Jun 262017

Capitalism versus Ecolism

Capitalism in the 21st century and earlier is controlled by the rich, and the so-called capitalists. It has become an authoritarian socio-economic system that controls national policies and principles, disregarding the ethics of democracy and comprehensive social welfare. The practices of capitalism are profits at any cost, regardless of consequences or fairness to others.

The philosophy of capitalism is private ownership of commodities and assets, treating human resources as robotic working machines that produce profits. The dominance of capitalism and global organisations in the West became very influential, able to manipulate or control political systems, and capable of trembling the economies of the most powerful nations.

In other words, capitalism allows the rich to manipulate politicians with financial contributions to their parties or by lobbying them to legislate for national projects that suit their vested interests at the expense of tax payer’s money. On some occasions, it is secret bribery for decreeing what suits the interests of the rich, even if it causes more misery to the poor. In addition, politicians manipulate the electorates with false promises, like false prophets, and misleading information to justify the feasibilities of such national projects that are supposed to be better for the public, more cost effective and better value for the tax payers’ money.

Furthermore, most people either do not care, can't be bothered, do not know the truth, or are just believers of the false prophets taking the form of a prime minister, president, party leader or an MP. There are those who know, care, and petition, but they are drop in the ocean of the political and financial power, and have no impact what so ever.

[nextpage title="next section" ]Please insert your text here![/nextpage]

Capitalists mainly support two political parties, and it does not matter which party people elect, because they can influence both. It is common in the USA, UK, Germany, France, and many other countries where capitalists are the real power behind the scenes. However, there are many similarities between the monopoly of governance and manipulation of the nation that yield the same results. The Chinese ruling system is one communist party, the Russian system is totalitarianism, others are dictatorial, and some are monarchical. While democracies have two parties that are controlled by a capitalistnd the results are the same in all of them.

When we go to a supermarket to shop freely for any of the available products, we are still under the influence of that supermarket’s products. And if all supermarkets buy from the same source and fix the prices between them, then it becomes an illusion that we are free to choose what we want at any price we can afford. The analogy means that if the source is capitalism or the controlling power, then it does not matter which leader people choose.

Capitalism forcibly snatches more from the poor to satisfy the narcissistic greed of the rich, manipulating and abusing the principles of democracy, which have become the rules of autocracy. It forever widens the gap between rich and poor, and takes true freedom and justice away from the poor. If this trend continues, there will be only handful that have monstrous wealth and the rest are below the poverty lines. The longer this trend continues the more pressure will be on people to explode and destroy it all, because they will have nothing more to give and nothing else to lose.

Ecolism, in comparison, democratises and socialises capitalism by equalising powers between the people, governors, and capitalists. The distribution of powers has a logical formula to keep the status quo of the eco-socio-economic system to sustain coexistence for the mutual benefit of all. Each authority requires the other two to maintain its existence.

In other words, the workforce needs investors to establish a business or industry, and the governors’ role is to regulate them both. But the public elects the governors and votes them out upon failure or misconduct, and the governors can do the same to failing businesses or their executives, while the investors can decide whether to remain or leave without causing harm to the workforce and the continuity of the human ecosystem.

In ecolism political system, the electorate can deselect or remove politicians from power, and the workforce can remove their chief executive officers (CEO) from their position upon failure or misconduct, with no compensation or bonuses. The politicians or government controls and enforces disciplinary actions on businesses and people for any offence or misconduct. The workforce cannot strike and cause a loss of profits for businesses, or earn money without working and being productive.

Furthermore, businesses and investors have the government’s protection for their investment and an agreed minimum margin of tax-free profits, but pay taxes on profits above the allowed tax-free threshold, in addition to paying an agreed minimum hourly rate for the required skills or training local employees in the required jobs.

If the trends of inequality, injustice, and increased poverty continue, they will reach the point of no return. The time may come for the volcano to erupt and burn its green surroundings, unless we create newer and fairer social eco-systems that are fairer for everyone on the planet.

It is already happening in countries where there is extreme totalitarianism and there is even a split in Western societies into two opposing parties: one supporting the rich to get richer and supporting their vested interests, and the other opposing party that gives more to the poor, but is not doing enough. People have already started to elect whoever is against the status quo of the establishment, or the so-called new world order. It is as we saw in the Brexit vote in the UK, in electing President Trump in the USA, and whatever will happen next in the rise of populism and the future of the European Union (EU).

Democracy versus Ecolism

What is the definition of democracy? The dictionary defines it as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. We always hear politicians talking about democracy, freedom, equality, etc.

However, although it means people are free to elect any candidate they choose, they do not have the freedom to deselect that candidate when he or she betrays their trust. Politicians talk about legislating for un-electing or removing an MP from power if the electorate chooses to do so, but they never actually do it.

There is no principle to remove a prime minister or president from power, even if he or she destroys the country’s economy, or signs a treaty surrendering the sovereignty and principles of the country to another. In my view, that is not democracy, and it does not exist in practice, but does on paper.

The free electoral system allows the electorate to choose any candidate they like. Fair enough. However, in practice, there are only two main parties and most people take sides with one or the other, even if both are corrupted or influenced by global organisations, secretive clubs, and more powerful countries or party donors. And then there is the media that always splits people's opinion between the two parties without an alternative third and fourth party. It gets worse when both parties and the media work against any rising third party that causes a threat to either of the dominant two.

The problem with the parties is the limited choice, and, whichever MP the people choose, he or she must follow the party line or the leader. Of course, there are the occasional rebels in each party who are like me and do not follow orders from a party whip, but they are not able to influence the leader in one direction or another, because they are a minority, unless they hold the balance of power.

Democracy is no longer a social system of equality allowing people to have a say in political decisions and what affects their lives. Although people can vote and select their leaders, whoever assumes the dominant power automatically becomes influenced by business conglomerates and implements policies to suit their vested interests, disregarding the consumer or the public will.

Additionally, some politicians become influenced by more powerful countries, executing their treaties, interests, and global agendas without consulting people on key issues, and most people do not know any better anyway. Even if a leader grants people the right to vote in a referendum, it tries to influence the results.

However, in some democratic countries, such as the UK, the USA and other EU countries, to protect the nation against tyranny or dominance of one political power, the legislation creates the separation of powers into three divisions a ‘trias politica principle’.

Typically, there are three governance divisions that are the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and no one division can have total control. The government in the UK is made up of the executive branch (the prime minister), the legislative branch (the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the judiciary (the courts). However, the PM has the authority to exercise prerogative powers of the crown without consulting Parliament. At the same time, it is the party leader who has the majority and can practically do anything, unless there is a motion of no confidence by the majority.

The USA has a similar system, and the constitution splits the powers among the legislative, executive, and the judicial branches. But the president also appoints judges and officials to support him, in addition to having the backing of the majority of his party in Congress, and has some executive powers to veto a bill or law enhancement.

There is a comparable situation in the EU where the EU Council, the EU Commission, and the EU Parliament are linked in a series of relationships. But, practically, the president of the EU is not publicly elected like the president of the USA and does have some executive powers.

Similarly, in most countries, there are three governance branches, and some are better than others. However, there are always lobbyists behind the scenes influencing the ones in power. And the essential point is that manipulation and abuse of powers still exists regardless of the checks and balances. The proof of this is the injustices, inequalities, freedom limitations, and the existence of poverty in a percentage of the public.

While ecolism, in comparison, allows people to elect leaders who pass the criteria for selection that defines an ethical track record, qualifications, expertise, and abilities. But, it also allows them to remove the elected leaders from power upon any misconduct, failure to serve the national and public interests, or simply failing to deliver the promised manifesto. The citizens have the right to be consulted on any policy or changes to the socio-economic system that affects their lives. It is like a constitution that cannot be changed without a referendum and cannot be overridden by presidential executive orders.

However, the traditional voting system on paper is expensive and not suitable to use for voting on regular changes in policies. Therefore, using an electronic voting system is more cost effective and can be designed as a tamper proof system. Additionally, it can be enforced by public survey polls to guide politicians in going in the right direction and the public’s acceptance of a change.

In ecolism, petitioning to remove politicians, company CEOs, or anyone in authority is non-debatable; once it reaches the majority percentage threshold, it takes immediate effect. Additionally, upon any proof of misconduct, no one is immune from prosecution and trial. Currently, there are many people in power who are privileged, unaccountable, rich, and can afford long trials and be able to avoid prosecution in one way or another.

In ecolism, every activity is recorded and open to the public; it is true transparency and everyone, without exception, is accountable and subject to prosecution, and that is the real social democracy.

Socialism versus Ecolism

Socialism means to distribute power and wealth between the proletariat (workforce), rulers and capitalists, but it fails to determine where to draw the line between them or create a balanced formula that is accepted and implemented by them all.

However, a version of it is still in use by Scandinavian countries, as well as in most of Europe under different names, such as social welfare or benefits systems applied in one form or another, but we are not sure for how long. Many front-line services were nationalised and have gradually become privatised, and, in time, capitalism might succeed in privatising national health, education and whatever is left from housing and social benefits in Europe, and especially in the UK.

Some of Karl Marx’s theories were feasible and great, but were abused by the Russian leaders Lenin and Stalin, who converted socialism to communism and some kind of totalitarianism for the ruling communist party. However, the social benefits of the welfare system, which is still adopted today in some European countries, are the results of Karl Marx’s work.

Ecolism goes a step further and asserts that a decent living standard is a compulsory human right for the incapable, unemployed, and retired.

Ecolism has to give the investor an incentive to invest to guarantee jobs for the workforce (proletariat) and give the worker the incentive to work harder and smarter to earn more and live better. Additionally, it disciplines the investor and employee to follow mutual beneficial rules to maintain the status quo, where the rich or investor gets a reasonable return on investment while the worker gets a fair return on productivity.

The results of the investor’s profits and the workforce’s productivity generate taxes to be spent on the welfare of society, and to guarantee the sustainability of the human ecosystem.

Communism versus Ecolism

Communism, with all its variations in Russia, China, and Cuba, and the totalitarianism of North Korea have created classless societies living on the basic necessities for survival. The socio-economic system provides for free, rationed food, basic accommodation, simple clothes and good education, but forces the individual to work in factories or do specific administrative jobs.

Such a socio-economic system has made people the property of the government and is controlled by a single ruling communist party. The public act as robots programmed by the government to perform specific tasks dictated by the republic. A robot is an executer, and has no incentive or motivation to do anything beyond its program.

Nevertheless, the system has created a powerful country with industrial and nuclear power that costs much less than what it costs the USA to produce.

The communist system had ensured that the basic necessities to survive are provided to everyone, and there was no homelessness, starvation, or poverty, as there is in Africa. On the other hand, there has been no further progressive improvement of productivity to compete with the freer Western capitalistic systems. People have neither the incentive nor the motivation to do better and compete with other races on this planet.

Additionally, and, as always, the ideology was abused by the rulers and created an enormous gap in wealth and power between the working class and the ruling communist party. Eventually, the communist’s system was isolated economically and socially from the free world of capitalism. The isolation led to the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union and forced the rulers to adopt a more flexible and open socio-economic system.

A similar economic failure happened in China until the ruling communist party decided to be more open to the world, reduce bureaucracy and tight controls, and then started to compete with the West to improve its economy. This is in contrast with North Korea, where the strict public control still exists and so there are lower standards of living, global isolation, limited resources, and poverty.

The conclusion from the above is that when rulers impose more controls, increase bureaucracy, and limit the freedom of the population, then the economy and progress become limited. As a result, the economy collapses and the entire system fails. It is like a limited overdraft facility from a bank, when it is limited, the borrower will have lesser trading capability, but if the credit facility is greater, then the trading capability increases.

While communism is too restrictive, but is fairer in providing the minimum standard of living, capitalism is not restrictive, but does not guarantee a minimum standard of living, or ending poverty and homelessness. Therefore, ecolism balances the two extremes, ensures better standard of living as a minimum, encourages ambitions to the maximum, and restricts inequalities.

Religions versus Ecolism

Some religious systems have failed to adapt to the current 21st century’s socio-economic systems and integrate with the liberties of modern social convictions. And, as there is a big gap between the super-rich and the super-poor in capitalism, there is a more significant difference between the thousands-of-years-old convictions compared to the current doctrines in the advanced Western countries.

Some religions are no different than capitalism in their socio-economic systems, in the sense that some are super-rich, while most religious followers are super-poor, and there is no endeavour from the rich religious countries to narrow the wealth gap between them and the poorest worshippers in developing countries. As a simple example, compare the wealth in the Arabian Gulf with the poverty in Africa and Asia.

Some of the religions have become like commercial organisations, investing money in commodities. In the UK, St Paul’s Cathedral charges money for even entering the church, in contrast to what Jesus Christ did when he entered the temple and drove out all who were buying and selling. The temple is for prayer, not a theatre or gallery where one needs to pay an entry fee.

On the other hand, other religions have political extremists inciting hatred towards others, and brainwashes followers to kill, terrorise and cause destruction of others. The Muslim extremists for example, are not even following what their Prophet Mohammed said during the Hadith ‘talks’ for peace builders, when he said, “If someone shows no compassion to people, God will show no compassion to him.” It is even funnier and so a double standard, when Moses, more than 3,200 years ago, killed the guard of Ramses II, escaped with his followers to the desert and brought the ten commandments: one of them is “Thou shalt not kill.” Maybe he learned from his mistake, as we all are still learning. And, ironically, the Prophet Mohamed forbade alcohol, after he got drunk one night, and got up and killed his friend in anger.

However, let’s forget the past; humanity evolves all the time, and humans learn from their mistakes and find prohibitive measures to prevent unethical behaviour. The time has come to extract the moral values and the good teachings from the old religious systems to adapt them to our modern life, merge them with our socio-economic systems, and dissolve them all in one furnace to extract the new eco-socio-economic system that is more forgiving and fairer to all humans.

Most religions say that there is only one God, and yet there are many religions on the planet and they have different convictions of what God says or wants. However, let us say that God means morality, ethics, discipline, humanity, and all the right names you can give to God’s decrees. But, also, the democratic government’s principles say and want the same thing, and all humans on this planet need the same moral principles. In this case, we all worship the same God whether we belong to a religion or not. We must all worship the ‘god of ethics’ and agree on what those ethics are.

Ecolism wishes to unite the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and those following other religions under the banner of an eco-religion. Or at least to agree on universal moral values that are compatible with their religious moral ones, but have been adapted to our modern times and principles without conflicting with international human rights and ethics.

Religions do not have to abandon the ethical teachings of their prophets as long as they are happy with it and translate the old teachings to our modern life without imposing their rules on others. No matter what differences there are among various religions and traditions, there are always some common moral grounds to bring them together living under the same banner.

Ecolism does not interfere in the doctrines of religions or any other socio-economic systems, but avoids their negative influences and learns from their failures to create a better eco-socio-economic system. Ecolism hopes that a new ethical eco-socio-economic system will supersedes the old ones and will lead by example for future generations to come together and integrate into one social system that ensures human rights, liberties, equality, justice, peace, and harmony for all humankind.

Each person’s eco-freedom ends when the eco-freedom of others begins. Freedom is a universal consensus that comes with the responsibility for not harming yourself or others, physically, financially, morally, emotionally, religiously, or influentially. If a religion, or a principle and rules conflict with the principles of eco-freedom, then that influence should be avoided.

Jun 262017

Socio-Economic Systems

The meaning of socio-economic system is as it sounds, social and economic interaction with rules. Effectively, the economic factor impacts the social and vice versa. On national and international levels, the political or religious system sets the principles and rules that dictate how people must live, and interact with each other socially and economically.

Throughout the millennia, religious systems have governed alongside the dictatorships of kings, and the public have hardly had any say in influencing the laws. In recent centuries, the public’s influence has started to rise, and have a say in changing the laws. Hence, the political systems began to listen and interact with societies to set up the principles and rules of their socio-economic system, ignoring the so-called sacred religious laws in most nations, but all of that is not enough because poverty and injustices still exist.

Just to give few examples: in a democratic system, people elect their trusted leader to set out the principles of interaction among them, and when they are not happy they may not choose the same leader again. But when all leaders are the same, does it matter whom people elect? Additionally, companies and organisations lobby leaders to change the laws to suit the rich, not the poor or the consumer. Consequently, it is not a real democratic system because capitalism compromises it. While in ecolism’s eco-socio-economic system, the leaders are transparent, and selected if they are able to resist the temptations of bribery from the rich, and are then elected. But, leaders could be voted down and tried for misconduct.

Throughout recent centuries, revolutions have changed whole political systems and principles. In current days, strikes and petitions might cause a policy U-turn, and voting in an election removes a failing political party from power and appoints another. But wealthy organisations still lobby the newly elected political party to do the same thing all over again and tailor laws to suit them, and it does not matter which party is in power. What matters is who is behind that power.

While in ecolism there are no parties, no lobbyists, or influential corporations. Instead, the eco-welfare system influences the laws for the mutual benefit of all.

The conclusions and facts from all the above are that no socio-economic system has so far succeeded altogether in ending poverty in the world, or has enforced full equality and absolute justice for everyone, creating a level playing field between the rich and poor concurrently.

Therefore, I hope that people will follow the new eco-socio-economic system that is fairer to all or at least for the poorest in society. The new utopian eco-socio-economic system does not have to change any current religion or political system, but takes the most vulnerable ones in a society and offers them a fairer lifestyle in an organised utopian eco-city that has its own rules, as a large organisation would have, without conflicting with any current legal system.

Let us have a general comparison between the new ecolism and other socio-economic systems, including religions.



Jun 252017

What is Ecolism

Religions merged gods into one; ecolism unite religions in one.

Ecolism is the new definition of my creation of a new socio-economic system that balances the powers between the poor, rich, and rulers. It is not designed for an eco-city only, but can be implemented anywhere else in the world with some variations to suit each culture.

Ecolism is the balance of the extremes between conflicting ideologies and socio-economic systems such as communism and capitalism, in addition to extracting the best of all other ideological socio-economic systems or ‘isms’.

Note: By ‘isms’, we mean capitalism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and atheism, but also democracy, Islam, Christianity, and all the other sects of religions and the variations of the world’s socio-economic systems since history began.

Ecolism is a new concept of an eco-socio-economic system that extracts the moral values and ethical principles from all faiths and ruling regimes. It narrows the big gap between the rich and poor, limit the powers of rulers, yet proportionately balances and distributes the wealth, power, and responsible freedom among them all.

The followers of ecolism, could live either in an eco-city or an eco-community under the new eco-socio-economic system following the ethical eco-principles as described in this book.

The regimes of the socio-economic systems or ‘isms’ throughout the centuries may have sound principles in them. However, they also have abusers of the principles, and have failed to provide optimum justice, true equality, and responsible freedom for everyone to live happier in a sustainable and secure human ecosystem from birth till death.

Ecolism is a new eco-socio-economic system, which is self-sufficient, self-governed, sustainable, and organized to formulate a new way of living in a more civilized human ecosystem, unaffected by political, religious, or financial influences.

Ecolism does not impose its will or systems on others, neither does it accept the influences of other systems. However, with an open mind, it could logically assess what would be best for the ecolists to evolve to an advanced form of a more civilized existence. Ecolism means to live better and consume less, avoid unnecessary waste, reuse before recycling, give others what you do not need, and help the ecolists to live in a better eco-socio-economic system.

Ecolism believes that every human is a valuable asset and recognizes identity, regardless of status in society. It is the wealthiest and rulers’ responsibilities to ensure that the essential necessities for survival in our demanding world are freely available for everyone as a minimum human right. In return, all that people have to do is work and become productive to pay for a dignified way of life in a social ecosystem.

The eco-socio-economic system does not deprive the poor of the essential necessities like warm accommodation, nutritious food, communications’ means, continuous education or training in skills, health and social care, security, and protection. At least it gives people what they reasonably need without extravagance or greed. This is unlike democracy, which is trying to do all the above but failing to do so for everyone, under the influence of capitalism and the narcissistic greed for money.

In our modern and demanding world, communication means, such as the internet, computers, phones, and transport, are essential necessities that everybody needs to survive with a reasonable standard of living. The front-line services such as free healthcare, education, skills’ training, and unemployment benefits are indispensable for sustaining the social ecosystem. The minimum pre-requisite for modern living is a decent home, water, electricity, food, and security, which are critical for self-sufficiency and sustainability for each one of us to survive in a competitive world.

Ecolism would not treat the poor as helpless or slaves, and impose on them further penalties to intensify their misery. Instead, it treats them as the children of life, learning to grow and cope with a demanding civilization; helps them to solve their problems; and re-educates them to adapt and thrive in a harmonized society.

It is like what Jesus Christ said: those who never sin, let them throw the first stone. The wisdom that comes out of what Jesus said and its application to modern life in the 21st century is that everyone makes mistakes, or sins, or fails or offends in an imperfect socio-economic system. That does not mean penalization is the answer, but rather it is to reform, re-educate, and remove the root causes. And this is the best answer for a better solution to prevent the reoccurrences of social problems.

The ecolism’s principles advocates selecting the eco-city councilors or leaders according to their academic qualifications, achievements, abilities, merits, specializations, ethics, and track records. Then whoever is chosen by the majority of the ecolists, based on their manifesto or a promise that they will deliver what is better for the community, will be elected. But also, they will be removed from power as soon as they abuse their trust and do not fulfil their pledges. Eco-councilors do not autocratically appoint any person in authority, whose decisions affect others, but propose candidates who meet the specified criteria, and they are selected and deselected by a majority, depending on their achievements or failure.

One might say, well, democracy is like that, what is new? The answer is that democracy is half-way there, but not all the way, and the proof is in the outcome not in what is announced. As always, the devil is in the details. The truth is behind what you hear and not in what you hear. The cat might lick an abrasive sand paper drawing blood from her tongue, making her think it is delicious food, while it is the blood needed for her survival.

The essence of freedom in ecolism is the consensus on disciplinary rules and principles that treat humans with logical equality. The rulers cannot play the role of God, and solely impose policies without people’s consensus or approval. Legislating a principle or policy without people’s consent becomes autocracy in the name of democracy.

The wealthy and powerful should be equal to the weak and helpless, and should not take advantage of people’s weaknesses to deprive them of their responsible freedom and equal rights. The prime minister or president of the greatest country is equal to a rubbish collector when it comes to human rights, freedom, and justice.

The religions say that we are all equal in front of God, and ecolism says that we are all equal facing justice. However, does it happen in our civilization? Practically, it does not. The rich and influential always find a way to manipulate the justice system and get away with their sins. The solicitors defend clients for their money, not because they are right or did not sin, and the judges’ justification for a judgment depends on their mood and politics, not the real purpose of the law.

Ecolism has no racism or favouritism, and places the right people in the right places based on their merits, not on colour, status, gender, or race.

Ecolism is the eco-society for the future of humanity, with the right to live free but responsibly, and the right to live secure, self-sufficient and cared for from birth till death.

Ecolism does not believe in prison sentences or punishment, but believes in removing the root causes of failure. Reforming or re-educating those who fail, to reintroduce them as reformed members of the eco-society.

The ecolist does not ask ‘how can I get more?’, but ‘how can I give more to the world?’ I have what I need; there are millions to feed. I am a father who yields to his family’s needs, and what makes me happy is the happiness of others and my seeds.


The ecolist is like a patriotic soldier who sacrifices himself for the sake of many and not his nation or to get an extra penny, like what some politicians do. The elected and trusted leader does not have the right to surrender the sovereignty of the nation to another, and should not mislead his people that it is better for them to surrender their freedom.

The ecolists’ self-sufficiency necessitates that they manufacture what they need to use and farm what they need to eat, consuming what is better for their health, and not what tastes good or looks beautiful. Most of the time, the extremely nutritious food is the least expensive, and the most efficient system is the simplest and most practical.


The ecolists use what is good value for money and practical, not what is unnecessarily expensive and extravagant. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in the USA invented a pen to write in space where there is no gravity, under water, on the wall, or on any surface, at the cost of £70,000, while the Russians used a pencil that does the same job and costs a penny. What is the point in buying a £300,000 car that drives 300mph when the maximum speed limit is 70mph?

Ecolists live better and spend less; never need a lavish, extravagant lifestyle; or the over regulation of legislations. Instead, they live by what is rational and common sense. Honesty and impartiality are the essence of judgement. When we are all equal, then our way of thinking automatically controls our actions to do to others as you wish them to do to you. The powers are shared and rotated so that everyone can become the prosecutor at one time and the prosecuted at another, to learn how to judge rightly and how to treat others fairly.

Jun 252017
 Ecolism Volume 1 UK Edition Written by: Henri Maalouf
 Book 1: My Utopian Eco-Socio-Economic System, Book 2: My Utopian Eco-City
  • Do you want to live in an ethical eco-socio-economic system unaffected by global economic turmoil and free from terrorism?
  • Do you want to build eco-cities to end poverty, save billions on public spending and reduce CO2, N2O and other pollutants to 0%?
  • Would you like to live self-sufficient in a sustainable ethical society and own an eco-home that becomes your space for survival?
  • Do you want to live in an eco-city protected from unwelcome visitors and has its own Magna carta? If yes read Ecolism volumes to learn what to ask your leaders to do.

Ecolism Volume 1 is one of four small volumes proposing eco-solutions. It aims to solve most problems in most social and economic systems. Henri E. Maalouf creates a framework of a social and economic system to complement a utopian Eco-city. H.E. Maalouf suggests that it must be a compulsory human right for each couple older than sixteen to own an eco-home and the government pay the interest on their mortgage until the social welfare system find them a job to repay the loan.

“An Englishman’s home is his castle,” and H.E. Maalouf says:
My eco-home is my space for survival.

Why do I need a mansion when I can only sleep on one bed?

Every couple older than 16 should have the right to own an eco-home that costs £100k and pay less than £250/month interest. The government should guarantee the mortgage, and it is her duty to educate, train, and employ people to be able to repay it back.

Henri Maalouf is an I.T Solutions Architect, and has worked as a contractor for banks, governments, and global companies, designing and implementing the latest technologies on a global scale.

However, following the recession in 2008, Henri started thinking of a new eco-socio-economic system for the destitute to live an economic self-sufficient eco-lifestyle unaffected by national or global economies. Continue reading »

Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.
Skip to toolbar