Original rendering by Aristo T.
of an ordinary photo from www.supermodels.nl



PAGE 3 -- WELCOME!!!

Link to page 4
(in this archive, highest numbered page has newest 
articles, while page number 1 and 2 are foundational 
and kept stable, with higher-numbered pages regularly
updated as articles find their way into Big Art
Booklets or other permanent publications)

For copyright conditions of these archived
news articles by S Henning W B Reusch, whose
artist name is Aristo Tacoma, see the topscript
of where they first appeared, namely at the
'comments on general features of breaking
news in world economy section' of the worldwide
standard search engine Yoga6d.org (and its
various entirely identical entry-points,
which are named after many of the near-ascii
languages it is supporting, -- we use these
various entry-points so as to distribute the
traffic to this search engine. Cfr
www.yoga6d.org/economy.htm. To get into
anyone of the search entry points, click at
the 'search now' drawing at the front of
yoga6d.org, then click on the next image,
the one about 'saving humanity', and you
can search using ascii ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
(upper as lowercase are the same), optionally
with digits inside, for a selection of words
found on top at the front of most webpages.
As for how to anglify a word written in another
language, you have to try out what works -- the
rules for translation into the ascii set e.g.
from something like the rather different russian
language are simplistic and not done according
to the context in which the letters appear.
Once you learn how to work with this search
engine, and learn how to do search-within-a-page
when you get many results with the browser
'find-text-in-page' command, you will see that
your overall productivity in all areas of life
is enhanced, and the freedom from imposed
simulations of 'contexts' (such as by boolean
'AND' across a lot of the internet) essentially
turns out to be stimulating, because it is
predictable, straightforward, and honest in
a computer program mechanical way that you
can and will learn to harness.

But now, for the archive. In the archive,
we keep the same type of sequence as in the
economy.htm news section -- namely, the newest
on top. 

[[[Spelling variations are part of the
soul of writing and convey information
on its own, as does variations in lineshift
usage.]]]


[[[Once in a while we will remove something
from this archive section so the overall
quantity is at all time quite moderate;
for those who wish reprints of earlier
works they will then with some level of
probability be able to trace them as
chapters in published nonfiction books
by this author.]]]





[[[Note: THE TEXTS TO BE ARCHIVED ARE AS
A RULE PUT THERE RATHER AT THE SAME TIME
AS THEY APPEAR IN THE MAIN ../economy.htm
NEWS SECTION. THESE USUALLY HAVE FEATURES
INVOLVING FOUNDATIONAL THOUGHTS ON WHICH
MUCH THINKING APART FROM WHAT GOES ON
JUST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN CAN BE FOUNDED.
THEY ALSO USUALLY APPEAR AS CHAPTERS IN
THE ALWAYS FRESH BOOKS EACH YEAR SIGNED
BY ARISTO TACOMA. THESE BOOKS ARE SOLD
ALSO AT PHILOSOPHICAL TALKS WITH LIGHT
SEMINARS ARRANGED THE SAME DAY AS 
SPRING/BI PAINTING EXHIBITIONS OPEN,
WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC APPROACH OF
SPRING/BI WITH A WOODEN BACKGROUND ON
WHICH BLACK AND SPRING GREEN ARE 
APPLIED WITH PLEASANTLY UNRULY LINES,
AS BRIEFLY INDICATED AT THE DICTIONARY
yoga4d.org/super.]]]

























LEARNING BY TRIAL AND ERROR IS GOOD WHEN A KID LEARNS 
LETTERS, BUT ANOTHER APPROACH ALTOGETHER MUST BE TAKEN 
BY ENGINEERS AND U.N. COMMISSIONS (ETC) PROTECTING 
HUMANITY FROM FUTURE NUCLEAR DISASTERS AND ATTACKS
-- When the U.N. agencies, the U.S.A. agencies, the E.U.  
agencies, and so forth, have failed so seriously in 
setting conditions for safety of General Electric's 
plants in Japan, then nobody should feel sure that these 
agencies have kept nuclear stuff from coming into the 
hands of rogue groups such as terrorists

[As of 2011:3:21 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of comment can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
  
I am optimistic for humanity in the 21st century and 
onwards. As a whole, humanity will make it. And increase 
of real quality of life by ushering forth the 
benedictions of electricity -- to be used for cleansing 
water, for irrigation, for elcars, for fridges, for air 
conditioners, for factories, and so on -- is possible. 
It is possible by being realistic as to well-tested 
technologies in particular classical nuclear, or nuke, 
el power stations. Ideally, one would have chosen
other pathways, but 6 billions of human beings involve 
an immensity that don't permit a low-intensity approach 
so as thorium nukes or solar ray panels or biofuel.
  But there is something to be cleared up. 
  This is not merely about TEPCO or any japanese 
institution. This is about ending global nuke sloppiness.
  Forgive me for the directness; I speak as a voter,
encouraging others to the same -- all across the free 
internet. Politiicans must be swayed, U.N. must be  
swayed, and also leftist greenpeace-like organisations. 
  It appears that American scientists have constructed, in  
part with Geenral Electric as part of the enterprise, 
the miserable, indept, false approach to nuclear 
electricity that has crippled Japan recently. 
  These plants have then been used in sloppy, insincere, 
rediculous ways by the Tokyo locals. All the time, the 
U.N. agencies which have been erected to oversee this, 
have mounted very wise criticism against Iran, but they 
have chosen to disregard the brutal disregard for ethics 
involved in driving these nuke power stations this way. 
  The sluggish response so far by world leaders is 
either to say -- 'nuke el-power is but a stage' 
(Merkel), or -- 'we must have an extra look at the nuke 
stations near quake zones especially' (Obama) -- or the 
like.
  But this type of thinking is exactly what garantuees 
that nothing seriously is done towards getting 
electricity around to humanity in a cleaner, safer way 
than before. Merkel makes simply less electricity, while 
Obama is more cautious: but we need far more 
electricity, and a vast multiplication of caution.
  Meanwhile, the agencies which long have lost track of 
many deopts of nuke waste and nuke rods according to 
their own estimates, must now be cancelled, and new ones 
erected, with a far more stern mandate than before.  
  Science is an inexact art, at best. When we handle 
probabilities, we must also handle multiplication of 
probabilities. The fact of the people damaged so far by 
the very modest use of nuke el-power so far in humanity 
should be enough: but sheer use of solid well-founded 
reason and intuition, on its own, is already enough to 
make it clear that while nuke el power is super, at 
present humanity is taking rediculous risks with it.
And these risks will be a hundred times as great if we 
create a hundred times as much el power, and such a 
multiplication won't be nearly enough to drive humanity 
into a green society economy.
  Kids may perfectly well write the E mirror-wise and 
then gradually get the E done rightly, not mirroring it 
-- in what is called, sometimes, 'learning by trial, 
error and success'. That works in kindergarten, in 
school. 
  But humanity cannot relative to the right and 
necessary use of nuke el power do anything whatsoever by 
trial and error. Thorium and other alternatives such as 
solar ray panels can be researched and utilised here and 
there but humanity is in a stage where that which works,  
must be utilised, and it must be utilised safely, and at  
a scale which is realistic relative to the enormous 
poverty, enormous need for getting quality of life 
possibilities around to this suffering planet.
  Trial and error is not the appropriate method when it 
comes to ANYTHING, indeed, concerning uranium, plutonium 
and all that type of thing. We cannot wait for a 
terrorist group to destroy New York or London or Tel 
Aviv or Islamabad or Athens or whatever with nuke waste 
or a plutonium bomb or the like, before we upgrade all 
existing measures to an enormous extent to handle all 
things nuclear in entirely new and strict ways. The 
United Nations is the proper vehicle, alongside the 
secret service-like institutions in all well-meaning 
nations, including USA, England and so on, to ensure 
that all public use of nuclear material is EXTREMELY 
safe, and that no rogue use of it goes on ANYWHERE.
  China, the supplier of North Korea, the source, 
therefore, of North Koreas nuke stuff, must be brought 
in to the United Nations commissions in charge of 
nuclear safety and told to cease all further contact 
with this outpost of themselves. North Korea must be 
given electricity and food to replace their nuke power, 
so also with Iran; or face eradication.
  Every bit of the former Soviet Union nuke elements 
must be tracked on a level which is a thousand times as 
effective as before: this, and the other notes in this 
comment, is a natural reflection now that the severely 
lack of clear thinking in the United Nation's agencies 
which have had as role to oversee the world's nuclear 
reactors have so drastically and irreversibly come into 
the public view, and so sadly for Japan. The 21st 
century must be built on the best pieces of what we've 
got, and the rotten pieces must be identified for what 
they are and discarded. 
  As I begun this informal comment "from a voter" with: 
I am optimistic about humanity as a whole, in the 21st, 
22nd, 23rd century and so forth. This optimism is 
founded on the faith in the power of human thinking to 
respond to the truly spoken word, when these words 
reflect real concern, real compassion, real insight into 
the actuality. Listen to the tale, also 
synchronistically, of the events, and the numbers, and 
go beyond simple scapegoat-approaches. Find the real 
things to be healed, and heal them there. Only in that 
way, the Japan nuclear disaster, worse than the Three 
Mile Island incident by far, can create a range of 
blessings, long after the radiation in food from the 
plant is no longer detectable, anywhere on Earth.
 





















THE ADVANTAGES OF PAPER MONEY 
-- The human psyche wants to see, not just think about, 
the limits, so a new type of digital & real money is
proposed, to the abolishment of earlier types of money 

[As of 2011:3:20 (afternoon, as for GMT hours)]
Author of comment can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
  
Some forms of money can be abolished, and some forms of 
money can come in, so as to make up for that which has 
been abolished. The very meaning of money is changed 
when laws are changed. In some sense, money as it did 
exist no longer exists: money has been put to an end. 
Instead of money -- as existing primarely by means of 
cash, as supported by some main banks and smaller banks 
by means of accounts -- which no longer exist -- we have 
got something new, namely money. That is to say, to 
replace money in the old sense, we have got money in a 
new sense.
  Although, at the time of speaking, what I say here is 
a gross simplification -- because of the various stages 
of societal development that exists in parallell, often 
with tremendous suffering and poverty, on large portions 
of this Earth with more than six billion people on it --  
it is, I feel, entirely correct to say that money as 
existing by means of computers is money in a totally new 
sense.  
  About this, in philosophical terms, much can be said. 
I will here narrow the scope to focus on the validity of 
paper-money, or -- if not paper -- some kind of physical  
item, be it plastic, metal, wood, whatever -- which 
physical represent the allowable, or the real, means 
that a person has on herself.
  I propose that in a truly enlightened, shining 
society, which unlike the billions on this planet, there 
is real, strong potential for the flourishing of 
happiness and beauty, all money is computer-based -- 
connected at all times to a person or a regulating, 
neutral, trustworthy bank or to a company -- but in each 
case, the virtual money is backed up by the existence of  
physical money. Let's call it 'paper-money', though the 
material can perfectly well be e.g. paper with plastic 
around it, and possibly other elements in it to reduce 
chances of fake reproduction.
  It is not always so that a machine that works faster, 
works better. A good example is the response of the gas 
pedal of the car to the pressure of the human foot. If 
the slightest touch of the gas pedal creates inordinate 
amounts of speeds, then the car won't be safe. So also, 
money won't be safe if it just takes some effortless 
clicks on a computer panel to transfer inordinate 
amounts, speedily. Friction is essential. Friction in 
the gas pedal, and requirement for human labour to be 
applied in order to get the car to run faster, is part 
of the design criterion for a good car. So also, then, 
it is part of the design criterions for good money that 
there is something such as friction and some requirement 
for human labour in order to apply the money. 
  To continue the analogy with the car, the speed of 
driving must go together with good visibility, so that 
the car is not crashed. The expenditure of money, 
similarly, must go together with good visibility as to 
what amount of money is indeed being spent -- relative 
to how much one has -- otherwise the budget may be run 
down in no time.
  The advantages of having virtual money is that it 
requires a personal identity to get hold of it, and so 
it is not that easy to be waylaid and robbed -- it 
requires collaboration with the owner of the money, in 
case. The disadvantages of having money which is ONLY 
virtual -- only digital -- is that the human psyche 
doesn't get a clear chance of seeing, feeling, touching, 
listening, holding the money, before it is being spent. 
The mere presence of a number in mind may not have great 
impact when wild dancing and fiesting are going on, and 
there is some sudden opportunity to buy or waste, as 
often is the case.
  The natural proposal is then: combine the two, provide 
extra friction, extra slowness to money. Abolish money 
as we have seen it, even recently, and create a new 
type, in which every sum is connected BOTH to virtual 
computer money AND to hand-held paper-money, connected 
by means of registration numbers.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 















 
 
THE HAPPINESS OF HUMANITY AND NATURE REQUIRES A MASSIVE 
AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY FOR EVERYDAY PEACEFUL 
PURPOSES
-- And what with the billions of human beings on this 
planet, that requires a global concerted efforts to 
enable one hundred times as much nuclear electricity 
power as before, but with one thousand times the 
security level

[As of 2011:3:17 (evening, as for GMT hours)]
Author of comment can contacted at atiroal@yoga6d.org]
  
Since the days of Edison and Tesla, inventors of all 
things of extremely positive values for everyone -- 
including electric light, electric cleansers, electric 
temperature regulations, and so on, electricity has been 
one seen, and rightly so, one of the greatest 
benedictions that this universe has to offer human 
beings.
  For many decades, in a conflict which is analogous to 
that meaningless conflict which nearly destroyed Ireland 
-- between violent protestants and violent catholics, --  
many key people have fought a hard, undialogic war 
either against ALL nuclear power stations (and this 
group won e.g. in Norway, my homeland), or in favour of 
ALL nuclear power stations "as long as these are not 
outdated as for security arrangements".
  The justification for the position of the first group 
has been that, in one way or another, people don't need 
all that much electricity and what they need they can 
generate e.g. by putting up some windmills, or using 
highly fantastic equipment to cook water based on 
focussed solar rays, or else -- as of the past few 
seasons -- they can get their friends to grow their own 
sugar, from which they can destill their own alcohol, 
which they they can drive their cars and generators on.
  The justification for the position of the second group 
has, before the March nuclear disaster of Japan, worse 
than Three Mile Island by far -- with its constant 
release of radioactivity to Earth, which will have its 
markers for a long, long time into the future -- been 
that they are innocent unless provent guilty -- as 
concerns security of what they call "not out-of-date 
nuclear reactors".
  Their repeated postulates have been that, after 1970, 
with every decade, every nuclear power station produced 
in North America and in Europe have been surpassing the 
earlier versions as for security. The incident in Soviet 
Union in 1986, for instance, concerned an old type of 
reactor.
  Whether they like it or not, very few people are 
inclined to agree -- very few people have inclined to 
agree, and very many fewer after March 2011 Japan 
nuclear accident -- with such wishful thinking.
  It is true that there is no evidence of an intensely 
strong kind concerning safety of nuke stations of a more 
recent date than the ca. 1970-version of those employed 
some hundreds of kilometers from Tokyo situated in what 
is presumably less quake-ridden areas on other parts of 
the planet: but with the risks involved, most people are 
inclined, if they MUST choose, to go with the safe bet 
of avoiding nuclear stations altogether, rather than 
accept the highly debatable point whether all that much 
security lessons have indeed been learned since the 
1970s as concern these stations.
  For a long time, I have argued that an extremely 
generous, extremely tough, but extremely worth the while 
middle stand or path between the two extremes of denying  
nuke electricity and allowing free building of nuke 
electricity stations ought to be taken. For it is 
completely unhuman and unfair to propagate full freedom 
from all nuke electricity power when that tends to lead 
to extremely high prices of electricity, and thus 
propagating, in fact, not just poverty but also such 
crimes, and, worse, such wars, as poverty gives rise to. 
It is a human right to have light, and to neither have 
excessive cold nor excessive heat either in living nor 
in working rooms. Like water should be both clean and 
free, like air should be clean, and it is free, 
electricity should be free -- or at least, virtually 
free.
  While in theory some types of combustion fuels, like 
alcohol or ethanol, or like bio-diesel, can have a 
somewhat reduced pollution effect overall when created 
out of living plants rather than fossiled gases or 
liquids, the fact remains that humanity is starved of 
electricity, when we talk humanity as a whole. And nice 
theories which certainly have intense meanings when 
applied e.g. to a space station, cannot be meaningful 
policies when applied to Earth in the 21st century with 
billions of people living in abject poverty, and where, 
from month to month, it seems to be the concerted 
efforts of many miracles all jostled up together that 
world economy and some measure of world peace and some 
degree of human civilisation do persist at all.
  Sadly, people who have a political agenda with many 
worth the while propositions -- such as, on the 
socialist side, that all people no matter birth should 
have available solid funds for living, -- and such as, 
on the capitalist side, that some people who know how to 
create enterprises from which they earn billions should 
be allowed pretty free hands to do so, as long as it is 
lawful -- have tied these propositions up to a stale, 
fixed view of how humanity should relate to nuke power 
stations. Just as in the meaningless stale debates 
between Einstein and Bohr, which put a cloud over 
physics which lead to a decline in philosophical physics 
in favour of technical formula-based physics, the 
socialist stand against all nuke power, and the 
capitalist stand in favour of some measure of nuke 
power along the lines nuke scientists like, put a cloud 
over the relationship to the key question: namely, how 
to get not just clean air, clean water and food out to 
humanity at large, but also how to get electricity, 
freely, or virtually freely, out to humanity at large.
  And some nations, like Norway, which has hardly any 
real innovation at any level to speak of, and which, 
like Saudi-Arabia, has affluence mostly solely because 
of fortitudous resources of oil, could have engaged 
themselves in removing the cloud over the electricity 
urgency by loosening up for a new dialogue over nuke 
electricity power, sadly has completely ignored the 
quest and rather wallowed in their -- our -- massive 
buckets of cash.
  To remove the cloud over the discussions, one must 
call on the fact of intuition, or the quality of 
intuition, and state that a more trustworthy approach to 
nuke electricity is necessary or else nuke electricity 
will have very little real chance in being more than one 
of several factors in a more and more steadily polluted, 
with more and more people suffering horrendous poverty.
  There is ONLY TWO reasons why nuke power stations 
cannot, as I have argued for years, be put inside 
mountains, and that is
  (1) That people like to walk on mountains, and they 
would not like to do so, or would not be allowed to do 
so, if these mountains are chock-full of high security 
installations requiring military control points
  (2) That it is increasing the costs of making each 
nuke power station, and increasing the costs of making 
cables from it to the cities, by several orders of 
magnitude.
  As for the first point, I totally understand it. I 
have spent much time in the mountains as part of an 
enterprise to achieve greater wholeness on all areas of 
life. Yet, I can also concede that it is a luxury, while 
this greater wholeness can also presumably be achieved 
by contact with other forms of nature, like sunny 
beaches and good forests, and that this wholeness in any 
case must as foundation reside in personal affluence. 
  As for the second point, it is entirely correct that 
costs of building nuke power stations inside mountains, 
where even a nuke core melting can be contained, in most 
cases, without any serious radiation risks for humanity 
anywhwere, are staggering compared to the costs of 
building them e.g. seaside some hundreds of kilometers 
from big cities. But given a bad unexpected quake, with 
with a bad tsunami perhaps, or a really big meteor, or a 
terrorist attack, or a set of serious computer failures,  
or a very strong solar storm, or a war, the former costs  
are not at all staggering IN COMPARISON to the possible 
destruction of quality of life on part of a continent 
for centuries. For that is the only comparison -- as for 
costs -- that really makes sense in this case. 
  In fact, the costs of serious nuke power station 
problems unless they are relegated under far stricter
security considerations than before -- whatever the year  
number of the model -- are so big that any thought of 
"insurance" is, by and large, absurd.
  As for the costs of creating nuclear electricity power 
generating stations which are MANY THOUSANDS OF TIMES as  
secure as the most safe versions outside of mountains as  
typically found these days e.g. in Europe and North 
America, -- yes, these costs are big, but how big 
compared to the costs of the side-effects of the oil and  
other combustible fuel approaches? The investments to 
create the new type of ultra-safe pollution-free sources 
of electricity for a greater and greater part of 
humanity are, after all, fairly small compared to the 
annual oil and gas revenues being generated currently.
  Finally, it has been a steady part of my proposals, 
and still is, that the handling of nuke power station 
waste must be taking place under just such intensely 
enhanced security considerations as the main driving of 
these stations themselves. Nuke waste is most dangerous 
where there is much of it. Many stations will generate 
much waste, and this waste must be put inside very small 
containers, which have very solid metal walls indeed -- 
so strong even a direct explosion directed at the 
containers would not shatter these. These small 
containers must not be just tossed around to here or 
there. They must be, in a scheme which is costly but not 
nearly as costly as ignoring the totality of all these 
issues, be sent by conventional, rugged rockets of the 
same type that transport telecommunication devices into 
orbit around Earth, into a pathway out of Earth 
altogether. Some might see this as a pollution of the 
outer space but I should not worry, if I were them. 
Outer space can handle it. It is big enough. These 
chunks of waste can be sent at directions which are put 
in a database so later space missions might pick them 
up, when humanity is on a happier, more intelligent 
path.
 














[Some articles have been removed, and, in some parts
of these archives, a few lines have been removed, 
because the changing nature of the technology to 
which they referred.]