Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost – Part 2

This blog-post is a continuation to:
"Meconomics": ME-Economics
Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost


Read the above posts first for context.

In the previous post I had a look at the concept of opportunity cost and how we ‘make use’ of this concept in our language and daily living, or in other words – how the concept of opportunity cost is embedded in our psychological make-up and how it plays a role specifically when we make decisions. We saw that opportunity cost involves a dimension of a sense of ownership towards ‘the road not taken’ – where it then feels that we are ‘losing’ that option when we choose something else. We also looked at the role imagination plays within the creation of this sense of ownership.

So now, let’s have a look at an example of opportunity cost in economics and then take our understanding of the psychological origin of the concept – as how it exists within ourselves – to re-assess the ‘place’ of opportunity cost in economic situations.

Let’s take the example of interest:

“Interest is compensation to the lender, for a) risk of principal loss, called credit risk; and b) forgoing other investments that could have been made with the loaned asset. These forgone investments are known as the opportunity cost. Instead of the lender using the assets directly, they are advanced to the borrower. The borrower then enjoys the benefit of using the assets ahead of the effort required to pay for them, while the lender enjoys the benefit of the fee paid by the borrower for the privilege. In economics, interest is considered the price of credit.”

So, part of why you pay interest on a loan is to compensate the lender for the opportunity cost they incur by borrowing you the funds. The lender’s opportunity cost stems from the idea that he/she could have invested the funds and would have made a profit through investments. When reading this information for the first time it might intuitively sound like ‘it makes sense’ – because as we have seen in the previous post, we can all relate to the experience of opportunity cost. But does it really make sense?

When you’re struggling to decide which shoes to buy and end up choosing one pair over another and you experience a sense of ‘loss’ towards the pair you didn’t buy (your opportunity cost) – who compensates you in monetary terms for that opportunity cost? Do you ask the shopkeeper for a discount as compensation for your opportunity cost, because you could have bought the other pair? You don’t. And in this example we see that it clearly wouldn’t make sense to either.

We understand that when buying something and we have to decide between two options where only one can be taken – that making a decision involves letting go of the other one – it’s simply part of the nature of decision making. Even though we for a moment imagined owning both pairs, we do ‘come back to reality’ so to speak and see that we can only own one and that the other ones are not ours and stay at the shop.

So – why is it any different with lending money? A lender might imagine making a profitable investment on the one hand and lending the money on the other hand. But when it is time to decide – the road not taken is simply that: the road not taken. Once the lender decides to lend the money, it means he didn’t decide to make an investment and so that means he doesn’t get to make a profit either. That was the decision made and the lender could simply take responsibility for their decisions instead of ‘making a financial claim’ to the profits they could have made. Because remember – it’s not because the lender ‘could have made a profit by investing’ that the lender would have. What if, had the lender not borrowed the funds, he instead used the funds to make a really bad investment and lost all his money? That would be equally possible. Should a borrower then be paid a fee of gratitude because the loan potentially prevented the lender from losing his money through a bad investment? Lol – that somehow doesn’t happen.

So – we can ask ourselves why it is okay for a lender to make a ‘real claim’ (meaning: it is expressed in monetary terms, that means someone pays it, that means it has actual consequences on their purchasing power and living arrangements) on a cost that is based in imagination – but in other situations we can’t? Another way to place that question is: why do we allow it? Why have we never questioned it? Is it because we secretly WOULD LIKE TO be compensated for our imaginary losses? Because we secretly WOULD LIKE TO have it both ways without taking responsibility for our decisions?

It opens up even more questions as we look at: how could we do it differently? What other lending and borrowing models could we create? What would be their foundation? Or will we simply keep it as it is and allow such a significant point to be founded on a ‘glitch’ of our own logic?

This topic was also discussed in a Google Hangout – so for more information – check out:

Read More

Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost

When you study economics, you get introduced to a concept called ‘opportunity cost’. The definition of ‘opportunity cost’ is:

“The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action.”

For instance: “The opportunity cost of going to college is the money you would have earned if you worked instead.”

So – say that if you are choosing between two pairs of shoes in a shop – the opportunity cost of buying the one pair is the other pair of shoes that you did not buy but could have bought instead. This concept comes up very often in economics, where it is said that opportunity cost is what sets accounting apart from economics – because in economics, the opportunity cost is included in the cost of, for instance, running a business or making an investment.

Now – I had never considered the concept of opportunity costs within daily decision making. It was only once I had become familiar with the concept in my economics studies that I noticed how we actually include opportunity cost within decision making in our every day lives. Let’s look at some examples, starting with going back to the shoes.

Say that there are two pairs of shoes that each look really appealing – where you actually don’t want to choose between the two and if you had the money – you’d buy them both – but you don’t have enough for both, you only have enough for one pair. So – you have to choose – because in the end you reckon it’s better to come out with one nice pair of shoes than with none at all. So, you make up your mind and buy one pair – and, you know, these shoes are comfortable and nice looking, so you’re quite satisfied with your purchase. BUT – in the back of your mind – there is that other pair of shoes – the ones you didn’t buy and there’s this sense of being unsettled, because – what if you didn’t buy the ‘right shoes’? What if you would have ended up being happier or more satisfied with the other pair – now you’ll never know. That experience of feeling unsettled or uncertain, like a bad taste that kind of spoils your satisfaction with the shoes you bought – that is the opportunity cost of buying the shoes you have.

And it’s interesting – because you went in with no new shoes – and you came out with a new pair of shoes – but somehow it feels like you also ‘lost something’ – as though you had to ‘give up’ the other pair of shoes, because they ‘could have potentially been yours’. What we don’t realize is that: they were never actually ours. Rationally speaking, we couldn’t have lost them, because we never owned them. So – where does that sense of loss come from?

If you slow yourself down when deciding to buy shoes – you’ll notice that something plays a significant role in that department and that is: Imagination. As you decide on which shoes to buy – you’re imagining wearing them/owning them. You imagine wearing them to specific events, you imagine what others will say about the shoes while wearing them, you imagine how they will fit with your clothes and outfits. So – within your imagination, you ‘act as though’ the shoes ARE YOURS ALREADY. Then, when you step out of your imagination and have to now, in physical reality, decide which shoes to buy, it feels like you have to ‘give up one pair’ – because even though it was only in your imagination that the shoes were yours, you created in those fleeting moments of imagination/projection an actual emotional relationship of ownership with both pairs of shoes.

Let’s look at another example:

Have you ever heard someone (or yourself) say the following in relation to a potential partner that they are hesitant to go into a relationship with/commit themselves to, because: “What if he/she is not ‘the one’?” And “What if, as I commit to this person, I miss out on meeting my perfect partner?” Without going into a discussion about whether ‘the one’ or ‘a perfect partner’ or ‘a soulmate’ exists – if you look at the logic that is used in these instances: it revolves around opportunity cost – the fear of ‘missing out’ on all the things you can’t do because you’re committing to one option. In looking at these statements – it’s interesting to see that there is again a component of imagination – because, you only concretely have one potential partner in front of you – one real live person – but in your imagination there exists so many other ‘potential options’ or ‘one specific other perfect person’ that you might not have met yet. And – instead of making a decision about the one real live person standing in front of us and deciding whether or not to be in a relationship with them or commit to them – we allow ‘imaginary people’ to enter into the equation. And many times a relationship opportunity is passed up on, because of that notion of ‘what if he/she is not the one’ or ‘what if a better opportunity comes along and I miss it?’

There are many more examples, here are some common phrases that refer to opportunity cost:

“You can’t have it both ways”
“I could have done something else with my time, you know”
“I invested so much effort in this project and for what?”

In having defined the concept of opportunity cost and had a look at how we use this concept in daily decision making, we will continue in the next blog by looking at the consequences of this logic in our economy.







Other blogs in this series:
"Meconomics": ME-Economics

Read More

Day 48: The Economic Problem - Part 3

I commit myself to expose the economic problems currently existent within the world -- and within that expose that the nature of these problems isn't absolute -- since we've created them as a side-effect/result/consequence from the decisions we've made collectively as a whole within valuing mind wants and desires over physical needs and sustainability

I commit myself to expose that any economic problem within the world is not inherent to the field of economics but inherent to the human race as the character of the world we've accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become -- and so by changing the character of the world we can change/correct the economic problems within the world as they are merely a reflection/extension of ourselves and what we value

I commit myself to expose the various different ways within which current traditional economics entertains itself with "metaphysical" dimensions instead of dealing with practical physical problems which are apparent within the world -- and within that I commit myself to the reformation of the current economic system of greed and unsustainabilty to an economic system which is aligned within the principle of what is Best for All Life, where irrelevant aspects of economics will be no more

I commit myself to expose that the very basis of current economics is flawed and unsound and so expose that everything which has been built upon this foundation is completely useless since it is doomed to fail from the start -- and within that I commit myself to a New Economic System as the Equal Money System which will have the soundest foundation of all: Life

I commit myself to expose that the current economic system/theory is not at all concerned with real problems but rather entertains itself with sophisticated, philosophical, intricate ideas about human wants and sacrifice to distract themselves from dealing and facing which needs to be dealt with as the billions suffering in a world of Plenty while the economists of the world go about their philosophical debates on human wants and desires while the poor their needs are being neglected

I commit myself to expose that any discussion pertaining resource distribution relating to human wants and desires is only a luxury point which we cannot currently afford and should not even bother to look at until all beings are equally taken care of within the physical aspects/needs which require to be met to at least live a life of sustainability

Read More

Day 46: The Economic Problem

Within the field of economics, no matter what issue or subject is being discussed – there is always some sort of trade-off involved. Since economics is defined within the context of unlimited wants with limited means/resources – choices require to be made. Within that, humans are studied in terms of how and what they choose among limited options to maximise their happiness.

Within economics, resources are categorised within three types:

1)    Natural Resources (land, minerals, fuel, animals, etc)
2)    Human Resources (labour)
3)    Man-made Resources (machines)

These are referred to as factors of production, as they are the inputs/means which are used within producing particular goods and services.

Note that money is not considered to be a resource, but a means of exchange with which you can purchase scarce resources.

Time is also considered a limited resource, as everyone only has 24 hours within a day – and so whether one is rich or poor – both will experience ‘scarcity’ from this perspective.

Since we only have so many available resources, to produce only so many goods and services – only so many wants can be satisfied and so we have to make choices.


-        When we use a particular resource towards the production of one thing, those same resources cannot go to the production of another thing (at least not at the same time).
-        When we decide to produce more of one good, there will be less for another good to be produced.
-        If we decide to watch a movie for an hour, we cannot use that same hour to go for a walk outside.

And so on…

This brings us to the concept of opportunity cost and the economic problem.

Let’s look at a few scenarios

You go to a shop with $10 in your pocket – you want some ice cream, chocolate, cigarettes and a drink. But you only have $10 (resources are limited) and so you have to make decisions about what you want to buy and what you won’t buy / “sacrifice”.

It’s the end of the week and you have the evening for yourself. You find yourself wanting to watch TV, go for a movie and go see some friends – but you can’t do this all at the same time, and so you have to choose what to do and what not to do.

The government has X amount of funds available to spend on new development programmes throughout the year. It wants to improve education, health facilities and employment opportunities. But since there is only X amount of money, the government will have to decide what to spend the funds on immediately and what will be postponed.
In all these cases, choices need to be made, where some wants will be satisfied and others will be left unsatisfied. In each one of the scenarios, decisions have to be made about what the person/group will opt for and thus sacrifice as well. From that perspective, there are always ‘costs’ involved, even though these may not always seem ‘obvious’.

There’s a particular phrase which is often used to point this out: “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch” – meaning someone will always have to pay for something even if it is presented as ‘free’ -- the resources had to come from somewhere and those resources are now not able to be used for something else.

Although scarcity is considered to be an essential component of the economic problem (=we have to make choices), it really only becomes a problem when we have competing / conflicting goals. If you have only one goal, and only so many resources – there’s no real decision making involved, as you are not faced with allocating your scarce resources between competing alternatives.  So if you have one goal, you do not have an economic problem – but currently, as humanity we do not have a singular goal – and even within ourselves we are conflicted about the various different things we want all the time. So we only have to make choices / sacrifices when we are divided about what it is we want. Not being divided and having only one goal is considered to be ‘unrealistic’ within current economics, and thus it is assumed that there will always be an economic problem. So this practically implies that within an Equal Money System, there will be no economic problem – as there will be only One Goal as What is Best for All Life – and thus we won’t have to make choices as sacrifices as we only commit ourselves to what is Best for All Life and disregard anything less.

But since we’ve currently valued everyone’s self-interest as equally valuable, no matter how relevant or irrelevant this self-interest is = we have an economic problem. And this has been totally accepted, in fact it’s part of the basis of established economics. So now when economists look a ‘cost’, they do not only look at ‘cost’ in monetary terms (also referred to as ‘accounting costs’) – but also look at ‘implicit costs’, in the sense of what could have been done alternatively if resources would have been used differently.

Within that, opportunity cost specifically, refers to the next best alternative one forgoes for the option which was chosen. So if you have $50 and you want both a jacket and a shirt – and you decide to spend the money towards the jacket – the opportunity cost is the shirt as the next best thing you could have gotten. A cost for economists is what you had to ‘give up’ to ‘get it’. So now this whole new dimension is added where with every choice you make you are burdened with “what if” as “what you could have done” alternatively. But if what you only ever want to do is that which is Best for All, then you are never faced with ‘sacrifice’ or ‘burden’ – as there is only one way as that which is Best for All – and so there is no wondering necessary in terms of how things could have been differently, as any other scenario is simply not relevant as it wouldn’t have been what’s Best for All. We’ve complicated things so badly for ourselves within valuing wants over needs, individual self-interest over What’s Best for All --- and then all the various different choices and sacrifices which need to be made just so we can what we want…

Economics will be a very, very simplistic matter within an Equal Money System – lol.

The ‘Economic Problem’ is not really a problem – we created this problem but it doesn’t have to be a problem in fact. It’s only a problem because we’ve decided that we want to try and live up to something which cannot be lived up to = where we want to satisfy unlimited wants with limited means – and so it’s not really an Economic Problem, but a Human Nature Problem – as we rather want to hold on to something unachievable for all, in the hope that we will be one of the lucky ones that’ll get a piece of the pie – while the majority will have to live a life of sacrifice where not even their basic needs are tended to so that some may attempt to satisfy all their wants and desires.

Read More

Day 42: What is Economics – Part 3

I commit myself to debunk all beliefs about economics as what people “think” it is about and what it is – so we can get on a common ground and develop an Economic System which is Best for All Life

I commit myself to show that economics is not just about ‘capitalism’ but about certain questions and choices we as a society have to make in relation to resources, their distribution and the principle which guides the direction of resources – where currently we have opted for an economic system of inequality which distributes according to money and human wants instead of an economic system of equality which distributes according to Life as the only Real Value

I commit myself to expose how our current definition of economics is unacceptable – and that it requires to be re-aligned / re-defined according to what is Best for All – and not just what’s Best for a Few

I commit myself to expose the Human Nature for what it is, which is reflected within the Nature of the Economic System which values wants and desires over Life – preferring unsustainability over sustainability at the cost of half the population in terms of Humans – and countless animal and plant lives

I commit myself to show that economics is not merely an ‘objective science’ but a value system which we decided upon which drives the money circulation within this world – and since it is based merely on values – we can decide what these values are and change them so they are aligned to the Principle of what is Best for All

I commit myself to show that our current economic system is unsustainable and will inevitably come to its end – the only question which remains is whether we will end it before it ends us

I commit myself to show that all the suffering in the world brought about through economics directly or indirectly is in fact deliberate – as the starting point as the definition of economics is specific within what is being valued – and since we currently do not value Life, this is reflected within our economic system which leads to millions suffering in the name of Desire

I commit myself to expose that the suffering as poverty and starvation within this world did not come about because of a lack in physical resources – but a lack in the will of Humans to take care of one another as Humans

I commit myself to the redefinition of economics where economics is about the practical consideration in terms of how many resources are available, and how many beings need to be taken care of – and distribute them accordingly within the principle of what is Best for All – where Needs are prioritized over Wants

I commit myself to an Equal Money system which is the Embodiment of What is Best for All Life as Living Principle in Application – where no-one will Suffer or Starve in a World of Plenty

Read More

Day 41: What is Economics – Part 2

See Day 40: What is Economics? For context

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘economics’ is synonymous with ‘capitalism’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economics has got to do with three basic question: what should be produced, how should it be produced and who gets to consume what is produced – and thus any system answering these questions can be considered as being ‘economics’ – and thus economics is not only limited to capitalism as the current world system which is in place

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed and agreed upon the definition of economics as that which deals with how limited resources are used to satisfy human wants and the choices/sacrifices we have to make in order to attain this goal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to ever question the definition of economics – where the main goal is to satisfy human wants, which are assumed to be unlimited – with the use of limited resource – and which is thus in essence impossible, yet we will allow this to be the basis of our economic system, and thus it is no surprise that we currently live in an unbalanced world where every day we move one step closer to our own self-destruction

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to question the implied value judgment involved when being faced with economics, as the definition of economics --- where the focus lies on human wants, instead of human needs and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise the self-interested nature of this definition within only looking at what humans want/need – and not consider everything and everyone on this Physical Plane as the Earth, the Animal and the Plant Kingdom

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that the only reason that there is a trade-off for everything within economics – is because we are dealing with unlimited wants vs limited available resources – which can never be achieved in a balanced manner – and thus choices as sacrifices need to be made in order to make the system work – while we could have avoided all this unnecessary trouble if we’d only value Life as Sustenance and thus Limited Basic Needs over Unlimited Wants and Desires

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system based on the current definition of economics as ‘unlimited wants vs. limited resources – what choices do we make?’ – is doomed to fail, as it is faulty by design. And within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only way we are going to make any economic system work, is through redefining economics itself and eradicate this inherent flaw – and bring about an Economic System which is balanced and sustainable within its very definition and starting point

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all the suffering in the world which is brought about as a result of our current economic system is in fact deliberate – within having agreed upon the definition of economics where we value Human Wants over Human Needs – and thus we have manifested a World of Greed where sacrifices/choices need to be made every day to keep the wheel of money running – and where this sacrifice has resulted in half the population of Earth living in poverty, the extinction and suffering of animals and disregard for the Plant world, where we hack and burn at will -- for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Unlimited Wants of a Few – and all this done deliberately and with permission through never ever having questioned the very definition of economics and through not having questioned the Nature and Character of Humanity within having made such decisions within drawing up such definitions – as if anyone would have done this, it would have been clear: We are Evil – which is the only way and reason an Economic System of Evil would exist within this World

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only Real Value on Earth is Life – and within that, tending to basic needs is what is valuable, as this is tending to the Physical which is Always here – while tending to Wants and Desires is a waste of time, as they come and go and inevitably End at Death

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to protect and defend the current economic system in the face of poverty and starvation by only pointing out to one part the definition of economics – as the scarcity of resources – where we’ll say “But there’s simply not enough!” – while conveniently leaving out that there is not enough and will never be enough in terms of satisfying our Wants an Desires – while there is plenty to satisfy everyone’s Basic Needs! And within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to Lie about the reality of the World within protecting and valuing my own Wants and Desires over the Needs of Others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be a Criminal within the Face of Life

Read More

Day 40: What is Economics?

Economics is about how a society decides to answer particular questions in relation to resource distribution – which can be brought down to the follow three:

1)    What should be produced by a society?
2)    How should it be produced?
3)    Who gets to consume what is produced?

Many hold the believe that economics is a ‘one way street’, where for instance ‘Capitalism’ is treated synonymous to ‘economics’, as the ‘only way’ that economics can ever be – while this is only one way of answering the above basic economic questions, and where the Equal Money System is another way of answering these three questions.

The above three questions are the basis of economics, and any form of economic system has to answer to these three questions. So whether you have an economic system based on complete government control or an economic system based on total individual control – the same questions are being dealt with, but in different ways.

Currently within the world there are several different types of economic systems, which economists like to present within a spectrum which runs from the one polarity of absolute government control to total individual control – where most of the economic systems currently lay in-between these two polarities.

Total Individual Control	What is produced, How and Who gets it is decided by individuals
Stage 2	Government deals with basics only such as police protection, enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, national defense
Stage 3	Includes Stage 2 + additional services such as education, science, roads, fire protection
Stage 4	Stage 3 + additional programs such as health care and retirement
Stage 5	Stage 4 + state industries (steel, cars, agriculture), distribution of basic consumer goods (food, housing)
Stage 6	Stage 5 + government in charge of employment, housing, food, production, prices
Total Government Control	What is produces, How and Who gets decided by Government

However, as capitalism is the main overall system implemented within the world – students are mostly taught within the context of capitalism only – and since this is the system we are currently living in and as – this will be the system that we’ll walk through within these blogs.

So keep in mind that all the vocabulary points, concepts, views etc. which will be explained in this blog are specific to the current system in play, and may not necessarily be relevant to an Equal Money System. Yet we will still discuss these points as they form part of the current system, and the thought pattern of economists -- and thus form part in completing your understanding of how economics currently works and what requires to be corrected – both in how things are viewed and how things are structurally manifested according to these views.

Let’s have a look at some definitions which have been given to the term ‘Economics’, so we can establish the starting point of our current economic system.

“Economics is the study of how our scarce productive resources are used to satisfy human wants.” – George Leland Bach

“Economics is the study of how people allocate their limited resources to provide for their wants.” – Jack Harvey

“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources to study unlimited human wants.” – Richard Lipsey

Within each one of these quotes we can derive the following components:

•    Scarcity of Resources
•    Human Wants
•    Choices

The current Economic Paradigm assumes an inherent conflict between “Scarcity of Resources” and “Human Wants” – which are often referred to as ‘unlimited’. Since we have only so many resources available – but unlimited wants to satisfy: we have to make certain choices – and something or someone will always have to be sacrificed (this is another re-occurring trend found within ‘trade-offs’ and ‘opportunity cost’).

So what’s fascinating to be observed from the statements of various people about “what is economics” – is that various value judgments* are implied, but which are never questioned or explained.

The component of ‘Human Wants’
This trend returns over and over again throughout current economic theory where precedence is being given to ‘human wants’ over ‘needs’.

The Anthropocentric View**
Another value judgment is implied, since the definitions of economics as the framework which encompasses the distribution of resources, only takes into consideration humans: what about the animals? plants? Earth itself?

Sacrifices Have to be Made
Since the definition of economics was agreed to be ‘unlimited wants vs limited resources’ – there is a value judgment implied, which we pointed out earlier as ‘wants over needs’ – and where this choice/preference inevitably leads to having to sacrifice since the definition as a mathematical equation is not balanced – which in itself reveals another value judgment, which is that sacrifices are acceptable – within the decision/agreement that wants ought to be placed over needs. Because if you have look at it, if the definition of economics had been around the lines of ‘the management of limited resources towards limited needs’ – then the point of conflict with which we are currently faced with as ‘unlimted’ vs ‘limited’ resulting in sacrifice – would not have existed!!

The starting point of current economic thought is completely self-contradictory:

Unlimited Wants + Limited Resources = Wants can never be satisfied

I mean, it’s simple math that this is an unsustainable goal – so why pursue it at all? It just doesn’t make any sense! So – the amount of suffering and destruction currently taking place on Earth, is really no surprise if one just consider this one statement, as the definition of economics – which is not only completely beside the point (in terms of wants over needs – humans over everything), but mathematically impossible to be sustained. Yet, this is what we’ve accepted and allowed to be lived within the World – and within this chase of obtaining and achieving the impossible (satisfying all our desires), we are driving millions into their grave, as the sacrifice we willingly give – as pointed out above. And for what? For wants and desires which are apparently worth more than basic needs?

This is completely unacceptable.

Yet no-one seems to question this point – thus economic thought is really just a reflection of our own thought as living beings, as our character as Human Beings, where we all collectively decided within ourselves that our personal desires and wants are to be prioritized over the tending of everyone’s basic needs with what we have, as available resources on Earth.

Isn’t that just plain…..evil?

* Value judgment:
a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad) to something

** Anthropocentric:
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

Read More