Giving Thanks but No Thanks

Bullying has been in the news quite bit lately. Several teenagers have taken their lives to escape this evil. On this Thanksgiving Day, as I reflect on all the reasons I have to be thankful I am especially thankful that I have never been bullied. Not once. I have been mocked and ridiculed, but never bullied.

Nobody likes to be bullied; not even bullies. That is the reason they pick on the weak and defenseless. But even worse than being bullied by another is being bullied by yourself. Yes, autobullying. I'm sure you never knew it existed. Worse than someone bullying himself would be a group of people bullying themselves. Even worse than a group of people bullying themselves would be an entire species bullying itself.

By now you must be wondering what I am talking about. Allow me to explain,

We often think of bullying in terms of violence but not all bullying involves violence. There may be a threat of violence but the bully does not necessarily want to beat up his victim. The bully does not mind leaving his victim alone as long as the victim pays for the privilege. It is the same idea behind protectionWe ou money racquets. You can live your life in peace if you pay for the privilege.

The problem is that it is the right of every person to be able to live his life in peace. I ought to be able to go to school without having to turn my lunch money over to some tough guy. I ought to be able to ply my trade in any locale where it is legal to do so without having to pony up a percentage of my profits to another. We ought to be able to live in peace without having to pay for the privilege.

Why, then, do humans spend billions of dollars each year to maintain peace on this planet? I am referring to the global crime fighting and military budgets, as well as the money spent in peacemaking and peacekeeping programs. We have not spent one cent, peso, or bolivar to protect ourselves from foreign invaders. Humans have never fought a real war. Every war that has ever been fought on this planet has been a civil war; humans fighting humans. The reason these skirmishes make the news is because we all know that there is something unnatural about this. We should not be fighting each other. The only reason why we survived out of the mists of prehistory is because we did not fight each other in those early years. We were just as different then as we are now. We lived together without stockpiling weapons. Granted we did not have the military technology we have today but we did not feel the need to. Humans competed with each other; we always have. But we did not see each other as enemies. We did not have to pay for the privilege of peaceful coexistence.

Today we stockpile weapons and maintain standing armies mainly as a deterrent from other humans who have difficulty recognizing that we are one species. Most of the arms in our arsenals will never be used. They will become obsolete and will be destroyed. This is an obvious waste of resources. Every year millions are spent training humans to become killing machines of other humans. Can anyone estimate what the effect would be on our highways if all the fuel used by the worlds armies and navies to train and maintain their men and equipment were released into the open market?

How much longer will we keep bullying ourselves; spending billions of dollars for the right to live the way nature designed that we should live? When will we really be able to give a heartfelt thanks that we have come to our senses, and each boxer has returned to his corner? If we are really concerned about bullying we need to take a look at the way we bully ourselves everyday.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Random Thoughts

I have decided to begin posting some of my random thoughts that I have been sharing elsewhere.

The greatest hindrance to human development is our inability to understand the relationship between being and doing. Most people think that you are what you do. The truth is that you do what you are. Transformation does not come by doing something different but by becoming something different.

The Liberating power of ignorance

Humans have been battling ignorance from the very beginning. So much has been made of the achievements that have been made possible through human intelligence that we often overlook the fact that the first humans appeared on this planet in the same condition that a newborn infant makes its entrance into this life, with one significant difference; we had not assigned teacher. The young of each species – human and nonhuman -- learn from the adults of the species, usually their parents, how to perfect the behaviors that are unique to their species and which are encoded in their DNA molecule.

It is significant that one species will not take on the unique behaviors of other species with which they share living areas. Their DNA determines how they will behave as a species. When humans arrived on the scene we knew nothing about the world around us and culturally we did not know how we should react to external stimuli. Like a newborn infant we had to learn how to respond to external stimuli but there was no one to teach us. Had it not been for the wild animals we met here we never would have made it. This is one of the unanswered questions of human evolution; one that I don’t intend to try to answer in this blog. Why does human DNA not include cultural information that would dictate how we should respond to external stimuli? This information is encoded in the DNA of all other species so why the sudden rewriting of the script with Homo sapiens?

Whatever the answer to that question may be, modern humans should be thankful that the other species with which we were to share this planet knew what to do; we have been learning from them ever since. We are not really innovators, we are the original copycats.

Who played with our DNA? Somebody must have. And whoever did, did not tell us how far or in what direction we should go in our quest, or where we should stop.

The Debilitating Power of Ignorance

Ignorance is power. It is the most pervasive force in the universe, for you can do nothing about something about which you know nothing. One’s power or strength is not defined but what his knowledge enables him to do but by what his ignorance prevents him from doing. The reason is simple. Knowledge must be acted upon for it to have any effect but ignorance is self-actuating. Ignorance is always at work, keeping us from accomplishing what we can. It is not sufficient to know that we can, for we can do nothing until we do something. It is no wonder that the Bible, that ancient book over which so many conflicts have needlessly been waged, declares “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” This is not a prophecy; it is a statement of fact. It matters not whether you are a theist, a non-theist or an atheist. We are dead men walking when we remain in ignorance, but the death is not a natural one. It is one of self-inflicted violence.

But partial ignorance is even more powerful and pervasive than ignorance. Ignorance keeps you anchored to the land and prevents you from getting into the water. Partial ignorance allows you to place one foot on the water but prevents you from removing the other foot from the land. Partial ignorance opens the door to the Promised Land but prevents you from stepping in. Partial knowledge is on the same plane as unutilized knowledge. It is not enough to know or to be informed. That information does us no good until it is put to productive use. For, you see, a rut is of no value unless your goal is to dig a hole. A great deal of harm is done by knowledgeable ones who think they know when they really do not know, or who act as if they do not know.

Peace: Separating Good from Evil

War is often described as a contest between good and evil. Those on one side call the enemy the evil one. Even today, some people describe Adolf Hitler as an evil man. I would like to think that Adolf Hitler thought that the Jews were evil. That is the nature of the beast. You don't wage try to annihilate people you agree with. But who decides what is good and what is evil? Obviously, Adolf Hitler had a different meaning for evil from the Allies.

If we could isolate all the good in the world into a bundle and do the same with all the evil in the world, what would be the result if we got rid of all the evil? A reasonable answer is that we would have a world of only good. What if we did the "unthinkable" and got rid of all the good in the world? What would be the result? It appears that all we would have left would be evil. A world of evil.

But there is one problem. If all the good has been eliminated who would be available to say that what is left is evil? Evil can only be called evil in the presence of good. So, if we got rid of all the good in the world we would be left wit a world of good.

It really does not matter who wins the war or what their philosohy is. The result is always the same. What matters is whether the people agree. To farmers in the midwest a tornado is a destructive force but to the particles and forces that make up the tornado everything is just as it should be.

Peace is elusive because we are trying to get one philosophy to win when we should be trying to get us all to be of the same mind.

Peace: It Begins with the Body

The year 2000 was an important one in human history. Of course, most people will remember it as Y2K, the year when many feared that our digital world would come crashing around our fingers. Some had an apocalyptic view and envisioned the end of the world or of civilization as we knew it. Few will recall that in the same year that so many were able to breathe again as the anticipated disasters failed to materialize, scientists released the first working draft of the human genome. The race to sequence the human genome was almost over; a complete draft was released three years later, thirteen years after the Human Genome Project had begun.

A new era in human science had begun. Scientists were now able to look at the blueprint of life and many anticipated that knowledge of the variation of DNA among individuals would revolutionize the ways to diagnose, treat and, possibly prevent a number of diseases that have vexed us for years. Significant budgets have been devoted to that task. Leading the way is the United States National Institutes of Health which is the home of the National Human Genome Project.

To me it is ironic that we are willing to spend millions of dollars to find cures for diseases with a genetic base while we spend nothing on a similar approach that would bring peace to all of humanity. Let me explain.

The link between genetic diseases and the sequencing of the human genome was established by the Dulbecco in his article in which he advocated for the sequencing of the human genome. In his search for the elusive universal treatment for cancer he had observed that the shift to malignancy in natural cancers was not caused by changes in the environment of those cells but by changes in the structure of the genes. We already had methods of treatment for cancer but surgery, radiation and chemotherapy were all destructive methods, and each could only be applied on an individual basis.

He realized that cancers cannot be eradicated one tumor at a time and reasoned that we could possibly make the current treatments unnecessary if we could reverse the structural changes in the genetic code that caused the shift to malignancy, or even correct the instructions that caused cancer to form in an organism. Before that could be done we would have to understand the genetic map. The goal would be to restore cancer-stricken bodies to their natural homeostasis.

But success in this area would not be a universal cure for cancer nor would it prevent cancer because the structural change in the genes is caused when cells divide naturally. Correcting genetic flaws in an individual would affect all the cells in that individual but that correction would not be passed on to that individual’s progeny.

The same argument applies in the search for human peace but we must first come to terms with the fact that the human race is an organism, and the fact that our individual DNA that defines who we are as individuals is a copy of the DNA that defines who we are as a species.

Each of us is to the human species what each of our cells is to our bodies. We can no more rid the body of cancer one tumor at a time than we can bring peace to humanity one trouble spot at a time. Ignorance is not the cause of violence and war. In fact, most wars are started by educated humans. The answer lies in getting us to see each other the same way normal cells see each other.

Peace: Abiding by the rules

It is obvious that the absence of universal peace among humans is a result of humans acting contrary to the principles of systemic reality that govern the entire universe. If we were all convinced that we belong to one system we would never indulge in the self-destructive behavior that is evidenced among us. Throughout the rest of nature we observe the results of systemic living. All other species follow the principles of systemic living.

It would probably surprise you more to learn that the reason why we have been unable to reverse this self-destructive trend among us and bring lasting peace to our world is for the very same reason: acting contrary to the principles of systemic reality.

The two primary principles that we violate are found in that definition of a system that we discussed in a previous blog: "an entity that maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts."

That definition of a system implies that a system's primary reason for being is to ensure its existence and it does so through the interaction of its parts. Because each of these parts is a system defined by the same reason for being, we can deduce 1) that each system is only concerned with its existence and not the existence of other systems around it and 2) that it is not within the domain of any subset of systems within a larger system to make decisions about maintaining the existence of the larger system. Interaction among the parts of a system occurs under the direction of the larger system, not because of any desire among these parts.

Within the other parts of nature these principles are obvious and they work perfectly for the benefit of these systems. Among humans, who have the unique ability to pretend, the perfect working of these systems have had the opposite effect.

Thousands of groups have been working assiduously over the millenia to bring peace to humanity. But because of the principles of systemic reality we have discussed, these self same efforts ensure that peace cannot be achieved as a result.

The principle is clear that maintenance of the existence of any system is the responsibility of the entire system. One of the parts of that system cannot decide to act on behalf of the larger system. Any such designation must originate with the entire system. Because each part of a system is also a system, any time a subset of humans embark on an effort to attain peace it is acting on behalf of itself and not on behalf of the entire species. Consequently, its efforts, though well-meaning, only serve to distinguish it from other humans and turns them into "enemies", in the same way that other species have natural enemies while still being part of this ecosystem.

There is no way to override the operation of this principle because the principles of systemic reality are not subject to alteration by humans; they were firmly established long before humans first appeared on this planet. In addition, unlike organizations that have designated leaders humanity does not have a global leader. Any decision on behalf of the species must be taken by the entire species.

Hence, the challenge before us is to find a way to change the thinking of humans so that we no longer see ourselves as individuals but as part of a single species.

Peace: A Most Ingenious Paradox

What can we make of these facts that we have discovered? The DNA molecule is responsible for the great diversity of unique living species on the planet as well as for the diversity of unique individuals within these species. Because of way in which DNA replicates itself mutations are often introduced into the DNA of living things that often cause the organism to turn against itself. This occurs in all living species; human and non-human. Yet the same division of the DNA molecule that brought diverse species into existence did not produce in non-human species the same self-destructive behavior that plagues humanity.

This is just another of the paradoxes of this thing we call life. What does it mean that ours is the only species that seems intent on destroying itself while the individual organisms within non-human species have the same potential to turn against themselves as ours do?

An illogical world
It is illogical that an organism should seek its own destruction. The primary reason an organism exists is to perpetuate its own existence as long as its life cycle dictates. So how is it that the immune system whose sole role is to defend the body against all enemies begins to attack the body it is “sworn” to defend? How is it that otherwise normal cells continue to divide beyond the limits ordinarily imposed?

Autoimmunity has been defined as “the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self” which means that it treats its own cells and tissues as it they were not self. In other words it pretends that they are what they are not. But, since they really are self, in allowing an immune response against them it is pretending to be what it is not. The same is true of cancer cells which, by refusing to adhere to the normal limits of cell-division, pretend not to belong to the organism.

Once again we observe that a characteristic that is unique to the human species is at the level of the individual members of the species shared with all other living species. Non-human species do not engage in self-destructive behavior but within the individual organisms the cells do. Non-human species do not pretend but within the individual organisms their cells do. There is something to be gained from this paradox.

A light emerging
It is not out of malice that the immune system decides to attack the organism’s cells and tissues, or cancer cells decide to cast off the natural restraints on their division. In both cases the body acts abnormally because of misinformation. The mutations in the DNA that are caused by the natural process of splitting the cell’s DNA result in faulty information being transmitted to certain cells and organ systems within the body.

Nature has not found a way to fight this condition. Indeed, it cannot. But we have. And what we have learned about correcting the flawed information that leads to autoimmune diseases and cancers must be used in finding the path to permanent, universal and lasting peace.

Peace: Teaching the teacher so we can Learn

Our efforts at finding a solution to the self-destructive behavior that prevents us from enjoying permanent, universal and lasting peace are hampered by the fact that among the species we have discovered on this planet we are the only one that displays such behavior. But we are not only a species. Because we live in a world of systems we are also a system. It turns out that we are not the only system that displays self-destructive behavior.

One of the organ systems that make up living organisms is the immune system. The immune system enables the organism to fight off any attacks by antigens. But there is a class of disorders among living organisms called autoimmune disorders in which the immune system mistakenly attacks and destroys healthy body tissue and threatens the existence of the organism. It should not be too difficult to see the parallel with human behavior. Cancers are one class of antigens that the immune is supposed to fight. Cell division is the basis of all life; cells grow by dividing. Normal cells multiply when the body needs them, and die when the body doesn't need them. Cancer appears to occur when the growth of cells in the body is out of control and normal cells divide too quickly. It can also occur when cells “forget” how to die. The immune system is unable to fight cancers for the same reason that it mistakenly attacks healthy body tissue: faulty information from the organism’s DNA.

No help from Mother Nature
Nature is unable to correct these disorders because each organism operates on the assumption that every instruction that comes from DNA is correct. But the absence of a natural model for curing cancers and autoimmune diseases does not mean our cause is hopeless. Medical research has taught us enough about these “natural” disorders to direct us in our search for permanent, universal and lasting peace. DNA accounts for everything that happens in the world and we have learned quite a bit about DNA since its structure was revealed. Now that the genome has been sequenced scientists hope to be able to change an organism’s DNA to correct the faulty instructions that cause the body to behave abnormally.

Creating lessons Nature does not teach
Cell division is the most likely reason for the incidence of faulty instructions in an organism’s DNA. Before a cell divides the DNA replicates itself so each of the two new cells formed will have a copy of the original DNA. The two strands of the original DNA molecule are unzipped and, through a complicated process, new strands chains of nucleotides are attached to each strand to form two DNA molecules for the new cells. This process often results in errors that cause mutations of the DNA and faulty information. Scientists have determined that they could correct these mutations by removing the errors.

Even though gene therapy has not yet provided the hoped-for cures, an understanding of this process holds hope for humanity’s future when considered in the context of systemic reality.

Peace: The Way Ahead

If we persist with the biological perspective, thinking of the human race only as a species, then the prospects for permanent, universal and lasting peace are hopeless. They are hopeless because every significant human advance is accomplished by adapting what we observe from nature. Because we are the only species that displays such self-destructive characteristics in all of nature we can also find no example in which such self-destructive behavior in a species has been overcome, and from which we can learn.

Fortunately, we have discovered the systems perspective. The human race is not the only system that displays such self-destructive behavior. Among living systems, millions of such examples exist in nature. It is here that the true genius of human nature can be applied to our best advantage. Even though nature contains millions of examples of living systems that inexplicably turn on themselves nature has been unable to find a cure. Fortunately, our unique ability to pretend on which our scientific exploits are founded can be quite handy in this case. Before we look at what we have learned from these self-destructive living systems let us take a small look at our ability to pretend.

How do we pretend?
It is unfortunate that pretence is often confused with deceit. Pretence is such a vital aspect of our existence that we have come up with a variety of ways to describe it. Here is a short list of positive ways in which we express our ability to pretend: Imagine; what if; suppose; for instance; for example; assuming that; in the event that. In each case the individual is being asked to pretend that something that does not exist at that moment or in that place actually does exist. She is being asked to find a solution for a situation that would exist only in her mind. In a more structured format this is what experimental scientists do.
Animals cannot do this. Animals instinctively do what their DNA dictates; this is true even for animals like the mockingbird that tries to sound like other birds.

Problems with Pretence
Science has shown the power of pretence, but just as pretence can be used to deceive another it can often result in one deceiving himself. Because the mind does not differentiate between what we are and what we are pretending to be we can sometimes convince ourselves that we are what we are not. Sometimes that can be to our advantage and other times it can retard our development.

Peace: It Is What It Is

It is no surprise that the systemic nature of humanity bears some relevance to our efforts to understand what is wrong with humanity and how we will be able to return our species to a state of normalcy. The underlying principle is the reason behind our ongoing push for specialization. An artisan is most effective when he is working in a area with which he is familiar.

What is surprising is that even though we now accept that the human race is a system we continue to exclude vital information about the behavior of systems in the myriad of efforts we have made to bring permanent, universal and lasting peace to our troubled world. Ironically, the reason for this lack in our efforts is directly related to this very issue of how systems function. It all begins with the basic definition of what a system is.

As we discussed in an earlier blog, a system is “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” This definition contains three important ideas about a system: 1. it is an entity, 2. it exists to maintain its existence, 3. it does so through mutual interaction of its parts.

The difficulty arises in the definition of its parts. These are not just parts. Even though the definition does not address the fact that each part of a system is also a system this is the most relevant aspect of systemic reality. The requirement that each system is only concerned with its own existence is clearly applicable to the Universe, which is the primary system. By definition there is no other system separate from the Universe whose existence it would need to maintain.

Because every individual and object within the universe is also a system each of these exists to maintain its own existence. The only time that a system would have anything to do with the existence of another system that is external to it would be if that system poses a threat to its existence.

The only condition under which one natural system would attack and threaten the existence of another would be if either system viewed the other as its enemy, whether real or imagined.

Peace: The Structure of Systemic Reality

Before we go into a discussion of the principle of pretence, or the unique human ability to pretend, let us take some time to understand the basic structure of systemic reality that is beginning to emerge.

Systemic reality is the global or universal property that ensures that everything in the universe is a system and functions as part of a system. This is not just a theory; it is the ultimate reality.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy took note of this characteristic in nature and came up with his General Systems Theory. Shortly after that James Grier Miller developed Living Systems Theory. This progression from GST to LST fits in with our understanding of the origin of life; General Systems Theory representing the systemic nature of non-life and Living Systems Theory representing the systemic nature of living things. First there was non-life and then there was life. First there was General Systems Theory and then there was Living Systems Theory.

Because human life is so unique I would like to propose Rational Systems Theory, which would account for the unique human ability to pretend. It is in Rational Systems Theory that the true power of systemic reality is realized. Obviously, it is responsible for the continued existence of everything from the mighty universe to the smallest quark. But when coupled with the human capacity for to assume a foreign identity through pretence it demands our attention.

These two concepts give rise to the idea that the systems we call individual human beings will behave in accordance with what they are or what they may think they are. Both their true identity and their assumed identity will be displayed in their behavior. The most fundamental aspect of a system is found in the definition Bellinger proposed; it exists to maintain its own existence. We have no control over this. This is not selfishness. It is the natural outworking of systemic reality.

As systems we have no natural responsibility to be our brother’s keeper. Our primary and only reason for living is to ensure that we survive. Any concern we have for the welfare of others exists, not because we are rational beings – rational systems – but because together we belong to a larger system.

Peace: Making Sense of the Issues

Given the popularity of General Systems Theory today it may come as something of a surprise to some that when it was first proposed it was thought to be fantastic or presumptuous. Here is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory wrote in his seminal work on the subject:

Either—it was argued—it was trivial because the so-called isomorphisms were mere examples of the truism that mathematics can be applied to all sorts of things, and it therefore carried no more weight than the “discovery” that 2+2=4 holds true for apples, dollars and galaxies alike; or it was false and misleading because superficial analogies—as in the famous simile of society as an “organism”—camouflage actual differences and so lead to wrong and even morally objectionable conclusions. Or, again, it was philosophically and methodologically unsound because the alleged “irreducibility” of higher levels to lower ones tended to impede analytical research whose success was obvious in various fields such as in the reduction of chemistry to physical principles, or of life phenomena to molecular biology. [Ludwig von Bertalanffy, (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Braziller: New York. p. 14.]

Many efforts have been made to define a system, each one emphasizing different perspectives. The most effective definition may be the one offered by Gene Bellinger which he claims he owes to von Bertalanffy. He defined a system as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” It contains three important ideas about a system: 1. it is an entity, 2. it exists to maintain its existence, 3. It does so through mutual interaction of its parts.

We have already discussed the first in our blog about the distinction between organizations and organisms. The second and third ideas highlight the need for cooperative coexistence, both among humans as individuals and among the various groups into which humans organize themselves. Each system exists to maintain its own existence.

Let us suppose that System 1 has three components: System A, System B, and System C. System A does not exist to be concerned about either the existence of System B or of System C. As far as System A is concerned, the existence of System B or of System C is a non-issue. Any concern that System A has for System B and System C only exists because of System 1 to which all three belong. Under our definition of a system and the concept of systemic reality, it is the responsibility of System 1 to ensure the mutual interaction of System A, System B and System C. System A has no responsibility for System B or System C.

From the perspective of System A, anything that is not one of its components is an enemy, and anything that is perceived to be an enemy will be repelled in order to maintain the existence of System A. It is important to note that this determination does not depend on the geographic placement of that thing.

From a human perspective, it is important to note that group or system identity is independent of geographic location or consciousness. You do not have to be aware that you belong to a system for the principles of systemic reality to apply to you.

Let’s take the case of the hermit sitting all alone on a mountaintop. As far as he is concerned he does not belong to any group, but the universal principle of systemic reality overrides his awareness. Sitting there on the mountaintop he acts in ways that he perceives a hermit should behave because, unknown to him, in his solitude he is a member of a group of individuals called hermits. Even though he is out of touch with any other hermit his very existence helps to maintain the existence of the system called hermits.

You may think that you labor at your particular profession or occupation to provide sustenance. While that is true, it is even truer that by working at that job you are maintaining the existence of that class of professional worker. When it matters you take the side of your profession over that of another. You cannot help it. That is the way of systemic reality.

If we can return briefly to our earlier example, the leader of an organization intuitively knows that he has a responsibility to defend the organization. This is part of belonging to the system. He also knows that “membership” in the system does not mean that the individual identifies with the system. Given the unique human quality of pretence, members of a human system are always on the lookout for plants within the system that do not really belong. Because of the natural, unique quality of pretence, distrust is built-in to our psyche. But this distrust should be against legitimate enemies.

Being at the top of the food chain we should have no natural living enemies. Somehow, we have made enemies of each other. We have a perception problem.

FaceBook comments on "Three Important Issues" (2)

(Darius) A word of caution on the V formation. When two or more V formations meet they never merge into one giant V formation. These are localized formations. But the way the leadership revolves is instructive. The goal is not to lead the formation but to ensure that the formation has leadership. Too often humans confuse the two.

(Teresa) Excellent analogy, Jeanette. I think another reason, and this will sound socialistic in nature (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), is everyone isn't commited to working together for the good of their community (whatever that community may be). I believe if my community is better, my life, living in it, will be better, so I stay involved and engaged. We seem to live in a "grab what you can for yourself and screw everyone else" kind of society. That attitude will not allow for us to "fly in a V".

(Darius) Just to note that Phil first suggested, and Jeanette expanded on, the V formation analogy.

(Jeanette) Thanks for noting that, Darius. Phil 's mentioning the V formation reminded me of one of my favorite movies.... Winged Migration... that showed many details of a flock of geese migrating. I have to admit that I watched it over and over again for the beauty and for the lessons to be learned.
Darius, you are correct that these are localized formations. They are little systems within a larger system that allows the species to reach the same destination in the most efficient manner. More geese make it because of them all working their smaller systems.
And Terri, I believe the V formation is a great example of socialism at its finest.

FaceBook comments on "Three Important Issues" (1)

(Phil) Though it is not given to any specific individual to lead the species, it's everyone's responsibility to do what is necessary for the survival of the species. When it become necessary for someone to take the lead, even for a minute, then it will be understood and supported. This leader may be the man/woman of the hour. And under different circumstances, someone else may rise to carry the torch. Each time, the species will naturally rally behind this individual. We learn this from birds that fly in V- formation.

(Darius) But they do that because they trust whomever it is that takes the lead. Our problem is not how to follow but how to trust.

(Phil) Exactly, we go back to our primary issue: distrust;-)
This is a bit odd, for they seem to understand that trust is necessary. This simply means that trust is built-in for them. What about us?

(Darius) So I must correct myself, because we know how to trust. We have developed the knack of thinking that some of us do not belong. We trust those we believe are like us.

(Jeanette) Speaking of the V formation... Ducks and geese embrace the V formation because it is expedient for each one of them and the most efficient way to move the flock from place to place. 1. It allows the flock to go more easily in the same direction. 2. The physics of the V enables those behind the leader to use less than full energy, which comes in handy for long flights. 3. It also allows for each bird to avoid the duck and goose poo.
The ducks and geese know that cooperation is advantageous for all of them for the reasons I stated above. How do we get the message across to humans that trust is advantageous for us to the degree that it will "..direct all humans to a state of being in which we intuitively wish to work cooperatively...". What is the magic forumla?

(Phil) This is the reason why Darius pointed at Education. Not as we know it today, though. ;-)

(Inclaire) Education, education, education. Would the V work for humans, or should the V be inverted?

(Jeanette) Inclaire, if we look at the reasons for and the results of the V formation, I think there are applications and lessons we can learn for our species. The leader, at least during migration, shares strength with both legs of the V through the laws of physics. The cooperation between each in the line allows the entire line to share the strength of ... See Morethe leader's flight. If one falls out of formation, the rest have to flap harder to attempt to keep up until the line can be restructured to work again. As one leader tires, another rested one takes its place. If the V were to be inverted, the entire flock would be not only spending their energy inefficiently and not likely to make the long haul but they would be a poopy mess, too. That mess is not only uncomfortable but it weighs the individual down and further causes inefficient flight.
Perhaps one of our problems is that humans are trying to fly in an inverted V and only the "leaders" of the flock are getting the full benefits of air currents created by the flapping wings.

Peace: Three Important Issues

We began this blog on the topic of global peace with a discussion of the distrust with which adult humans view other humans and which, we suggested, is the reason behind the need for national standing armies. Two more important issues have come to the fore: the human tendency to assemble in groups that are not always cooperative in the way they work; our unique ability to pretend that we members of another species.

All three issues play a role in the example, we discussed earlier, of the group leader who would not keep within the group anyone who is working against the best interests of the group. By extension, they are also implicated in the realization that, whereas every member of the human workforce is working to advance the cause of some institution, none can be said to be working to advance the interests of the species to which they owe their very existence.

Some may argue that this last point is irrelevant because, unlike any of our institutions or groups, no one has been given the responsibility to ensure that the interests of the species are being served. However, on this point we are no different from any of the other species which, it bears repeating, have been our teachers on how to live and survive on this planet. We are well aware of the groups among primates and canines (e.g. wolves, dogs, jackals, foxes). These animal groups have leaders, sometimes called the alpha male. Even though group leadership is an integral quality of these species there is no alpha male who claims leadership of all wolves, or gorillas in the world. Nature seems to abhor global leadership in an individual.

The integrity of the species appears to the entirely determined by the species’ DNA. Individual members of a species do not act cooperatively for the benefit of the species because someone tells them to, or because a group leader keeps them in line, but because it is encoded in their DNA. It is because of these instructions that these groups within a species work cooperatively instead of trying to destroy each other. DNA is the employer, the group leader, the alpha male.

What does this mean for humans who are longing for permanent, universal and lasting peace? The obvious conclusion is that while our institutions (political, sports-related, educational, etc.) can benefit by teaching people associated with these institutions particular ideas about peace, our best hope for global peace is to direct all humans to a state of being in which we intuitively wish to work cooperatively, regardless of our differences and without being required to change our sense of identity.

Maintenance-free peace can never come out of a process in which individuals are forced or shamed into changing, or believe that they were forced or shamed into changing who they believe they are. Resentment will always remain. We have a good example of that in the events that led up to the rise of the Third Reich and the Second World War. Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles but this peace treaty did not take away the notion that the terms of the treaty were restrictive to Germany. Clearly, many Germans shared Adolf Hitler’s passionate desire to throw off those shackles.

To accomplish this goal of a species that functions, in terms of cooperative coexistence, in the same way that every other species on the planet functions we need to understand something of the interplay among the three issues mentioned above and how they relate to who and what we are.

Peace: In the Meantime

As we think about the last blog I want to share two songs about the subject to keep our thoughts churning. The words and music of first are by Lew Douglas, Cliff Parman, and Frank Lavere. The second is by John Lennon.


Pretend

Pretend you're happy when you're blue
It isn't very hard to do
And you'll find happiness without an end
Whenever you pretend

Remember anyone can dream
And nothing's bad as it may seem
The little things you haven't got
Could be a lot if you pretend

You'll find a love you can share
One you can call all your own
Just close your eyes, she'll be there
You'll never be alone

And if you sing this melody
You'll be pretending just like me
The world is mine, it can be yours, my friend
So why don't you pretend?

And if you sing this melody
You'll be pretending just like me
The world is mine, it can be yours, my friend
So why don't you pretend?


Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Peace: We Belong Here

It should be obvious by now that a full understanding of systemic reality is necessary if we are to find an answer to the most pressing issues humanity faces today.

I speak of systemic reality because it is a fact that the human race is a system because the universe is a system. General Systems Theory and Organizational Theories are academic disciplines that have been developed out of this reality. As with any other academic discipline they may only be partial in their coverage.

Let’s begin with a few indisputable facts. We know that humanity is a bona fide part of the ecosystem of this planet. There is no question that human life began on this planet. We are a terrestrial species. No one would suggest that the first humans were an expeditionary force from a distant galaxy. Not that this would matter. As long as a component is working interdependently with other components to promote the maintenance of a system it is a part of that system.

Based on what we know of natural systems, i.e. that they always work, one would expect that humanity would never do anything to jeopardize the maintenance of the world in which we live, in the same way that every other species on the planet does not jeopardize the maintenance of this planet.

Here we are faced with another fact. We have become a threat to our ecosystem. We have damaged the ozone layer. We have pushed thousands of species into extinction because of our misuse of the environment, e.g. over-grazing, over-fishing, and other forms of over-exploitation of the species. No other species does that. This world is a picture of cooperative coexistence among all the other species that share this space with us.

So, what is it about us that makes us different from the other species? Why are we behaving more as if we were a creation of the human mind than a creation of the global DNA on which everything that happens in world depends?

The answer is simple. Every other species knows exactly how to respond to the stimuli in its environment. We call that instinct. Their behavior is hardwired by their DNA. To speak colloquially, DNA tells them what to do. To some extent DNA also tells us what to do. We have as many organ systems as DNA has prescribed. We have no more limbs than DNA determines. But when it comes to how we act culturally our behavior is not prescribed or proscribed by our DNA. Consequently, we are the only species that is able to act as if it is another species. We are the only species that is able to pretend.

In the area of problem solving, we are not the only species that solves problems. Biologists have observed instances where specimens among other animals have come up with creative solutions to unique situations. But we are the only species that is capable of creating a problem in order to craft a solution. The benefits of this capability are obvious in the results of experimental science. It is great to be able to pretend we are what we really are not.

But there are also some serious drawbacks that we have not taken into account.

Peace: Understanding Systemic Reality

We are faced with a huge challenge because there are no examples in nature that model how we should deal with self-destructive systems. Such a mechanism for dealing with self-destructive systems has never been developed in the nature because all natural systems work effectively and any threat to their existence always comes from outside of the system. Natural systems are not designed to shorten their lifespan. Having said that we should be quick to note that absence of such a model in nature does not prevent us from determining how to transform a self-destructive system into a self-sustaining system. The purpose of this blog is to demonstrate that through an appreciation of how natural systems work such a scheme can be developed.

In any natural system all the components of the system always works interdependently to maintain the vitality of the system. One could call this the first law of systemic reality. This is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the father of modern systems theory, was speaking of when he defined a system as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” The implication is that regardless of the varied roles they may play within the parent system, all the parts of any system have the same goal.

This first law can be extended to a second law of systemic reality which posits that every part of a system is itself a system. At the same time that a system is maintaining its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts it is also interacting with other systems to maintain the existence of the larger system to which it belongs. We can conclude from this that every component of a system always works to maintain the existence of the system, and any organism that is not working to maintain the existence of a system is not a member of that system regardless of its physical presence within that system.

This is important because humans are the only organisms that are capable of taking on an alternate reality, i.e. pretending that they belong to a different system than the one to which they belong. This is both exciting and problematic. It is exciting because it has allowed us to create the organization, which has been called humanity’s greatest invention. It is problematic because sometimes the assumed reality can be mistaken for the reality.

It for the latter reason that humans are both an integral part of this ecosystem yet seem to act as if they don’t belong to it in the destructive effect we have had on the world around us.

Peace: Getting it right

It is obvious and universally accepted that something is wrong with humanity. That's the easy part. The difficult part is agreeing on what is wrong so that we can create a solution that is permanent and universal.

One reason is our unwillingness or inability to appreciate why we are so unique among all the species on this planet. By definition, every species is unique. But only humans have the ability to do science. However, this does not elevate us above the other species; it only sets us apart from them. Because, we cannot do science without the other species. This is why observation is the first step in the scientific method. We learn from the other species. One could say that nature uses other species to teach us.

It would take books document all the ways in which we have gained knowledge from observing the other species. Every thing we have learned has come courtesy of the living and non-living things in our environment. Nature appears to have planned it this way. We may not make a big deal of it but it is generally agreed that our planet was functioning perfectly by the time humans first appeared. We are not the ones who put the finishing touches on the planet. Truth be told, in the process of improving our quality of life, a desire that does not appear to exist among other species, we always manage to do harm to this spaceship on which we travel "in circles."

Before we arrived the other species knew how to coexist with which other even though the food web makes many of them enemies of others. They had mastered life before we arrived, it is hardwired in their DNA, and we have had to observe them to learn how to make the best of the conditions in which we find ourselves.

But there is one thing that nature has not been allowed to teach us. In nature we learn how things work and with that knowledge we have been able to "create" things that did not exist when our ancient ancestors arrived here. But nature does not teach us how to repair damage that does not have an external origin.

The reason is simple. The systems that comprise our world never need repair. Natural systems work, whether they be weather systems, ocean currents or galaxies. In living things, the immune system is the ultimate repair man, but it only works against external threats. Every moment it fights against a host of pathogens that keep trying to destroy the body. But it is hopeless against diseases like cancer and auto-immune diseases that are not caused by the environment.

Given our natural education it is not wonder that humans prefer to find a solution for what ails the species by assuming that the problem is caused by an outside source, even though we all know this not to be true. This is even reflected in our language.

Robert Burns first documented the phrase "man's inhumanity to man" in his poem "From Man was made to Mourn: A Dirge." The problem is that every form of behavior that we say is inhumane can only be observed among humans.

We must first properly identify the problem before we can hope for a solution. Nothing else will suffice. Our experiences with cancer and the autoimmune diseases should tell us something.

Peace: A Self-taught Species

Our journey continues with a closer look at the process of science. When something works as efficiently as science has in the service of humanity there is seldom any reason to pay any attention to any limitations it may possess. But the limitations inherent in our scientific processes have lessons to which we need to pay attention.

The ability to do science is what distinguishes us from the rest of the species.
But we sometimes overlook the fact that as a tool of discovery the goal of science is determine what we need to know in order to survive in our environment. When we couple this with the fact that we do science by observing how other species react to their environment the unnerving conclusion is that we are not as intellectually superior as we tend to think we are. We do science because we do not know, and we observe the other species because they do know. I leave it to you to determine which species is smarter.

We do have a leg up on them because we are able to teach in a way they cannot. They cannot pass on their information to us. We must obtain that information by observing them, thus making us the only self-taught species on the planet.

This is a larger potential problem than we could imagine. Not knowing drives our scientific passion but because we do not know exactly what we need to know we have no way of knowing when we know what we should know. We have no teacher to tell us that we have arrived. This means that we may stop our discovery in a particular area after finding a comforting solution that solves one of our survival needs, when a different perspective may provide a more comprehensive solution.

Peace: A Closer Look is Needed

After posting my last blog I have been hoping that someone would challenge my conclusion that not one member of the global workforce is working to maintain the species to which we belong but, instead, are working for the vitality of one or more human organizations that we hope will collectively maintain the species. It is possible that all my readers agree with me. It is also possible that some or all don’t, but I have no way of knowing why they think I am wrong.

Whatever the truth may be on this point, I think we can all agree that no organization can thrive if its welfare is left to chance. This is the reason any leader of an organization will be very sensitive to the presence in the organization of someone who is undermining or not committed to the growth and development of the organization. Those in leadership will make every effort to ensure that this attitude does not gain a foothold within the organization. If we are truly committed to the welfare of our species, or even the welfare of those who must come behind us, we have to address this issue.

The obvious challenge was indirectly presented above. Unlike our organizations no global leader of the human race has been identified. Historically, anyone who has ever attempted to become the global leader of the species has failed in the attempt.

It appears that we have been burdened with a colossal problem but do not have a ready mechanism for solving it. I believe that much can be gained by taking a close look at aspects of our knowledge base that have not been much emphasized.

Science has done much to improve the condition of man. But there is nothing magical about science. Even though we think ourselves to be superior to the other species on the planet the truth is that they have been our teachers. Nothing that humans have accomplished on this planet is original with us. Science itself begins with the fine art of observation. First we observe the other species doing the things they know how to do and we then try our best to apply that knowledge to our own situation. In many instances, e.g. diet, lodging and body markings, we mimic them well. In other situations, e.g. flight in birds, we are still playing catch up. We have observed the efficiency of avian flight but we have not learned to fly. What we call human flight is only an advanced version of a rock being catapulted through the air under controlled conditions.

On the question of the relationship between the plight of organizations and the human species maybe we have not been as observant as we should have been. The organization is truly man’s most potent invention but it is nothing more than a machine with human parts. We learned about group dynamics from observing its operation in the species around us. General Systems Theory is a result of that observation. Maybe it is time for a closer look.

Peace: Reasons why our current methods will continue to fail.

Even though it is never explicitly stated, every human effort to bring peace to our troubled planet is based on the idea that it is possible to change the world one person at a time. This philosophy is alternatively expressed in the idea that change can be brought to humanity through the leadership efforts of only a few. The philosophy is attractive because it has been shown to work repeatedly. It is unfortunate that we have so universally adopted this philosophy without consideration from its limitations and its restricted applicability.

On the surface the philosophy is true. It is possible to change the world one person at a time. The problem is that the direction of change is not, and cannot be, defined in this philosophy. As a result, it has gone unnoticed that this philosophy drives both the waging of war and peace making efforts. Those who are involved in peacemaking efforts believe that the way to bring peace to humanity is to change the thinking of those individuals presently disposed toward violent conflict. On the other hand, those who fight wars believe that the way to bring peace to humanity is by subjugating or destroying those they believe are not disposed towards their ideas of peaceful coexistence. They fight wars to destroy their enemies so they can live peaceably with their allies. There are other reasons why the philosophy is of no use in our efforts at bringing peace to humanity.

If we look at those occasions in which the philosophy has proven to be true, they have always involved one or more human institutions or organization. This is because a human organization is really a machine with human parts. It is possible to improve a machine one part at a time because a machine is built by bringing together all the parts called for by the design. But, even though humanity bears a striking resemblance to an organization, it is NOT a collection of parts. You see, humans did not invent humanity. We did not design it. We did not put it together. Humanity, as is true of all the other species with which we share this planet, was not conceived, designed, or assembled by humans. It cannot be bettered one person or institution at a time.

Humanity is the product of global DNA and it grew and developed in the same way that any organism grows and develops. Our scientists are smart enough to know that a collection of body parts on a table can never be put together to produce a body. They also know that the only reason why organ transplants work is by suppressing the immune system of the host body to prevent it from rejecting the transplanted organ. Our best efforts will never bring permanent, universal, and lasting peace to humanity as long as our thought and policy leaders continue to treat humanity as if it is an organization rather than an organism.

Peace: Lessons from the Unemployment Rate

Why do economists call the unemployment rate a lagging indicator but call personal income a coincident indicator? Lagging indicators change after the economy has already begun to follow a particular pattern or trend and can be used as evidencethat long-term economic trends have occurred. Coincident indicators change directly and simultaneously with the business cycle and reflect the current state of the economy. There are also leading indicators that change before the economy begins to follow a particular pattern or trend and can be used to predict changes in the economy. Clearly, there is a direct relationship between a measure of personal income and the unemployment rate but I think the difference in treatment is related to the unique relationship that exists between the trend of the economy and the unemployment rate. This unexplored aspect of the relationship has a powerful lesson for us that goes far beyond the immediate need to create jobs for the unemployed.

A change in the employment rate is not always related to long-term changes in the economy. Even in a good economic climate there may be a net increase in the ranks of the unemployed because of first time entrants into the job market, those who are fired from their jobs because they are not contributing to the growth of the company, those who leave their jobs without first finding another job, or because a business fails. This means that an increase in the unemployment rate is not always indicative of a long-term downward change in economic trends. On the other hand, the reason why the unemployment rate does not behave like a coincident indicator is because it is solely dependent on the actions of those who provide employment. A negative change in the economic climate is never a reason why a worker voluntarily gives up a job. Workers will hold on to their jobs for as long as they can.

When an employer begins to feel the effects of a downward turn in the economy he makes two calculations before deciding to reduce his workforce. First, he considers the effects the reduction will have on the viability of his company if the downturn is not as long lasting as he imagines. He could lay off good workers and never get them back because they found new jobs before he realizes his error. Secondly, there is concern for the welfare of his employees. An employer understands that the welfare of his employees’ families depends on their wages and will only lay them off when he is absolutely unable to continue paying them. It appears that in the context of the changing economy the unemployment rate is driven more by a concern for survival than by economic figures?

Employers want employees who can help their companies and business to thrive. This is the reason they conduct interviews. Job announcements identify individuals who have the skills required for the jobs that are available, but the interview identifies the individuals who will contribute to the health and growth of the enterprise. Even in a strong economy an employer will fire any employee who is not helping to build the company and will, in a deteriorating economy, hold on to a valued employee as long as he can. We can be certain that the purpose of the human workforce, without exception, is to promote the health and welfare of one organization or other. In a few cases an employee will remain on a job even though he is not committed to the success of the institution but then he is motivated by his own survival. What does it mean for the future and well-being of humanity if every member of the human workforce is working to maintain an organization, while there is not one person who is working to maintain the human species?

The assumption appears to be that the future of the species is bound up in the future of our institutions and if we maintain the health of our institutions we automatically will maintain the health of the species. This is a noble assumption but it fails in light of the fact that all our institutions are not working cooperatively. The stark reality is that healthy institutions to not guarantee a healthy species. If no employer would knowingly maintain on his payroll an employee who is working to undermine his business enterprise how can we justify a condition in which not one member of the human workforce is working for the species?

Thoughts?​

Peace: Why so elusive?

I have been doing quite a bit of thinking since I posted my last blog. Humans are an interesting lot. If you look through the drawers in your home you will probably find an assortment of gadgets that you purchased a long time ago to make life a little easier that you may never have used or used only a few times. Some would call this a waste of money, but there is an even bigger example of this hanging over our heads.

A cursory review of human literature over the years will reveal a great number of suggestions by humans of all walks of life on ways in which we can improve the quality of life for all humans on this planet, but these suggestions have been relegated to the dusty drawers of our history.

Just this morning I read a post on FB in which the author lamented the fact that most of us only support each other in mass crisis but, when it comes to investing in the lives of each other we turn our head. He advised that we need to support each other to change our present circumstances. He is not the first and unless we actively design our future it will still be a valid lament one hundred years from now.

Why is this our reality? Can you think of other such pieces of advice that clutter our history? Please share.

Peace: What Price Peace?

In the aftermath of the earthquake that devastated Haiti, President Obama called upon President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton to help raise funds for the United States humanitarian effort.

One of the avenues they chose was to write a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times encouraging citizens of the United States to contribute to the humanitarian effort. I have no doubt that this appeal by the two former presidents helped to further loosen the purse strings of many Americans who so have contributed millions of dollars to the aid agencies and charities who are on the ground in Haiti bringing relief to those who need it.

But it raised in my mind a question that first occurred to me a few weeks before. I had just listened to a radio public service announcement for a charity that wished to raise $30,000 to eradicate one of our many human scourges (I wish I remembered what it was). I thought, “If the people would willingly contribute $30,000 to wage war against this scourge I wonder if they would contribute that same amount of money to make the fundamental changes in human thought that would make such appeals unnecessary?”

The fact that the question has never been raised says quite a bit about how we view ourselves. Our thought leaders do not believe that this is a central issue so I think it is unlikely that the man on the street would consider it to be important. But this is our only hope. At least, that is what I think.

Peace: Unexpected Lessons to be Learned from Global Disasters

The last year of the first decade of the twenty-first century arrived without much fanfare at my house – I don’t think I watched coverage of the dropping of the ball at Times Square – but it did bring with it news that the unemployment rate in the United States was still over ten percent. I have been mulling over this because the commentators seem to think that the future of this rate could have serious implications for the presidency of President Obama.

I was finalizing my ideas for a blog that would link this situation with the broader concerns for world peace when the radio announcer intruded into my thoughts with news of the devastating earthquake that brought disaster to already impoverished Haiti. This was not the way I had hoped to end the first decade of the twenty-first century, but the more I thought about these three ideas the more I saw a link among them, and the lessons we can learn from our reaction to tragedy.

No one was elated by news of the 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Port-au-Prince. The immediate reaction was automatic. Everyone who received news of this catastrophe wanted to help. Not everyone could help but everyone wanted to help. More importantly, we were moved because they were humans, not because they were Haitian or in Haiti.

This reaction occurs every time a natural disaster takes place somewhere on the globe. It can teach us a great lesson in our search for peace and tranquility because it illustrates the idea that humanity is an organism, not an organization. Our immediate reaction to tragedy is no different from what happens within each of us when something goes wrong in our bodies.

Several years ago I slipped on ice outside my home the day before I left on an overseas trip. The pain that shot through my body told me that I had done some serious damage to my leg. When I returned to the US one week later X-rays revealed a fracture in my left leg near my ankle. The physician prescribed a removable cast. Over the next few weeks the body continued a self-healing process that had commenced the very moment the fracture occurred when I slipped on the ice. I did not realize it at the time but at that moment my leg became the most important part of my body, not just a broken leg.

Instructions went out from by body’s DNA for the immune system to begin the process of healing by growing new bone over the fracture. All the needed channels were in place to efficiently deliver to my fractured leg everything it needed in order to heal. The process continued uninterrupted until sufficient bone had been grown and then as suddenly as it began it stopped. My leg was healed.
None of this may seem relevant until we remind ourselves that the human race is an organism.

After the initial reaction that we experience when we get news of disaster or tragedy our actions do not follow the pattern we see in the way that the body deals with attacks on its health, even though both our actions and the actions of our cells are under the control of DNA. As we have seen in the Haiti experience, many do not follow through on their initial reaction to tragedy, resorting to various degrees of negativity. It is almost as if it is a liability among humans to have the ability to think and contemplate.

Why are humans unable to do what every other organism does so naturally? Ironically, the explanation lies in the very agency that has enabled humans to make such great strides through the centuries. It is here that the challenge of the unemployment rate becomes significant.

How does one reduce the unemployment rate in a country? You may think that the answer lies in creating new jobs. In fact, the answer actually lies in the unemployed finding jobs.

Anyone who have been in the job market knows that in order to gain employment one must be able to convince those hiring that he/she can meet the need s of the organization doing the hiring. Our education system is designed to prepare us to meet the needs of particular organizations. This is why we have to select majors in college.

What this reveals is the fact that humans do not now exist to ensure the survival of the species but the survival of organizations. It is not that they do not desire the survival of the species. The assumption is that the future of the species resides in the future of the organization. The results of this type of education and thinking are obvious and predictable.