Watch the video presentation here.
MEGAN BEETS: Welcome. Today is June 18th, 2014. My name is Megan Beets, and Mr. LaRouche is not able to join us today, so I am joined in the studio by Cody Jones and Ben Deniston of the LaRouche PAC Science Team.
So, today, we're going to continue our discussion from past weeks of the dominance of the human mind over the Solar System, the galaxy and beyond, as the basis for mankind's future. Now, just to set the context for of the discussion, we are now sitting in a political period, which is characterized over the past days, by a completely dramatic and very dangerous escalation of the assault by the British Empire against civilization, and this is on two fronts, in an desperate attempt to maintain the power of their system over the globe. And we see this, number 1, in the financial meltdown, with the escalation of the bail-in policy, which Mr. LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche have been warning the world, will be hitting the trans-Atlantic system. We've seen that in the recent decision of the ECB to implement negative interest rates; we see measures being taken in parliaments across Europe to set a framework for implementing a bail-in policy in countries like Hungary and beyond. We see this in the United States, with the discussion in states across the country of the expropriation of the population via things like the seizing of the pensions of teachers and state workers, and so forth.
Now, the other front, which is escalating very dramatically and gruesomely in the recent days is the unleashing of warfare across the Middle East and parts of Eurasia. And we've seen this, I'm sure our viewers have seen this in the newspaper headlines in the recent days, with the move of the ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, across the border into Iraq, carrying out complete, barbarous attacks, executions and so forth, and this group is now within striking distance of Baghdad. And as was said very publicly yesterday by [Prime Minister] al-Maliki, this group is supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Now, President Obama is deploying troops into Iraq; we have the deployment of the USS George H.W. Bush [aircraft carrier] into the Persian Gulf.
So, humanity is really just hanging by a thread, in terms of the escalation and the breaking out of thermonuclear extinction warfare.
Now, as these events were unfolding, and just also to mention this coincided yesterday with the blowing up of the main natural gas pipeline which carries gas from Russia, through Ukraine into Western Europe — as these events were unfolding, a very significant conference occurred, which I want to brief our viewers on, held by the Schiller Institute in New York City, and the conference was on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Schiller Institute, by Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. And the title of the conference was, "It's Time To Create A World Without War." And you have the coming together of 300 participants on Father's Day in New York City, including very significant speakers from the intelligence community, international speakers, to, number 1, identify the British Empire and the British-Saudi empire as the drivers, the source which is driving humanity right now toward the point of thermonuclear warfare extinction.
But number 2, to discuss the basis for making a clean, decisive break from that paradigm, shutting down the power of that empire, and in a sense, refounding civilization upon a new basis for the development of nations and the development of people's across the globe. And that was why, 30 years ago, Mrs. LaRouche chose the Poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller, as the namesake for the organization, to actually identify that which is inherent in mankind which is the basis for peace.
Now, in order to do this, to break from the British Empire, in the United States, Mr. LaRouche has very clearly laid out what that policy would mean for the United States, what actions must be taken now for the United States, to shut down the British Empire, and move forward with a policy of progress, and those are his four points, which are available to our viewers on the website. The Four New Laws To Save the U.S.A. Now! Not an Option: An Immediate Necessity!" Available on the front page of the website, where Mr. LaRouche to be implemented in the U.S.
#1. The implementation of Glass-Steagall.
#2. The reestablishment of a national banking system. Not a state banking system, but the bringing together of the nation's banks under a Hamiltonian-style National Banking system in the Treasury.
#3. The use of that to utter credit for projects for development, to raise the living standard and the productivity of each and every member of the population across the board. Now, that in and of itself relies on something we're going to get into today, which is the unique capacity of man, to actually increase the power of that he wields and over nature.
#4. Is the establishment of a science-driver fusion economy. And what Mr. LaRouche bases this on, is the scientific principles which were established and identified by Vladimir Vernadsky, identifying man's unique role in the universe, the unique principle which humanity alone, as far as we know, can tap into, to actually contribute to the progress of not just man, but the Solar System as a whole.
So, I'll leave it there, and hand it over to you, Ben. I think you're going to get into this.
BEN DENISTON: Yeah, we definitely want to pick up off of this theme of Vernadsky, that Mr. LaRouche has been developing in his, as you've said, in the concluding conception of this four-point program, and then, in these various shows over the past weeks. The key thing he's trying to put up front and center in this whole thing, is what is the conception of mankind, and what is the conception of mankind's role on Earth, in the Solar System, and in the universe more generally, which needs to govern our nation in a recovery program, and govern the relations among nations, in an era without warfare, like we're putting on the table here.
And Vernadsky's work is very important, because it's not just an opinion. He didn't just say, "I think mankind's good because this. or I think the biosphere is this or that." He put out a scientific argument and spent his life developing a scientific conception of the qualitative distinction between life and non-life, and the role of life as the most powerful force shaping the planet, up until, the development of a new capability, of mankind. And mankind being a completely distinct, qualitatively separate force, than simply life per se.
Vernadsky's probably best known in the population generally for his work on the noösphere, the domain of human action, but also his work on the biosphere, where he demonstrated that, despite the fact that living matter is a relatively small percentage of the total mass of the Earth; if you actually weighed all the living matter on Earth, it would be a relatively small percentage of the page of mass on the Earth's crust. But it's actually the most powerful force in shaping the entire Earth's environment, this envelope surrounding the Earth. And a lot of his earlier work, like his seminal book, The Biosphere, was dedicated to developing this and illustrating this as a scientific conception.
You know, you could take a number of examples, but even just the creation of free oxygen, for example, that plant life creates free oxygen in the atmosphere. Now, oxygen is a highly reactive chemical substance. Life is actually creating a huge chemical disequilibrium, moving away from a chemical equilibrium, creating a large chemical disequilibrium, with a high potential to do work, because it's constantly creating this free oxygen environment.
And for example, we've covered some of this before, but there's been studies of the role of this free oxygen environment, created by life, created by plant life, in for example increase in the total number of distinct types of mineral formations on the surface of the Earth. If you just had the lithosphere alone, just the surface of a rocky body, without any action of life, without any action of living matter, you might have the generation of somewhere around 1500 distinct mineral formations. With the action of life in creating this free oxygen environment, in creating this chemical disequilibrium, with the potential to react and do different types of work, you have not just 1500, but today we have now around 4400, distinct, independent, unique types of mineral formations, making up the surface of the Earth. And that's attributed to the action of life.
The water cycle, especially the water cycle on land, is controlled by life, by living processes. Life brought the water cycle onto land, life transformed the continents from more just rocky material to soils, to new states of the crust, and life, plant life is actually the biggest factor in increasing the rainfall on land. If you just take the water evaporating off of the oceans, only about 10% actually falls on land, as precipitation on land. But then, plant life itself has been the predominant factor in putting that water back up into the atmosphere, increasing the rate of precipitation, increasing the rate of the ocean.
So he developed this concept of life, living matter driving this creation of this distinct state of the surface of the Earth, called the biosphere. But then, we've been in the process of mankind, as Vernadsky discussed it, especially later in his life, subsuming the biosphere! That mankind demonstrates that whereas the biosphere is governed by the unique principle of life, of living matter being distinct from nonliving matter, and having this higher capability to do work, human life, human society, mankind is governed by the ability for scientific thought, for culture, for the development of sharing ideas. So mankind has not just a biological capability, but a scientific and a cultural capability, to govern and shape and develop, not just the Earth but even as we're beginning now, the entire inner Solar System, through the ability to wield and apply human creative thought, scientific thought.
We were discussing last night, in the meeting, the three of us, you have, under this capability of mankind you can create types of chemistry that would never exist without mankind's action. You have the ability to move to domains of controlling isotopes, to have materials tuned down to the isotope level, to create qualities and states of organization, that could never possibly exist outside of the application of human creative thought. You have the ability, which we're going to get into now, if you take this example of the water crisis, the drought and weather, you know, we see a clear demonstration of mankind's capabilities, but also obligation, in understanding our position in managing the noösphere, in expanding the noösphere, and ensuring that the noösphere is constantly developing as the governing principle of the Earth and the Solar System.
And this is what Mr. LaRouche says in the concluding points of his four-point program, that mankind is the measure for the Earth, for the Solar System: That we have to look, because mankind is the governing principle of these regions, that defines the metric, the basis to understand what to do, what not to do in terms of dealing with these systems.
So, take the example of the water crisis, which we've discussed in depth. Take the drought issue. This is a map of regions of water stress, globally, regions where you have overuse or misuse or a lack of needed freshwater for basic agriculture, for civilization, for humanity in these different regions. So it's a huge stretch of the planet is threatened by this water crisis: This is a major issue.
Now, historically, mankind comes to a territory, you have a civilization, you have a city or something. Man comes to this region; you have some part of the region is dry, not useful, a desert. Nearby you might have a river system that seasonally floods, or has less water, and you have this big disequilibrium between even any given small region. So what does mankind do? He says, I'm going to manage this territory; I'm going to create irrigation systems to bring the water to where it's needed; I'm going to create dams and reservoirs, to handle the periodic, maybe just seasonal fluctuations. And mankind, since very early on in his history has been doing this type of management and development, to improve the productivity of regions of territories.
We have a clear example in the United States of doing this with the Tennessee Valley region, where we managed an entire river basin from this standpoint. You took what was a region that was devastated by floods, by erratic and unpredictable fluctuations in the water availability and we managed this entire system, as an entire river basin, through a series of dams and reservoirs, and then used that to gain power for electricity, to develop the whole region. And we demonstrated that mankind could take an entire river basin and turn it into some of the most advanced territory of the entire nation, under the guidance of Franklin Roosevelt, with his economic policies, his economic programs.
Some decades later, we looked at taking that to a larger scale, and you see what was done, beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, but continuing under Gov. Pat Brown, in California, where we now began to manage an inter-basin system. So instead of just focusing on one river and one river system, we began to integrate different river systems manage even larger territory, and turned the Central Valley of California into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the entire world, through this conscious management and development of these multiple river systems, the Colorado and California river systems.
And we had, already by the '50s and '60s, a clear idea that the next step in this progress of mankind's improvement of water capabilities, water systems, irrigation systems, would be projects like NAWAPA, moving to a continental-scale water management system. So you look at the total distribution of water flows in an entire continental area, and we say how can we redirect and divert different rivers, how do we manage the flows of different rivers to ensure that the river systems that exist and the water that exists in these river systems on any given continent, or large national area, can be managed and developed and improved, to increase the usefulness of that water on this entire scale?
So it's a clear progression of the type of creative development and progress that mankind naturally will do when acting under mankind's nature. As we know, this project in particular was stopped, because of the anti-human Green movement pushed by the British Empire, starting in the 1960s and '70s, and progress was just stopped.
And since that time, we've learned a lot more about the types of changes and fluctuations that the biosphere and the Earth's systems go through, that mankind is going to have to account for, manage, and be able to deal with, to ensure the continued progress and protection and development of mankind on this planet.
So, with systems like this, we can say: Okay, we might not have water in one region, but there's rivers flowing in another region, we can bring it down there. We might say that for a few years, we might have a shortage of water, so that we can build up certain reservoirs and they can have a storage capacity and then, we can know at some time in the future, if there's a few-year period where there's not enough water, we can release the reservoirs, and be able to handle a short period of drought.
But we've come to understand that we need to start thinking on a much larger level, because you have on the scale of the Solar System, much larger changes, that we can take some time to go through, that can have major, dramatic effects, on water availability, on climate, on weather conditions, driven by changes in solar activity. And we can no longer just say, we're just going to assume that any given river system or any given precipitation pattern, you know a region where you tend to get rainfall here, where you tend not to get rainfall there, we can't just sit there and assume that those are going to stay the same, and that we can rely on just diverting the rivers that exist, and rely on assuming that water isn't, where it's not currently; that we have to actually realize, and look through the historical records to see what types of large-scale climate and weather fluctuations can and have and will again occur in the future, under the types of changes in solar activity, which we could very well be heading into in the coming decades.
So, to get into this, this is a kind of a standard representation of solar activity over the past 400 years or so, and as you can see right away , if you're not familiar with this graphic, you can see right away, the blue line here, is the measure of the number of sunspots seen on the Sun. And the sunspots give you a good indication of how active the Sun is — how energetic, how active, how fierce the Sun's activity is at any one given time. And you can see very quickly, there's a relatively short, about 10, or 11, or 12-year cycle, that it goes up and down, up and down, a little bit over every decade, with this sharp sine wave up and down fluctuation on number of sunspots: That's your standard Solar System. But you can also see, if you take a few succession of these cycles, you can start to see a kind of secondary cycle, of the intensity of the 11-year cycle. And this is indicated by this black line here, superimposed over the blue, which is kind of the average of successive solar cycles over time.
So you can see that recently, we've been in a period of relatively high solar activity, and I think Cody, you were the found, that on the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on the front page of their English-language website, they just posted a new research paper which is saying that it's possible that all of the warming of the recent period, the last 50 or years, could simply be attributed to the fact that we've been in a period of relatively high solar activity, a recent period of intense solar activity. So these are not unknown things.
CREIGHTON JONES: Very politically incorrect on their part, from the standpoint of Western popular opinion, that's for sure.
DENISTON: Right. So, you can see here, that we have recently been in a very high period, had some dips from the past century or so. You go back to the 1800s, you have this thing called the Dalton Minimum, where you had a significant dip in the strength of the solar cycles, and prior to that, you had an even larger minimum, called the Maunder Minimum, where for a certain period of time, you had little or no sunspots measures at all.
So there's these periods when the Sun has weaker cycles, and there's periods when the Sun, for all intents and purposes, in terms of its sunspots and magnetic activity, appears to almost shut down, kind of go quiet and go to sleep for a while.
So, the question is, what effects do these have on Earth, when the Sun goes through these large-scale fluctuations, what does that do to the Earth, what does that do to our climate? That does that do to the biosphere, what does that do to our weather systems? What does that do to precipitation patterns? Because, as we've discussed, among a month ago, we went through a few shows to go through this: There are multiple lines of indication that our Sun right now is going through a dramatic weakening phase, and we could very well be heading into, for the indications we're getting now from the Sun, indicates clearly that it's heading in the direction of either a Dalton Minimum type weakening, or potentially even a larger weakening, like a Maunder Minimum. And as we'll see in a second, these things do happen every 300, 400, 500 years, so this would be completely within the recent records of just certain cyclic activity of what the Sun does.
And we now have direct observation that this last solar cycle has been significantly weaker and it looks like it's continuing to weaken. So we could very well be heading into a significant "grand minimum," as they're called. You know, in every solar cycle, you have a minimum of that solar cycle, but there you have period of successive solar cycles of very low or quiet activity, it's generally referred to as "grand minimum."
So, just to make sure all of this is clear, this, as you can see, these are measurements of counting sunspots. Now, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 years ago, people weren't staring at the Sun, counting sunspots, so how do we know what the Sun was doing back then? Well, we have records from cosmic radiation, that there's constantly cosmic radiation coming into the Earth's environment from the galaxy, very high energy radiation, and when that intersects the Earth, that can change the isotopes in the atmosphere, that can have effects on creating new elements, new isotopes when they smash into the atmosphere; so the amount of galactic cosmic radiation coming in, leaves a record that we can go back and look at. So we can measure through proxy records, the variations in galactic cosmic radiation over the past years.
And what we know is that the amount of cosmic radiation coming from the galaxy is inverse to the intensity of the Sun. So here we have about a 30-year record of the last couple solar cycles; again the top graphic is the number of sunspots counted; and then the middle graphic here is the measurement of cosmic radiation coming in, so you can see, during a period of a solar maximum, when the Sun's very active and has a stronger magnetic field, it blocks cosmic radiation from coming in, intersecting with the Earth. When the Sun is weaker, during the minimum, you can see that the amount of cosmic radiation coming into the Earth goes up, it increases.
So we have an ability now to measure what the Sun had been doing, how active was the Sun, by measuring the effects of galactic cosmic radiation, by measuring, how capable was the Sun of keeping the galactic cosmic radiation away, basically? So the point is, this allows us to go back and look at the cosmic radiation record, which is what you see here, and you can see, this graph measures the percentage change relative to 1950, just as a useful point of reference; nothing too special about 1950, but just to give a baseline. And you can see that periodically — here's our Maunder Minimum, that we referenced on the last slide. So the Maunder Minimum corresponds to a period of 25% increase in the galactic cosmic radiation coming into the Earth's system. So again, lower solar activity means increased cosmic radiation activity.
But the important thing here, is that over the past thousand years, you've had a series of these grand minimums; every few hundred years or so, you had the Maunder Minimum, Spörer Minimum, the Wolf Minimum, the Oort Minimum. You had a series of these periods of what, according to this record, appear to be very low solar activity.
And what we've been looking at with some of the Basement research, is what happens to precipitation, to rainfall, during these grand minimums? What happens to temperatures during these grand minimums? What are the climate effects? What are the effects on the weather systems, during these periods of dramatic changes in solar activity, because, again, we could very likely, all the indications we have, say we could be heading in this direction. So we've be insane and foolish not to be thinking about what the effects would be, if we do go into this period of grand minimum solar activity.
And so, I'm going to kind of brush through a number of studies to just give an overview of what is in the published scientific literature about regional climate and precipitation fluctuations, corresponding to these periods of weak solar activity.
You have records taken in Austria, for example, indicated here, of, up in the northern regions, significant cooling, relative again to an arbitrary baseline, but relative cooling corresponding to these periods of weak solar activity, these grand solar minimums. Against, here's our Dalton Minimum, our Maunder Minimum, the Spörer Minimum, the Wolf Minimum.
So this is one record, this is interesting: This is from proxy records in Austria. But this corresponds with other studies in the United Kingdom. Here's just a quote from one study, where they're looking at anomalously cold winters being associated with periods of weak solar activity in Europe, based on records now from the United Kingdom. You had another study, looking at salinity in the ocean and surface temperatures, south of Ireland, and they show similar evidence, that you tend to have cooling during the Maunder Minimum, this period of weak solar activity, in this northern region.
You have a fourth study now, all the way over in Siberia in Russia, where they found a very tight relationship over the past 750 years, covering a few of these grand minimums between lower solar activity, increased galactic cosmic radiation, and lower temperatures, and they found there was a bit of a lag between the two, so it might include a mediation through atmospheric or ocean systems. But again, four independent studies looking at different regions, all indicating that periods of weak solar activity correspond to significant cooling in this northern region.
And just to kind of put them all together there, to indicate the general, rough region these things appear to correspond to.
Now, let's look at a different part of the globe: If we look at the region, nearer the Equator and the tropics, we see somewhat of a different phenomenon emerging. Here's a study from the Andes, and they show that you have an increase in glaciation, the amount of glaciers in the mountains up there, again corresponding to these periods of weak solar activity. You see these spikes in glacial activity corresponding to these grand minimums we're talking about. And in the paper, they report that for this to occur, would require cooling again, lowering of temperature, but also increase in precipitation, so increased rainfall and snowfall in this region.
If we look at another study, again, in this tropics region, you see something similar: You see evidence for increased precipitation, increased rainfall in the tropics during these periods of weak solar activity. A second study in tropical Equatorial East Africa shows a very similar thing, this one going back 1,001 years. Another study in the Pacific Islands regions, also shows increased precipitation, increased rainfall during periods of weak solar activity, less precipitation, less rainfall in periods of high solar activity. So that's interesting.
But all these studies corresponded to this Equatorial region, this region of the tropics. But now you get something very interesting if you start to look at the region in between this northern part we were just talking about and this tropics region. And you look at roughly around the so-called "mid-latitudes": Here's a study measuring the salinity of bodies of water in the area of Florida, and they look at the increases in salinity corresponding to less precipitation, less water flow, so you don't get as much freshwater flowing into these bodies, it doesn't lower the salinity, because you don't have new input of freshwater. And you can see here, that during these grand minimums, you get spikes in salinity corresponding to less precipitation.
A very similar conclusions from another study, looking at the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Again, weak solar activity, now we have another indication of less water, less precipitation, less rainfall, corresponding to lower solar activity. Multiple other studies around this Mexico, Central America, Caribbean area all come to the same general conclusion, of increased drought, less water availability, less freshwater during these periods of weak solar activity. A similar study in India, saying the monsoons appear to be weaker during these periods of low solar activity, and they point out that this actually corresponds with some of the most severe famines, in the recent history of India, corresponding to these periods of drought.
And additional studies in Oman, China, and Pakistan, all indicating less water, more drought, less precipitation during these periods of grand minimums of the Sun. And another independent study from China indicating a similar thing.
So, again, if you take all these together, we see from the record from the past 500,000 years, a whole array of independent studies taken in different regions, indicating that this mid-latitude region appears to be drier, less moisture, less water when the Sun gets weaker. And the hypothesis a number of these papers have put out is that, they think for some reason the moisture from the tropics appears not to move north as far when the Sun is weaker, because you tend to have a significant amount of evaporation and moisture right in the tropic regions, and the northward movement of that moisture is a very significant source of precipitation and water for these mid-latitude regions. And so what a number of these different scientists and studies are looking at as a possibility, that when the Sun gets weak, the effect on the climate system of the Earth, looks to be that it inhibits the northward motion of this moisture from the tropics.
JONES: It doesn't have enough power to drive the system north?
DENISTON: Yeah, something along those lines. I don't if they have it totally — it's what they're trying to figure out, is what exactly is the mechanisms and interrelation. But what they know is that the tropics is a big source of moisture for these mid-latitudes, and the records indicate, during periods of grand minimum solar activity, the tropics appear to get more rainfall and the mid-latitudes appear to get less rainfall, less moisture. So the obvious conclusion these guys are playing with is that somehow, perhaps this northward motion of moisture is being inhibited or weakened by weak solar activity.
And again, to refer back to what we opened this section with, this region of drought, water scarcity, lack of water availability that we currently have, maps apparently almost directly to the region which could become drier during periods of weak solar activity.
So we have every reason to take these types of changes as a major concern to be thinking about immediately for how to handle, in not just the current global water crisis, but now think from a higher level of how does mankind not just redistribute existing river systems. Because these types of changes that we're looking at, you know, the point is not to say that I'm going to sit here and tell you exactly how every region of the planet is going to change if the Sun does this; no one necessarily knows that, as of today or now. What we do know is that there is dramatic evidence for very significant regional changes whether it be cooling, increased precipitation, decreased precipitation, in different regions of the planet.
And if we're going to ensure that mankind of the noösphere can properly manage the development of the planet and the water cycle, we absolutely have to start thinking about some of the types we've been discussing, where we can actually begin to manage, not just river flows, but flows of moisture in the atmosphere, how can we begin guide and influence and affect the atmospheric flows of water which determine where the rivers are, which determine where the snow is, which determine where the deserts are. This is kind of in the natural progression of mankind developing this — I find this arc fun, of looking at the TVA, to the California water systems, to NAWAPA, you see this natural progression of mankind, consciously improving larger territories, by taking a larger scientific control and understanding of a subsuming system.
Well, we're now being challenged with the fact that we have to kind of lift up off the Earth, and not just look at redistributing existing river systems: But how do now then, go to the top-down level and look at what can mankind begin to do to influence, direct and control these atmospheric flows? And we're not going to be able to adequately handle the types of changes that the Sun could produce in a grand minimum, if we're not thinking on this level. If you're taking 30, 40, 50 years to build a water project, a river diversion project, but you don't know what the changed precipitation patterns are going to be by the time you're finished, you can't just all of a sudden, things shift, and you start to build a completely new one, and take a couple decades to do that.
We have to begin thinking how do we ensure the existing river systems' precipitation patterns are what we need them to be. And this is what we discussed with some of these ionization technologies, which have demonstrated some capability to begin to do this, to begin to control rainfall, to begin to control the flows of moisture, bring moisture from over the oceans, inland; to begin to get mankind some handle, some control over these types of atmospheric moisture flows and water flows.
But, coming back to the opening point that Mr. LaRouche is putting on the table, when he says mankind is the measure of the Earth, of the Solar System, that it's the power of mankind's scientific thought that has the capability to envelop, engulf these types of systems.
JONES: Yeah. What you went through here, does make it very clear why it is now necessary for mankind to fully embrace this concept of Vernadsky, of the noösphere. That in fact, the noösphere can be seen as the reason why the biosphere exists: That if you look at the kind of argument presented by, say, Nicholas of Cusa, of these different hierarchies of what later we came to know as "transfinites," that it's always the higher which is determining the lower, which is the reason, the generator of the lower. So, for example, Cusa has the whole discussion of the whole attempt to square the circle, that you can never get from a polygon to a circle: There's a certain infinite gap between the two. But, you can get to the polygon from the circle. The circle is, in a sense, the reason for the polygon.
And in many ways, that's the kind of argument that Vernadsky's putting forward about the nature of the noösphere, that the noösphere is the more powerful principle, and though seemingly in time, it seems like the noösphere came out of the biosphere, from a higher perspective, the noösphere was always the principle that was there, determining, in a sense or governing, the direction of the biosphere.
And that's something that's been totally turned on its head, when you look at the discussion or the argument of the so-called environmentalists. They put Green, they put a perverted idea of the biosphere as primary and say that man has to basically bow down to the biosphere, or what they think are the whims of the biosphere. But that in the end, will actually destroy the biosphere and if you look at the long-wave picture of things, it's only going to be through the power of the noösphere that life for anything from this planet, is able to have any kind of so-called long-term survival.
In the sense that we know the Solar System is going to implode or explode, or some variation of that as the Sun dies and burns out, at which point everything in the Sun's sphere of influence is going to be destroyed. Well, what has the power to supersede that process? It's the noösphere, it's the creative powers of the human mind. And so, we see that the creative powers of the human mind are that which have a greater power than the biosphere, even any of these very powerful processes like the Sun. The noösphere is the reason for this whole process of development and organization of our Solar System and the biosphere.
So that's an idea which Vernadsky, he started to develop more and more thoroughly in the latter part of his life, but which is now a concept which Mr. LaRouche is putting squarely on the table, and saying, this has to be the concept, the idea, that mankind must embrace and act upon, if in fact we are to have any kind of long-term survival. I mean, you see it in some of these graphics you showed: These changes, they're global processes. There's very types of regional effects, but these different regional effects are a function of a global process, minimally a connection between the biosphere and the Sun, but even beyond that, we've seen there's a connection of that to galactic processes.
So if we're going to be able to deal with those kinds of changes, severe drought, severe other weather conditions, we're going to have to be able to think in terms of acting on processes as powerful as the Sun, and the solar-biospheric relationship. Well, to do that, is going to require mankind moving to a much higher power, a higher energy-flux density, which is again why Lyn's fourth point is the emphasis on fusion: Only through man's control of these thermonuclear processes and then even higher processes beyond that are we going to have the necessary power required to deal with processes which are operating on a cosmic scale, on a galactic scale.
And that becomes a political question, as well as a scientific question, as well as a cultural question, which is something, as you brought up with this conference we recently had in New York City. That was all subsumed there, that this is all the cultural, the scientific, the political, it's all one function, and it's really subsumed by this higher idea of the noösphere, of what the noösphere really is.
BEETS: Vernadsky's discovery of the noösphere, is grounded in the Renaissance, and I remember on this show a few weeks ago, Mr. LaRouche said that it was with the Renaissance and with the work of Cusa, that you finally had the establishment of mankind as a potential immortal species. And since then, we've seen the playing out of the fight of mankind to realize this potential, politically and economically. The founding of the United States and the U.S. republic, and the Hamiltonian system of economics, was a huge blow to the Empire in that fight. But the past hundreds of years since that time, have been the attempt to finally rid ourselves of empire, and be able to manifest with a naturally determined, really naturally assigned mission, to us as a species, to be able to carry this out and actually drive the progress of the universe.
I mean, that really does get to the issue of Mr. LaRouche's third point, which is credit: The idea that the process you were just describing of "noösphere," of the coming into being of the noösphere, that is economics. That's an economic process. And then, you have a system, a National Banking credit system, which facilitates your intention to manifest an increase of the noösphere, in and over the Earth and the Solar System and beyond. And that flies in the face of the noise that fills people's heads every day, of the past 50 to 70 years of degeneracy of the American economy, with the myth of money and profit, price and things like that. And that's really what we're fighting today.
JONES: You have the fallacy of supply and demand denies this fundamental concept which is associated with the credit system, which is the idea of the future. That it's the future which is determining our activities today, it's the future which determines how you allocate your resources, your manpower, etc. through your credit. But if you say the future, from the standpoint of science, the discovery of say, fusion, a new discovery is never known by mankind until it's actually made as a new discovery. And so you could never have a process where you have a supply and demand, demanding a new discovery which has yet to have been discovered. That requires something which is future-based, which is not past-based, which is what current economics is all about, which is basically people demanding a continuation of a current lifestyle, or living standard, or what have you. And then the monetary games are played to manipulate and control that.
But a new discovery, a new principle, which is brought in to transform man's relationship to the universe, always comes from somewhere in the future. It's outside of anything that you could demand, based on the base on the past, because it's new, it's a creative discovery. And that's something very unique about what Lyn has introduced into the concept of economy, is really a strict scientific grounding in this idea of the future as the real driver of progress, and credit as an expression of that unique human existence in the future, as opposed to the present or the past.
BEETS: Yeah, I would just say, that was the revolutionary nature of this conference: And we really are at a moment where mankind has to make a decision, if we're going to end the British Empire, which is ready to be crushed — they're weak, they're dead, they're dying — and it does put us at a decision point of whether we're willing to break with and scrap that system, and I think it's an absolutely optimistic perspective that we have, what you've laid out Ben, these kinds of victories of the human mind, and the kind of potential knowledge of natural law that we can actually base civilization on, and that this is universal to all members of the human species. And we saw that in this conference, with speakers coming from China, participants from all around the world, scientists, people involved in military strategy, people involved in music and cultural outreach and work. And it really should give people a really optimistic picture, that there is a process which exists in civilization which is being led by this movement, and our allies, which actually is a future for mankind, and which is something greater than anything we've ever experienced.
And people just have to be, I think our viewers just have to be willing to really fight against this tendency to say "it'll never happen, it'll never happen, I don't see it." You look around the world today, you look at what I described in the opening, this completely brutal warfare unleashing, and in the face of that we're saying we stand at the brink of ending warfare forever.
DENISTON: Mm-hmm. You see the way Lyn treated Vernadsky's work: This is a scientific conception. We can scientifically posit that this is the direction mankind has to go in, this is what's natural, this is what's truthful. And so, we have a basis to align nations, to align peoples, align different cultures in a scientifically definable conception, principle about mankind's principle and role on Earth and in the Solar System and beyond.
And I think this came out very clearly at this conference: the international participation, in general, the activity from Russia, China, and India, we've seen over the past couple of years and months, of just a drive, a want to go, in this direction of progress. And so, we have the ability now, to put this on the table, again, as Mr. LaRouche did in his four-point piece, that this is the principled basis around which we can rally people and nations for the future. We can define as a scientific conception, what is mankind's mission — this is not just an opinion we're throwing out there, "we'd like to do this, what would you like to do?" You take Vernadsky's work, you can see that there's a concept which you can know to be true about mankind's relationship to the biosphere, to the Solar System, and now you have a basis to define, really a policy defined around a certain truthful conception of natural law.
BEETS: Yeah, and that's the end of Empire. And I think people can take great joy in that fact that with our lives today, we have the ability to end Empire for good.
JONES: Mm-hmm: Tell the Queen it's time to change her diaper.
BEETS: Or something worse. [laughter]
Okay, is there anything else you two would like to add? Well, I think that's it for today. I would encourage all of our viewers to get on the larouchepac website. You can Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws on the front page of that site. Print it out, call your Congressman, mobilize your friends and family: We have activity on the ground in Washington, D.C. this week. You can stay tuned to our website for reports on that. But get on there, start circulating the four points, and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.