A society built with reactionary violence creates more of the same in a detrimental feedback way.  People were conditioned to fight and be ignorant because they could because it is our so-called right to be innocent.  People who look at justice reactionarily are unaware, but it is not their fault as they have been conditioned.  Justice should be more about environmental and social justice, a holistic view of our world.  Those who try to solve problems in a genuinely holistic way are enlightened.  It is similar to allocating resources earlier in someone’s life rather than waiting till they are crawling on the ground in ill health and suffered too much, so they are past their inflection points for recovery.  The way things work now is that we seek justice and truth by beating people up and hurting people rather than solving problems.  I have proposed a Holistic Environmental Justice, Social Justice, Health and Safety concept.  It put the idea of justice on the holistic side of the spectrum.  It seeks and finds people to help instead of seeing people after someone’s been through a tough life.  The reactionary method hurts people more than they have already been broken.

I sometimes wonder if those who have an overwhelming reliance on God might also benefit from learning about His creation nature.  Are God and Nature more proximal?  I can imagine a world where a church becomes more of an energizer when you need spiritual enlightenment and learning about inspirational living in a context with all of Nature and humanity with foundations of love, peace, harmony, and healthy living.  I am not sure, but I believe that God probably does not want us to be a cheerleader as much as God wants us to live in harmony, peace, and love in the most genuine holistic way regardless of whether you call yourself an Atheist, Catholic or whatever religion you want to call yourself as long as you are living in a natural holistic, sustainable striving way which strives to minimize detrimental impacts on humanity and Nature.  It seems weird to me that some cheerleaders of God in some religions have been very detrimentally impacting and have delved deeper into reading the Bible or Kuran and searching for different ways to construe it.  Isn’t it really about how you want to construe the Bible or Kuran or whatever?  It is this all-important context that determines the motivations of the individual and which path each person chooses to live life.  I favor the churches becoming houses of God and Nature more and an educational spiritual enlightenment place instead of a place of confusion.  It should be a place where we form community harmony instead of a place for ultra-competitive, detrimentally impacting, and often violent races for the “better.” God, Nature, and all houses of God and Nature in all denominations should be about keeping humanity striving for optimal harmony, peace, and love in context with humankind and Nature and a place to get everyone inspired to live a genuine holistic life no matter your starting point.  All you need to know is love and strive to be genuinely holistic.  It starts with loving, caring, sharing, giving, forgiving, and genuine kindness, striving to bring about conditions of comfort, joy, love, hope, faith, and sustainable striving for happiness.  Then, we should read the Bible because it gives us an appropriate context to understand the main messages God wants us to understand.  I wonder if the Bible was a test such that it is more about the context in which you read the Bible that matters more.

We must transition educational knowing from the purposes of winning at any cost or “doing your job” to genuine holistic academic learning and integrated enlightenment in context problem solving that considers the ecogeorelativity of humanity and nature. Otherwise, it is just out of context traditional functioning. It is a business-as-usual ultra-competitive race that believes in only one-dimensional problem-solving with motivations for profiteering, powerteering, and heroics only at any cost. Such behaviors and practices are a microcosm of significant problems on planet Earth. We can solve all of the issues while striving to minimize detrimental impacts simultaneously.

Consequently, the cumulative costs are minimized. With 100% certainty, we must plan and organize our entire world this way. The sooner we take such steps, the sooner we can have a continuously improving, genuine, holistic, sustainable, striving planet Earth. However, those are just the means. The infinitely sustainable striving ends are ending all preventable suffering, ending all violence, minimizing costs, minimizing detrimental impact perturbation on our natural environment, creating a healthy nurturing environment, minimizing impacts and perturbation to human health, bringing people up to sustainable striving survival level, creating a learning environment for kids to learn, creating a continuous learning environment for people, creating inspirational incentives for people, creating comfort, joy, love, hope, and sustainable striving happiness, ongoing research, and problem-solving. Most of all, it allows us to work together with humanity and nature in an all-inclusive way. The list is endless as it integrates all that is known in a holistic research way and produces holistic prescriptive advice in an in-context way.

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.

I have suggested building Stone Cabins or huts on the tops of prioritized mountains around the world, prioritizing those closer to population or recreation destinations. These huts ought to be planned by a team of people most suited to building cabins at high elevations where wind and weather are a factor. Maybe they ought to be built off the peak. Likewise, we ought to build stone huts, cabins, or yurts on the long trail, all other hiking trails, and nature rail trails. I would suggest the black hawk helicopters or other helicopters in the Peace Corps or ecological restoration organizations, including the military. These helicopters could drop enough stones and materials in remote locations where other methods are not feasible.

High-elevation safety survival huts ought to be built on Everest and other peaks. High-elevation helicopters could be used to bring the supplies. On the way down, all the garbage could be removed. It would save lives.

ENP (Ecological Niche Products) and EEC (Ecological Equilibrium Compensation) ought to be significant ways to provide incentives for both more genuine holistic energy potential and relative importance and significance. Likewise, we could use an ecogeorelative prioritization cumulative indicator to allocate ENP EEC. For example, if there are 100 helicopters to allocate, we could assess to determine which group ought to have the most incentive allocated to get one of these helicopters to use. For example, if an organization has an integrative ecogeorelative assessment of their total planned usage, past usage, and current usage and needs in the future, we could inspire organizations to strive to become more sustainable. We would do this by offering more EEC by doing more public good, higher beneficial energy allocation, or prevention of detrimental costs or impacts. Actual allocation priority may be an incentive as well. This ENP EEC idea is another relatively high importance to transition ways of thinking about planet Earth. Instead of waiting for reactive uses or training only (which accomplishes nothing except training of people), we can inspire organizations to diversify and integrate traditional, more narrow focus to broader needs as determined by the similarity unique diversity spectrum pyramid and associated ENOs. There are many potential benefits, energy, and value, saving detrimental costs and externalities and multiplying costs from not doing something we should do. It is sort of like the concept of opportunity cost. Instead of a fish waiting in a pool expending energy or giving up the opportunity to find food, the fish maximizes its energy creation and simultaneously minimizes such energy expenditure. But sometimes, the fish has fun, jumps in the riffles, and goes after an insect. It is similar to a helicopter sitting idle when it could add higher relative value or eliminate future costs. This is an ecologically shared concept that encourages the use of equipment while minimizing the resource extraction and energy spent on maximum production so each organization can have its helicopters that are idle often. It encourages the use of helicopters for higher relative energy (cumulative value, energy, benefits, etc.) operations. It discourages using helicopters for those more energy-wasting, non-energy-adding operations or idle use. We could even have a We-Me integrated device that calculates usage all the time always to have an index calculated that compares desired sustainable striving goals with relative energy units gained at that time. Further assessment could determine the prevention of further costs index. I believe ecogeosystematics are mappable and can be summarized in an area region’s hexagonal integration ecogeorelativity. Therefore, we can get visualization, statistics, and summaries of any area on Earth. When we put this together with sources and sinks, areas where relative help is needed, prioritization areas, and have it all in an ecogeorelative ecogeosystematic context, we can strive to minimize resource consumption, minimize pollution, minimize cost (future as well), maximize efficiency, conserve energy spent, maximize energy gained for the areas of concern. There are a huge number of indicators that can be calculated and used to assess, determine areas to research more, plan, prioritize, and allocate. Gas could have relative incentive pricing relative to the sustainable, striving energy areas that are adding to the world. Integrated devices could calculate another index relative to additional incentives on top of the area incentive relative to your contribution in terms of your EVCI (Ecological Value Contribution Index). I believe all the rents and shares (especially home shares, house shares, and shelter shares) concepts ought to function like this, giving people incentives to use all rent-able or shareable places to stay. ENPs are incentivized by Amazon, and everything rents and shares in ways that strive to be the most genuine holistic and sustainable striving way. If a pickup is needed, you may find an ecological niche project or task during the same period.   Any of the time and effort devoted to genuine holistic sustainable striving above and beyond the natural genuine holistic person that everyone strives to show in a pay-it-forward way. If you want to travel for the next two years, you could plan out a trip in an environmentally friendly way to maximize your ecological value contribution index so that EEC may be allocated for all costs. I see planning your life out in terms of a life’s path transect in the future. It maximizes the exposure of your passions, interests, and desired life experiences throughout your life if desired. It can be changed anytime or when a higher EEC opportunity comes along. The path you choose can add a very high amount to your contribution index depending on your cumulative totality and life experiences. At the same time, a continual improvement wave occurs as each person strives not to maximize flipping money but to maximize contributions and desired life experiences.

Organizations are just buildings filled with human natural spiritual miracle creations of God, Nature, and the Universe. An organization is only as great as its people. People are dynamic and go where people are great or high-value contribution index, real angels, genuine holistic, or somewhere on the holistic to holy spectrum. Why hang around an organization that is not doing the right thing? The only reason is that some organizations thrive because they hire people who have been blemished somehow (many do not even know). Many people are taken advantage of for their willingness to do anything. This created a demand for people who would do anything to survive. Therefore, people who develop people that do anything have a niche. This niche functioned and was promulgated to create impacted people in areas where top-down control and dogmatic opportunistic ignorance were favored instead of educational enlightenment or holistic learning. These people get into employment situations and deal with adamant top-down management or management that wants to make flipping money at any cost. Hence, they encourage those people to do anything they can to make money. Some are just enslaved. Sometimes, an organization starts with great intentions but gets invaded by itinerant functioning people with different motivations. Some may have gone to school for education only to get a job. Others may have been part of (or loyal) to a mobbish omerta functioning organization, putting higher relative weight on its functioning than the organization itself.

On top of that, there are many investigations in this world, so some people in organizations may be trying to figure things out as well. More than ever, we need to have an Ecological Value Contribution Index or EEC or some other cumulative totality indicator to measure the caliber of the organization itself. Then, we need a self-assessed cumulative indicator of the people themselves striving to do their best, do the right thing, and strive for genuine, holistic, sustainable striving. Assessing means and ends for the organization’s people, humanity, the community’s natural environment, and Earth itself may be a great start. Otherwise, we are endlessly dealing with perception/reality index problems. When this happens, people often expect one thing and get the other. Likewise, sometimes organizations and people are part of a vast lateral organizational network of concentric ring influences and a colossal top/down concentric ring influencing and interactive structure and functioning on top of the organization or individual.

As you can see, it isn’t easy to function in this world with many complex power structures with various relative weights of influence, each with its motivations. This is especially true when all the processes and reactionary functioning are causing confusion, distractions, diversions, transference, and continuous complexity creation. The detrimental impacts and pollution of all kinds are enormous and end up bio-accumulating even in unsuspecting locations like our little kids. This starts children’s lives in a significantly disadvantaged way, leading to impacted fitness, decreasing their homeostatic balance, and increasing susceptibility to opportunistic perturbations. The caliber of the organization should be determined by a more We-Me ecosystem like ecogeosystematic ecogeorelativity where each influencing in-context organization (regardless of epoch) is striving to be motivated by the best intentions individually. Hence, the cumulative assessment is as favorable as it can be for kids, individuals, families, communities, humanity, the natural environment, and consequently, all of planet Earth.

Is the past economy an irrational reactionary pseudo-economy? It seems to me that if left alone, we would have a future society functioning off of politics, sick people, law, process, justice, war, manufacturing of “stuff” at any cost, chaos, complexity confusion, flipping money, irrational education only investments, out of context litigiousness, irrationally planned businesses, selling data on people, trying to get people in trouble, spying and surveillance, resource depleting infrastructure and transportation, building concrete jungles only, processed industrial food, itinerant education (without learning) for testing only memorization and jobs, hack-able computers, out of context organizations, exploitative and excessive unplanned travel, prison industries, problem transference around the world, detrimentally impacting organizations and industries, and those that could help the most are unemployed, disabled, in some prison justifying the prison industry economy.

Each time violence happens, we must use violence as an indicator and training site. We must thoroughly research everything in the place and the person’s life to determine possible associative characteristics and possible causal contributors to the associative characteristics and contributing characteristics. Then we look at everything in an ecogeorelative way. Then, from the characteristics and indicators, we can look for these indicators and characteristics in certain areas to determine if there is a higher chance of finding such potential violence-creating terrain. Associating violence with a particular landscape type may point to contributing factors. The null hypothesis may be the strongest indicator of all.

A significant amount of resources should be devoted to helping people eliminate the potential for violence. These resources are on the holistic side of the spectrum. The problems exist because the survival zone pressures and cumulative significant impact associated with these lives sometimes contribute to a higher probability of more violence. It is necessary to do all that is needed to “tear down those walls” of all kinds that hinder progress toward ending all violence. The first step is to let people know it is not about getting people in trouble anymore. It is about each person getting the help they need. This way, they will open up to healthcare people and researchers so we can define problems appropriately and contribute to rational problem-solving or knowledge creation so we can create advice. This is the best option rather than contribute to more violence, as is done today in our current practices, processes, methods, techniques, and systems. We decrease the likelihood of more once we remove the contributory expansion of violence. When problems related to violence decrease, societal and community impacts will reduce as well; this will lessen other contributory impacts on people that bioaccumulate in people that cause more propensity toward more violence. Essentially, this method approaches the problem from an integrated ecogeorelative ecogeosystematic way and an ecosystem approach from webs and chains in every direction. It looks at the entire integrated functioning and attempts to mitigate each potential contributor to violence and the sources. On a broader level, the sources may be another rational problem-solving process that can be solved similarly but from a more macro perspective.

I hypothesize that it has something to do with the entirety of everything and how we function on planet Earth in this reactive, ultra-competitive perception/reality world we live in. The contributory behaviors may be related to profiteering at any cost, striving for power at any cost, and charioteering at any cost. All of these behaviors integrated with the traditional system functioning and processes, which are all functioning out of context with everything else, are contributing to an over-complexioned perception system that does not add as much potential value, energy, and benefits as a well-planned integrated ecogeorelative way of doing things would. I have wondered in the past whether it is interspecific competition and intraspecific competition at the same time. Is it the same ecogeorelative ecogeosystematic approach to solve this problem? If so, it helps with the proposal to minimize complex borders and boundaries of confusion, transference, and compulsions toward violence. This, coupled with leveling the playing field, uses sources and sinks holistic energy transference to get everyone up to comfort, joy, love, hope, and sustainable striving for happiness. It beats the reactively violent detrimental energy transference and processes that have dominated our world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and before.

Instead of giving everyone a badge of similarity, it is best to award people a WeMe-integrated device. By itself, it ends all violence on earth.

It does not make sense to have liberal or conservative labels.  It is a ridiculous concept.  It is even more foolish to put a wall around these concepts and stay in each respective proverbial country of liberal or conservative.  Since I went to university to learn, I do not understand these well enough to comment on each one because I try to be me (which is who I am as a person.) Conservatism and liberalism, to me, are a dynamic continuum instead of a controversial bubble war concept.  I tend to see the world as dynamic and ever-changing.  Laws and policies are primarily static and tend to stagnate progress and detrimentally impact severely.  This is because they are often out of context or insufficient to capture the essence of all it means to be human in our world of nature, God, and spirituality.  I favor educational learning, living, and exploring.  As a person who works with nature, it did not take me long to realize that forests and laws are incompatible in that what is best for the law is not the best for the forest and nature itself.  The same is true for our Earth as well.  All human influence and organizational boundaries do not unite us but fragment and isolate us, causing complexity and confusion over simplicity and getting closer to nature or natural Earth striving with planning.  Only those who use a reactionary system win at any cost.  We need holistic planning and must strive to integrate our humanity with nature in sustainable, holistic, and ecosystematic ways.  We must learn from nature and mimic its functioning, which contributes to helping strive toward those sustainable, enduring humanity and nature goals.

On the other hand, we must strive to keep enlightening ourselves with the foundational fundamentals learned from our educational learning.  We should internalize the beneficial, enlightening teachings known from God, spirituality, and any other helpful contributions from philosophy, nature, Buddhism, or anything else that helps bring harmony to our world.  We could even relatively weigh and prioritize each concept by assigning a relative importance index and relative societal acceptance index, which is a great way to prioritize learning.  (The same thing should be done on the internet with all potential classes someone might take).  The liberal-conservative concept is weird because people are individuals.  They are the total of all that is learned in their life.  These days, too often, people know how to be liberal or conservative, which is an itinerant acceptance ploy to get power or status rather than solve problems.  Does this function as a weapon?  Maybe it says something about the majority of our functioning.  Words that mean dynamic processes rather than static are more adaptively beneficial for our world.  If you want to call it something other than “all that you have learned,” why not call it the liberal-conservative liberalism continuum?  I would instead call it adaptive learning, adaptive rationalization, adaptive prioritizing, adaptive allocation of educational learning, adaptive problem solving, adaptive planning, or adaptive ecogeorelative ecogeosystematics.  Adaptive ecogeorelative Ecogeosystematics is probably a tremendous dynamic summary word.  We must also look at our world in a different light as well.  We must see our people and world as similar and different instead of liberal and conservative.