Here the reader may counter by asking "How on Earth can one rightfully attach ethical attributes of 'good' or 'bad' and 'right' and 'wrong' to production and consumption, since both are essential to the sustenance of life?" Well, we would indeed not have to subject production and consumption to labels of morality, if today money were not the sole connecting link between the two. We have a case here of special interests emerging on the horizon of our duality, which, without the element of money, could not make their appearance. The special interests we are talking about are shareholders of big business and corporations on one hand and environmentalists on the other.



The shareholders and owners of industry say: "We need maximum production to guarantee for ourselves maximum profits!", and then they proceed to set up industries that are feeding upon themselves in an atrociously wasteful manner in order to keep "dividends" on "investments" flowing in. Factories are being built to manufacture weapons of war for destructive purposes, because (they say) unless we "consume" (destroy) what we build, we cannot profit, and unless we have waste (excessive consumption) we cannot maximize the return on our "investment".

Consequently under this program the natural resources of this planet are plundered in a big way to keep as many people "employed" for maximum production. Production is being made an end in itself, for the rules in this particular game dictate no requirement for anybody to benefit from its consumption process.

If the consumption of a hand grenade constitutes its split second explosion and in its course is ripping off a soldier's arm, then by the rules of industrialists and their investors that is acceptable, because that particular type of consumption has generated "profit" not only directly at the manufacturing level of the grenade, but it also has created another opportunity for more profit at the point of its "consumption" (explosion) when it ripped off the soldier's arm where it necessitated doctor's care and hospital facilities, the latter creating another opportunity for more profits by industries creating and running hospitals and medical centers.

Obviously the money link between production and consumption allows for no consideration of what is "ethical" or "proper" in the process, but rather of what makes profit and what does not. Wanton destruction of property, whether induced by man through warfaring among nations or natural catastrophes, all is looked upon as opportunity for profit by the owners of our industries, since all destruction is ultimately nothing but consumption.

Is it any wonder then, that our garbage dumps are overflowing and industrial waste is killing this planet? Not at all. The three percent of humanity's population owning and controlling 97% of humanity's property are not at all concerned about ecological implications on mother Earth stemming from plunder for profit. In an environment where production for profit is made an end in itself without regard to consumption with ethics, the destruction of all life off the face of this planet is a natural consequence.



And this is where the environmentalists come in! Not, that the investor and owner of industry is "bad" and the environmentalist is "good", but we merely happen to find both parties' interests at the extreme ends of our economy spectrum.

The environmentalist means well in his endeavours. Our world would truly be a better place if we had no atomic explosions, no nuclear power plants, alternate energy forms and no toxic pollution problems. However, his endeavours toward "preservation of our ecological balance" would, if globally enforced, create an enormous economic imbalance, the negative effects of which not even he himself would be able to escape, as long as he remains compelled to survive under existing rules of economics, i.e. the rules of income and expenses in terms of dollars and cents. And how would he create such an economic imbalance in which he would find himself victimized? The dramatic shutdown of every facet of industry and commerce producing pollution and waste would effectively eliminate the employment opportunities of 70% of our work force, resulting in an instant economic collapse and anarchy, for there does not as yet exist an alternative to our financial ways of doing business, which still states: "He who will not work for money shall also not eat!"

But who of the two is closer to the truth? We believe the environmentalist! Only that he has yet to learn that an emotionally healthy society can indeed look after its own consumption needs without money as an exchange medium!