In the last post we mentioned the idea of *pivoting Humanity* into a micro-regenerative ecosystem, an ecosystem designed to revitalize the existing infrastructure of any nation as opposed to just changing it into something new, and therefore “temporarily” better. How far could or should a nation pivot its model, if at all?
The most important thing to remember is that uniquely in America’s case the individual journey of each citizen, community, township, and even state is the most critical component of the system, which is in contrast to systems of other nation states where everything is an interconnected subset of the national hierarchy. See previous post [Block 004] for that analysis. While, to understand this question further, it is critical to observe the difference between how a Union differs from a Tribe, and where do we stand.
Resilience has been an important topic in our conversation thus far, and ultimately this is the most important end result. Not power, not fame, not glory. We simply need to remember to leave these things behind, on the other side of the pond, as they say.
So, as the current state of affairs is making things evident, although being set-up for resilience as a one of a kind union of independent stakeholders, most nations have forgotten and largely abandoned this path. But *why*. The answer is largely a perception phenomenon, not an infrastructure nor a systems problem. We have, to some degree, misused our instinct to “compete” and re-ingrained the core competitive spirit in the old sense of the word, virtually inadvertently. We started competing for possession and power and stopped competing for the sake of innovation and self-sufficiency. Not because innovation and self-sufficiency do not make sense, but simply because we started adapting to our environment; the environment of globalism.
In the globalist society a single nation is a minority! A minority by population count. A minority, unless uniquely grounded in its beliefs and traditions, will always instinctively adapt to the majority. Since the invention of mass media; especially radio, tv, internet, and now social media, society is exposed to the trends and dynamics of systems and cultures on a global scale. We now follow global trends. Even America, essentially being a unique nation building experiment, finds itself as a global minority under pressure to conform to the crowd, largely without knowing that this is happening.
Resultantly, a nation that is uniquely designed for self-sustainability, resilience, even local regeneration, is fully immersed in out-performing and competing with the rest of the pack. Inadvertently moving away from its original mandate, largely without knowing.
If, and only if, we could see this dynamic, then we could pause and ask ourselves if this is in fact what we want or need. There are many reasons why the answer to this question is a profound “no”. Embarking in a nation-state game of progress is not only against the spirit of any nations, but is a zero-sum game which most nations do not want to be a part of. Tribes do these things, we need a world that is a union.
We could easily surmise that a zero-sum game is totally the opposite of what a regenerative and a circular economy is or should be. It is simply not sustainable in any way, shape, or form. But isolationism is not an answer, understanding is. While, to make things worse, public education has not attempted to teach us the key contrasts of globalism in the context of history. We often learn to see nations as merely micro-empires. An “empire” nevertheless. A zero-sum framing that diminishes the real significance of an individual nation-state.
As we try to pivot the future of humanity, we need to once again understand the significance and the potential of what we already have. We cannot abandon the course that we have set out on. This not only benefits any nation, but the world at large. We need new and daring experiments that move us away from the old world zero-sum mentality. By doing so, we can again show the world a regenerative, circular, and a resilient future.
So, before we can make humanity great again, we must reappreciate what makes it great in the first place.
(to be continued)