader knows they are right – there is a “better place” only not the religious kind. Ultimately, the quest is for Earth, although the characters have never heard of such a place and have only inferred that it might somehow exist and represent an escape from the hostile planet where they were born.

 Reviewers have acknowledged that by inverting the relationship of humanity and nature so that nature is on the advance and humans are receding and diminishing in the setting of this science-fiction novel, a unique and compelling setting is created. I believe the story offers my best exploration of a number of political and ethical themes, such as how people feel pressured to choose between hardline factions in times of extreme desperation and in the face of existential threats. Science fiction is a worthy medium in which to express and explore not only the future, but some of the most troubling political and philosophical scenarios that have plagued humanity’s past.

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

Originally published at Dissident Voice on 9 July 2014

It is a nice game: Pretend that c, the speed of light in the vacuum, were a global constant of nature. Then the Einstein equation assumes a more compact form. And black holes acquire radically new properties. One should not try to produce them down on earth, for example.

Fortunately, this simple game is pure fiction. Presently, Stephen Hawking’s safety guarantee to the planet – the rapid “evaporation” he described – renders miniature black holes innocuous, his recent modifications notwithstanding.

There are some voices that c is indeed globally constant (http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2608/2469 ). Would this be a reason to look at the issue anew for Hawking and others?

To elder children and young adults, it is a bonanza since everything becomes transparent. The “ugly” dependency of the speed of light on the local pull of gravity – that it is slowed in the vicinity of the sun (Shapiro) and comes to a standstill at the horizon of a black hole (Oppenheiumer) – is gone since the distances travelled are proportionally enlarged. Simultaneously, the so far assumed to be added-on expansion speed of the universe ceases to be an option so that the “Big Bang” is no longer a physical reality. A new freedom – a vast new spatial reality to roam – opened itself up.

The same liberation has almost the opposite effect on slightly older young people – those who have to pass an exam or defend a thesis in a physical discipline. They are at a loss as to what still to believe and defend. Most textbooks have become obsolete. How discuss the new situation with Stephen Hawking, for example, or with CERN? Most importantly: How reconcile it with Einstein’s own work?

The latter job is a joy. A renaissance of the young Einstein – of the three years of his miraculous period ranging from 1905 until late 1907 – follows. These years were fueled by the universal constancy of the speed of light c in the vacuum as is well known.

What about the famous “Einstein equation” of late 1915, however: Has it become obsolete since its c is not a global but only a local constant? The equation only needs a re-scaling. The “too short” spatial distances for the elongated light travelling times just get proportionally stretched. The “Shapiro time delay” is now accompanied by a space dilation (“Shapiro-Cook space dilation”) and the infinite temporal distance to the horizon of a black hole is accompanied by an equally infinite spatial distance valid from outside.

The oldest and most important solution to the Einstein equation – the Schwarzschild metric – exists already in a correct stretched-out version. Only the full Einstein equation itself still waits to be written down explicitly in the correct form by a daring newcomer. Alternatively, Roy Kerr – author of the famous “Kerr metric” for a rotating black hole – may be willing to to accomplish the re-writing task for the Einstein equation which will then reveal a whole new physics.

Does the successful repair of a flaw that had gone undetected for a century (• really need to be called a “catastrophe”? The opposite is the case. One sobering consequence also follows, however: When even the “hardest science” – physics – could go awry for a whole century, a new humility is called for in physics. The strongest young generation of history is now at the ready aided by the no longer distant young Einstein.

Acknowledgment: I thank the three Universities of the Normandy for the undeserved honor bestowed in Le Havre on my chaos work done in the footsteps of Jim Yorke who, together with Celso Grebogi and Ron Chen, was most deservedly honored there. For J.O.R.

(• http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2608/2469

My repair of the global constancy of the speed of light c – the loss of which had stopped Einstein from publishing on gravitation for 4 years – has revived Einstein’s early greatest strength.

If c is globally constant, black holes are radically different – nonevaporating – in contradistinction to Hawking. And the by definition superluminal expansion speed of the “Big Bang” is likewise exploded.

Two canonized postulates gone: So it is no wonder that CERN refuses to defend its six years old safety report?

Suppose the young Einstein was indeed stronger: Would it not be worthy to check on this fact, especially so if it could save the planet from a catastrophe?

The world needs a voice capable of defending the older Einstein against the younger one. Anyone able to hit that goal?

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

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

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

Originally published at Dissident Voice on 23 June 2014

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

037

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR INSTANCE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONLY SOURCE: Andres Agostini’s own Book:

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

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