Extreme competition often comes from investigations and interrogations. This extreme competition leaves a hopeless, holistic, well-intentioned, well-motivated, positive energy populous behind and left out.  Has our society turned into an extreme competition machine, where people lose their connections, become outcasts, are not included, and are not accepted?   There are other types of extreme competition in our society.   These forms of extreme competition cause people to stagnate, so they don’t contribute as much as they could to our society and planet.   Everyone needs holistic acceptance, holistic inspirational incentives, and holistic inclusion to thrive and flourish.   

It appears increasingly evident that our modern societal structures, often inadvertently, foster an environment of relentless, zero-sum competition. This intensity, while sometimes framed as a catalyst for progress, frequently yields an unintended and deeply troubling consequence: the systemic marginalization of individuals whose contributions are invaluable but perhaps don’t fit narrow, predefined metrics of success. We witness a vibrant, well-meaning, and highly motivated segment of our population feeling disenfranchised, their innate potential stifled by an ethos that prioritizes ruthless advancement over collaborative flourishing.

One must seriously question if our collective trajectory has inadvertently molded us into an unforgiving competitive apparatus. In such a system, genuine human connection and the intrinsic value of diverse perspectives are often sacrificed at the altar of efficiency and solitary achievement. The outcome is not just individual isolation, but a broader societal stagnation where potential innovation and empathy are sidelined, leaving many feeling disconnected, unaccepted, and ultimately excluded from the very fabric of community.

This pervasive competitive mindset extends beyond any singular domain, permeating professional landscapes, social interactions, and even our aspirational frameworks. It actively discourages individuals from engaging their full capacities, leading to a profound underutilization of human capital and collective wisdom. When people feel that their unique talents and insights are not genuinely valued or integrated, they inevitably withdraw, denying our society and our planet the full measure of their possible contributions.

To truly unlock the boundless creativity, compassion, and ingenuity residing within every individual, our society desperately requires a fundamental re-orientation. We need to champion an ethos characterized by unconditional acceptance, genuine inclusion, and systemic incentives that inspire collective growth rather than solitary triumph. Only through fostering such a holistically supportive ecosystem can we enable every person to truly flourish and contribute their unique brilliance to the tapestry of our shared global future.

I believe that a person is made up of similarities with others as well as unique traits that are ours alone.  This unique diversity is vitally important because it allows us to strive towards our desires in future conditions.   Having only similarity with others can create monocultures, which are susceptible to Perturbations.  I am concerned that many leaders surround themselves with people who are similar only to one another.   One person who comes to mind is Vladimir Putin, but it’s not too hard to imagine other leaders the same way.   We need to work together on our shared strengths and celebrate our diversity, because it contributes to new ideas.  

Reflecting on the fundamental nature of human existence, I am consistently struck by the intricate balance between our universal commonalities and the profound uniqueness inherent in every individual. This distinctive diversity is not merely a characteristic but, I believe, the very engine of progress and the vital force that propels us toward desired future states. Without the rich tapestry of varied perspectives and experiences, our collective journey risks stagnation.

Indeed, an environment that fosters only similarity inevitably leads to what I would describe as a ‘monoculture’ – a system inherently vulnerable and brittle in the face of unforeseen challenges or ‘perturbations.’ Much like an agricultural monoculture that can be wiped out by a single pest or disease, a homogenous group lacks the resilience and adaptive capacity to innovate and withstand complex pressures.

It is with considerable concern, therefore, that I observe a prevailing tendency among certain leaders to encircle themselves exclusively with individuals who reflect their own thinking and worldview. This creates dangerous echo chambers where dissent is muted, critical analysis is stifled, and the breadth of potential solutions is severely narrowed. While specific figures like Vladimir Putin may spring to mind as illustrative examples of this insular leadership style, it is a pitfall that can be seen across various contexts and historical periods.

To truly thrive and evolve, we must proactively cultivate environments where our shared aspirations and foundational values can serve as a unifying framework, while simultaneously championing and integrating our individual differences. It is through this dynamic interplay of common ground and diverse thought that truly novel ideas are born, complex problems are approached from multiple angles, and more robust, comprehensive solutions are forged. Our collective strength resides not in uniformity, but in the collaborative harnessing of our rich, multifaceted human potential. Imagine if everyone were involved in celebrating both our similarity and unique diversity as we strive towards the desired future conditions. We will be able to solve problems with ideas, creativity, opportunity, unique perspectives, and all other unique diversity benefits.

To whom it may concern,

I see everyone as purple from a similarity standpoint, and everyone as every color in the rainbow from a unique diversity perspective.  I’m trying to celebrate Martin Luther King Day, but I am concerned that instead of judging people by the color of their skin, everyone is focused on the content of people’s character. This caused reactionary adaptive planning, live law, weaponization of religion, and weaponization of the law, and excessive character judgment.  This is especially true if you have something to offer or are doing very well in life so far.  Is the media involved as well? Do they even know? This character-blemishing phenomenon leads people to perceive their characters as flawed in some way.   Our society has become a character-judging society. Most of all, the judging occurs when you have something to offer society or are in the limelight for some reason.   Over time, society becomes an itinerant criminal manufacturing machine, and to start that ball rolling, you have to get your character judged in some way.   It’s even more concerning than that. I believe we’ve created conditions in our society to have people judged with drugs, excessive alcohol, smoking, sex, sinning, and promiscuity.  I take it a step further and say that some big picture force manufactures these conditions, whether it be politics, the mob, or some drug dealer somewhere.   Drug dealers or the mob don’t want you to have power in this world because they can be called on their behavior.  Consequently, whatever the forces that are creating and manufacturing this condition, they create conditions of extreme judgment of character because of the flaws that were manufactured by these powerful sources.   Was Jeffrey Epstein a victim of character defamation, judgment, and character fabrication?   Was he on a roller coaster ride towards being labeled as a criminal? Are politicians judged with sex characteristics and character “violation” conditions, victims of character, manipulation, and character assassination?   From my perspective, I would not be surprised if some behind-the-scenes political power is behind some of these character blemishes in an obscure way.   This phenomenon troubles me because I think it starts in elementary school or even younger.  Thus, beginning the roller coaster ride early in life. I am concerned that child Suicides occur because of this reason, whether it involves social media or not.   Regardless of the valid reasons for the impactful character manufacturing facility, it is detrimentally impacting our people, our natural environment, and our planet.   This is because we need absolutely everybody contributing to positive energy on earth as we adaptively strive towards the desired future condition.   Thus, everyone must be concerned with the character manufacturing facility and the power sources involved in such activities.    Consequently, I am a fan of Martin Luther King for a variety of reasons; however, I don’t think he planned for his speech to be used for character blemishing, character assassination, or character manufacturing.  We must stop judging and allow everyone to flourish and thrive in our world today, as we are all needed to work together for a holistic, sustainable, striving future.

My vision of humanity embraces a profound unity in which all individuals share an intrinsic dignity and value, much like the unifying color purple. Simultaneously, I recognize and celebrate the rich tapestry of unique perspectives and experiences that each person brings, akin to the diverse spectrum of a rainbow.

Reflecting on the enduring legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., particularly his dream of a society where individuals are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, I find myself increasingly concerned. It appears that in our earnest endeavor to move beyond racial prejudice, we may have inadvertently shifted towards an equally pervasive, and at times damaging, culture of character judgment. This shift has, in my observation, led to a reactive and often punitive societal dynamic, where the scrutiny of personal character can feel weaponized.

This phenomenon is particularly acute for those who are successful, innovative, or who hold positions of influence. Instead of fostering an environment where talent and contribution are celebrated, society can seemingly create an atmosphere where any perceived flaw in character is amplified, leading to a pervasive sense that one’s personal integrity is constantly under trial. This societal mechanism, which I might describe as a “character manufacturing facility,” seems designed to highlight perceived imperfections, often overshadowing genuine contributions.

It concerns me deeply that this culture of judgment extends to personal behaviors often deemed vices, such as substance use, promiscuity, or other forms of perceived “sinning.” There is a sense that these vulnerabilities are not merely observed but are strategically leveraged, perhaps even manufactured, by various forces – be they political agendas or more clandestine interests – to control narratives and diminish the power of certain individuals. One might even question whether certain high-profile individuals, regardless of their guilt or innocence, become subjects of intense character scrutiny and manipulation, leading to a public narrative that pre-empts fair judgment. Similarly, the public lives of politicians are often characterized by intense scrutiny, where alleged personal failings, particularly those related to character, are seen by some as tools for manipulation or even character assassination, rather than focusing on their policy contributions. It would not surprise me if obscured political motives are sometimes at play in these public character blemishes.

The implications of this societal trajectory are profound and begin at an alarmingly early age, often exacerbated by the pervasive influence of social media. The constant pressure to conform to an idealized character, coupled with merciless public scrutiny, contributes to immense psychological distress, tragically leading to severe consequences, including child suicides.

Regardless of the complex forces driving this intense culture of character manufacturing and judgment, its impact is undeniably detrimental to individuals, our collective society, and even our planet. To address the critical challenges facing our world, we urgently require the positive energy and collaborative contributions of every single person. This necessitates a radical shift away from a judgmental society towards one that nurtures individual growth and collective effort.

While I am a profound admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. and his transformative vision, I believe the current societal focus on character judgment deviates significantly from the spirit of unity and empowerment he championed. His dream was not for a world where character is meticulously picked apart and blemished, but where it is allowed to flourish authentically.

We must collectively dismantle this pervasive culture of judgment. Only by fostering an environment of acceptance, understanding, and mutual respect can we truly enable every individual to thrive and contribute their unique strengths towards a holistic, sustainable, and striving future for all.

Sincerely,

Richard Thomas Simmons

Striving to mitigate urban heat island effects through urban forests, trees, and parks may help prevent problems as we work towards the desired future condition on Earth.  Promoting parks and ecosystem services in urban environments may be necessary to prevent war worldwide.  While addressing urban heat islands, urban forests also offer tremendous ecosystem service value.   The more forests we have in our world, especially in urban environments, the less heat buildup, and the less frustration people in offices will endure. Thus, this would create a condition where we have less violence, riots, murders, killings, homelessness, and all other social ills.   However, I’ve noticed a strange paradox: Moscow is one of the greenest cities in the world, yet it promotes the war in Ukraine.   Maybe it’s an indicator that the problem lies with Putin (may need to go to the hospital) instead of Russia itself.   

Again, I am writing to underscore the critical importance of integrating urban green infrastructure and robust ecosystem services into the very fabric of our cities. It is increasingly evident that these natural assets play an indispensable role in fostering not just ecological balance, but also resilient, harmonious, and thriving human communities.

Urban forests, parks, and other green spaces are much more than mere aesthetic enhancements; they are vital pieces of civic infrastructure. They directly combat the pervasive challenge of urban heat islands, significantly reduce air pollution, and contribute to vital stormwater management. Beyond these tangible environmental benefits, they provide invaluable ecosystem services such such as enhancing biodiversity, reducing noise, and creating essential recreational opportunities. These restorative natural environments are fundamental for public health and mental well-being, offering residents crucial spaces for relaxation, social interaction, and stress reduction.

By consciously investing in and expanding these ecosystem services initiatives, we can profoundly mitigate environmental stressors within our urban centers. A populace that enjoys improved environmental quality and has ready access to nature’s calming influence is arguably more content, engaged, and less susceptible to the frustrations that can sometimes manifest as societal friction. While not a singular solution, fostering such conditions can create a stronger foundation for social cohesion and civic responsibility, contributing to overall community stability and potentially reducing various social ills.

However, it is also imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of global challenges. While the direct correlation between well-maintained green infrastructure and enhanced local community well-being is increasingly supported by research, the complexities of international relations and large-scale geopolitical conflicts represent a different dimension of human interaction. We observe instances where cities with extensive greening efforts, such as Moscow, simultaneously find themselves embroiled in significant geopolitical tensions. This serves as a potent reminder that while urban ecosystem services are incredibly powerful tools for improving local quality of life and strengthening internal community bonds, they are not a panacea capable of unilaterally resolving deeply entrenched political, ideological, or international disputes. Such issues demand comprehensive diplomatic and political solutions that transcend environmental remedies alone.

Nonetheless, our commitment to advocating for and substantially investing in the expansion of urban parks and the diligent preservation of ecosystem services remains a foundational imperative. It is a vital and proactive step towards creating more livable, equitable, and ultimately more peaceful cities worldwide, thereby building stronger communities from the ground up, even as we recognize the broader efforts required for planetary so called  peace as a genuine desired future condition.

Sincerely,

Richard Thomas Simmons

I get overly frustrated by the extensive use of the word peace. It seems to accept the word peace means that we have to accept the world at war.   For example, in order to have peace, you need to have war first.   Peace therefore is a complacent term a term that’s used when people are comfortable with war as the current condition.   Is the word peace, a never-ending desire?    Does the word Peace necessitate the concept of war in our world.

I find myself increasingly drawn to a particular linguistic paradox, one that centers on the very word “peace” itself. My growing frustration stems from the pervasive notion that to speak of “peace” inherently legitimizes “war” as its necessary precursor or undeniable counterpart. It almost feels as if the concept of peace cannot exist in our collective consciousness without the looming shadow of conflict.

Consider the prevailing narrative: “In order to achieve peace, one must first overcome war.” This framing suggests an unsettling dependency, implying that peace is not an autonomous state but merely a temporary cessation of hostilities, a fragile calm after the storm. Such a perspective, I fear, inadvertently transforms “peace” into a complacent term, one that can be too readily embraced by those who have become comfortable with conflict as the default human condition. If war is always the starting point, then peace becomes merely a reaction, not a proactive aspiration.

This raises profound questions: Is the pursuit of peace an unending, perhaps even futile, desire, eternally defined by the strife it seeks to alleviate? Does the very definition of “peace” in our current discourse inextricably link it to the concept of “war,” suggesting a symbiotic relationship where one cannot be conceived without the other? We must critically examine whether our linguistic constructs subtly reinforce a cycle of conflict, rather than helping us transcend it. If peace is the desired future condition, we need a situation in which we continuously and adaptively strive towards it, making progress towards ending all types of war, rather than using the concept of world peace in a complacent way. As a catholic, periodically we used to have to reject Satan and all his works; why not reject war (of all types) altogether and all its works? Then we can stop using the word peace all the time.

Kings, castles, and kingdoms, along with ammunition, are all means functioning.   War itself is 100% means justifying the ends functioning, and the means in this situation should not justify the ends. Just because Russia and Putin (who needs to be brought to the hospital) can invade and destroy Ukraine does not mean they should.  The sustainable striving holistic ends are supposed to justify the means. Therefore, just like most wars, the war in Ukraine is a complete disaster and definitely not justified for the people of Ukraine because of means functioning.  War itself is not holistic, nor is it sustainable striving.   Therefore, the problem with war itself and the presence of kings’ castles and kingdoms may be the problem of means justifying the ends, just as it is with ICE in the United States.  In fact, we live in a world of means functioning, and it’s destroying our planet and our people.  We should live in a world of holistic, sustainable, striving ends functioning.  The ends should justify the means.

My reflections are increasingly drawn to a fundamental philosophical challenge confronting our global society: the pervasive tendency toward what might be termed “means-driven functioning.” This paradigm dictates that processes and instruments, whether they be historical structures of power and control or the mechanisms of modern conflict, often become ends in themselves, overshadowing their intended purpose and ethical implications.

Consider the instruments of war, from ancient sagecraft (skill in writing) to contemporary armaments. They exist as prime examples of means that, when unmoored from justifiable, holistic objectives, lead to catastrophic outcomes. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine starkly illustrates this tragedy. Here, the brutal machinery of warfare operates in a manner that fundamentally undermines any notion of sustainable progress or genuine holistic well-being for the affected populace and beyond. War, by its very nature, is antithetical to comprehensive thriving and long-term stability, consistently sacrificing human potential and environmental integrity for immediate, often destructive, pursuits.

This problematic reliance on means, where short-sighted implementation trumps ethical considerations, extends beyond military engagements. We observe its manifestations across various societal structures and policy implementations, where efficiency or control is prioritized through methods that ultimately harm individuals, our natural environment, and our shared planet. The current global trajectory, heavily influenced by these destructive “means-driven” approaches, is visibly eroding both our natural ecosystems and the very fabric of human civilization.

I firmly advocate for a shift towards an “ends-driven paradigm.” This philosophy posits that truly holistic, sustainable, and progressively striving objectives must serve as the foundational bedrock, guiding and ultimately justifying the methods we employ. It is a vision where our actions are deliberately chosen to achieve greater, enduringly beneficial outcomes for all of humanity and our planetary home. Only by embracing this profound shift—by allowing our noblest aspirations to define our chosen path—can we hope to navigate towards a future characterized by genuine peace, shared prosperity, and ecological harmony.

Richard Thomas Simmons

Dear Reader,

I believe the problem with police departments and ICE, for example, may be a problem of the means justifying the ends.   Are people in the top echelons of the means getting frustrated with the way things are in the world and putting it down upon the backs of ICE agents and police officers to do the impossible?  The volatile functioning of police officers and ICE can be very destructive to our humanity and our society, as well as our communities.   However, you’ll notice that the detrimental impacts and the positive feedback loops always go down to the people causing inflection points based on extreme negative energy, riots, and extreme protest involving heckling.   The means in this case have destructive energy, gun violence at their discretion and prerogative.    The weighing up of processes, procedures, laws, rules, regulations, policy, best practices, and pollution contributes to making poor decisions on the battlefield.  This is especially true when the top-down assigns the impossible to agents and police officers.   Therefore, the problem lies at the top in the King’s castles, and kingdoms means functioning.   If I were the responsible one in the situation, I would immediately shift everybody towards the end functioning side of the equation.   This will get everybody contributing to holistic justice, health, safety, environmental justice, and social justice, and to mitigating the problems faced by people in our country who are from other countries.   Most of the people who are so-called illegal in our country have been impacted by a long period of time of destructive means functioning and pollution themselves, and have been impacted by inflection points, leading them down the road towards gang functioning.   This is an indicator that these people needed help long ago but did not get it.   From my perspective, it’s time to help these people rather than fight them with deadly violence and deadly force.  If they are truly violent, they need to go directly to locked hospitals so they can get the care that they need to get started in this country, or get sent back to their original country under holistic circumstances.  However, most of these people are seeking a better life in the United States and flee their home countries because of the detrimental conditions found there.  Most people are suffering in a preventable way, and ought to be included and accepted in our world rather than fighting the continual battle that they’ve been facing for an extended period of time.   It would be ends functioning to get these people accepted and included in our society, whether in the United States or their home countries.   If the top-down means were functioning as ends functioning, they would’ve understood that getting people to help those who need it in the first place would’ve been the desired course of action.

I believe we are witnessing a critical misalignment in how our societal institutions, particularly those entrusted with maintaining order and managing borders like police departments and immigration enforcement agencies, are being directed and operated. The core issue, as I see it, stems from an overreliance on a “means-justifying-the-ends” philosophy, where processes and enforcement mechanisms overshadow the ultimate human outcomes they are intended to serve.

This orientation often places frontline officers and agents in an impossible bind. They are frequently tasked from the highest echelons with executing directives that are inherently flawed or unattainable through conventional, often punitive, methods. This top-down pressure, combined with an exhaustive labyrinth of regulations and procedures, often leads to decisions made under duress that prioritize control over compassion, and short-term compliance over long-term stability. The result is a cycle of reactive measures that inadvertently fuel social volatility.

We observe the devastating consequences of this approach in communities across our nation and beyond. It erodes trust, fosters deep-seated resentment, and can escalate into cycles of civil unrest, protest, and even violence. When institutional actions are perceived as destructive and inhumane, they inevitably contribute to a breakdown of social cohesion, impacting our collective humanity and the well-being of our communities.

Consider, for instance, the complex challenges surrounding immigration. Many individuals categorized as “undocumented” are not inherently malicious actors, but rather people fleeing desperate circumstances – whether due to political instability, environmental degradation, economic hardship, or systemic violence in their home countries. Their journeys are often a direct consequence of long-standing global “means-functioning” failures and deep-seated societal inequities. When these individuals arrive, our current systems frequently fail to recognize their fundamental needs, instead resorting to enforcement tactics that exacerbate their trauma and marginalization, sometimes inadvertently pushing vulnerable populations towards more precarious or even illicit activities due to lack of viable alternatives. They are, in essence, populations who have been denied critical support for far too long.

My conviction is that we must fundamentally reorient our approach from one fixated on the “means” to one driven by desired “ends.” This paradigm shift would mean prioritizing comprehensive human well-being, genuine holistic justice, and sustainable societal health. An “ends-functioning” model would focus on achieving holistic justice, ensuring public safety through preventative measures, promoting environmental stewardship, and championing social equity for all.

Practically, this would translate into investing in support systems for vulnerable populations, including those seeking refuge. Rather than expending vast resources on punitive enforcement, we should channel efforts into providing essential aid, pathways to integration, and opportunities for dignified lives. For individuals who demonstrably pose a genuine threat, the appropriate response lies not in brute force, but in specialized, therapeutic interventions within secure medical or rehabilitative facilities, ensuring they receive the care needed to address underlying issues, or, if absolutely necessary, humane repatriation under conditions that uphold their dignity and safety. Most people are simply seeking a better, more secure life, and they deserve to be met with empathy and inclusive policies that facilitate their acceptance, either within new communities or in strengthened home countries.

Authentic leadership, operating from an “ends-functioning” perspective, would recognize that proactive investment in human dignity, social safety nets, and equitable opportunities is not merely compassionate but profoundly strategic. It prevents the very crises that our current, means-obsessed systems are perpetually struggling, and often failing, to contain. It is time to embrace a vision in which our collective efforts are geared toward building a more just, healthy, accepting, and inclusive world for everyone.

Sincerely,

Richard Thomas Simmons

We should be living in a society where the ends justify the means. However, it’s been more than 200 years where the means of justified the ends.   Our society is inundated with laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, process, complexity, conflict, chaos, pollution, and controversy.   Controversies can be anything from laws, investigations, borders, boundaries, barriers, wars, riots, crime, terrorism, and anything else you can imagine that employs the means instead of the ends.   The way I look at the ends should be a sustainable, striving world filled with thriving, ecosystems, natural environment, humanity, communities, and individual people.  Too often, those that are thriving are those that are associated with the means rather than the ends.   This concept often creates a detrimental feedback loop when it involves the ends.   Is it any wonder why regular people are being impacted so much in our world today?   In order to solve this problem, we need to have everyone everything everywhere on earth focus on the ends rather than the means or make it such that that means are about sustainable, striving and holistic, well motivated positive energy people Contributing nothing but upward spiral positive energy negative feedback loops to our planet and our people.  When we have thriving ecosystems of our natural environment and our people, it creates nothing but positive energy negative feedback, loops, impacting us more and more and more of the same over time.   This concept gets ecosystems whether They are natural ecosystems or humanity, ecosystems, or a combination of both working together for all of humanity as a multiplier effect.   Therefore, the means, can transition to more holistic, prescription advice, holistic, justice, environmental, health, and safety.   Many will be able to work together with others for restoration roles.   These concepts are all ends related.

It strikes me that our global civilization stands at a critical juncture, grappling with a fundamental paradox. For far too long, our collective efforts have been ensnared in a convoluted labyrinth where the *means* of progress – the intricate frameworks of laws, regulations, economic models, and political processes – have inadvertently overshadowed the *ends* they were ostensibly designed to serve. This preoccupation with the mechanisms themselves has fostered an environment rife with unnecessary complexity, conflict, and systemic inefficiencies.

We witness daily the consequences of this imbalance: a world increasingly characterized by societal discord, environmental degradation, and widening disparities, all arising from an operational ethos that often prioritizes procedural adherence over substantive impact. Whether manifested in geopolitical tensions, localized disputes, or the sheer bureaucratic inertia that impedes effective action, the emphasis on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘why’ seems to generate a continuous cycle of challenges.

My vision for a truly flourishing world is one where humanity consciously and consistently prioritizes its ultimate objectives. These ‘ends’ encompass a sustainable planet teeming with vibrant, interconnected ecosystems, thriving communities rooted in equity and resilience, and individuals empowered to realize their full potential in harmony with one another and the natural environment. Such a world is not a utopian fantasy but a tangible outcome achievable through deliberate, collective design.

Regrettably, those who often reap the greatest rewards in our current system are frequently the architects or beneficiaries of these intricate means, rather than those genuinely contributing to the profound ends of planetary well-being. This creates a detrimental feedback loop, further entrenching the existing paradigm and exacerbating the struggles faced by everyday people.

To transcend this critical juncture, we must instigate a profound paradigm shift. Imagine a world where every policy, every innovation, and every collective action is rigorously evaluated and optimized for its direct contribution to these overarching ends. This necessitates a unified global commitment – a conscious decision to reorient our energies, resources, and ingenuity towards creating self-reinforcing systems that foster positive, regenerative growth for both humanity and the planet. It’s about designing our means to be inherently conducive to a sustainable, holistic, and abundantly motivated future, ensuring that every endeavor contributes to an upward spiral of collective flourishing.

Sincerely,

Richard Thomas Simmons

Resilience is a common characteristic for many ecosystems. However, pollution can impact the resilience of an ecosystem, especially when it comes to humanity. Humanity is being inundated, all the time with pollution from all levels of all scales.  Most noteworthy is the complexity that is created in extreme capitalistic economy, where government produces huge amounts of laws, rules, regulations policies, and procedures that everyone must follow.   The fragmentation, borders, boundaries, and barriers that are created from this complexity impact us even more.  This is a especially true because the economy has us running ragged at an extreme fast pace.   All of these things contribute to illness manufacturing, and people getting sick.   Some people get sick by getting stressed out from our society. Some of these people take drugs, alcohol, experience, promiscuous, sex, and engage in pornography.   These things can lead to downward spiral feedback, impacting resilience.   Sometimes a downward spiral feedback loop is reached, causing an inflection point leading people to a downward spiral event. Sometimes the inflection points lead to crime, violence, terrorism, homelessness, psychological illness, and more.   I don’t know how people can say that the economy is resilient when you consider the number of detrimental impacts that are manufactured by the economy itself.   The economy behaves such that It does not pay attention to anything else other than making money and quarterly earnings.  Things are changing, I know, with the invention of the sustainability index people are starting to think about the so-called externalities, the natural environment, natural resources, and our society.   However, most of the time corporations invest in sustainability officers and give money to charities and nonprofit groups to get themselves off the hook for being responsible. This kind of phenomenon is also known as greenwashing.  I am interested in a new way of direct investment into so-called externalities from corporations and reciprocally as a cycle. People will invest in those corporations when they do great works by investing in tangible impact and externalities.   When these impacts are mitigated, the resiliency of the ecosystems improve such that they become resilient once again. However, it could take a very long time.

The innate resilience of natural ecosystems is a well-established principle, allowing them to absorb disturbances and recover. However, this inherent capacity is severely undermined by pervasive anthropogenic pollution, creating a profound ripple effect that directly impacts human well-being and societal stability. We find ourselves immersed in pervasive environmental degradation, stemming from pollutants of every conceivable scale and origin, constantly eroding the foundational strength of our natural world.

A significant exacerbating factor in this systemic fragility is the intricate web woven by contemporary hyper-capitalistic frameworks. These systems, often bolstered by an overwhelming proliferation of governmental laws, regulations, and policies, inadvertently create immense bureaucratic overhead and societal friction. This structural complexity fosters fragmentation, erecting artificial barriers and boundaries that impede harmonious coexistence and holistic problem-solving. Compounded by an economic ethos that demands an unrelenting, accelerating pace, individuals and communities are stretched to their breaking point.

The cumulative effect of this systemic pressure manifests as a pervasive ‘illness manufacturing’ mechanism, where chronic stress and anxiety become endemic, leading to widespread physical and psychological ailments. For many, this societal strain precipitates maladaptive coping behaviors—an escalation in substance abuse, compulsive behaviors, and other forms of escapism—which, in turn, initiate self-reinforcing negative feedback loops, further eroding personal and collective resilience. These inflection points can tragically cascade into severe societal pathologies, including rising rates of crime, violence, terrorism, homelessness, and profound psychological distress.

It becomes increasingly difficult to champion the ‘resilience’ of an economic system that demonstrably produces such extensive societal and environmental harm. Its singular, often myopic, focus on maximizing quarterly earnings and shareholder value blinds it to the broader, catastrophic ramifications of its operational model.

While there’s a growing awareness, evidenced by the development of sustainability indices and increased discourse around environmental and social ‘externalities,’ current corporate responses often fall short. All too frequently, this engagement manifests as corporate social responsibility initiatives or the appointment of sustainability officers, which, while seemingly positive, can sometimes border on ‘greenwashing’ – a superficial attempt to assuage guilt or public scrutiny without enacting fundamental systemic change. Donations to charities, while benevolent, rarely address the root causes of environmental degradation or social inequity directly attributable to core business practices.

My interest lies in pioneering a more impactful approach: a model of direct, substantial corporate investment specifically targeting the mitigation and regeneration of these very externalities. This isn’t merely about charitable giving, but about integrating genuine environmental and social remediation into the core business strategy. Crucially, this would foster a reciprocal cycle: consumers and investors, recognizing these tangible commitments to positive impact, would be empowered to direct their capital towards truly responsible enterprises. Through such dedicated and reciprocal engagement, we could begin the arduous, yet vital, process of restoring ecological and societal resilience. This will undoubtedly be a long-term endeavor, demanding sustained commitment and transformative shifts in economic priorities, but it offers a credible path towards a more equitable and sustainable future.  Adopting the We-Me  unidiversity research explorer cycle with the location enabled integrated device will help the situation immensely because people will allocate their energy towards restoration and invest in these corporations that are investing in so called externalities As a cycle.  The integrated device provides for exploration, living, learning, loving, and anything else imaginable while allocating energy towards restoration and restoring resilience.   

-Pollution extremes

-Borders, boundaries, barriers

-Different political systems

-Lack of similarity and unique diversity

-Lack of holistic loving

-Lack of holistic caring

-Lack of holistic sharing

-Lack of holistic giving

-Lack of holistic forgiving

-Lack of holistic, genuine kindness striving

-Lack of holistic comfort

-Lack of holistic joy

-Lack of holistic hope

-Lack of holistic unity

-Lack of holistic equity

-Lack of holistic faith

-Lack of holistic, sustainable striving for happiness

-Existence of fascism like behaviors

-Existence of Naziism behaviors

-Existence of takings, extraction, exchange, exclusion of ideas and creativity

-Lack of evenness

=Different economic systems

-Lack of holistic rationality

-Global Competition for natural resources

-War existence

-Lack of Eco geosystem approach

-Nonacceptance of everyone

-Non-inclusion of everyone

-Lack of sharing

-Native American Indian effect

-Loss of local cultures

-Excessive greed

-Militarism

-Lack of level playing field

-Lack of local prioritization

-Industrial extremes

=Redundant goods

-Excessive Price points

-Lack of continual adaptation towards desired future condition

-Lack of expressed Need for organics

-Lack of common sense

-Lack of common values to strive for

-Too much preventable suffering

-Ignorant political systems

-Killing

-Lack of prioritizing science

-Lack of desire to live, learn, love, explore

-Borders and boundaries

-Fragmentation

-Complexity

-Too many laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures,

-Conflicting structures

-Conflicting functions

-Prioritization of commerce

-Corporation control

-Nationalism

-Infinite variabilization

-Control, conflict, controversy,

-Lack of steady state mosaic

-Lack of Prioritization of ecosystems and the environment

-Lack of similarity Earth ethic

-Too much top/down control

-Imperialism

-Autocracy

-Dictatorships

-Extreme capitalism

-Extreme socialism

-Lack of holistic adaptive capitalism

-Lack of holistic, sustainable striving and thriving

-Volatility

-Lack of Consistency

-Lack of Holistic adaptive food systems

-Lack of Holistic adaptive health care

-Too much materialism

-Lack of divine spirituality

-Need for holistic prosperity

-National security

-Chaos

-Environmental injustice

-Social injustice

-Lack of holistic freedom

-to be continued