Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: business

. @hjbentham . @clubofinfo . @dissidentvoice_ .#tech .#gmo .#ethics . @ieet .

Since giving my support to the May 24 march against Monsanto, I have taken the time to review some of the more unusual opinions in the debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The enthusiasts for technological development as a means of eliminating scarcity and disparity view GMOs favorably. These enthusiasts include Ramez Naam, whose book The Infinite Resource (2013) argues for human ingenuity as a sufficient force to overcome all resources shortages.
On the other end of the spectrum, alarmists like Daniel Estulin and William Engdahl argue that GMOs are actually part of a deliberate plot to burden poor nations and reduce their populations by creating illness and infertility. Such fringe figures in the alter-globalization movement regard big pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies and agri-giants as involved in a conspiracy to create a docile and dependent population. Are the opinions of either Naam or Estulin well-informed, or are they both too sensational?
Most commentators on the GMO controversy, unfortunately, seem to lean towards either the enthusiast or alarmist categories as described. Reason is often lacking on both sides, as people either blindly leap onto the GMO bandwagon as something tantamount to human progress, or they reject all biotechnology as evil by renewing the fallacy that unnatural actions are necessarily bad. The only thing both sides seem to have in common is their resistance to the Malthusian Club of Rome’s insinuations that overpopulation has to be rolled back to save the Earth’s resources.
Ramez Naam persuades us that the fire of human intellect can overcome our limited resources and allow tens of billions of people to exist on our planet without consuming all natural resources. Estulin and Engdahl reject the Club of Rome on the basis that resource limitations do not really exist and the analysis of the Club of Rome is simply aimed at justifying control of the Earth’s resources by the cherished few “elites”.
The truth rests somewhere between what the alarmist fringe critics of GMOs and the techno-progressive enthusiasts are trying to tell us. To be truthful, there is a serious controversy involving GMOs, but it is no outlandish conspiracy in any sense. It is merely an extension of the problem of greed that has burdened mankind for as long as feudal lords or capitalists have been privileged to put their selfish interests above the common good. The problem with GMOs is neither the nature of GM technology, nor something mysterious that takes place in the process of genetic modification. It is the nature of the businesses tasked with running this industry.
Whether or not certain GMOs on the market today actually cause cancer and infertility is irrelevant to the real debate. The problem is that we can guarantee that the companies engineering these organisms do not care if they cause health problems. They are only interested in downplaying or blocking bad news, and putting out constant marketing and good news about themselves. Typical of any fiercely monopolistic firm, this is not an honest relationship with the public, and corresponds to the prevailing belief in profit as the exclusive priority. For their game to be worth playing, they have to put increasing yields, shelf life and resistance to pathogens above anything else when designing crops. They have no choice than to do this, from their perspective, because the alternative is to allow themselves to be outperformed by their rivals.
The fact that corporations put their own profit above health is a systemic issue in the world economy, and it is already known to the majority of consumers. We face it every day. Most of the fast food served by multinational fast food companies is accepted to be unhealthy, so the claim that giant food companies have little interest in our health is not a conspiracy theory. It is only a rational suspicion that the agricultural producers of seeds will also put profit over the long-term health of consumers and the interests of local farmers.
In theory, genetic modification could lead not only to higher yields but healthier food. Unfortunately, the businesses involved only really care about beating competition and becoming the best supplier. This behavior poisons everything, perhaps literally, now that these companies have been entrusted to define the toxicity in crops as a defense against pests. What we can learn from this that the problem is not GMOs per se, but the aggressive greed of the corporations who desire the oligopoly on food production via GM technology.
The public harm caused by giant firms, especially when they practice their ability to lobby the state itself, already runs very deep in most facets of life. The more significant the tools made available to such firms, the greater the potential for harm. Even if specific specimens are not harmful and can be proven completely benign, the fact is that GMOs open up an unacceptable avenue for unprecedented harm and malignant corporate interests invading people’s innards. It is this, rather than the whole science of genetic modification, that should be opposed and protested against.
Genetic modification and synthetic biology do not need to be new instruments of oligopoly and monopoly. There is a benign alternative to foolishly entrusting the mastery and ownership of living organisms to greedy multinational leviathans. We can look into “biohacking”, as popularized by science and technology enthusiasts who favor the empowerment of individuals and small businesses rather than corporations. There is a strong nod in this direction in J. Craig Venter’s book, Life at the Speed of Light (2013), in which he envisages living organisms being quickly customized and modified by lone individuals with the technology of synthetic biology. Such a development would transform society for the better, eliminating any need to trust an unsympathetic and self-interested corporation like Monsanto.
DIY genetic engineering is already possible. DIY means the product will be entirely disinfected from corporate greed, and adhere to your own specifications. They would not be able to put their profit above your health, because they would not get the chance. With this, biohackers can already genetically modify organisms for their own benefit. The extent to which farmers can begin to modify their own crops using comparable technology is not yet clear, but the development nevertheless represents an extraordinary possibility.
What if farmers and consumers could decide genetically modify their own food? In that case, it would not be the profit-oriented poison that is being consumed at so many different levels as a result of corporate greed. Crops would be modified only insofar as the modification will meet the farmer’s own needs, and all the technology for this process could be open-source. This hypothetical struggle for DIY genetic engineering rather than corporate genetic engineering would be comparable to the open-source and piracy battles already raging over digital technology.
Of course, some new hazards could still conceivably emerge from DIY genetic modification, if the technology for it should become ubiquitous. However, the only risk would be from individual farmers rather than unaccountable corporations. This way, we would be moving away from giving irresponsible and vicious companies the ability to threaten health. Instead, we would be moving towards giving back individuals more control over their own diets. Of course, abuse would still occur, but it would not have global consequences or frighten millions of people in the way that current genetic engineering does.
In sum, there is no reason to complain that genetic modification is perilous in its own right. However, there is always peril in giving a great social responsibility to a profit-hungry corporation. In much the same way that large firms have captured the state machinery of our liberal democratic states to serve their greedy interests, we should expect them to be subverting health and the public good for profit.
The complex dilemma over GMOs requires not an anti-scientific or neo-Luddite reaction, but an acknowledgement that intertwined monopolistic, statist and hegemonic ambitions lead to the retardation of technology rather than progress. I have made this very case in an essay at the techno-politics magazine ClubOfINFO, and I consider it to be an important detail to keep in mind as the GMO controversy rages.

By Harry J. Bentham - More articles by Harry J. Bentham

Originally published at Dissident Voice on 23 June 2014

AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CEO AND THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CHIEF STRATEGIST!

037

AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CEO AND THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL WORLDWIDE CHIEF STRATEGIST!

QUESTION: HOW CAN WE ILLUSTRATE MR. ANDRES AGOSTINI’S CONCURRENT COORDINATED CONVERGENT SYSTEMS THINKING (CCCST): ARTICULATED UNDER INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION AND AMPLIFICATION (IAA) VIA ASIN: B00KNL02ZE ANSWER: BY PAYING ATTENTION TO AN INDOORS INTERVIEW BY THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL HERE:

Many world-class zillion-dollars corporations go to huge unknown distances to make a difference in sustaining and guaranteeing their For-Lucre Competitive Advantage. Shell, as many others are a good example of this, through many, many decades to date. I was fully trained and thoroughly indoctrinated by Shell to this end a long time ago while I keep always researching their latest canonical milestones. However, my ongoing research considers and analyzes the findings of many other zillion-dollar corporations beyond, by far, those of Royal Dutch Shell.

Governments, governmental agencies, political bodies, universities (including those into strong R&D&I), as well as a myriad of other companies, supranationals and NGOs, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO DO THIS. THEY THINK THAT SEEKING KNOWLEDGE THIS WAY IS A CLEAR SIGN OF INSANITY.

Nothing, and nothing at all, will preclude Shell and other Fortune-7 Corporations to seek out and seize boundaryless knowledge.

All of my assertions are backed by most-updated brick-and-mortar books and manuals. I can give you a brief general idea, but my time and researched proprietary findings are extremely expensive for me to tell you about where to find those contents.

The combined knowledge of my research is a part of an infinitely larger ongoing proprietary research effort by me. Through many, many years, these books and manuals and handbooks have been physically published but you did not found out then. But many publications were only found through proprietary literature only.

When you want to access proprietary literature, you handsomely pay for it. Otherwise, it is impossible to gain access to that.

Everything I have or have had, I capitalistically paid for CASH AND IN FULL. If you are a commie, this is not for you or any other forms of hippies and chronies.

FOR INSTANCE:

Star Trek’s Captain Spock told James T. Kirk: “… Jim, the problem with you is that you always proceed from false assumptions … And being a Volcan and thus different from you, I have no ego to bruise …”

LET US NOW GET BACK TO OUR REAL-LIFE EXCHANGE AS PER ROYAL DUTCH SHELL:

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Okay, How is the strategic planning going along for the forthcoming year? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Very well, sir…We are introducing some novelties to our corporation-wide strategic planning, strategizing and strategic execution …!…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Can you give me some specifics? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Well, sir, our most unconventional and heterodox thinking and strategizing have always gone to a far-fetched fringe, spurting twilight-zones mind-sets while ridiculing the minimal and precarious notion of so-called ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking … So, this year we have a roaster of out-of-this-world people to interview in order to underpin our strategy and outsmart Exxon-Mobil and the like in the process. All of the interviews will be heavily documented for continuous close examination …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, I really like you rationale…Who is your first person to interview? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Thank you. The first one will be a Maharishi, the so-called ‘Great Seer’ …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Drashtara, Sanskrit for the Techno-Harbinger …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…The Awaken Ones …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Auspiciousness, a female spiritual leader of great audiences in the East and West …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Catholic Bishop…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Tel-avid Rabbi …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Lama …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “ … An Ayatollah …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Witch…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Saucerer…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who is next in your list?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…You list is nice but a bit too conventional for my profitable ambitions. What are you exactly going to do about it to fundamentally solve your shortcomings? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Sir, we are going to interview, as well, many other thought leaders, including many purposeful mentally-ill ponderers!…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Like whom? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Sir, a Schizophrenic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… One person undergoing Clinical Delusional Disorder …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Someone into Clinical Hallucinations …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…Someone into Clinical Histrionic or Narcissistic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Guru from India …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Yogi from India …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… An Oracle from the Tibet …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Kabbalah Mystic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “…Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Witch …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Brazilian Shaman …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… A Brazilian Shaman…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Saucerer …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Savant…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Knowledgist …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Beggar …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Homeless …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask her? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask her open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Gigolo …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Wizard …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Magician …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…A Autistic …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…One undergoing Asperger’s …”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… What will you ask him? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “…We will ask him open-ended questions without constraints of time: a) How do you see the world? b) What are humans missing? c) How can we make life better for all? d) If you were the U.N. Secretary General, What would you change in the civilization?…”

Royal Dutch Shell Worldwide CEO: “… Excellent, Who else? …”

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Worldwide Strategist: “… Every Student proactive in most-recondite Ivy-League own on-site Secret Societies … Several Prostitutes and several Tarot-card Readers, Soothsayers, Divinators, Foretellers, Predictioneers, Futilitarians, Hunches-tellers, First-Guessers, Second-Guessers, Fortunetellers, Prophets, Presagers, Premonitionists, Dictators, Anarchists, among many other savants.

Now, you can understand why people of The Netherlands OUTSMART MOTHER NATURE and are so intelligent, shrewd and mordant, as well as victorious, ready to “kill” petroleum as source of energy and impose Energy “X”.

Many, many zillion-dollars-corporations RELENTLESSLY exercise their Intellects and Strategies BY INCESSANTLY SEEKING OMNISCIENCE IN IGNORED FLANKS AND NOVEL QUADRANTS AND SPHERES. AND THROUGH THE PRECEDING, THEY MERIT AND DESERVE TO OUT-RULE THE WORLD, THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE.

NOTHING, AND NOTHING AT ALL, WILL PRECLUDE SHELL AND OTHER FORTUNE-7 CORPORATIONS TO SEEK OUT AND SEIZE BOUNDARYLESS KNOWLEDGE.

ONLY SOURCE: Andres Agostini’s own Book:

Concurrent Coordinated Convergent Systems Thinking (CCCST): Articulated under Intelligence Augmentation and Amplification (IAA)
ASIN: B00KNL02ZE
http://amzn.to/1owe52O

By Mr. Andres Agostini
www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini

E.Q.-Focused Nations (suboptimal) Versus I.Q.-Centric Countries (optimal)

047

1.- E.Q.-Focused Nations argue that the millenarian applied terms such as: Prudence, Tact, Sincerity, Kindness and Unambiguous Language DO NOT SUFFICE and hence they need to invent a marketeer’s stunt: Emotional Intelligence. I.Q.-Centric Countries argue that the millenarian applied terms are beyond utility and desirability and that stunts are to social-engineer and brain-wash the weak: Ergo, all of these are optimal: Prudence, Tact, Sincerity, Kindness and Unambiguous Language, as well as plain-vanilla Psychology 101.

2.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are mired with universal corruption, both in private and public office. I.Q.-Centric Countries are mired with transparency, accountability and reliability, as well as collective integrity and ethics.

3.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are flooded with structural unemployment. I.Q.-Centric Countries are flooded with fundamental employment and hiring even not only nationals but also international talents.

4.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are waging military campaigns and violence internationally, always attempting to IMPOSE HARD AND HARSH AND FOCEFUL POWER. I.Q.-Centric Countries are at Peace with all of the Nations of the world and ONLY believe in Diplomacy and its Concurrent Soft Power.

5.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are too quick, too ready and too constant to DESTROY THEIR OWN ECONOMIES while turning their great nations into seventh-level nations of the world. I.Q.-Centric Countries are ALWAYS CONSTRUCTING GREATER OWN ECONOMIES WHILE MAKING THEIR NATIONS MORE APPEALING TO FOREIGNERS, INCLUDING FOREIGN INVESTORS, TO DO BUSINESS WITH.

6.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are ALWAYS expecting major Domestic Terrorism Attacks and Huge Disruption to Public Services and Infrastructure through Cyber attacks, while they attract Immense Industrial Espionage. I.Q.-Centric Countries are NOT WORRY AT ALL about being attacked in any form at all, but focused on how to become world’s largest manufacturers of Tangible Goods that are both desired by Rich and Poor Countries.

7.- E.Q.-Focused Nations HAVE INVESTED LARGELY IN MAKING TOO MANY LOCAL AND GEOPOLITICAL ENEMIES around the Globe. I.Q.-Centric Countries HAVE ZERO DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ENEMIES WHILE ONLY PROFITING FROM FRIENDLY CLIENTS AROUND THE GALAXY. I.Q.-Centric Countries’ friendliness is taken incessantly to the banks.

8.- E.Q.-Focused Nations are bathed with CIVILIAN PROTESTS, including Anarchists and Anti-Systems and Anti-Establishments, in a permanent context of Social and Political Unrest. I.Q.-Centric Countries have ZERO CIVILIAN PROTESTS while enjoying and profiting from an Emotionally-Even Most Talented Population, while thoroughly employed into Rule the World through Economic and Peaceful Conquests.

9.- E.Q.-Focused Nations have HUGE BANKRUPTCY DIVIDES between those Leaning to the Left and those Leaning to the Right. I.Q.-Centric Countries FIND HUGE LUCRE IN EXPLOITING THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL OF BOTH THE “LEFT” AND THE “RIGHT,” OPERATING FROM WITHIN THE EXACT “CENTER” WHILE LEVERAGING UP THE INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE WEALTH OF EVERY CITIZEN.

10.- E.Q.-Focused Nations DO NOT SPEAK GERMAN. I.Q.-Centric Countries ONLY SPEAK GERMAN.

By Mr. Andres Agostini

www.linkedin.com/in/andresagostini

Where are the real-world proven-track records of and by the White Swan Author, Mr. Andres Agostini?

a from Profitable Challenges

What are four (4) solid real-life examples that the White Swan Author has risk-managed? Andres has many letterhead testimonials about those. See the ensuing:

1.- World-class Petroleum Refineries whose risks that Andres has managed are available at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/05/white-swan-oil-refineries

2.- World-class Oil and Gas Tankers (maritime vessels) whose risks that Andres has managed are available at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/05/white-swan-oil-gas-tankers

3.- World-class Petroleum installations, equipments and hardware whose risks that Andres has managed are available at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/05/white-swan-petroleum-installations

4.- Toyota and Mitsubishi Motors factories and installations whose risks that Andres has managed are available at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/05/white-swan-cars

- @ClubOfINFO - On May 15, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed rules that would threaten net neutrality.
As stated by Michael Copps at the Common Cause grassroots organization, “This is an alarming day for anyone who treasures a free and open Internet – which should be all of us”. Many are still unfamiliar with this subject, but they should take the time to learn what it means. Not simply US citizens should be concerned about a threat to net neutrality. US hegemony over the Internet means everyone should be concerned.
According to an analysis from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), rules proposed by the FCC “threaten the future of our Internet” by stifling the potential for creativity, innovation and freedom of expression. They do this by saying it is okay for internet service providers to discriminate in favor of bigger web companies, so they can connect to their users faster. The EFF amply sums this up as “allowing Internet providers to discriminate how we access websites by offering an option for web companies to pay to connect to users at faster speeds.” This has been called creating “fast lanes” for firms able to pay more than the others.
The discrimination permitted under the FCC proposal is recognized to mean there will be less diversity, less creativity and less freedom available to everyone through the Internet. Internet service providers could become “gatekeepers”, thus reducing competition and freedom of expression.
Many believe that the unique character of the Internet as a place of anarchic socialization and equality – the most celebrated aspects of life online – is under threat by the FCC’s proposed rules (If you are one of them, sign here to take a stand). If people do not act quickly to stop it, they will face the dark possibility of the Internet being yet another space occupied by a handful of monolithic companies, like the airwaves or the newspapers before.
What is happening is part of a frightening trend that seriously threatens the usefulness of the Internet as a popular space giving a voice to the voiceless. The Internet should not be hired out to the highest bidders and dominated solely by them, in a mere sham of free speech and competition. The actions of large firms in the direction of curtailing competition, freedom and the popular Internet will take more offensive forms, if they are not stopped.
While the current proposed rules by the FCC are a threat mainly to small businesses, we can already imagine the trend eventually affecting our own lives. Imagine not being able to view the best of anything other than the sites controlled by powerful corporations – the same “stakeholders” that already control the US government and media through lobbying. Not only would this discrimination be tantamount to censorship, it would also appear to be part of a deepening offence against democratization and moral revolutions through technology in the Western world.
As usual, the US government is continuing to accuse vulnerable regimes around the world of not respecting freedom, while it goes to extraordinary lengths to stifle freedom and strengthen a corrupt and autocratic corporate regime to the detriment of society. As usual, the US government continues to claim it supports competition, yet its only interest seems to be in privileging and protecting a handful of corporations, crushing competition, retarding technology and crippling the long-term potential of humanity for the sake of its own greed.
Regardless of its origins or its original design, the Internet has come to be used as a means of disclosing and encountering the truth. It has been a source of alternate media, and it has drastically weakened the influence of the corporate media. It is inevitable that the corporate-lobbied regime in the US will try to launch an onslaught against the foundations of such transparency and freedom. Greed and the desire for illicit monopoly and oligopoly pervade the US establishment and regime, leading them to seek out the total invulnerability of the regime and the handful of monstrously powerful corporations that sponsor it.
If consumers do not take a stand against the creation of “fast lanes”, they can expect to suffer further costs in the near future as powerful companies gain unfair advantages and tighten their grip over the Internet. The FCC rules, if they really come into effect, may be the thin end of a wedge to completely removing individuals and organizations from the Internet because they are unable to conform to the cruel monopolistic regulations of the corporate-dominated regime.
The problem, according to consumer advocates, lies in the attempt to portray the web as a service to be purchased at different qualities depending on how much money you have, rather than a utility that should be equally available to everyone, guaranteed and protected by the government. If the Internet can be classed as a utility to be safeguarded by the government, like electricity and gas, web users can be assured that they are not at a disadvantage to the handful of powerful businesses determined to suffocate freedom and competition.
If we take into account its true liberating and awakening impact on global society, the Internet must be seen not just as a utility but as a human right. As Pope Francis noted, the Internet is truly valuable for society. It offers an unprecedented opportunity for communication and the elimination of global disparity. Such things make it tantamount to a “gift from God”, something that cannot be denied so long as we know it to be a source of liberation for the many.

By Harry J. Bentham — More articles by Harry J. Bentham

 Originally published on 22 May 2014 at Dissident Voice

Technology has the potential to liberate those who resist statism and oligarchy. Send your email address to get more ClubOfINFO articles delivered for free.

Toyota and Mitsubishi Motors factories and installations that have continuously benefited from Mr. Andres Agostini’s White Swan Transformative and Integrative Risk Management. The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

new-63new-64new-65new-66new-67new-68new-69new-70new-71new-72new-73new-75

new-74new-75new-76

Petroleum installations, equipments and hardware that have continuously benefited from Mr. Andres Agostini’s White Swan Transformative and Integrative Risk Management. The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

new-43new-44new-45new-46new-47new-48new-49new-50new-51new-52new-53new-54new-55new-56new-57new-58new-60new-61

new-62

Oil Refineries that has continuously benefited from Mr. Andres Agostini’s White Swan Transformative and Integrative Risk Management. The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

Through five and half years, the White Swan Book’s Author Andres Agostini concurrently managed the risks of the world’s number 1 and the world’s number 3 Oil Refineries. There is a sample of installations of these two refineries.

new-1

new-2

new-3

new-4

new-5

new-6

new-7

new-8

new-9

new-10

new-11

new-12

new-13

new-14

new-15

new-16

new-17

new-18

new-19

new-20

new-21

new-22

new-23

new-24

new-25

new-26

new-27

new-28

new-29

new-30

new-31

new-32

new-33

new-34

new-35

new-36

The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

Oil and Gas Tankers (maritime vessels) that has continuously benefited from Mr. Andres Agostini’s White Swan Transformative and Integrative Risk Management. The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

Through five and half years, the White Swan Book Author Andres Agostini concurrently managed the risks of ten (10) oil and gas tankers (maritime vessels). There is a sample of five (5) vessels here.

038

039

040

041

042

The White Swan Idea is at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

The Lifeboat Foundation Worldwide Ambassador Mr. Andres Agostini’s own White Swan Education Elucidated By Napoleon Bonaparte And Dr. Wernher Von Braun:, Countermeassuring Every Unthinkable Black Swan, at https://lifeboat.com/blog/2014/04/white-swan

Education Elucidated By Napoleon Bonaparte And Dr. Wernher Von Braun:

036

Reflecting On The Education We Immediately Need! Napoleon Bonaparte On Education (1769 — 1821) observed:

“…Education, strictly speaking, has several objectives: one needs to learn how to speak and write correctly, which is generally called grammar and belles letters. Each lyceum has provided for this object, and there is no well-educated man who has not learned his rhetoric [….] After the need to speak and write correctly comes the ability to count and measure. The lyceums have provided this with classes in MATHEMATICS embracing arithmetical and MECHANICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR DIFFERENT BRANCHES [….] The elements of several other fields come next: chronology, geography, and the rudiments of history are also a part of the education of the lyceum [….] A young man who leaves the lyceum at sixteen years of age thence knows not only the mechanics of his language and the classical authors, the divisions of discourse, the different figures of eloquence, the means of employing them either to calm or arouse passions, in short, everything that one learns in a course on belles letters. He also would know the principal epochs of history, the basic geographical divisions, and how to compute and measure. He has some general idea of the most striking natural phenomena and the principles of equilibrium and movement both with regard to solids and fluids [….] Whether he desires to follow the career of the barrister, that of the sword, or ENGLISH, or letters; if he is destined to enter into the body of scholars, to be a geographer, engineer, or land surveyor — in all these cases he has received a general education necessary to become equipped to receive the remainder of instruction that his circumstances require, and it is at this moment, when he must make his choice of a profession, that the special studies present themselves …”. [113]

DR. WERNHER VON BRAUN ON EDUCATION, (1912 — 1977and Father of the American Space Program) observed:

“…The average citizen today, of course, has far more scientific information at his disposal than did those greatest of intellects of earlier times. Yet paradoxically, I think that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR INCREASED UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF SCIENCE. It has been said that, although the choice of direction for our civilization will be determined through democratic process, it is there that the problem begins. TO MAKE RATIONAL CHOICES, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN MUST UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND ROLE OF SCIENCE AT A TIME WHEN ITS BREADTH AND COMPLEXITY ARE INCREASING ALMOST EXPONENTIALLY [….] Conversely, the scientist, at a time when he can barely keep up to date in his specialty, must not isolate himself in his parochial interest. Instead, he should see his profession as a part of the larger world, to evaluate himself and his work in relation to all forces, especially the humanities, which shape and advance society. THE NEED, THEN, IS FOR AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS RESULTING IN MORE SCIENTIFIC LITERACY FOR THE LAYMAN, AND MORE LITERACY IN THE HUMANITIES FOR THE SCIENTISTS [….] Man in this scientific age is free only to the extent that he has a grasp on himself and his surroundings. FREEDOM — THE ABILITY TO SPEAK, THINK, ACT, AND VOTE INTELLIGENTLY — is based largely on our ability TO MAKE CHOICES growing out of our understanding of the issues involved. With each advance of science, there is an invitation to more understanding. This is the essence of the burden borne by all peoples since the dawn of humanity. There must be widespread understanding of the role of science in modern society, both as to its limits and our dependence on its basic function as a tool for our survival. This is the imperative for scientific literacy [….] How do we encourage scientific literacy? I THINK THE PROBLEM IS HOW TO INSTILL IN STUDENTS A PERMANENT DESIRE TO LEARN. All youth is endowed with curiosity from the very beginning. What can education process do, not only to keep this natural curiosity alive, but to make it a permanent part of the individual drive? … ”