Olay Vs Loreal Vs Garnier

The planet Gaia and their futures. Employment

James Lovelock in 1969 enacted its theory of the existence of the earth as a system called Gaia, a living system.

Now, we understand perfectly that broke the barrier in 1969. Now consider what we do in the world affects the whole planet. It is a logical situation and accepted.

understand perfectly that Gaia has to be an ecosystem systems that act like any other body.

All this I understand. But what are the future for Gaia? Could the future? "Several future?

begin assessing reality. A system that only has the option to make a decision is facing two futures: one in which the decision and another in which no decision is made. Both situations may generate future the same or different depending on other parameters. But there are now two possibilities, not just one, so there in the moment before making a possible decision two possible futures.

Gaia, as a body, should live according to their body and mind. Yes, there are many distinctions about what is a mind in all species, some more evolved than others, but have minds. So, Gaia, do you think?, Do you mind?

If we consider that the parties beings or individuals within Gaia is the entire body, we understand that each cell acts like a great system Gaia. Where we put the mind?

back a bit. A person has a conscience, a group of people united socially create emotional bonds, economic, social, etc. Are linked. Therefore, the action of one of the individuals driving the response of other individuals, and thus, they activate individual to individual fields of action a social group. Together they create a social movement that could be called as initial axiom or cultural link, so we could understand the cultural nexus as the established culture in some individuals. Each culture would (under this concept) an initial axiom or be "culture" to understand it as an entity that generates thought.

Viewed this way, each to be "culture" is a part of the thought of Gaia, each to be "culture" is one of the possible future of Gaia. Or all future.

currently disquisitions enter more mundane. If we understand that "cultural beings" define the movement of ideas within Gaia, we understand the relationships between each of the "cultural beings" affects Gaia's emotional performance.

Thus, the relationships between different cultures are evidence of the future that awaits Gaia.

But there is a disquisition on this. The world is not divided into "cultural beings", the world is divided by borders, and this marks the performances of the "cultural beings." The existence of borders causes the continuing struggle for the maintenance or improvement of the status of borders through each of the "cultural beings." Clashes. Forces clash within the mind of Gaia. Ultimately violent future.

However, understanding the relationship between "cultural beings" could be cumulative, cooperative, entendemiento and cooperation, gradually dissipated the need to maintain boundaries, the need to maintain power for control of territory.

But it is not easy. There are "cultural beings" (if you really believe that there are) stronger and more weak, you have to die with his last cell (or person), and some that are born through the union of different cultures and their mix .

The "cultural beings" are not destructive, however, the cells that compose it may be more destructive in some than in others. But make no mistake, look where the spring is active destructive phase in the cells, look for why a cell changes its behavior, find out what caused your negative. Thus, cells can return to their natural state positive. More difficult is to get a "culture be" re-establish its pre-war status. But not impossible.

So why the "cultural beings" face? Why borders? Protected from being menacing threat.

If we could eliminate, or better, go sifting and dissolving boundaries, the "cultural beings" would lose the need to threaten at all costs. If "cultural beings" is more lively mix will break boundaries and dispel the threat, no need for destruction neighbor.

So what would be achieved with the elimination of borders? Sorry, rephrase the question: what would be achieved with the elimination of nationalism? Cultural mix, new "cultural beings" with new future.

If nationalism were disappearing, cultures of all peoples would gain, the Gaia system would no longer face an uncertain future and, quite possibly, humans begin to live without war. The

nationalism are the past and present, are a source of wars. Preparing for a nationalism is to prepare for a future war. Debate is to succumb to the threat or threat.

The future is a mixture, the future is the people, the future society.

: ·) elferrer 09/03/2010

Record Propellerhead Craigslist Ca

, the bitter side of governments

create societies governments to achieve common goals for all citizens: to live. Make no mistake, the companies do not create governments for war but peace.

Therefore, the cost on citizens to be left to govern: to assume defeat, to negotiate life. Today

no government bankruptcy. I'm bold, I know. To begin we must understand what the government rather than treasure, after that, we can assess your situation.

The evolution of societies has been marking as the power has been stabilizing and anchoring through one of the most immutable properties exist today: the gold. Thus, there is collective awareness that "money" (gold currency) is the foundation of society and state, in short, the tool of governments.

Since children have learned to value our possessions, we know that when we borrow and we can not return it we are doomed to oblivion and disappearance, social death. And under this premise we all parameters with which we assess our environment and actions.

So why governments fail? Why not get out of his supposed final crisis?

will have to attend several parameters, the first money. Governments are fuzzy entities (although unfortunately there are usually always the same faces) designed to survive all disasters. They must buy their survival as individuals, but not with the same currency as the latter. Governments buy their survival money. They must keep the system afloat monetary bankruptcy, how to get there to the extent of the crisis and even a little more, to come out stronger. Monetary relations are really simple: there are individuals with little money and financial markets are a lot of money. Governments should ensure that only the balance is always in favor of financial markets, adding their coffers.

The flow of money must be kept from the bottom (low purchasing power) up (financial markets), thus creating a steady flow of money in little hands. It is not that bad or good, but it has a little problem: the gold of the planet is limited. Therefore, maintaining the current down / up the money at the rate which the company can generate profits do go bankrupt social system (understood as all citizens and not as a system of government.) To get to the root of the problem we must understand how it survives the money in the hands of citizens or the financial markets.

begin at the bottom. People in their environment generate social stability (and I said that people need to be living socially), create a stable and secure environment on their terms (cultural factors involved here), once established social environment safely, is when evolve to the next point. At this point social being becomes a being a consumer, which activates the society through the exchange of goods. People engaged in a movement in society, that is the basis of an active and without crisis.

and above. Financial markets need to hoard money. Its structure is maintained with the flow of money. Having money is not his destiny. The fate of the financial markets is always cumulative. Financial markets do not spend, do not buy. Financial markets use markets to draw from them social benefits, income. Even charge for their action to reap the benefits of society. But all legal huh? No censorship, no drugs, no money laundering, corruption-free planning, without ecological bankruptcy. All legal, again. As I was saying, having money is not his destiny, his destiny is to have the entire market. Therefore, the need for the market (the money is only the tool) should maintain control of the tools (money) and not lose control of it. This can only be achieved in one way: remove the money from the social flow. When one gram of gold falls hands of the financial market and does not return to "down" to the underworld of people.

At this point I can finish the approach: the social crisis is determined by the loss of benefits in people, this implies an excess of profit in financial markets, a enquilosamiento of power in few hands. No retreat. The output of the social crisis disappears just as society itself is capable of self-generating a new feasible to generate profits. Financial markets are not those who do, are simple people, these people like the reader who only understand to survive.

And now we come to governments. I was saying earlier that governments are not in crisis. I know that all (Or nearly all) are already hands on the head (crazy!). Governments are not marketed with money. Governments marketed with human lives. Governments sell life and its benefits. A government's hands are nothing but ignorant voters, cannon fodder, mob, in short: the pen from which to draw benefits.

A government hands are a raw material, yes, with power to create profit.

Knowing that we are a raw material, the government is left alone to get the most benefit from it. Interestingly, the more feeds the machine that runs the government (officials) is less resistance to social brokenness. So the more "socialist" is a more controlled society has the forces of change. But make no mistake, the more "capitalist" more control you have over the citizens' purchasing power. Thus, both extremes are detrimental to the evolution of a balanced society for citizens.

We find the average.

and employment, governments can not control the job because successful sacrifice by citizens, success through financial markets. And sooner or later, financial markets, engulf the employment benefits that keep moving.

If there is money in the hands of citizens is employment, if the money is moving to monopolies, corporations, ultimately, into the financial markets, then it destroys jobs.

government's currency (as we know) are people. Governments are not in crisis because they still have to create a corral full benefits.

The crisis is in every single citizen. The government only tries to allowing people into the corral.

: ·) elferrer 09/01/2010