TH:  We need to think in terms of fully automated systems and abundance.
Current CO2 levels are forcing the system by 2W per m^2. That is less than 0.2% of incoming solar energy.
Lauching mass from automated systems on the moon to create mirrors at L1 that allowed us to modify the incoming solar energy by just 1% would allow us to counter all current global warming.

We need it.
We need it soon.
We need it for all sorts of other reasons that most people don’t want to think about because thinking about such risks causes them to go into anxiety attacks.

We have the ability to produce a world where everyone can experience security and freedom far beyond what most experience today.
And such freedom comes with responsibilities, so it is not freedom from all constraint (that is extinction).

The cost of such security and freedom, is giving up using markets as a dominant measure of value.

As a transition strategy, a Universal Basic Income (a relatively high one), will allow us time to make the necessary changes.

On current trends, this technology can be available by the mid 2030s, if we make it a priority.

If we don’t, then we are not looking at sea level rises of a few cms, but rather of 10s of meters.
Loss of ports and coastal cities. Temperature is rising exponentially, as positive feedbacks kick in.
The problem is perfectly solvable, but it has to be acknowledged before it can be solved.

This is a problem of far greater magnitude, at the same time as it is an opportunity to create something that has never before existed – a truly just and stable society, that has as its highest values individual life and individual liberty – both of which demand responsible actions in social and ecological contexts.

Me:  You’re right. Survival is doable…if we change the monetary, financial and economic paradigm from scarcity to abundance.

That doesn’t mean encouraging profligacy, but it DOES mean relative abundance for all WHILE we make damned good and sure that we concurrently proceed with post haste with the projects that are necessary to human and other species survival.

In fact non-survival is not an option and survival trumps EVERY OTHER consideration. So let us end the biggest stumbling block to proceeding with such by making such projects financeable.

That means we end private for profit money creation so that finance/cost is no longer a consideration for such necessary projects, and awaken to the simple (but not simplistic) way to not only prevent inflation, but rather to beneficially integrate price deflation into profit making systems. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B…

TH: Align with the first 3 paragraphs.

Not so sure about the last. I spent a bit of time on Douglas and his approaches 35 years ago, but wasn’t entirely convinced; and it doesn’t deal with the abundance issue – of any exchange based monetary system being systemically incentivised to remove any universal abundance. We see so many instances of that now, particularly in the realm of intellectual property, but also many other places.

I notice in much of your writing you align with the high basic income model. We seem to agree about far more than we might disagree.

Me:  Yes, I’m sure we’d agree much more than disagree. Douglas’s Social Credit was a great theory and Keynes was the banks’ fall back response to it, it’s just that it was never a new paradigm. I have run my innovations of Douglas’ policies by the people who hold the torch for Social Credit and they just cannot embrace it. I think because they are hung up in General Equilibrium theory when what we need is “the higher monetary disequilibrium” that a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale would effect. Along with the dividend and discount/rebate policies ridding ourselves of for profit private money creation is essential IMO because it violates both Occam’s Razor and Lord Acton’s dictum regarding power. Until we rid ourselves of the idea and the main structural impediment to rapid action for planetary survival, that ecological sanity is “too expensive” because private for profit finance is sacrosanct….there will be no real action in that direction. A public monetary and financial system of course could be just as problematic as our private one….unless it was made a constitutionally separate fourth branch of government that was guided by the policies above which firmly and directly align with the concept of the new paradigm, namely graciousness as in love in action/policy and viz economics monetary grace as in gifting. Paradigm changes are characterized by conceptual opposition to and complete inversion of the current/old paradigm. They also have a new tool and/or insight that opens the possibility of changing temporal universe reality. The discovery of the power and leveraging point of an abundance creating monetary policy at the point of retail sale is just such an insight.

You’re technological ideas ARE very interesting.