Responsibility, Activism, and Healing Our World

I am not much of an activist.

We’re all responsible for the world that we live in. The word responsible has its roots in the ability to respond. To me, that means that all of us can do something about the world that we live in. We are all capable of responding.

I just looked up the definition of activism, and it seemed to be always be a reaction to what somebody else was doing. I did not see much of the combined positive intention that Brian O’Leary wrote of, for instance. The definition of activism changed in my lifetime. Today’s definition of activism seems to preclude actually doing something independently toward a goal, such as carpeting the USA with the world’s best heating system or the pursuit of free energy. Activists seem to cheer, boo, and try to influence others, but they are not really direct actors. They try to influence officials to do their bidding. Today’s activism seems to be conflict-oriented, like a contest of wills. The Wikipedia article was largely about that. If that is what activism is, then I have never really been an activist. I am about doing something, and I am not looking for anybody’s permission. My intention is to give history’s most lucrative technology to the public, which will end the world as we know it.

When I recently saw my former partner, Dennis Lee, he agreed that if I could amass 5,000 comprehensive thinkers who focused on the goal and mounted a global conversation that has never been seen before, the global elite could not stop it. That task is probably the most difficult one on Earth, which is appropriate, for the biggest event in the human journey. Community building seems to be one aspect of activism, so in that way, I am arguably an activist. Conflict is not my goal. I do not seek to influence any officials. They just need to get out of the way, and with a strong enough effort, they will.