# An Alternative to Gold: Part III

Fire

The term “work” was created by Mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis in 1826. His description of “weight lifted through air” was from observing mining equipment lifting water in buckets from a mine. The formulation for work in physics is

W= Fd

Work equals a force that displaces an object in a direction.

Work on an object can be shown by the change in kinetic energy of that object.

W= (Energy) K E

This formula is noted with a triangle symbol where the word energy is placed.

This is the formula that all of my work is based on.

This formula takes place every time and object becomes work.

The amount of energy used at each movement of production increases with time and effort. In order to conserve energy, or be more efficient with energy, the economy should reflect the true price of the economy: the total cost of energy.

The human body or mechanical metal can work. The work of biological beings is creative of the latter. The mind is the original tool of the economy: the source of the components of the machine. Many, many people have pointed out to me that machines are created to replace the creative work of humans. The current economy does not provide additionally for those people displaced by the creation of a machine that copies their creative process. Instead, we have intellectual property laws that actually promote to steal the process from the human that is observed doing the action and making a living doing that creative process.  With an intellectual property law, the observer owns the work that they only observed and were able to copy with a machine. The true nature of intellectual property laws do not serve the owner of the thought, but instead only the observer.

Instead of rewarding only the observer, the entire equation should be observed. To justify the introduction of new technology, those who are displaced from work should be supported by the new technology. The inventor can make a living as an inventor, selling the design to tooling. The increase in tech does not necessarily mean a person should stop doing what they were doing before: their creativity in their work perpetuated the invention to begin with!

I have read in a few places that machines are more “energy efficient” than biological life at performing work. This idea depends on how some one looks at the equation. Metal fabrication requires an immense amount of energy. The increase in energy efficiency should not be the reason for the displacement of workers, but should instead allow them their home and life the same as before. In order for us to justify the expense of tooling great machines to tool great machines that tool our consumer products and food, they should instead totally support those who they intend to replace.

How is all of this related to gold? Gold itself is extracted by humans and machinery. It is a special element because of rarity and properties, but so is biological life. Gold has applications that have been recycled for millennia. Basing an entire system on finding the rarity of something makes no value to any laws of physics or work itself. Instead, we should base our system on what we indeed value: life itself.

The addition of humans to the equation of the planet is an important part of the economy equation. Indeed, anywhere the word tool appears in the kinetic process I am illustrating, human form originated it or works alongside it in other “businesses” providing the same operations. The comparison is in the maintenance. Life has a constant fuel requirement. A machine only runs when you turn it on. Transversely, humans are the Alpha, designer and creator of the machines themselves. Metal will always exist. Biological life requires upkeep. The justification of the existence of machines should not be for profit, but for the direct upkeep of biological life.

In all of the language study and books over the years, one image always shows itself to me when I think of this equation. An ancient Mayan god is pictographed setting on a floating platform of metal covered entirely and overflowing with plants and animals. The plants and animals completely cover it in her hair, on her clothes, and setting all around her.

The existence of life itself grows entirely on the base of metal, buried deep within: mimicking the atom itself on the hot sphere of floating magma. Our economical considerations should always keep metal where it belongs: under our feet.

As metal tools are taken up in the atmosphere, the energy requirements for production should include the proper stewardship of those dependent on it. This is why I enjoyed Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective by Kevin Carson so much I think. His writing includes machines with energy intakes that support human life on the individual scale, (he also expresses this in Homebrew Industrial Revolution)

I see this in an equation of metal to scale for it’s constant purpose of being underfoot and in service to support the independent custodial decisions of our lives.  On twitter today, “The Teminator” demanded “my motorcycle, my clothes and my boots”. I laughed a little at the demands of my Schwinn, my Goodwill, and my women’s hikers, but this happens every time an office worker is replaced with a computer program or a machine. Technology is the accumulation of human discovery over time. The accumulation of discovery should purpose the care of all biological life on earth.

It is for this reason that Metal, Tools, and Pollution negative extractions of earth should divide the price of our currency.  New extraction has a huge cost to surface ecosystems. Metal and tools already in existence shouldn’t be included at all in the value of currency. In order for their conversion and true energy cost to be expressed in a supportive role, they should be exchanged at true market value. In order for a producer to discover this cost, the extraction, maintenance, and evolution should be naturally handed over in the true cost of energy production and usage. If indeed there is a “cost” to the upkeep of life, it shouldn’t have to compete with inanimate non-biological entities of invention.  Discovering what is indeed most expensive to our biosphere is going to have to include the cost of energy in production.

In my equation as metals are extracted, the pollution costs divide the monetary value of biological life. Driving down the bottom number should be the goal of humanity. Every time a river is killed with metals by polluters, the entire system pays and the value of life has fallen. Fining polluters is built in to everyone’s payday. Oil spills, destruction of boreal forest, air pollution, water poisoning, and research to prevent all of those disasters is built in. The entire cost is expressed in both the decrease in biological life on the top of the fraction, and balances the goals of driving up the value of currency by decreasing the true costs to the environment on the bottom.

The miner has to also keep the value in their land. I look at old pictures of mines as a hole leading into the ground under some trees. Currently, new mines take off all of the biological life and then scrape the mountain into the bucket, and dump the waste. The entire industry is based on death of biological life. Alternately in the equation I present, the land owners would have to pay for energy production encouraged by the true source of energy of biomass, keep the existing biological in place for value, and minimize damage to the surrounding environment by avoiding having the value of their endeavors wipe out the monetary value of the land (in the biological mass) on the top of the fraction and then have it all divided by the accumulation of pollutants.

This accumulation of pollutants carries from any environment it touches. A river system, a lake, a farm, and a school full of children can all be effected by chemicals and pollutants released into the environment from energy outputs and spilling wastes into the environment. This death can be directly charged to the land that was killed by the process. The process itself will take into consideration the death of the value.

Monetary value = Non-human Biological Mass / Metals extraction+ Pollution

Ocean surface and depth is included in all of this, too. Each death, each sickness, each individual counts toward the entire value of the living organism of the currency price. It also counts toward any value the system held to begin with. Oil rigs that explode and pollute entire oceans would come under tremendous pressure from the monetary system to conform to standards of safety and design over invented monetary concerns of profit.

Ocean farms could be a thing of the future. We could use airplanes specifically for this, if we can responsibly manage our energy discoveries. Maybe its all the big explosions in movies that warn me constantly of this, but Fukushima; the mutated flowers in my front yard; Chernobyl and many of the very real disasters of today are based on the premise of very expensive endeavors of killing at war. Rackets of imaginary fiat floats imaginary debts of future generations in monetary slavery. Debts to what? Metal overlords who won’t give me a job unless I use metal to kill? That doesn’t sound very promising as a plan for sustaining the planet. Rather than devote that time to weaponry and a huge game of election fraud, we could at least consider what we might do differently with our tech.

What was it Isaiah says about melting our swords into plowshares? If you think this whole system is about power, you are correct, but probably not how you think. The work that any individual does is directly dependent on experiences of the past. Giving each other positive experiences (especially since many of us claim immigrant origins of occupation) is imperative to our survival. Metal itself lends us its power: its all about how we yield it.