Tag Archives: shared living

Enjoy your child in the Equal Money System!

In the Equal Money System childhood will be ‘evolutionised’. It will be the first time that adults and children will live with each other as equals. In our current system we do not comprehend that children can be equals. The main reason for this is that we see responsibility as a variable that is coupled to age and skill. In that sense, responsibility entails that a person has obtained the necessary skills to operate in the world and is able to ‘earn a living’. From this definition of responsibility, fluctuations are possible depending on how competent one is in generating money within the system.

Children, of course, fall into the category of not having any means, skills, or the appropriate age to ‘buy’ into this responsibility. Thus, they are dependent on their parents or other caregivers who will earn a living for them and act as providers. This creates the basic level of dependence on the parents or caregivers, which puts children into an inferior position where they must comply within the parents-child dynamic to ensure their survival. Though, within the educated classes the “do-as-I-say” parent-child dynamic maybe better managed in modern contexts but this is because we have refined our grip on psychological deception, to more successfully suppress emotional dimensions and hide power play. In essence this dynamic has been the same throughout all classes and cultures in human history.

Complementary to this situation is that parents view their children as a personal belonging. The link here is that responsibility as it is currently understood is tied to ownership. From the perspective of adults when one is responsible for something, or for someone, whether that is a skill, an object, or a person such as a child – one has ownership over it. Unlike owning inanimate objects, such as a house, within the parent-child dynamic the emotional manipulation is a two-way street, for example in the gratitude a child is expected to display in return for the care and provision that has been given by the parents. Whereas the financial dependency of the child has a foreseeable end, the emotional dependency lasts a lifetime.

Ownership of course can only function within the context of self-interest, it denotes the separation between what is mine and yours, and supports the fundamental mechanisms of accumulation of wealth as it is perpetuated by the capitalistic system we live in. In addition, children as a form of wealth sprawls into many different directions, for example as display of status, as unpaid employee, or as life insurance in old age. On the other hand, the parent’s wealth is an important determining factor in the experience of childhood and preparation for the child’s place in the system. Besides providing the basic needs, in most countries parents also must provide education by paying the educational system. The more money can be spend on a child’s education the better the return value, meaning the more money the child is likely to make once it is part of the workforce.

The financial dependency a child is experiencing throughout childhood lasts until the child has become a young adult and is capable to earn his or her own living. This threshold is determined by age, regardless whether the child has obtained appropriate education which may not have been possible due to poverty or other factors. Once the age threshold has been crossed, on legal terms the child is no longer a minor or “under-age” – then the person is a young adult who is liable for his or her actions. The child, now adult, is expected to perform and comply with the rules and codes of conduct of society.

From the perspective of the parent, most will state that they only want the best for their children, yet parents are unaware of the abuse and limitations that are imposed on humans during their childhood. What determines “the best for the child” is how well it performs in the context of society, whereby the deception, manipulation, sabotage, feelings and emotions deployed in the process are irrelevant. After all this is what parents have learned from their own parents, and is considered a successful formula to survive in our societies.

In the Equal Money System none of the above-mentioned is acceptable. Responsibility is no longer defined in separation from oneself and from others, which means that responsibility is the lived statement of what is best for all.  Children will stand next to their parents as equals in all facets of life. Financially, children are accounted for and taken care of from before they are born – thus, there will be no financial or resource dependency between parent and child. Children will grow up in a principled manner where they learn from the early days of their lives to function, operate and act from the premise of what is best for all. Parents or other relatives will have no advantage or disadvantage over their children. Family or not, all beings are treated equally.  Children will have a perspective in how they approach life that is unprecedented at this time. They will live as equals to everyone and everything because they are life, which is what determines all education and teaching that is provided for the child.

The pressure to perform is entirely abolished. Therefore as soon as the child is able to express itself to others through active participation, it will contribute a perspective to society which has an equal weight in all decisions. In the Equal Money System, it is the individual development of the child that determines in how far the child participates within the greater context of society. In this process all children are equally supported to further their potential and ability to fully express themselves.

For the adults in the Equal Money System childhood will be pure enjoyment as adults will have a true appreciation of seeing the unfoldment of a human being over time. As children begin to contribute to the group they will present new perspectives which are coming from the starting point of what is best for all, where all life is honored equally. This is possible because the child’s sense of self is one of oneness and equality where individuality equals self-expression in the context of the group. As everyone is fully supported in their needs, parents in the Equal Money System no longer struggle to make time to engage with their children. Therefore there will be many collaborative moments where parents and child support each other mutually.

New forms of play will emerge in an Equal Money System. When playing with children of all ages adults will be acting as equals. Currently adults and parents have a tendency to ‘descent’ to a perceived lower level of the child because of a superior-inferior dynamic based on cognitive and motor skills. This type of engagement is quite visible in baby talk, which is when adults use diminutive endings on words, special words, or distorted words in their interactions with children. The parent and adult in the Equal Money System learns through children to broaden his or her self-expression as that is no longer issue to skill, creativity, or performance. Play will incorporate all beings who want to engage in play with each other, and is therefore not limited to humans only.

From the point of oneness, playing as equals means that all those who interact have a unique contribution to make that brings more enjoyment and more self-expression to the group, whereby each individual contribution is equal to all other contributions. Unlike our current approach which is mediated play, using objects or technologies, in the Equal Money System unmediated physical self-expression will come to the forefront, the full enjoyment of the physical body without energetic ‘highs’ is something that has yet to be experienced by humans…

Join us in the making of the evolutionised childhood by becoming one vote for the Equal Money System.





1 Comment

Filed under Equal Money

How will pollution and protection of the environment work in the Equal Money System?

Many aspects of pollution in the environment are known facts, there is no mystery that basic pollution hinges on how we conduct ourselves within the economic system, what we create and maintain through our participation. With known factual information on the one hand, we notice that on the other hand that we have lost our common sense.  Thus, the guidelines that common sense offers, in how to practically live in this world, have been overridden because we abide by consumerism and profit-driven behaviours. To illustrate this point we only have to go to some of the most banal aspects of our material world, such as the dimension of packaging. It is a ‘dimension’ because there are multiple perspectives that can be taken when looking at how we deal with packaging and why.

From a common sense point of view packaging should only be done when necessary, when the circumstances are such that a practical solution will necessitate the packaging of an item. However we are so challenged through our habits within a capitalistic system that we can no longer decipher when something really needs to be packaged and when not. Through habitual acceptances we no longer question the incentive and no longer use common sense.

Extensive packaging is done on all levels of consumption. The multidimensionality of this challenge is easily seen all around us, and the types of manifestations of this phenomenon range far and deep. I will illustrate this with two examples which pinpoint a mixture of careless action in handling procedures and seductive selling techniques. Clearly this is just one aspect under the topic of pollution and protection that would change in the approach to what is best for all in the Equal Money System.

Observation for the packaging phenomenon in our societies can be readily collected when entering a grocery store. I often see William’s Christ pears wrapped in plastic bras to keep them from getting bruised. I ask myself how would this piece of fruit need to be packaged if the transport was not about getting these fruits rapidly from A to B? Because the paying customer at location B is eager to have these pears and will go to the competition if they do not get here on time. What if there could be an improvement in the method of getting these pears to the consumer a tad slower but with less packaging because the people in the middle will not have to rush so much? That way they can conduct their actions with a little more care of the content rather than wrapping the content into ‘bullet proof’ packaging so that they can throw it around.

Similarly, when I walk by the displays of plastic wrapped apples in packs of four, I ask myself whether this heavy shrink wrap is necessary because the population is unable to count to four, and therefore cannot be trusted in picking out four apples from a heap of apples, or is that the seller wants to be sure that all apples find a shopping baskets so that they can avoid being left with unwanted and damaged apples for which they incur the cost?  Then what about those new age products where sage leaves are wrapped more elaborately and costly than the monetary value of the sage leave itself? Where the content matters so little because the seduction of the packaging is what sells in an ever growing and competing market.

This small window into a sliver of our packaging dimension paints a grim picture. We don’t care that plastic is polluting the oceans and killing sealife, we have entire plastic islands floating around in the Pacific Ocean that are a result of our lost common sense.  The bottom line is that we have accepted something so absolutely stupid that we rather insist on our limitations instead of changing our approach; or else why wouldn’t we just collectively stand up and say ‘stop’ by voting for an Equal Money System where such stupidity is cured forever.

Let me now explore this topic from the perspective of the Equal Money System. The first rule in the Equal Money System is that we do what is best for all. We know that the Equal Money System spells the end of behaviour for profit. In other words we do not need 100 consumer products, or materials as building blocks for products, that are identical in what they do but are produced with varying overhead costs, which supposedly regulate price, planned obsolescence and general effectiveness for a larger margin of profit. None of that.

We further know that in an Equal Money System, we make the best possible products and materials because they will last a life time and therefore we do not need new versions or better design. Right from the start this will reduce much pollution, waste, and energy use because what happens in our capitalistic system is that the multiplications of consumer products with different, ever cheaper production methods and materials causes much waste, pollution and use of energy.

We are also not in a rush in an Equal Money System, because we no longer need to compete, which means we can investigate the best production methods with the least waste production, or we can make sure that the waste we produce can be easily integrated into existing eco systems as food for living organisms. Only after all this has been established then the consumer product, or material for the creation of a product, enters into circulation. Even before this cycle of investigation has begun which entails all steps from creation to decomposition or deterioration of the product, investigations will be conducted that evaluate if the product is even necessary at all.

Protection of the environment will be a build-in mechanism in the sense that we do not create products for consumption that then require us to protect the environment. By having the starting point of what is best for all before we begin with a production cycle or even with the selection process of putting a product or material into circulation, we know that it is necessary and we know that the ingredients have gone through rigorous testing on interactions with the environment.

Many solutions we have in our high-tech world are quite low tech. Let me whip out my latest example that left me flabbergasted standing in our kitchen next to the washing machine. We were trying to hook up a washing machine, and as we already had many problems with water and plumbing we were careful to conduct research to be sure we were not jeopardising a successful connection. However, one little glitch happened anyway, so that we ended up needing a plumber to come and fix it. To connect a washing machine one may not solely rely on the DIY products that are being sold to tighten the connection between the tubes of the water system with those of the washing machine. Professional plumbers use strings of hemp – yes, basic hemp that has been around for hundreds of years to make the connection so tight that no water escapes. It was a remarkable sight to see the tubes of one of our modern machines wrapped in stringy, hairy, brown hemp threads.

To summarise, three main guidelines can be put forth that will make pollution a non-issue in the Equal Money System:

Simplicity – we do not reinvent the wheel. We can use ingredients from nature that do the job and have done the job for centuries. My example here was hemp used in tightening water connections because the hemp swells up from the humidity and creates a water proof connection. There are plenty of other examples of this nature. The waste is minimal because the hemp is a perfectly integrated bio-organism that will deteriorate as food for living organisms in existing eco systems.

Need – money in the Equal Money System is not an issue. When the need for a product or material has been identified and approved as what is best for all, it will be created. It will be created from the best and most efficient production methods that integrate in the environment without polluting it.

Research – extensive testing from the creation cycle and the deterioration cycle of a particular product before it goes into circulation. As it is the only product of it’s kind because we no longer have product multiplication, how the product unfolds in use by the community can easily be monitored and any effects can be recorded and immediately be dealt with. Though this is not to say that there should be any effects at all because the more care has gone into researching the above mentioned cycles the less it is necessary to monitor the product. Monitoring will be done by those who use the product, a form of feedback in what they experience, which puts this responsibility of ongoing care for what we have created into the hands of the individual.

Finally, with these guidelines the protection of the environment from the point of pollution is not necessary because – in common sense- it is taken as a precaution that we do not pollute the environment in the first place by having procedures and mechanisms in place before we create anything that can pollute our world.

For additional information on the topic of Equal Money and much more, visit http://www.equalmoney.org and http://wiki.destonians.com/Equal_Money_System


Filed under Equal Money

Digital interfaces and the Equal Money System

The other day while listening to one of Bernard’s interviews I realised that my style of living together with other Destonians is much like people in the future will live when we have transitioned to an Equal Money System. We recently moved into a house and are now figuring out how to go about sharing responsibilities so that we optimise our free time.

While shopping together two days ago, as we were approaching the queue for check-out, we observed how different the check-out was organised then what we are used to from our respective countries – where cashiers typically sit behind computers next to a conveyor belt on which the customer deposits the goods she is about to purchase. It is a known fact that sitting on the computer is not ideal for the human body and that many suffer greatly from the effects upon their health.

When I was working at one of the big entertainment companies producing video games, I recall one day I was walking past a cubicle where I heard someone in an irritated voice shouting computer commands. Curious, I stuck my head around the wall of the cubicle and saw one of the programmers in my team desperately trying to use voice commands to program code – this was years ago when voice input was an immature technology. We started to talk and he told me that he was unable to use his hands because his wrists had incurred carpel tunnel syndrome. He continued to tell me that he had back problems as well but that he was lucky because he received worker’s compensation. Programmers are not the only ones affected by the ‘common’ digital interface. Many people who work the typical low-wage jobs, such as cashiers or bank tellers, or administrators spend their entire day sitting in stationary positions with only their fingers moving and without any significant ergonomic support.

What we saw in this grocery store here in Belgium was different. The cashier was active, standing and moving around constantly. The way this interface works is based on an appropriation of the self-scan mobile devices that some grocery stores have in place for their customers. This approach has never caught on among the shoppers because it involves too many steps as well as the cumbersome carrying around of the scanning device while shopping. Shoppers want in and out with minimal involvement concerning any aspect of the store’s procedure.

The Belgian corporation that runs this franchise was inventive enough to appropriate the mobile scanning device in the following manner. The cashier holds the device to scan the customer’s items while standing in front of two shopping carts that are placed side by side. One of the carts is full of the customer’s stuff and the next one is empty. As the cashier scans each item she places it into the cart that is initially empty.  In addition to this setup, there is an electronic scale nearby for items that have to be weight, and also every so often the cashier will stop and make adjustments on the keyboard of the scanning device she is holding in her hand.  Once all is scanned and has been transferred to the previously empty shopping cart, the customer walks with the cashier to another computer where the total cost is calculated and money or cards are exchanged. Then the cashier returns to her previous position where she finds the next customer waiting, who has already placed his full shopping cart next to the empty one.

With this interface the body is constantly in motion, walking around, while lifting and placing items into various locations, orchestrating many more movements than what would happen if the cashier sat stationary behind the machine. Granted, the walking around for hours can still be very tiring but it hardly matches the sitting-all-day-in-front-of-your-machine abuse on the body. This shows us that there is plenty of scope to find new ways of interfacing with digital technologies which can reduce the abuse on the physical body.

In sum, the digital interfaces to which we succumb are mostly abusive because they fail to respect the design of the body. To be sure, I am not endorsing the capitalistic system or perpetuating of exploitation and consumerism, what I am observing and communicating is the fact that we are making technologies that are used in every day life which are abusive towards the physical body and that these limitations are self-induced through our acceptance. The point that is being made here is that there are always options to create responsible interactions with technology. The reason why it is currently not possible is due to the nature of our economic system because overhead costs, such reducing abusive technologies for members of staff, is held at a minimum to maximise profit returns. The corruption of course goes much deeper because of the financial mechanism in how technological products are brought 0nto the market which is independent from the development of technologies. The make belief of a technological evolution is only due to the financial markets and is not a question of our ability to make better technologies. Even in this narrow perspective, the checkout service of a Belgian franchise, we can see the difference between one employer to the next, making it clearly an issue of investment when it comes to providing better working environments for employees.

Although in an Equal Money System the job of a cashier will be obsolete, because no one will have to pay for the goods and services produced, the role of the body in daily activities must be scrutinized for any possible abuse via tool use, as it is currently occurring across the various types of tool usage in human society, analogue or digital. This will be specifically addressed with digital technologies and other technical tools in-the-making, where we will conduct thorough research to assess how the body is functioning in conjunction with a particular tool before the tool goes into circulation.

This will prompt much redesign of the current technologies that are abusive to all, especially given the hours some people spend online. When we no longer put profit before life, we no longer have to make it a habit to sit bend over behind machines that cause harm to life.

For additional information on the topic of Equal Money and much more, visit http://www.equalmoney.org http://wiki.destonians.com/Equal_Money_System

Leave a comment

Filed under Equal Money

Creating my life through the DesteniIProcess

I have been asking myself if the agreement with Gabriel might have been a pre-programmed situation. The reason for asking myself this question has been twofold. First, we seem to be quite compatible in a basic way of being. Don’t get me wrong I can see that this agreement is taking me apart which is beyond what I was experiencing in my process when I was on my own. I can see that the perceived peaceful inner state I was experiencing then is now in chaos most of the time which means that it was not real, and this is requiring me to look at my issues in much more depth than before.

Second, the timing could not have been better to start an agreement. I had finished my studies and both Gabriel and I had to move from our old flats. In my case I had to move countries because of the enormous cost of living in the UK. It all fit just a tad too well for me not to be skeptical about it. Yet, in the beginning when he and I first met and an agreement was on the table, I dealt with much anxiety of fear of loss of my independence. I had not reckoned with an agreement any time soon and was quite satisfied with my ‘single’ status.

The other day, I mentioned the pre-programmed aspect to Gabriel, who said to me that it is a matter of ceasing one’s opportunity as these open up. After reflecting on this for some time now, I see what he means and found that “ceasing one’s opportunity” comes into play as part of the DesteniIprocess where we learn to make decisions on the basis of a non-energetic state.

I will explain this on a pertinent real-life example. In May of this year, when I was going through the last stages of examination regarding my studies, I was presented with a highly probable opportunity for a job, which entailed becoming part of a research team in a small town in France. At the time, when this opportunity presented itself I was having to cope with things on multiple fronts. I did not want to make a decision out of a situation where I had no clarity in terms of what I wanted to do after my studies once these had been entirely completed, meaning all the last examinations had been done and dusted, and I was free to review my situation. However, the deadline of applying for this job meant I had to furnish the research team with an immediate response. Granted that there were other issues with this job but this was the biggest one. Thus my answer to this opportunity was “no, thank you”.

Some of my colleagues did not understand how I could have let such an opportunity slip through my fingers. Given the economic situation and the overall factor of how interesting this post would have been, from the outside it certainly looked like I was being foolish to let it go. Had this been years ago, before I started the DesteniIprocess, I would have been probably too fearful to say ‘No’ even if I really wanted to. I would have been afraid of how difficult it would be to find a suitable job and would have convinced myself to take it because of my inferior position towards the point of being without work.

This is not to say that I am fearless when it comes to not having a job and making money, or that I do not long for security. What it says is that my starting point for making a decision has changed and that, in this instance, I did not operate from my typical pre-programmed way of acting in the world that I know has influenced my previous decisions on jobs and matters of having to do with being secure in the system.

If we look at the trajectory that follows, having not ceased this job opportunity, I was able to cease the agreement opportunity because I was still in the UK at the time when Gabriel came to participate in a business meeting. This enabled us to meet up and connect in physical space, which later prompted the agreement. Ceasing an opportunity from the starting point of self rather than from the starting point of pre-programmed reaction, then let me create my life where I was able to choose an agreement with another, and begin to investigate myself in relation to intimacy and shared living with other Destonians. Hence it was through the DesteniIprocess that I was able to change my life situation.

Since I started the DesteniIprocess I have understood that every breath is accumulative in the process of creating my life and that these decisions are really composed of minute moment-to-moment maneuvers in the world. Only if I understand who I am here in every moment can I become self-directive and stand as a self, as one and equal to all that is here.


Filed under agreement, self-forgiveness