This is actually the second part in a two-part series.

The first one was done in London, called "Where Are We Now?"

which dealt with the financial system and other attributes you might be familiar with

if you follow the work that I do with The Zeitgeist Movement

which is the activist and communication arm

of another organization called The Venus Project.

More on these organisations as we go along.

Part 1: Evolutionary Baggage

Roughly 10,000 years ago the human species

stumbled into a new social paradigm

which is now referred to as the "Neolithic Revolution".

During this time, it appears we began a transition

from predominantly egalitarian societies

consisting of hunters and gatherers

to an agricultural revolution where deliberate cultivation of food

replaced the more passive finding of food sources

hence allowing for much more control over production.

At the same time, there also seems to be a major push

in the advancement of what we call "technology" today.

Stone tools were advancing which eventually set the trend for the Bronze Age

which used the forging of more malleable copper.

And then [came] the Iron Age which enabled more strength

and so on. I think we know all these patterns.

Since this period, we can look back and recognize

a constantly increasing rate of technological development.

In fact, it appears to be an exponential increase.

This graph here, made by Ray Kurzweil

shows an exponential increase in the mass use of inventions

specifically communication and computer technology.

Next to it is another chart which shows a history of technological invention

and the amazing rate of progress in general.

I think it is safe to say that this evolution of technology

and hence science itself has been and continues to be

the fundamental catalyst for progress and change.

It is by far the primary factor driving the development of human civilization

not only in the facilitation of achieving specific ends

but also in the more subtle manifestation of our belief systems, philosophy

frames of reference and essentially how we interpret the world around us.

The scientific method itself is a form of technological tool

and its application has continually advanced our understanding

of the world around us, facilitating constant change.

Unfortunately, cultural beliefs (beliefs that we all share

traditions) are very rarely in tandem

with the socially progressive nature of science and technology.

This is termed "culture lag".

This stems from social identifications with existing traditional values

and established institutional practices.

These emotional identifications

and I apologize for this graphic, but I couldn't resist.

These emotional identifications are a source of comfort for us.

In fact, I have an anecdote. When I was coming here from the airport

I saw the Amish. They evidently live near by

and they were driving on the street. It was night time. What did they have?

They had electric lights on their horse and buggy.

I'm like "Hey! That's cheating!"

The thing is that it's really difficult for any traditional establishment

to really keep moving forward without eventually giving in

to the beauty of the advancement of technology and what it can do for us.

As a classic example of this phenomenon

which I'm sure many of you have heard before

was when the Italian physicist/astronomer Galileo

first presented evidence to the political institution of his time and region

regarding the earth revolving around the sun.

He was met with deep threat and deep opposition by the political

religious establishment, for it was very much contrary

to their religious texts and hence traditional identifications.

In fact the Inquisition banned the reprinting of Galileo's works

for 76 years after his death.

The reality is, institutional establishments

meaning institutions of both traditional codified thought

and institutions with societal influence and power

meaning philosophy dogmas on one hand

and corporations and governments on the other

each have a high propensity to engage in denial

dishonesty and corruption to maintain self-preservation

and self-perpetuation.

The result is a continuous culture lag

where social progress by way of incorporating new

socially helpful scientific advancements is constantly inhibited.

It is like walking through a brick wall

as the established power orthodoxies continue to perpetuate themselves

for their own interests and comforts.

To illustrate this phenomenon in a modern context

let's examine one of the oldest established orders still in use today

the monetary system.

When I say the monetary system, I don't mean native monetary policy

interest rates, the fractional reserve policy

central banks or any other component attribute.

I refer to the absolute foundation of the concept

being a system of incentive, aquisition, and exchange.

So first, let's ask the most fundamental question.

Why did we invent money?

Contrary to the attitudes of most of the world's population today

money is not a natural resource

nor does it represent resources.

Money is actually a social convention for managing scarcity

and rewarding creation.

If a person grows a food product on a plot of land

that product is given a value:

1) Based on how scarce the product is in the region

hence the level of demand versus supply.

2) Along with the amount of labor and time spent to produce that product.

Generally speaking, if a product is rare in this society

then its value is raised.

If the skill set needed by a person to cultivate that product

is also rare in the community, then the value is increased as well.

This is the basic theory of value, which you'll hear in Economics 101.

As innocuous as this may seem on the surface

let's now consider some of the unspoken

negative retroactions of this system; namely, the profit mechanism

and its relationship to establishment preservation.

Very simply, problems and scarcity equals profit.

Socially negative attributes of society

become positively rewarded ventures for industry.

The more problems and scarcity there is the more money

that can be made off of attempts at solutions.

The more efficiency created in society

the less opportunities for monetary acquisition.

Think about this. In other words

and this might sound rather pessimistic and abrupt

but there is very little intrinsic reward, and hence motivation

to solve any currently profitable problem in existence.

The very nature of monetary reinforcement condones

the perpetuation of problems.

For example, energy is the corner stone of our society.

You would think that scarce

and depleted oil supplies which is a common speculation

at this point in time, "peak oil"

would be a dire concern, given our current social dependence

posing nothing but negative connotations.

No, not in the short term.

There is nothing the oil companies want more than consistant scarcity.

The 2007/2008 speculative bubble in oil which shut down schools

school buses and caused immense hardship for the lower classes

for both home heating and transportation, is a classic example.

If oil companies know that they can make more money

by having their items scarce, the propensity

to deliberately limit production and disregard social concern

or simply be dishonest outright about available resources

is very high.

The same goes, unfortunately, for every other socially dire problem

such as environmental pollution.

The more polluted our water tables and taps become

the more industry can compensate by offering profitable solutions.

This creates a perverse reinforcement of indifference

to environmental concern by industry

for the more damage there is, the more money that can be made.

It is simply how the game is set up.

And the psychological ramifications are sick and profound.

Let's consider the medical industry

which should be one of the most altruistic

and progressive institutions we have

as our quality of life often depends on it.

However, we need to realize the simple reality

that the medical establishment with its millions of employees

thrives off of the sickness of the population.

The more problems solved in the realm of disease

the less money that can be generated.

For example, [there's] the cancer industry.

This is a massive, multi-billion dollar a year industry

a trillion dollar industry with a very large number of people in employment.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a cure for all cancers

was somehow achieved, and the method of treatment

was simple and easy. In other words, there was no longer a way

to make all this money off of the illness by the medical establishment.

Do you realize what would happen to the economy

to the medical institutions, if that particular problem

was actually given a viable solution?

And, when you realize that, do you really think that the intent

is to cure this illness?

It's something to think about.

And it would also lay off tens of thousands of people.

I mean, keep in mind it's an establishment.

The moment you have employees and everything

and even if you're working initially for an altruistic cause

the moment you're in the position of supporting a group

and the group relying on the institution

suddenly, motivations change.

As another example, what if a company made a car

that could last 80 years without service

and also runs without the need for perpetual refueling

through battery technology?

The after-market value of that car would be virtually zero

and billions of dollars would be lost due to the now obsolete

consumer oil and auto service market industries.

I'm sure many of you know that we have the technology now

to create electric cars

that can go 80 mph for a thousand miles on one charge.

You might also know as a case in point that the White House

during the Bush administration which was, in fact, the oil cartel in power

made sure their corporate constituents in the oil industry

were safeguarded against this new reality

by helping to just get rid of the idea itself, squashing it.

In fact, there is no reason why every single car sold

could not be electric right now. They aren't

because social progress and human well-being

is always second to monetary gain.

I'll say that again. Social progress and human well-being

is always second to monetary gain.

Also, if people cannot make money off of solving social problems

they simply will not be done.

Take a look at the horrid, dire destitution in Africa

or simply the rampant and growing homelessness across the world.

I think George Carlin actually put it best.

"Have you ever noticed that the only metaphor we have

in our public discourse for solving problems is to declare war on it?

We have the war on crime, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.

But did you ever notice that we have no war on homelessness?

You know why? Because there's no money in that problem.

No money to be made off of the homeless.

If you can find a solution to homelessness where the corporations

and politicians can make a few million dollars each

you will see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty damn quick!"

Most when they think about these kinds of things

the word "corruption" comes to mind.

Most feel that these are ethical issues.

But, it is really corrupt for an energy establishment

to want to limit supply, artificially so they can make money?

Is it really corrupt for a company to seek

indifferent self-preservation at the expense of social progress?

Actually no, it isn't. It is simply "business as usual".

And this is what I'm trying to point out.

And you should expect nothing less than this tendency.

The profit mechanism creates established orders

which constitute the survival and wealth of large groups of people.

The fact is, no matter how socially beneficial new advents may be

they will be viewed in hostility if they threaten an established

financially-driven institution

meaning social progress can actually be a threat to the establishment.

To put it into a sentence: Abundance

sustainability and efficiency are the enemies of profit.

Progressive advancement in science and technology which can solve

problems of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all are, in effect

making the prior establishment's servicing of those issues obsolete.

Therefore, in a monetary system

corporations are not just in competition with other corporations

they are in competition with progress itself.

That is why social change is so difficult within a monetary system.

In other words, the established monetary system

refuses free flowing change.

You really cannot have a social convention

where money is made off of inefficiency and scarcity

and expect a quick incorporation of new advents