|
|
Monday, March 15, 2004
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 Timothy Wilken, MD writes: How will we make decisions in a synergic future? In today’s world 2004, it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. But what if there were something better? ... Unanimous Rule Democracy or Synocracy is a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than the majority rule of present day democracy. Synocracy is a synergic decision making system. Synergy means working together—operating together as in Co-Operation—laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. However Synocracy, which gives us humans the opportunity to accomplish more together than we can accomplish separately, also requires more from us. It requires synergic consensus. For any group of humans, synergic consensus can provide a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than even the best majority rule democracy carefully following Roberts Rules of Order. Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sit as equals and negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses. In synergic science this is called heterarchy. That means all members of the deciding group sit on the same level as “equals”. All decisions within a truly synergic group are made within “decision heterarchy”. A decision heterarchy is made up of a group of humans with common purpose. The minimum number is 2 the maximum number is presently unknown. I believe the ideal size may be ~six or seven individuals. The group is organized horizontally with all individuals sharing equal authority and equal responsibility. Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate and reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses. In a synergic heterarchy, all members sit on the same level as “equals”. No one has more authority than anyone else. Every one has equal responsibility and equal authority within the heterarchy. The assignment for the heterarchy is to find a plan of action so that all members win. It is the collective responsibility of the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose a plan to accomplish the needs of the group. All problems related to accomplishing the needs would be discussed at length in the heterarchy. The proposed plan of action for solving a problem is examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic heterarchy win. ... Originated in the Netherlands in 1945 by Kees Boeke, a Dutch educator and pacifist, Sociocracy was a way to adapt Quaker egalitarian principles to secular organizations. It uses the decision-making process of consent which is different than most systems of 'consensus'. Consent looks for disagreement and uses the reasons for disagreeing to come up with an amended proposal that is within everyone's limits. Consensus looks for agreement. If a group wants to paint an outbuilding, consensus would require everyone agreeing on a color. Consent would require everyone defining their limits and then allowing the choice to be made within those limits. The painter might end up with three colors that are acceptable to everyone and then choose from those. (03/15/04)
| |
|
|
|
 Matthew R. Simmons writes: Global oil demand grew 1.4 million bpd in 2003, or 50% higher than the 15-year average growth of 900,000 bpd. Over the last 15 years, global oil demand increased every single year, growing 13.5 million bpd over the period, despite decreased demand from the Former Soviet Union (5.3 million bpd). Had FSU demand grown as fast as the OECD's rate, global oil demand would now be somewhere between 85 million and 90 million bpd! Fueling this growth was China, but demand was also strong in the Middle East, parts of Latin America and throughout most of the rest of Asia. Only a few years ago, conventional energy wisdom assumed that it would be almost impossible for Asian oil demand to see any robust growth until Japan's economic miracle returned. Today, Japan's economy is still weak; its oil demand has barely grown over the past decade. Nonetheless, this did not stop demand growth in the rest of Asia. Perhaps the biggest surprise regarding oil demand was the growth that happened in the US. For two decades, most forecasts assumed that growth in US oil demand was slowing each year and would soon stop. In the early 1990s, a widely circulated National Petroleum Report on the future of the US refinery industry envisioned in its base case that US motor gasoline demand would stay flat at 7.2 million bpd for 1996 through 2010. It projected little growth for other oil products. This gloomy view of US oil usage turned out to be wrong. By 2003, US oil demand was setting new records almost every month. Leading the way was the backbone of US oil usage, motor gasoline, where total demand came close to averaging 9 million bpd for the entire year. Peak summer usage exceeded 9.4 million bopd. There was virtually no evidence, either, that surprisingly high oil prices had any impact on any aspect of US oil demand. The world still seems to have an insatiable appetite for oil. Almost five billion people have very limited use of cars and other energy-consuming luxuries, but their access to global media is creating pent-up demand that could expand this usage. ... Few observers seem to have noticed that the cost to find and develop oil and gas production has essentially doubled over the past four to five years, despite most oil service prices being abysmally low. Write-downs in proven reserves seem to be accelerating, even with prices remaining high. This, in turn, raises all costs per barrel even higher. Tanker rates recently increased to levels as high or higher than the early 1970s, and 2003 ended at rates almost five times what they averaged for most of the past decade. The cost of cheap energy might be nearing the end of a long run. The 21st century oil markets, so far, have been very different than so many observers expected. These surprises might not be as random as many believe. A clear sea change may be underway. Too often over the past several years, supply fell behind demand at various times. Each time that this occurred, oil inventories were used as a temporary method to bridge a supply/demand gap. With most OECD oil stocks now at unprecedented lows, this last, one-time supply bridge has almost run its course. Thus, 2004 might well be the year when many of these key questions that made the oil markets so abnormal for so long finally get clear answers. (03/15/04)
| |
|
|
|
 Common Dreams -- Thom Hartmann writes: Markets are the creation of government. Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government. And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work. Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush. The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself. Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. ... The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap. (03/15/04)
| |
|
|
|
 BBC Survey -- The BBC is seeking your opinion on what you think are the biggest threats and challenges to the world ahead of 2015, the date the UN has set for the completion of its Millennium Development Goals. The goals are targets set by the UN in 2000 aimed at reducing poverty and improving the lives of millions around the world. But in the four years since then the world has become a different place. This survey - the first global e-survey of its kind - aims to find out what users of BBC websites around the world feel should be the priority for their governments. The survey is available in six different languages. Once you have completed the survey, you will be able to compare your results with others from around the world - by region, gender, age and language. There is also a quiz to try - and see how your knowledge of progress on the Millennium Development Goals compares with others from around the globe. We'd like to hear your stories of how you and others around you are dealing with these issues. You'll be given the chance to join online communities of other like-minded people. And you could win the opportunity to take part in a radio or TV programme - or present the findings of this e-survey to world leaders and key policy makers. (03/15/04)
| |
|
|
|
 BBC Science -- Astronomers have detected what could be the Solar System's 10th planet. It was first seen by astronomers using California's Mount Palomar Observatory, and has been given the name "Sedna" after the Inuit goddess of the ocean. Observations show it measures about 1,180-2,360km (730-1,470 miles) across, making it similar in size to Pluto. There is likely to be some debate about whether it qualifies as a true planet, but some scientists are already saying it re-defines our Solar System. Sedna, or 2003 VB16, as it was originally designated, is the most distant object yet found orbiting our Sun. It is three times further away than Pluto (average distance to the Sun is 5.9 billion km or 3.6 billion miles). It was discovered using the Mt Palomar facility in November by astronomers from the California Institute of Technology, Yale Observatory and the Gemini Observatory. Follow-up studies by the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Tanagra Observatory have measured the thermal radiation coming from Sedna to determine how hot it is, and therefore provide some estimate of its size. ... The new discovery will reignite the debate about what is a planet. One group of astronomers believe that Pluto is not a true planet but merely one of the largest of a vast number of minor objects in the outer Solar System. The alternative standpoint is that Pluto is a planet and those who believe that will have to classify Sedna as the 10th planet. The name Sedna has been provided by its discoverers. However, if its planetary status is confirmed, it may be that astronomy's governing body, the International Astronomical Union, will want to reconsider this, to make it more consistent with the mythological names of other planets. (03/15/04)
| |
5:52:26 AM 
|
|
|
|
© TrustMark
2004
Timothy Wilken.
Last update:
3/31/2004; 6:04:06 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
|
