[tmtranscripts] NET #42, Jul. 2, 2018

[Roxanne Andrews]

PR

*New Era Transition #42 – RoundUp on GMO foods; Ethical Corporations;
Racism; Refugees – July 2, 2018*



*Machiventa Melchizedek, Planetary Manager*



Topics:

Why Christ Michael sent his Correcting Time

Focus is on societies and families

The collapse of the insect population

A question on the solar cycle

Is a Republic the best form of government to implement the 7 core values?

Rebellion against the churches

Implementation of the 7 values into corporations

Unethical behavior leads to immoral activities

Decisions impacting shareholders’ returns

Changing corporations’ mission statements

Employee ownership in corporations

Use of RoundUp on GMO foods

Does use of RoundUp affect animal foods?

Ethical corporations

Rise in racism—hate or fear based?

Question of allowing refugees into nations already overpopulated

Clarification on word, “intention”

Personal versus social morality

Machiventa’s list of top issues we face

What is the current carrying capacity of the earth to support humans?

Some countries declining to have children

Is abortion against the Will of the Father?

Is suicide or euthanasia appropriate at the end of life?

Machiventa’s closing statement



TR:  Daniel Raphael, PhD



Members present:  Roxanne Andrews, Craig Carmichael, Liz Cratty, Jeff
Cutler, Doug Dodge, Michael McCray, and Stéphane Labonteé.



Invocation:  Liz



*July 2, 2018*



*MACHIVENTA:*  Good morning, this is Machiventa Melchizedek and I welcome
you to another day.  We are blessed to have you working with us, as you
bless your lives to the will of the Father and to your Thought Adjusters
and to Christ Michael’s will for your world, and for your own life.



*Why Christ Michael sent his Correcting Time*



As for our opening statement today, if you look back to the time that we
began these conference calls so long ago, you were totally unaware at that
time of what was ahead for you and for your nations.  Now, you understand
why we are here, what Christ Michael has ordered to be done, and what we
have agreed to do with him willingly and willfully to fulfill his wishes.  Your
world is in a situation of increasing despair and the loss of hope by many
people around the world.  You now see that the ethics of Christ Michael of
fair play and equal treatment has always been a signature of his work, and
so too, you see now why our work together with you is so timely.  We are at
a place in your world, and you are in a place in your societies and your
nations where our presence is so important and the work of Nebadonia and
her angels to influence and provide millions and billions of people with
alternatives and options for their thinking and for their lives is much
needed and is now in effect.



*Focus is on societies and families*



We have no comment concerning your politics or your economies, though we do
have much to say about your societies and your families and the conduct of
social institutions.  With that we will now begin the remainder of our
session.  I know, personally, that we have supplied you with an abundance
of material to ask questions about, and so now we open the session to the
field of your questions.



*The collapse of the insect population*



*Jeff:*  I have several questions, one of which I may not ask as it is sort
of a political question.  My first question is the alarming collapse in the
insect population is starting to be noticed.  Can you comment on this?



*MACHIVENTA:*  It is part of the despair of your world and the collapse of
a large segment of your economies in the future.



*A question on the solar cycle*



*Jeff:*  My next question is about solar cycle 23, which was weaker than
peak-to-trough and somewhat longer in duration than previous observations
over the last 100 years.  Cycle 24 started weaker than expected and has
declined faster than expected.  Is this solar activity connected with the
coming cataclysms?



*MACHIVENTA:*  It is a way of the Power Directors ameliorating the increase
in temperatures on your world.



*Jeff:*  So, the global warming could possibly be offset by the lack of
sunspots and the decline in solar flares?



*MACHIVENTA:*  You are correct.



*Jeff:*  Does the change in the magnetism of the sun, or the solar
activity, is that affecting the rise in volcanic activity that we see, or
is that a cycle all by itself?



*MACHIVENTA:*  It is a separate cycle.



*Is a Republic the best form of government to implement the 7 core values?*



*Jeff:*  My last question I will ask kind of carefully; it has to do with a
larger nature of politics.  I’ll just read it to you:  “History indicates
that past Republics have developed into oligarchies and dictatorships.  The
US appears to be heading in that direction.”  The question is, is a
Republic the best form of government to implement the 7 core values, or is
there a better model?



*MACHIVENTA:*  A Democratic Republic is the best option at this time.  I
might add that there are influences that are coming about which will have a
counteractive effect of the rise of an oligarchy and the sequestering of
the economy into the hands of a very few people.  Your world has now fully
populated; it has various forms of governance around the world.  The most
evolved are Democratic Republics; there is in process means for hundreds of
millions of people to have a more direct say in the option-development and
choice-making for their social institutions, their politics, and their
economies.  It is important that the masses of humanity and intelligent
decision-makers be co-participants in your Democratic process; it is not
that the public would make the decisions, but they would have an influence
in participating in the option-development and choice-making, with
decision-making still having to reside with those who govern.



*Jeff:*  Thank you.



*Rebellion against the churches*



*Stéphane:*  Good morning.  I have a question about the mind-chatter and
the rebellion against the churches, which involves a large part of the
population.  One does not have to consciously believe in God in order to be
a loving and caring person.  The same is true for truth discernment, to
some extent.  So, this allows for societies to grow secularly and be
aligned to some extent with Universe realities.  But at what point is
conscious belief in God required to achieve a higher spiritual growth, both
in this life as a person, and as a society?



*MACHIVENTA:*  I will address the first part of your question: as far as
the person is concerned, and it will impact the second answer as well, is
that the individual who participates in right-thinking, who expresses the
highest values of their life for themselves and for all others, is a major
and important element of a secular/religious society.  They make, perhaps,
as much or more of a contribution to the social evolution of their
societies than the religious people do.  This may seem to be shocking to
you, but consider the fact that most churches are very authoritarian, very
doctrinaire and very stringent about indoctrinating and enculturating their
populations, their members, with the tenets and doctrines of that religion.
They in fact, oftentimes retard the social evolution of a nation and of a
culture.



Now, as for the soul growth of the individual, this we have found that when
those individuals who are of a secular nature and do not necessarily
repudiate the existence of God, but are agnostic and do not disavow the
presence of God, that once they cross the threshold of life into the
morontial realm, they speedily accept the fact that there is a God, that
there is a Creator, and that their life as a mortal was an innate part of
the Creator’s plan.



*Implementation of the 7 values into corporations*



*Stéphane:*  I have a question, Machiventa, about the 7 values and the
implementation, not so much as a society or at the personal level, but in
the corporations.  We’ve mentioned in past sessions how the 7 values can be
used in corporations for decision-making.  I have an opportunity coming up
to present this concept in my corporation. Would the quality of life equate
to the quality of investments for corporate shareholder return?





*MACHIVENTA:*  Let us make a very clear distinction at this point in
discussing individuals and corporations.  Corporations are not individuals,
they have no soul and they have no possibility of transcending into the
morontial realm.  Their existence is solely done on the basis of
profit-making.  It is important to note that equality of corporations and
individuals is non-existent; there is no crossover between the organization
and the individual.  The only crossover that is possible is through the
executives and decision-makers who carry forward the values of equality and
growth and quality of life.  The 7 values are not really applicable to a
corporation as an entity, as they have no soul, and they have no
personality and they have no personal exchange with their service clientele
or their patients or their customers, etc.  They exist to make a profit;
how they make a profit does concern us, and that is where we come in here
in this discussion with you this morning.  It is important that for the
corporation that first of all, that their work, their products, their
services, their explorations and their mining of mineral resources from the
earth does not create a negative influence upon the physical lives, social
lives, economic lives and political lives of their service audience.  Are
you with me so far?  (*Stéphane*:  So far, yes; thank you.)  You are
welcome.  It is important that the morality—what we are then speaking of is
a morality and ethic—in the case of corporations it would be an ethic.



*Unethical behavior leads to immoral activities*



Let me go back a minute and give you an example:  In the case of
Volkswagen, they created a moral problem for themselves as the decisions of
the executives compromised the standards of the Environmental Protection
Act by cheating on the standards for diesel engines during EPA testing.  Thus
the decision they made was immoral because it affected the physical lives
and the health and well-being of individuals wherever their vehicles were
sold, whether they purchased the vehicle or not.  Therefore it is immoral;
they had made an egregious moral violation in their business conduct.



On the other hand, let us take as an example, Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo had
inflated its ledgers of accounts available by millions and millions of
fraudulent accounts.  This has an ethical impact upon the general
population and particular to other businesses as other banks.  The
existence of those kinds of decisions is unethical because it allows for
and even encourages the slow creep of unethical decision-making over the
years and decades.  More and more unethical behavior eventually leads to
immoral activities such as we have seen with Volkswagen.  This is then a
threat to the very welfare of the people, of the societies in which those
corporations operate.



As advice, of how to steer this conversation with upper management, has its
roots in what I have said in answer to your question.  We are not strict
adherents to the 7 values, but we wish that their influence increase over
the years and decades so that it becomes a moral and ethical obligation to
conduct business such that it is helpful to those nations and to the people
who use those products.  You know as well as we, that the decrease of
sulfur in diesel was a very needed and useful, ethical and moral decision
to make.  So too with other products that petroleum companies sell.  This
is an example that was made out of necessity to prevent the overreaction of
EPA agencies to stick their hand into your business more and more directly.
It was a good decision.



Do you have further questions regarding what I have said?



*Decisions impacting shareholders’ returns*



*Stéphane:*  Yes.  You have mentioned the impact on the population, but the
corporation makes decisions according to shareholders’ return.  The impact
of what you have said is that the shareholders would have to start
understanding that decisions are being made in line with the 7 core values?



*MACHIVENTA:*  Perfect!  Perfect!  Yes, that excites me; that excites us!



*Stephane:*  So shareholders need to start having the same aspirations
aligned with the 7 core values. Would this justify less corporate profit as
long as alignment with the 7 core values is maintained?



*MACHIVENTA:*  What must precede that is that the corporation must begin
educating shareholders, and that as they learn more and more about the 7
values and social sustainability, and really what you are going to see in
the future is a constriction of your ability to market your products, and
therefore as shareholders learn more and more about these values and how
they will impact the future of the corporation and of society and the
environment, the more that shareholders will be willing to accept decreased
profits.



*Changing corporations’ mission statements*



*Liz:*  So this could be published on the corporation web site as a change
to their mission statement?



*MACHIVENTA:*  Yes, the word “change” is sometimes a little stiff and
“amending” or “adapting” the mission statement to the current circumstances
of the environment of the world at large, the material environment as well
as the market environment, would be a good place to start.



*Stéphane:*  For instance, one of the mission statements within our mission
is to be a good neighbor, so that could be a great start to expanding to at
least the first 3 core values.



*MACHIVENTA:*  Yes, definitely.  The first 4 values—life and the 3 primary
values—are a good place to start.  The other ones then become the
compassionate neighbor aspect, which will come later.  Thank you; that is
an excellent suggestion.



*Employee ownership in corporations*



*Stéphane:*  This expands then to employees being a shareholder in the
corporation, which has been mentioned in the past.  Can you elaborate on
how the 7 core values impact greater employee shareholding in corporations?



*MACHIVENTA:*  This is where you and we get into the morality and ethics of
shareholding and of ownership and of decision-making, is that employees… it
would be interesting for the banking shareholders and shareholders of
Volkswagen to take a poll, a survey of them for the fact that they were
passively complicit with executive management in the conduct of those
decisions.  The reality of that may affect shareholders how they feel.  As
employees it is important both for their own livelihood and welfare and
their standard of living and lifestyles to be co-participant in those
decisions, particularly at the option-development and choice-making level.  It
is important that this continue as you are young enough to see the years
and decades ahead that there will be an increasing ownership by
employees.  This
is the best moral way of distributing profits and decreasing the egregious
99/1% separation in economies, particularly in those developed economies.  It
is a matter of awareness; it is a matter of ownership, both employees and
shareholders in general are not fully aware that they are complicit with
immoral and unethical decisions by the executive decision-makers.  I hope
this answer suffices.



*Stéphane:*  Thank you; it’s been very good.



*Use of RoundUp on GMO foods*



*Jeff:*  Machiventa, it was probably two years ago—I can’t remember
now—that I asked you the question if genetically modified foods were
harmful, and you answered, “no.”  But in that period of time, we have seen
many farmers—I don’t know how many, but some—take glyphosate, which is the
active ingredient in *RoundUp*, and spray it on the plants themselves,
particularly corn, to kill the plant early to save money on the cost of
drying the grain.  And that was my understanding that that was not the
intended use of the *RoundUp,* that it was to kill weeds around the plants
so that there was less competition for water.  So I would like to rephrase
my question.  Is the corn and other grains that farmers are spraying
directly onto the plants to kill them early, is that harmful for us and is
that something that would relate to your comment about the employees of a
corporation looking more for truth and justice in their products than the
senior executives who are essentially working for stock market gains as
compensation?



*MACHIVENTA:*  You are partially correct.  Let me state unequivocally that
spraying of this glyphosate onto the corn is harmful.  What is immoral is
the genetic modification of the grains of corn so that the corn is tolerant
to the *RoundUp*.  The *RoundUp* is used to kill the weeds around the corn,
and so when the corn has been modified to accept the presence of that
chemical, then the profit increases immensely both for farmers and for the
corporation.  What is immoral is that the inclusion of this molecule into
the gene structure of the corn causes heavy digestive problems in those who
eat corn and wheat products that have been modified to accept the presence
of *RoundUp*, and other products that use those chemical bases.  This is an
egregious, unethical, and immoral process; it threatens the life and
livelihood of those who ingest these products.  As you know, modified corn
in general can be used in over 100 products, many of which are unknown to
most people.  Therefore, almost all people have been ingesting these
products in the world economies.



Only the most indigenous people who do not have those modified grains in
their diets do not have this problem, and as many of you have known, many
countries still have their own indigenous grains.  When produced into corn
meal and flour, they are highly digestible by the visitors from other
countries who are intolerant to the glutens of the products that have been
genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate.  This was not known in the
early stages, at least to the public, though they were known to the
laboratory technicians and laboratory genetic engineers in those
corporations decades ago.  Now it is almost common knowledge that those
chemically engineered grains are harmful to people.



Let us separate that discussion from genetically modified food products
that do not incur new chemicals, new molecules into their genetic
structures, whether they are grains or whether they are fruits or legumes
or otherwise is acceptable.  Just as you will see in decades ahead, and
even now it has begun, that the modification of human genetic structures to
eliminate destructive and harmful genetic anomalies is a benefit to humans
directly, and it is a benefit to the production of grains and those food
products I mentioned.  Just because they have been modified does not make
that bad, immoral or unethical; in fact it improves the intentions of those
originally given products by the Life Carriers for your species.  You are
only beginning now to learn how to return to the original genetic structure
of those plants in general so that they present no harm and that they do
not have an already self-destructive genetic structure in them that
disposes them to early disease, early death by some disease or virus, etc.



Do you have further questions?



*Does use of RoundUp affect animal foods?*



*Jeff:*  If I may follow up on this, if I am trying to buy all natural
chicken, for example, there is no way I can know whether or not the farmer
fed the chicken non-GMO corn scratch.  Is there a secondary buildup of this
material you say that impedes ingestion, this part of glyphosate by eating
of the flesh of an animal that was fed this particular type of grain?



*MACHIVENTA:*  One moment.  Several thoughts occur: one is that you would
be advised to call the distributor of the chicken and ask them, as this is
a means for developing a market for non-GMO grains and feeds to animals.  Yes,
it does have an impact on your own ingestion, but most directly the impact
is through your ingestion of GMO modified corn and grain products directly
that have that molecule in their gene structure.  Laboratories have already
done the analyses to answer the question you have asked and I ask you to
proceed in your own investigation about that.  What your investigation will
provide to the receiving end is awareness that consumers are beginning to
get smart, and that they are thinking about this modified grain product
entering their body through secondary means as you suggest.



*Ethical corporations*



*Doug:*  I have a follow-up question on ethical corporations.  My question
is… this discussion this morning makes me think of a group of corporations
that are called “V Corporations,” and that they try to do everything they
can to not only be profitable, but they use their profits for the fair
treatment of their employees, their communities, their environment, in fact
their motto is “Be the best in the world to be the best for the world.”  This
is a model of awareness that can be marketed and also as a consumer I can
put my dollars into those kinds of corporations that have that as a model.



*MACHIVENTA:*  Is that a question or is that a statement?



*Doug:*  I guess that is a statement.  So it just seems like, wouldn’t that
be a model to follow that would kind of help to apply our 7 values to; it’s
a way to work ourselves into it?



*MACHIVENTA:*  Yes, it would be and we are enthused by that and we see
those corporations as being most receptive to those 7 values and the
morality and ethics that surround and develop from those values.  It would
be interesting and helpful for those corporations to know about the work
that we are doing and the most recent work that we have produced through
This One in the new title of “Making Sense of Ethics,” which is now
available on the web site This One has populated with the books that we
have co-authored with him.

https://sites.google.com/view/danielraphael/free-downloads



*Doug:*  Thank you.



*Rise in racism—hate or fear based?*



*Liz:*  I have struggled with how to ask this question, and so please bear
with me as I try to articulate it, I am deeply disturbed by what seems to
be the rise in racism in this country; I had a long conversation about it
with a friend.  Everyone is calling it “hate speech,” I think it’s more
like “fear instead of hate.”  First, I’ve always viewed monogamy in a
marriage as a thing that is not normally natural for mammals, but instead
is a spiritual decision among a couple, and so now I’m thinking that racism
is kind of, perhaps, similar and that we are perhaps normally xenophobic,
or we would prefer to be with those who look like us and fear those who do
not look like us?  I’m wondering if the conversation about racism should be
changed from that of “hating” to that of “fearing.”  I’m thinking of
overcoming racism is perhaps a spiritual decision and one that we need to
make on a day-by-day basis.  I know that you say that the 7 core values are
part of our DNA, but I’m wondering if this “fear of the other” is also part
of our mammalian DNA.



*MACHIVENTA:*  One moment.  You have presented several topics to
address.  First
of all, monogamy is a social decision, not a spiritual decision.  It is
important for the social welfare and wellbeing and good order of your
societies and social structures and social institutions that monogamy be
used in those societies where plural marriages are distained.  So too, is
racism.  Racism has its base in fear—you are completely correct.  Fear is
also a part of the race memory; it is not part of the DNA; it is part of
the race memory that harkens back to the days before social development
within your race, within your species.  It has been said before that in the
beginnings of your species, before social groups were organized or came
into being, that when one saw another individual, they would kill them and
eat them, even though they looked like them.  They were strangers, they
were different, and so too, that carries over to today.



However, you are incorrect in the current fear phase of racism; it is not
fear of others, it is a selfish, egoistic, racism of superiority that we
are “better, we are in control.”  Remember, those fears come about through
fear of giving up authority, of power and control.  It is the fear of
making all other people equal.  This is the basis for the fears; it is the
sense of superiority, when in fact those you have found in social studies
that those who hold such primitive values, views and perspectives of other
races and genders, are in fact uninformed and uneducated and ill-informed.  As
people become more and more educated and culturally astute, and have
traveled and seen many nations and cultures and ethnic groups and genders,
they tend to lower their guard and their hate of others, that other people
are certainly worthy of having lives that offer the potential for equality,
growth and a good quality of life.  When you hear of “racism,” it is of
fear, fear of what?  Fear that “the other” will become equal to them and
encroach upon their power, authority and control.  It is ignorant at its
best.



*Liz:*  Thank you very much for that clarification.  I have a whole new way
of looking at it now.


*Question of allowing refugees into nations already overpopulated*



*Roxie:*  I have a question that is a little bit based on Liz’s question,
but slightly different.  There is a battle going on between the factions of
several countries over the question of whether to let refugees enter their
country when they are already having massive problems with
overpopulation.  This
is difficult for us to solve using the 7 core values.  Is there a moral
solution to this problem that you can help us with?



*MACHIVENTA:*  Yes, it is a most difficult problem for your world today.  The
morality and ethics are involved in this way:  Do you morally and ethically
allow those people to invade your nation and decrease the quality of life
of everyone, and in fact perhaps increase the possibility of increased
violence?  Or is it an ethical question of maintaining your… one moment.  This
One is struggling with the language that is new to your world, as well as
you are.  In those nations which have opened their doors, they recognize
the morality of equality of the lives of those who want to emigrate.  Those
nations have recognized the moral value of others.  Those who resist the
influx of new populations have a moral, ethical stance to take as well,
that though they recognize the value of other individuals, allowing those
populations to come into their country has a way of retarding the economic
and educational level of the whole nation, and creates an incredible
ethical burden upon those people who have established their lives in that
social structure of that nation and of their economy, and so on.  Accepting
them would require increasing the burden of taxes upon those people who are
employed to support those who are unemployed, which would increase
immensely.



In technologically advanced nations, this becomes very difficult for those
new people to become educated to a high school or college level in order to
be able to be employed in many meaningful jobs.  Yes, they might be
available to take on menial work of janitorial work, and of personal
assistance in homes and in gardening, and so on, but there are a limited
number of those positions to fill.  The ethical question you present is one
of balance:  How much can the nation bear?  How much load can the
population bear of an influx of new members to adequately integrate them
into the culture, into the society, and into adequate employment and into
the whole ethic and culture of that nation?  That has not been determined,
and that is a question that is now coming under scrutiny in those nations
that have invited those foreign individuals into their nations.  It has
created an incredible moral burden.  The morality is quite easy:  One is to
respect all people on the earth and to love them as you would love yourself
and your neighbor and members of your family.  However, that does not
obligate you to take them in as family members, does it?  No, it does not;
that requires another adjustment.



The overarching morality of the whole problem that you are seeing is
overpopulation.  There is no regard for overpopulation either in the
hosting nation, or from the nations and the populations that are coming
into the new nation.  This is a moral question that must be answered and
will be answered within the next two decades.  Forgoing that discussion and
the moral decisions that are implicated and ethical questions that cascade
from that are many and will be addressed only when the population of your
world is crushed onto their knees to support the new numbers of people.  You
will see an increased number of those people who are dying from starvation
and from disease in those nations that cannot support themselves.  You will
see an increase number of people who succumb to death in those nations in
the Sahel of Africa, that borderland between the encroaching deserts of
sand and the nations below them.  The Sahel continues to dry out as the
climate changes to one that is warmer and dryer with less rainfall.



The moral question for your whole world is overpopulation and how to
morally and ethically afford your people, the whole world, and the means by
which they can address and manage their own family population.  This is
something that has not had open discussions and which is too ironically
pregnant with a need to be answered.



*Roxie:*  Thank you very much!  That’s extremely helpful.



There has also been a lot of emphasis in our media lately on the fact that
the suicide rate is increasing.  I know that some of the reason is just
that the population is growing, but could you discuss this from your
perspective, please?



*MACHIVENTA:*  I would prefer to disregard it at this time.  We would
invite a question reformatted that addresses this subject though.



*Clarification on word, “intention”*



*Craig:*  To change the subject a bit.  I was wondering, I have trouble
with the wording of “intention” and maybe it is just me as English is only
my first language, but I look in the dictionary and I see it means, “Goals,
aims or ultimate goals.”  When you say that an organization needs to have
an “intention” or a society needs to have an “intention,” that means, does
it not, that you need to set goals and have particular aims as to the
future of that society or organization?



*MACHIVENTA:*  We see a great distinction between intention, goals and
missions, and so on—objectives.  Intentions are those inclinations in a
particular direction, even though you could take this from the work of
Stéphane; he is striving to assist his corporation to take on a new
intention of sustainability in the mission and in the goals and products
that they sell.  The mission, of course, is to stay in business, but the
intention is to become increasingly more sustainable as a business and
morally compliant to the 7 values.  It is an attitude toward how you
conduct your business; that is how we see intention.



*Personal versus social morality*



*Craig:*  You asked to be reminded about social morality versus individual
moralities, so I have been visualizing individual morality as we are called
upon to be tolerant and altruistic, turn the other cheek if necessary,
whereas in social morality the prime responsibility is to protect society
and protect all those altruistic individuals from people who would abuse
that, and we’ve seen over the last century and more, names that are
probably familiar of people who have egregiously used society and in so
doing, have in fact impoverished the lives and life potentials of millions
or even the whole society.  So, I don’t know if I have a question, but you
have mentioned that that needs to be addressed before we can even have
social continuity, let alone social sustainability.



*MACHIVENTA:*  Let us begin reframing that situation right now in our small
group, here.  Let me give you an example, one that is very stark in nature.
The personal morality of social sustainability is that you will not kill
other people, unless there is a moral obligation to do so.  You would do so
in self-defense; you would do so if someone were attacking your children or
your spouse or doing harm to another individual.  For instance, if you
carried a weapon and you saw a man ready to throw a lighted firebomb at a
school bus of children, you would be morally obligated to shoot that
individual and disarm them of the firebomb.



However, in society the moral difference is this:  Social morality has two
goals — sustaining the Homo sapiens species and the best genetic structure
of that species.  The second goal is to sustain and maintain and improve
the social working order of the society and the social institutions.  That
is the main thrust of social morality.  Social morality applies as an
obligation is incurred through the morality and ethics of the 7 values for
a society to sustain and maintain the good working order of its social
institutions and its population.  Therefore, it has the moral justification
to remove those individuals who are morally retarded and who are social
predators who have an ongoing continual proclivity to abuse and predate on
the populations of the host society.  This is an abhorrent idea to many of
your population; this is another topic that has not been well discussed and
has not been discerned even by the best of your social philosophers, let
alone your political and social activists.



Social activism must take on the dual roles of social sustainability as it
applies to individual decision-making and second as it applies to societal
sustainability.  Only through the development of the morality and ethics
that emanate from the seven values can societies evolve, to become more
self-sustaining.  The societies of both nations in North America are
becoming increasingly socially UNsustainable.  There has been an ethical
and moral encroachment upon the rights of others over time, which is now
bordering on the acceptance of immoral behavior by those people in power.  How
would you overcome that?  By revolution?  Surely not as social, political,
and economic revolutions within a democratic nation will in historic
analysis be seen as societal suicide.  The welfare and good working order
of democratic nations must come about by rethinking the social philosophies
that support democratic nations on a societal level.



Do you understand and see the difference?



*Craig:*  Yes, thank you



*MACHIVENTA:*  This is much to digest because it causes a cultural and for
some people a spiritual and moral dissonance that they are unacquainted
with and unaccustomed to.  This is required for right thinking to preserve
an evolving democratic society and nation is to use the 7 values on a
societal basis to sustain your societies into a long and distant future for
the best welfare of growth and equality of all concerned for all future
generations.  The social morality you are speaking of is one for future
generations.  The selfishness of current generations is egregious to us; it
is abhorrent to us that such a tolerance for selfish needs in current
generations with a total disregard and thinking and welfare for future
generations that will come into being.



*Craig:*  Yes, yes.  Thank you.  I can’t disagree with that at all.



*MACHIVENTA:*  We appreciate you being our “back pew” philosopher who takes
time to think about these questions and who will cogitate upon them and
give us feedback in future sessions.  Thank you.



*Machiventa’s list of top issues we face*



*Stéphane:*  Machiventa, if you were to make a list of top issues that
societies today are not considering for the welfare of society, you
mentioned overpopulation and the impact of this.  What would be your top
list?



*MACHIVENTA:*  The top one, of course, would be overpopulation.  By simply
addressing this one topic, you would then begin to necessarily address the
problems of executive decision-making that is out of control that is
impacting the public decision-making in a democratic society.  The third
one would be concerns about the family, and in the family we are talking
about overpopulation, we are talking about family as the primary social
institution for the development of sustainable societies and competent and
capable moral and ethical decision-makers of future generations in
corporations and in medicine and education and government.  It is the
family that is second and third after overpopulation.  It is a question
that has not been addressed.  It is a social institution that has not been
given the primary attention that it needs.  It and education are the two
primary social institutions of every society, have been neglected, have not
been thought of, have been relegated to their own devices, which has not
proven helpful to your nation or any other nation.



I know that my answer may have been fuzzy, but hopefully not confusing.



*Craig:*  It’s great to prioritize, to be able to think about what are the
most important issues.



*MACHIVENTA:*  Yes and the question was framed in the terms of the most
neglected.



*What is the current carrying capacity of the earth to support humans?*



*Jeff:*  A follow-up question to this is do you have an opinion or an idea
with the current technology available on the planet about what the real
carrying capacity of human population is with sustainable farming and the
decline of GMO raising crops, what is the current carrying capacity of the
earth to support human beings?



*Craig:*  Jeff, are you asking what an ideal population for the planet
right now is?



*Jeff:*  Yes, I guess that’s what I am saying.  What is the sustainable
population for the planet right now?



*MACHIVENTA:*  Your question has a bifurcation to it that you were perhaps
unaware of when you stated it.  One, the maximum capacity is over 8 billion
people.  However the most sustainable and ideal population is 3.5 billion,
at the most.  You must realize that as the population increases, the
quality of life in all regards, and all the 7 values will be violated, that
it becomes immoral to the whole society and to future generations that
increasing population be allowed to continue.  It is immoral because it
impacts the physical lives of those individuals who remain and who do not
succumb to natural causes; it is immoral because it allows the continuing
of inequality and the sequestering of material resources and financial
resources with those few; it is immoral because it violates the potential
of growth of those individuals who come into being and it violates the
quality of life overall for everyone, even those who have sequestered
themselves with great amounts of wealth and materiality to supply to them
will have this impact them as the increase of population exceeds 8 billion
and approaches 9 or 10 billion.  Then you will see your world on the verge
of total collapse.



However, politically, economically and socially it will never come to those
numbers because the stated question was the ideal maximum population that
is possible on this world.  If it approached 9.6 billion people before
global collapse occurs and the elimination of almost all people at that
time, politically, economically and socially, they will be in increasing
contention and vying for control, authority and power long before that, and
you are even now seeing that at 7.3 billion people.  This is the point at
which there will be increasing agitation in your societies as the
difficulties increase.



Though the cataclysms that are physical in nature may be ameliorated due to
the decrease or the maintenance of the temperature around the world, it
will increase in tectonics and volcanism, and also social discontent and
the discontent particularly in democratic nations where people know they
have the right to equal say and equal participation in decision-making, but
have been set to the sidelines by those people who have money to influence
those who make these political decisions for selfish reasons and for
self-interest in all regards.  We know this exceeds the bounds of your
question in your statement, yet you must see the totality of what you are
asking in ideal situations, both for an ideal maximum population and an
ideal situation for population to have an equal quality of life and
lifestyle for those who remain.  Thank you very much for your question.



*Some countries declining to have children*



*Jeff:*  If I may ask a follow-up to this, it appears that in several
advanced societies, notably Japan and Italy and other countries, young
people are increasingly declining to have children, and I think we touched
on this issue once before.  Was this part of the Correcting Time where the
desire to have many children is disappearing, but the rate of decline in
those populations is rather small, compared to the environmental damage
that is being done to feed the current population of the world?  Is that
correct?



*MACHIVENTA:*  You are correct.



*Jeff:*  So, if the desire to have many children is being slowly changed in
our DNA during the Correcting Time, will the—I’m not going to use the word
“decimation” because I think that means a 10% decrease of the world’s
population—instead of restarting the same cycle over and over again, is
there a chance that on the other side of this population problem correction
that it will have a self-stabilization that becomes innate in our DNA?



*MACHIVENTA:*  You are not correct in that regard.  Your question hinged on
what you said was the *desire* to have children, and in most of the world
the desire to have children is almost absent.  What occurs is that the
desire for sexual intercourse is prevalent and primary to the problem.  What
must come into being is decision-making to withhold having children while
still enjoying sexual relationships that do not produce children.  This is
the crux of modern society and of primitive society.  What you are seeing
is a tremendous dissonance between that of Japan and nations that have
incredible fecundity; that is why you see the tremendous difference.  Those
who are in Japan and other developed nations that have a decreasing
population have chosen not to have children because they have the means to
prevent having children and they desire to maintain their quality of
life.  Yes,
perhaps that is a bit selfish by individuals who want to maintain a good
standard of living and quality of life by not having children, but on the
other hand it is responsible as well.



*Is abortion against the Will of the Father?*



*Roxie:*  Is abortion against the Will of the Father?



*MACHIVENTA:*  One moment.  Your question raises many problems.  The Will
of the Father is that you do the Will of the Father.  What is your will?  What
is the Will of the Father?  The will for mortals is to be in alignment with
the Father, thus what the Father creates the Father wants to be in
alignment with its creativity.  The issue of taking the life of a child
that is growing in the womb is a moral question; it is not a question of
creativity of the Creator.  I know that this is going to inflame many
people and put people at distance from this, but it is a moral question.  If
you align yourself with the Creator, then you would not have an abortion;
you would responsibly be in alignment to withhold the death of an unborn;
you would be responsible to your own life course to do the Father’s Will
and that is to create life and to do it responsibly.



*Roxie:*  Thank you.  I knew that was a difficult question; it is for us
too.



* Is suicide or euthanasia appropriate at the end of life?*



*Liz:*  So a follow-up question to that is that at the end of life, when
there is no hope and suffering, is it an appropriate action for one to seek
the peaceful release of death?



*MACHIVENTA:*  This too is a similar moral question, and it is one of a
personal nature; it is one that is responsible and incumbent upon the
individual who is near death.  It is dependent upon that individual having
a conscious ability to make a will-decision to end their life, knowing that
the continuation of their life would not provide the possibility of
fulfilling the Father’s Will to grow into the potential that is infinite
within their mind and for their soul’s fulfillment.  It is important to
make that distinction.  The difficulty for your society is moral at this
time because many individuals who are approaching that situation do not
have a mind left to make a conscious decision to end it.  They have severe
dementia or they have advanced Alzheimer’s and have no recollection of
being capable of making decisions, other than those decisions which are
part of their rote behavior that they have learned throughout life.



It is a moral difficulty for those individuals who have the capacity to
decide, but can they decide for the other individuals?  That is the most
difficult one to bear upon; it is one that we wish your medical societies
and associations, religious and spiritual groups to engage and to discern
and to work on, as it must end with a moral decision that is correct for
your societies, for your cultures and for your species.  It is not that you
need to have the elderly walk out on an ice floe without their parka to go
out in the sub-zero temperature and freeze to death to help preserve the
family in the igloo or their lodging because of the extra use of food to
sustain the elderly.  That is no longer the situation.  Under that old
situation, that was a moral decision to make.  Could you make the same
moral decision today to take the life of one who cannot make the decision
themselves?  That is your moral question, as the one I pose to you.



*Liz:*  Thank you.



*Machiventa’s closing statement*



*MACHIVENTA:*  We thank you for your time and we thank you for the
gut-wrenching energy it takes to ask these questions, and even more
gut-wrenching energy to receive the answers and to listen to them.  They
are so culturally dissonant to what you are used to as to cause you and
those who read these transcripts much difficulty in accepting them into
their lives.  However, what you are doing is asking questions that look far
into the future of your personal lives and particularly for your
descendents as they progress and live into the decades and centuries ahead.
You are the pioneers of moral inquiry now and we salute you and we
appreciate you so much for doing so.  You now know why we have commended
you, this small team, so well in past sessions.  Continue to ask these
questions though they are the most difficult.  We congratulate you on your
intellectual and your spiritual integrity to do so.  Good day.



*# #*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://circuit1.teamcircuits.com/pipermail/tmtranscripts/attachments/20180709/633e106e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2018-7-2, NET #42, Machiventa.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 83968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://circuit1.teamcircuits.com/pipermail/tmtranscripts/attachments/20180709/633e106e/attachment-0001.doc>