The Case - Towards real democracy and better global governance

More detailed substantiation of each topic is provided by supporting webpages. The broad directions of narrative page information flows is indicated in the schematic below:

Broad webpage information flow directions

Broad webpage information flow directions

Direct links to key points are provided throughout the narrative, which covers the period from around 1970 to now. This is a minute time period compared with the duration of the history of the planet, and even of the Anthropocene (human epoch). The geological timescale is very long compared to a human lifetime. Phrases such as 'climate emergency' and 'the urgency of the situation' in relation to geological timescales are not well understood by the general public. We tend to think of an emergency as something that has to be responded to right now; the sort of event which might be a news headline on a particular day.

The core of the website thesis and content is expected to remain valid without the need to continually review the detailed impact of unfolding global news events, even where these are relevant to existing website themes. The overall narrative could be viewed rather like a book which may need a new edition in due course.

Particularly between significant website version updates, the reader is referred to the author's personal X (ex-Twitter) account, and recently opened Bluesky account.

Preview

It should be obvious to everyone by now that we cannot carry on overconsuming on a planet with finite resources without expecting trouble ahead. And yet our political and economic leaders doggedly continue to pursue economic growth/ global capitalism as if there is no viable alternative. And so the unsustainable plundering of natural resources continues, along with the obscene inequalities between rich and poor, and the cumulative effects of past and present cost externalities on the future habitability of the planet.^{Prv-1; see end of Preview}

Cost externalisation can be viewed as those unwanted side effects of providing a product or service which are intentionally ignored by the provider in order to maximise profits. For example, it is invariably seen as cheaper and more convenient to use plastic for numerous applications, than to to invest in finding an alternative. But at what environmental cost, and to whom, in the longer term? Cost externalisation is discussed further later.

The most serious global predicaments/ problems are human-caused.^Prv-2 They are created either directly, or indirectly, by those controlling the status quo.^Prv-3

Home for most people is ideally within a nation-state, with shared socio-cultural roots and values. But the present nation-state geopolitical/geoeconomic structure is part of the problem. National governments inevitably prioritise citizens within their jurisdiction over those in other nations, while global markets^Prv-4 promote commercial rivalries between states, under the guise of promoting healthy competition. A nation-state mentality can feed disputes and tend to drive a "them and us" mindset. History has demonstrated that institutionalised religion can also fuel divisions between people.^Prv-5

The conventional wisdom, epitomised by the familiar phrase "survival of the fittest", seems to vindicate the actions of the state in maintaining law and order. But in times of war we have all seen that war crimes proliferate, and that ordinary citizens suffer appallingly. Those "over the border" are viewed as enemies; and not as human beings who just want to live in peace. The killing of innocents by an aggressor is recognised as morally wrong, and even in war is regarded as a violation of international law, whether it is carried out by rebel groups or by a nation-state military command. If rebel groups do not represent their fellow countrymen and women, their actions are like those of dictators.

A less well publicised insight of Darwin, which informs an emergent materialist natural science perspective on altruism,^Prv-6 is that: "selfish individuals might out-compete altruists within groups, but internally altruistic groups out-compete selfish groups". This perspective provides a larger context for a common humanity; which is at the core of all genuine spiritual teachings.^Prv-7 In the words of the well known song; "love is all we need".

Somehow our leaders need to be persuaded to co-operate peacefully towards developing a fit-for-purpose system of global governance; a system which views nation-states as populations of fellow human-beings, and not as rival-economies separated by borders to be played by those with vested interests (TwVI).

These days meaningful democracy has become so corrupted and compromised that many people actually appear to believe that their interests might be better served by more dictatorial regimes.

Many people appear to be unaware of the sheer extent of ruthless lies, deceit, and misinformation propagated by the status quo in order to protect vested interests. A spectrum of business activities and behaviours are discussed in ^Prv-8. Some of these are very unsavoury,^Prv-9 but chickens come home to roost. A recent example being the outrageous UK Post Office/ Fujitsu "Horizon"/"Capture" scandal; the epitome of rogue operator behaviour.^Prv-10 Poignant soundbites appear from time to time, such as "data is the new oil". These should cause us to wonder about how our personal data might be being exploited. "Scams" are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Disturbing views have been expressed by some experts about possible future developments in artificial intelligence (AI). But who controls AI (

) ^Prv-11 is by far the biggest cause for concern; given the absence of a trustworthy and fit-for-purpose global system. AI systems trained to serve corporate vested interests certainly cannot be the answer to major human-caused problems

Global capitalism is 'successful' to the extent that those with vested interests persuade people to overconsume.

Their motives are well understood, as are the global consequences.

In general, it should be plain for all to see that as things currently stand with the 'Big 3' ^Prv-12 political, economic and financial mandates of the prevailing governance system, we cannot wait any longer for national governments and global corporations to act in time, or even rightly, to safeguard the habitability of our planet.

To humanely develop and progress solutions to global problems would require a properly funded fit-for-purpose global governance system.^Prv-13 With the present monetary system certain individuals are authorised to generate electronic money (debt) - from nothing (!) - for central banks. But "quantitative easing" is used to maintain the central banks, and not for worthy socio-economic purposes such as improving global governance. As things stand, the main category of citizens who sustain the overconsumptive global capitalist economy are those who can afford to pay their taxes, and pay for the products and services they (think they) need. Those who overconsume, or can be persuaded to do so, and especially those who can afford to invest and/or give generous donations to political candidates who are interested in de-regulation are of particular interest to TwVI (those with vested interests).

Those of use who are fortunate/privileged consumers are providing the profits for

, and are thereby driving the demise of the planet through the cumulative cost externalities which are inherent in virtually all products and services provided by the current system. It is time for those of us who are overconsuming to wake up and take some personal responsibility for remedial action. Given the extent of externalities inherent in the present economic system, a pragmatic action would be to commit to a systematic reduction of personal consumption to essentials only by 2030, on the basis that 'net zero by 2050' will not be good enough, as discussed later.

Essential consumption only is an everyday lifestyle reality for many of the world's poorer people. But it is not these citizens who are driving the demise of the planet, and yet they are often suffering more of the dire consequences than those who are better off, such as those caused by global warming.

Unfortunately, the state of the world suggests that the behaviour of overconsumers appears to be about as self-interested as that of élites and TwVI, insofar as failing to care much about (or taking any personal responsibility for) solving the major human-caused global problems is concerned; despite no doubt being devoted to their children and grand-children.

Massive consumption needs massive container ships

Massive consumption needs massive container ships

If we are going to attempt to halt and prevent the ongoing inexorable degradation in the habitability of our planet, it will be down to those global citizens who do care enough to do what is urgently necessary. And we are going to need a huge engagement of such citizens to form collective;^Prv-14 first to understand how serious the situation really is, and subsequently to collaborate towards really challenging the prevailing governance system.

Supporting links

^Prv-1   Are we on course for a hothouse earth?^[I].

^Prv-2   List of major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

^Prv-3   Élites

^Prv-4   The basis of market confidence

^Prv-5   Control of territory; nation-states and borders; 'ownership' of land^[MC]

^Prv-6   An emergent materialist natural science perspective on altruism

^Prv-7   Feeling the common ground^[A]

^Prv-8   A spectrum of business activities and behaviours

^Prv-9   Use of unsavoury methods by 'the authorities'^[CA]

^Prv-10   Rogue operator behaviour

^Prv-11   Who controls AI?

^Prv-12   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance

^Prv-13   Big 3 reform - Towards a fit-for-purpose governance system

^Prv-14   Global citizen action^[CA]

Issues

The seriousness of the human-caused environmental unsustainability problem can no longer be denied. We live in a biosphere^I1-1 and continue abusing the environment at our peril. In relation to the broader risks in human life, while we cannot yet do much about geophysical hazards, we can and urgently need to deal with the most serious major human-caused problems.

The following MHCPs are listed in rough categories: (i) war-related issues; (ii) issues for which either directly, or indirectly, the main causative mechanism is overconsumption; and (iii) externalised costs^I1-2, which have arisen from the way business works, and unintended adverse consequences in general:

an ongoing threat of large scale annihiliation from nuclear or other weapon(s) of mass destruction (WMD);

increasing people displacement due to war; meanwhile weapons proliferate;

global insecurites arising from conflicts over access to resources; especially fossil fuels, meanwhile too high a rate of combustion of fossil fuels is causing climate change and acidification of the oceans;

increasing people displacement resulting from consequences of climate change;

serious depletion of natural resources, deforestation and loss of habitat, loss of biodiversity, degradation of soils, and a serious accumulation of pollutants in the environment;

a population unsustainability issue which is masked by obscene wealth inequalities. The untold human suffering among the poor caused by massive and escalating wealth disparities is likely to be substantially increased in the event of another global financial collapse, as would the number of those classed as poor.

Supporting links

^I1-1 We live in a biosphere^[I]

^I1-2 Cost externalisation^[PS]

The political system is a vast interconnecting political/ economic/ financial/ legal process, whose complexity masks outrageous and ruthless behaviours. This overall ethos and behaviour is often normalised in the media, by using harmless sounding phrases such as business as usual. This helps to maintain an everyday façade.

Money and the right contacts are essential in order to stand any chance of influencing the status quo (especially in the United States). Short of gaining a legitimate platform by entering electoral politics, it can appear that there is not much an ordinary law-abiding non-wealthy citizen can actually do. The power structure driving economic growth has such a grip over the traditional democratic process that many individuals feel largely disempowered and unrepresented.

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2009) defines 'business as usual' as:

"when someone or something is still working or operating normally when you think they might not be: Despite last night's scare, it was business as usual in the White House today".

This bland definition shows just how normalised economic growth has become, and also how unquestioning we are expected to be about it.

Throughout this website, the term "business as usual" is used to mean the overall ethos of the political process by which economic growth is manifested. The political power structure which engenders this process is underpinned by corporate legislation.

Economic growth in this context is assumed to result from commercial activity which does not intentionally cause loss of life. This is in contrast to dark governance, below.

The extent to which the instigation of wars is driven by, or linked to, economic growth, and/or the acquisition of access to natural resources, is very relevant to any attempt to resolve global MHCPs.

On this website a distinction is attempted between the the strictly commercial (BAU) facet of dark governance (which includes organised crime and military activities if no lives are expected or intentionally lost) and those involving crime and military action where there is expected or actual loss of life.^I2-1

A very wide range of bad operational behaviours can be observed in connection with dark governance, as investigated later in [The Case: Power structure]. The severity of bad behaviours can be roughly conveyed by indicative phrases. For the strictly commercial facet some examples are: "that's just business"; "shady"; "...'legal'... "; "criminal"; and "organised crime". The expected or actual loss of life facet could include the last two examples and also: "the instigation of wars"; and "MAD" (mutual assured destruction).

The phrase "in the national interest" is useful for politicians to justify military action to a fearful public, and in peacetime the phrase is useful to justify major investment to a sceptical public. But we never hear "in the global interest" used in this way.^I2-2

The term dark governance is frequently throughout this website. It is more descriptive of reality than the rather bland, harmless sounding "business as usual", which is normally associated with everyday uncontroversial commercial activity. The legislative underpinning of dark governance is investigated, in order to ascertain the extent to which observed bad behaviours correlate with the legal mandates.^I2-3 The conclusions of this investigation have been summarised^I2-4 and culminate in a broad three part categorisation referred to on this website as the Big 3.^I2-5

Supporting links

^I2-1   Facets of dark governance^[PS].

^I2-2   Foundations of nation-state governance: two primary tablets-of-stone.

^I2-3   A spectrum of business activities and behaviours

^I2-4   What is wrong with dark governance?

^I2-5   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance.

The Longman Dictionary of the English Language (1991) defines 'amoral' as:

"(1) neither moral nor immoral; lying outside the sphere of ethical judgements

(2) having no understanding of, or unconcerned with, morals".

It is generally accepted that corporate legislation is amoral; it sanctions the prioritising of profit with a complete absence of caring for the common good. This interpretation of 'amorality' is at the core of the governance problem addressed throughout this website. Nature is also amoral, and yet some species have evolved altruistic strategies such as the defensive community, rather than the predator mode which characterises the modus operandi of the controlling élites. These matters are discussed in more detail later.

This judiciously selective corporate interpretation of 'amorality' has profound implications for us all. The single quotes serve to act as a reminder of the audacity of the legal stitch-up which has given rise to abominations such as the Corporate Person (CP).^I2-6

In more detail

^I2-6 The Corporate Person^[PS]

When seeking to learn more about the intransigence of the prevailing governance system, or about 'those who are in control', the term élite(s) often crops up in political reference sources. At a very general level of description it refers to the most powerful people in the world; those who run governments; the largest corporations; financial institutions, and other significant organisations and institutions. Within their ranks, there are some extremely rich people; those with huge vested interests (TwVI) - in particular those who own or control the big banks, and those who own or control the big oil companies. It is therefore not surprising that the fossil fuel industry (and increasingly the AI/ information/ telecommunications sector) holds such a grip over world affairs.

On this website élites are referred to in both a general sense, and also specifically in the case of TwVI; on account of their particularly influential role through their massive capacity to provide finance.

In more detail

^I2-7 About élites^[PS]

When long term MHCPs such as climate change or environmental degradation are reported in the media, the information is both unwelcome and depressing. Denial tends to set in.^I3-1 The problems continue to gradually worsen, without most of us really being aware of them, until we are personally inconvenienced. Then we expect political action; why don't 'they' do something?

Despite an uphill communication struggle, enormous efforts have been made over the years by dedicated citizens, campaigners, authors from all walks of life to initiate a great many innovative and constructive proposals for potential solutions to MHCPs. Many of these contributions have influenced the agendas of UN agencies, conferences, and summits.^I3-2

^I3-1 Denialism^[CA]

^I3-2 Become an activist^[CA]

As the environmental movement sought to raise awareness of the unsustainability of the economic growth paradigm, awareness of poverty in the 'underdeveloped world' also increased. The appearance of both these major human-caused problems on the UN agenda at the same time posed difficulties for policy-makers and negotiators. The perceived win:win strategy at the time was to reframe the debate around the concept of 'sustainable development'.^I4-1 With hindsight this concept should be viewed as an oxymoron.

The geopolitics of 'development' (and 'sustainable development') is a large and complex subject, about which much has been written. But despite the substantial efforts made over years, and the numerous hopeful initiatives launched at UN conferences and summits, little progress has been made on tackling most of the MHCPs.

In general, since worthy initiatives intended to tackle them would translate to increased regulation on business activities, the initiatives are strongly resisted by those with vested interests (TwVI).^I4-2

Much important work has, nevertheless, been done in the past on some major human-caused problems, in particular on WMD and arms control negotiations.^I4-3 But MHCPs are ongoing, and efforts to tackle many of these issues have been inadequately resourced. Most of the MHCPs therefore get progressively worse.^I4-4

Supporting links

^I4-1   Developed or underdeveloped? ^[I]

^I4-2   Vested interests and climate-denial politics^[I]

^I4-3   Nuclear weapons threat^[I:N]

^I4-4   The urgency of the situation^[I]

The biggest ongoing human-caused threats to life, such as global warming and the potential risk of nuclear war, rarely reach mainstream news headlines. In the UK the BBC, for example, tends to provide saturation coverage on a hot topic for a period, followed by a fairly sudden shift to the next hot topic. In 2020-2021 it was all about the pandemic and how the UK government was handling it. In 2022 it was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Towards the end of 2023 and into 2024 the Israel-Gaza war became the main topic. Later in 2024 this mirrored the escalation towards a more general Middle East conflict. At the beginning of 2025 it is all about what President Trump is saying.

While this pattern of news reporting is perfectly understandable, one of the consequences is that citizens become less consciously aware of the ongoing very serious issues. The general assumption seems to be that our leaders deal with such matters as necessary, and that the public cannot be expected to do anything about such matters anyway.

But if we all wait for a global crisis before doing anything it may be too late. Global warming, which is causing climate change, is one of the adverse consequences of the countless externalised costs^I5-1 inherent in the prevailing governance system.

Following the commitments made in the Paris Agreement in 2015 at COP21, many felt a sense of relief that the problem was finally being addressed by the authorities. During the subsequent six year period leading up to COP26 in 2021, governments and businesses reassuringly announced their latest commitments to tackling climate change. The general impression given was that the official target is 'net zero by 2050', which would 'keep 1.5 (°C) alive'.^I5-2

Some climate analysts pointed out that achievement of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to keep the global average temperature increase to within 1.5°C relied upon the availability of carbon capture technology, which was non-existent at the required scale. They also warned that commitments made to emissions reductions were not mandatory. Some climate activists expressed concern that 'net zero by 2050' was too slow.

Nevertheless, 'net zero by 2050' became the generally accepted basis for policy planning

If this scenario date had not been proposed, by those addressing the climate change issue, we would be even more oblivious about the seriousness of the situation. Subsequent research and computer modelling studies are confirming the difficulties in 'keeping 1.5 °C alive', and backcasting scenarios are revealing the infrastructural and societal challenges ahead which are posed by 'net zero by 2050'. A recent UN report states that as many as 45% of the global population are already highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.^I5-3

The stance taken on this website is that 'net zero by 2050' has been adopted by 'the authorities' as a convenient compromise position.^I5-4 The public think something is being done, meanwhile business has in effect been given a green light to continue extracting the most lucrative known oil and gas reserves. Panic over, it is back to business as usual (BAU).

But the panic is absolutely not over. The behaviour of the fossil fuel industry at and post-COP26 confirmed the urgency of the situation.

Supporting links

^I5-1   Cost externalisation^[PS]

^I5-2   1.5°C - interpreting global average data at a local level^[CA]

^I5-3   Environmental warning signs^[I]

^I5-4   What does 'net zero by 2050' really imply?^[PS]

The dominant grip of the fossil fuel vested interests was confirmed, yet again, not least by the size of their delegation/ lobby at the COP26, and their even bigger presence at COP27, and four times more again at COP28 (around 2400 people!). This is despite the fact that excessive fossil fuel combustion is known to be the main driver of climate change, and that this is well understood by mainstream science.

In the event, the important and much anticipated COP26 failed to deliver the commitments necessary to keep the 1.5°C global warming limit (COP21 Paris Agreement) in sight. It was confirmed that China was not in a position to commit to net zero until 2060, and neither Russia nor India were prepared to commit to net zero until after 2050; 2070 in the case of India.

One important COP26 concession was to review each nation-state's commitments annually in order to raise aspiration. However this did not happen at COP27. The Paris Agreement is in fact all about national government action, and countries are to set their new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for 2025. But of course, the extent of fossil fuel industry grip over the COP process is such that none of these commitments are legally binding.

The hope of keeping to 1.5 °C is already doomed. Barring an unexpected technological breakthrough in 'mega'-scale carbon capture technology; non-fossil fuel energy generation capability; some unforeseen massive drop in fossil fuel energy supply; or if demand is reduced for some reason, there is currently little chance of halting further global warming.

As it happened, economic activity was depressed for a short period during the coronavirus pandemic, and then due to an increase in inflation from high energy prices following the Russian war in Ukraine.

Supporting links

^I6-1 China and coal^[PS]

^I6-2 What does 'net zero by 2050' really imply?^[PS]

The main category of citizens important to the funding of nation-state governments is taxpayers on average incomes. Citizen categories such as the poor, the homeless, those on state benefits, and those forcibly displaced from their homes do not fall within this main category.

Noting the important implications listed at the end of the previous section, an obvious damage limitation conclusion can be drawn :

However, with the current societal lack of real understanding of the seriousness of the global warming issue, including that of 'the authorities' who depend upon economic growth to fund their policies, many of the citizens in the average income category would probably not consider themselves to be overconsumers.

^I7-1 Big 3

Modern lifestyles have for far too long largely ignored the fact that we live in a biosphere.^I8-1

We ignore this reality at our peril, as the 2020 coronavirus pandemic should have reminded us. We were obliged to adapt towards a new normal type of economy. Many of us had to review our job situations.

A penchant for global travel

Covid-19, temporarily at least, brought humans to heel globally regarding our overconsumption and our travel habits. But the unsavoury emergence of vaccine-nationalism, and the penchant of people for global travel, raises the ongoing threat of inadequate protection through the spread of new virus strains.

During the pandemic such risks existed for as long as there were countries whose citizens had not been mass-vaccinated. It might have been hoped that recognition of this would lead to a more global perspective for governance priorities. Instead we saw ever-expedient business as usual, in the form of extreme profiteering and unethical practice by parts of the pharmaceutical industry.^I8-2

Lifestyle restrictions arising from Covid-19 took their toll, and people from many countries rushed to 'get back to normal', especially regarding their socio-cultural activities, and travel.

While the strength of this desire is understandable, it provides a graphic illustration of the level of entrenchment of our overconsumption habit, and the spectrum of reasons we may have, either consciously or unconsciously, to justify our positions. An overall interpretation is that many people in affluent societies do not actually appreciate how serious the issue of global warming has become.

The lack of public awareness is concerning, but hardly surprising. As noted earlier, we are informed regularly by the mainstream media of the importance of (its reliance on) economic growth. The idea of reducing demand is inconceivable. Economic growth is a tablet of stone; it is non-negotiable.^I8-3 Economic growth depends on more consumption, not less.

However, the increasing frequency and severity of climate change-related events is gradually resulting in a general acknowledgement that these are human-caused, due to the combustion of fossil fuels. But it has still not yet translated into us changing our consumptive habits, on the scale necessary.

Perhaps those who are aware console themselves by doing what they reasonably can. Maybe some even get depressed, 'what can I do, it won't make any difference'. It appears that many absolve themselves of any personal responsibility to do anything, "it's the government's job to sort it out". This form of denialism is known as system justification^I8-4. Some might recognise that the problem is a associated with economic growth, but think "well, we all need jobs don't we". Some people are completely unaware; others just don't appear to care "life's too short, I'm going to enjoy myself while I can".

Typically business - forever optimistic - can be relied upon to come up with plausible sounding techno-fixes, and governments will state that we must spend more on adaptation towards a more resilent economy. UK BBC news coverage during Storm Eunice (February 2022) acknowleged 'climate change' (almost for the first time), and that the frequency and severity of climate-related events was likely to get worse. But then the focus of interest was hurriedly moved on to the topic of building in resilience for future such events.

While it is obviously necessary to be able to get the infrastructure back to normal as soon as possible following any disruption, the point which keeps being (deliberately) missed is that 'back to normal' equates to carrying on doing the very same things which have caused, and continue to cause, the progressively worsening problems!

But don't we need economic growth in order to pay for our sovereign debt?

The financial debt incurred during the 2020/22 pandemic might be even more severe than that following the 2007/8 financial crash, and that resulted in years of austerity; with high interest payments, and a period of high inflation.

People seem to have fairly short memories for unwelcome life events, such as those which occurred during the pandemic era. It is time to take a reality check.

We live in a biosphere first; within society second; and within an economy third.

Not the other way around.

An economy based on deliberately ignored externalities and overconsumption on a finite planet is fundamentally flawed, unsustainable^I8-5, and therefore not fit-for-purpose.

It is totally inappropriate for business to dominate and dictate human societal activity and values, and to disrespect the biospere by plundering the earth's non-renewable resources for profit, and by treating the environment as a waste dump.

Underneath the smoothly delivered advertisements and everyday 'have a nice day' media persona, business as usual behaviour does not recognise its proper place within the embeddedness hierarchy shown in the above schematic. With prevailing corporate legislation, and the imposed straitjacket of creative financialisation^I8-6 and the market^I8-7, business cannot engage meaningfully with society through genuine human values-based language.

While the acquisition of money and power is seen by many to be the pinnacle of life achievement,

a habitable planet is a prerequisite for life.

How bad do events have to get^I8-8 before the authorities recognise the urgency? What has to happen for business to refrain from greenwash, and genuinely recognise its place in the embeddedness hierarchy? The longer we evade right action, the more we will have to deal with ever bigger crises. Despite the typically bullish stance of the business ilk 'if the sea level rises, I'll invest in boats', business will not escape.

Money and the economy are not fundamental to life.

They are human constructs. The monetary and economic systems could be changed.

But the loss of habitability of the planet would be catastrophic;

a vastly bigger crisis than any financial melt down, whatever the bankers might think.

Supporting links

^I8-1   We live in a biosphere^[I]

^I8-2   Targeting those who can afford to pay^[PS]

^I8-3   Economic growth: the biggest off-limits issue in politics^[I]

^I8-4   System justification, media framing, and propaganda^[CA]

^I8-5   Accounting for sustainability, or un-sustainability?^[PS]

^I8-6   Financialisation^[PS]

^I8-7   The basis of market confidence

^I8-8   Are we on course for a hothouse earth?^[I]

Reality is such that longer term issues are rarely high on the list of nation-state political and economic priorities. Unless an issue directly affects us, mostly we are not that bothered. If the voting public are not aware of, or overly concerned about such issues, or regard the issues as global, which most serious MHCPs are, then they will not be at the top of the list on (national) political manifestos. When juggling scarce resources, and facing more imminent threats, it appears that planning and the provision of contingency are perceived as an unjustified overhead cost, and therefore to be minimised. The nature of socio-political change is intentionally shaped by the short termism of many 'democratic' voting systems.

Despite the major diplomatic achievement of the 2015 UN COP21 Paris Agreement, the extremely disappointing outcome of the deferred COP26 in 2021 demonstrated that the overall, inevitably nation-state-biased, responses to date to deal with the climate emergency do not reflect the urgency indicated by mainstream science. No progress was made at COP27 in 2022 on commitments to reducing fossil fuels. COP28 dressed up the continued absence of any legally binding commitment to tangible reductions in fossil fuel usage, and the ongoing absence of the necessary level of funding for real progress to be made. This was achieved by agreeing to "transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems" as part of the "global stocktake" process. Addressing the thorny issue of the cost of the global energy transition was deferred to COP29, as was the need for further pledges for the Loss and Damage fund.

Urgent political action tends to be mobilised only in the face of developments which could directly affect national security and/or the behaviour of many individuals to the extent that profits start to be seriously reduced. This would be perceived as a significant risk by the financial markets, which then becomes recognised by the status quo as a potential problem.

A classic example of the central role of financial markets occurred in 2010 when the currency of the European Union was on the verge of collapse. A massive emergency bailout fund had to be put together and underwritten in a very short time in order to 'calm the markets'.^I9-1

"Nipping it in the bud" - Something requiring increased regulation of business activities, such as proposals following a UN summit, would be recognised by TwVI as a potential problem. This would be 'resolved' (blocked or diluted) by behind-the-scenes corporate lobbying of governments, and a deal.^I9-2

Prompt mobilisation of a high level governmental policy response would require an imminent declaration of a national or international crisis or emergency.^I9-3 This might result in the rapid imposition of 'war-footing' type restrictions. The defensive response of affected nation-states to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is revealing of political priorities, and exposes the inherent ongoing problems of collective security.^I9-4

A recent non-military example is the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Politicians claimed to take early advice about the pandemic from scientists, albeit that such advice was initially hampered by the fact that the virus Covid-19 was a new strain.

In contrast, necessary major action on global warming has been persistently deferred, because of the influence of TwVI. Some recent military research indicates that climate and environmental change should be regarded as a new type of global security threat - a 'hyperthreat' ^I9-5 - and that a new type of security strategy be developed accordingly. The term conveys the sheer scale of risk posed by climate and environmental change, when exacerbated by those in power.

Supporting links

^I9-1   The basis of market confidence

^I9-2   Vested interests and climate-denial politics^[I]

^I9-3   'In the national interest'^[PS]

^I9-4   The balance of power between élites

^I9-5   Hyperthreat^[PS]

Power structure

Nation-state Infrastructure

Operator Behaviour

Global

^P11-1 require global solutions. But countless excellent initiatives by dedicated citizens and campaigners over decades have not been sufficient to counter the shameful greed and collective might of those with vested interests (TwVI) in maintaining the status quo.^P11-2

There is abundant evidence that the élites who have dominant global power and control cannot be trusted with the protection of the public interest, or with good stewardship of the planet.

It is difficult to see how any real progress in solving the global MHCPs (major human-caused problems) can be made without finding an answer to the following question:

What is it about our governance system which has allowed, indeed encouraged, the reckless plundering of natural resources, while turning a blind eye to ever-worsening global problems?

This is the dark governance problem.^P11-3

While the establishment of a global governance system is now absolutely necessary, depending upon how it operates, it could lead to a bleak prospect for ordinary people; an intimidating and oppressive dystopian vision. In the absence of a global catastrophe, the most likely form of future governance currently appears to be an evolution of what we have now - dark governance.

In [The Case: Power structure] the characteristics of the present dark governance system are investigated, and the prospects for future global governance addressed. It is shown how fundamental aspects of the existing governance infrastructure, such as the nation-state based political system operating in a global commercial market, and incentivised by numerous corporate legislative features, are at the root of the problem.

Supporting links

^P11-1   Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

^P11-2   Corporate blocking: intransigence^[PS]

^P11-3   Dark governance

Noting the fundamental polarity of war and peace (evil versus good), nation-state governance can be seen as being broadly based upon two primary tablets-of-stone.

War is justified by politicians as being 'in the national interest'. In peacetime economic growth is also justified by politicians as being 'in the national interest'. Such semantics appear to intentionally blur the boundary between polar opposites; both war and peacetime economic growth are justified as being in the national interest. Similar linkages were identified earlier between dark governance facets.

While noting the implicit political sleight of hand here, it is less confusing to use the phrase in the national interest when referring to war, and business as usual when referring to peacetime economic growth.

In the national interest

Tablet of stone (1)

In international law, with regard to the need for national security and consequent relations between nation-states, self-defence is a legal basis for war. Apart from self-defence, war is illegal. Attacking civilians is a war crime.^P21-1

But how rigorously is the law adhered to in practice?

The Russian invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine is itself a complete violation of international law. The violations are compounded daily by Russian attacks on civilians - even during temporary ceasefires intended to provide humanitarian corridors for civilians to flee.

Business as usual (BAU)

Tablet of stone (2)

The economic growth paradigm. This prioritises the maximising of financial profit.

A Chancellor's job description is essentially to promote economic growth. This translates to growth of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Many people are not aware of the anomalies present in the make-up of GDP^P21-2, and how GDP growth is actually measured.

Supporting links

^P21-1 Foundations of nation-state governance: two primary tablets-of-stone (reference citation)^[PS:N]

^P21-2 Gross Domestic Product^[B3R]

To set an idealised overall context for a deeper analysis of the more political facets of dark governance, the starting assumption was that global citizens would reside under the jurisdiction of an (ideally democratic) nation-state; with national security protected by the first tablet-of-stone, based upon international law.

It was further assumed that normal protection of the public interest would be honoured, in principle, in the manner of something like the following statements:

The conservation of civilised human values relies on democratically elected governments who can change legislation, including company law, and who undertake to maintain compliance with the applicable laws in order to protect the public interest.

Those in top government positions, such as presidents, prime ministers and high-ranking government officials, exercise power through their office. The understanding is that it is an honour to serve their state, which is to be relinquished when they leave office.

However in listing just these few basic requirements for protecting the public interest, in an idealised democratic nation-state, it is apparent that in our globalised and highly networked world, the public interest cannot be protected by a merely nation-state level of governance. The wider public interest equates to the common good. The growing list of

, demonstrates that the common good is not being served by the prevailing system; which prioritises economic growth above all else.^P22-1

In practice the above requirements are not deliverable for many reasons. For example the exercise of power through office, referred to in the idealised political scenario above, contrasts fundamentally with the type of economic power and personal wealth usually associated with top corporate executives. This is supposed to be restrained by the civilising mechanism of democracy. However democracy in a " 'free' market" is compromised by many factors.^P22-2

Aggressive corporate power can also make mincemeat of civilised democratic mechanisms, as evidenced by the increasing use of corporate courts.^P22-3 This is a shocking precedent which appears to make a mockery of the principle that only governments can change corporate law.

The extent to which the instigation of wars is driven by, or linked to, economic growth and/or the acquisition of access to natural resources is very relevant to protection of the wider public interest, and to any attempt to tackle the

.

Aside from the extent to which commercial interests might be a factor^P22-4 the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of international law, further compounded daily by deliberate and repeated attacks on civilians, hospitals, schools, and even when the people attempted to flee via 'agreed' humanitarian corridors. This type of senselessly brutal and ruthless aggression usurps the concept of any protection of public interest through the rule of law.

It is difficult to see how military action such as the US attacks on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003); the involvement of various nation-states in Syria since 2012 ; the Russian annexing of Crimea in 2014; and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) can be claimed to be in the public interest. A similar argument can be made in the case of the Israel/Gaza war, started in 2023. Quoting from the Preview section:

"The killing of innocents by an aggressor is recognised as morally wrong, and even in war is regarded as a violation of international law, whether it is carried out by rebel groups or by a nation-state military command. If rebel groups do not represent their fellow countrymen and women, their actions are like those of dictators."

In a genuinely democratic country the national interest should be the same as the public interest. In each of these examples it is pertinent to ask, therefore, whose interests are being served in the national interest? It seems reasonable to infer that the decision to take military action is decided by élites, for élites. It is certainly not for the common good, or for the benefit of humanity.^P22-5

In this globalised world it is no longer sufficient to only consider the currently prevailing dominant 'western democracy' perspective when seeking to protect the wider public interest, or when tackling the MHCPs. The stance of China, Russia, and India at the COP26 further reinforces this point, as discussed later.

Supporting links

^P22-1   Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

^P22-2   Protection of the public interest (reference citation)^[PS:N]

^P22-3   Corporate courts^[PS]

^P22-4   Facets of dark governance^[PS]

^P22-5   'In the national interest'^[PS]

The historical background to commercial corporate legislation reveals that ironically, the early concept of a corporation was as a not-for-profit entity for charities intended to advance the common public good. Since those charitable beginnings the drive towards ever more corporate liberation continues relentlessly, albeit now under the auspices of a process of 'consultation, openness, and transparency'.^P23-1 This is the economic growth paradigm; referred to earlier as the second of two tablets-of-stone.

As noted earlier, the legislative underpinning of dark governance has been investigated, in order to ascertain the extent to which observed bad behaviours correlate with the legal mandates. Some of the core corporate law concepts which underpin the profit-maximising process are listed.^P23-2

Noting the existence of government acquiescence and revolving door practices (see [Power structure]), some behaviours of corporate élites were considered from a psychological perspective, in order to better understand the mentality which has driven the evolution of corporate legislation to its present state. It was of particular interest to address the somewhat nebulous notion of so-called 'market confidence'. The significance attached to this metric might imply that it should almost be regarded as a third tablet-of-stone. It could be inferred that the system has been deliberately set up to generate an addiction to money.

The fundamental legal entity of the Corporate Person (CP) was introduced earlier in the section on Amorality.^P23-3

It (note the pronoun) cannot vote or be imprisoned. Instead, corporate lobbying and funding of political parties is allowed within the so-called democratic process. Its protection from legal liability, and a mandate to pursue its 'self' interest builds in a propensity for a corporation to break the law. Limited liability protects shareholders from legal responsibility for a corporation's actions, and usually it is the CP which is prosecuted for crimes, rather than those who committed them. Unsurprisingly this contributes to an observable arrogance, and an almost 'untouchable' ethos in some corporate executives.

It is later demonstrated how a spectrum of characteristic business activities with potentially bad behaviours can follow directly and logically from corporate legislation.

Supporting links

^P23-1   Evolution of corporate legislation^[PS]

^P23-2   Some important corporate law concepts^[PS]

^P23-3   The Corporate Person^[PS]

Since the early 1970s the familiar 'everyday' form of business as usual has evolved into a more aggressive form - global capitalism - in which money is ruthlessly made from money, with little connection to real wealth. This currently prevailing form is referred to throughout this website as dark governance.^P24-1 References on the views of some other writers on this general topic are listed in ^P24-2 and ^P24-3.

A summary of the results of the study, referred to in the previous section, into the extent to which the legislative tenets underpinning dark governance could be expected to cause the observed spectrum of associated bad behaviours is given in ^P24-4 and ^P24-5.

It is concluded that dark governance has either directly, or indirectly, caused the present major global problems, and so it is unrealistic to expect it to solve them.

The core features of dark governance can be broadly ascribed to three political, economic and financial mandates, referred to on this website as the Big 3:

Supporting links

^P24-1   Dark governance

^P24-2   Authors on global capitalism^[PS]

^P24-3   About élites^[PS]

^P24-4   What is wrong with dark governance?

^P24-5   A spectrum of business activities and behaviours

^P24-6    Foundations of nation-state governance: two primary tablets-of-stone

In international law, with regard to the need for national security and consequent relations between nation-states, self-defence is a legal basis for war. Apart from self-defence, war is illegal. Attacking civilians is a war crime.

In order to articulate some of the reasons for concerns about

and dark governance, the issue of what an acceptable form of business activity might look like is addressed in ^P31-1.

Corporate law does not currently require mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) when products are manufactured or services are provided. Companies therefore maximise profits by cutting corners, which results in cost externalities such as pollution, global warming, unrecyclable waste, etc.

^P31-1 What an acceptable form of business activity might look like^[PS]

Market competition acts as a straitjacket with a destructive "compete or die" ethos. At one level it can affect the GNP ranking of nation-states (Sachs, 1999, p.28). At another level it can affect manufacturers of a rival product, as discussed later in connection with sustainability accounting practices. "Financial institutions that were once dedicated to mobilizing funds for productive investment have transmogrified into a predatory, risk-creating, speculation-driven global financial system engaged in the unproductive extraction of wealth from taxpayers and the productive economy" (Korten, 1996, p.205). "Any government making any significant move to tighten environmental or social protection regulations would face the prospect of uncompetitiveness, capital flight, a loss of jobs and a resulting loss of votes" (Bunzl, 2004, p.3). "The markets are sleepless and will flow to the area of least regulation" (Korten, 1996, p.204), quoting the words of James Grant, editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer.

As discussed above, at the primary level of making products and providing services, the issue of cost externalisation in relation to profits and the associated environmental impacts is extremely important. Observing the role and behaviour of markets during a financial crisis can lay bare the foundations of the present system of 'global governance'. (Anon., 2019p) and (Anon., 2019q) describe ten years of turmoil during which the currency of the European Union was put in jeopardy through high indebtedness of some member-states. The theme is briefly paraphrased below.

In May 2010 the euro was in danger of collapsing. The crisis was triggered by member state Greece spending beyond its means, and incurring large debt; some of the other member states were also profligate. The immediate crisis required a massive bailout fund, which had to be underwritten in such a way that the 'markets would be calmed'.

The fund eventually deemed necessary to safeguard the euro from collapse under the pressure of speculators was 750 billion euros (about one trillion eurodollars). The IMF put up about 110 billion euros. Germany had been concerned that it would have to underwrite the whole fund, and refused. It was agreed that each country would guarantee only its own contribution.

The (then) German Chancellor remarked that:

It was common knowledge that the banks had been profiting from the crisis. When the German Chancellor required that the banks should pay their share, this was not well received. Risking losses the banks stopped lending money to weak economies. The then IMF Managing Director also did not agree with the (German Chancellor's) policy, stating that it was making the situation worse, and that it was not helpful to restore confidence in the markets. He added:

During the years which followed the situation continued to evolve, and agreements were established for tough constraints on state budgets and the Eurozone banking system; sufficient to ensure the financial stability of the euro area. The methods used have since been viewed as too dictatorial by an increasing proportion of the electorate.

It is clear that free-riding within a shared currency system is not reasonable, and that safeguards are necessary to minimise burdening other countries which are keeping within the rules. However the aggressive and parasitic role of speculators escalated the problem into a currency crisis - indeed into "a war between politics and the markets".

My inference is that the basis of that which 'calms the markets' is the underwriting of funds by the central banks, together with trust that designated heads of state and government officials will enforce agreed rules.

The bottom line of these rules appears to be that the big banks can 'legally' continue to make profits. This process requires the authority to do quantitative easing (creating money from nothing), and the confidence that all designated parties will comply with a set of rules.

In practice profits are made from those who can afford to pay; those who cannot afford to pay are regarded as irrelevant. A classic demonstration of this is the covid vaccine booster saga^P32-1. As noted above, if the banks risk losses they will stop lending money.

It therefore appears that this is what underpins so-called market confidence. For such a hollow objective to underly the potential demise of life on our planet, which is vastly more fundamental and serious than any currency collapse, seems preposterous. Is this really how we are all being played by the élites? If so, then until this undemocratic dysfunctional financial system is appropriately transformed, we are not going to be able to solve our human-caused global problems.

The complexity of the balance of power between élite factions is dicussed in ^P32-2. Senior finance officials may feel justified in taking important decisions in the event of a financial crisis, but how many such crises have been caused or exacerbated by the global market system? Many questions arise about the distinction between power and authority, the right to rule, sovereignty, and democracy versus dictatorship within a fit-for-purpose system of global governance.

The bank for central banks is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Many people have not even heard of it. This is what Gates McGarrah, the first president of the BIS, said about it in 1931 (Lebor, 2014, p.ix):

Many people would be shocked if they knew about the BIS and what it does, and what it has done in the past; for example it funded the Holocaust and the Nazi war machine (Ibid., p.258).

^P32-1 Targeting those who can afford to pay^[PS]

^P32-2 The balance of power^[PS]

Society accepts that there has to be a governance system, paid for by taxes from citizens and businesses. But a small number of élite individuals have amassed great wealth and thereby powerful and controlling positions within the governance system. This process has evolved over hundreds of years, and legislation has been tailored more for the benefit of élites than for the benefit of society at large. This is particularly the case for corporate legislation, which has given rise to abominations such as the Corporate Person (CP).

It is inferred that the attainment of corporate (and 'national security') objectives requires tight control over the acquisition and dissemination of information:

It can further be inferred that beyond the 'legal' business activities stage of dark governance, implementation invariably involves the use of more assertive methods. The nature of these activities, and how they are implemented, may extend into grey areas of interpretation - in terms of what is deemed 'legal'. While the longer term objectives of some of the activities listed above may be commercial, they can be more political in the short term. For example, lobbying to push for more deregulation, or giving financial donations to support pro-business candidates in elections (who are likely to support more deregulation).

The ongoing evolution and refinement of corporate legislation seeks to optimise profit - 'legally'. For the purpose of analysing the consequences of this legislation on corporate behaviour, the following compilation of generic 'legal' business activities has been selected:

The reader might be surprised at the activities listed. The first four are not widely publicised, but are key methods by which profits can be maximised through minimising costs. The last two activities are more familiar, and are accepted as part of the everyday media-normalised as positive image of business as usual; creating business opportunities which benefit us all through generating jobs, products and services.

Legal business activities break down into a myriad of further tasks. It may be observed that the acceptability of these can range from a level which would just be viewed as 'that is my job', through to being excused on the basis 'that is just business', up to borderline bribery and corruption, illegality, and even potentially culminate in ruthless criminality.

Corporate lobbying can be viewed as a longer term 'investment' to make money, through seeking to increase political influence. This can involve supporting prospective political candidates, for example those interested in pro-growth and more de-regulation, through funding election campaigns.

In the US any candidate wanting to run for presidential office needs huge financial backing to even stand a chance. Donations to foundations and charities deemed to be useful by the donor are also commonly accepted in the US.

A range of activities and behaviours with borderline corruption potential include :

Although any of the six generic 'legal' business activities listed earlier could lead to illegal activities, because of the close dependence of organised crime and money laundering on global financial markets, these topics are included within the [Power structure] section on "Commercial opportunism". Examples of business activities which are illegal include :

Bad corporate behaviour, including that observed in this exposé, is referred to as rogue operator behaviour throughout the website, which might seem offensive if taken to imply criticism of élites. It should be understood that élites do not think of themselves in this way. They would no doubt argue that it is the Corporate Person which exhibits only legally sanctioned behaviour.

In more detail:

^P33-1 A spectrum of business activities and behaviours^[PS]

Methods of accounting for the impacts of business activities on the sustainability of the planet are inherently compromised by the straitjacket of market competitiveness,^P34-1 and the reality of cost externalisation^P34-2 plus creative financialisation^P34-3 which cannot meaningfully represent or measure sustainability.^P34-4

Corporations use creative sustainability accounting and reporting as a mask, while continuing to make large financial profits. This deceitful process leaves a legacy of externalised consequences which is already seriously blighting the lives of people, and all life on the planet.^P34-5

It is not inadequacies in sustainability accounting methodology, as such, which are to blame for this situation. The process of financialising the unquantifiable was untenable from the outset, as many of those involved in developing sustainability accounting methodologies flagged up years ago. The production of glossy reports under the auspices of the global body for professional accountants, is all part of the game. Those responsible for creating and hiding behind the mask of sustainability accounting and reporting know what is really going on.

Supporting links

^P34-1   The basis of market confidence

^P34-2   Cost externalisation^[PS]

^P34-3   Financialisation^[PS]

^P34-4   Accounting for sustainability, or un-sustainability?^[PS]

^P34-5   Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

Sustainability accounting is a still-evolving methodology.^P35-1 It attempts to report on the extent to which the costs associated with a product/ service have been internalised within broad environmental, sociological and economic categories. But it is fraught by the requirement to financialise sociological and environmental parameters.

In more detail

^P35-1 Sustainability accounting^[PS]

As noted earlier, the legal concept of the Corporate Person can be observed to lead to an arrogant and almost 'untouchable' ethos in some corporate executives, and seems to be one of the hallmarks of those engaged in dark governance.^P36-1

In more detail

^P36-1 Rogue operator behaviour^[PS]

Could this be the final frontier in the élite power game? Could such a stalemate cause the historic precedent, that force trumps all, to be transcended in favour of a co-operative truce?

Perhaps the light will dawn, and our leaders can begin again on a new path whereby common sense and humanity finally prevail, before it is too late.

As things currently stand, the possibility of moving towards a more enlightened global governance system seems a distant hope. The rest of the website narrative describes an attempt to address this very difficult issue, and in particular what we, as ordinary citizens, can do about it.

Supporting links

^P37-1   The balance of power^[PS]

^P37-2   The agenda of global élites^[PS]

^P37-3   System justification, media framing, and propaganda^[CA]

^P37-4   Background to the Russian attack on Ukraine^[PS:N]

^P37-5   The Hyperthreat and Politico-Military Response (reference citation)^[Bibl]

It is demonstrated that a number of characteristic business activities and a spectrum of resulting bad behaviours follow logically and directly from corporate legislation.^P41-1 This is not conspiracy theory. These bad behaviours^P41-2 and ^P41-3 result in consequences which are not in the interests of the common good, or of the health and sustainability of the planet.^P41-4 The core corporate legislation is therefore morally wrong because it encourages and rewards uncivilised, inhumane, oppressive, and ruthless human behaviour.

In particular the legal device/ verbal trick/ legal fiction of the Corporate Person, which intentionally decouples rights from societal and environmental responsibilities, is at the root of the arrogance and rogue operator behaviour which manifests as dark governance. Dark governance has disproportionately benefited a comparatively small proportion of the global population. It has already resulted in great suffering within the wider population, and very serious degradation of the natural systems of the planet.^P41-5

The most evil facet of dark governance is manifested when hawkish élite individuals, acting singly or in collusion with others, are prepared to use senseless brutal and ruthless force to gain influence on the world stage. Some examples epitomising this evil facet include the US strategic military intentions leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022^P41-6; the ensuing Russian aggression and multiple violations of international law; the HAMAS attack on Israel in 2023 and Israel's response; with the consequent multiple violations of international law and loss of innocent lives by both sides.

Supporting links

^P41-1   Some important corporate law concepts^[PS]

^P41-2   A spectrum of business activities and behaviours^[PS]

^P41-3   Rogue operator behaviour^[PS]

^P41-4   Exercising rights and responsibilities in the world^[B]

^P41-5   Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

^P41-6    Some background to the Russian attack on Ukraine^[PS:N]

The way the world needs to work, if the MHCPs are to be tackled:

Governments could refrain from instigating wars.

Governments could reform company law; reform the monetary system; and authorise some quantitative-easing for the benefit of society and the common good^QE.

Governments could have adequately resourced the countless constructive initiatives^II aimed at tackling MHCPs through the numerous international institutions...

Corporations could have refrained from lobbying hard against such initiatives...

And so on.

^QE Quantitative-easing is routinely authorised (by the élites) for the express purpose of maintaining the existing financial system. The topic is discussed further in [Big 3 reform].

^P41-7 What is wrong with dark governance? (reference citation)^[PS:N]

Those who control governments (and corporations) do not do these constructive things. Instead they deliberately block policies which would adversely affect short term corporate profits through increased regulation, and which would benefit society more widely at their expense; as they would see it.

Those who control central banks, governments, and corporations no doubt genuinely believe that we should be grateful to them. They provide employment so that citizens can pay their bills, and pay taxes to their respective governments. In turn, each government runs its country, and pays the interest on the sovereign debt it has incurred by borrowing (see below).

Those who are fortunate enough to be gameplayers can afford to pay for their daily needs. Many can also afford to overconsume, providing yet further employment in the economy. Many consumers now pay for their consumption using credit cards, and these debt repayments return to the private banks. A well-oiled machine indeed.

Those who cannot afford to be gameplayers are of no interest to TwVI (those with vested interests). This is discussed later, citing the example of big pharmaceutical companies targeting those whose governments can afford to pay for Covid-19 booster vaccines.

It may be further inferred that:

The lives of the majority of global citizens, and the ecological health of the planet, are being held to ransom by a relatively small number of ruthless and hugely wealthy élite individuals.

These people have such enormous wealth that they are able to control the global agenda through being the creditors of most sovereign debt. They can finance whatever they choose, such as helping the election campaigns of ambitious politicians, in exchange for favours. Journalists and authors who attempt to expose foul play could be challenged in the courts by defendants with access to vast financial resources.

Underpinned by such enormous wealth, they can play, or lean on, virtually anyone they choose, including those we think of as 'the authorities'. In effect we are all their puppets, whether knowingly or otherwise.

Their creditor role is so vast that, if or when they choose to call in sovereign debt repayments, they could bankrupt most nation-states; and thereby progressively increase their influence over global governance.

Organised criminal activity has now penetrated 'the authorities' within many nation-states, which significantly corrupts and compromises legitimate governance.^P41-8

"The globalisation of crime further subverts the nation-state, profoundly transforming processes of governance, and actually paralysing the state in many instances".

Even governments can now be sued by corporations through 'corporate courts' for loss of profits, including future ones - for example, if a corporation can argue that a government's social or environmental policy would adversely affect its profits.^P41-9

And so, despite the existence of more enlightened frameworks, and despite the personal values of the global majority of decent individual citizens, the nearest we currently have to a collective global society consensus 'values' framework is in effect, by default, the dehumanised nation-state and corporate legislation.^P41-10

In practice, it is this legislation which underpins and mandates the policies and behaviours of government and corporate élites.

^P41-8   Organised crime and money laundering - linked crimes^[PS]

^P41-9   Corporate courts^[PS]

^P41-10   What is wrong with dark governance? (reference citation)^[PS:N]

Today, the way dark governance treats the global economy might be viewed as three different interdependent and overlapping economies: first the most important and dominant "market economy", second the "survival economy", and the least important - "nature's economy". The historical background to 'human-nature dualism'^P41-11, and the emergence of the present corporate arrogance towards nature is revealing, and at times outrageously male chauvinist. "...Descartes considered that animals ... were nothing more than machines". "...Francis Bacon portrayed nature in feminine terms as as something that should be subdued, used, and dominated". This path of putting the pursuit of money and power for a few over the health of all life on the planet is immoral, recklessly destructive, unsustainable, and potentially disastrous.

Mainstream science recognises that we live in a biosphere, first and foremost, and that to ensure that our planet remains habitable, the purpose of an economy designed to meet the needs of society sustainably should not harm life on the planet.

Correct Hierarchy

The first tablet of stone - revisited

Power through force controls the people

The oppression of the commercial facet of dark governance is further darkened by those who are prepared to instigate wars. At certain points in history, those prepared to use brute force to exert their power can also hold the world to ransom. The potential for conflict escalation and use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) hangs over us all.

^P41-11 Human-nature dualism^[PS]

The élite global governance plan, which is already largely in place^P41-12 :

^P41-12   The agenda of global élites^[PS]

^P41-13   Crises responses^[PS]

^P41-14   What does 'net zero by 2050' really imply?^[PS]

Whether or not a technology is helpful depends on who is developing it and for what purpose. The current enormous interest in artificial intelligence is attracting massive financial investment.

It is generally acknowledged that global cooperation is required to monitor the potential risks of AI development, with the nuclear and aviation industries being cited as good examples. But such cooperation can be severely tested under adverse conditions; for example during the Russia/Ukraine war in the case of the nuclear industry, and the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the aviation industry.

On the basis of what has been learned about the modus operandi of those with powerful vested interests, the future trajectory of AI is not reassuring in terms of real concern that those with massive vested interests do care about safeguarding the common good.

Business has always invested in technology where it is seen to improve profitability - while ignoring external costs as already noted. AI has the potential to displace employment of people. The economic and sociological consequences of this need to be addressed; for example will some sort of universal basic income system need to be introduced en masse? Given that the dominant economic model depends upon overconsumption, who will be able to afford to pay for future products and services? Who will pay for the massive environmental damage resulting from decades of accumulating externalised costs in the pursuit of business profitability? What political leverage will citizens have in a world in which only money talks, if they have little money?

Strong advocates of Artificial Intelligence (AI) talk animatedly about how it will lead to future technical solutions to global problems, and those who have invested heavily in AI will want to maximise their profits. The fact that development of general purpose AI is perceived to be extremely lucrative virtually guarantees that TwVI will already be in control of it, and will be driving intense lobbying during the formulation of any legislation which could affect the definition of goal-setting for AI systems.

The behaviour of the fossil fuel business should leave us in no doubt about the selective 'amorality' and self-interested priorities of those with large vested interests. The despicable legal concept of the 'Corporate Person' mandates business to detach itself from direct control or responsibility for adverse consequences resulting from its externalised costs, while ensuring full rights to the profits.

Who the beneficiaries are will depend upon who controls the AI goal definition.

We should be under no illusions about how AI legislation will be similarly framed.^P41-15 Whatever reassurances the AI community might offer about respecting the need for dialogue with ethicists, social scientists, and those from the humanities disciplines about the rules for their algorithms, at best this will take longer than we can afford to wait.

It is realistic to assume that the nature of future promised provable 'benefits to humans' will be primarily tailored to the preferences of the biggest investors.

We do not need to wait for AI to inform us that global warming needs to be halted, or how this should be done. We already know that massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are urgently necessary, and that we need to make these reductions now.

We also already know that the rate of environmental degradation will increase significantly as the huge data-centres associated with AI rapidly proliferate.^P41-16

If the present path of business as usual continues, there will be no habitable planet, nor any future for AI or anything else.

^P41-15 Vested interests and general purpose AI^[PS]

^P41-16 Revealed difficulties with 'essential' goods^[B3R]

Much of the website narrative has concentrated on the question of who is in control, and by what means, and therefore who should hold responsibility for the Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)^P42-1, and for directing remedial action.

The assessment described in the website has identified the following features which, to put it politely, are not conducive to the general flourishing of life on the planet.

In principle, progress could be made towards tackling the major human-caused global problems. In practice the necessary actions have been blocked by a small number of immensely wealthy and powerful élite individuals - those with vested interests (TwVI). In order to maximise their profits, TwVI particularly target^P42-11 the 'comfortably-off' population sector; for example as occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.

TwVI in fossil fuels have great power, wealth and control. Control of the global energy supply is a top priority for them, as it underpins all economic growth. Despite climate change being of such pressing global concern, they are more than happy to continue selling us their products, and to market enticing lifestyles which encourage over-dependence and even greater use of energy.

As noted above, their business plan^P42-12 for the period to 2050 (and beyond) is understandably to just carry on realising their assets. In so doing they have 'got us over a barrel', as there is not yet enough non-fossil fuelled energy generation to meet current and projected demand. This demand is, of course, systematically and continuously stimulated by government policies which are totally reliant on consumption and growth in order to operate at all.

TwVI in Artificial Intelligence (AI) pose perhaps an even bigger concern (for the human species). Although strong advocates of AI talk animatedly about how it will lead to future technical solutions to global problems, those who have invested heavily in AI will want to maximise their profits. The fact that development of general purpose AI is perceived to be extremely lucrative virtually guarantees that TwVI will already be in control^P42-13 of it, and driving intense lobbying during the formulation of any legislation which could affect the definition of goal-setting for AI systems.

There will clearly be a need for societal engagement, scrutiny, and vigilance regarding AI developments.

Supporting links

^P42-1   Major human-caused problems (MHCPs)

^P42-2   Some important corporate law concepts^[PS]

^P42-3   Corporate courts^[PS]

^P42-4   Awareness raising and developing solutions

^P42-5   Corporate blocking: intransigence^[PS]

^P42-6   Rogue operator behaviour^[PS]

^P42-7   What is wrong with dark governance?

^P42-8   Held to ransom

^P42-9   Facets of dark governance^[PS].

^P42-10   The agenda of global élites^[PS]

^P42-11   Targeting those who can afford to pay^[PS]

^P42-12    Business as usual^[PS]

^P42-13   Who controls AI?

Progress in solving the major human-caused problems of the world is effectively paralysed by the overriding priority given to economic growth with inherent externalities by the status quo. Whether or not the reader believes that dark governance is being driven by an ongoing undisclosed élite agenda, the global scale of the process, and its consequences, are now plain for all to see.

A question was posed at the beginning of [The Case: Power structure]:

What is it about the existing global governance system which has allowed, indeed encouraged, the reckless plundering of natural resources, while turning a blind eye to ever-worsening global problems?

Ways in which the system could be reconfigured in favour of acting responsibly for the common good, and safeguarding the habitability of the planet have been persistently ignored, and so the

are getting worse. In principle the right things could be done by governments and corporations, but in practice those in control of the process continue to prioritise economic growth, with inherent externalities. The situation is now so serious that the pertinent question should therefore perhaps be reframed as:

By what possible mechanism could the inexorable roll out of the élite plan not materialise?

An attempt is made to address this question in the link below:

^P43-1 Future global governance scenarios^[PS]

Life choices

It is to be hoped that most of those who contemplate serious engagement with politics, by means of the normal democratic process, do so in the belief that it provides a route to influence societal change for a better and more humane system. However it soon becomes clear that there is absolutely no 'level playing field' for ordinary citizens who try to mobilise societal change.

The process by which corporate legislation came into being, and continues to evolve was reviewed in [The Case: Power structure]. A study was conducted of the extent to which the core tenets of legislation might explain observed bad governance behaviours. The study demonstrated how the wall of intransigence resulting from the prevailing Big 3 aspects of dark governance, with its disarmingly benign ethos of 'business as usual', follows directly from national security and 'amoral' corporate legislation.

It also provides an explanation of why the status quo is so resistant to genuine democracy. The 'amorality' of dark governance is not challenged by mainstream 'hard' science. Morality and values are viewed as 'subjective and not objectively verifiable', and therefore not regarded as appropriate for proper scientific investigation. Human values are only deemed to have currency at a private individual level.^LC1-1 If genuine democracy prevailed globally, everyone would be able to fairly give expression to their personal values at the ballot box. Voting system corruption and the issue of genuine democracy are addressed elsewhere in the website, for example:^LC1-2

The status quo does not appear to regard the various branches of psychology, and indeed social sciences in general, as seriously as the hard sciences.^LC1-3 Nevertheless

, ever expedient, are skilfully adept at using social psychology and semantic inversion^LC1-4 to facilitate their profit-maximising agenda. Notwithstanding the official mainstream stance maintained towards psychology and the social sciences in general, these subjects have developed significantly in recent years, and the issue of 'mental health' is now a high profile topic.

Given that the political process is so dominated by the controlling élites, it makes sense to focus on the élite individuals whose insatiable appetite for more drives the dark governance agenda. Their subjective values^LC1-5 are particularly important by virtue of the massive power, wealth, and control they direct towards economic growth, and the instigation of wars; and the consequent

However dominant the 'amoral' dark governance power structure is, it evolved from the efforts of, and is managed by, ( élite ) individuals. At root, vested interests relate to the drives of such individuals (

), who are associated with very large environmental and sociological footprints. They could potentially make significant impacts on the reduction of anthropogenic risk if they became more aware of, and cared more, about their responsibilities as global citizens.

Human values are only deemed to have currency at a private individual level.

By virtue of their human values, some potential vulnerabilities in the position of such individuals can be identified.

Supporting links

^LC1-1   On the rightness of values^[MC]

^LC1-2   Markets are getting freer but democracy is suffering^[PS]

^LC1-3   Abraham Maslow's pioneering work on human values^[MC]

^LC1-4   Arrogance and semantic inversion^[PS]

^LC1-5   Subjective values of hawkish élite individuals and the use of WMD (short comment only)^[B]

It is part of human nature to want more^LC1-6, but as Mahatma Gandhi said:

While the word 'want' can be used to refer to a basic need, or to greed, sustained excessive indulgence can gradually turn an apparent want into a need. This inherent human tendency is mercilessly exploited by business as usual in order to make money.^LC1-7 Methodologies to hone these 'skills' are used by people motivated by worldly success. Essentially they are all about getting what one wants, or more accurately what one thinks one wants.

This is the complete opposite of what the Buddha found was necessary on his path to Enlightenment. The Buddha was born a prince, and had lived a life of luxury before he saw the light.

If those pursuing glitzy worldly success are driving global warming, environmental unsustainability, and involve human activities which are incompatible with living in a biosphere, then they are part of the global problem. Furthermore, the fallout from global free market hypercapitalism is causing addiction and social dislocation on a vast scale.^LC1-8

Addressing the need and greed issue, the idea that a bigger picture view of the attributes of "more" might provide a way to take the analysis forward is explored in the Being page. Some élite individuals might even choose to become key parts of the solution, rather than key drivers of the problem.

Supporting links

^LC1-6   Man wants more^[LC]

^LC1-7   Fuelling ambition: methodologies used by successful people^[LC]

^LC1-8   Addiction^[LC]

To what extent is there a role of choice and free will, in exercising individual citizen rights and responsibilities? ^LC2-1 ^LC2-2 ^LC2-3 Consideration of rights and responsibilities at the individual level, and the making of life choices by the exercise of free will, relates to the question of individual human values. This has significant ramifications for individual citizens in general, particularly due to the priorities and behaviour of élite individuals.

The modus operandi of power élites (at work) is 'amoral', and devoid of human values as previously discussed. The way economic growth is built into the fabric of society, which is viewed as the economy, acts as a straitjacket to the type of choices individual citizens can make. The adverse consequences from ignored externalisations have already been discussed. The straitjacket also constrains the available choices in terms of the type of opportunities for employment, and through 'consumer democracy'.

This societal straitjacket derives from the way élite individuals handle their rights and responsibilities. Human values become controversial because corporate law specifies that the responsibility of a director is to serve the company interest above all else^LC2-4; meanwhile within a nation-state, national security takes precedence. Quite apart from the global governance complexities posed by these requirements, at an individual level they are a recipe for an internal values conflict between life at work, and life outside work.

In general it can be observed that élites - corporate, government, military.. - exercise direct power over people's lives by virtue of their roles. It will therefore be necessary for each such individual to effectively compartmentalise their life into work/ non-work aspects, having exercised free will by virtue of choosing to work for a particular corporation/ organisation, in the knowledge of how such organisations operate.

For example how military training is designed to turn soldiers into killing machines.

If an individual happens to exercise considerable power in his/her career, perhaps as a high ranking corporate executive, government official, politician, or military officer, then it must follow that if he/she is a conventionally 'good person' he/she will sometimes experience a conflict of values when working.

Such internal values conflicts can become controversial when linked to the issue of free will, and extreme work/ non-work life compartmentalisation arising from internal values-conflicts no doubt can and does cause suffering to some élite individuals. Unlike most cost externalisations, it cannot just be dumped on to the masses or the underprivileged, but must be faced by the individual affected. To put it wryly:

Élites are tough guys who accept personal risks in the fast lane; mental toughness being a product of an education for leadership. The 'right kind' of education is about winning, and about leadership for power and control - over an economy. Leadership for service to a society is for losers; there is no money in it.

The image of toughness might be a façade; just bluff and bravado. Perhaps when the chips are down the pretence begins to falter, and some humility creeps in. Coping strategies for those who are having to deal with extreme internal-values conflicts, and/or their consequences, may therefore be necessary^LC2-5

Supporting links

^LC2-1   Life choices, free will, and values^[MC]

^LC2-2   Choice, free will, and scientific materialism ^[LC]

^LC2-3   Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory^[LC]

^LC2-4   Arrogance towards people^[PS]

^LC2-5   Coping strategies adopted by corporate executives^[LC]

Should corporate law include a moral compass mandate?

Psychological, philosophical, and spiritual perspectives on wanting more

As already noted, corporate governance has evolved over hundreds of years^LC3-1, together with its underlying materialist psychology.^LC3-2 Logically there seems to be little chance of breaking the bad behaviours associated with dark governance, unless or until élite individuals with vested interests cease to be compelled by the apparent attraction of wanting ever more power, wealth, and control.^LC3-3 Whether or not their compulsions are ultimately misguided quests for personal happiness; manifestations of a mental health issue; and/or a dangerous belief, such as fascism, dark governance is now jeopordising the habitability of the planet for all life.

Without a moral compass mandate^LC3-4 within corporate law, business would be expected to continue as usual; only acknowledging human values to the extent that money could be made. It would therefore be worth considering conditions under which a financialised view of more would be limiting, and how these limits might be transcended.

From the perspective of individual investors, it can be observed that:

It can be inferred that more confidence equates to more power, wealth and control. For an élite individual, it may therefore be supposed that more money really does provide a temporary pleasure-buzz; perhaps more than enough consolation for living a compartmentalised life.

But would this really be happiness; or a short term 'high' resulting from an addiction to power, wealth and control?^LC3-6 Referring to Abraham Maslow's theory about peak experiences and "Being" values, in "Maslow on Being" on the [Moral compass] page, it is doubtful that he would equate this type of euphoria to a peak experience of 'transcendence'.

The range of legal business activities and behaviours typically involved in launching a product or service, including inherent cost externalities, and untenable assumptions in the financialisation process, are discussed in [Power structure]. Nietzsche's disparaging view of values and truth has been very influential, and has perhaps lowered the aspirational bar for these qualities within society in general.^LC3-7

A deeper look at the conditions under which more is better, and where more is a problem, leads to questions about the criteria which might be used; questions about human values, free will, and life choices.

"The core theme of the website argues that the prevailing corporate legislature, based on a judicious interpretation of amorality, lies at the root of the major human-caused predicaments that we face. This legal mandate has been gradually established over hundreds of years by powerful élites, largely for their benefit.

Unless, and until, this is changed to embed a mandatory moral compass, the existing global problems can only get worse."

Quote from the [Moral compass] introduction.

At the core of the controversy is the so-called hard problem of consciousness. A broad split between the prevailing mainstream scientific worldview, and a post-materialist scientific view is apparent:

Mainstream science is based upon the assumption that Matter is fundamental and therefore consciousness must be an emergent property of the brain. Human morals and values are regarded as subjective, only operative at an individual level, and therefore have no objective-collective reality.

Post-materialist science is based upon the assumption that Conscious Awareness is fundamental, and that matter is a manifestation within Consciousness.

It is however generally accepted that the 'I am' feeling of sentience is inexplicable by current science.

Supporting links

^LC3-1   Evolution of corporate legislation^[PS]

^LC3-2    Human-nature dualism^[PS]

^LC3-3   The present moment and lifestyle choices^[LC]

^LC3-4   A moral compass mandate^[MC]

^LC3-5    The basis of market confidence

^LC3-6   A system set up to generate addiction^[LC]

^LC3-7   Nietzsche on morality, values, and truth (quotation and reference citation)^[MC]

^LC3-8   Life choices, free will, and values^[MC]

Taking an amoral, but emergent materialist natural science perspective^LC3-9, the shameless expediency of the rogue operator behaviour associated with dark governance could be said to follow a predatorial-mode, rather than the more altruistic defensive community-mode which operates in some animal and insect species.

We have all heard of the 'survival of the fittest' concept, but our survival as a species is likely to depend on us all collectively recognising and acting upon Darwin's less well known insight that:

"selfish individuals might out-compete altruists within groups, but internally altruistic groups out-compete selfish groups" ^LC3-10

Unless, and until, international and corporate legislation unambiguously specifies some level of humanity and substantial environmental protection, there will be no mandate to change, and dark governance will continue. As things currently stand, dark governance is capable of violating even the existing international law, as happened when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

The 'kings of the temporal world' usually operate noncommunally, so as to ensure the acquisition and continued access to valued global resources primarily for their benefit; albeit invariably dressed up to look like protecting the security or interests of a nation-state.

Commercial operations are supposed to follow any legal restrictions arising from public policy within a particular jurisdiction. Any amelioration is limited to expedient corporation-specific voluntary concessions or discretionary options, where such provisions are made.

It can be observed that any such amelioration would be motivated more by corporate awareness of the importance of brand reputation arising from public scrutiny, than by genuine social and environmental concern. Brand image can be promoted or defended by PR hype, which appears to more than pay for itself, in the short term at least. This is consistent with Milton Friedman's interpretation of corporate law.^LC3-11

Given that money talks to

, even they might be mildly troubled if the public at large asked "are we being kept in the dark?" ^LC3-12, and even more if there was a widespread awakening to the wisdom that happiness cannot be financialised.^LC3-13 Similarly, power élites might be mildly troubled if there were widespread public demonstrations in favour of humane global governance.

Happiness depends more on being than having. Beyond a minimal level of comfort, it is generally accepted that more wealth is not necessary for well-being.

In the context of 'amoral' dark governance operating within a biosphere, I have argued that being informs doing, such that doing without being leads to wrong actions^LC3-14 Taking a big picture view, money is a man-made administrative control tool, and not worth jeopardising life itself for. But such is the magnitude of corporate grip, and the extent of status quo commitment to the overconsumptive economic growth tablet-of-stone, based on inherent externalities, that the TwVI have little to fear.

Until nature flips, or a MAD (mutual assured destruction) human event occurs.

Graph of the viability of a particular species against time, showing the period before an earth system tipping point. No-one knows how long Homo sapiens will survive.

Graph of the viability of a particular species against time, showing the period before an earth system tipping point. No-one knows how long Homo sapiens will survive.

Socio-political and cultural shifts are complex processes which inevitably take time to evolve. It can be observed that the evolution of natural systems, including human memory, exhibit hysteresis (tipping point) behaviour, such that change invariably does not occur smoothly, but rather in 'fits and starts'. A natural process can slowly adjust for some time, in response to conditions, then suddenly flip to another operational mode.

Tipping point behaviour also occurs in mental processes, which are also 'natural systems'. This can reinforce a tendency towards crisis management in human affairs. TwVI (those with vested interests - the élites with very strong influence within the prevailing global governance system) have learned how to successfully exploit the various features of natural systems, particularly regarding mental processes, primarily for their power, wealth and control purposes.

"Historically an arrogance towards nature is reflected in Francis Bacon's vision of dominating nature..." "There is a discernible mindset, characteristically inherent in business and (particularly) right wing politics, whereby nature and the environment tend to be seen as a collective free resource to be plundered for profit..." ^LC3-15

Earth system processes operate over much longer timescales than mental processes, such tipping point flips are likely to be effectively irreversible on human timescales.^LC3-16

Supporting links

^LC3-9   An amoral natural science perspective^[MC]

^LC3-10   Altruism and group selection in the field of sociobiology^[MC]

^LC3-11   Corporate Social Responsibility, and Milton Friedman's view of CSR^[PS]

^LC3-12   Are we being kept in the dark?^[MC]

^LC3-13   Happiness cannot be financialised^[LC]

^LC3-14   Doing without being leads to wrong actions^[B]

^LC3-15   Arrogance towards nature^[PS].

^LC3-16   Are we on course for a hothouse earth? ^[I]

As a result of persistent corporate blocking ^LC4-1 of countless constructive policy initiatives, we have already lost decades where a responsible international action plan for tackling the MHCPs (major human-caused problems) could have been implemented. A study commissioned back in 2005 by the Club of Rome^LC4-2, which considered the overall global average consequences from the excess exploitation of natural resources, showed that the longer proper action for global sustainability is delayed, the more we run out of options.^LC4-3

Apart from catastrophic threats to the habitability of our planet arising from human-caused accidents, or from intentional rogue operations such as military aggression, our continued externalisation-heavy overconsumption is likely to lead to far worse environmental conditions in the future.

We do not know how long it would take for the natural earth systems to recover from the severe human-caused environmental 'debt' accumulated during the last 200 years or so, even if we managed to halt the causes of further environmental degradation. The longer we delay such action, the greater the risk of triggering earth system tipping points, with possibly dire and irreversible consequences.

If we carry on in the manner of dark governance, it is difficult to see any other outcome than eventual oblivion

The current state of the global environment demonstrates that voluntary self-regulation^LC4-4 by corporations, and by overconsumers, is not working. To reverse environmental degradation, serious action is clearly necessary. Restraint on activities with a high environmental footprint is urgently required, to minimise the risk of triggering an earth system tipping point.

Our present predicament may have been driven by dark governance, but as noted at the end of the previous section, many of us who can afford to overconsume have become addicted to what we like, and would not welcome imposed austerity, or voluntarily choose a simpler life.

Unless a paradigm shift in the global culture of the better-off evolves very quickly towards massively curbing overconsumption, which on the face of it seems extremely unlikely other than as a consequence of significant global inflation, the prevailing system of dark governance is likely to continue - until something breaks.

The term 'oblivion', as used here, refers to a potential future scenario, in which massive irreversible damage (irreversible on human timescales) has been caused to the biosphere, such that the planet is virtually uninhabitable, and/or a large proportion of the human population is wiped out.

For example, damage scenarios might include consequences from the use of weapons of mass destruction^LC4-5, or from the triggering of one or more earth system tipping points.^LC4-6

'Austerity' seems oppressive if the conditions are imposed upon us, but less so if we have voluntarily chosen to live more frugally in order to reduce our environmental footprint for the sake of all future life on the planet.

A reluctance to curb consumption^LC4-7, for the sake of life on the planet, raises uncomfortable questions about the extent to which it is easier to live in denial^LC4-8 about the potential consequences. Reasons for denial are complex and numerous. Being 'too busy' to learn about the issues and deal with 'the hassle' of changing lifestyle, might even conveniently disguise a selfish indifference in relation to the kind of legacy we are leaving for our descendents.

This really is the time to consider the state of the planet from the perspective of the younger generation. If we are at all concerned about the problem of declining societal mental health^LC4-9, particularly in young people, we should think more deeply about how this has come about, and do something about it.

For the sake of all life on the planet, we have to hope that the life-priorities of enough capable individuals might be mustered to facilitate change in the right direction, before it is too late.

Supporting links

^LC4-1   Corporate blocking: intransigence^[PS]

^LC4-2   The Club of Rome and Limits to Growth^[I]

^LC4-3   We are running out of options (reference citation)^[I]

^LC4-4   Voluntary self-regulation^[PS]

^LC4-5   Nuclear weapons threat^[I:N]

^LC4-6   Are we on course for a hothouse earth?^[I]

^LC4-7   Pithy references about huge differences in emissions between rich and poor^[PS:N]

^LC4-8   Denialism^[CA]

^LC4-9   Public health/mental health & related links roundup^[PS]

Big 3 reform

Towards a fit-for-purpose governance system

Corporate law has been honed for several hundred years to give a mandate to business to operate 'profitably'. It has been argued that the prevailing Big 3^B3R1-1 governance system has either directly, or indirectly, caused the present major global problems, and that is therefore unrealistic to expect it to solve them.

Unless and until the Big 3 set of political, economic and financial mandates is fundamentally inverted in law, from the existing hierarchy of business/society/planet to planet/society/business, no effective action on climate change, AI governance, or health can be expected from the authorities:

Correct Hierarchy

Decades have been wasted when progress could have been made on tackling these problems. We are running out of time and cannot afford any further prevarication or delaying tactics.^B3R1-2

It may be observed that citizen initiatives can only be sanctioned on the terms of the status quo :

The agenda of the global élites^B3R1-3 is all about world money, taxation, the administration thereof, and the associated élite power, wealth and control. People and the planet are only considered by élites to the extent, and on the terms, that they fit within this scheme.^B3R1-4

The ever present reality of geopolitical tensions ^B3R1-5 ^B3R1-6 is a stark reminder that the

are not going to be resolved without cooperative remedial action within a fit-for-purpose framework of global governance:

A framework which would, in principle, be more likely to lead to the taking of necessary decisions to solve the major human-caused problems, and to reduce the likelihood of a global catastrophe.

The first two sections of [The Case] outlined an attempt to try to understand the causes of some of the main global problems, in order to be in a position to identify some possible steps in the 'right' direction which ordinary citizens could take. On this website the 'right' direction is taken to mean steps towards an overall solution which could work, in principle.

Some of the prerequisites for a better type of global governance system and leadership^B3R1-7 might be inferred by considering the broad characteristics of political systems, ranging from the polarities of the political spectrum: left to right, and from democracy (free) to totalitarianism/ dictatorship (unfree).^B3R1-8

The democratic World State ^B3R1-9 is an impressive and bold long term vision for a fit-for-purpose global governance system.

However...

To establish a fit-for-purpose system of global governance, such as the democratic World State, could take decades to implement; even without inevitable opposition from

, and from those with other political ideologies.

It is difficult to imagine any desirable long term scenario unless further increases in global warming are halted urgently.

Given the longstanding track record of élite governance, how could we even begin to cut through the years and years of corporate blocking of any policy which would threaten élite vested interests?

The task is formidable.

One way might be if:

Citizens - somehow en masse - could acquire and sustain sufficient leverage to be able to negotiate a social contract ^B3R1-10 with 'the authorities'.^B3R1-11

As the familiar proverb goes - many hands make light work.

Supporting links

^B3R1-1   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance

^B3R1-2   "Back from the brink" (reference citation)^[I]

^B3R1-3   The agenda of global élites^[PS]

^B3R1-4   Developed or underdeveloped?^[I]

^B3R1-5   Geopolitical tensions [Home]

^B3R1-6   One World or None^[B3R]

^B3R1-7    What kind of leadership would be required?^[B3R]

^B3R1-8   On the dimensions of politics^[B3R]

^B3R1-9   The right direction^[B3R]

^B3R1-10   "...a kind of social contract"^[B3R]

^B3R1-11   Spotlight on democracy^[B3R]

^B3R1-12   Two modes of existence^[MC]

^B3R1-13   Moral responsibility and the amassment of power^[MC]

^B3R1-14   Denial, virtue, and the power of collective action^[MC]

Notwithstanding the intransigence of dark governance, hitherto activists have taken comfort from common sense grassroots support by ordinary citizens, as representatives of the common good. But increasingly it appears that citizens' perceptions of their best interests are becoming ever more divided. Far-right politics is gaining traction in parts of Europe and in the US. In the US, religious fundamentalism, populism, fake news, and hate speech are all on the increase.^B3R1-13 An increasing arrogance towards the people from some leaders reinforces a public sense that 'it is one rule for them, and another for the rest of us'.^B3R1-14

Some conspiracy theorists might think that such divisions are being deliberately seeded in order to protect the interests of the status quo. Whether or not this is the case, the trend does not bode well for cohesive support for the kind of constructive collaboration required to resolve global MHCPs; such as working towards reform of the Big 3.

In the same way that corporate élites have assumed rights without societal or environmental responsibilities, many of us as their customers have followed suit, adopting an I'm alright, Jack (IaJ) or an out of sight, out of mind attitude to life. This again is hardly compatible with moving towards less consumptive lifestyles.

Such a stance on life is incompatible with survival of the species; we seem to have forgotten that we live in a biosphere. The trend towards destruction of the habitability of the planet is not going to be halted without a massive switch to more sustainable lifestyles. This will require affluent societal cold-turkey from an addiction^B3R1-15 to fossil fuel usage and overconsumption; seeded by an élite addiction to power, wealth and control which drives economic growth and dark governance.

The dire state of the planet is the physical manifestation of our level of development as a species. It is time for humans to take some personal responsibility for our adverse impacts on the planet.

It has been pointed out that the situation is so serious that it has become a global security issue. To convey this seriousness the term hyperthreat is used by the author of "Plan E". This is a peer-reviewed proposal for a new type of climate and environmental change centred global security military planning strategy.^B3R1-16  ^B3R1-17

But while dark governance demonstrates an absence of genuine caring about people and the planet, there is also a significant level of complicity by many of us who can afford to overconsume - and choose to do so. We feel entitled to spend our money, which we have earned, and too many of us have become addicted to what we like. We would not welcome imposed austerity; or voluntarily choose a simpler life.

Given the present serious environmental situation, how much of our response as citizens is due to denialism^B3R1-18 and "system justification"^B3R1-19, or oppression and disempowerment from a lack of democracy? Or does it demonstrate a general lack of social responsibility, insufficient caring, and a paucity of loving kindness in the collective human heart?

In our increasingly secular world, many people regard 'God' as a myth. But we can't have it both ways. To walk that talk means having to admit that the mess is down to us; we cannot then blame 'God'.^B3R1-20  ^B3R1-21

Doable, peaceful, legal, effective action by both the authorities and global citizens is required. But we are running out of time. The much hoped for essential COP26 commitments for global fossil fuel reduction fell far short of what is required. Little progress has been made since.

Supporting links

^B3R1-13   Religious fundamentalism in the US, with reference citation^[PS:N]

^B3R1-14   Divisive public behaviour by leaders^[PS]

^B3R1-15   A system set up to generate addiction^[LC]

^B3R1-16   The Hyperthreat and Politico-Military Response (reference citation)^[Bibl]

^B3R1-17   Suppression of research on the climate and environmental change hyperthreat^[PS]

^B3R1-18   Denialism^[CA]

^B3R1-19   System justification, media framing, and propaganda^[CA]

^B3R1-20   We need to awaken our inner moral compass, in the interests of the survival of all life on the planet^[MC]

^B3R1-21   Exercising rights and responsibilities in the world^[B]

Given the urgency of the global warming situation^B3R2-1 many concerned citizens had been pinning their hopes for effective action from COP26 - the deferred five year follow up to the Paris Agreement of COP21 in 2015. But as usual, progress was blocked by the fossil fuel lobby. This has been going on for decades.

On previous versions of this website the view was expressed that concerned citizens can no longer wait for the authorities to act; either in time, or or in the right way. Since economic growth depends upon ongoing consumption (and overconsumption) by "privileged consumers", it was suggested that if a large enough number of such citizens globally were to commit to ramping down their consumption to "essentials only by 2030", then this might dent corporate profits sufficiently to alert TwVI that citizens have lobbying power.

Several years have since passed, and more COPs rendered ineffective - as usual - by massive lobbying from the fossil fuel industry. A realistic interpretation of this ongoing situation is that the corporate grip over the authorities and overconsumers is more than sufficient for business as usual to continue.

When people are not personally inconvenienced too much, they can put up with it. TwVI know very well how to play "I'm alright, Jack".

And so it can be inferred that the pattern is set to continue, at least until TwVI have extracted the maximum returns on their fossil fuel investments.^B3R2-2 By 2050 AI is expected to have replaced fossil fuels as the new money spinner.

A massive collective of citizens would be necessary to obtain sufficient leverage to negotiate a social contract with the authorities, in order to persuade them to commit to an agenda to halt further degradation of the habitability of the planet. Given the historic disempowerment of citizen initiatives by the authories, and recent trends towards even more oppressive powers to contain street protests^B3R2-3, the prospects for such an organised citizens' collective might seem bleak.

Citizens’ Assemblies (CA)s^B3R2-4 are one model through which such negotiations might be achieved, including by facilitating stronger citizen representation throughout the COP process. An online version of a Global Citizens' Assembly (GCA) was launched at COP26. Development work has since continued and "a global and permanent citizens’ assembly on transition issues should be set up by 2025".^B3R2-5

One World or None (OWON) is an ambitious new project to bring together a huge variety of creative talent and communication channels in order to engage and empower citizens of all ages around the world. It is a cultural campaign to shift attitudes and change the current narrative, to create a mass awareness and demand for Citizens’ Assemblies.^B3R2-6.

It remains to be seen whether the GCA can buck the historical trend of excellent UN initiatives invariably being underfunded, "nipped in the bud"^B3R2-7, or "managed" ^B3R2-8 on the terms of the status quo.^B3R2-2 ^B3R2-9 ^B3R2-10. Historically any proposals which would impose potential regulatory restrictions on business profits will be strongly resisted by

. Longstanding experience shows that proposals for voluntary self-regulation of businesses are pointless.^B3R2-11

Regarding Plan E, a new approach to engaging citizens is presented in the link ^B3R2-12.

Supporting links

^B3R2-1   The urgency of the situation post-COP26

^B3R2-2   What does 'net zero by 2050' really imply?^[PS]

^B3R2-3   Extreme control tactics^[PS]

^B3R2-4   Global citizen action^[CA]

^B3R2-5   "A global and permanent citizens’ assembly on transition issues should be set up by 2025" (reference citation) ^[Bibl]

^B3R2-6   One World or None (OWON) (reference citation) ^[Bibl]

^B3R2-7   "Nipping it in the bud"

^B3R2-8   "Sanctioned on the terms of the status quo"

^B3R2-9   Corporate resistance to activism^[CA]

^B3R2-10   Corporate blocking: intransigence^[PS]

^B3R2-11   Voluntary self-regulation^[PS]

^B3R2-12    "Time to set sail for a new horizon" - Destination Safe Earth (reference citation)^[Bibl]

This section refers to some of the characteristics of dark governance which were identified in the éxpose, described in ^B3R3-1. These characteristics can be expected to be relevant in the context of any meaningful exchange between concerned citizens, the authorities, and

Money talks to TwVI. The prevailing global governance system appears to be dominated by TwVI/ hawkish élite individuals. As things stand, the following points may be observed:

It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the type of compensation paid by society to TwVI which they claim on the basis of lost profits from a historically lucrative business. In the case of slavery it may have been lucrative business for the slave owners, but it was sociologically abhorrent, and the abolitionists fought for legislative change.^B3R3-2 The mentality and stance of TwVI in this case is not dissimilar to that adopted more recently for Corporate Courts.^B3R3-3

It is possible to identify another type of compensation which might be expected by society from TwVI. This refers to adverse consequences to members of the public arising from cost externalities deliberately chosen by corporations in order to maximise their profits. However it can be presumed that, in principle, TwVI would not accept responsibility for any reparations. They would argue that they were operating within the law at the time. So this type of compensation claim from TwVI might be better described as society "letting them off the hook" for having stitched up the legislation to permit the damaging cost externalities, and thereafter benefitting by doing so.

TwVI and governments establish schemes, for example the UK Private Finance Initiative (PFI)^B3R3-5, such that the taxpayer in effect subsidises corporate profits. This is the game which is played by TwVI; to continue maximising profits through externalising costs, until problems arise requiring urgent and often costly remedial action. Societies are then expected to endure these consequences, like shoddy school and hospital buildings, or pay for repairs, ad infinitum, or until the system collapses. There are potentially countless such unwelcome "chickens coming home to roost", arising from present and historic cost externalisations.

In particular, of course, are the the

.

Very few cases ever go to court. It is like the proverbial "getting blood out of a stone" to get any compensation from TwVI, as witnessed by the long legal battles to get compensation in just the following few examples: groundwater contamination - Erin Brockovich^B3R3-2; climate change induced sea level rise affecting island-nations^B3R3-2; flammable insulation cladding at Grenfell Tower London UK^B3R3-6; and the Fujitsu UK Post Office scandal mentioned in the Preview. In general every such compensation case is treated on a "case-by-case basis", and the negotiations just go on and on with TwVI (and their lawyers) "laughing all the way to the bank". The right way to minimise the risk of such failures in future is by not skimping on the functional specification and implementation of services, systems, processes, and equipment etc. in the first place - Big 3 reform, people before profit etc..

As a generalisation it may be assumed that any potential negotiation on a Citizens' Assembly agenda will concern remedial action for adverse consequences arising from cost externalities. As noted above, as things currently stand, these are deliberately ignored by TwVI to maximise their profits, and society is expected to pick up the tab. Any attempt to take on the TwVIs would be very expensive and time consuming. Until the

are reformed it might be judged more cost effective to proceed with carrying out the remedial work. This will also be very expensive, and may not fully resolve the issue.

MHCPs invariably result from decades of ignored cost externalities. The funding requirements for remedial action for a MHCP would be likely to require sanctioning at the IMF level.

Regarding AI development, it would be a wise precaution for Citizens to require TwVI goals and intentions to be subjected to close citizen scrutiny, and widespread public endorsement sought. This is especially important where TwVI in AI might make extravagant claims supposedly to tackle MHCPs. Given the track record of dark governance it is prudent to assume that a significant proportion of any such investment would end up as élite profits, compared to using tried and tested methods. For example, we do not need AI to get on with solving problems like global warming; we need reform of the Big 3.^B3R3-7 Notwithstanding the whole controversial issue of the apparently readily authorised availability of funds via quantitative easing for the purpose of propping up the balance sheets of commercial banks^B3R3-8, or by the raising of funds through the IMF by issuing SDRs (Special Drawing Rights)^B3R3-4, money always seems to be available to the elites when they consider it necessary.

If this is the case, then why couldn't such funds be formally applied for by Citizens for the purpose of tackling MHCPs? It has even been suggested that compensation be paid to the fossil fuel industry to shut it down^B3R3-8. Or what about more manageable specific investment projects? For example: to develop practical environmentally safe alternatives to plastics; to develop solutions to cleaning up the most damaging environmental pollutants, including plastics, halting deforestation aimed at meat-production, and rehabilitate seriously depleted rainforests and landscapes; develop viable alternatives to meat and promote a shift towards healthier and environmentally safe diets; etc.. Such projects would create many worthwhile employment opportunities.

Creative sources of independent funding will be necessary if we are to begin to address MHCPs. Reform of the Big 3 will be necessary if we are to halt further degradation of the habitability of the planet.

Businesses insist on 'a level playing field' where they perceive any unfair competition. But citizens cannot expect a level playing field. For example, a government might decide to support economic growth by allowing light touch regulation of companies which profit by ignoring cost externalities. Environmentalists and others might send technical reports and letters to MPs, and protest peacefully about this policy, but are persistently ignored.

Governments rely on the fact that, ultimately, they are legally mandated to use force in order to 'uphold the law', whereas citizens cannot. But taken to the limit, the use of force does not ultimately solve differences of view. As is often the case, trust between the 'East' and 'West' currently appears to be at stalemate, which is hardly conducive to any kind of diplomacy.

"...the US military approach follows a historically familiar pattern of conflict resolution. As in WW1, rather than pursue a diplomatic solution, leaders and most of the intellectual class, on all sides, backed aggression in support of their state, wanting to fight to the bitter end, no matter how many were killed, no matter how much destruction there was. Of the few people who called for a negotiated peace, the most prominent were put in jail". ^B3R3-9

Time is running out if the demon of desiring to (literally) 'fight rather than talk' is not transcended very soon. The dire prospects for habitability of the planet resulting from the geopolitical leadership impasse is potentially catastrophic. As noted earlier, the élite plan is based on global domination of financial power, and has been moving towards a bipolarity of financial systems; SWIFT (US) and CIPS (China). ^B3R3-10

If a 'crisis is necessary' then force can be used - ultimately

The point being made here is that the powerful are more prepared to resort to force to get what they want, and position themslves accordingly. Humans are not good at learning from history. Killing people and reducing their homes to rubble is evil and rather than solving anything it perpetuates and escalates hate and desire for revenge.

(Chomsky, 1997) concludes his book World Orders, Old and New with a new Epilogue on Middle East Diplomacy. Some sobering extracts: "But history is not kind to the common view that peace and stability are impossible without at least a modicum of justice", "...the United States, the global power that dominates the region and has succeeded in imposing its will"..."constitute an impressive testimonial to the rule of force in international affairs, one that should be considered carefully by those who care about the fate of the world."

Natural forces are more than capable of bringing humans to heel.^B3R3-11 It would therefore be in the best interest of our species not to continue to push our luck. Quite apart from the human cost of human-caused 'natural disasters', the financial cost (important to TwVI) is becoming increasingly significant. The route by which this dire state of affairs has come about has been spelled out on the website.

In the meantime we see Western leaders flocking to make deals to promote economic growth, and allocating funds for increased defence spending, funded for example by cutting foreign aid budgets and/or compromising hard won regulation on business in order to get defence guarantees from the US etc.. The likely outcomes of such actions will include yet more suffering and ruined lives, more flattened cities and rubble, less usable agricultural land, more extreme weather conditions, rising sea levels, and more forcibly displaced people.

If our leaders continue in the manner of Francis Bacon's vision of dominating nature^B3R3-12, the habitability of our planet will continue to deteriorate. This trajectory hardly constitutes dominion over nature.

Supporting links

^B3R3-1   What is wrong with dark governance?

^B3R3-2   Global citizens pay for everything^[B3R]

^B3R3-3   Corporate courts^[PS]

^B3R3-4   The plan to achieve the élite agenda is already largely in place, with a timetable for key stages up to 2025^[PS]

^B3R3-5   Private Finance Initiative (PFI)^[PS]

^B3R3-6   Health and safety^[PS]

^B3R3-7   Who controls AI?

^B3R3-8   Monetary reform^[B3R]

^B3R3-9   On the Russian war against Ukraine^[PS:N]

^B3R3-10   The agenda of global élites^[PS]

^B3R3-11   Are we on course for a hothouse earth?^[I].

^B3R3-12   Arrogance towards nature^[PS]

Having discussed at length what is wrong with dark governance and the Big 3, it is time to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak, and to outline a more fit-for-purpose economic system, and a transition route.

Notwithstanding all the identified problems with the prevailing dark governance system, and noting the sheer magnitude of upheaval which would be involved in reforming it ^B3R4-1, could the economy and global markets be made to work in a much more environmentally sustainable and fairer way, in principle, even using the existing monetary system?

The functional specification must start from the fundamental need to conserve a habitable planet, and the inherent justice that natural resources should be shared by all the life on the planet, rather than plundered primarily for the benefit of a relatively small number of human predators. Some ideas for such a scheme are outlined below, based on new criteria and a built in moral compass legal mandate.^B3R4-2

^B3R4-1 The default mantra for maintaining the central banks as they are "too big to (be allowed to) fail" really now means "too big a task to change" - taken from the Home page.

^B3R4-2 A moral compass mandate ^[MC]

Ideas for an economic system based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC)

The process is based on the simple premise of regarding a 'right way' ^B3R5-1 as one which contributes towards reducing the core BAU problem. A wrong way ^B3R5-2 is regarded as one which contributes towards making the core BAU problem worse. At first sight this might not seem to be saying much, but it signifies a major conceptual, and directional, change from the current mainstream economic model. It would replace the present overconsumptive global economic growth paradigm with a more sustainable economy.

It would give priority to converting natural and human resources into products and services that we all need, over unnecessary products and services. This would include encouraging the use of renewable resources through the circular economy.^B3R5-3

In a truly democratic world, categorising the essentialness of a product or service would be independent of the ability to pay for it. An economy which focused on the delivery of essential products and services would tend to have less inequality in any case. But to the extent that wealth inequality was a barrier to paying for essentials, disclosed subsidies based upon essentialness could be applied.

Essentialness value would reflect the inherent effectiveness of a resource/ product/ service at meeting essential customer needs, after internalising externalised costs.

In principle, and notwithstanding the practical difficulties, if costs were fully internalised in accordance with the proposed mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) system, then market pricing would properly reflect the human impacts of non-essential products or services on people and the planet.^B3R5-4

The first task in

would be to evaluate the real cost of ensuring that the product or service had no significant adverse environmental or sociological impacts. This would be a realistic measure of the extent of cost externalisation currently built into the product or service. This cost could be conventionally accounted for, without the need for untenable creative financialisation.

The prevailing 'financialise everything which can be commodified' convention is the means by which the price of commodities can interface meaningfully with the world economy' or "economic arena" as described in ^B3R5-5. The proposed MIAC real cost pricing procedure would aim to eliminate the untenable aspects of the financialisation^B3R5-6 process.

It is likely that many currently existing products and services have inbuilt and/or associated externalised costs, which reflect design compromises where potentially harmful emissions/ side effects arising from any stage of production and distribution have been fudged or ignored.

Voluntary self-regulation schemes^B3R5-7, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have been tried, and unsurprisingly have failed.

If the proposed MIAC analysis for any products or services turned out to be intractable,

for example due to insufficient understanding of the biosphere (and/or of manufacturing technologies) which prohibited a viable design of effective environmental protection equipment,

then this would be regarded as sufficient grounds for abandoning the product/service, unless it was deemed to be essential.

Where a resource/ product/ service had high externalised costs, but was deemed to be essential, it would require a large cost internalisation valuation, offset by a large subsidy in proportion to its deemed essentialness valuation.

A significant funding allocation, besides the subsidy, would therefore be directed towards greening the product, or researching alternative ways of meeting the essential need. This would be regularly reviewed as necessary to remain focused on minimising damage to the environment. The market price of non-essential products would directly reflect the cost of incorporating any necessary protection equipment, as noted above.

Depending upon the outcome of the

process for a given product, and of the essentialness assessment, a manufacturer might decide not to continue marketing it in view of the expected market price revision. If marketing was to continue, it would be expected that the necessary protection equipment would have to be designed, fitted, and verified to be effective, to an agreed timetable. Depending upon the level of protection equipment necessary, the product might have to be withdrawn until the equipment was fitted. It would be expected that products with low environmental and sociological impacts could continue to be competitively priced in the market.

Most existing products and services have inherent externalised costs just via the necessary use of transport, especially transport which uses fossil fuel (externalised costs arise from the extraction and combustion of fossil fuel, and associated product/ waste disposal). An example of an environmentally disastrous but incredibly useful product is of course plastic. State-funded research and development aimed at product greening or finding an alternative has not happened sufficiently in the mainstream economy. Instead large subsidies continue to go to fossil fuel companies.

Consequently, despite the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming, we still do not have enough non-fossil fuel energy to meet demand. Meanwhile TwVI in fossil fuels continue to make huge profits at our expense, and are so powerful that they hold us to ransom, as demonstrated at COP26 and subsequent COPs.

Similarly in the case of plastic, despite the disastrous pollution of the air, land, and sea caused by plastics, again, in the mainstream economy, viable alternative solutions are not being sought with the urgency required. Meanwhile large profits continue to be made by the purveyors of plastic.

While it is proving difficult to find ways to green an 'essential' product like plastic, in order to design out environmental cost externalisation, it can be even more difficult to find technically valid solutions to prevent sociological cost externalisations. For example, to clarify the principle, marketing anti-depressants to help large numbers of ordinary citizens cope with everyday life should be viewed as an indictment of a dysfunctional governance system, and not as a technically valid solution.

It is easy to understand why such obstacles to profits are deliberately ignored, disguising this omission through creative financialisation and other 'legal' means. However the consequences of doing so are becoming all too apparent. The general issue of social (and environmental) stress, and some examples of topics with the potential for adverse sociological (and/or environmental) consequences are discussed in ^B3R5-8.

If a technically valid solution to a sociological cost externalisation 'cannot be found', then unless the compromised product/service is withdrawn (by law; or on the basis of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), or a similar voluntary code), the risk of potential adverse consequences of using it must be deemed by 'the authorities' to be acceptable. This is indeed often seen to be the case within the prevailing governance system; for example, when global social media platforms claim to be incapable of writing algorithms to block harmful content, and are allowed to get away with it.

Given all the impressive technological feats which have been achieved throughout human history, excuses such as those cited in the previous paragraph simply do not ring true. The inference is clearly that the profits of

are judged on a commercial basis to have a higher priority. Unless we all try to resist this ongoing degradation of societal values, it will surely continue.

Criticisms of subsidies can be expected from mainstream economists. Such practices are formally frowned upon as they interfere with the true market price, and they disguise externalities, and are therefore an abuse of the market. Low prices also encourage wasteful usage.

Wasteful usage is a problem and needs to be addressed. In the very serious context of conserving the habitability of the planet, "an abuse of the market" is not of fundamental importance. The massive extent of global inequalities demonstrate that the market is not serving the common good properly in any case.

The main problem is not subsidies per se, but the blatant hypocrisy of dark governance in failing to disclose the true cost of externalities; the extent of the subsidies - especially for fossil fuels! - and consequent diversion of funds away from development of greener technologies; the associated lobbying and perverse intervention of the climate change COP process; and so on.

The controversy would be resolved by mandatory internalisation of all costs.

It is time to change the rules, and to make full internalisation of all externalised costs mandatory, with fully transparent disclosure of any subsidies.

The intention would be for essential goods subsidies, and product greening allocations, to be sourced directly from general taxation, with a significant component from the higher pricing of non-essential goods. In particular from those which require large internalisation of externalised costs. In effect this would reflect a shift towards 'taxing the bads', by paying a truer price for a product in order to render it pollution free.

Where necessary (to balance the accounting) a for the common good form of quantitative easing could be authorised. The topic of monetary reform and administration of this process, are discussed later.

The complete process of rigorous full cost internalisation would need to be legally binding, ultimately - through enlightened global governance - in all nation-states. Global markets could then operate on fair pricing and merit, which would result in a more meaningful ranking between nation-states, especially if the deeply flawed metric of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)^B3R5-9 was replaced.

In marked contrast to the de facto amoral 'values' of dark governance^B3R5-10, the meeting of essential needs and internalising of previously externalised costs would be rooted in a set of global-consensus values. The notion of a democratically-derived global-consensus values-set, and how it might be obtained, is discussed below. A roundup of the different ways value(s) are referred to on this website is provided in ^B3R5-11

Re-financialising in support of essentialness value is in stark contrast to the current dark governance ethos, which maximises money profit through reliance on ignoring externalised costs^B3R5-8, and uses sophisticated marketing to artificially stimulate more wants, rather than just meet basic needs.

If some business activities received subsidies as part of the commodity revaluation process, for example in order to 'green the product' or to research alternatives, then this would be because they were judged to have legitimacy in terms of meeting essential needs. The prices of certain commodities would rise. This necessary and just 'tax on the rich' would be used directly to subsidise the above process. However the better off would still be able to afford to pay more for 'treats' and scarce desirables. They would still therefore be the 'Joneses'.

During the global lockdown due to the coronavirus, a measure of acceptance of the need for a 'new normal' evolved. The occurrence of practical and widespread compliance with the concept of unnecessary travel demonstrated that it is no longer possible to declare the impossibility of a different, smaller, type of economy. The pandemic resulted in a period of underconsumption, exposing an inherent weakness of capitalism which results from interdependencies within the system.

Notwithstanding potential controversy over subsidies, a key task within the proposed economic process would be to determine an essentialness ranking for broad categories of products and services. This would be necessary as part of evaluating the cost of subsidies so that these essential goods can be priced low enough to be readily affordable to all. It is recognised that, globally, there will be a wide spectrum of views as to what might be considered essential. However, it is thought that by focusing on core human values, and on shared common ground, it should be possible to obtain a usable measure of consensus on core essentialness.

A global survey of a representative sample of ordinary citizens could, in principle, be obtained using the internet, but to be authoritative it would need to be co-ordinated by a steering group commanding a high level of public respect. The survey questions would need to be formulated to provide unambiguous answers on matters which directly affect the assessment of essentialness to be used in the economic process. Such assessments would need to be kept up to date; for example to reflect socio-cultural change, and developments in the understanding of externalities. Surveys would therefore need to be repeated periodically. These ideas are discussed in more detail in ^B3R5-12.

Having made full cost internalisation mandatory, and adopting full disclosure of the essentialness value subsidy, and the reasons for it, the more hypocritical objections of mainstream economists to market intervention should be largely obviated. However, it may actually be more practical to deliver basic essential resources/ products/ services through something like a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

The precedent of corporate legislation granting rights without societal or environmental responsibilities is referred to in ^B3R5-13. Relieved of the primary corporate goal of maximising profits largely for the benefit of powerful élites by virtue of an inherent legally binding moral compass^B3R5-14 and ^B3R5-15, the proposed MIAC Process Authority would take on the mantle of exercising genuine social and environmental responsibility; in contrast to 'CSR'.

Subject to public trust in the above transparent rigorous full cost internalisation process, potential customers would be better informed, without the need for labelling, and be able to decide whether the price was genuinely value for money.

The MIAC scheme is described in more detail in ^B3R5-16.

Supporting links

^B3R5-1   A right way^[PS]

^B3R5-2   A wrong way^[PS]

^B3R5-3   Towards the circular economy (CE)^[PS]

^B3R5-4   Accounting for sustainability, or un-sustainability?^[PS]

^B3R5-5   Developed or underdeveloped? ^[I]

^B3R5-6   Financialisation^[PS]

^B3R5-7   Voluntary self-regulation^[PS]

^B3R5-8   Cost externalisation^[PS]

^B3R5-9   Gross Domestic Product^[B3R]

^B3R5-10   What is wrong with dark governance?

^B3R5-11   Value(s)^[B3R].

^B3R5-12   Towards a global citizens' collective^[B3R]

^B3R5-13   Evolution of corporate legislation^[PS]

^B3R5-14   Summary of points supporting the case for a humanistic moral compass mandate^[MC]

^B3R5-15   Denial, virtue and the power of collective action^[MC]

^B3R5-16   Ideas for an economic system based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) ^[B3R]

Some preliminary ideas for a conceptual model of an economy based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) have been outlined (in the previous section).

Shorthand visual representations are used below to briefly outline how the political implications of this model differ significantly from what we are used to, and why. Most people will have observed how the characteristics of economic policies operating within a nation-state correlate with the political ideology of the government of the day. Geopolitical models and scenarios will typically map to an ideological position somewhere on the periphery of the political spectrum, as described in ^B3R6-1.

The political spectrum concept is applicable at a nation-state level. However, noting that the current balance of power is between dominant élite individuals, the mapping can still be useful as a way of visualising trends in the political component of the power mix, noting the primacy of self-interest in market societies..."the market society is best understood as an agglomeration of individuals"...^B3R6-2

At the time of writing the current balance of power between élite individuals^B3R6-3 is tense, but might map onto the above political spectrum roughly in the manner depicted in the figures below:

Western élite political trajectory?

Subject to the above functional specification, the MIAC model does not favour any particular political ideology. Ideally it would map to a central position on the political spectrum (left/right, free/unfree); representing a co-operative, common-ground compromise.

While this might not be liked by advocates of non-central positions on this spectrum, if viewed constructively the model could be seen an ideological bridge between capitalism and government regulation.

The MIAC model aims to incorporate democratically determined consensus global values, but would require government regulation/ state control of the economy through the allocation of essentialness-pricing of goods and services, based on those societal values. Many overconsumers might actually welcome the opportunity to purchase non-essential, but non-polluting products with rigorous full cost internalisation, despite being more expensive.

It is likely that many of the processes involved in the manufacturing, production and distribution of existing products and services would require further research and development in order to be able to meet the MIAC criteria, and/or develop alternative greener products. Until such time that the necessary clean production techniques are available, some products and services might have to be taken off the market. On the plus side, further research and development towards greener products would provide worthwhile new employment opportunities which would build towards a more sustainable future.

It would be necessary to investigate the technical interfaces of the new economic process with existing government departments; legal; banking; taxation and accountancy disciplines - and ultimately at the global level, as discussed below.

Whether or not the aspirations outlined earlier can be achieved remains to be seen. It will depend on the extent of sustained dedication and commitment by concerned global citizens, but as always, most of all on the extent of blocking by the élites.

The

concept will of course be dismissed as 'pie in the sky' naive impractical nonsense by hardcore global capitalists. To them, words like mandatory and regulation fall on deaf ears - unless in the context of more rights and freedoms to secure and/or protect profits. For example ISDS, or other forms of compensation; without responsibilities for the people and all life on the planet.

As noted earlier, the complete process of rigorous full cost internalisation would need to be legally binding, ultimately - through enlightened global governance - in all nation-states. Global markets could then operate on fair pricing and merit, which would result in a more meaningful ranking between nation-states, especially if the deeply flawed metric of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)^B3R6-4 was replaced.

For MIAC to work in the idealised way indicated in the schematics above, there would need to be an unprecedented meeting of minds at the global governance level. But in these troubled times the concept might provide some food for thought.

But with observable symptoms of systemic governance dysfunction increasing, and a global trade war having been unleashed by President Trump in April 2025, the conditions could seed a new era of global collaboration and co-operation.

The collective mindset of those currently in power has a very long way to go before the necessary diplomatic steps could be taken, in the interests of all people and all life on the planet.^B3R6-5 ^B3R6-6 There needs to be an acceptance of the reality that we all live in a shared finite biosphere, as for example in Climate capitalism^B3R6-7.

Hope or oblivion

The prevailing Bacon-esque "Man has dominion over nature" mindset of our leaders has led to a world riven with major problems, both sociological and environmental. If only these élites would stand back and objectively open their eyes, be pragmatic, and acknowledge that their system of governance is not working.

It is time for the ruthless and predatory "Man has dominion over nature" mindset^B3R6-8 to be replaced by something more like "Humans should respectfully co-operate with nature, and with each other".

It is also time for all of us to give less prominence to the well-known "survival of the fittest" soundbite, and to deeply contemplate the less catchy but more critical Darwinian insight that "selfish individuals might out-compete altruists within groups, but internally altruistic groups out-compete selfish groups".^B3R6-9

If a democratic World State^B3R6-10 form of global governance could eventually be realised, the mapping would be:

Scenario for political trajectory towards a democratic World State?

Scenario for political trajectory towards a democratic World State?

Supporting links

^B3R6-1   On the dimensions of politics^[B3R]

^B3R6-2   Adam Smith and the 'invisible hand'^[B3R]

^B3R6-3   The balance of power between élites

^B3R6-4   Gross Domestic Product^[B3R]

^B3R6-5   A very long way to go

^B3R6-6   Citizen negotiations with 'the authorities'

^B3R6-7   Climate capitalism^[PS]

^B3R6-8   Why is the hierarchy upside down?^[PS]

^B3R6-9   Two modes of existence^[MC]

^B3R6-10   Future global governance scenarios^[PS]

Citizen action

Hope or oblivion?

The reader is briefly referred back to [The Case:Issues], which set the context for citizen action. There has never been a lack of constructive ideas and initiatives from citizens towards resolving the major human-caused problems, but where these clash with the dark governance pro-'development' agenda, they have been blocked or sidelined by those with vested interests (TwVI),^CA0-1 time and again. This is disempowering and demotivating for activists.

After many years of diminishing expectations from personal political engagement, it has seemed impossible to even begin to cut through the years and years of corporate blocking of any policy which would threaten TwVI.^CA0-2 History has shown that the effectiveness of citizen action to mobilise societal change has been very limited, whether as an individual, as part of a campaign group, or even under the auspices of the United Nations.^CA0-3  ^CA0-4  ^CA0-5  ^CA0-6  ^CA0-7

Supporting links

^CA0-1   Corporate blocking: intransigence^[PS]

^CA0-2   Limits of activism^[CA]

^CA0-3   Awareness raising and developing solutions

^CA0-4   No effective action on tackling major human-caused problems

^CA0-5   The Paris Agreement, and 'net zero by 2050'

^CA0-6   The urgency of the situation post-COP26

^CA0-7   Political and economic priorities

However, it seems that we are entering a new era. The "chickens are coming home to roost". Adverse consequences of cumulative externalities which have been deliberately ignored by TwVI for decades in order to maximise their profits are becoming increasingly apparent.

We are witnessing almost daily news reports of yet more cities reduced to rubble by military attacks causing yet more lives and livelihoods to be destroyed, and yet more regions desecrated by extreme human-caused climate change-related events. The number of forcibly displaced citizens is increasing; and is becoming what might be termed a migrademic (new word coined for this website).

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office (UNHCR) has estimated that by mid-2024 there were over 120 million forcibly displaced citizens across the world. By 2050 the number is projected to be over 1 billion. These trends should be recognised as warning signs of systemic breakdown.

Hitherto migrants might not have been perceived to be a threat to the established order, because they are desperate and powerless. Governments may be interested in "economic" migrants to meet employment shortfalls, while very much at the discretion and on the terms of the associated nation-state.^CA1-1 But the uncontrolled immigration of "illegals" is a different matter. It is no surprise that this has become such a controversial topic in politics in the US, Europe, and in the UK.^CA1-2

The situation now can only be perceived as a threat to the established order; uncomfortable evidence that the existing 'governance' system is dysfunctional, unsustainable, and is destroying the habitability of the planet.^CA1-3

If life on earth is to survive a global catastrophe in the making, we can no longer wait to see how 'the authorities' deal with such a crisis. Preparatory work needs to start to develop a new fit-for-purpose global governance system; one in which the views of the people are really listened to. But realistically - how?

Supporting links

^CA1-1   Nation-state issues

^CA1-2   People trafficking, and the UK 'hostile environment' immigration policy^[PS]

^CA1-3   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance

We are beginning to see "Citizens' Assemblies" starting to form around the world, and they seem to be offering inspiration and some hope to those involved. In 2021 the first Global Assembly’s online presence at COP26 meant that for the first time, citizens had a seat at the global governance table, marking a significant development in the way the world makes decisions. The Global Assembly is set to become a permanent piece of world governance infrastructure, combining a formal forum of citizens statistically selected to be representative of the global population, and distributed fora organised by local communities.^CA2-1

Perhaps the time has finally come whereby citizens, somehow en masse as a Gandhian-style global collective, could acquire and sustain sufficient leverage to be able to negotiate a social contract with 'the authorities'.^CA2-2 Such a concept would at least provide the possibility of eventual reform of the global governance system through a process of constructive and realistic negotiation. One priority must be to reinforce citizen representation in the COP climate negotiation process.

But recognising that TwVI in fossil fuels persistently block any form of regulation of their activities, it is hoped that members of Citizens' Assemblies will also be able to pursue other approaches as necessary. To rely on characteristic crisis responses by 'the authorities' to potentially catastrophic global events is becoming less and less realistic.^CA2-3

For similar reasons, in due course, and subject to the availability of independent funding, global citizens would be well-advised to collaborate to form mass citizen pressure for the development of a fit-for-purpose global governance system as soon as possible. Some ideas for selected pilot study projects are listed in ^CA2-4.

Supporting links

^CA2-1   "A global and permanent citizens’ assembly on transition issues should be set up by 2025" (reference citation)^[Bibl]

^CA2-2   Facilitating mass citizen engagement

^CA2-3   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance

^CA2-4   Ideas for pilot studies linked to Big 3 reform

Unless a firm commitment to progressive reform of the

is made a central aspiration of the proposed permanent Global Citizens' Assembly, more time will be wasted and the situation will just get worse.

Notwithstanding the urgency of the situation, progress will not be helped by knee-jerk crisis-management style politics. Such a massive transformational task would have to be tackled in stages. An outline plan is suggested below.

With the caveat of normal/ peacetime conditions, and apart from prevarication, the basic choices facing a concerned individual appear to be (1) acceptance; (2) denial; or (3) do something - but what?

Perhaps because global problems seem so insurmountable we have become numbed into perceiving these choices as not so different. Acceptance through ignorance, delusion, or apathy in effect becomes denial, which is believed to be no worse than doing something apparently constructive, but which is really only conscience-assuaging.

For those new to campaigning and/or those who lack much knowledge about the issue(s) of concern it can be a good idea to start off by joining an existing group which addresses the issue(s), or a Citizens' Assembly (see above) if there is one nearby. For example, climate assemblies are taking place at local and national level in many countries, in which statistically representative samples of the population meet to hear expert evidence and deliberate on climate-related topics.

At an individual level, especially for those who are reluctant to get involved with political street protests because of the way they can turn nasty, it is possible to take direct action peacefully, legally and anonymously on global warming, which is one of the most pressing issues today.^CA4-1 Some constructive steps have been identified in what is believed to be the right direction, and which might be made by individual citizens.^CA4-2 It is difficult to broach this matter, because nobody wants to be made to feel uncomfortable about their current lifestyle choices.

But since the purpose of the website is to raise awareness in order to help somehow towards solutions, it would be pointless if the issue was ducked. So, with apologies if any of the suggestions do cause discomfort, but now we really are in an extremely serious situation. Most of us could do more to help.

Supporting links

^CA4-1 Think global, act local - but privately^[CA]

^CA4-2 Curbing overconsumption^[CA]

As yet there is little evidence of any significant shift in overconsumptive behaviour by those who can afford to do so. It is observed that the behaviour of people can be summed up by the figurative expression "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". It seems that we tend not to take much action until we are personally affected by a problem.

But times are changing rapidly, as evidenced by the migrademic. If things continue to deteriorate along the present path it is likely that more and more people will be affected - including increasing numbers of affluent overconsumers. And perversely, replacement of the remnants of homes destroyed by military conflict, forest fires, flooding, landslips.. will only exacerbate the situation by adding further to the environmental footprint.

The following link includes some general information which may be of some help to citizens who are new to 'activism'.^CA5-1

^CA5-1 Become an activist^[CA]

The following ideas for pilot study projects have been chosen for their potential to seed developments in the direction of tackling the Big Three themes. It is recognised that independent sources of funding would be necessary to progress such projects.

General

To study best practice examples of effective peaceful campaigns, such as those listed in ^CA6-1.

Political

To revisit an initiative for a short corporate law amendment, as originally proposed in 2002 by Robert Hinkley, as introduced in ^CA6-2.

To explore collaboration with those developing Plan E, as outlined in ^CA6-3.

To establish a citizen-led watchdog system in order to monitor the actions of 'the authorities' in order to hold them to account for both legal and non-binding commitments made, for example regarding EU Climate Law, and the COP Paris Agreement." ^CA6-4

Political/Financial

To explore the scope of mass citizen adoption of the Simultaneous policy (SIMPOL), as introduced in ^CA6-5.

Economic/Financial

In the short term: To persuade overconsumers to consider committing to reducing consumption to essentials only by 2030, as outlined in ^CA6-6.

In the medium term: To consider the ideas for an economy based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC), as outlined in ^CA6-7 and ^CA6-8.

Political/Economic/Financial

To investigate the implications and technical feasibility of implementing a mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC) type of economy, as introduced in ^CA6-9.

To investigate the feasibility of a global essentialness survey, as outlined in ^CA6-10.

To explore the possibility of liason between the proposed permanent Global Citizens' Asssembly and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in order to mobilise the involvement and settlement of displaced citizens.

To utilise this mass availability of citizens to facilitate the SIMPOL mass citizen adoption project referred to above (^CA6-5).

To utilise this mass availability of citizens to catalyse Big 3 governance reform; to pioneer a low overhead networked flexible and adaptive governance system which really listens to the views of the people.^CA6-11

To investigate the feasibility of utilising citizen-volunteer support for constructive engagement of prisoners in Citizen Assembly groups.

To explore whether some overconsumers, who clearly could afford to, might find it a preferable option to fund volunteer efforts rather than get directly involved themselves.

To investigate and identify an appropriate ethical business model which could both provide necessary products and/or services, and also help to provide a source of independent funding for projects deemed worthy of support by Citizen Assembly groups. The advice of trusted 'convert-élite' individuals might be very useful here. ^CA6-12

Supporting links

^CA6-1   Some inspirational examples of effective activism^[CA]

^CA6-2   Company law reform^[CA]

^CA6-3   Hyperthreat^[PS]

^CA6-4   A citizen-led watchdog system^[CA]

^CA6-5   The Simultaneous Policy^[B3R]

^CA6-6   Practical actions^[CA]

^CA6-7   Ideas for an economic system based on mandatory internalisation of all costs (MIAC)

^CA6-8   Accounting for sustainability, or un-sustainability?^[PS]

^CA6-9   Speculations on the political implications of a MIAC based economy

^CA6-10   Towards a global citizens' collective^[B3R]

^CA6-11   The Big 3 aspects of dark governance

^CA6-12   Special roles for 'convert-élite' individuals?^[CA]