In My Social Relations, human progress from ancient to the modern necessarily describes a social evolution from habits to customs and culture. A way of life evolved from the old to the new, but not necessarily for the better.

In order to survive, early humans have somehow learned to hunt and gather food. We may assume that an empty stomach led heighten instincts to extremes.

We could imagine an economic system was formed around food, and the means for achievement was based on extreme measure. And survival of the strong always wins and takes the spoil. An economy based on war prioritises the improvement of weapons for the kill. And progress established an ultimate violent trend.

Nonetheless, early humans have made connections and shared experiences. They would have learned from experience that harm is not very nice, so fortuitous discovery had taught them how to trade and exchange instead. Despite seeing the light, the instinct to kill means easy supply. And hope for a social trend was overwhelmed by greed of material desires.

So they not only moved from barren land, but also from habits and instincts to customs. Values are not only based on material gain, but also of less harmful ways for achievement. That's what I would reason to validate social development. But early humans may have preferred social stability of lifestyles, but were helpless against animal instincts.

In most cultures, material gain weighs a measure of values for warriors on top of the hierarchy. They worshipped top warriors and have them decorated with honours. Even in death, they made symbols and statutes of worship.

Unfortunately in the modern, material progress is the epitome of developments. From Agricultural to Manufacturing and now Technology, war is the back-up strategy for achievement. And what's more, the means of survival are traded as weapons. The big guys are still winning, and others are dying either from starvation or invasion. They haven't really progressed very far from the cave.

There was a chance for a social trend, but stood no chance against the beast. They symbolised goods and services sanctioned by status of war. And basically, if a nation should accumulate wealth, it must also accumulate weapons. It's the economy. And if another nation piles up a bit more, it becomes the targeted neighbour.

Here we are bashed and shamed for petty-crime and yet, they are dishing out threats and war willy-nilly! It's a natural admittance of helplessness. When all else fail, prepare for war.

It was early humans who discovered the economy, but they could be forgiven for the rule of the jungle. But modern man couldn't do any better falling to the instinct of easy demand. When all else fails, the means of survival become the weapons for war whether its trade or currency.

Did you know that every time a dollar is printed, it loses its value? That means it would cost you a bit more dollars for the value of one. And inflation is caught in a spiral that loans, mortgages, exchanges and investments trace all the way to the Federal Reserve. But the trace digs a deeper hole to collapse into.

China has nothing to do with it when the currency flop is self-imposed. That has proven the idolisation of fat cats' material instincts. And rather than doing something about it, they are hooked on an easy ride at the expense of the West and the global economy. That in reality is the ordinary folk losing a house, a job, a family and retirees on the street.

This makes trades with China and nations outside the West preferable until such a time the trading reserve currency is balanced and stabilised. We are talking about laws and justice to sanction financial monopoly and a return to real money and real economy.

In the early days, a stone or shell symbolised goods and services for trade and exchange. That piece of stone or shell is worth a lot more than the modern dollar. Could Bitcoin become a popular alternative or trade and exchange without currency I'm not sure, but you can have a world war to subdue alternative markets, and still return to a baseless currency.

Idol worship and struggle for power are intrinsic of a material economy. There was a chance of early civilisation but human was no match for the beast then, it is no match for the beast now.

To correct this deviation, the social economy would not only check desires of the material entity, but also manage natural resources efficiently. And both population explosion and ecocide become manageable. Economic generation would not depend on consumer demand but social needs. And Diversity provides the platform for various choices.

Having said that, the reality of our Democracy is not as straight forward. There are other influencing forces including the Media, business roundtable, feminist lobbyists, capitalists, nationalists, farmers and landlords who have the power to generate propaganda and influence the vote. So I guess if the big guys are riding the waves of the financial system, then nothing will change anytime soon.

Post your comments here


Dont drop your guard, covid-19 is hanging around †