Today, while working on a robotics related article, I found myself thinking on “Why the hell they are talking to us about economical stability we do not want?”

We, I mean people who try to learn from the life, do we want a stability? I claim, we do not.

Living in Russia, the developing country, I find myself caring at most about the lower bound. Assuming the economics is about people (doubtful statement in fact), I think not the stability matter per se, but the lowest bound.

What is the lowest bound?

Begin defining lower bound: the lower bound is a guaranteed amount of goods one can rely on. Don’t confuse it with basket of goods – the latter is just the market analysis tool. Lower bound is what your country gives you just because you are here, whatever your occupation is.

The lowest bound is the minimum among individual’s lower bounds. (Sorry for the formalism, it is just a tool to express the thoughts.)

In practice, here in Russia, lowest bound is negative, while lower bounds vary a lot – i.e. there are people who have nothing at all but still have to pay, some of them are saint, but nobody cares cause it is not a source of money.

So how should it look like if humankind will eventually survive and radiant future will come?

I hope, the lowest bound will not only be positive, but enough for a living. (Of course it could be living doing nothing, but it’s not the today’s thoughts subject.) Today there is struggle for resources (both human and natural), and, my guess, one of a reasons for this is that resources are being thought of as a facilities. But they are our most valuable assets indeed. Once we will understand this, there will be a light at the end of tunnel.

Well, the lowest bound enough for a everyone’s living seems to be a castle in the air. More realistic and absolutely necessary step we need to take is making the lowest bound for young parents enough for living. This is crucial, critical, absolute must, if we do really want the humankind to continue. The upbringing should be in the uppermost in parents’ mind – not the staying alive, making a little bit more money, paying the bills, watching TV, sheepwalking til death etc.

What we see today is women staying at homes with children are sometimes called a cause of economical failures. Worse is that it’s in some way reasonable. Worst is that in numerous African countries more than 20% of children under five die. It is somewhat abstract when taking a detached view, but imagine your own lovely child among them…

Enough on this today.

So who wants stability? Easily – it is the people talking on that, trying to convince us. Who they are?

1. Lords and masters of today, paralyzed be fear of loosing power.
2. Their spongers.
3. Paranoids.
4. Misled ones – let’s forgive them.
5. Sly ones, who understand the opportunities the change brings, but want to keep them for themselves.

I don’t think it is the right time to engage in the battle, better to find people who understands change and wants to make the world a better place for a living, and go along together.

Leading photo by Richard-

Related posts:

1. Rethinking Education Pt.1: Do We Have a Problem? Millennium Developmental Goals atlas published by World Bank lists achieving...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.