My wife's tolerance for me is very nearly infinite. I have very few outlets for my work, thinking, rambling, etc..., as a result I tend to belch my thoughts to her on the way to work or over coffee in the mornings (like this morning). Every once in a while she reaches her max. carrying capacity and fires back. The other day thats what happened and it is a event that I cherish as it usually results in a valuable epiphany. I was going on to her about the potential for the Pyramid Theory to allow us to better plan our future for greater stability and growth and she suddenly said (paraphrased) "If you remove the capstone, the pyramid will be far more stable. The bottom layers would then rule politically in a perfect democracy, instead of a Representative congress the people will vote on all issues via technology. You should then create controls that limit the personal wealth that one individual can accumulate so as to distribute wealth better." This makes a great deal of sense from a number of different angles. First, in a true democracy the voters are the congress (and the senate, for that matter). The sole reason for a Representative government is that it is, or rather, was, impossible to gather up the entire voting population every morning to deal with the day's issues. Technology is rapidly making that excuse a lame one. We're not there yet, but soon. Second, Wealth is, regardless of your politics, essentially community property. Personal wealth (read "possessions") are highly limited and consist of primarily better things. Oops, there go's that technology thing again, with each passing day the level of wealth needed to acquire sophisticated material possessions that ease and automate life, provide access to advanced medical care and higher education comes farther down the economic pyramid. In fact, it is the natural trend of capitalism and a mass, free market economy to increase the potential market for these goods and services in order to generate future profits. Competition yields the increasing level of technology available by forcing companies to better each other in order to compete in the marketplace. 200 years ago, servants where the hallmark of wealth as they eased the process of fine, well appointed meals, busy schedules, and properly cared for houses. Within ten years Sony will be competing with General Electric in the domestic robot market. Beyond personal wealth which only has value in that which it provider's us the rest is socio-economic wealth and that is community property. Remember enron? Yes, I understand that the stock market gives us all a fair chance to "own" the means of production. But the value of that is lost when a small cadre of individuals control the fundamentals and decisions that control the market, therefor controlling the value of our ownership. And by the way, it IS non-voting membership, remember?

The conversation that lead to this was in relation to another project of mine a book that I'm working on tentatively titled "EVO" that deals with the next 200 years of human history. I truly believe that we will either fail completely (as a society) or achieve a long-term golden age. Our "pyramid" is not very stable or strong. Without that we will not be able to withstand the stresses of the acceleration of the future. Personally, I believe that 50's political thinking is legacy and poisonous. We must be prepared to build the systems that are needed to build a truly sustainable civilization, not just one with an infinite energy supply. No gas tank is big enough to move a car without a motor.