How Best to Pass in Peace

by Christopher Lovejoy on February 25, 2018

when you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused,
kind-hearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king

immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you’re ready

~ Tao Te Ching

This is a long post, as much about being a wise author of this world as it is about the many flavors of passing in peace; it is a post I recommend reading at your leisure with your favorite beverage.

Take your time and feel free to share.


To pass in peace is rich with meaning.

In the preamble to the declaration of the 2030 Agenda, we read as follows:

We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence.
There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.

When I sit with this piece of the preamble, I wonder at its implications for a world whose populations have been guided to grow more slowly by the day, and at the measures being taken to stabilize and calibrate global population to a level where resources can do more than merely meet the needs of its inhabitants. I also wonder about the economics that ensue from reducing the global population.

When population slows, economic activity slows, and when the rate of this growth falls, economic activity falls, which carry risks of recession, deflation, and chronic unemployment. A sound immigration policy can keep things growing and flowing, but a sounder policy will be required to replace immigration as a tool of sustainability as population growth rates everywhere continue to approach 2.1.

One forecast indicates that at current production rates most metals and energy sources on earth (oil, gas, uranium) will run out by 2050, with the exception of rare earth metals and coal (which is plentiful), and by “run out” I mean deplete to the point where it is no longer feasible to mine and extract significant amounts of metals and energy sources on earth. The saving graces for this world will likely come from mining the asteroids and incorporating new forms of renewable energy that includes “free” energy.

The declaration of peace in the 2030 Agenda is as well-intentioned as it is determined ~ no one who cares enough about humanity can dispute this on its face ~ but what is the true meaning of sustainable development in a world where people are compelled to reduce their numbers?

A future of hope is a vital piece of the peace if we are to continue to inspire and aspire.


In a world guided to reduce its numbers, in a world where jobs require more and better skills, in a world where more jobs are being lost due to automation, and in a world where more and more of its numbers are living in cities away from nature, what exactly is being sustained?

As more and more people lose themselves in their digital devices, losing themselves in the care of their digital babies, increasingly obsessed, distracted, and compelled, is there not a risk that the phrases “be at peace” and “pass in peace” will lose their relevance and meaning?

To pass in peace is rich with meaning.

We know the meaning of midwives at peace when they pass newborns to their mothers, we know the meaning of passing others in peace as we go about our day, and we know the meaning of those who pass in peace after swallowing a capsule containing 9 grams of secobarbital.

To pass a stranger in peace is, unfortunately for the good people of this world, fast becoming a rare and precious reality, one that can really only come through the warmth of presence with the offer and acknowledgement of a smile that serves to convey this warmth and presence.

In a way, this world is dying, and when I say dying, I mean dying to its promise to thrive in response to a growing set of challenges, many of which have arisen from the fallout of slowing population growth. I’ll be among the first to say this though: it need not continue to be this way.

A species that is less than mature sometimes needs a bit of tough love, which sounds a little like an oxymoron given how much we associate love with a warm, soft, kind, gentle, humble, patient, peaceful, tender, loving, caring, trusting, glowing, forgiving, promising presence.

We are here on this planet to love, and to live and learn the ways of love, but if we cannot do this in peace, with the maturity of peace and the peace that comes with maturity, then what is the point of being alive?

Love grows and flows hand in hand with sharing wealth with health, and I mean health and wealth in the most inclusive terms possible to include physical and psychological health, spiritual and material wealth.

In a world of peace and prosperity, efforts to ensure equality of opportunity seek and find harmony with efforts to ensure opportunities to be unequal ~ to be better than, to be more than; otherwise, these vital words ~ “inspire” and aspire” ~ lose their relevance and meaning.

Even without social comparisons, “being better than” and “having more than” are healthy, vital metrics for the person alone or for the group alone from which to measure desired behavior and conduct.

In 3D, equality and inequality are the yin and yang of an enlightened and empowered civilization.


So how does a species ensure equality of opportunity in a natural world of inequality?

In other words, how does a species ensure peace in a world that values prosperity, that is, that values the hope of forward movement even as it seeks to perpetuate the forward movement of hope?

O Sensei was one of the greatest martial artists ever, an absolute master. One day, one of O-Sensei’s most senior students said to him, in a tone befitting a pure admiration: “Your techniques … they are so perfect! You never make any mistakes; you never lose your center!”

O Sensei regarded the student with a gaze as steady as the noontime sun, and replied, “I lose my center frequently.” He paused for effect, and then said: “I just find it again so quickly that you cannot see it.”

To pass someone in peace requires a secure, stable, steady center in presence, and this center is the sine qua non ~ the indispensable condition ~ for the passing; without it, no warmth can be conveyed.

No one in this world, however, can hold this center in presence continuously, not even O Sensei, let alone hold this center perpetually with a warmth of presence, and this is actually a good thing, because it keeps everyone, all human beings, on a level playing field of equality.

If there is one thing that humanity can do and do well is adapt to adversity. The instructions that have been discovered to help us calm down quickly, for example, is a testament to the ingenuity of humanity.

However, …

Even a meditative or contemplative practice, buttressed by a secure life of meaning and purpose, can only ever make it possible for us to approach the ideal of a constancy of peace in presence.


Sustainable development on a global scale for the sake of global harmony can only be sustainable when peace and prosperity have found their balance with equality and inequality, respectively, where a condition of unity through diversity is more prevalent than unity without diversity (where too much peace and too little prosperity obtain) or more prevalent than diversity without unity (where too little peace and too much prosperity carry the risk of chaos).

The key to sustaining a sustainable development on a global scale is unity through diversity, which cannot ever be obtained by force for the sake of uniformity (too much faux unity) and which cannot ever be obtained by whim for the sake of spontaneity (too much faux diversity).

At the heart of realizing unity through diversity, where peace and prosperity have found their balance with equality and inequality, is personal significance, found through a sense of worth and competence, either realized alone, as an individual, or with others, as a family or group.

How and where do I derive my significance? How and where do we derive our significance? Ultimately, we derive a sense of significance, subjectively or collectively, by standing with others (peace, equality, unity) and by standing for others (prosperity, inequality, diversity).

By standing for others, by standing for the family or group with whom we identify, we declare ourselves fit to rise and meet the challenge of overstanding with outerstanding: standing over the other as being better or as having more and doing so by standing out from the rest.

Any claim of overstanding with outerstanding must be able to continually answer two fundamental questions of significance: (1) what’s in it for me? (or us) and (2) what can I (or we) do you for? These questions serve prosperity by way of inequality for the sake of diversity.

Tough medicine to swallow, I know, but please, let us not keep fighting with shadows.

By standing with others, by standing with the family or group with whom we identify, we declare ourselves fit to rise and meet the challenge of understanding with innerstanding: standing under the other, as being no better or as having no more, and doing so with innerstanding.

Any claim of understanding with innerstanding, however, must be able to continually answer these two fundamental questions of significance: (1) what’s in it for you? and (2) what can I do for you? These questions serve the peace by way of equality for the sake of unity.

Understanding with innerstanding is well recognized for its contribution to community, to communicative unity, more so than overstanding with outerstanding, which is also recognized more parochially for its contribution to community, but which also casts many more shadows.

The perennial tension between the posture of understanding with innerstanding (for the sake of peace, equality, and unity) and the posture of overstanding with outerstanding (for the sake of prosperity, inequality, diversity) drives this choice: serve the other or serve the self?

A calm, warm, clear response to how best to pass in peace is ever alive, awake, and alert to this most fundamental service orientation in humanity: is the other in service to the other, is the other in service to self, or is the other in service neither to the other nor the self?

This world is getting more complicated than it needs to be because these three service orientations have scattered the intentions of humanity at the heart of seeking to realize unity through diversity, where peace and prosperity have found their balance with equality and inequality.

Which brings me back to giving the world some tough love on a global scale.


A population is kept steady when birth rates and death rates are roughly comparable, where the replacement fertility rate is 2.1. If more people are born than die overall, the population grows; if more people die than are born overall, population shrinks. At present, most if not all developed countries in this world have been able to bring their replacement fertility rates down to around, at, or below 2.1.

In light of these comparisons, keep in mind, too, that if no efforts (overt or covert) were made to curb the number of births, and if life extension technologies were made freely available, keeping everyone alive and well in perpetuity, population numbers would likely bloom out of control, making it difficult if not impossible for the blooming populations to adapt by (a) ensuring more than adequate resource discoveries, extractions, and allocations as well as (b) planning and building the necessary infrastructures to keep up with the ensuing economic growth.

With a transparent global population regulation, tough love would promote the welfare of humanity in two ways: (1) through the enforcement of constraint: bearing one or two newborns at most to keep populations in balance with available resources; and (2) through the requirement of responsibility: bearing the responsibility to know if and when one is ready to pass from this life in peace.

How best to pass in peace in relation to bringing newborns into this world?

How best to pass in peace as it pertains to passing from this life in peace?

For both the bringing and the passing, the question of how to apply the requisite reinforcements is paramount. No reinforcement means letting the global population regulate itself with the attendant risk of order descending into conflict and chaos if or when it runs out of resources.

With respect to the bringing, negative reinforcement means (a) the withdrawal of benefits for bringing more than two newborns into this world and/or (b) the application of punitive measures such as forced abortions for bringing more than one or two newborns into this world. Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, would mean incentivizing human reproduction: for example, the incentive program might look like this: 2x the amount of payment for bringing one newborn into the world, a reduction to x amount for having two, and a reduction to 0 for having three.

A program to give incentives to women and couples to have only one or two children would be expensive and extensive in terms of maintaining records and enforcing the policy consistently, not to mention objectionable to those for whom having little money is an issue in their lives.

A one-birth or two-birth policy in China has been successful in keeping their numbers down, but the costs to maintain it have been very high in terms of the suffering incurred from abortions and in terms of the many and various structures and resources required to enforce the policy.

Perhaps there is a way to engage the global populace in a meaningful and entertaining way that would (a) keep them informed about population growth rates in relation to the amount of available resources and (b) keep them informed of the exact number of allowable newborns.

So, for example, imagine this statement being made by an ASI (artificial super intelligence):

“Based on all available data, the current rate of global population growth is more than what the available resources can support and sustain; based on this information, the total fertility rate must now be decreased from 2.3 to 1.9; therefore, more births cannot be tolerated.”

The problem here is that some people might have no interest in the relevant data or, if they do, may lose their interest over time, and have more children as a result, and so, to say that this would not be fair to the conscientious ones among us would be an understatement.

In other words, the joy of sex and a love of children are far more powerful than any prerogative.

The regulation of population through birth control is complicated by the scope of available resources when you factor these technologies into the equation: “free” energy devices, food (scalar) materializers, soil regenerators, and systems of water purification that include desalination.

Unfortunately, every one of these beneficial technologies carry risks at this time to global security without a robust surveillance infrastructure and without a sound population regulation policy applied globally.

The tracking required to collate all necessary data into a coherent picture would be considerable, and would likely only be possible through the use of advanced systems of artificial intelligence, even as enforcement is applied consistently through advanced systems of surveillance.

Until such time that global population regulation can be supported and maintained openly and transparently by effective and efficient means, what role might providing people with the opportunity to pass in peace from this world have? In deed, what does this mean in practice?

Let us explore. Reader discretion advised.


Not many among us like to dwell on death.

The issue of death will inevitably enter popular discourse, however, if (a) global population growth is not calibrated with available resources, and (b) the resources and related technologies on this planet are not expanded, refined, and calibrated to keep pace with this growth.

If the human species as a whole ever decides by default to leave these issues to mother nature and father chance, which is totally within its right to do, then the spectre of global conflict and chaos on a wide scale will loom large, as it is starting to do now as of this writing.

I recall that the issue of voluntary death has been telegraphed by those in the know within a few interesting programs: in Logan’s Run, where people voluntarily submit to a process that take their lives on their 30th birthdays; in Soylent Green, where people voluntarily sign up to die in comfort when they feel ready to go, in theaters of death where they pass away in peace some twenty minutes after drinking an elixir of death; and in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where a robust man of 60 is conflicted by a call to return to his planet to face a celebratory passing.

This listing of states and nations, where medically assisted suicide has been legislated into existence, could be a harbinger to come (Update, 04.22.2021: see also The Complete Guide to Euthanasia: Where, How, and When Is It Legal? for more info). At present, for the most part, only those requests that share a dire need for relief need apply, but my understanding is that legislators in Belgium enacted laws that accommodate a greater field of requests to pass in peace (as of November 2015, Belgium reportedly had the most liberal assisted suicide laws in the world). Switzerland, which is also liberal in its interpretation of the law around dying with dignity, is presently the only nation in the world, circa October 2015 (since 1940), where people from anywhere in the world can go to receive a merciful passing.

The role that Dr. Jack Kevorkian (who admitted to helping dozens of souls to pass) played to bring the issues of mercy killing, euthanasia, and assisted dying to the forefront of public consciousness cannot be disputed or downplayed. In watching the docudrama, You Don’t Know Jack, where Al Pacino played Dr. K, I could not help but be taken by the good intentions of this doctor of pathology to assist and to support terminally ill, diseased, or disabled patients to realize quick, painless deaths with dignity by their own hands before Dr. K crossed the line into euthanasia.

The global elite are strangely ambivalent about voluntary requests to die, given the ongoing push to slow, stabilize, and calibrate the rate of global population growth, in all likelihood due to a deep and persistent conflict that currently prevails between the moral authority of the Church (that for the most part honors only those requests to die that meet a stringent set of criteria; see below) and the secular authority of the State (seeking, like Belgium, to expand the field of these requests).

The most strict criteria conceivable are interesting to contemplate and are six in number: (1) be at least 18 years of age; (2) have a serious, incurable illness, disease, or disability; (3) be at an advanced stage of irreversible decline in capability; (4) endure physical and psychological suffering that is intolerable; (5) be in a state where a natural death is reasonably foreseeable; and (6) be capable of giving informed consent at the time assistance is rendered by a physician or a nurse practitioner, either to do the deed or make this deed possible for the patient to do.

Sadly, these criteria exclude a lot of people who suffer deeply, who have lost the will to live and/or give consent, and who have no reasonable chance of ever regaining a decent quality of life, which is why some countries are relaxing their criteria with euthanasia and medically assisted dying. For example, in 2014, Belgium became the first country to authorize euthanasia for children, on request, if they have a terminal illness and if they can understand the repercussions of their act (note: with euthanasia, physicians by definition administer the means of death).

In Switzerland, the legal prerequisites are: a person must have either a terminal illness, an unendurable incapacitating disability, or unbearable and uncontrollable pain, but in practice, mentally ill patients and even those without a medical diagnosis are also accepted; 25% of those living in Switzerland who take advantage of assisted suicide do not have a terminal illness but are “tired of life”, like the retired British art teacher who passed on March 27, 2014 “in part because she had become fed up with the modern world of emails, TVs, computers, and supermarket-ready meals.” This case is interesting because it begs the question: who has the final say in what constitutes a decent quality of life?


So, who does have the final say in what constitutes a decent quality of life?

One argument is that you do because your alienable right to life is absolute, which implies that your alienable right to choose the means and timing of your death is also absolute, regardless of whether anyone is ready, willing, and able to administer the means of your death.

The absolute nature of this stark realization does raise serious questions, however, for those who are under the age of 18, for those who are physically or mentally challenged, for the decrepit, for clinically depressed patients, and for those who are susceptible to undue influence.

Suppose, as a thought experiment (and in doing this thought experiment, I have no wish to derogate the issue), that everyone, regardless of condition or circumstance, is given carte blanche with due respect for the inalienable right to die. What might this look like in practice?

I see a society and a world where … a common, transparent, impeccable resource is established and maintained for the populace to track quality of life indicators in one place (this many prisoners by various crimes, this many deaths by various means, this many accidents causing death, this many accidents causing injury, this many accidents causing destruction to property, this many persons with this illness, this disease, or this disability). These indices would be partitioned according to time and place and collated to present a picture that is global in scope. The accurate reporting of these indices could be used by the populace to discern what constitutes a decent quality of life by time and place.

I see a society and a world where … a common set of priorities is established and strictly maintained for the populace to track (in aggregate) who is permitted to pass first, giving top priority to those who meet the most stringent criteria for a merciful passing. For those who meet none of these criteria and still wish to pass in peace, a trial run could be arranged whereby persons who wished to pass are given a preview of what would happen to them, up to but not including actual death, while loved ones (if any) are gathered around to bear calm witness to the trial. An accurate reporting of the what and the why of this phenomenon would offer deep insight into the nature and quality of all human societies.

I see a society and a world where … a common, transparent, impeccable resource is established and maintained for the populace to track (in aggregate) the status of those who chose to undergo trials to pass from this life, including statistics on their quality of life in terms of income, assets, health status, marital status, race, religion, social status, and any other indices that were used to ascertain quality of life. Reports that gather, collate, and interpret these statistics would be made available to interested persons to help them discern quality of life on earth. So, for example, if many people of a certain status or from a certain race or religion chose to undergo a trial, this could serve as a societal red flag.

Where the first scenario serves to gauge the fitness of societies everywhere (as well as the world at large), and where the second scenario serves to gauge the health and fitness of individuals themselves, the third scenario serves to gauge the fitness of groups in society.

In mulling over the implications of implementing these measures, I cannot help but come to the realization that this level of accountability would compel governments, institutions, and corporations to up their game so as to ensure a decent quality of life for everyone in their jurisdiction. I also cannot help but speculate that certain individuals and groups might use these services as launchpads for conducting protests with the intention to hold certain agencies to a higher standard where the provision and maintenance of a high quality of life is concerned.

With advances in supercomputing and with the input of dedicated, qualified persons, it seems only fitting that these measures are brought to bear on global population growth relative to available resources, given that quality of life is now stagnant or stagnating for so many people.


No one I know, given the chance and the choice, would want to pass in peace by their own hand or by the hand of another, if they knew with little doubt that they could secure and sustain a decent quality of life.

The meaning of a decent quality of life varies from person to person: some are willing to endure the indignities of a serious, incurable illness, disease, or disability ~ but many are not; some are willing to experience advanced stages of irreversible declines in capability ~ but many are not; some are willing to endure physical and psychological suffering that is intolerable by any humane measure ~ but many are not; and some (perhaps too many) are willing and able to bear a quality of life that is better suited to animals living in a zoo ~ but again, many are not.

Those on the side of “many are not” have a right to pass in peace as much as they have a right to live in peace. With qualified attention given to those who are under the age of 18, to those who are physically or mentally challenged, to those who are decrepit, to those who are clinically depressed, and to those who are susceptible to undue influence, the way can be cleared to give people what they want: to pass in peace.

The many biological, chemical, social, economic measures applied covertly to suppress fertility, increase morbidity, and slow the rate of global population growth to give humanity a fighting chance for a decent future have been as ridiculously successful as they have been devastatingly effective. I cannot ever see fluoride, bisphenol A, vaccines, pesticides, wifi, chemtrails, and GMOs in the same way again.

Who longs to pass in peace? Let us not be afraid to pose the question.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, as the biological and chemical fallout from the global population control policy spreads far and wide, and with the social and economic thumbscrews tightening all over the world, this is not a question anyone in good conscience can ignore much longer.

Just how much misery, depravity, and morbidity can a species take? Just how much poverty, adversity, toxicity, tragedy, violence, criminality, stupidity, obesity, illness, disease, dysfunction, desperation, and gender confusion can a species (at war with itself to save itself) take?

Are you willing to stick around to find out?

Are you willing to bear witness to a world in decline? Are you willing to watch a world die a soft and slow death? Or are you willing to find a better way and make it come alive beyond me, myself, and I?


In closing, I wish to end this post on a positive note, beyond the swinging scythe of the grim reaper.

I will do this because, well, because, truth be told, I still hold, perhaps naively, a glimmer of hope for a species far too preoccupied for its own good with its many and various inadequacies, insufficiencies, struggles, conflicts, obstacles, problems, challenges, and difficulties.

Where to begin?

In an age of manufactured consent, where no one can really be sure of anything except what they experience with their own senses, and in an age where interesting points of view are no longer compelling except to those who condition themselves to view them as such, and in an age where policy is enforced without regard for individual choice or preference, is there really any hope at all for anyone?

I think so, but this is just my point of view.

The glimmer of hope that I mentioned above arises from a psychology hope, which is a product of three contributors to hope: (1) objective; (2) willpower; and (3) waypower. Hope is a sum, the sum of your willpower and waypower to pursue and realize your hopes and dreams. Now suppose, just suppose, that this world is willing to let you step up and govern it in your own image.

I want you to take this seriously without taking yourself too seriously. View this as an exercise of your imagination with you at the center of your world with a view to having your version of this world eventually replace the actual world in which you strive, struggle, and suffer.

Are you still with me?

Alright, you now have the intention to rule this world in your own image: you have an objective and you have the willpower to make it happen, but you still don’t have the waypower. Not to worry, though. The obstacle is the way when you keep asking: what needs to be done now?

Keep your objective in mind and keep asking: what needs to be done now?

Let me help you get started.

To rule this world in your own image, you need a code of conduct that guides you to and from and through your ideals. Repeat after me: I am willing to place the needs and concerns of those who depend on me above my own; I am ready, willing, and able, with or without the support and blessing of others, to apply my knowledge, skill, experience, and expertise in pursuit of excellence; and I am ready and willing to be responsible for guiding those I inform and inspire on my way to the pinnacle of fulfillment.

In following this simple code, you (and those with whom you associate) will need the discipline to follow through, day after day, while bearing in mind that this consensus reality ~ “we are flawed creatures of inconstancy and inconsistency” ~ will serve as a drag on your progress.

How are we doing so far?

Some saving graces here for you: from my experience, this universe, for whatever reason, favors those who are willing to be selfless in their caregiving; it also favors those who are ready and willing to step up and be responsible for guiding others with their information and inspiration. I must confess I do not know why this is the case, only that it is the case. This too: collective excellence is also favored.

And what about the consensus reality that “we are flawed creatures of inconstancy and inconsistency”? Unfortunately, it’s much worse than this, but only if you lack the love and will to rise and shine in a place where you continue to inspire and be inspired in accordance with the code of conduct outlined above. No small feat, I admit, as and when you co-operate with others with the intention to co-create.

This feat of rising and remaining in a place where you can continue to inspire and be inspired in accordance with the code is easier to realize, however, when you keep the intention to confront these perennial excuses with a sense of mastery: fallibility, ignorance, and ineptitude.

At this point, you are ready to bridge the gap between willpower and waypower.

At this point, you are ready to refine this objective: rule the world in your image.

Crossing the bridge between willpower and waypower begins with a compelling objective, which I provided in my most recent post, A Most Unusual Blueprint, where I wrote, and I quote as follows:

I propose a blueprint of peace, prosperity, and progress for the good of humanity, in keeping with unity through diversity, to build a safe and sound structure that subsumes and absorbs the resources of old with the blessings of the old masters, for the sake of global harmony.

Global harmony is the ultimate prize, but I respectfully advise that you keep your focus on these penultimate prizes: peace, prosperity, and progress; unity through diversity; and a safe and sound structure that can subsume and absorb the old resources without interference.

Such a global structure will be designed to account for global population growth in relation to all resources, actual and potential, which means this is an ongoing enterprise to ensure global stability after all existing resources and their supporting structures have been assimilated.

These questions serve to bring a proper accounting to the issue of global population growth in relation to available resources; they also put a spotlight on the most difficult existential challenges of our time:

As a ruler of this world, you have already faced the questions of birth and death (see above).

The question of misery, depravity, and morbidity on a global scale remains to be answered because these conditions are the markers of how much global progress has been made with peace and prosperity. The goal here is not to eliminate them but to measure and monitor them.

If global metrics indicate misery, depravity, and morbidity are shrinking relative to peace, prosperity, and progress, then we all have cause to celebrate, even as the free will of all is honored.


Sustainable development on a global scale for the sake of global harmony can only be sustainable when peace and prosperity have found their balance with equality and inequality, respectively, where a condition of unity through diversity is more prevalent than unity without diversity (too much peace, too little prosperity) or more prevalent than diversity without unity (too little peace, too much prosperity carry the risk of chaos) … In 3D, equality and inequality are the yin and yang of an enlightened and empowered civilization.

As a ruler, you now have a basic frame of reference to rule this world in peace. In your reading so far, I trust that you have favored the sagely image of ruler rather than the ancient image of ruler as conqueror. The rest, as they say, is details, which in themselves require frames of reference.


In my post, Earth: A Dream Come True, I explored the role that Foundation Earth would have for meeting the mandate of global harmony from unity through diversity for peace and prosperity.

As a ruler of this world, you have a powerful mandate to inspire you, a code of conduct to guide your behavior, and a frame of reference by which to meet and greet your global objective. All that remains is an articulation of the means by which to manifest the ultimate prize.

The beating heart of Foundation Earth is a coordinated response to two questions: (1) are the resources for this planet and the infrastructures required to deliver said resources keeping pace with the rate of global population growth? and (2) are peace and prosperity finding their balance with equality and inequality, respectively, to secure and sustain a global condition of unity through diversity in perpetuity?

These two foundational questions serve as a buttress for the three red global questions posed above that pertain to the regulation or legislation of birth, the legislation or elimination of death, and a clarification and rectification of these three conditions: misery, depravity, and morbidity.

You can address these questions with and through these 12 sectors of human interactivity:

1. arts: a realm of creative exploration and expression through various media
2. economics: a field of endeavor that studies the production and consumption of goods and services
3. education: a realm of learning that assimilates and disseminates knowlege and wisdom
4. environments: the fields of matter and energy through which we live, love, learn, work, and play
5. governance: the administration of authority and leadership in service to community
6. health: the welfare, wellbeing, wholeness, and vitality of living systems
7. infrastructure: the sum of underlying structures and systems that support societies
8. justice: the means and manner by which inalienable rights are supported and protected
9. media: the means and manner by which information and entertainment are spread through society
10. relations: the field of human interaction through which intention and emotion are applied
11. science: a field of knowledge that grows with the application of theory, hypothesis, and experiment
12. spirituality: a realm of consciousness that explores and experiences the nature of spirit

Source: The Thrive Movement: The 12 Sectors

It is my firm belief that a favorable birth, life, and death for everyone will arise and obtain with a carefully coordinated effort to harmonize all twelve sectors of interactivity for the good of all concerned.

As a sagacious ruler of this world, you will do well to start small, forming a tightknit group of your own with other sage-like souls and like-minded, like-hearted spirits, while encouraging the formation and perpetuation of similar groups worldwide, groups that will find the wherewithal to remain self-regulating, self-reinforcing, and self-coordinating with no one central authority presenting as an easy target.

At least until this threat is no longer extant.

As and when one central authority can form and grow unimpeded, two public locations, one offline and one online, can finally be secured to coordinate efforts to cooperate across all 12 sectors of human interactivity, thereby leading to generous funding on an upward spiral.

As a global leader in service to humanity, you will remain ever mindful of the following:

As unity through diversity is a vital piece of the peace for the sake of prosperity and progress, you will have a position on all of the following categories of difference in no particular order of importance:

gender differences
differences in sexual orientation
racial differences
differences in marital status,
religious differences,
differences in age,
ideological differences
differences in social-economic class
philosophical differences
differences in sexual preference
ethnic differences
differences in ability
political differences
differences in appearance
any other category of difference

As cooperation and co-creation are vital components of enacting change, you will remain ever mindful of the following conditioning that the whole of humanity has found itself compelled to endure:

if one percent of the people in this world make it happen,
and if only two percent support them in making it happen,
and if seven percent affirm as follows … “yes, I will help”,
then ninety percent ask, “did ya see the news last night?”

Now imagine a diverse group of 1000 people who know nothing of each other, who have everything they need to create a paradise on earth, and who are eager to live and love and work in this earthly paradise.

Be ever mindful of this earthly wisdom from a man far ahead of his time (edited slightly by yours truly):

I learned … that if they advance confidently in the direction of their dreams, and endeavor to live that life which they have imagined, they will meet with success unexpected in common hours. If they have built castles in the air, their work need not be lost; that is where it should be. Now put the foundations under them ~ Henry Thoreau, Walden

Be ever mindful of the most powerful polling booth in the history of humanity on this planet:

Each of us stands in a long evolutionary line. Looking back, we honor the memories of our ancestors. Looking forward, we have an unknown and yet undeniable impact on our descendents. Individually and collectively, we are time travelers who, for better or worse, are making a difference in what happens next. The link between what was and what might be rests in our thoughts today. If our minds are filled with willpower and waypower for goals profiting only ourselves and not others, we advance the forces of unhappiness, divisiveness, fear, aggression, and destruction. If our minds are filled with hope for shared goals, however, our legacy will be a positive one. The changes necessary for this latter scenario are not easy, but they are doable. It is our choice, and the decision will be made in the most powerful polling booth of all ~ the human mind. My vote, for what it’s worth, is that we can get there from here

~ C.R. Snyder, The Psychology of Hope

I leave you with this ancient cosmic wisdom, a wisdom that will serve you well as and when you rise to the heights of power with your fellow rulers authors on this beautiful, magnificent planet called Earth . . .

We can do this. We know we can do this.

Blessings to you and yours.

Blessings to one and all.

To share information and inspiration on what is happening on this troubled yet promising world, I drew up two lists of sites that are serving the causes of personal, global and/or cosmic awakening.

This post has been filed under Context in the Ultimate Outline.

Note: my evolving outline on approaching a realization of the ultimate in personal fulfillment can be found here, accessible from the nav menu under the page “Be Here Now”.

Note: this ever growing perspective began here: Ultimate Perspective

Previous post:

Next post: