Public Comment

Attitudes on global warming are massively different between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Addressing global warming is difficult, because Americans and China, among other countries, rely heavily on fossil fuels to make people's lives easier than it would otherwise be. It will take a lot of work on the part of millions of people for us to switch to forms of energy that do not put carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, we are up against the oil and energy mega-corporations, who feel threatened by solar, since it is harder to make a profit on a decentralized energy system. This is despite the fact that if the U.S. decentralized our energy source, it would be to our military advantage. 

However, the mental resources required to put a stop to nuclear proliferation, are easily attainable, and world leaders need to have a meditation session or something.  

My guess is that leaders of countries perpetuate their nuclear arms races in large part because it helps them remain in power over their populations. If they didn't have a good way of frightening their citizens and being in a position of "protector," it would be harder to extinguish civil unrest. 

Secondly, countries have a collective "agreement" that we are all enemies of each other, we need to be frightened of each other's nukes, and we need our own nukes to keep us safe from attack. This is based on fear. Nobody feels as though they can disarm their nuclear arsenals without the consequence of being invaded. 

Third, some leaders of countries, such as president Putin, have ambitions of world domination. I have no understanding of this. 

Leaders of countries, we might assume, are somehow superior individuals compared to an ordinary person. However, this idea does not bear out. Leaders are more efficient at accomplishing tasks and at commanding others, compared to an ordinary person. They do not fade as easily from stress and fatigue. They tend to have a higher intelligence compared to most people. However, they are not inherently superior. If they were, we would not be facing the continuous threat to all life forms on Earth; tens of thousands of nuclear bombs on a hair trigger. 

What would it take to get world leaders to sit with each other at the United Nations and come to terms with this common threat to all humanity? It would require bravery. And it would require that leaders would give a damn about their fellow human being rather than only being concerned with their own power, prestige and affluence. It would require taking a chance. The risk is that if there were one or two nations who did not abide by the agreement, it wouldn't work. However, it is a risk that leaders must take. The alternative is the near certainty of doom for life on Earth. 

This is why I suggested a "meditation session." If world leaders could use cognitive techniques in order to upgrade their level of consciousness, it would be possible for what I have described above to actually happen. 

If total universal disarmament isn't realistic, do it in increments. Do it with verification. But we have to do this. And U.S. citizens are in a unique position, because we have the First Amendment, to put pressure on government to initiate something like this. 

Some countries are a genuine threat to the U.S., and to other nations. And those in positions of power, often, aren't interested in doing the right thing. Some are ruthless, and we wouldn't want to cross paths with them or make them upset with us. How do we address this? 

We live in unique times and in uncharted waters. The internet, social media, and artificial intelligence, are tools that could be used to deal with our precarious situation. The "why" of this is clear; we are trying to prevent the destruction of life on Earth. The "how" is accomplished by changing people's minds. And this begins with the readers changing their own minds. We must meditate and use cognitive methods to remove fear from our central nervous systems. When we do that, it is like turbocharging. We become smarter, more effective people. 

Obviously, leaders of countries won't voluntarily relinquish the perceived power of atomic bombs. Thus, we need a movement, and it has to be bigger and stronger than any movement in human history. And I invite Silicon Valley leaders to initiate this. The alternative is that human beings will become extinct within another few decades.