Смотрите видео бесплатно Poly-lateral - influence vs manage and design

I'm hearing a lot of debate about the reform of the United Nations. Which is the only multinational system we can talk about. And I think that whole debate is ill-fated. It's asking the wrong questions. Because we had a league of nations, the United Nations and then...And I ask: How do we decide? Rather than arguing over form, add new members to the security council, or give more power to the General Assembly. To me those are all ridiculous debates, until we ask the question: What functions need to be performed?So I speak of a poly-lateral understanding. Not uni-lateral, not bi-lateral, not multi-lateral. An understanding, a knowledge base, one that can even keep the current structures of global tribes and empires and nation states and regional combines. All those things. One that can keep all those today.If there's simply the understanding, the insights to know that there are basic functions that have to be performed. That is a preservation of the environment, in terms of air and water. Certainly that. Preservation of the fertility of the soil on which we grow food. Protection of the food chains. Protection of our genetics, of our biological systems. If we see male sperm count being depressed, at least for most people, not all women, I'm sure, that's a problem.So someone needs to be looking after these things. In a neutral non-political kind of way. These are functions that need to be performed.We have to say: Who are the six billion earthlings? What are their steps and stages of developing globally? And by building memetic maps that we can do today - and John Petersen at the Arlington Institute out of Washington, has the software technology to find the patterns in unstructured data - so that we can do a memetic map of every place on the planet, and see how these spiral-based codes have appeared. And therefore to inform any kind of poli-lateral intelligence. That's what we've got to deal with. And if that kind of thing could have been done with regard to Iraq, versus my own White House and the Pentagon having models of development that didn't fit the kingdoms on the sand. Because they thought like the French after World War II, they would welcome American soldiers. But unhappily, the state of development memetically on the sand was not the same thing. It's either Germany or Japan in post-war. So the fact that Germany and Japan could recover quickly to Marshall Plan aid, the assumption was that so would Iraq. But Iraq had not reached that level of Germany and Japan pre-war. Therefore we're imposing too great complexity on a situation that has to ratchet through different stages. So if we had the global maps, and then find with this technology available to do the mapping, and then find the kinds of minds, and they exist. And Bill Clinton is certainly� an example of it, who can think about the whole. Then we can begin to look at ways to influence. Not manage, not engineer, but to influence humans passing through different stages. And because we've identified the equations of development, we can theoretically in a very subtle fashion begin to shape environments for the process to continue as billions of people moving through different systems simultaneously. That appears to be very complex, but that's the reality. And I rather have something complex than something simple. Because if it's simple, it means: We're going to do great harm. So that's the kind of thinking we're beginning to do and it's extraordinary now. I have been doing this 30 years. It's extraordinary that a number of people now are really listening seriously, because the theory predicts is. When things get bad enough, and our solutions fail and seem to produce more problems, then some mind begins to appear that have the capacity, the DOS's, the hardware to begin to think in these new ways. And that process is happening quickly.