Team Earth (not Utopia at all... wink wink)

The main ideas from this information are: - The need for a cohesive movement with a clear vision and goals. - The influence of media in distorting and sensationalizing information. - The importance of separating social issues from fiscal ones. - The need to get money out of politics and limit the influence of corporations. - The suggestion of a basic universal income and the right to shelter. - The urgency to address climate change and transition to renewable energy. - The potential of nuclear power and electric cars to reduce carbon emissions. - The idea that nations and borders are social constructs that should be questioned. - The importance of promoting truth, compassion, and empathy in society. Now, Team Earth, Team Earth, that's the idea here, that's the goal, we need to define what we want Utopia to look like and therefore become more cohesive in the progress we are attempting to make. If Occupy Wall Street had stepped out into the streets and all been talking about demanding a national convention to propose an amendment to, say, get the money out of politics, and they all kept saying that, everyone that was interviewed was talking about that topic, that would have looked like a pretty frickin' cohesive movement that had their shit together. But instead, there was, you know, as many different answers as to what the movement was about as there were people out there being interviewed. And that's not, you know, the media took advantage of, they took shit out of context, and I get it, they made it look even dumber than it was. Not that it was dumb, it just wasn't organized, and it wasn't cohesive. So we should probably have a vision to work toward that we can agree to. I think that would be a good first step. Even if it's a completely, totally batshit crazy idealistic vision that we're nowhere even near ready for, we should still have one in mind that we can all agree would be a cool society, right? You know, I can think of a few ideas. I mean, it wouldn't be that hard for us to just spitball and just come up with a number of ideas that we could sort of just bat around and maybe vote on in some unofficial way, I don't know. But I think it would help, I mean, there's not really a united left here in America anyway, and the Democrats are never going to be on board because they're centrist, they're the conservatives. They're not, I mean, yeah, they are liberal, but liberal is conservative because we're liberal democracies. So to conserve us as liberal democracies, you have to be a liberal. But if you're, yeah, if you're a Republican, you're talking about you want to return to some idealized pastime that never existed, and that's a regressive view. It's also kind of a, yeah, crazy view, but whatever. I don't think it's helpful to, you know, belittle or make fun of the right because they represent people that they want change to. They just don't know enough about, they haven't been educated enough usually in most cases about certain topics to know that actually they would probably agree with the left more than they know, except for all the damn social issues that get mixed up, and that's why they keep coming up. That's why the media love talking about social issues. They're controversial, and they are guaranteed to stir up trauma. They're guaranteed to catch a lot of interest and a lot of arguing, and it basically just means poor people are going to be arguing with poor people, and they love that, the center, because they're the rich ones. They're the ones that don't want change. They don't want change because they're rich and they're doing really well, so they love it when poor people are arguing with other poor people instead of with them. They love it. Love it. Don't you think it's funny how, I mean, or at least interesting, that most corporations, most major corporations donate to both parties? It's kind of funny, huh? I don't know. Yeah, of the billionaires in our country, a lot of them own media companies, and yeah, Ted Turner, Ezo, what's this guy's name, Murdoch, yeah, they all have their own platforms, and they all have their own media companies, and they all have their own platforms to just spout mouthpieces like Tucker Carlson to just spout whatever fricking nonsense they want. And how often is it fiscal in nature? How often is Tucker Carlson talking about Keynesian versus supply-side economics? Never. How often is he talking about the fricking female M&M, the brown M&M, having changed her shoes from high heels to sneakers? Yeah, that happened. He actually spent more than five minutes talking about that. I think it might have been even like ten. It was like a suggestion to NPR, like they were going to be just like, oh, yeah, you're right, that's a great topic. We'll talk all about that. Yeah, because that's what NPR does. They talk about the female M&M. No, no, come on. We've got to stop. We've got to decouple the social issues from the fiscal ones, and the only way to do that would be to get rid of political parties, but I don't think that's going to happen. I do think we can agree to get the money out of politics, though. That has to happen before anything else can happen. If we do get that done in a definitive way that they cannot subvert, no super PACs, no sneaky bullshit, people, once they have served in office, they can only go back to the same kind of private sector they came from at the same level that they were previously at. They cannot suddenly become a VP of doing nothing at some random industry that they've never worked in before. That can't be allowed. They can go back to doing what they were doing, but that's it. Period. Everyone should get a basic universal income that's enough to eat. No one should starve to death. Can we agree to that? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable conclusion? Yeah. No one should starve to death in America, right? So to ensure that doesn't happen, why not? Like a basic, universal basic income. What's so crazy about that? I think it should be defined as a human right to have a shelter over your head, too, if you want one. And maybe not everyone wants one, but anyone who wants one should be able to get one. There could be different tiers that you fall into depending on how much you contribute in terms of labor or, you know, especially if it's risky labor or very intensive labor or required a lot of education first or whatever. There could be sort of like different tiers of reward that we allow people to. Instead of money just being thrown around, just flying around and all these banks doing the tricks they do to just make more money out of the money. I mean, come on, let's just grow up. Can we just grow up? We've got technology that's way more advanced than we are, and we need to catch up, and we need to catch up like ASAP. I mean, it's not funny anymore. It's really not. We're in some serious trouble with global climate catastrophe. It's going to get freaking really crazy soon. I think everyone senses it, and it doesn't have to. There are some steps we can take to make it less likely to get really crazy, like nuke crazy, right? We should start taking those steps right freaking now. And by the way, speaking of nukes, we should be building nuclear power plants. Shouldn't we? Why not? What's the downside? Okay, Fukushima, right? Don't say Chernobyl. They were cutting corners all over the place. It doesn't count. Really, the only meltdown that we've had in a relatively modern nuclear power plant has been Fukushima. That was a complete fluke. And how many nuclear power plants have been built in the world? So that would be one out of whatever that number is. And I'm sure that's a pretty small freaking percentage. If we started building the most modern kind that we have now, those littler ones, there's all kinds of places that we could fit them in America. And we could fuel, until renewables catch up, we could fuel all of our power needs without using any fucking carbon. Electric cars are great. But if our grid is burning coal, then they're not electric cars. They're coal cars. Or they're at least half coal cars. And there's some percentage of coal. Right? So, to realize the full potential of the electric car, we need to have a power grid that's not pumping freaking goop and charcoal and crap, organic crap, carbon, out of the ground and burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Let's leave it underground where it's sequestered and not causing any problems. Okay? Can we do that? Let's stop digging it up for fuck's sake. Why are we still doing this? It's crazy to me. We have the technology right now to meet all of our power needs without any fossil fuels being burned. And electric cars have caught up so that we could use them exclusively if we wanted to. So, maybe we have, so maybe jets. Jets are a little behind. So, our air, I mean, I'm sure we could probably handle whatever amount of carbon they contribute to for the meantime until they catch up to electric or whatever form of propulsion or jet fuel. I mean, not jet, rocket fuel, whatever. I mean, there's other ways to propel a jet than using gasoline or something refined from oil. I mean, that's how we fueled our shuttles, right, our space program. They used hydrogen and oxygen mixtures. No carbon. The product of that is water. It's not a bad thing, right? So, yeah, maybe not such a terrible fuel to use for planes. I don't know why it wouldn't work for them. I don't know. Anyway, just some thoughts, but yeah. Intelligence is dumb. There is no such thing. Nations do not exist. Borders are not real. It's a figment of our imagination. It's a shared delusion we all have. And we need to wake up from it, okay? We need to wake up. We're halfway toward psychosis. Just walk around having this shared delusion. Do-do-do-do-do-do. I mean, to be psychotic, you have to have psychosis and delusions. Delusions are fixed false beliefs. Psychosis, I'm sorry, not psychosis, hallucinations. Hallucinations are, everyone knows what hallucinations are. Hearing voices, what have you. So, we're halfway to being psychotic. Just by believing in nations. And just by believing in money. And just by believing in everything we fucking believe. So, yeah. Maybe we should try to believe in truth. And compassion. And empathy. Maybe we should try to forge a society where psychopathy, not psychosis, psychopathy. The inability to experience meaningful relationships or empathy. That kind of thing. Maybe we should work on a society where that's not selected for. Because in our society, it is selected for. There is a lot of peer-reviewed evidence to support that. And that matches the data. If you just look around. I don't think we should reward psychopathy and punish altruism. Those statements should be inverted. So, that might be a good way to start when thinking about a kind of utopia that we can all agree to. Those two statements should probably be inverted. And I can think of a few more things, but I think I've said enough for now. So. Thank you.