symbol/model/plan
The Ark is our symbol of the collective enterprise necessary to ensure the survival of nature and humanity. It also represents the model of the alternative political movement we need, and the best plan for the future of all of us. This triadic function, operating on the levels of psyche, culture, and society, is a distinctive design. It provides us with a unique vehicle for social change, improvement and progress, provided we incorporate an incentive structure unlike existing groups. Our intention is that it serve as a design readily understandable and applicable elsewhere in the world, so people see an alternative way of working together that offers hope of better results, and realistic prospects of achieving communal survival and the regeneration of nature.
Once we share a view of what is required, we must collaborate on a common plan for getting there and work together as a team. Essential elements of the plan are outlined below in the form of design principles - a basic template to be developed. Working together happens best via a loose & open format: everyone is free to do their own thing. This maximises creative potential, fueled by inspiration. A group context that facilitates brain-storming channels individual inputs into the group mind, which consequently empowers teamwork. Teams work better than committees!
Once we share a view of what is required, we must collaborate on a common plan for getting there and work together as a team. Essential elements of the plan are outlined below in the form of design principles - a basic template to be developed. Working together happens best via a loose & open format: everyone is free to do their own thing. This maximises creative potential, fueled by inspiration. A group context that facilitates brain-storming channels individual inputs into the group mind, which consequently empowers teamwork. Teams work better than committees!
A team constrains members to conform to the common plan, since players consent to abide by the rules of the game. The game is producing a better alternative to business as usual. The rules are tacit: ethical conduct, fair play, sharing a commitment to consensus and effective group collaboration. Another essential design feature is that participants feel free to play the game the way it best suits their aspirations & expertise. Like a rock band, where synchrony produces harmony - not just amongst the players, also amongst the audience. Another image that conveys the flow and unison required is a flock of birds performing aerial displays in sync. It's also essential that the group process is fun: when participants enjoy it the group becomes naturally creative.
design principles
1. Nature must remain sustainable in perpetuity to ensure the survival of humanity. Since business as usual is destroying nature, the Ark must provide a better alternative. This means transforming communities so they live more lightly upon the land, consume less natural resources and waste and pollute less. It also means adopting a sustainable economy.
2. The welfare of future generations depends on us protecting the integrity and wealth-generating capacity of ecosystems, so the stewardship ethic must be adopted as a moral imperative. The steward is the best role model to guide people toward a better relation between community and environment.
3. The Ark must provide a contingency plan, which automatically comes into effect if the capitalist system crashes. People need to see it as a constructive alternative to chaos. Communities need to adopt a plan B for survival via a local economy based on local currencies, resources, and bioregion networks that connect local and regional enterprises. We advise people to get active in community participation and local government to develop the essential infrastructure.
4. Governance must empower communities by prioritising the principle of local autonomy and facilitating local decision-making. Working together must be enabled on the basis of mutual benefit, optimising the prospect of consensus, recognising social responsibilities and making individuals and organisations accountable to the community.
5. Everyone has the right to an equitable share in the society they are born into, so wealth-generating and distributing systems must provide it. A new social contract will be required, in which the right to privatise common and natural wealth is limited to ensure the equity of all.
6. The traditional business practice of socialising costs will be eliminated by making businesses liable for any environmental damage caused by their operation. Any businesses that affect ecosystems will be required to maintain, restore and regenerate them. All their socialised costs must be specified and accounted for.
7. We advocate a spiritual approach to life because we are part of nature. Acknowledging our links to Gaia & other life-forms, we realise all is interconnected, so we come to view the world as sacred. Our goal is to help protect and conserve nature so we can coevolve in collaborative enterprise via a sustainable economy that ensures mutual benefits for all.
8. We see profit-sharing as an essential principle for producing mutual-benefit outcomes, so the design of a sustainable economy must incorporate it along with equity. We intend to operate as a node in a global network of like-minded others to circulate and refine this design so as to generate an alternative to traditional civilisation.
9. We recognise that ethical conduct is the essential foundation of social justice, so systems for working together must require and reward it. Humanity can only survive indefinitely via symbiosis with nature, so we accept that right behaviour is required to eliminate exploitation, and that society must enforce it. We will advocate the Ark as our plan for community progress & social improvement as a better option than the status quo, to marginalise and eventually eliminate harmful and destructive practices.
10. Transition toward a sustainable economy must become our collective agenda. This requires an action plan plus a suitable implementation time-frame: 20 years seems at this stage the longest realistic option (climate change is already irreversible - any further delays make planning a waste of time). Opinion leaders must proceed to consolidate a consensus on the agenda we require, and include the most feasible solutions to the problems that threaten human survival.
Readers at this stage will probably be thinking that all this aspirational stuff is well & good, but how do we proceed in practice? The devil is always in the detail. True, but better to not get bogged down there or progress will grind to a halt! You can interface with existing political systems constructively by retaining a clear focus on the alternative while advising how to proceed from here to there in increments. Defenders of the status quo will read such gradualism as an opportunity to do nothing, but those in the community open to a better future will respond favourably to sensible advocacy that ensures mutual benefits. You just need to engage them with goodwill, a sensible approach and practical suggestions.
The more time spent in constructive engagement, the more that this investment will look like paying off via the formation of a team of like-minded adherents to an alternative plan. Community politics naturally promotes leaders - ego-driven performances may distract attention - so retaining focus on genuine collaboration is important. Playing political games is fun, just don't let it get in the way of real progress. Implementing the contingency plan for communal survival is paramount at this time!
2. The welfare of future generations depends on us protecting the integrity and wealth-generating capacity of ecosystems, so the stewardship ethic must be adopted as a moral imperative. The steward is the best role model to guide people toward a better relation between community and environment.
3. The Ark must provide a contingency plan, which automatically comes into effect if the capitalist system crashes. People need to see it as a constructive alternative to chaos. Communities need to adopt a plan B for survival via a local economy based on local currencies, resources, and bioregion networks that connect local and regional enterprises. We advise people to get active in community participation and local government to develop the essential infrastructure.
4. Governance must empower communities by prioritising the principle of local autonomy and facilitating local decision-making. Working together must be enabled on the basis of mutual benefit, optimising the prospect of consensus, recognising social responsibilities and making individuals and organisations accountable to the community.
5. Everyone has the right to an equitable share in the society they are born into, so wealth-generating and distributing systems must provide it. A new social contract will be required, in which the right to privatise common and natural wealth is limited to ensure the equity of all.
6. The traditional business practice of socialising costs will be eliminated by making businesses liable for any environmental damage caused by their operation. Any businesses that affect ecosystems will be required to maintain, restore and regenerate them. All their socialised costs must be specified and accounted for.
7. We advocate a spiritual approach to life because we are part of nature. Acknowledging our links to Gaia & other life-forms, we realise all is interconnected, so we come to view the world as sacred. Our goal is to help protect and conserve nature so we can coevolve in collaborative enterprise via a sustainable economy that ensures mutual benefits for all.
8. We see profit-sharing as an essential principle for producing mutual-benefit outcomes, so the design of a sustainable economy must incorporate it along with equity. We intend to operate as a node in a global network of like-minded others to circulate and refine this design so as to generate an alternative to traditional civilisation.
9. We recognise that ethical conduct is the essential foundation of social justice, so systems for working together must require and reward it. Humanity can only survive indefinitely via symbiosis with nature, so we accept that right behaviour is required to eliminate exploitation, and that society must enforce it. We will advocate the Ark as our plan for community progress & social improvement as a better option than the status quo, to marginalise and eventually eliminate harmful and destructive practices.
10. Transition toward a sustainable economy must become our collective agenda. This requires an action plan plus a suitable implementation time-frame: 20 years seems at this stage the longest realistic option (climate change is already irreversible - any further delays make planning a waste of time). Opinion leaders must proceed to consolidate a consensus on the agenda we require, and include the most feasible solutions to the problems that threaten human survival.
Readers at this stage will probably be thinking that all this aspirational stuff is well & good, but how do we proceed in practice? The devil is always in the detail. True, but better to not get bogged down there or progress will grind to a halt! You can interface with existing political systems constructively by retaining a clear focus on the alternative while advising how to proceed from here to there in increments. Defenders of the status quo will read such gradualism as an opportunity to do nothing, but those in the community open to a better future will respond favourably to sensible advocacy that ensures mutual benefits. You just need to engage them with goodwill, a sensible approach and practical suggestions.
The more time spent in constructive engagement, the more that this investment will look like paying off via the formation of a team of like-minded adherents to an alternative plan. Community politics naturally promotes leaders - ego-driven performances may distract attention - so retaining focus on genuine collaboration is important. Playing political games is fun, just don't let it get in the way of real progress. Implementing the contingency plan for communal survival is paramount at this time!
defining sustainability
This concept transitioned from green doctrine in the '80s to trendy buzzword today, but we need better definition. Humanity must switch from its parasitical relationship to nature to a symbiotic relationship. An economy that is sustainable in perpetuity, in which enterprise and business are subordinated to ethical, equitable and just rules, must be designed to conserve and regenerate natural systems. Animals live off their natural environment, so we will continue to extract common wealth from nature - that's ok provided we stop destroying ecosystems and get a fair share. We ask people to choose to support this alternative to business as usual.
We need to live within our means and live lightly upon the land, in balance with nature. We must defend the integrity of the biosphere and maintain it's health, so we must eliminate business practices which damage natural systems in order to create a sustainable economy. We recognise our responsibility to future generations; to preserve and maintain the wealth-generating capacity of nature for their survival. Regeneration of ecosystems must be adopted as a duty of governance.
We recognise that the commons represents the ancient view of common wealth, and we assert that private businesses have no ethical basis of operation unless they can satisfy local communities and the public that they are not harming the natural or social environment. Business must pay the entire cost of their damage to ecosystems and be legally responsible for restoration & regeneration. We will eliminate the traditional business practice of socialising costs, making business liable for ecosystem damage. Restoration and regeneration will be made a compulsory requirement of those business operations that affect the environment. Any socialised costs must be specified and accounted for.
For 40 years we have expected the environmental movement and alternative culture to outline a viable alternative to business as usual but we must now acknowledge that the nebulous visions and partial solutions that have been advocated are an insufficient basis upon which to proceed.
We need to live within our means and live lightly upon the land, in balance with nature. We must defend the integrity of the biosphere and maintain it's health, so we must eliminate business practices which damage natural systems in order to create a sustainable economy. We recognise our responsibility to future generations; to preserve and maintain the wealth-generating capacity of nature for their survival. Regeneration of ecosystems must be adopted as a duty of governance.
We recognise that the commons represents the ancient view of common wealth, and we assert that private businesses have no ethical basis of operation unless they can satisfy local communities and the public that they are not harming the natural or social environment. Business must pay the entire cost of their damage to ecosystems and be legally responsible for restoration & regeneration. We will eliminate the traditional business practice of socialising costs, making business liable for ecosystem damage. Restoration and regeneration will be made a compulsory requirement of those business operations that affect the environment. Any socialised costs must be specified and accounted for.
For 40 years we have expected the environmental movement and alternative culture to outline a viable alternative to business as usual but we must now acknowledge that the nebulous visions and partial solutions that have been advocated are an insufficient basis upon which to proceed.
The best approach is to use the traditional green stance - neither left nor right, but in front - and make it more than a slogan. We must make this 3rd way explicit! This means articulating an alternative model of society with an economy that retains the key essential components of both capitalism and socialism, whilst eliminating the harmful elements of each.
We also need to incorporate an incentive structure based on societal rewards for successful individual contributions to the common good. These need not be monetary. Shares and other forms of equity provision work well. Reputation and status enhancement has always been a natural consequence of helping others. A society that rewards folks for constructive contributions (and penalises destructive contributions) is likely to sustain itself.
We also need to incorporate an incentive structure based on societal rewards for successful individual contributions to the common good. These need not be monetary. Shares and other forms of equity provision work well. Reputation and status enhancement has always been a natural consequence of helping others. A society that rewards folks for constructive contributions (and penalises destructive contributions) is likely to sustain itself.
alt.economy
The 3rd force concept triangulates the old polarity of capitalism/communism in the early 20th century or capitalism/socialism in the latter half of the century. Rejecting these failed ideologies allows people to accept a 3rd alternative, but they will only do that when it seems a better option than remaining with business as usual. It is now widely recognised that these ideologies were founded on the assumption that economic exploitation of nature required the destruction of natural wealth-producing systems. Since centuries of such widespread destruction now threatens the survival of humanity, we can see that the ideologies are invalid and the economic systems they put in place are being operated by sociopaths. Furthermore, each of these systems incorporated the exploitation of human beings as a normal part of their operation. They were designed to eliminate equity for all and enrich a small minority instead. Legal systems have been used to victimise both individuals and populations in the process. We must replace them with a system that is not morally corrupt.
An alternative economy has to be sustainable in perpetuity by design. That means the incentive structure must be correct, so that everyone understands that it is in their common interest to adhere to it. It must regenerate, protect and conserve nature. Natural wealth-producing systems must be maintained via the ethic of stewardship so they remain available to future generations.
To ensure a sustainable economy achieves popular support, the design must seem intuitively sensible, practical, and like to benefit most people. The first step is to inform everyone that the elements of the failed systems that are valid and worth retaining will be kept and integrated into the new system. Likewise those elements which are widely recognised as harmful to people and toxic to the environment must be explicitly identified as such and targeted for elimination.
People want to profit from their labour, and business coordination of individual contributions is designed to optimise the profit from collective effort, so sharing collective profit is equitable on a consensus basis. It makes sense to adopt a general design for collective enterprise that shares both profit and risk, so all participants have the incentive to pull together for the common good. It also makes sense to allow each enterprise to customise its own design by consensus decision-making, using the generic principle as merely a template. This maximises autonomy of operation and allows group endeavour to be altered to suit particular circumstances. The key is that all participating preserve goodwill and confidence in what they are doing, so there must be sufficient opportunity for group brainstorming and problem-solving, together with conflict resolution procedures.
Currency and financial system reform are essential and must continue until consensus is reached. A financial transactions tax sufficient to replace income tax and deter speculation is essential. A land tax also makes sense in principle - rates partially perform that function so introduction should be compensated via rate reduction. The greens must accept that consumption taxes are green taxes - their failure to do so in Aotearoa will have to be explicitly identified as a social pathology!
An alternative economy has to be sustainable in perpetuity by design. That means the incentive structure must be correct, so that everyone understands that it is in their common interest to adhere to it. It must regenerate, protect and conserve nature. Natural wealth-producing systems must be maintained via the ethic of stewardship so they remain available to future generations.
To ensure a sustainable economy achieves popular support, the design must seem intuitively sensible, practical, and like to benefit most people. The first step is to inform everyone that the elements of the failed systems that are valid and worth retaining will be kept and integrated into the new system. Likewise those elements which are widely recognised as harmful to people and toxic to the environment must be explicitly identified as such and targeted for elimination.
People want to profit from their labour, and business coordination of individual contributions is designed to optimise the profit from collective effort, so sharing collective profit is equitable on a consensus basis. It makes sense to adopt a general design for collective enterprise that shares both profit and risk, so all participants have the incentive to pull together for the common good. It also makes sense to allow each enterprise to customise its own design by consensus decision-making, using the generic principle as merely a template. This maximises autonomy of operation and allows group endeavour to be altered to suit particular circumstances. The key is that all participating preserve goodwill and confidence in what they are doing, so there must be sufficient opportunity for group brainstorming and problem-solving, together with conflict resolution procedures.
Currency and financial system reform are essential and must continue until consensus is reached. A financial transactions tax sufficient to replace income tax and deter speculation is essential. A land tax also makes sense in principle - rates partially perform that function so introduction should be compensated via rate reduction. The greens must accept that consumption taxes are green taxes - their failure to do so in Aotearoa will have to be explicitly identified as a social pathology!
equity
We recognise that everyone has a natural right of equity in the society they are born into. Our priority must therefore be to design and institute an economy which does actually share social wealth. People must be able to see the share they get as the tangible realisation of their equity. Our societal wealth-generating & distribution systems must provide it. A new social contract will be required, in which the right to privatise common and natural wealth will be limited to ensure the equity of all.
We must therefore limit the traditional right to privatise social wealth. Business as usual is designed to prevent people from getting a fair share of natural resources and communal enterprises. We encourage enterprise that is designed to produce equitable shares for all participants. Enhancing their equity gives people a stronger incentive to work together. If they see themselves as part of a team their collaboration improves: both community decision-making and productive enterprise benefit in consequence.
We must therefore limit the traditional right to privatise social wealth. Business as usual is designed to prevent people from getting a fair share of natural resources and communal enterprises. We encourage enterprise that is designed to produce equitable shares for all participants. Enhancing their equity gives people a stronger incentive to work together. If they see themselves as part of a team their collaboration improves: both community decision-making and productive enterprise benefit in consequence.
climate solution
Human-induced climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. It seems obvious that such a solution requires top-level political coordination, which readers probably assume means governments and UN decisions are the route to adopt. However the multi-dimensional nature of the problem makes it unlikely to be solvable by bureaucracies, which have a poor track record in solving complex problems. The most likely solution is to deploy top-level private individuals such as retired successful entrepeneurs in a team context.
Steps to the solution...
1 Time-frame for rapid phase-out of fossil fuels (20 years).
2 Gradually escalating price for carbon use as fuel, applied at source.
3 Incentivised transition to non-polluting energy systems.
4 True-cost accounting compulsory for government & business.
5 Dividend from carbon fuel prices returned to the people as credit or payment.
6 Affirmation of leading economists' unanimity as indicator of equity & fairness.
7 Crisis-management mode for government & business, developing public/private partnerships.
8 Recognition of the intergenerational commons: provision of equity, rights, social justice.
9 Global agreements on relative pricing for countries based on carbon pollution contributions.
10 Freedom of speech granted to scientists & public servants.
11 Public education on climate change to be provided (greenhouse, storm-force etc).
12 Accurate detection & monitoring systems (icesheet melting, solar radiance etc).
13 Global population stability (via women's reproductive rights enforcement).
14 Targeting greenwash & reducing the influence of vested interests.
15 IPCC accounting of mistakes, ethical transgressions, flawed models & unrealistic appraisals.
16 Establishment of climate science task force, incorporating public participation.
These key points emerged from a re-read of James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. They've been prioritised so as to serve as a semblance of action-plan & political agenda. If this listing serves as a prototype survival manifesto, it ought to be able to generate considerable resonance amongst like-minded folk who feel the need for a viable alternative to business as usual.
Consequent feedback & amendment would refine the plan and coalesce the consensus. The capsule descriptions may be too succinct, and can be expanded to provide a paragraph of rationale for each. Please advise if the need for any of these steps is not intuitively clear to you!
[There is an argument for eliminating #6. Hansen declared the unanimity existent already - sceptics would be silenced by evidence of this, which seems lacking. Similarly for #10 - obviously essential but better to provide free speech to everybody.]
Urgency in implementing the solution is proportional to the imminence of the threat. Tipping points (see source text#47, chaos theory or the science of complexity) are inherently unpredictable, so a precautionary approach is advisable. It is also essential to integrate the views of climate sceptics. Some valid points have been made in this sub-culture. Ideology can be seen to prevail over evidence on both sides of the cultural divide in climate science. Best to retain an open mind!
This site's designer graduated in physics, but that only enables access to a broad overview of climate science. Even specialists in one area of the subject can be out of their depth in another. Careerism in acadaemia warps individual judgement in the enterprise of publishing scientific papers. Not only that, but objectivity is now known to be a myth - all interpretation is inherently subjective, and scientists must interpret both discoveries and data before sharing them with others. Truth in science is traditionally considered to be established via independent verification. However human nature is such that both the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (agw) and the sceptics who are also climate scientists are prone to making assertions in the public arena that lack the support of such independent verification.
Consequently nobody really knows the truth but all players in this game are keen to pretend that they do! To proceed in the public interest it's probably best to dispense with the pretence of scientific objectivity, and establish a team contest. The proponents of agw ought to formulate their consensus position and publicly identify themselves with it, and the agw sceptics ought to likewise form their consensus view and publicly identify their agreement with it. The requirement for public identification of a participant with the team consensus view imposes an incentive to get it right lest subsequent data prove the team position to be erroneous. Nobody wants to be on the losing side - reputations suffer when scientists are found to have wrongly identified something as being true when it isn't. When the future of the human race depends on this contest, you can bet that the incentive will be extremely effective!!
Readers ought to about now be realising this scenario is a plausible improvement on the status quo of claim and counter-claim which has been going on for the past couple of decades. Polarisation has produced a stagnant social climate of perennial contention, so we must trigger progress. Obviously a referee is needed to decide the contest and guide political action, and we can't afford to rely on the judgement of a single person or even a small group. There is likely to be a considerable number of climate scientists who are too cautious to side with either polarity in the polarised agw debate - folks who are sufficiently open-minded that they can see merit and identify flaws on both sides of the argument. Governments should call for volunteers from this constituency to form an advisory panel and develop their own consensus view and advise the governments accordingly. Triangulation of a polarity always enables collective transcendence of a stasis.
Steps to the solution...
1 Time-frame for rapid phase-out of fossil fuels (20 years).
2 Gradually escalating price for carbon use as fuel, applied at source.
3 Incentivised transition to non-polluting energy systems.
4 True-cost accounting compulsory for government & business.
5 Dividend from carbon fuel prices returned to the people as credit or payment.
6 Affirmation of leading economists' unanimity as indicator of equity & fairness.
7 Crisis-management mode for government & business, developing public/private partnerships.
8 Recognition of the intergenerational commons: provision of equity, rights, social justice.
9 Global agreements on relative pricing for countries based on carbon pollution contributions.
10 Freedom of speech granted to scientists & public servants.
11 Public education on climate change to be provided (greenhouse, storm-force etc).
12 Accurate detection & monitoring systems (icesheet melting, solar radiance etc).
13 Global population stability (via women's reproductive rights enforcement).
14 Targeting greenwash & reducing the influence of vested interests.
15 IPCC accounting of mistakes, ethical transgressions, flawed models & unrealistic appraisals.
16 Establishment of climate science task force, incorporating public participation.
These key points emerged from a re-read of James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. They've been prioritised so as to serve as a semblance of action-plan & political agenda. If this listing serves as a prototype survival manifesto, it ought to be able to generate considerable resonance amongst like-minded folk who feel the need for a viable alternative to business as usual.
Consequent feedback & amendment would refine the plan and coalesce the consensus. The capsule descriptions may be too succinct, and can be expanded to provide a paragraph of rationale for each. Please advise if the need for any of these steps is not intuitively clear to you!
[There is an argument for eliminating #6. Hansen declared the unanimity existent already - sceptics would be silenced by evidence of this, which seems lacking. Similarly for #10 - obviously essential but better to provide free speech to everybody.]
Urgency in implementing the solution is proportional to the imminence of the threat. Tipping points (see source text#47, chaos theory or the science of complexity) are inherently unpredictable, so a precautionary approach is advisable. It is also essential to integrate the views of climate sceptics. Some valid points have been made in this sub-culture. Ideology can be seen to prevail over evidence on both sides of the cultural divide in climate science. Best to retain an open mind!
This site's designer graduated in physics, but that only enables access to a broad overview of climate science. Even specialists in one area of the subject can be out of their depth in another. Careerism in acadaemia warps individual judgement in the enterprise of publishing scientific papers. Not only that, but objectivity is now known to be a myth - all interpretation is inherently subjective, and scientists must interpret both discoveries and data before sharing them with others. Truth in science is traditionally considered to be established via independent verification. However human nature is such that both the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (agw) and the sceptics who are also climate scientists are prone to making assertions in the public arena that lack the support of such independent verification.
Consequently nobody really knows the truth but all players in this game are keen to pretend that they do! To proceed in the public interest it's probably best to dispense with the pretence of scientific objectivity, and establish a team contest. The proponents of agw ought to formulate their consensus position and publicly identify themselves with it, and the agw sceptics ought to likewise form their consensus view and publicly identify their agreement with it. The requirement for public identification of a participant with the team consensus view imposes an incentive to get it right lest subsequent data prove the team position to be erroneous. Nobody wants to be on the losing side - reputations suffer when scientists are found to have wrongly identified something as being true when it isn't. When the future of the human race depends on this contest, you can bet that the incentive will be extremely effective!!
Readers ought to about now be realising this scenario is a plausible improvement on the status quo of claim and counter-claim which has been going on for the past couple of decades. Polarisation has produced a stagnant social climate of perennial contention, so we must trigger progress. Obviously a referee is needed to decide the contest and guide political action, and we can't afford to rely on the judgement of a single person or even a small group. There is likely to be a considerable number of climate scientists who are too cautious to side with either polarity in the polarised agw debate - folks who are sufficiently open-minded that they can see merit and identify flaws on both sides of the argument. Governments should call for volunteers from this constituency to form an advisory panel and develop their own consensus view and advise the governments accordingly. Triangulation of a polarity always enables collective transcendence of a stasis.
