I have what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. I think the ideas that came to me in a eureka moment would be coming to many others if there were some discussion of the topics of economic externalities (also called 'market failure') and some mention of the idea that natural wealth should be shared equitably, more or less equally. We should hear discussion of these topics in the context of news reports about the problems created by externalities, and within reports about the problems caused by the injustice of unequal sharing of natural wealth.
Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.
Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.
Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.
Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis
I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.
OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.
I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).
If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.
(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )
If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.
If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.
If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.
If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.
Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.
My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.
Thank you.
