The Great Reset (TGR) is touching on a felt intuition many people share: our systems are in deep need of an overhaul. The question is: shouldn’t we all have a say over the direction we head? Within this conversation of a new society is the advancement of technology and how it is re-shaping what’s possible.
TGR is presenting somewhat of a transhumanistic future. And in this sense people are becoming afraid of technology and where it could lead. But at the same time, technology being embraced in our future seems a necessity to take care of repetitive tasks and give us more time to do what we love. Will our fear of tech hold us back? Do we know how to resist the Great Reset – Or only insult its creators?
Listen To This Episode
Visit our sponsor: https://www.despierta.one/ Use discount code CEPODCAST for 15% off
Join our email list – https://www.collective-evolution.com/ce-insight
I’d love for you to join our membership to support our work, it goes a long way in helping – https://explorerlounge.one/
Transcript
Joe Martino: Well, very welcome to this episode of the Collective Evolution podcast. Today we’re going to talk about, this idea of technophobia. And what I mean by that is how we’re sort of becoming afraid of technology in our modern world based on some of the ways in which technology is used today that may be maybe, not so healthy, maybe used in a way to hijack us or manipulate us, or when we talk about this sort of, what appears to be an ever coming trend of transhumanism off into the future and how in general, this sort of us observing all of this is making us a little bit afraid of technology. Now I say this as an important thing to consider because I do think technology is going to be a very big part of how we move forward as humanity in a meaningful way. And we need to be able to discuss this in a way that sort of embraces the parts of utilizing technology to bring about convenience, that is meaningful, to bring about convenience that is helpful and that allows us to be, and achieve our greatest human potential without necessarily having to go down, the road of, of transhumanism and sort of integrating technology with the physical being. because I do think that it’s very important that we begin to see the value that technology has in so many of the solutions that we have and not just have this, all out, run away from it, point of view. Because when we look at just the way in which our ancestors built technology over the course of time, whether it be machines and tools and ways in which we were able to advance our civilization, technology is an important piece and it has created conveniences that don’t, you know, cause us to have to spend so much time doing the various things in our lives that are required for our survival, like growing food and all these different pieces. We’ve created ways in which we can utilize these things to help us, But it is the case that we’ve maybe taken things a little bit too far and might have to rebalance and look at a way in which we can utilize technology, in a healthier way. And the way I want to start off this conversation as we look for a bit of a nuanced approach to all of this, is to read a piece, ah, from a book. I’m not going to tell you the name of the book yet, but I’m going to read a piece and I want you to see how it feels, see what you think of what’s being read here and how it resonates with you. The, book is or the title of the chapter is called the Way Forward and it says we can only meaningfully address the challenges if we mobilize the collective wisdom of our minds, hearts and souls. To do so, I believe we must adapt, shape and harness the potential of disruption by nurturing and applying four different types of intelligence. Contextual, which is the mind. How we understand and apply our knowledge. Emotional, which is the heart. How we process and integrate our thoughts and feelings and relate to ourselves and to one another. Inspired, which is the soul. How we use a sense of individual and shared purpose, trust and other virtues to affect change and act towards the common good. Physical, the body. How we cultivate and maintain our personal health and well being and that of those around us to be in a position to apply the energy required for both individual and systems transformation. Now the interesting piece to all of this is this sounds all pretty good. And I mean the heart, the mind, the soul, the body. This sounds a lot like the things that, that I’ve presented, a lot of the things that other people that I respect have presented. And you know, when you really look at it, this is from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, written by Klaus Schwab. And there’s some reasons why I find this interesting and I’m going to go to a couple more paragraphs before we talk about this a little bit more deeply. But in these other paragraphs it says in the end it comes down to people, culture and values. Indeed, we need to work very hard to ensure that all citizens across all cultures, nations and income groups understand the need to master the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its civilizational challenges. We can go even further. I firmly believe that the new technology age, if shaped in a responsive and responsible way, can catalyze a new cultural renaissance that will enable us to feel part of something much larger than ourselves, a true global civilization. Now he outlines the problem here. The Fourth Industrial Revolution has the potential to robotize and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning, work, community, family and identity. Or we can use the Fourth Industrial Revolution to lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny. It is incumbent on us all, ah, to make sure that the latter is what happens. So what he’s saying there is that the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its technological advances has the potential to take us into a place where we robotize humanity. And it’s not a good place to go, but we need to make sure that we use it in a way that allows us to, you know, grasp our full potential. And what I find fascinating about this is, you know, when most people are attacking the Great Reset, which I personally, personally do not support, for various reasons, which we will. I will talk about in a second. I feel like I misspoke there a little bit.
00:05:00
Joe Martino: Just to be clear. I do not support the Great Reset and what they are proposing in that plan, as we’ll discover as we continue discussing here. But when they are talking about it, I do not think that they understand the thoughtful nature in which this book is actually written. I picked up this book not to support, you know, Klaus and their whole venture, but to understand the ways in which they are framing these conversations, how they are talking about it. Because a lot of people are going to be tuning into this, and a. A lot of people are going to be reading this kind of stuff. And this is going to inform the way many leaders talk about things. And we need to be able to have a deeper understanding and nuanced understanding of why some of these ideas may not be great. And the only way to get there is to really, actually understand what they’re saying. Now, I want to go to the back of this book for a second and just say, this one last piece, which I find a little bit more troubling. The, fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by new technologies fusing the physical, digital, and biological worlds. This will have impact on all disciplines, economies and industries. Right. So. So what they’re saying here on the back of this is they see a world where we are merging the physical and the digital and the biological world. Right. This is the transhumanistic sort of agenda that is often talked about. And I think these are the areas in which a lot of people are concerned. However, there are a lot of things in this book that are very well thought out, that are very meaningful. They’re solutions that I have put forward for many, many years that other people I respect have put forward. And again, like I say, my concern with this is the vast majority of what I see online attacking Klaus Schwab, attacking the Reset. Seems to me that there is not a really an understanding of what is being talked about here and how many of these ideas are good ideas and how many of them are not good ideas and why they’re not good ideas. So there’s. There’s a lack of being able to explain what the issues are. And the reason why I see this as a problem is because, as I mentioned, a lot of people are going to be tuning into these ideas and hearing about them, and it’s going to excite them because it does seem attractive in A lot of different ways. And when people who are calling out and trying to raise awareness about, you know, the sort of, the negative sides of what is talked about in this book, if the conversation is just, well, Klaus is bad, he’s a psychopath, he’s a villain, you know, he’s this, he’s that, he’s that. And the Great Reset is just built by a bunch of psychopaths. The other side that is curious about this is not going to really take the opposition very seriously. And so I don’t see a whole lot of meaning and value in sort of going on social media and just attacking the Great Reset all the time and attacking Klaus Schwab, but really not putting together a meaningful argument, a nu, A well understood argument as to why some of these ideas are not so good and why when we’re talking about many of the technologies here, there’s ways to frame them in a meaningful way and there’s ways to frame them in a not so meaningful way. But without that sort of nuanced understanding, I don’t see how we have meaningful conversations moving forward. Because there are a lot of things in here that I don’t think we can avoid. They are coming, they’re, you know, they’re moving forward. And I think they are good. But we need to be able to talk about that in a meaningful way. And when I think about the way sort of people would describe, if I said, you know, have you even read this book, you know, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, to understand what it is that you dislike about, you know, the Great Reset, I would, I would imagine that 90, 95% of people have not read it. And I think they, this is why they sort of have the same feeling about Noah Yuval Harari, which is a guy that, you know, is seen a lot on the World Economic Forum, who actually, if you read his books and if you look at he has been talking about for a very, very long time, he is, he is concerned about the future and the nature of where humanity is going when it comes to technology. And he is, he’s been trying to warn people that this idea of integrating our, of our, technology with our bodies is coming. And there’s Silicon Valley and there’s interested individuals who are, who are pushing this forward and we can’t really avoid it. But is this really what we want? Are we ready to embrace a humanity that is so far beyond everything that we know now, and how do we arm ourselves with the ethical responsibilities to navigate this? He’s a very thoughtful individual with the way that he talks about this, yet the way I see him framed and the way even people I deeply respect, the way they’re talking about this guy is as if he’s a psychopath and he’s a terrible individual. And I can’t speak for every single quotation that Noah Yuval Harari has put out there because I haven’t seen them all. But from a number of them that I have seen, from aspects of his books that I’ve read and from different talks that I’ve heard him give, it doesn’t seem like he is, like I am the front runner pushing forward the Great Reset. It’s more so he’s saying, hold on a second. There’s ways in which we have to talk about these technologies in a meaningful way. Because, you know, I’m. I’m kind of concerned about the directions that some of these things can go. And we need to be careful. Right? And it’s interesting that there are a lot of people that simply by Yuval being, you know, associated with Klaus and the Great Reset, he’s automatically evil and bad. And, this is the type of thinking that I don’t think is helpful. And that why I’m doing this episode is to sort of bring notice to this and to sort of talk about when we are looking at a
00:10:00
Joe Martino: humanity moving forward and we’re thinking about how can we embrace technology and not be afraid of it. One thing I want us to hold is this idea of imagine movies like Star Trek. Imagine movies like Star Wars. These imaginative sort of futures where we can have a beautiful world where we’re coalescing and we’re doing meaningful things together. Where technology is advanced and is making things very, very simple for us and very easy and very, expanding our human potential so that we can do things that we really care about and love. But we’re not necessarily losing what it means to be human at a biological level. Yet we’ve embraced the deeper aspects of what is possible within the human organic potential. Things like telepathy, things like having deep sort of sensations and feelings that we can connect with different people in more meaningful ways. And we can, we can feel our emotions and we can embrace them and navigate them in more meaningful ways, as opposed to sort of being numb and out of touch and out of tune, which is very much where our organic body is in our modern world, modern stressed out world is right now. So I kind of want us to see that these movies and these shows that have been out there is a kind of future that is Possible where we maintain our humanistic sort of organic capacities, but we expand the innate potential, and we allow technology to run alongside us and support us in that, as opposed to merging the two together in a way that may completely change what it means to be human. I think that is a very meaningful conversation to have, but I don’t know that we’re having that conversation in a meaningful way. And as I mentioned before, I’m seeing a lot of people asking questions online, curious people that come from, say, reading this book or listening to some, you know, collective, Or, sorry, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs that are talking about, you know, neuralink and these different ideas and interested people are coming in, and they’re being attacked online by people who are, oh, that’s the Great Reset. That’s transhumanistic nonsense. That’s this, that’s that. And it’s all just attacking and fighting. And then the people are saying, yeah, but explain to me what you mean. Like, why is this dangerous? Why is this bad? Please, like, educate me. I’m curious. I want to know your thoughts. And nobody can explain why they think the Great Reset is bad or why they think Klaus is bad. They just. They can call names, they can say mean things, they can, you know, throw all these pejoratives around, but they don’t have a decent understanding or a deeper understanding of what’s going on. And. And, what this is doing is breaking down communication, and it’s breaking down a meaningful dialogue, and it’s pushing these people over here, and these people stay over here. And my proposition is we need to start to embrace these conversations in a more meaningful way so we can come together. And that’s. I think that’s a big, big piece to this entire thing. So what I want to do is kind of talk, a little bit about how when we. When we think about our phones, when we think about our laptops, when we think about the way we use these technologies, it’s very easy to sort of see them as the way they’ve hijacked us, the way we get so lost in our phones. And I do think that there is a balance that we need to sort of embrace a little bit more, where maybe we set our phone down for hours at a time and not engage with it, or we, you know, take time away from our laptops and so on and so forth. Once, a week, at least, where we can have the whole day where we’re not connecting with it, maybe we can go large periods of time throughout the week where we’re not engaging with our technology as a, you know, connected to our hand, essentially this is all important. I’m 100% on board with that. However, these things carry incredible potential for us as a planet of 7 billion people. Even for smaller communities of a thousand people, even when you get up to larger communities of say 30 or 50,000 people, there’s a deep amount of potential in us to engage with our existing systems. Now I know a lot of people oftentimes bring forth the idea that hey, if we created a community over here and we were just took 100 people and we went and created this off grid community and we just left technology behind and we left humanity behind and we just did our thing and we, we could thrive and this is the way forward. And I see that as sure, if that’s something you feel like, that’s great. I personally have always felt that I could do that. But I would want to share the model, the experience of what’s happening in that community with the world to inspire them, to help them to see what else is possible. And what better way to share that than to use our laptop and our phones and our computers and YouTube to show people these possibilities and to communicate with them. Because if we go into this sort of little pocket over here in this community and we’re all just in there and we’re not connected to, to the outside world nor sharing this potential, the reality is, is we’re connected to everybody. we’re on the same planet, we’re sharing the planet. And yeah, you may be able to live out the rest of your life, you know, there, but what about the future generations? We live in a society right now that is very destructive to the earth. soil quality, water quality, food quality, air quality, all of it is breaking down within the ways that we’re doing things. And how long can you run in that community before it starts to affect you, right? Before it starts to affect maybe the next generation. And me personally, I’ve always been deeply connected to the idea of the collective, of coming up with solutions where we all move forward. And not just necessarily me going and creating a little
00:15:00
Joe Martino: community over here and then shutting out everybody else, that’s fine. I’m not saying there’s anything against that, but I believe it is important that these ideas spread. Right? And technology helps us spread these ideas. So in that small example, there’s a meaningful way in which we can embrace our phones, we can embrace the platforms that are out there which act as town squares to share these ideas in a meaningful way. We’re. We have to accept the invitation on Instagram or the invitation on YouTube to go down these algorithmically designed rabbit holes. They don’t just say, oh, yeah, hey, you know, by opening your app, you have to go down the rabbit hole. You have to scroll infinitely forever. No, we have awareness. When we know that these algorithms are trying to game us, we have the ability to step out of it and say, no, I’m not going there. Right. And this is why I talked about a lot in the social media episode a few episodes back is, yes, these, these plays on hijacking our mind and hijacking our emotions are there, but with awareness, we can make a different choice. So now we see that we can also use these technologies in a way that is more ethical, responsible, or in a way that is healthier for us. And it’s not necessarily about just shutting them out forever. now I want to talk about something that is very important, to me that I found. I did not know this existed. This came across my attention when I was, thinking about an episode of the podcast, actually, that I did way back in 2017. I interviewed a gentleman, who was part of the Yellow Vest movement in France. And, he talked to me about this idea of referendum initiated by the citizen. And what this was was that if, for example, you were in a country or, you know, a local community, and there was an issue that everybody was really passionate about, and they wanted it to be put to a vote for the citizens to have a say over what happens with that issue. So it’s not just the political leaders in their administration who are going to make a decision. The citizens have a direct say over that issue. The idea of referendum initiated by the citizen would be that if 5% of people responded to a vote saying, yes, I want to send this to a referendum, it would immediately trigger a referendum in, say, 30, 40 or 50 days, whatever it might be, and everybody would have a vote on what’s going on. I said, hey, that’s a great idea. I really, really like this. This. This connects with a lot of the values and principles that I have. But there are challenges with it, right? Which is how is everybody educated on that issue? How do we know that everybody’s getting meaningful information to make a good decision about that issue? Because, you know, so much of the media all over the place is very, political. It’s either, you know, left ideology, right ideology, maybe it’s libertarian ideology. There’s ideologies all over the place that. That may be selectively taking facts and Sharing them with their audience. And not everybody gets a full fledged, you know, understanding of what’s going on. Therefore, what is the value of a vote if a person’s uneducated on the issue? Right? So I saw issues with that and I said, well, how could we, how could we come up with a solution? And I started playing in my mind with a lot of things. And when I came across V. Taiwan, as a solution, I was like, holy crap, this is so much of what I had thought about. But they’ve done it. You know, I gotta be honest, in a way that it’s very impressive. it’s very practical and it works. And guess what? It’s built on technologies and it embraces the idea that we have our phones, that we have laptops, that we have access to this stuff so that we can make very meaningful and important impactful decisions on our society. Now what V. Taiwan is, is it’s an experimental, it’s an experiment that prototypes an open consultation process for the entire society to engage in rational discussion on national issues. The V. Taiwan process consists of four successive stages. Proposal, opinion, reflection and legislation, supported by a selection of collaborative open source engagement tools. So what it’s essentially saying is that they’re bringing together meaningful discussion and then allowing people to move through a process to then vote on an issue. And they’ve had some great successes in the past. Something having to do with privacy and images. I, think, you know, it’s meaningful for you to go to the website and kind of look at what they’ve done. they’ve helped regulate Uber in their area in a very meaningful way. That, that didn’t necessarily require the government to have all the say, but the citizens could really be part of the process. it was very crowdsourced, which is again, I think a very exciting part to this. But, the process is essentially utilizing at various stages of the process when they’re collecting people’s opinions, when they’re educating people on the totality of the issue. Not just, you know, hey, here’s a, you know, just one version of the issue, or here’s a government approved version of the issue, right? This is people coming together, regular citizens being able to say, here’s all the facts we need to consider, plus, let’s have your say, let you raise a whole bunch of comments that get synthesized into an understanding so that everybody has kind of a say and we can understand how each other is interpreting in this issue and what it means for them and what values and what principles it touches for them. And this allows us to sort of come closer together and really, really understanding ourselves and each other when it comes to issues versus what’s happening
00:20:00
Joe Martino: today, which is so many issues are just framed to people, and the only understanding and framing they have of an issue is their political orientation or their favorite, you know, sort of commentator who’s talking about an issue. And so you left with people miles apart, not understanding where they actually connect and overlap on issues, but instead with this process, you’re allowing people to come together in a more meaningful and heartfelt way, which I think is very important, because over time, I think that’s going to, you know, sort of release divisions while allowing us to be different and while allowing us to have different ideas and different principles, but keeping us much closer together with those differing principles and ideas, as opposed to being very, very, very far apart. Believing that we can never connect because we have different beliefs. Right. Which. Which I do not believe to be true. And I think this is a. A part of a cultural revolution that needs to happen to some extent. But when you look at V. Taiwan and what they’re doing at various stages, they utilize existing technologies and existing platforms like discourse, Gitbook, SlideShare, type form, YouTube, a messaging platform that I’m not sure which one it is. Live house.in sli.do so this is these various platforms that are sort of helping to take care of all of the stages of this direct democracy process without necessarily, having to go and build this very, very expensive underlying system. Right. Because that would obviously be a limitation. It would be very expensive to do. Instead, they’re embracing what’s already there. Platforms that people would view as extremely negative, like YouTube, for example. Right. Utilizing these platforms in a way that is meaningful, taking a new approach to them. Right now, I’m not saying that, you know, hey, it’s not meaningful to still go create and use Rumble and blah, blah, blah, blah. What I’m saying is that if we change the frame in which we look at a lot of these technologies, whether it’s our phones, laptops, YouTube, whatever it might be, it’s not that it’s necessarily the platform itself that is the problem, but the way it’s being used, the way it’s being controlled, the way it’s being hijacked, and the way we are sort of being gamed by them, but it, but we can actually take a step back and we can utilize these technologies in a different and more meaningful way. And I think V. Taiwan is a great Example of how that’s happening and to me was a very inspiring way of allowing people to have a direct say over what is going on by embracing the technology around them. And now imagine if, for example, you were to take a system like this and you were to start sort of looking at something like ubi. quick note, by UBI I mean Universal Basic Income, right? Which is a thing that is very controversial and people have very different issues on. And when people imagine, for example, that automation, which, automation usually goes hand in hand with this discussion of ubi, right? If so many of our jobs are being automated, which I personally think should happen because so many of the jobs in our society are make work projects that are built there because we have a system that requires us to work constantly just to survive, right? So automation would take care of so many of these, various things that, that are making us work for no particular reason other than just to survive in this world. And it would give us time as an opportunity to now do things that we really love and enjoy. It would afford us more time to explore our potential, our gifts, our nature, or the things that we really, really love and not just have to work constantly, but with automation in our existing system. You then have this question of UBI to sort of make things, sort of move along so everybody can still be a cog in the system to some extent. I can see the negative nature there that could occur where now government is basically, you know, keeping you on ubi so you have just enough money to survive kind of moving forward, but you’re still got to work all the time and you don’t really have the freedom to really do a lot of things. because we’re still existing within this system. And I can see how UBI can be used in a way in which that could, that could actually enslave people to some extent. However, imagine UBI used in a way where we said, okay, we have this, this direct democratic system that is free of corporate influence, that is free of political manipulation, that allows the people, the stakeholders of thrivability in humanity to come together and actually work things out together. Now imagine we propose, say, hey look, we exist in a current economic system today that is a mess, right? And it’s not really allowing us to thrive. What if we had a five or ten year plan? I don’t know, I’m just making things up as I go along for a second here. But we had a five or ten year plan where we said, look for us to move from our existing economy to one where hey, maybe we don’t need money as a motivation to move forward. Maybe we can find ways of utilizing our resources and not compete with each other, but just move forward in a different way. There’s been many economic models that have been proposed that fall way beyond the confines of socialism and communism and all these various isms that people get really, really caught up in that doesn’t allow them to see the potential that truly exists on this planet. But, but imagine we had this system and we said, hey, five years, we would use UBI
00:25:00
Joe Martino: as a way for us to say we can transition ourselves out of our existing system in a non chaotic way. Utilizing UBI to get to a point five years later where hey, we wouldn’t even need it and we’d have a different economic system altogether. What do you think of that? And we’d be able to talk about this, we’d be able to engage with this. And perhaps instead of having people like we do today who their, their only way of looking at it is, you know, UBI is 100% bad and negative because it’s going to create government reliance. And that person would now have an opportunity to say that and other people would be able to come back and say, look, I can see how that could go. But remember, this system is allowing us as a people to have a say. And if the world that we want to create is not about, you know, just having this 100% government reliance, but we’re using it as a transitionary step to move forward, how then could you see UBI as a potentially good thing? Right? And maybe the people can start to see that and maybe they open up and they expand their mind and their ability to start to see how these, tech, these technologies, these ideas and utilizing technology to bring about these ideas can actually create a better situation for us all. What we’re noticing there is this spirit in which citizens have to engage with a system like V. Taiwan, but also engage with conversations around various ideas of how we’re going to move forward. Forward has to be that of we’re trying to create a better situation for everybody, not just shit on and shoot down any idea that comes along that you know what this just sounds like, you know, something I heard in the Great Reset. And it’s bad, and I don’t know why it’s bad and I can’t explain why it’s bad other than to say that, you know, this would have pure government reliance. But what about the nuances of what if it was used temporarily? What if it was used to Free us for, a short period of time from a very enslaving economic system, which is what we have today. Now we can converse on those ideas. Now we can bring together the spirit of actually having these conversations in a meaningful way with a backdrop of utilizing technologies that empowers citizens to actually have a say over what’s going on. And not just, you know, hey, trust us. Trust the elite people who are putting forth the fourth Industrial Revolution. Of course, people aren’t going to trust them because for so long there’s been directions that are not connected to, the people. Right. So this is a process of creating a people that is more engaged in a particular system. But you’re seeing, as we start proposing this idea and seeing what’s possible here with technology, that there’s a bit of a cultural enlightenment that has to take place within us where we begin to actually want to, in the spirit of connecting with each other, figure out where we can go and set aside this constant attack. Political side versus political side, ideology versus ideology, the left versus the right, and always wanting to meme and attack and make fun of the opposite side. Right. I get the spirit of it is fun sometimes, but what is it really doing? Is it meaningful? Is it helping us? Is it moving us forward? I don’t think it is. Right. And so it’s very simple to go online and to shit on Klaus Schwab and to say that the Great Reset is terrible. But there are many, many things within the discussion here that are going to be the same solutions that will actually move humanity forward. We need to have a responsible and ethical way of looking at them and a meaningful way of talking about them, such that we can come to synthesis and not just fight with each other and say silly things. Right. So the challenge here is, can we have this cultural enlightenment that allows us to explore these technologies in a meaningful way and not be so afraid of them and not be so afraid of the people behind them. But to say, how come we as a citizenry embrace these things in a better way and not just see it as just because it exists, it is negative. so I think that’s a big thing, because after all, I mean, something like neuralink, humanity can draw the line and say, you know what? I don’t want to put this in my body, but for that person over there who’s paralyzed, this could give them the ability to walk again. You know, do you really want to say to that person that, no, because neuralink exists, it’s a hundred percent bad? And Elon Musk is a psychopath. But that person over there could walk again. What do we think of that? How do we feel about that? What does that mean to that person who might be able to walk again that really does want to walk again? Right. Can we really just turn around and say no? These are tough questions, right? But things we have to consider and look at in a meaningful way and not in a all out. I just got to attack and be angry at people. Right? now I want to talk about energy within the context, of this because we have energy systems. And this is going to drive home my final point. I’ve seen energy technologies, I’ve seen various solutions that absolutely blow out of the water. What we’re doing with fossil fuels, what we’re doing with wind and solar and all these different things blows it out of the water. This puts us, humanity in a position that would allow us to have, I’m not going to say unlimited, because I haven’t seen those particular technologies myself, but would have access to energy that costs virtually nothing to produce and provides a boatload of energy. These things can be connected in series. You can build them up. There’s huge, huge, huge potential here. I’ve been with investors, I’ve been with very powerful people. I’ve
00:30:00
Joe Martino: been with engineers, seeing these technologies firsthand, vetting them, watching them be tested. They work. I have friends who have been working in this industry for quite some time in the new energy movement and they’ve vetted technologies, they exist. I know a lot of people want to say, ah, it doesn’t exist. it’s all bullshit, it’s all unicorns. I get that there’s been a lot of hoaxers out there, but 5% of these devices that are out there are real and do work and do exist, right? So this potential is there, but they are suppressed. And I often wonder, given the way humanity is right now, right, Given the way our incentive structures of our systems are, the way we are constantly warring with and fighting with each other and constantly trying to dominate and one up each other. Right? Which is something we embrace. We connect with this idea when we look at our systems. And if we had these technologies come forth, how would we use them? How would humanity as a whole use these technologies? Would we use it to free each other, to allow ourselves to explore our potential and to utilize automation and ways of creating food and water resources and, you know, good soil and all these sorts of things in a good way that helps lift up everybody in humanity? Or would we use it in a way that creates more weapons, creates more surveillance, creates more, you know, hey, I just want to mine Bitcoin for my own riches, right? In which ways would we use, utilize this? Would we go as a single humanity from the standpoint of we understand that we share this planet and that we, we are connected in some way, shape or form, whether we like it or not? Would we go forward together or would we be still trying to war against each other? And oftentimes I feel that because these technologies would give humanity this opportunity to just dominate each other at a whole new level, I believe that there’s some sense of collective intelligence, something non material, something beyond what we understand to some extent that is sort of holding back humanity until we kind of come to this space where as beings, as people, we have a deeper level of connection to ourselves, to each other, to love, to this ability to hold these technologies and steward them in a meaningful and ethical way so that it’s not just dominating each other with these technologies, but when we’re going to bring an entirely new worldview and way of living together to hold these technologies and be with these technologies and so the suppression of it. Sometimes I think that’s a piece to the puzzle, that’s a piece to the story. It’s up to you to decide. But the call here is to take this more nuanced and, and deeper understanding and this spirit of commitment to exploring what can tech, how can technologies be used to bring us together to free humanity from things? And how can we train, transition from the ways in which our world is living today to a more meaningful world with humans and citizens engaged in this process and not being afraid of different propositions and solutions because it sounds like it comes from the great Reset. But how can we explore these ideas and these solutions in a way that can be framed, that’s meaningful? And instead of just saying, well, they exist, so they’re bad, how can we see them as a possibility and a dream for us to move forward in a more meaningful way? What state of being do we have to hold within ourselves to be able to approach things with that level of curiosity, respect, and you know, sort of interest in wanting to connect? I think when we do that, we will begin to have more meaningful conversations and we will be able to have a better direction as to how we bring about what’s going to happen. People talk about resisting the great, the Great Reset and the fourth Industrial Revolution. My thing is the greatest resistance is going to be us upping our ability to understand what’s going on, our ability to communicate not just resort to calling names and talking shit all the time, but to actually being able to explore these things in a meaningful way and dream about them and understand how we can move forward and be engaged in this process in an intelligent way. That, that is communicative and it comes from a good spirit. So that’s pretty well I want to talk about with this particular episode. I think there’s a lot to sort of think about here. By, all means, go check out V. Taiwan. I think it’s very interesting. Read the Fourth Industrial Revolution if you haven’t. Not to support Klaus, but to actually understand, like what are these people putting forward so we can have an intelligent conversation about it. and at the same time, if you haven’t reviewed this podcast, whether it be on Spotify, on itunes or whatever it might be, please do so. It’s helpful for me. It’s meaningful. It gets the podcast out there a little bit further. and share this podcast podcast with somebody else. You know, bring, bring these conversations to people in a way that obviously we’re in a world where there’s a ton of noise as we talked about in previous episodes. There’s a ton of just radical views and everybody’s fighting with each other about their perspectives. But I think the more energy and the more spirit we put into having balanced, more nuanced, more meaningful conversations that are calm and well thought out, that allow us to experience what we feel and move forward in a meaningful way, the more we put energy and attention towards that, the more that’ll grow. Right. As opposed to just these hardcore sort of, highly radicalized and political extreme positions. But, that’s
00:35:00
Joe Martino: that’s it, that’s all. Thanks so much for watching. I hope you enjoyed the show. As always, I want to thank the members of the Explore Lounge who are helping us to continue doing this work. If you want to support this podcast and all of the work we do here at the Pulse and Collective Evolution, consider becoming a member of our Explorer Lounge. As a member, you get access to exclusive video content. You can watch all of these episodes ad free, and you get access to our private social network where you can discuss and learn about many topics with a like minded community of change makers. It’s truly an incredible place to be. Not just for the benefits that you get, but you’re directly supporting our dedicated team here at Collective Evolution and the pulse. Visit Explore Lounge 1 that’s dot one to learn more.
