Transition to an ecogeorelative stock market depends on ecogeorelative ecogeosystematics. Ecogeosystematics depends on research, spectrum pyramid connectivity, and webs and chains of ENRs and ENOs. Is current research lacking in terms of accuracy and precision? Isn’t it better to go with broader trends like stream ecology or the river continuum theory? The river represents a continuous network where various stream habitat conditions, riffles, pools, and cut banks influence the energy flows (energy) in the stream as well as food availability in terms of BMI (energy) and dissolved oxygen (energy). Food availability, oxygen, and temperature influence where niche organisms (fish) spend time. The fish spend the most time in areas where these energy sources are plentiful or where there is a good place to hide in areas where other resources are often nearby. These organisms minimize energy expenditure and, simultaneously, expend energy by having fun jumping after flies and jumping in riffling falls in heavy oxygen concentration riffles. I think fish have fun, too. We can see our humanity as connected with the rest of nature (Earth is like a stream) similarly. The resources available are like energy sources. Energy sources in an ecogeosystematic way are natural resources, human resources, and power energy. When a dam intercepts a stream, the cumulative natural environment changes (costs), and almost everything changes in the stream. The dam is like an organization. The environmental costs and humanity costs ought to be minimized in terms of impacts, and they ought to be related to the Ecogeorelativity index. Suppose all the inputs into the microsystem are known, and at the same time, we can determine how things change in the microsystem ENO (Ecological Niche Organization). In that case, we can have a relative impact indicator for all individual inputs, resources, and energy. We can determine what the ENO (Dam) does to each organism (ENR) in the microsystem ( ENO) as well as determine the operational inputs and the cumulative microsystem operational ecogeorelative indicator by assessing each cost indicator and each value indicator and each benefit indicator. If the ENO makes an Ecological Niche Product, something like a stored value, renewable index, durability index, utility index, longevity index, quality index, cumulative energy spent, cumulative pollution, efficiency index, cumulative externalities, and ESH index. The relative contributor of each to the overall cumulative EGR can be determined to weigh the relative importance or significance. This can lead to an overall assessment of the overall micro systematic ENO Functioning in terms of genuine holistic sustainable striving investment indicator incentives, for example. We can create a ratio of potential/ actual to get an incentive for the desired investment index, or EEC (Ecological Equilibrium Compensation) needs to improve continuously. All along the chains and webs, we can cumulatively add up the segmentation costs or total any part of the overall network dynamic and all of a network web of ENOs, including all webs and chains. At the same time, the cumulative hexagonal network costs are cumulatively ecogeorelatively weighted or nested in a region or be aware sort of way. This idea allows the assessment of any or all micro-systems up to an entire macro system. Continuous improvement occurs because of the continual striving for greater ecogeorelativity indicators. Likewise, we can determine potential inputs for any part of the system or add any other niche role or organization that could add value, energy, benefits, increase efficiencies, or contribute some ESH value to am ENR, etc. If we have converted energy equivalent units throughout the system, generalize them to a more representative and meaningful descriptor. For example, when reporting cumulative energy efficiency or energy or cumulative costs along any area, we may be able to assess research environmental technology inputs needed at any level down to the micro level. Helpful siting advice can occur as well. It is better to holistically plan and create optimal efficiency from the start so that less energy and resources must be devoted later (The same applies to prioritizing educational learning in our schools and on the surface area of planet Earth). Using a relative index to compare the ecogeosystematic Return on Investment potential, we can make better prioritization and allocation decisions and find areas to put our sustainable striving investment or EEC incentives. It would be interesting to compare today’s investment and how things should be in an ecogeorelative analytical comparative assessment. We then could determine the difference between less and more rationality and see where sources and sinks could occur in an ecogeorelative balance. Likewise, we could determine which organizations are obsolete because the total costs exceed cumulative benefits by a significant enough amount that exceeds the rational investment needed to bring the ratio down to what is considered sustainable striving or more rational.