Interreflections (2020) - full transcript

♪ All around me
are familiar faces ♪

♪ Worn out places ♪

♪ Worn out faces ♪

♪ Bright and early
for their daily races ♪

♪ Going nowhere, going nowhere ♪

♪ Their tears are filling up
their glasses ♪

♪ No expression, no expression ♪

♪ Hide my head
I want to drown my sorrow ♪

♪ No tomorrow, no tomorrow ♪

♪ And I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad ♪

♪ The dreams in which I'm dying
are the best I've ever had ♪



♪ I find it hard to tell you
I find it hard to take ♪

♪ When people run in circles
it's a very, very... ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

♪ Children waiting for the day
they feel good ♪

♪ Happy birthday ♪

♪ Happy birthday ♪

♪ Made to feel the way
that every child should ♪

♪ Sit and listen ♪

♪ Sit and listen ♪

♪ Went to school
and I was very nervous ♪

♪ No one knew me ♪

♪ No one knew me ♪

♪ Hello teacher
tell me what's my lesson ♪



♪ Look right through me ♪

♪ Look right through me ♪

♪ And I find it kind of funny
and I find it kind of sad ♪

♪ The dreams in which I'm dying
are the best I've ever had ♪

♪ I find it hard to tell you ♪

♪ I find it hard to take ♪

♪ When people run in circles
it's a very, very... ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

♪ Mad world ♪

What I call the World Game
now is an exercise

that I have been following
through for a great many years.

Can you hear me
in the back alright?

And it started with my being
in the United States Navy.

The time of World War One.
At that time,

the Navy's represented
investment of all the science,

all the chemistry, all the
physics, all the mathematics

known about our universe.

And I was shocked
that it was only going

in this negative thing
of killing.

We have this
extraordinary technology.

Men would not doing anything
with that kind of accuracy

on the land in relation to try
to make man a success.

It became very quickly
apparent that the fundamental

raison d'etre in all
of our state craft

was based on Thomas Malthus.

Now Thomas Malthus
was the scientific servant

of the masters
of the earth of the time.

He the first economist in
the history of man to receive

the total Vital Statistics
from around the spherical earth

and in 1800,
he wrote his first book,

which he said apparently man
was reproducing himself

much more rapidly than producing
good to support himself.

Therefore, very sad, but man
is supposed to be a failure.

Shall we inform the whole world,

the whole world
of that time being

more than 90% illiterate
and unable to then even read

any information
if it was sent to them.

Should we try to inform the
whole world? There is nowhere

nearly enough to go around.
If we divide up evenly

all die slowly together.

And that, that, that,
that didn't seem logical to them at all.

They said, "What we can do
is a following:

all these people out here are
ignorant of what we know about

and because they're ignorant,
they think they have some hope.

And we know they don't
have hope most of them.

Why, why eliminate their hope?
They're going to die poor characters,

and might as well
let them die in ignorance."

Ignorance and hope.

This is the kindest thing to do.

And that's exactly
what they did do.

How's it going?

Everything seems to be on pace.
But, you know,

there's only so much we can be
sure of since its theoretical.

- Think it's going to work?
- I have no idea.

- Hey, any word about John yet?
- Glad you asked,

actually, yes,
John just made the evening news.

And it appears Simon

wants to gloat about it.

They call themselves Concordia,
after the ancient Roman

goddess of harmony.
The pro-revolution hacktivist

group world famous after
a decade of subversion

suffered a major blow this week.

With the capture
of leader John Taylor.

Once a high-ranking
military engineer,

Taylor is being held
in an undisclosed location

by the UN's
Global Security Agency.

And with us to discuss
is GSA director,

General Simon Devoe.

- Simon, thanks for being here.
- My pleasure.

So let's step back
if you don't mind.

Who are these people

and how have they operated
with such impunity

after all these years?

Concordia was formed
by a group of cyber warfare

experts that defected
from their military positions

around 2050.

And in the process,
a great deal

of classified information

and advanced technologies
were stolen.

What kind of technologies?

Mostly communications,

cloaking, encryption,
surveillance.

Hence why they remain
so elusive.

But the GSA's core concern
is the theft of some highly

experimental warfare technology.

Advancements in biochemistry

and molecular science
that have dramatic potential

- for large-scale harm.
- Aside from all the hacks,

leaks and other things
that have made them so famous.

Yes,
they certainly enjoy being disruptive.

Disruptive indeed. Just last
year they breached the accounts

of the world's richest
CEOs extracting almost

two trillion dollars,
moving that money

into virtually traceless
charity donations worldwide.

Hmm! I tell you
the warm fuzzy feeling I got

from that one
has yet to go away.

Delicious.

Before that were
the notorious email leaks

revealing major Wall Street
firms had lobbied CIA,

MI9 and Mossad to help
gain monopoly control

of rare earth metals in Asia.

Yeah, too bad I didn't
do a damn thing.

Corporate terrorism
just gets worse.

Exposure media does
very little these days.

It just sets a tone.

And in 2054
they jammed both Chinese

and American defense systems
during the Saudi Annex Crisis

disabling thousands of warheads.

A move Concordian
sympathizers claim

might have stopped
World War III.

And speaking of sympathizers,

what do you make of the support?

Legions of followers worldwide.

Troubling, but I get it.

Lots of problems out there.

The food, water crisis.
Refugee migration.

Automation-driven unemployment,
serious ecological decline.

I get it
and it's natural to be angry,

but anger doesn't solve problems
or justify unlawful acts.

This Robin Hood savior appeal
of Concordia

- is just an immature fad.
- A passing trend?

I think so. As cinematic
as the idea is of Concordia,

the radical
yet benevolent protagonist,

fighting for their
utopian revolution

against the evil establishment,

last I checked this is
reality not a movie.

Seems that way.

So I encourage people to regain
trust in our time-tested

institutions
and democratic process.

Not tear it all down
as Concordia

would like to see.

Now, in regards to John Taylor.

I understand
you once worked together.

Starting in Special Forces, yes.

I even considered him
a good friend at one time.

Have you had contact with him
since his capture?

Not yet.

But I must say I am very much
looking forward

to speaking
with my old associate.

So are we, Simon.

Well, I wish I could be
a fly on the wall for that.

Thanks for being here, Simon,
always a pleasure.

So, can I get you
anything before we get started?

I think I'm good.

Alright,
feel free to take a seat.

How we doing on tech?

- Almost there?
- All right.

Well, let's, let's go ahead
and roll for basic info

and we'll, uh, we'll just,
we'll tweak it as we go.

- Sound.
- Speed.

And rolling.

All right,
so, please go ahead

and introduce yourself
and state your work.

My name is Malikan Soyenka
and I'm a professor of history

at Columbia University.

My specialty of interest
surrounds what most historians

call today the Great Transition.

That period of time
between the 21st

and early 22nd century
where global society

underwent a rather spectacular
social revolution.

That's a good question.
I guess time will tell.

All right.
Let's, let's inch into this.

Please state your name,
vocation and how you found

interest in economics.

I'm Cynthia Floris
and I received

an interdisciplinary degree
in systems ecology and economics

from the University of Cape
Town, where I also now teach.

I guess I would start by saying

that I can't think of anything
more relevant to the character

of society
than its economic foundation.

Hello, I'm Aleniya Demir

and I teach epidemiology
at the University of Istanbul.

Epidemiology is the study
of public well-being

or what one could call
population level phenomena,

specifically the distribution
of physical

and mental health
across society.

With respect your documentary
I would say

the period before
the Great Transition

likely marked the most unhealthy

and unstable period
in human history.

- So am I looking at you or the camera?
- At me.

- Got it.
- Whenever you're ready.

I'm Vivian Marcella and I'm
a socio-cultural biologists.

Which simply means I try
to better understand

the synergies
that mold human behavior,

and by extension culture.

I joined the Center
for Behavioral Studies

in Oslo in 2115,
and I continue to try

to make sense of this lovable
mess we call humanity.

There's an exercise that I often
do with my first-year students.

I have them research mainstream
economic publications

from the 16th
to the 21st century,

trying to find any mention of
basic sustainability principles.

And each year the students
come back stunned

by how this period
gave no priority

to even the most obvious
regenerative science.

Let alone anything
related to public health.

Such things were
considered external

to this contrived,
competitive game

they called business.

Here you had
an entire global civilization

powering itself through
the mechanism of consuming.

That's literally what drove
their economy as absurd

as that sounds.
And the more people bought

and consumed,
the more demand for jobs.

Hence more circulating
purchasing power

to again be spent on consuming.

Endlessly and viciously
repeating.

That was the economic
system back then.

And to think any part
of that would be workable

in the long run, on a finite
planet, is pure lunacy.

To make matters worse,
the system was rooted

in strategic human exploitation,
which structurally ensured

large wealth and power
differences between groups,

and the long term cultural result
was very poor social integrity.

Racism, xenophobia, sexism
and other forms of bigotry

were an inevitable side effect
of this kind of social system

ultimately rooted
in class stratification,

otherwise known
as socio-economic inequality.

And when you put
it all together,

you realize a deep
social pathology.

A pathology that not only
severely limited human potential,

actually bringing out the worst of
our biological and social nature,

but one that was blindly pushing
civilization toward oblivion,

due to accelerating
ecological decline

and systemic human conflict.

By the time we
reached the 21st century

the consequences
of all this weren't subtle.

We're talking massive global
inequity and poverty,

relentless worldwide conflict,
endless power abuses

and systematic oppression,

not to mention
the near irreversible

decline of all life
support systems.

And while it seems
obvious to us today,

you have to understand
the kind of indoctrination

that occurred back then.

The culture was so conditioned

by the dominant worldview,

they just couldn't recognize
the flaws inherent

to the structure
of their society.

So by force of this,
they engaged in very superficial activism

centered around political
institutions that really were

just a parody of themselves.

Attempts at social change

were deeply fragmented in focus

because people's understanding

of cause and effect
was so shallow.

So the whole thing
just became a spectacle.

And endless blame game
between groups.

Their so-called
democratic process

centered not on actual policy,
but around these political

institutions that seemed to
vaguely represent such policy.

A true democracy as we now know
allows for public consensus

on actual issues
not the appointment

of representatives to make
those decisions for them.

That's not
really democracy at all.

That's simply a watered-down
version of authoritarianism,

voting for kings and queens.

And to add insult to injury,

because society was rooted
in this business system

of property and trade
everything was for sale.

People loved to argue
about moral lines and ethics,

but the fact was politicians,
and hence policy,

was just another commodity
to be bought and sold.

So inevitably those who did
end up with true social power

were the ones
with the most wealth.

That wasn't a corruption,

that was simply
the nature of the system.

And needless to say this
business power subculture

was certainly the least likely
to want to change the very system

that had so disproportionately
rewarded them.

And as science and technology
increased efficiency

creating higher material
standards of living in general

the lack of human rights
progress and the anti-democratic

nature of society
became increasingly masked.

People's dignity
and integrity were bought off

by gadgets and toys
and addictions.

Feeding a materialist fetish

that so distracted
the minds of many.

And you know,
I often ponder all this,

trying to put myself
in the shoes

of the average person back then,

especially in the more affluent
and highly unequal regions,

such as
the United States of America,

and it really makes me shudder.

People stuck in traffic,
piling into these office prisons

to push paper around,
engaging meaningless occupations

that wasted far more energy
and wealth than they created

so they can continue buying
these things they don't need,

elevating their artificial
status and so on.

It's like a bad horror movie.

If there's any historical
through-line that reveals

how important a system-based
worldview is,

both in understanding society
and knowing how to change it,

it's a long history of slavery
and human exploitation.

You can't have a society that's
based upon hierarchical power

and specialized labor,
where people are seen

as economic tools to be used

strategically
for another's differential gain,

and ever expect
high moral integrity.

Consider the
function of cost efficiency.

Cost efficiency is about trying
to save money on production

in order to maximize profit
upon final sale.

It's at the core
of the basic gaming strategy

that's required
in market economics.

And that simple incentive, the
principle of seeking to reduce

input costs to maximize
output gains is at the root

of thousands of years of human
slavery in one form or another.

Whether indentured servitude,
bonded labor,

chattel slavery in earlier
times to human trafficking

and debt driven wage slavery
in more modern times.

And the point to make here
is that this kind of framework

was so normalized
by the turn of the 21st century,

a period, by the way, that had
more slaves in absolute numbers

than any time in human history.

The average person still
didn't see the connection.

They had been conditioned by
these mythical free market ideas

arguing that because
people could now choose

which area of the economy
to submit their labor to,

choose which company to be
subordinated, or perhaps get the capital

and start their own company
and then choose who to exploit

for their own personal
advantage.

Somehow coercion
just no longer existed.

That was the illusion.

And any advanced technological
society that evolves

not to organize an effort
to provide basic life support

to its citizens allowing them
to pursue their own interest

on their own terms,
instead structurally forcing

everyone to fight with
each other for basic survival,

for not defendable
reason mind you,

is not a free society at all.

It's a system
of violence and oppression

regardless of how materially
wealthy that society may appear.

Now, all that said,
it's important to consider...

You have meddled
with the primal forces

of nature, Mr. Beale.

And you will atone.

It's been a long time, Simon.

So, the reason
you're here with me

and not in some vassal
state being tortured

is because the GSA
needs your help.

We're being overrun by a group
of hackers and they appear to be

advancing their abilities
faster than we can counter.

Orion.

That's right. Orion.

We have been tracking them
for years.

Luddite anarchists.

They want to return civilization

to the Stone Age.

We figure if they continue
their rate of progress,

we only have a few weeks
before they breach.

- Taking control of our systems.
- That'd be bad.

Hence our priorities.
As aggravating as your little

Concordia project has been,
you were never this distasteful.

You do realize
that even if Orion is stopped,

another insurgency,
likely more malicious,

is just around the corner,
right?

- Your point?
- My point

is one way to measure
the integrity of a society

is by how many outliers
it creates.

Violent criminals, inner-city
gangs, serial killers,

mass murderers, terrorists,

to now this lovely hacker
dystopia you've inspired.

You have a systemic problem,
Simon,

and it's only going to grow.

You're looking
through the wrong lens, John.

And unlike the past,
the outliers now

have exponentially
advancing technology.

Some disgruntled kid fashioning
a Molotov cocktail years ago,

can now create weapons of mass
destruction, or in this case weapons

of mass disturbance
with little more effort.

Again, you're looking
through the wrong lens.

No one ever said
the natural course of humanity

was going to be pretty.

So it's natural
for humanity to flirt

with its own destruction?
And increasingly so?

Because that's
where all this leads.

Since the dawn of civilization,
those with the most advanced

tools are the ones
who set the stage.

From the rock, to the sword,
to the gun, to the bomb,

to AI,
a sociological law of nature

rooted in our evolutionary
psychology.

And if this race happens
to lead to destruction,

well,
such is the natural course.

Only human conceit
assumes otherwise.

I see you haven't lost
that charming nihilism.

- Drink?
- No.

And it's not nihilism, John,
it's realism.

Conflict is what makes
the world go round.

And whomever wins
defines the course.

- So what's the deal?
- The deal is

you help us tame the barbarians
at the gate

along with anything else we ask.

In return,

you'll be granted
a decent life here.

This ship might be
a place of work,

but it's also
a self-contained city.

We go back a long way, John,
and despite our differences,

I would hate to see
that genius go to waste.

And if I don't?

You know the answer to that.

Aside from this possible
Orion catastrophe,

which I doubt
your humanist ego would allow,

you'll be turned over
to interrogation

and it won't be cinematic.

Either way,
you're not leaving this ship.

Okay, Simon,
but I have one condition.

I want you to put an end
to program UX83.

Otherwise known
as the Malthusian Mandate.

If you knew about the Mandate,

why hasn't Concordia leaked it?

Never had a complete picture.

- And what do you think you're missing?
- Good question.

We find a cryptically
mentioned in documents

related to the GSA's
control programs.

It appears the Mandate
was employed in the death

of at least 20 million
last year alone.

How this is occurring
and why is not clear.

So why don't you enlighten me?

So you wrote a book
called The Neolithic Maladaptation

which focuses
on the nature of culture

before the Great Transition.

Can you clarify
what you meant by this title?

Sure. So I think the defining
question of civilization

is what characteristics
enable us to survive and prosper

sustainably and peacefully
over generational time.

Thousands of years ago,
upon the advent of agriculture,

the Neolithic Revolution,
we found ourselves

in a new social arrangement,
a new structure,

one that would later prove
to be highly incompatible.

Not only incompatible
with the habitat,

inherently unsustainable
since the economy

literally required
consumption and growth,

but also incompatible
with our very social nature.

And, long story short, humans
are simply not meant to exist

in an economically
stratified society

if the expectation is high
levels of public health

and peaceful coexistence.

It's always interesting
to review the work

of mainstream scientists
at the turn of the 21st century

as they desperately try
to convince themselves

that a competitive,
exploitative,

vainly status seeking mindset
was an inalterable expression

of human nature,
when the fact is our genes,

our biology and how
the environment interacts

with our evolved selves allows
for a vast range of orientations

with narrow self-interest,
greed, merely part of that range.

If we've proven to be anything,
it's adaptable.

There's certainly
no blank slate.

We're not infinitely malleable,

but it has been grossly
underestimated historically

just how wide
our range of adaptive

potential really is.
And what most determines

which behavioral traits
will define a society's culture

is its social structure.

Or more specifically,
that structure's economic basis.

The method
by which we must survive.

If that structure
rewards competition, dominance,

and narrow self-interest,
then the culture

will predominantly
express those values.

If it rewards collaboration,
empathy and pro-social concern,

the resulting culture will
predominantly express those values.

For the majority
of human history,

before the advent
of agriculture,

We lived in non-hierarchical,

non-competitive
social arrangements.

Why? Because the economic
basis of survival

actually incentivized

sharing and collaboration,
and not the opposite.

So what I mean by maladaptation
is while humanity

did successfully adapt
to the survival requisites

born from
the Neolithic Revolution,

the resulting social structure,

the system that became codified,
proved maladapted.

The economic system
was simply incompatible

with what was required for humanity
to be sustainable in the long-term.

Failing our need to integrate
properly with the ecosystem

while limiting our ability to
coexist peacefully with each other.

And by the time of
the Industrial Revolution

in the 19th century,
these flaws were rapidly

coming to the surface.

Conditions had changed and
if it wasn't for our dramatic

transformation to break out
of that system,

there is little question,
society would have seen total

ecologically collapse combined
with catastrophic global war.

So it must be
difficult to look back

at that time given
what we know now.

It seems like things should have
changed much sooner, right?

Sure, but it reveals
that as much as we'd like

to believe we're rational,
objective beings,

we're actually bound
by deep social vulnerability.

We are social beings first
and intellectual beings second.

What you see back then
is a kind of mass hypnosis

that paralyzed society,

keeping people short-sighted
and fearful,

prone to conform to the values
and practices of those

who happen to be winning
in the contrived economic game.

One glance at the media from
back then gives it all away.

Status posturing,
people obsessed with appearing

affluent, accomplished, loved,
famous, beautiful.

All a kind of pathological
emulation of those of high

socioeconomic status,
billionaires, celebrities.

As one notable philosopher
stated long ago,

So once again
it all begs the question,

what actually defines success
in the human condition?

What kind of culture is most
optimized to sustain itself

over time while, of course,
being happy and stable?

And while there's
plenty to learn,

we do know
what doesn't define it:

the excessive materialistic
wealth and status driven neurosis

so characteristic back then
has literally zero

positive relationship
to long-term species

sustainability and optimized
public health.

In short,
the values were dead wrong.

And not to sound mean, but
if I were to resort to derisive

status labeling,
common to that period of time,

there's no question
that the greatest failures

were the ones who own mansions,
drove over priced cars,

wore luxury jewelry,
maintained extremely lucrative

yet completely
meaningless occupations

while hoarding great wealth.

What kind of sad,
insecure creature

needs to flaunt such excess

clearly signaling opposition
to other people's well-being?

True success is reinforcing
harmony, balance.

The goal is not necessarily
to become something,

but to find out who
and what you truly are.

And how you fit
inside the ecosystem

of nature
that gave birth to you.

The most successful people,
the true winners,

are never the ones striving for
celebrity and material excess,

they are the humble minimalists
valuing how they can contribute

to the well-being
and health of everything,

realizing the world
is one system,

and the more they optimize
that contribution,

the more truly successful
they actually become.

When I look back on all this,

I think what I find most tragic

is the spiritual loss
of the individual.

How people were fundamentally
alienated from themselves

their identities hijacked
by competitive insecurity,

trying to conform
to some acceptable profile

that would serve
their advantage best,

not who they actually are,

but what the system
requires them to become.

The
soul selects her own society.

Then shuts the door
to her divine majority.

Present no more. Unmoved.

She notes the chariots
pausing at her low gate.

Unmoved. An emperor
be kneeling upon her mat.

I've known her from
an ample nation. Choose one.

Then close the valves
of her attention. Like stone.

Let me ask you, John.

What do you think
the greatest form

of social control is? Law? Debt?

Religion.

And this has what to do
with the Malthusian Mandate?

- Humor me.
- I don't know.

How about socialization?
People policing each other.

A properly tuned culture
does regulate itself, yes.

We've had the same training,
Simon.

I'm just as aware of what
shapes psychology as you are.

Yeah, see, I'm not so sure.

I don't think we'd be
in this situation

- if that was really the case.
- You mean because I actually

believe the world can change?

A child's born
biologically programmed

to adapt to its environment.

It grows,
inching through formative years,

shaped by the traditions
and beliefs of culture.

Institutional education
introduces structure

creating comfort with authority,
regimentation, status.

- Nurturing social schema.
- And a fundamental insecurity

forged
by a deeply unequal world,

a world of sanctioned
indifference,

where compassion is weakness

and domination is virtuous.

What survival requires.

In the current arrangement,
sure.

And this early sense of
insecurity has a unique effect.

Once childish tendencies we humans
are supposed to grow out of:

attention-seeking, spoiled
self-interest, manipulativeness,

bullying,
competition become ingrained.

Maturity stunted.

Setting the stage
for yet another disciple

in the cult of narcissistic
individualism.

Poetic.

By the time higher
education is reached,

formalized academia,
the stronghold of the status quo,

what natural curiosity
may remain

is now further constrained
by socialization.

Myopic focus, detached
from the pursuit of knowledge,

existing only for the sake
of commercial utility.

- To define their product.
- And ultimately their identity.

Becoming little more than
yet another agent of trade.

A civilization reduced to
the goal of endless striving.

To sell something
to someone else.

The world is a business,
Mr. Beale.

So the cog turns.

While in those fleeting moments
economic stress does subside,

when the shackles do come off,

existential turbulence blooms,

as they desperately search
for some kind of deeper meaning

in the daily grind.
And this emotional void,

this state of loss, leads
the pathological escapism.

Distraction and self-medication
become the hobby.

So they turn to their screens

windows of projected normality
equating freedom

with the unattainable delusions

of wealth, fame, honor.

While constantly
being reminded that they are

the authors of their own misery

and success can only be a matter
of winning versus losing.

Since the vast majority will no doubt
lose, they live vicariously.

If their sports team wins
the game, so do they.

If their country goes to war,

they wave their flags
as if they were at war.

While following
their celebrity heroes,

feeling as though somehow
that success mirrors their own.

And when that doesn't
work, they move inward,

seeking self-help retreats,
therapy, medication, illicit drugs.

Anything to avoid
the identity crisis.

That the society they mirror
just might be deeply flawed.

So the masses remain complacent,

short-sighted, bigoted,

primitive, delusional.

Manageable.

No conspiracy required.

Viable systems
regulate themselves.

Viable?
You see all this as sustainable.

No conspiracy required.

- Viable systems regulate them...
- We just picked up the signal.

Now there's one thing you missed
in your monologue there.

Aside from primal provocation,
keeping people half-conscious,

trapped in lower brain
fight or flight mode.

Aside from the cultural hegemony
where people's values

and envies mirror
those of wealth and power,

reinforcing social order.

And aside
from the climate of opinion

fostered by the acclaimed
intelligentsia

deciding the limits
by which truth must conform

the most critical mechanism here

is that of social inclusion.

Nature wired us
with a strong tendency

to override rational thought
in favor of group acceptance.

Part of our evolutionary
fitness.

And when people
violate consensus

the nervous system seeks
to correct the behavior

with pain and fear,
as there's little more

psychologically damaging
than social exclusion.

To be ostracized.
Ridicule, stigma,

loss of reputation which could
also mean loss of employment,

income, lost and survival.

Yet there's a long history of people
who have moved against that tendency.

A long history
of very few people

who inevitably turn
into mere righteous symbols

put on T-shirts rather
than forces of revolution.

So this Orion problem of yours
isn't indicative of anything?

Orion appears to be
a fringe group of extremists

with no public support.

This is about normative culture,
and my point, John,

is that given our social nature,

the stronger force here
is not on the side of reason,

it's on the side of inclusion
and conformity,

and that, my friend, is the
greatest form of social control

and why the masses
will never break out

of its self-perpetuated
oppression.

♪ Twenty-three I see
come with me my dear ♪

♪ It's time we re-examine
this reality ♪

♪ Be ready ♪

♪ Welcome
to the Freakshow, baby ♪

♪ This is what it is ♪

♪ So you see, 23 ♪

♪ And the cast
is currently stocked ♪

♪ But we'll let you know
if we need another floor ♪

♪ To be mopped ♪

So earlier something
was said to the effect

that humans
are not designed to exist

in an economically
stratified society.

So to speak, yes.

A stratified society is far
more unhealthy and unstable

when compared
to an egalitarian one.

That seems like
a pretty bold conclusion.

- Can you elaborate?
- Sure.

Consider our biology,
specifically the human brain.

We're profoundly wired
for social response.

For instance, the same
brain centers that react

to physical pain also
react to emotional pain,

such as feeling rejected,
excluded or shamed.

In early life,
socially isolated infants,

not receiving proper
affection will fail

to produce critical
growth hormones,

harming development.

While in adulthood
similar effects occur.

For example, there were
these dehumanizing institutions

called prisons
and they practiced

solitary confinement,
severe social isolation,

and that practice literally
caused brain damage.

Now, what do these
examples have in common?

They are negative responses
to social related stress.

And when you review
the past 200 years,

of epidemiological study
on the issue,

you realize that an economically
stratified society

is one of the most toxically
stressful conditions

you could ever impose
upon the human species.

We've all learned about
the horrors of abject poverty.

A condition that
affected a billion people

at the turn of the 21st century,

causing literally millions
of deaths each year.

But the negative effects
of economic stratification

aren't limited
to the distinctly poor.

Inequality harms
just about everyone.

A kind of social pollution and
the lower one finds themselves

on the stratified ladder,
the worse their health becomes on average.

Consider a lower class mother

working two jobs, in debt,
can't afford a car,

living paycheck to paycheck

while trying to take care
of her young child.

They may not be homeless,
starving or even poor

by legal standards,

but every day is still

a battle to make ends meet.

This is known as relative
poverty or more formally

low socioeconomic status.

And a defining characteristic
of this condition

on average
is high psychosocial stress,

meaning stress related
to social factors.

This stress includes not only
feelings of general insecurity,

such as worrying
about paying your bills,

affording your child's next
doctor visit or losing your job,

but also the stress
of social status itself.

How one feels about themselves
compared to others.

And while that particular
aspect may seem trivial,

the fact is our brains
have evolved to react

in profoundly specific
ways when it comes

to how we think others see us.

We have an acute sensitivity
to our perceived social status.

In other words,
it's not just about the stress

of endless worry
and the technical difficulty

of being poor that's toxic.

It's equally if not more about
the stress of feeling poor.

For example, studies have shown
if you take people with the same

equal access
to free health care,

controlling
for lifestyle factors,

you will still see,
as you inch down

the ladder of income and wealth,
people's health getting

progressively worse on average.

The lower they are
in the class hierarchy

the sicker they become.

One mechanism for this

is that high
psychological stress

leads to a state
of chronic inflammation

and what's called
an allostatic overload.

Allostasis means your body's
trying to recover from something

working to return
to a more balanced state.

But it can't. And this causes

the body and the mind
to wear down rapidly.

Living in relative poverty
in all its day-to-day insecurity

and feelings of low self-worth,

keeps people psychologically
locked in a stressful state.

Ravaging mental
and physical health.

Consider heart disease.
low socioeconomic status

creates a 50% greater chance
of its development.

and not just because people
may have poor lifestyle habits,

but due to psychosocial
stress itself,

which increases the hormone
cortisol, damaging arteries

fostering strokes
and heart attacks.

Low socioeconomic status
is a heart disease risk factor

on its own,
similar for diabetes and cancer

with far higher rates
for those relatively poor.

As one study put it,
"Poverty itself is a carcinogen."

And given that heart disease
diabetes and cancer

were some of the leading causes
of death in that highly unequal

global society
of the early 21st century,

these facts help explain
why life span gaps

between the rich and the poor
were shockingly wide.

Ranging from 15 to 40 years
depending on region.

And then you have mental health.

Low socioeconomic status
fuels much higher instances

of depression,
anxiety disorders,

schizophrenia, suicide,

not to mention violence,
including child abuse.

The condition of poverty
was found to be the leading

predictor of child abuse,
which is particularly troubling

since such abuse often
leads to adult disorders

such as addictions,
antisocial behavior,

immune system problems,
cognitive impairment.

In fact, it was found
that children simply living

in the condition of poverty
correlated to large decreases

in IQ,
decreased brain development,

and worst overall, health
throughout the life cycle.

Personally, I would argue that

if child abuse is
about negligence and harm,

any society that tolerates
the existence of poverty

when it has the means to end it,

is a society that is
fundamentally abusive to children.

Now, as far as behavioral violence
in general, it's no surprise.

The pre-transition period
was saturated in it.

The emotional pathogen behind
most acts of violence is shame

and inequality produces shame
like a finely tuned machine.

Shootings, gang violence,
terrorism,

domestic violence, all highly
correlated to inequality,

like a toxic cloud hovering
over civilization.

The more economically
unequal a society,

the more violent it tended
to be on average.

And that goes for most everything in
terms of negative public health outcomes.

With higher incidences
of disease, crime, obesity,

infant mortality, homicides,
teen birth, mental illness,

poor education, conflict,
domestic abuse,

illiteracy, suicide,
premature mortality,

overall mistrust and much more.

There is no viable defense
of its existence on any level

and it's certainly
not representative

of a fixed human nature.

Humans are basically allergic to
socio-economic stratification.

What are you doing? Come on!

So how's this supposed
to happen exactly?

I'm not sure.

The satellite details
we need are very specific.

How John pulls this off
is going to be interesting.

Hey, where did
you get the popcorn?

Oh, I don't know.
It was just here.

Right.

Are they still in debate mode?

Listen for yourself.

Hope you went to college.

...and why the masses
will never break out

of its self-perpetuated
oppression.

Historically observable.
Biologically sound.

And grossly exaggerated.

While most may indeed be stuck in
lower brain, limbic system reflexes,

you underestimate
the prefrontal cortex.

Our ability to transcend
primitive reactions.

Whether you believe it
or not, Simon,

the activists of the world
are slowly becoming more aware,

- more focused.
- Focused on what?

The system?

The origin of the social
psychology that keeps

those feedback loops
of oppression going.

Ah, so threat to the money God?

If you want to be
spooky about it, sure.

The money God is eventually
going to be overthrown.

This age-old march
toward increased the quality

and human rights is now
accelerating into new territory.

And one way or another it's
eventually going to arrive

at the doorstep of the economy.

And then what?

You seem to be suffering
from a kind of amnesia, John.

That moment's long past.

Immortalized by the failed
Soviet experiment,

a memory that's fostered
an enduring boogeyman.

Anyone today daring
to suggest economic equality,

which is what I assume
you are getting at,

as some final stage
of human rights progress,

will quickly be condemned
as a freedom-hating socialist.

Propaganda may be strong,
but so are the mounting problems,

problems that have
no in system solution,

- forcing people to think differently.
- Such as?

How about the collective insult
that one percent of the world's

population now owns
80% of the wealth?

Or more importantly,
that every life support system

continues to be in decline
with now millions dislocated.

Famines, wars, growing poverty.

People will eventually realize the
economic mechanisms behind this.

Further opening the gate.
Same for technological unemployment.

Half of all jobs have
already been automated.

And while nations have compensated
by giving basic income,

the system contradiction
is still clear.

What happens when people realize
this welfare program is really

just an excuse to keep
the labor system in place?

Hence keeping
the ruling class in place.

You assume too much, John.

Three-quarters of the people
on that planet,

believe in supernatural
beings that live in the sky

affecting their lives.

You're projecting
your rare intelligence

upon a sea of glorified savages.

And if you think the activist
community has anything

in their toolkit to even
approach system level change,

you're not paying attention
to their ignorance.

You mean the spectacle?

People piling
into free speech zones,

holding up signs,
yelling at buildings,

ranting on social media,
creating political art,

poetry, writing books...

making movies.

I agree it's mostly catharsis.

It's a pressure release valve,

easing periodic tension,

making people feel like they're
actually doing something.

Aside, of course,
from helping the economy,

the anti-establishment market

has been increasingly
profitable.

Yes.

The anger dollar.
If only such outrage

could be packaged and traded
on Wall Street, right?

And then social
change might have a chance.

But catharsis aside, John,
the real issue is hope.

Activism today
is a hope industry.

Take Concordia.
It's been irritating

and I'm certainly bothered
by the technology you have,

but your actions have posed
no true threat.

What you do is give
your millions of fans hope.

And hope is a drug that subdues.

So the long history of rights
progress is meaningless?

The abolition of slavery,
women's liberation,

child labor laws, unions,
indigenous restitution,

global decrees, LGBTQ equality,
disability acts?

All adaptations
and accommodations.

No threat to the system itself.

Take abject slavery:

the origins are clear.

It was never about racism.

It was about economic
exploitation.

Hence business as usual.

And yet racism took the heat.

The system connection
goes unrecognized.

Limits of debate.
People have been conditioned

to seek moral causes
rather than structural ones.

Which is exactly my point,
they don't have the vocabulary.

Nothing
in their experience offers it.

The average person engages
six hours of media a day

much of that news constantly
reinforcing the status quo.

I'm glad you brought that up.
News is a business.

And do you think that any
for-profit institution is ever

going to tolerate ideas that
move against how it survives?

The odds are stacked, John.

The system protects
itself on every level

almost as if it were
a living organism.

But for argument's sake,

let's assume a formidable
movement existed.

A united front to change
the social structure.

Then what?

Does it play out on the stage

of political theater?

A stage owned and operated
by business power?

Part of the awakening. People are
realizing their elected officials

are structurally
corrupted by default,

regardless of intent.

- Approaches will shift.
- To what?

Insurrection, violence,
overthrow?

A French Revolution?

Possible,
but certainly not inevitable.

A critical mass large
enough to stop

the machine in its tracks is
really all that it's needed.

You remember George Orwell?

- Of course.
- He observed something

interesting
in this endless battle

between the haves
and the have nots.

If it's true as you say,

the masses are beginning
to understand the system.

Building force against it.

You should also recognize

that there's a natural
counter-movement.

The system defending
itself once again.

And every threat
to its integrity,

what you see as progress,

will be twisted around
and presented to the public

as an attack
on their way of life.

Those outliers
that you spoke of,

the terrorists, gangs,
criminals, mass murderers,

insurgencies, hackers,
the Orions.

The Concordias.

All empower
the system in the end

providing excuses
to further tighten things down.

More police, more prisons,

more laws, more bombs,
more surveillance.

More control.

Again, no conspiracy required.

It's the masses themselves
that push for this,

willfully exchanging
their freedom for security.

So they can comfortably
return to their workstations

and continue pulling
levers on the machine

just as a money God ordained.

In the end,
it wasn't the so-called communist,

socialists, anarchists or
whatever counterculture group

that posed the most serious
argument for the Great Transition.

It was the environmental
scientist.

One could debate
the ins and outs of morality,

public health and human rights,

but if the habitat goes
all that becomes moot.

And at the turn
of the 21st century

our ecological negligence
was pretty embarrassing.

With great inefficiency
we were using

far more resources each year

than the planet produced.

Had destroyed vast realms
of biodiversity,

polluted the air, the soil,
the water,

not only destabilizing
the entire global ecosystem

but by extension society itself.

The most common question I get
when teaching this history is,

"How is it even possible
things could get so bad?

How could everyone just keep
blindly pulling levers

on that destructive
economic machine

and not see what was happening?"

And it comes down to a kind
of faith-based conditioning,

a religious pathology
taking the form

of mass economic behavior.

The doctrine was
that of universal scarcity.

People had been taught
to believe that at no time,

under no circumstance,
can economic balance exist.

The very idea an
economy could be organized

to efficiently provide
for everyone while also being

in balance with the habitat
was a sacrilegious taboo.

The cult of scarcity and
consumption wasn't having it.

They considered it
utopian thinking.

Supporting the myth
that people had infinite wants

and were accusatively
insatiable.

Hence, the poor had to exist
and if anything was the problem,

it must be population
not the system.

That was the prevailing dogma.
There must be too many people.

You can't have ecological
balance in a system

that requires constant
consumer activity to work.

It's one thing to consume
based on need.

It's another to consume
because the system demands it.

And the market system
of economics needed

constant turnover of goods
to keep and create jobs,

providing workers, which
of course were also consumers,

with income to spend back
into the system,

endlessly repeating the cycle
of cyclical consumption.

If it didn't repeat
fast enough or slowed,

the economy contracted.

Purchasing power
wasn't circulating

and the society
proceeded to shut down.

A very unique historical
moment occurred in the early 20th century

when it was realized that technology
was now creating a good surplus

and great confusion ensued.

The problem was this newfound
productive efficiency

was not being met by people
buying more stuff.

So two competing
perspectives emerged:

on one side you had idealists,
envisioning a new era.

If we can produce
an overall good surplus,

why not lower the cost
of goods respectively

reducing work hours and
increased pay in proportion?

So you can now have say a person
working only two days a week

without losing
their standard of living

since the market value
of labor and goods adjusted

to compensate
for the increased efficiency.

This logic makes perfect
sense when it comes

to the basic principle
of supply and demand.

Suddenly people have more
free time, not buried in debt.

They can enrich their social
life, family life,

and pursue the things
that have true meaning.

Well, that's not
the way it played out

nor would it ever.

Which brings us to
the system level perspective

since the system itself simply
isn't designed inherently

for steady state equilibrium.

Market economics is predicated
on a more is better ethic.

To be competitive in the quest
for market share.

That's what's incentivized.

More growth, more sales,
more employees,

more capital accumulation,
more profit, constant expansion.

So what happened
was to be expected,

fortifying a new industry,

commercial advertising.

What was once
a simple media service,

notifying people
of new goods they may need,

turned into a powerful form
of manipulative propaganda.

In the later stages, companies
spent more money on advertising

than they did on research
and development.

What advertising does is
abuse our social nature

by making people feel
like they're missing out.

They're not good
enough without this,

they're lower in status
without that.

They feel excluded from others
if they don't own something.

And as pathetic as
all that sounds it had

a profound effect on society
with everyone keeping up

with the Joneses
in a hideous feedback loop.

And the result
as industrial productivity

still continued to rise,
people worked more than ever,

had less free time, were
in staggering amounts of debt,

and arguably had a lower
standard of living

when you actually account
for human happiness

and the level
of stress people endured.

All to keep
the economic machine moving.

One thing that's
really interesting in all this,

is that the economic
system back then

embraced a fantastic paradox.

So here you had a model

that defended itself
by the assumption

of universal scarcity.
Forcing competition,

oppression, exploitation,

poverty and so on,
while at the same time

the entire machine needed
infinite consumption to work.

Think about that for a moment.

How do you justify these harsh
outcomes of assumed scarcity

when the system itself
disregards the idea entirely

when it comes to the very
mechanics that make it work?

And the bottom line is
this wasn't an economy at all

by definition,
it was an anti-economy,

with human beings functioning
like cancer cells

eating the Earth alive.

In systems theory this is known
as a positive feedback loop.

Don't let that word, positive,
confuse you

as there's nothing
positive about it.

It means there's nothing working
to balance system behavior

to its regulatory environment.

That environment
in the case of Economics

is a finite planet
with a delicate ecosystem.

If respect for scarcity
was taken seriously,

the goal would be
to focus on efficiency,

working to reduce resource use,
reduce waste

in the process
of meeting human needs.

Manifesting of course a culture
that's mature enough

to understand the boundaries
of its own existence.

Truly positive economic metrics

are the opposite of what
was sought back then.

Degrowth, so to speak,
would be the goal.

Doing more with less
and needing less.

People would go on TV
to give an economic report

and say something like,
"Great metrics for the economy this month.

We reduced our use of energy and raw
materials by another three percent.

Lowering sales once again with
less need for human employment,

Increasing overall efficiency
by a factor of two.

We continue to be in homeostatic
balance with the planet

for yet another year and humanity
has more free time than ever."

Here's Tom with the weather.

"Well, it's clear skies

across the hemispheres.

The Amazon rainforest
isn't on fire.

We aren't clogging
the atmosphere with CO2,

and we haven't seen swarms
of refugees cascading

across continents in search
of food for some time.

And the fog of billionaire
douchebaggery

seems to have cleared a bit.
We do expect some precipitation

adding to our already
abundant fresh water supply

further improving topsoil
while global abundance measures

has everyone sitting pretty
for the foreseeable future."

Yeah, you would never hear anything
like that, instead the opposite.

Some dickhead PhD ivy league
market economist

religious fanatic who literally

has no clue what the word
economy even means,

would come on and say,
"Quarterly earnings

were down last month
in most sectors as GDP slows.

We're seeing an increasing
in unemployment

due to the contraction,
but hopefully

the coming Christmas season
will spark new consumer demand

while it's anticipated
that the central bank

will lower interest
rates and buy more bonds

to increase liquidity
to ease the credit crunch.

Hopefully this will
improve consumer confidence

inspiring investors
to reallocate capital

into da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da."

Translated this means,
"We need you people to take on more loans,

go into more debt to buy more
things to create more jobs

so we can sell more things
and use more of the Earth's

resources. If we're lucky
industry will improve

on shortening good life spans
through planned obsolescence.

Make things impossible
to repair.

Hopefully more single-use
goods will become the norm

so people can buy and throw away
at an ever increasing rate

keeping this shit show going."

So I want to
shift gears here a bit

and ask you about your
work in group identity.

Specifically how it relates
to economic conditions.

Well, like everything
is complex.

As we talked about earlier
our social nature

can get the best of us
and we have some

interesting evolutionary
wiring when it comes to groups.

Us and them,
in groups and out groups,

and perhaps what's
most unique is

what defines an us
and what defines a them

is subjective
and culturally dependent.

If you grow up only being
exposed to people who look

like you and then you're exposed
to those that don't,

your brain tends
to fire with apprehension.

But the same thing also occurs
with something even more trivial

like baseball caps.
You show people who like

a certain team photos of that
team and then throw in a photo

of an opposing team member,
the same thing occurs.

So for whatever
evolutionary reason,

we have a propensity to divide
society up and make judgments.

And there is no value
in it whatsoever.

It's just dangerous baggage.

And before the Great Transition,

because the economy
was fundamentally divisive

due to its competitive nature,

bigotry and group oppression
was a huge problem.

So you have the human species
developing in pockets

around the world with different
environmental exposures.

Not only shaping appearance
such as color of skin,

but also setting in motion
cultural differences

and as these groups began
to mix it got very messy,

which is why you see,
especially by the 20th century,

strong social movements
by people trying to stop

group oppression,
at least on the legal and political level.

The demand for gender, ethnic,
sexual orientation,

and creed equality was constant

with modest success given
the fact society was still stuck

in an economic mode
based upon mutual exploitation

amplifying the tendency
for group antagonism.

But there was a side
effect to all of this:

rather than seeking
equality to neutralize

the group identity problem,
many chose to embrace it.

They took what was an artificial
construct imposed upon them

and defined themselves by it.

For example, someone descended

from the African slave
trade in America

is only a black person via the
construct of being called so.

There is no such thing
as a black person

just as there's no
such thing as a grey person,

just as there is no
such thing as a white person.

These are all social constructs

that have invented to
artificially categorize people.

And the same applies to culture,

just as there is no such
thing as a white person,

there is no such thing
as an Italian person

or a Buddhist person or an Irish
person or a Jewish person.

It is one thing to have
a valued practice, meditation,

or sense of philosophy that
inspires you and educates you.

History is rich with beautiful
traditions across many belief systems.

Dogma aside religion itself
helps to serve as a kind

of gateway into our spiritual
and intellectual evolution.

Finding meaning in meditation,

or putting up a Christmas tree
or lighting the menorah

creates ritualistic connection that
can have great personal meeting.

But engaging Buddhist practice
doesn't make you Buddhist.

Being born from a bloodline in
Italy doesn't mean you're an Italian

and going to church
doesn't mean you're Christian.

The moment you go
from a person that enjoys

the practice
of something to saying,

"I am this or that,"

is the moment you draw dangerous
lines through the species.

Taking such pride
in your ethnic,

religious,
or regional background

creates an identity
with the group by label

and it is fundamentally
elitist and bigoted by nature.

There is only one race,
the human race.

And within the confines
of that fact

to separate yourself any further

leads to absolutely
nothing positive.

Kike.

No, looks more like a wop.

Yeah greaseball dago to be sure.

Just another Eurotrash wetback.

Cracker guinea freeloader.

And look at those clothes.

A Nancy Drew Becky
wanna be Stacy.

Looking for her chad
that never comes.

No doubt, a tree hugging,
dirt worshipping feminazi.

Soy boy beta cuck magnet.

A card-carrying purple haired,
muff diving, spook loving.

Self-righteous socialist pinko.

Coloring in her little
book with her junglebunny.

Towelhead libtard comrades.

Just a sea of bleeding-heart social
justice warrior welfare queens.

Bootlicking, anti-freedom
globalist, vegan red zombie.

A communist snowflake
cumdumpster.

So just move back to Cuba
with all the other crybaby.

Regressive, leftist.

Marxist, Antifa.

Utopianists.

- Break time.
- Yeah, I need to zone out for a bit.

This final programming
is melting my brain.

- What's this?
- Good question.

Some old film
by this guy, Joseph.

It's like an abstract
social commentary.

I haven't quite figured it out.

Looks pretentious.

How's the great debate?

That's what I'm going
to find out.

I'm sorry.

I thought we were
trying to save the world.

Everything's ahead of schedule.

And I can't do much more without
the satellite coordinates.

- Plus this is getting good.
- Hm-mm.

According to the script, looks
like John's about to school

Simon on the nature
of hierarchy.

Wait, how is it we're
seeing both in the shot at once.

The camera links to his eye.

Shh. Audiences don't
usually notice things like that.

And besides where do you see
equality in the animal kingdom?

No one's equal, John.

And it would be painfully
boring if they were.

Humans are diverse.

Everyone has
different capabilities,

strengths, weaknesses, talents.

The push for social equality
and human rights

is about how that diversity
is understood.

And you've seemed to think
people should only be valued

by how well they compete
in the business game

as if the violence spread
between the rich and the poor

reflects objective human worth.

John,
I amuse myself with the notion

of the money God because
it isn't far from the truth.

Some system has to exist
to divide up a scarce world

and nature has spoken as
to what that system must be.

Those who reach the top
of the pyramid deserve it,

not because you
or I think it's right,

but because that's
what nature is selecting for.

So nature prefers sociopaths
and psychopaths

to guide the species?
Because those are the dominating

traits
of the ruling class today.

The system is
as the system does.

Is that what the Malthusian
Mandate is about?

To then select out
the poor and weak.

We'll get to the mandate
in a moment.

I'm still bothered
by your denial of the fact

our social system reflects
our true biological nature.

And if this revolution you
speak of did magically occur,

it would just be a matter
of time before the innate

compulsion towards social
dominance prevailed yet again.

Deep down, John, the slaves
don't want to be free.

They want to be slave owners.

Nice one.

Too bad history paints
a different picture.

Our hierarchies have remained

constant throughout
recorded civilization.

For perhaps the last
12,000 years, sure.

But you know as well as I do,
before the discovery

of agriculture,
there was no such thing.

Ninety-nine percent of human
history has been egalitarian.

I said civilization, John.

Meandering
hunter-gatherer tribes

chucking spears and eating
grubs isn't civilization.

How contemporacist of you.

Yet 20th century study of
numerous hunter-gatherer tribes,

those still surviving in
remote areas just as they did

thousands of years prior,
actually show socially

rich cultures. Adult life
spans not far from ours.

Relatively peaceful
in balance with nature.

No leaders, no group hierarchy,
no inequality.

To argue today's society is somehow
more civilized is dubious at best.

Well, then perhaps
you can encourage

all your enlightened followers

to come together
and live out their utopian

fantasy in the Amazon jungle.

You mean what's left of it?
What hasn't been destroyed

by the supposedly advanced
culture that's ravaged

the natural world
into total decline

in the name of infinite
consumption and economic growth?

And the point here, Simon,
is hunter-gatherer cultures

are evidence of human
variability.

variability which contradicts
your vague biological determinism.

John, just because history shows

a range of behaviors across
time doesn't prove anything.

The introduction
of agriculture indeed changed

the human condition because
it triggered a dormant trait

in our evolutionary psychology.

A trait that wasn't
expressed before.

How?

By the advent

of economic surplus.

Economic surplus.

Resources and goods
that could be stored,

hoarded, stockpiled, owned,

traded, controlled,
leveraged for personal gain.

A phenomenon that was impossible
in a hunter-gatherer reality.

And it was that realization
that sparked our now

omnipresent drive toward
dominance and hierarchy.

I didn't know that.

Genetic dormancy
of an evolutionary expression.

Needed an environmental trigger,

psychological drive,
but then morphs into complex

oppressive institutions
and structures.

Compelling. Intuitive.
Plausible.

Too bad it's total bullshit.

All simpleton, pedestrian,
bio-deterministic

conclusions that are nothing
more than elitist projections.

You think it's wise to insult me
given this circumstance, John.

And listen.

Agriculture did change
everything.

But not because of someone's
dormant psychological

drive magically triggered
by economic surplus.

It was about what such a society
technically required,

dramatically shifting incentives and
very nature of human relationships.

Think about it.
First you need the proper land,

water,
the right conditions to farm,

then creating settlements
around those fruitful areas

as opposed to foraging.

And since land quality varies
some settlements will prosper

due to their geography
and some will falter.

So what happens when a group
finds itself with failed crops

and no way
to survive the winter?

They may trade
with other groups,

building out
what we call a market today,

giving way to the idea
of property and so on.

Or if they have
nothing to trade, desperate,

they may invade, they may steal,
compete,

establishing the need
for protection, laws, armies,

the state institution itself.

At the same time people
begin to notice the imbalance

and power
of this new propertied reality,

rationalizing the hoarding of wealth
for the sake of future security.

Hence the birth of inequity,
poverty, socio-economic class.

Simon, every major structural
aspect of society today,

from ownership to trade,
to nation states

to institutional warfare
at the competitive ethic

to vast economic inequality and
power hierarchy was predictable.

Snowballing ever since.

So your theory is if you change
the structure of society

you change the human condition?

- There's no going back, John.
- No one's going back.

We're going forward.

Humanity has been trapped
in this immature stage

for too long, not to mention
the sickness manifest

by this endless striving towards
social status is palpable.

Children,
when who asked what they want

to be when they grow up say,
"Rich and famous."

How the most wealthy nations,
those beacons of supposed

success are by far
the most mentally ill.

People don't know who they are,
where they're going

and what they're doing.

Lost in a perversion
of social image.

A spectacle that no longer
has any relationship

to anything real.

So I'd like to go back
to the subject of inequality.

But this time
to understand the mechanics

of the oppression how the
hierarchy was kept in place?

Okay, let's start with money.

Money was the infrastructure
of the market economy

and how it was created
and moved around

was instrumental
to lower class oppression.

So you had these
things called banks and they had

the ungodly power to make
abstract value out of nothing.

If a person needed money
for a home or car or business,

they went to their local bank
and applied for a loan,

and if approved
the person signed a contract

binding them to return that
loaned money at a future date.

Though, it's not really a lone

in the sense of somebody lending
out what they already owned.

Contrary to what most assumed
banks didn't loan out money

they actually had,
they instead created new money

in the form of credit
backed by debt.

So on one side money represented

a store of value
people could spend,

while on the other it was
a liability made out of debt.

In other words,
for every dollar that existed,

there was also
a debt of a dollar

owed to some bank somewhere.

That was how money was
brought into existence

and when someone repaid the loan
debt the money then disappeared.

That understood any
kind of service in that economy

sought a profit,
and in the case of a loan,

that came in the form
of a fee called interest.

So the borrower not only had
to eventually repay the loan

but also the interest
charged as well.

Imagine an
island of a hundred people,

they decide to organize
themselves through market economy.

They plop a bank down
and each of them take a loan

for 100 credits of money
at ten percent interest.

So they all now have
10,000 credits total

in their money supply
and they begin to work

in exchange creating
economic activity.

When the time comes
to pay back the loan,

they realized they owe
not only the 100 credits,

but the ten percent interest,
so 110 credits.

Same for the whole society,

in total everyone on
the island now owes the bank

11,000 credits.

But yet, only 10,000 actually
exist in the money supply.

There is now more depth
owed than money in existence

due to the interest charged.

So three things can happen:
one, those short

can take on more loans
to temporarily cover

the old ones postponing
the problem.

Two, people could ramp up
competitive trade

increasing economic activity

to try to get enough
from others to cover the debt,

displacing the debt responsibility
like a game of musical chairs.

Or three, the bank comes in
and takes real property

to compensate
for the outstanding debt,

which is inevitably what happens
somewhere down the line anyway.

Wait, that,
that can't be right.

That would just be a system
of organized theft.

Yes, banks were vehicles
of creation on one side,

and a system of organized theft

and class oppression
on the other.

But in a large complex
global society, one based

on economic growth,
money moves so rapidly

it was very hard for the mechanics
of this to be recognized.

Obscured by things
like the boom-and-bust cycle,

monetary expansion
and contraction.

- Mm, please continue.
- So back to our island again.

But this time
for the sake of simplicity,

let's remove the interest
fee from the equation,

and focus only on the outcomes
of competitive trade itself.

So the 10,000 credits
of money has been moving around

through trade, labor investment,

starting businesses,
hiring employees,

and as is inevitable
to the game,

some businesses will outperform
winning disproportion income,

while others will fall
behind losing income.

And naturally
those with more money

can then increase
their gaming advantage becoming

ever more competitive and of
course more prone to keep winning.

As the old adage went,
the rich get richer

and the poor get poorer.

A small business with limited
means simply can't compete

with a larger one that can
outperform them in the same service

due to having more
resources to work with.

So on our Island,
we see an inevitable

point in time where say ten
percent of that population

managed to acquire
90% of the island's wealth

while the other
90% of the population

now has only ten percent.

By the way, this isn't
some arbitrary assumption,

this can be modeled
mathematically.

The dynamics of mass
competitive trade in any society

always moves toward
disequilibrium.

So back to my point,
when you put this together

a displaced debt burden
and the application of interest,

you can begin to see
the insidiousness.

An economic process based upon
competitive advantage and trade

that inevitably consolidates
wealth increasing that advantage.

Coupled with a financial
system that is charging

interest on loans that can
never be fully repaid.

So it's no surprise
that in the early 21st century

the global economy had
about 200 trillion in debt

and only 80 trillion
in outstanding currency.

While in the United States,
then considered

the richest nation
on the planet,

half of the population had less
than 1,000 dollars in savings

while also spending more each
year than they actually earned.

Just trying to keep up.

While on the global level
in nearly 50 percent

of the population lived
in poverty on less

than $5.50 a day
as roughly 30 individuals.

Yes, 30, owned more wealth than
the bottom half, 3.6 billion.

Now, there are plenty
of other intermitted things

that contribute
to this disparity.

Offshore tax havens
for the rich.

The mythology of trickle-down
economics were government favors

business over the public's
well-being, gaming strategies

to restrict the power
of unions and keep wages low,

various shenanigans
related to this thing

called the stock market,

but the financial system
and its use of depth is really

the foundation of it all.

Wow, you, you,

you would expect riots
in the streets if people

- really understood that.
- Well, there eventually were.

But again, at the time,
people just couldn't see it.

But, no, it wasn't until
the complete abolition of debt

on all levels that human slavery
finally ended on this planet.

Speaking of
awareness I'd like to talk

a little about
how the awakening started.

I know Concordia
was instrumental

to technical change later on,
but what about before that

perhaps starting
in 20th century?

Well, it's sporadic.

The largest move
against this system was

the Bolshevik Revolution
in Russia inspired by a man

named Karl Marx, that brought
about the Soviet Union

which existed
for a couple decades.

And it employed a top-down
regulation system

they called communism
but it proved to be

inefficient and oppressive.

It was also wildly opposed
by Western capitalist powers,

which sought to destroy it
by any means necessary.

Criticism was generally infused
with civil rights movements.

For example, Mahatma Gandhi,
who helped liberate India

from Colonial rule,
was notably against the system

recognizing
its creation of poverty.

Once saying that "poverty was
the worst form of violence."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,

was also steadfast
against capitalism,

seeing it as a part
of a system of oppression

fueling racism.
Same for the Black Panther Party

that had chapters all over
the world in the 1960s.

You also had more academic
minded organizations

like the technocracy movement

largely inspired by famous
economist, Thorstein Veblen,

who recognize that a society

run by business people
was a very bad idea.

And by the 21st century
when economic inequality was reaching

unprecedented extremes coupled
with a growing ecological crisis

many more were realizing
something had to be done.

But there is one that sticks
out to me in the context

of the value system disorder
present at the time.

An iconic speech given
by a man named Omar Padillo.

Omar was born in poverty
in Los Angeles, California.

And as a young man,
he just happened to win

the largest state lottery
ever in 2037 and he decided

to use that money to solve the vast
homeless crisis in his hometown.

He funded non-profits,
established housing treatment centers.

Not only getting people
off the streets,

but really helping them
recover and acclimate.

Something that hadn't
been done before.

And they gave him
a Nobel Peace Prize for it.

But what he had
to say during his speech

wasn't exactly
what they expected.

Thank you.

And while I'm happy for those

we have helped
over the past few years,

taking about 75,000 homeless
off the Los Angeles streets,

I must say that the problem

at hand runs much deeper
than the poverty

we see around us.
When I created this program,

focusing on just
this one regional crises,

my long-term hope was that
it would set a new precedent.

That those
who disproportionately benefit

in this world would be inspired,
step up

and help take responsibility
for the plight

of the less fortunate.

After all, what I have done here

is merely a patch
that can only help a few.

For the true source of poverty,

our social system,
continues to go unaddressed.

We live in a world
of stories and myths.

And we've been told that
the vast inequities that we see

is the price we must pay
for innovation and progress.

Well, innovation to what end

and how do we define
this notion of progress?

For if progress is about how much
one can own, the availability of jobs

the state of a nation's GDP,
the rise of the stock market,

or the development of some gadget
to entertain and distract you,

then we face a serious
existential crisis.

I submit that true progress can
only be measured in the health,

stability, integrity and responsible
freedom of a civilization.

Responsible to ourselves,
responsible to each other

and responsible to their earthly
habitat we all share.

And by those measures,
my friends,

there is now little
progress to be found.

As we all sit idly by,
presupposing

that the way society works
is the only way it ever could.

That said, if it's true
that we must persist

in this inhumane economic order,

an order that has proven
it can only create affluence

for a minority at the cost
of destitution for the majority,

then our only choice
is to seek a new level

of humanitarian effort.

Today, three people
have more wealth

than the bottom 75%
of the world's population,

six billion people,

the total wealth of the 4,000
billionaires out there

have the means to end global
poverty a hundred times over,

and yet if you study
their philanthropy,

it is clear that they are
far more concerned

with their own interests,
their own comforts,

than working to counter this
ongoing structural violence.

You see there's a deeper
kind of poverty here.

A spiritual poverty,
a poverty that grows a culture

of sociopaths and the more
they have, the more they want,

and the less they seem
to care otherwise.

Moral bankruptcy hiding
behind this age-old story

that one can have a billion dollars
in the bank while others starve

is somehow natural
to the human condition.

In a number of months
my program will end

as the funds will be gone.

And to date not one wealthy,
so-called philanthropist

has offered to help keep
the program running.

Now I know this event
is about peace,

but it must be understood
that the wealthy of this world,

those at the root of true
political power are sick.

Their priorities have nothing
to do with true progress.

And the time
for tolerance is over.

The billionaire's of this world
are not symbols of success.

They are symbols of violence.

And until that violence ends,

there will be no peace
on this planet.

I am sorry, Peter. Can we cut?

Cut!

Well, it's, you know,
it's this opening section.

I'm... I'm still not getting it.
I know we've been through it but, uh,

- it's just not landing for me.
- I'm just going to keep rolling here.

Can you grab that
color swatch for me?

You have to think about
the interpretation in reference

- to the...
- All right. Thank you.

This tripod head is toilet.

You know,
my latte was cold this morning.

And that's my problem because?

Okay, okay, I, I think I got it.

- Thanks.
- No problem. All right

everybody, let's move.

Jesus, take a screenwriting
class for Christ's sake.

No one's going to understand
any of this shit.

- Camera?
- Rolling.

- Audio?
- Speeding.

Slate.

Scene 37, take 23.

What if I told you, John,
what many see

as problems in the world are
actually solutions in transition.

Is that some kind
of Taoist riddle?

Poverty, crime, war, disease,
even the ongoing

destruction of the habitat.

What if they were
actually productive forces

assisting a larger end?

I'd suggest you lighten up
on the Nietzsche.

What separate us from
the rest of the animal kingdom

is that we have
no natural predators.

Nothing out there to snatch us
up for an afternoon snack.

We're also uniquely aware of
our own mortality and fight it

with hospitals, medicine,
inoculations.

Little stopping us
from reproducing

to the very limit of our host,

at least not externally.

Evolution had to do something
a bit different with us.

So, instead,
we are our own predators.

Predator and prey in one.

How convenient.

Which explains not only
why humans murder each other

at a rate unparalleled
by any other species,

but also why we've generated
a social structure

that by systemic force further
ensures a consistent rate

of premature mortality.

- You mean structural violence.
- Embedded into the very design

of civilization itself.

So that is what
the Malthusian Mandate does,

regulate
how to kill off the week.

No, the Mandate
isn't a policy of action.

It's a policy of inaction,
a commitment

not to interfere with the
natural course of the system.

So the invisible hand
of the market has a machete.

I don't expect
to win you over, John.

I'm just telling you
the way it is.

I agree it's ugly.

But without the premature death

that capitalism brings
in the form of inequality

that planet would have flown
off its access long ago.

As you know,

the Industrial Revolution
set in motion

population growth
that was hyperbolic.

And out of the 70 million
who now die each year

30 million do so
because of unequal conditions.

So 40 percent
of all global deaths

are structurally inflicted,

you know,
there's a word for that, Simon.

Oh, don't be dramatic.

Again, this is system-level
behavior, John.

Not some nefarious conspiracy.

You want to know
what the population would be

if this wasn't the case?

If we removed inequality
driven mortality

for the last 100 years
accounting for fertility,

about 16 billion
would be sucking up

resources on that planet today

with a carrying capacity
still at only ten billion.

And you think
things are messing now.

First of all, Simon.

When the great Reverend
Thomas Malthus decided

population would forever
outpace resources,

only one billion existed.

We're almost ten times that
now despite his projections.

Second, in the modern era,

the greatest predictor
of regional

overpopulation
is poverty itself.

If the world ever did abolish
it, increasing education,

population growth
would dramatically slow

likely approaching equilibrium.

Your 16 billion number
doesn't account for that.

And third,
you're completely disregarding

what the Fullerian study
proved long ago,

a study sanctioned
by your own department.

The Fullerian study
was purely theoretical, John.

A model only possible
if humans magically conform

to strict sustainability
and efficiency principles.

It required
a completely egalitarian

structure
without money and markets.

A fantasy given once again
the reality of human nature.

Fantasy or not,
the study was clear.

Not only can the Earth
hold upwards of 30 billion,

it can do so with each having
a standard of living equivalent

to today's upper-middle-class.

Yeah, again,
assuming equal distribution,

which is absurd.

Humans have infinite wants.

No... they don't.

Infinite wants
is a value disorder,

inspired by an economy that needs
infinite consumption to work.

People are just as prone to be
minimalist as they are materialist.

Comes down
to the social condition.

Today, if people didn't have
highly acquisitive values,

the entire economy
would collapse.

Fine, believe what you want,
John.

It's all moot anyway.

You asked me
what the Malthusian Mandate

was and I'm telling you.

Whether you like it or not,

this is the reality
of things today.

We got Mandate metadata,

please tell me
this is recording.

It certainly is.

Looks like John
got his subterfuge.

So how's this organized then?

- Tracking demographics and mechanisms?
- We are.

As you'll notice conditions
related to absolute

poverty in the third world
countries account

for about 40 percent
of all premature deaths.

And I see you're also tracking
poverty related illness

and violence
in the industrialized nations.

With heart diseases,
cancer and diabetes

remaining at the top,

while suicide,
inner-city gang warfare

and drug overdoses
coming a close second.

What about deep
stomach relationships?

Lack of education,
childhood stress?

Correlated as well.

Actually, very consistent.

Regional cycles of deprivation
are like clockwork.

Poor families continue
to produce more poor families,

- even in the richest states.
- And the mechanisms?

Standard class war stuff.
Only difference now

is ecological
and climate crisis,

which has rapidly
increased mortality

in poverty-stricken desert
and coastal regions.

But the same story otherwise.

The rich get richer
with disproportional

opportunity in capital.

The political establishment

favors business
and wealthy interests

over social support programs,

and the banking system keeps
a solid stranglehold on social

mobility by saturating the lower
class in insurmountable debt.

Same on the global level

through international
finance institutions,

structural adjustments,
austerity sanctions.

In fact,
the financial system is really

the glue that holds
all this together

keeping constant
downward pressure

on the impecunious masses.

Final warning.
Please evacuate proximal region.

Program will commence in ten,

nine, eight, seven, six,

five, four...

Centuries ago humans
discovered hydrocarbon energy,

fossil fuels,
and for a good chunk of time,

it was a critical mechanism
advancing civilization,

but after a while
it became obvious that

its continued use posed
insurmountable repercussions,

damaging the environment.

So we eventually had
to stop using it completely,

figuring out other means.
And this is a good analogy

as to why we also needed
to transcend that social system.

I look at capitalism

as an adolescent stage
in the growth of civilization.

Let's let loose and have people
be selfish building and creating

in a belligerent manner
with no regard for consequences.

And we learned a lot.
I think without this phase,

we wouldn't have been able
to recognize and amplify

what really makes us
unique as a species.

We started as DNA
moving from simplicity

to complexity evolving
a brain with consciousness,

while blessed
with a profound social nature,

merging us into a truly
global consciousness

continuing this expansion.

Not through our biology
but through the sharing

of knowledge,
cultural evolution.

There was a great library
in a city called Alexandria

long, long ago, and
it contained some of the most

foundational texts
of human civilization.

And sadly
it was destroyed in war.

Many centuries later,
a famous astronomer named

Carl Sagan,
commented on the subject,

So the great question
of scientific and hence,

economic progress,
inevitably becomes,

How do we harness
our different talents and skills

to bring out our best potential,

not only as individuals,
but as a civilization?

We know the hardware,
so to speak.

A finite yet profoundly
regenerative planet

bound by laws of nature

with our species part
of a delicate ecosystem

sharing common ground.

The true measure
of economic progress

is simply doing more with less.

Efficiency, the ability to build
something for a given purpose

that is not only better than
what came before it in utility,

but also better in terms
of reducing the amount of labor,

energy and resources
required to make it work.

Which means it all
comes down to design.

And back to my point
about markets,

the infrastructure
it created set the groundwork

for powerful new means
to merge human talent and skill.

We just needed to remove
the counter-productive aspects.

And, needless to say,
wasteful human competition,

proprietary knowledge, and people
motivated to sell things over and over

to feed a system of infinite
growth wasn't going to work.

There had to be a way to bridge
minds and solve problems directly,

not by proxy of market
competition and profit.

I think the smartest thing
we ever did as a society

was the adoption of an open
source, shared resource commons.

It exponentially catapulted
our problem solving creativity.

We ended corporations,
localized communities,

and shared all knowledge.

In fact,
if it wasn't for that move,

I really don't think we would've
solved the climate crisis

and all the other ecological
and social problems

we faced
before the Great Transition.

I still stand in awe today
at the stunningly productive

collective design
processes we created,

where status is driven not by
differential competition for gain,

but by the degree
of your contribution:

how dedicated you are
to problem solving and creation,

working to improve
the fabric of society itself.

We also realized the true
purpose of a means of production

based upon automated technology.

Not as some brute
industrial mechanism

to produce an endless
stream of arbitrary goods,

but as a way to free ourselves
from uncreative labor,

not to mention improving
efficiency and safety.

And one final
evolution worth noting

was the removal
of the price system.

People stuck these numbers
on everything

that suggested
some kind of earthly value.

The numbers were a result
of a particularly crude equation

dealing with the supply
and demand.

And while the high priests
of the market religion

saw those price decrees
as the word of God,

the truth was any price value
determined by market dynamics alone

was woefully incomplete.

And the only term to know
in regard to that

is negative market externality.

These are cost values unaccounted
for by the market price equation

related to damage
done by industry.

For example,
in the early 21st century,

the running price of hydrocarbon
energy was in a particular range.

But yet,
there was actually an additional

5.3 trillion dollars
in cost every year

as people worked
to clean up the damage

the use of hydrocarbons
was doing to the planet.

Same for the plastics
industry, a serious problem back then.

It had an externalized cost
of 2.5 trillion dollars a year

just to clean up the oceans.

In fact, if you went back

and did the accounting
for global industry as a whole

factoring in these negative
market externalities,

again, these costs not reflected
in the set prices,

you would find that
no company on the planet

was actually even profitable.

So, of course today we have a very
different system of accounting.

We know almost exactly what's happening
or could happen in downstream effects

and we improve our total system efficiency
every single year because of it.

It's a true economy,
in other words.

And all of this creates a
very different social atmosphere.

Today our incentives
are aligned.

No one cuts corners,
there's no reason to.

No one is trying
to improve some bottom line

by disregarding
our ecological stewardship

or the well-being of others.

We finally got it right.

And I compare
the footage of the way

people behaved back then
to the way they do now.

It's an astounding amount of pride
and community, meaning and purpose.

They don't feel alone.

They know they have support,
not just from their friends and family,

but from the very design
of the social system itself,

a system designed
to actually care.

Imagine that.

The low polygon people are here.

I wish they'd go back to their own resolution.

How are you still standing?
What is that your tenth drink?

Apple juice.

What's that?

That is a breach alarm.

Looks like Orion
is continuing through our security.

And on that note, John,
I need to know your intent.

I've explained the Mandate and how
it's far bigger than both of us.

Policy of inaction is still
a policy of action, Simon.

Well, if you'd like,
we could continue

this colorful debate
another time.

Assuming you're willing
to assist us here now.

Signal source,
what are the regional markers?

Well...

...that's part of the problem.

The best we have
is a desert region

on the west side
of North America

about 10,000 square miles.

It's not too horrible.
I assume your satellites

have been scanning
more remote terrain.

Of course, nothing out
of the ordinary has been seen.

What about surveillance gaps?
Are the satellite passes seamless?

For the most part,
there are some periodic latitudinal gaps,

but they only last a few hours.

Is it possible Orion is aware
of them? Exploiting them?

- That's what I'd do.
- I suppose,

but highly unlikely.

They would have
to already be in our system

to know the trajectories.

Show me the gaps.

You want my help or not?

Zoom into the area in question.

Perfect.

Hold it right there, John.

We've already conducted
sub sonar scans.

If they're underground, they're
using some kind of reflective shield.

But what I think
would be best for you

is to analyze
the signal code itself,

see if you can find a signature.

John?

Yeah, sorry,
I was just thinking.

Hey, remember that Aqua Terraformation
project we worked on years ago?

Sounds like you need
to get some sleep.

Your attention span is going.

And of course...

...how can I forget?
Ionized nanotech pop-up islands

from seawater.

Too bad it never worked.

We could've extended populations

into the ocean,
free up some space.

Yeah.

What other ambitious
stuff did we work on?

Those were some exciting times.

Remember TRD Hollow Cloak?

Huh!

A sci-fi classic.

Tactile remote drone hologram.

We played with that
for a while here,

but proved impossible,

light just can't
merge like that.

Yeah. Too bad.

Lots of uses for a fully controlled
remote tactile human hologram.

Cool, huh?

And it's at this juncture,
Simon,

I'm afraid I have
to deliver some kind

of protagonistical declaration

of moral superiority

to indicate the philosophical
error of your ways.

So here it goes.

Those that seek
to create in this world,

those who embrace change
as a natural force,

helping to unify
humankind as one entity

in one shared direction,

realizing
that injustice anywhere

is injustice everywhere,

will always be one step ahead
of the traditionalists,

the preservers, the elitists,

who, in defense of their separatist
identities and egoist fears,

seek to divide, conquer,
oppress and destroy.

The pursuit of livingry
will always be one step ahead

of the pursuit of weaponry.

Orion doesn't exist, does it?

Nope.

We just put a virus
in your firewall.

Why?
What's the point of all of this?

To expose the Mandate,
of course,

which will be leaked shortly

to every major news network.

Oh, seriously, that's it?

You think we can't absorb that?

That we haven't perfected
endless ways

to deflate and confuse
public perception when needed?

Well, then I guess
you have nothing to worry about.

See you around, Simon.

- Hey, token white guy is back!
- Shut up.

All right, folks.
We don't have much time.

I don't think he's going
to buy that story for long.

How're we doing?

Satellite coordinates locked,
everything's ready.

But keep in mind,
even with bypassing your surveillance,

once this thing hits, the heat
signature is going to be out of control.

That's what
the subterfuge is for.

- Mandate leak on the blockchain yet?
- Packaging now.

Should be in the hands of every major
media outlet in about 20 minutes.

Good.

Don't forget to show
Simon's stupid face.

So this is it folks. We have a clear
path avoiding GSA surveillance.

Once the Mandate exposure
hits the press,

Simon and company
will be in damage control,

hopefully long enough
so we can pull this off.

Anybody need anything?

- Music.
- Music.

- Music.
- Music.

You got it.

- - All
right, everybody, come on.

We got... we got to finish
this goddamn movie already.

Left. Right. Left.

Responding
to this new leak by Concordia,

purporting to reveal
a policy of neglect,

where the death
of millions in poverty

was deliberately accentuated

by International Trade policy.

Leaked documents even include
what appears to be

a video of GSA's current head,
Simon Devoe.

Don't look at me like that.

Standard operating procedure,
folks.

Get your media agents out there
and start changing the narrative.

Sir.

- What is it?
- I don't know.

We don't have visual coverage
in that region yet.

Send the drones.

Holy shit, it worked.

Shall we alert the base?

Indeed.

The migration begins.

It's an artificial island, Sir,

in the Pacific, about 700 miles
off the coast of North America.

Holy shit, it worked.

Scramble fighters to destroy it?

No. See this?

It's a plasma congealed
electromagnetic field,

- impenetrable.
- How do you know that?

Because I know the creator.

And sing.

So, we've just arrived
at the colony of Concordia,

where almost
a million people have migrated

to basically get away
from the rest of the world.

We are the first press
allowed in,

waiting to meet our guide.

- Hi, I'm Elnoria.
- Nice to meet you.

Thank you for having us.

I suggest we move
to the city center,

start our tour from there.

You can cut.

So, there's been a lot
of speculation on the mainland

about what goes on here.

You're depicted
as some kind of a cult.

Claims of human right abuses,

and your media is being
censored pretty aggressively.

Well, that's why you're here.

This island wasn't created
to escape the world,

it was created to set
an example to change the world,

show what's actually possible if
humankind decided to work together.

So,
where would you like to start?

I guess technicals.

How are you powering this place?

Mixed renewable integration.

The island's core baseload
systems are solar, wind and ocean,

while localized
kinetic energy capture,

mixed use, reuse mechanisms,

are designed
into most everything.

Like footsteps?

Footsteps, vehicle motion,

pipe flows, anything that moves,
we recapture.

We're at about 5,000
percent efficiency,

more energy than we know
what to do with.

That's insane.

Not really.

The earth is, in effect,

a perpetual motion machine.

You people on the mainland
could easily do the same thing,

but your economic system simply isn't
conducive to integrative design.

Speaking of which, let's head to the
development center around the corner.

Okay.

This is one
of our design facilities.

Okay. Like an office.

So these people are employed.

Employed. Um, I suppose in the
most technical sense of the word, sure.

But we have
no systemic slavery here.

No one is coerced to submit
for their basic survival,

something I suspect might be
very foreign to you.

But everyone needs
to do something, right?

So how do you network skills,
organized trade, markets?

There is no trade.

There are no markets.
There is no currency.

Those who wish to contribute do
so through collaborative design

in an open source environment.

What you think of as industries
of production on the mainland

is unified here.

Wait, I don't understand.

These people are
not paid to be here?

How are they motivated?

Well, how is anyone motivated?

Do you need to get paid to get
out of bed in the morning?

Do you need to be paid
to ensure your own health,

the health of your family
and friends?

Paid to show stewardship for the
habitat and society that supports you?

- How about innovation?
- Innovation to what end?

To create something to improve
life and experience?

Or to create something to sell?

If you think about it, it has been the
blind economic drive toward innovation,

as you know it, that continues
to lead your society

- to destruction
- Okay, then.

Once these people have
designed something, then what?

If a design
meets proper criteria

in terms of efficiency
and sustainability protocols,

it is then accessible by our mostly
additive manufacturing system.

Additive? 3D printers?

Which have been perfected
to a degree where modular arrays

can produce most anything conceived
of with traditional material.

And by the way,
there's no waste here.

Our AI designed filters won't
allow production of any item

that isn't 100% regenerative.

Sorry, I'm speechless.

If what you say is true,

you've actually done it.

Done what?

You've created Utopia.

If you want to sound
like an idiot, sure.

This isn't Utopia, friend.
It's simply pragmatic design.

Come, let me now show you
our democratic system,

how we use direct democracy
to eliminate politicians

and control problems.

What? No elections?

- No goons?
- God, no.

Whoa. So...
so where do I sign up?

I want to join your cult
as soon as possible.

- I'll see what I can do.
- Please.

I don't know
if I can take much more.

So, I'm afraid we're going
to have to wrap this up for now,

but a... as we discussed,
I will be back

for the second part
of this interview fairly soon,

uh, specifically to discuss
the colony of Concordia

and their historical influence.

Sure. So what's the name
of the documentary?

InterReflections.

- Interesting.
- But before we end,

I have a rather strange request.

If you could address those
vulnerable, confused souls,

you know,
before the Great Transition,

given, as you put it earlier,

we barely made it at all,

what would you say to them?

Wow, that is a strange request.

Hm.

I think I would
paraphrase the words

of a notable
civil rights activist

from the mid-20th century
named Bayard Rustin.

And he said,

"You are all one.

And if you don't know it, you're
going to find out the hard way."

♪ It's a bacchanalia ♪

♪ It's a cornucopia ♪

♪ Champagne and a caviar ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ Swimming pool
and fancy yacht ♪

♪ Vacation
in the south of France ♪

♪ You got anything you want ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Your company
has rising stock ♪

♪ Cheaper labor
in the eastern block ♪

♪ No complaining
in the sweat shop ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ Making deals
in the back room ♪

♪ If you don't like it
you can change the rules ♪

♪ Thank your friends
in the Legislature ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Never felt
like we had enough ♪

♪ Welfare check
don't buy much ♪

♪ I started working
from eight on up ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ I know when I look at you ♪

♪ You got feelings like I do ♪

♪ Can we go
by the golden rule? ♪

♪ What else is there? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

♪ Teach you how to share? ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

- ♪ Teach you how to share? ♪
- ♪ Help somebody ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

- ♪ Teach you how to share? ♪
- ♪ Help somebody ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

- ♪ Teach you how to share? ♪
- ♪ Help somebody ♪

♪ Did your mama
teach you how to ♪

- ♪ Teach you how to share? ♪
- ♪ Help somebody ♪