NOTICE:
This web page is the intellectual property of Dale Lee Harris, and may not be copied without the permission of Dale Lee Harris. Besides the copyright of this page, this material is also protected by the fact that it is drawn from material from several books, which were published and copyrighted by Dale Lee Harris. The list of books includes the following.

Jesus Christ's World Utopia
by Dale Lee Harris
Copyright © 1983 by Dale Lee Harris

The Quest for Love
by Dave Erickson
Copyright © 1991 by Dale Lee Harris

Self Transformation Psychology
How to End Human Suffering
by Dale Lee Harris
Copyright © 1999 by Dale Lee Harris

NOTE: See You Tube videos posted at the end of the page.

We can end all human suffering and prevent the extermination of the human species. I can explain how that can be done.

In my book Self Transformation Psychology I explained that the three forms of human suffering are the following.

• Individual based human suffering.
• Society based human suffering.
• Nature based human suffering.

If my class on Self Transformation Psychology were taught nationally to tens of millions of people, in High School, colleges, adult education classes, and home study classes, then that would go a long way toward changing the value-beliefs and spiritual nature of people. To the degree you can change hearts and minds and teach people to love one another, you can transform human lives and end the root cause of hate and violence. My system combines my Spiritual Model with my Psychological Model to be a positive and effect change for human lives. It would greatly help to end most "individual based human suffering". To see more information on my class and ending human suffering due to the negative value-beliefs and spiritual nature of some humans, see my other web page on Love and Godhood Training.

Society based human suffering is imperfections in the political-economic system, which cause the suffering of members of society. To perfect the political-economic system, first one needs to more fully understand what makes a political-economic system good or bad. That requires a deeper understanding of political philosophy.

Modern popular political theory sees a one dimensional "political spectrum" of liberal-moderate-conservative.

There are so many unanswered questions in the model. Why are there exactly three elements? What is the rational or moral justification for each position? While it is possible for people to have different opinions, there is only one "truth" or "best right answer". What criteria can be used to conclusively prove that one system is better than the other? Is there an alternative to these three, and if so, what is it?

In my book The Ideology of Jesus Christ I introduced a Political Model, which could fully explain what the best system is, and prove why one is better than others. First, I invented and introduced what I call The Trinity Principle. It says that the concept of a "Trinity" in the Christian religion, is actually a universal spiritual truth, that models and explains a great deal about the Universe and human relations.

The front cover of the book shows a circle of two arrows, one red and one blue. There is also a horizontal line of green, that connects the left side to the right. It graphically explains that a fundamental model of nature is the relationship between a collective Whole and each individual Part. The three relationships are as follows.

• Free (red): Part => Whole.
• Reconcile (green): Part == Whole.
• Obey (blue): Part <= Whole.

In our relationship with God, we must have Free Will, Obey the commands of God, and be reconciled with God through blood sacrifice and forgiveness of our sins. In human society, we have the freedom of citizens, the needs of the collective whole of society, and reconciliation between individual freedom and the needs of the collective society.

My model fully explains the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum by explaining that the spectrum is based on an underlying conflict between concern for the individual human and concern for the whole human species. I say that the "political spectrum" can better be viewed like. In the light spectrum, one can go above the red-green-blue line, to white, or go below to black. A two dimensional model is the following.

My Political Model includes the following definitions.

Micro Humanitarianism - Compassion for individuals.

Macro Humanitarianism - Compassion for the species.

Liberal - Micro driven.

Moderate- Compromise driven.

Conservative- Macro driven.

Just as red, green, and blue each have color and light, Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative each have virtue and truth. Just as combining the primary colors produces white, or the perfection of all light, combining the three political truths produces Utopia, or the perfection of all political virtues. Similarly, one could have a Doom's Day ideology with all vice and no virtue.

My Political Model applied to the Economic System of a nation, looks like the following.

Rather than having a war between compassion for the poor and compassion for the human species, or having a simple compromise between the two, I argue that we should go above the spectrum to a perfect political and economic system. Socialism has the virtue of helping the poor. Capitalism has the virtue of promoting economic growth for greater odds for the survival of the species. The mixture of the two is a compromise to have some of the advantages of each. But, I claim that we can invent a new Economic System that contains all of the virtues.

I propose Macro Economic Democracy. It has private ownership of wealth at the Micro or local business level. It has public ownership of natural resources and the national economy as a whole. Thus, the collective nation can do Macro Economic planning to maximize the wealth of the nation, and each business can do Micro Economic planning to maximize the wealth of the business. I proposed a National Economic Board, elected by THE PEOPLE, to be in charge of all major national decisions, such as tariff rates and policies regarding the off shoring of jobs. Decisions may include a direct democracy vote of THE PEOPLE themselves. The number one goal would be to maintain a near zero unemployment rate. Therefore, Macro Economic Democracy is far superior to Capitalism at promoting economic growth and far superior to Socialism at ending poverty and homelessness.

Similarly, I propose that the political system of the nation be evolved upward to what I call Pure Democracy. Pure Democracy is similar to direct democracy, in that a direct vote of the people would have final decision on major issues. But, it would also promote greater understanding and harmony between the interest groups in society.

While majority rule is best in most cases, we should also consider two principles.

• Minority rights should be protected.
• Those with a vital self interest, should have a greater voice.

For example, when voting on a school budget, teachers and the parents of children in school may need to have a larger voice in the decision.

By providing for both the needs of people and the needs of society, by having popular rule, and by protecting vital interests, our society can collectively make decisions that will minimize the suffering of members of society. Replacing dictatorship with democracy, ends the human suffering of lack of freedom of choice. When social level decisions are based on the principle of love for all, human suffering caused by society level actions, can be minimized and eliminated.

The key is for human society to become One with nature. There are many leading experts that we should listen to. Naturalists stress that we need to protect nature, for the long term survival of humans. Environmentalists stress that we need to quickly move toward sustainable Green Energy. In his book, The Population Bomb, by Paul R. Ehrlich, Paul warns of the grave dangers of overpopulation to human civilization. We should listen to the visionaries and best thinkers of our society.

If we are to end the human suffering caused by overpopulation, and we are to remove the threats to the survival of the human species caused by overpopulation, then this is an issue that we must talk about. However political uncomfortable talking about this issue is, massive human suffering and possible extension of the human species is far more uncomfortable to humanity. We must have a national and global debate and discussion on this topic, for the sake of the starving poor and for the sake of the human species. We will certainly not agree when we first start our discussion. But, the longer we talk about the issues and listen to each other's opinions, the more we as a society will move toward a solution. We must take the first step of starting the discussion. Since it is not a simple issue, it will probably require a very long discussion. It will take time to look at the pros and cons of various ideas to come up with the best solutions.

Some would suggest that we have population control and genetic breeding of humans, in order to end the human suffering of overpopulation and disease. Those would definitely be benefits, so there is merit to that proposal.

The main objection to that is the need for individual human freedom. Some would argue that for people to be free and happy, each person and family should be free to decide how many children they want to have. The need for people to be free is an argument that has merit.

However, society does impose limits on personal freedom. If you drive your car on the highway, you can not go 500 miles an hour, if the speed limit is only 65. You would probably get a speeding ticket.

Also, our freedom of action must not harm other humans and take away the freedom of others. If a woman on welfare in a small town has 500 children that she can not feed and provide for, and the rules of society is that the people of the town must be taxed to provide for the children of those who are on welfare, then the people of the town would be taxed to provide food for the 500 children. As a result, those in the town would no longer have enough money to send their own children to college. Thus, the actions of the one person, has taken freedom away from the rest of the town. This is of course an extreme example used to stress a point, but the point exists. The point is, if people are granted the freedom to have as many children as they want, then should people also be granted the freedom to not pay to feed the children of other families, so they will have enough money to buy food for their own children? Do the poor really have the right to have children that they can not provide for?

I believe the rich and Super Rich should have Micro Humanitarian compassion on the poor, and provide for the poor, up to a point. I also believe that the poor should have Macro Humanitarian compassion on the human species, and should limit the size of their families.

There should be shared wealth, to end the suffering of the poor. There should also be population control and genetic breeding, to promote the long term survival of the human species. The question is, can we reconcile the need for both Micro and Macro? One idea is the following. If a person is sterilized and has not parented more than one child, then that person could be given $1,000 and free health care for life.

Liberals want free health care for every citizen in the nation. Conservatives want a limit in population size, in order to limit how much they are taxed in order to provide for the poor. A compromise is to provide for the health care needs of the poor, who agree to help limit or reverse population growth.

What ever we as a society decide, we can not decide anything until we begin to have a frank and open discussion. We need to begin a conversation on how to greatly reduce the suffering in our society, while also working to increase the odds of the long term survival of the human species. Can we at least talk about it in a mature, frank, open, and honest way?