Good evening, and thank you all for coming.

I very much appreciate you all being here,

and of course thanks to the Toronto team for a tremendous and diverse

presentation order; I was really happy to see the diversity.

This is 'Origins and Adaptations - Part II'

I tested it out at about 4:30 in the morning, found out it was about

15 minutes too long so I've been trimming this thing down

in the midst of everyone else speaking (sorry to be rude).

But, I want to state up front that this is not my normal type of talk,

and if in the course of this, if you can't figure out what it is I'm getting at

just bear with me, because I will get back to the main point

as I go through this.

In 2012, I gave the first half of this presentation,

talking about the kind of toxic evolution of the market mindset,

a mindset which was quite innocuous many centuries ago,

but has continued to evolve in ever-problematic ways,

including the resulting consequence of growing environmental and social imbalance

as we all know.

And sadly, the market's internal incentive structure and its general mechanics

literally doesn't have the vocabulary to solve these problems,

as others have alluded to today,

which is one of the reasons, perhaps, that there are more activist groups

and NGOs, and socially concerned nonprofits in the world

than ever before, in absolute and in percentage terms.

And if that's not a barometer of societal health, I'm not quite sure what is;

it's a very telling sign.

The implication, is that not only is the market as we know it inadequate

(as the market is supposed to solve all problems), so is the government,

as we know it, and both of them have been failing for a such very long time

when it comes to problem resolution, people are going way outside

of the traditional frameworks, as best they can, to try and help.

Too bad- not to be cynical- the vast majority are not going far enough

in their thinking about true root problems,

some of which I will try and cover today.

In Part I 'Emergence of the Arbitrary' I will use the stock market

as an example of how the system of market capitalism has

'decoupled from itself,' gesturally speaking, highlighting what I think

are very interesting features of crowd behavior

in this type of incentive structure, along with revealing what are I think

the 'true colors' of the market mechanism and the mindset it creates-

the true, naked colors of what this system actually is

when you remove everything that glamorizes it,

and covers it up, and ornaments it, in the wrong way.

In Part II 'Rational Imbalance,' I'm going to attempt to show,

in the most simplistic and accessible relationships possible,

how the market organizes itself 'rationally' amongst competing players.

For those that have ever studied game theory, or utilitarian models

regarding behavioral economics (kind of obscure)

you've probably come across something called 'Rational choice theory.'

Rational choice theory means that an individual acts 'as if'

they are balancing costs against benefits, to arrive at actions

that maximize personal advantage. In this context

the term 'rational' has little to do with the commonly accepted definition,

most would consider synonymous with say, 'sane' behavior.

Rather, it assumes that individuals make logical decisions

based upon their perception of obtaining the greatest satisfaction,

oriented by only the game they are focusing on.

My goal is to show not only how there is a lack of equilibrium

constant in the market, perpetuating economic imbalance, wage imbalance,

general inefficiency, and hence the resulting creation of desperation,

it's also to show that this thing is so locked in, we can't even avoid the issues

because these 'rational' defenses are formed by pressures that are external

to the vocabulary of the market economy.

An externality- as I will touch upon, as I get into it-

is something that the market doesn't understand and account for.

Examples include: technological unemployment, poverty, over-consumption,

realized scarcity, growing inequality, climate destabilization,

and other such issues that we have talked about at length today.

This realization stands in stark contrast to the spectrum of equilibrium,

theorists who argue that a properly tuned, free market would naturally produce,

such as full employment, wage stability, equitable distribution, etc.

This section with also imply that the idea of a 'green' or humane capitalist economy-

given the general consensus of what those value terms mean-

is actually structurally impossible as a natural state,

showing that no matter how ethical, caring, and environmentally conscious

you think you are being, virtually everything in the market moves against

these sustainable interests, as evidenced in its total system behavior.

Now this doesn't mean improvement and influence can't be made and we shouldn't

try and be helpful and active, but you're walking against the current greatly

and, as I will show, the system's design has some very,

very powerful mechanisms that keep it in place,

without anyone really understanding what these mechanisms are.

Everyone thinks about power; we're talking about a structure.

And to be clear, system behavior- this is what it's about- is by definition

behavior that is unpredicted by the behavior of its apparent parts.

It isn't to say the behavior cannot be understood,

but it has to be analyzed as a whole, as much as technically possible,

to gain a more accurate picture.

This is why the only type of social analysis viable,

must fall in the context of global statistics, and large scale trends over time.

It is very, very easy for classical economists today, to defend the market

by anecdotal scenarios, narrow reductionist proofs, and examples of

short term improvements that basically ignore broader, negative trends.

In about 15 years there will be another billion people

trying to survive on this planet.

Yet, as of now, all life support systems are in decline,

and general social destabilization is statistically on the rise.

These system results trump all other perspectives as qualifying measures.

For example:

Numerous corraborating studies show that we need a 60 to a 110% increase

in food production by 2050, and of course this stat is not accounting for the fact

that 1 billion people today are already are already not getting enough food

to meet basic nutritional needs.

Potable water is worse, with the UN finding that over 65% of the world

will experience water stress in just 10 years, with 1.8 billion

already living today with true scarcity problems.

Pollution- both land, water and atmospheric- which is already epidemic,

has been estimated to continue to rise overall,

especially in the countries desperately trying to pull themselves out of

third world economic conditions.

And as much as we all would like to see the world

come up to a higher standard of living, the industrial methods used

by these strapped nations are horribly inefficient, and essentially ecocidal.

China is a perfect example: 16 out of 20 of the world's most polluted cities

are in China, and I see China's development as the path

that most other nations are taking, preferring economic growth

over environmental sustainability, through dirty, cheap industrial methods,

with no regard; they're just trying to get it done, looking the other way.

As far as energy, despite the green rhetoric and the earth stickers

stuck to everything being put out by the oil industry,

they are spending billions in development of conventional and

unconventional hydrocarbons, and substantially less on renewables still.

Tar sands, fracking, oil shale [are] horribly polluting, destructive,

and have very weak net energy conversion, as compared to conventionals.

And it is estimated that we need a 56% increase in world energy by 2040.

And guess what? If that increase is going to come from hydrocarbons,

it's gonna be a CO2 pollution disaster

because we've already hit the 400 ppm benchmark.

So, if were going to try to meet this demand with the oil industry,

we're in a lot of trouble.

As far as resource consumption and loss of biodiversity,

a 2011 study found that we need 27 more Earths to keep current rates going by 2050,

with losses of 50 to 150 species daily, a level 10,000 times greater

than the natural [rate] of species extinction in the fossil record.

As far as public health, the WHO has recently stated that cancer rates

are expected to surge 57% in the next 20 years,

while depression and anxiety disorders continue to also rise.

Heart disease, the general global killer, at least in the West mostly,

while decreasing in global mortality a bit in the last few decades,

is actually increasing in diagnosis;

people are just living longer due to medical servicing.

And closely tied to such public health is income inequality,

which is at its highest rates by some estimates, than anytime in human history,

with poverty, overall, on the rise in the first world nations,

with extreme poverty, as it's called, in the third world,

staying more or less the same in the long term.

Please note that income inequality is not some mere inconvenience.

It's a silent killer and social destabilizer.

Heart disease, for example, has a direct correlation to inequality both

in terms of absolute deprivation, and relative or psychosocial stress pressures.

And the last socioeconomic result is the ever-growing unemployment crisis.

The flow of reasoning within the market, coupled with the exponential increase

in information-based technology

and resulting cost decreases of applied technology,

will incentivize all businesses to automate over time- just watch!

How can we expect to keep humans meaningfully employed in this climate,

when keeping cyclical consumption and growth will become more and more elusive,

as time moves forward, and this market logic prevails?

Bottom line: Anyone who tells you that the market and its underlying mechanisms

and incentive structure is exempt from blame regarding these causes,

they are either completely and utterly dishonest with themselves...

or they're incredibly poorly informed with respect to the

etiology of market synergy, the causality.

Overall, poverty and inequality together, are perhaps the most embracing

as a result of these pressures, both of which, as TZM knows well,

are technically unnecessary,

given the state of our capacity to actually meet human needs,

and keep ecological balance at the same time.

The structural violence we endure today is an assault,

and in form, a civil/human rights violation.

And you know we've watched over the many years increased race equality,

gender equality, creed equality, and to a limited affect -

legal equality emerge on this planet.

Yet, most everyone has been conditioned- have you noticed- to stop short

of demanding economic equality, in the truest sense of the idea.

It appears the idea of economic equality is seen as utopian,

that is the way people think about it, unattainable.

And in the past, this was probably true.

But no more, provably. With the phenomenon of ephemeralizaton-

more with less- we can do it!

And I hope that the civil/human rights groups out there can really realize

the merit of this, and how the result of this equality through, of course,

the installation of a Natural Law Resource-Based Economy-

something that I'm not talking about today as I have at length in other prior lectures-

is the only logical means to do so, based on assuring the proper

behavior reinforcers to assure balance, abundance, and sustainability.

And to conclude this tangent,

when you really trace the etiological unfolding of the most damaging problems

and fatality in society, logic will lead you to one conclusion:

Capitalism is the leading cause of death on the planet Earth,

and it's time to change!

[Applause]

Then in Part III, 'Revolution by Design,'

I will quickly address the critical importance of educational design projects

and think tanks, which can essentially mockup this vision

and prove its efficacy to the general public in a very tangible way.

And by the way, this is not to override any other activist ideas- boycotts, etc.-

but it's about getting down to what will make the world realize

what is actually possible in the most direct, applicable, educational sense.

However before I begin all of that, as if this intro couldn't be any longer,

a personal note.

As mentioned, I don't like to repeat myself too much when it comes

to prepared talks. I do my best to always look for new content and angles.

And today we live in a digital age where we have access to vast

historical media online. So repetition in presentations just isn't needed,

if those intent on understanding this stuff put forward the proper research,

into the Movement.

And for those new- say finding this video archived online later-

here's a list of all the main talks I have contributed to the Movement since 2009.

And if anything I say here today-

which this is an advanced and rather abstract presentation I'm going to give-