Let’s take a look back at the previous chapters.

In the first part of the book we took a look at the two main fronts which all energons – without exception – face: energy and material sources. The energons need to reach them, tap them, this is the conditio sine qua non. The energy absorption comes first, without energy there is no activity. The acquisition of material is also important but not always.

In the second part we discussed other environmental factors the energons have to cope with. First and foremost they are unfavourable, hostile; secondly they are favourable, beneficial. All this environmental factors – energy sources, material sources, predators, disturbances, support and symbionts – control the evolutionary formation of energons. They are responsible for a major part of their functional units and movements. They dictate how these spatio-temporal structures must look .

In the third part we turned to the internal fronts against which every energon has to fight. All functional units need to be linked with each other, functions need to be co-ordinated in many ways. No functional unit should hinder the other but if possible support it; each part needs to be adjusted to the whole. Furthermore all functional units must be able to fulfil their functions. And finally the energons need to be able to reproduce themselves and alter (improve). Even these "inner" factors have control effects but are not as manifest as the outer ones. They can not be recognised by the senses but by the mind.

The categories of thought so developed differ to a great extent from those which have so far been used for the general division of phenomena. They are characterised by their function and can be clearly distinguished. What makes them so important is the fact that they (and I claim, they alone) reveal the invisible framework of values which dictates the required spatio-temporal structures to all energons – however different these energons may seem. In each of these categories – which can be compared with the internal and external "fronts" – it is possible in principle to measure what expenditures are required, caused by the "factors" ("groups of factors"). Whether such measuring may be carried out with today’s means is of no importance; especially in the case of organisms such measuring would involve major difficulties. First of all it is only important to find out what has to be measured and where it has to be measured in order to be able to calculate the competitive potential of the energons. The most important claim of the energon theory is that such measuring can be carried out according to the same pattern on each energon. The same set of criteria can be applied to all of them – whether they are organisms or acquisition structures developed by humans.

One main and very important category is still missing: the front against "competitors". So far I have neglected it because the correlations in this field are most difficult to grasp and because it cannot clearly be assigned either to external or internal fronts.

Competitors as such are real elements of the environment and belong to the external front in this sense. The struggle with this group of factors is often as direct as that with disturbances or predators. The major struggle, though, takes place somewhere else – it is so to speak the struggle of the energons with their own structure. In competition, the energons which almost always prove superior are those which work more cheaply, precisely and quickly. This has an effect on practically every single functional unit. The main weapon against competitors is thus the improvement of one’s own structure – which would often not be necessary if there were no competition.

From this it is evident that competitors have two main effects: on the one hand they force, i.e. control, the development of direct defence and attack measures. On the other hand they force – control – processes on the "internal" front.

This may sound much more complicated than it really is. Every businessman will be familiar with such phenomena in real life. Without competition – this applies to an energon in a monopoly position – the energon simply has to be capable of acquisition. As soon as a competitor appears, however, the situation changes entirely. In order to survive, the manager – or the Brains Trust advising him – has to re-examine the entire structure. Where can expense be saved? What can be improved? How can the structure of acquisition be made to work in a more rational, smooth and better integrated way? This is what I mean when I refer to the indirect control effect that comes from the inside.

We usually recoil from the term "control". We are used to think that it is the manager, it is humans who control, but this is not true. In this case humans are only the tool of a control – the mind only fulfils the function of recognising, if possible ascertaining in advance the demands made by this control. Where it leads to is only in exceptional cases dictated by the mind (Part One, chapter II, paragraph 1). Usually it is determined by the form of acquisition, external and internal influences and competitors. Humans can only more or less follow this dictate.

The competitors can be clearly distinguished from the predators. They pose a much greater threat than the latter. This can be easily be demonstrated.
 
 

For a predator, the energon it attacks is always a form or source of energy. If the predator exploits the source too much, it cuts off its nose to spite its face.

In the case of individuals this principle is not as obvious as in the case of species. If for example lions feed exclusively on gazelles and even exterminate them – then in the end they will starve. The same holds for acquisition by exchange. If a type of job or company gains the upper hand, it absorbs too much of the demand on which it lives – and finally there will not be enough demand.

In both cases the same thing happens: those energons which are predators as well as those which exchange in a way "balance" their source of acquisition If the lions become predominant and reduce the number of gazelles too much, a corresponding number of lions will starve in future generations. The number of lions will then decrease – and the gazelles will have better conditions for reproduction.

It is the same with enterprises. If too many soap factories, dry-cleaning shops or cinemas spring up in an area, some of them will sooner or later vanish. As a result the demand pressure rises again (provided that the demand has not changed fundamentally) and supply may increase too.

Humans with foresight try to anticipate this development – but they often do not succeed. Due to the non-transparency of the market it is much harder to recognise demand and supply as such. The supplying energons as well as the demanding sources of acquisition nevertheless arrive at a balance.

The relation between a competitor and its victim however is totally different. In this case the energon in question is not the source of acquisition but it taps the same source. The energons often struggle with each other though they do not see each other – they compete for the same prey, the same demand that has to be satisfied, the same feeding bowl.

If an energon succeeds in ousting its competitor and seizing the source of acquisition, it does not have even the slightest disadvantage, only an advantage. This is why each competitor is so terribly dangerous. One could say that the predator is half a friend of its victim, since this victim is its source of acquisition. The competitor on the other hand is a totally ruthless opponent who does not even take part in the destruction of its victim. The conquered opponent dies somewhere and the winner profits from this.

We have already discussed the indirect effect of competitors in detail. If each functional unit of an energon has to fulfil its function in the cheapest, quickest and most precise way, then this is due to the pressure exerted by competitors. While trying to measure the competitive potential, we dealt with this indirect effect coming from within. What remains to be analysed is the direct warding off of competitors.

But before doing this, I would like to make a few general remarks.
 
 

First it has to be pointed out that some energon species are acquisitive within a certain "territory" whereas others are not.

The majority of plants are tied to one location. Though animals may move, there are many species which are resident in a certain area. The same is true for human forms of acquisition. Whether farmer or hairdresser or commercial agent, all work in a more or less limited area. The bacteria floating in the air and the plankton drifting in the water however are moved here and there by external energy. If they hit upon food, they grow, if they do not find any food, they die¹.

Their area of acquisition is actually tiny: the energons take it with them, so to speak. Only what they touch directly is comes under their sphere of control. The area of acquisition of mobile animals living like nomads is much bigger. When migratory locusts find appropriate food, they attack the respective area. The same holds for primeval humans, who were nomads. Wherever they found suitable hunting grounds, they settled down. When these grounds were exhausted, they moved on. It is quite similar today with major production plants. Although they are stuck to one place, they are nevertheless nomads. Their acquisition organs – products – circulate around the world. Where they come across a corresponding demand they establish themselves and in so doing enlarge the area of acquisition of the company.

The term "area of acquisition" as I use it is thus defined by performance, by success. It is, so to speak, a part of the entire source which the respective energon is able to tap. It is a statistical term which cannot easily be depicted on a map.

If for example there are 100,000 animals of prey for lions in a certain area, the areas of acquisition of the single lions will often overlap. In statistics the figure is clear. If on average 6000 animals are eaten per year and one lion eats 60, the area of acquisition of that lion amounts to 1% of the entire area.

This type of "definition of territory" – which differs fundamentally from that used in biology – can universally be applied. It there are 20 dentists in a city, their source of acquisition will be the complete needs of dental treatment. Drawn on a map of the city, the territories of the single dentists cannot be clearly distinguished. It may well happen that a patient consults a dentist in another part of the city. As for statistics, the balance sheets give detailed information about the territory of each dentist. If one dentist succeeds in achieving 10% of the total turnover, his/her area of acquisition amounts to 10% of the total .

In the lions’ area of acquisition of the lions, as well as in that of the dentists’, there may be more or less favourable places. At certain spots the prey may prefer to stay (for example at the watering place), in certain parts of the city richer patients may live who can spend more money on dental treatment. The animal or person able to expand its sphere of influence in that area has the advantage. It is especially these strategic places which the energons compete for².

Thus we have to distinguish between two differing features: first the energon’s ability to search for prey, and its mobility, and second the ability to assert itself against competitors. What is of great importance – and thus we have come to the vital point – is that efforts are always made, energy is used.

Seen thus, the territory of acquisition is not an actual area but a sphere of influence. Its value can be defined in energy for each area and each type of energon: the amount of energy that has to be expended in order to control the area or type. If there are no competitors – which happens rarely – average individual effort will lead to an average result, depending on how rich the source of acquisition is in the respective area. If there are competitors, however, competitiveness will determine the share of the source of acquisition, the area of acquisition. The more popular dentist or production firm with the better means of acquisition (sale goods) will then gain the bigger market share – the larger area of acquisition.

A  Primeval humans expand the sphere of influence of their genetic body with the help of artificial organs and becomes more and more superior to animals and plants in their capacity as hunters.

B  Farming stands for an enormous increase of potential prey per area. Those plants which do not serve as food are eliminated, the others are cultivated. Animals are used for operating artificial organs (plough, wagon) directly. Humans no longer need to take up energy via their stomach and use it by means of muscular labour – a limited process. The "professional entities" created by humans include even those functional units (like an ox) whose energy is used for directly powering another functional unit (plough).

C  The exchange of output established by humans leads to another enormous increase in power. By producing a personal achievement or selling its result humans may acquire achievements of other people or the results of these achievements..

D  As a consequence of discovering electricity humans succeed in conducting natural forces (such as the energy of a waterfall or coal) quickly across long distances. A company may in this way use a waterfall which is a hundred kilometres away for directly powering its functional units. Another energy source which can be used quickly and without loss is "money": a universal entitlement to human achievements within a community. Electricity as well as money can easily be transformed into various forms of energy: electricity may be transformed into mechanical power, light, heat and so on; money can be transformed into every possible specialised human work or its product.
 

The area of acquisition is thus always the product of an effort. It needs to be first won and second maintained in each area competed for.

Here I have to add that besides the territories of acquisition there are other territories for the securing and maintaining of which the energons need energy. In the case of animals this applies above all to the space necessary for mating and reproduction, especially for care of offspring. If this area is the same as the area of acquisition, an additional achievement is no longer necessary. Just think of the salmon, which swims upstream in order to spawn; this is an energon which produces a second area of action for the purpose of mating and reproduction, thereby expending a considerable amount of energy. The salmon does not find new food; rather, it has to overcome a lot of hurdles and take further risks. As discussed in the last chapter, these efforts do not serve the individual but the species and the life flow.

In the case of humans, there is also an unusual feature – the luxury space which may become many times larger than the area of acquisition (seen from the point of view of energetics). It too has to be won – acquired. Its protection as a rule requires constant expenditures of energy in the form of taxes.

The energon theory leads to a different and , as it seems to me, more accurate definition of the terms ownership of land or property. The owner does not actually possess the ground but has a temporary or permanent right of disposal – that is a sphere of control. If we purchase real estate from another person, we displace this person and eliminate his sphere of influence in this area. This may be achieved by using force – as in old times – or through exchange, handing over an appropriate sum of money – as in organised states.

Here the close relationship between robbery and exchange becomes obvious since money is nothing but an entitlement to a human achievement, to energy from an outside source (Part Two, chapter VI, paragraph 3) – as we have already seen. Whether energy is used for forcible displacement – as when stealing land – or whether an appropriate equivalent for the energy is voluntarily transferred to the vendor is not shown in the energy balance. In both cases however "territory" is won with expenditure of energy.

Animals have constantly to defend the acquired territory against competitors trying to oust them. Within the organised human communities which permit the acquisition of land, however, the state fulfils the function of safeguarding this sphere of influence. It is laid down formally in the land register, turning the holder into the owner. By erecting fences the owner keeps away intruders. The actual sphere of influence ,however, is safeguarded by the state, which takes action against intruders in cases of emergency. It is for this protection that citizens pay taxes and charges.

In trade and industry, too, some space may be acquired by purchase and in many cases the state protects this, also. With the help of licences, patents and copyrights the state prevents competitors from becoming active in a certain spatial and temporal sphere. These are also possible means of safeguarding against competitors. In many acquisitive groups, though, there is almost complete freedom of trade nowadays. The developing energon at most has to prove its basic qualification – by means of "examinations" – (as a precautionary measure for the community), then, however, it has to fend for itself and try to win an area of acquisition in free competition. Almost always are the relevant sources of acquisition are already being tapped by other energons. The human acquisition structures have to fight for their place in this hostile community – like every young plant or animal.

Certain territories are kept by the state for all citizens, for the purpose of acquisition as well as luxury. Such territories are first and foremost all public roads and other transport routes which, like spider’s threads, run through the overlapping areas of acquisition. Everyone may move freely on them – whether for acquisitive purposes or for fun. In addition there are parks, estates which are open to the public and others.

Today human areas of acquisition are based on private and community law. What characterises human development is the increase of output by means of intensification.
 
 

Terrestrial plants face double competition: above ground they raise their leaves as high as possible, thus absorbing the light other plants need, too. Below ground their roots compete for water and nutrients. Some plants even discharge substances that prevent other competitors from growing.

Animals often act as predators when fighting their competition at the feeding and watering place. In this struggle they may mostly use the same "weapon" though different patterns of behaviour are required, since the competitors look different and behave in a different way. Superior size plays an important role in this competition: at the feeding and watering place the large dog shoves aside the small one, the large elephant shoves aside the small one.

It was however left to the human intellect devise the most dreadful weapon in this struggle for energy and material. Before the time this special ability of inferring and concluding arose in the central nervous system of humans there had never been such a cruel slaughtering of competitors in the course of evolution.

The first strategy thought up by this functional unit was "clearing for cultivation", which sounds rather positive to us. We subject nature which has no or only little value to our will, organise its activities. What is of no value to us as raw energy is eliminated by force, what serves as "food" is cultivated and promoted. In practice this implies the unparalleled extermination of competitors. They are eradicated root and branch – the individual area of acquisition is intensified a thousand times.

The same area may now a bigger yield. Humans thus improve their area of acquisition by eliminating competitors totally.

Another measure consists in fending off those competitors which could profit from the result of this ruthless activity as well. Fences are erected, scarecrows are put up, attempts are made to exterminate parasites with poisonous substances.

The energons planted to be eaten are cared for and supported in every possible way. All disruptive factors are countered to the best of our ability. The soil is irrigated, fertilised. Poets sing the praises of seed and crop, compare the fertility of the soil with that of women. It thus becomes the most natural thing, a good deed, to exterminate competitors opposing our interests. We see ourselves as the centre and purpose of Creation.

Another display of intelligence consisted in increasing the yield by means of "rotation of crops". Monocultures lead to exhaustion of the soil – to a de-intensification of the area of acquisition which is met with two or three cycles of rotation. Pulses are ,for example, planted after wheat ,or the field is left to its own resources for one season – it "lies fallow". The result of these manipulations is a further increase in the total yield.

And that is not all: humans breed. This is the same procedure as natural selection, only with regard to personal advantage. Cattle are turned into highly productive suppliers of meat and milk. The average cow may produce 3,000 litres of milk per year, the Holstein cow produces up to 10,000 litres per year. The purpose of such breeding is an animal which digests its food particularly efficiently. This is another method for intensifying the area of acquisition, for increasing the amount of raw energy squeezed out of it.

Further increases in yield are achieved by improving or adding artificial organs: by improving the transport route, mechanisation, collectivising. The ideal size of companies is calculated. According to the distance from the sales area, either lighter or heavier crops are planted. Butter, for example, needs a hundred times more soil than hay in relation to its weight, wool approximately a thousand times more than potatoes. Finally, another important method of intensification is recycling. Some products may serve as manure, others may provide additional "by-products" after being processed.

It is remarkable that only at this stage of evolution, at this point of transition from organisms to human acquisition structures were competitors so rigorously exterminated. The competition among the human acquisition structures, however, again reminds one of that between organisms.
 
 

For a baker or a soap factory it is virtually impossible to eliminate all human needs which are not directed towards bread or soap. Only in extremely totalitarian states where the state itself has the monopoly in producing the majority of goods are there such processes. Needs not catered for by the state are eradicated if possible, with the help of propaganda and force. All the products the state has decided to offer and distribute are however glorified as being the "best" and "most desirable" ones.

In countries with a market economy similar methods are used as regards competitors as in the animal and plant kingdom, with the difference that they have been considerably refined by means of human intelligence. Competitors are hurt as much as possibility as well (by influencing lenders, middlemen, consumers, by a blockade on means of transport, exclusive distribution arrangement, fidelity rebates, underselling and so on). Physical size and power also play a significant role. "Marketing instruments" furthermore include offensive measures which are without parallel in the animal and plant kingdom, such as payment by instalments, rebates, cash discount, additional gifts. In addition to these there is also the unusual feature of aggressive advertising³.

These methods can best be compared with the manure of soil and the breeding of particularly productive and useful organisms. Just as these measures increase the yield per area, this type of advertisement increases the demand – and thus the specific source of acquisition – per area. New, even non-existing demands, that is, sources of acquisition may be created with these methods. Just as agricultural acquisition structures make the soil as utilisable as possible, other human acquisition structures make their fellow men as utilisable as possible. With every means they have at their disposal they try to create demand where it has so far not existed.
 
 

A  Functional unit organ of acquisition ("object of exchange"). In exchange for shoes the following products may be obtained: first food, that is, organic molecules which can be digested (x); second human labour (y): for the duration of work the person working becomes an artificial organ of the energon offering the object of exchange (rented performance); third a product of human labour (z): in this case an artificial organ is exchanged for another.

B  Functional unit money. If a blacksmith needed a goose, he could hardly have got one by exchanging goods because the farmer perhaps did not need a sword and above all because the sword had a higher value. With the help of the universal means, money, every achievement can be shared and transformed into any other. It furthermore makes possible the gradual accumulation of exchange values ("savings").

C  Functional unit market. It makes it easier for supply (organs of acquisition) and demand (surpluses of energy plus need) to meet. The mutual search process is thus rationalised by a common organ (market).

D  Functional unit advertising. It makes the search process easier and furthermore makes possible the artificial creation of demand where it has not existed so far or where different demands have existed. Development aid is a perfect example, since there can only be demand when people have surpluses at their disposal. Thus it is necessary not only to create demand in other people but also to help them acquire surpluses. They need to be encouraged to develop professional entities and business organisations.
 

This process, as well as the elimination of animal and plant competitors, is backed up with positive feelings. No producer promoting his products would mention the profit, he would always talk about the services that are offered, the progress that is supported. The struggle against competitors thus becomes a signal of real humanity even in this field⁴.
 
 

All these attempts to oust competitors – whether it is the discharge of special substances from the roots of plants or the advertising campaign of a company producing washing powder or the patent of an industrial enterprise – constitute efforts, thus consuming energy.

In this case too the competitive value is increased when the effects are achieved in the cheapest, quickest and most precise way. And finally, the situation in the development stage differs fundamentally from that in the acquisition phases and the resting or dormant phase. Thus we again obtain twelve factors which have to be taken into account when defining competitiveness.

This holds true for individuals as well as species. If the energon is part of a bigger energon, the result will be conflicting interests and seen from the life flow the assessments will then be different.
 
 

In the case of human energons these conflicts manifested themselves particularly at the time when the first nomads settled down. The question was: to whom do the areas of acquisition and the benefits reaped from them belong? Does an area belong to the individual who cultivates it or to the community – that is the superior energon – of which the individual is a member?

In order to realise that this problem has not been solved so far we just have to look to the East and the West.

In the course of history the development was generally from communal property to private property. The reason for this is obvious: the respective area of acquisition and real property (fields, farmsteads, etc.) were in most cases threatened by other groups of humans rather than by animals. Only the community (clan, tribe, people) was able to provide protection. Thus it naturally saw itself as the owner of the area of acquisition and allocated parts of it to the individual for cultivation and use. This is today still practised by many primitive tribes (for example in Africa and Malaysia). Or the individual is transferred the right to use the ground which the individual itself clears for cultivation (like most Indian tribes do). During the time of the Germanic people the first "private property" became the homestead. Even in the times of Tacitus arable land was part of the community property: lots were drawn to see who would temporarily use the fields. Only after the Migration of Peoples did individuals come to possess farmland. The Romans, however, had a very individualistic concept of real property: the power of the owner reached usque ad coelum et infernos – to the sky and the interior of the earth. These are simply definitions which have been recognised because of human conventions. They offer advantages as well as disadvantages for the state and the individual.

The fact that private possession of land and crops is a major incentive to work can clearly be seen in communist countries, where such a stimulus does not exist in many cases because property is either limited or totally forbidden. Thus for example individual farmers in communist Poland made a profit of 621 Zlotys per hectare, collective farms 517 Zlotys and state-owned farms 394 Zlotys⁵. This implies a drop of more than 37%. This difference may be even bigger in other fields.

Seen in terms of evolution – beyond good and evil – private property is without doubt a natural condition. Those supporting the law of nature were wrong when due to the early conditions of human development they believed that communal property was the original, natural state⁶. What is original is the fact that performance wins and develops. All evolution is based on this principle.In the case of organisms living in herds there are also community interests. As for animals which are overwhelmingly led by instinct – like insects living in states – these interests may take the place of individual interests. Withdrawing the fruits of their work from intelligent people would however mean taking away the strongest and most original impulse from the life flow

The much more critical question – which we are talking about here in essence – is that of the heritability of property. As regards its evolution it is difficult to judge this phenomenon – simply because there are hardly any early stages in the kingdom of organisms.

Only in the case of the human acquisition structures it so happened that the individual functional units did not die together with the human obtaining and combining them. Another person may take over the empty place – and the energon lives on.

Quite naturally would humans like it most if their own children took over the abandoned acquisition structures: they would prefer to supply their children – being parts of themselves – with present and future surpluses. The individual who is less lucky will inevitably regard this as injustice – especially if he believes that humans are chosen by God personally and thus should be granted the same starting conditions.

Due to this bequeathing of property, families and clans came to occupy important positions of power which were more and more consolidated over generations. These complexes of acquisition are in so far peculiar in that they often develop in different forms, combining them in many ways. They can hardly be compared with ordinary energons – rather, they make us aware of the basic principle of the stream of life in a smaller version.

Humans who do not belong to any such clan thus face others who easily and, so to speak, undeservedly came to hold such positions of power. Whereas one is without any efforts taken to the top by the achievements of his ancestors, another human has nothing, his progress is even blocked by these clans.

A similar situation arises when a young tree begins to grow in a high forest. In this case the competition is a lost cause. The giant trees – created by numerous generations of cells – have already been holding a position which can hardly be challenged. With regard to humankind this brings up the question whether the giant trees should be sawn off, whether the state should see to it that every young tree has the same starting conditions.

There are plenty of arguments for and against this view. In the course of history many extreme features have been eliminated or mitigated
 
 

The autocratic rulers of the past very often turned the entire area of acquisition of the community (tribe, people) headed by themselves into their own private property. This was not extremely difficult since they were in command of the militant units on which the power of the community was based. All their vassals directly depended on the rulers: without soil no food. The highest-ranking and most important members of staff (on whom the ruler had to rely very strongly) were paid by simply awarding them with property. The others were granted the right to use the land as "feud" and in so doing the ruler without any efforts came to possess a constant "basic income".

In this way estates of gigantic size developed. It would however be wrong to assume that such accumulation of area of acquisition in the hands of few people was always and only achieved by means of force.

Rather often – as in the times of the Migration of peoples – did free peasants seek the shelter of a ruler or of the church, which was very powerful at that time. The kings themselves looked for settlers to cultivate their land and offered them advantageous conditions. For each acquisition structure built by humans the worst enemy is another human acquisition structure. For the development of such energons – this has hold true since the beginning of human development – protection was always the main problem. Such protection can only be provided by a superior organisation. Thus what is of importance is a division in accordance with the achievements of the two sides. The seizing of the entire area of acquisition by the head of this organisation is surely a payment too high for the protection provided. This excessive display of power by individuals, families and clans, which passed on power to their blood relatives and prevented all others from rising, resulted in countermovements, deposing the ruling houses, sharing out the large estates.

Then the force of industry took the place of that of property and here too similar positions of power developed which were passed on by bequest. They too were used excessively. As a consequence, the communist movement arose which up to today has suffered from a mistake in the logic of its founder Karl Marx. He believed that these excessive positions of power could only be eliminated by abolishing the property rights of the "means of production". Thus he turned the state into a monopolist in economic affairs and robbed it one of its major forces: the entrepreneurs. The fact that a reasonable balance of individual and state interests can be achieved in a much less drastic way has meanwhile been proven.

These conflicting interests look quite different as regards the "highest authority" – the life flow.
 
 

I see – and I am repeating myself – no sign of the rule of a conscious will in this highest authority. This is a process which can be best compared with fire. What serves the spreading of fire is "good" and "useful" for the fire, what contains and smothers the fire however is "bad" and "inappropriate" for the fire. If we look at evolution from the point of view of the life flow, it is easy to distinguish between "beneficial" and "not beneficial". This distinction can be compared with the total sales of the life process, with the "gross life product" in the language of economists. What results in an increase of the entire "vitalised material", including all structures built by humans, is "beneficial", what results in a decrease is "not beneficial".

How rational this evaluation is can be seen in the following example. As for the life flow it is essential that the totality of animals and the totality of plants are in proportion; it does not matter, however, what species are involved.

As already mentioned, plants could not live without animals: they would be suffocated by oxygen. Animals could not live without plants: they would be suffocated by carbon dioxide. Seen in this way, plants as a whole can be regarded as necessary "organ" for the development of animals or animals as a whole can be regarded as necessary "organ" for the development of plants.

It was in the interest of the life flow to increase the area of acquisition. Therefore the development of new entities able to penetrate into areas which had not been populated before was in its interest. The advance on land was the biggest "battle" of this campaign. The life process spread like fire across more and more parts of our planet. It always and exclusively manifested itself in energons.

Subsequently it was in the interest of the life flow to intensify the areas acquired: that is, to increase the life turnover per area. The division into animal and plant kingdom ("autotrophic" and "heterotrophic") complied with this interest. For plants the maximum development per square metre of ground is limited. By growing in size they are able to increase further the life substance – but there are limits to this process. The truth is that plants could produce much more – but they simply lack the space required for doing so. Animals, so to speak, provide a way out of this deadlock – they eat plants (which naturally grow again) and do not depend on sunlight. Seen in this way, animals are offshoots of plants which can develop in places where plants cannot. The overall life substance per area is thus increased, the area of acquisition intensified.

The human energon then opened up new ways of increasing and intensifying the area of acquisition. It created artificial organs – in practice this means that it more and more included inorganic matter in the structure of life, "vitalised" it and turned it into elements of the life flow. If a human builds a house out of stones, the stones become functional units: elements of the life process. If we construct a machine and use steel, the metal becomes part of the life flow . This process is not totally new: even the "living" substance consists in the end of inorganic matter. Though only in the second part of the evolution do large, organic structures become highly effective components of life.

Then humans – or the energons developed by them – succeed more and more in smuggling outside energy into life events, in utilising it for these events. Coal and oil are of organic origin – the free energy contained in them was an "unexpected legacy", as Ostwald put it. Wind, water power and nuclear energy though are totally inorganic forms of energy. All these forces are used for directly powering artificial functional units, increasing the power potentials in the areas of acquisition.

By means of artificial heating, humans drive the life flow to polar regions, by means of artificial irrigation to desert regions. With the use of particularly functional units humans are even able to leave the planet. One could say in a more human way: the life flow is kindly disposed towards all this. All these phenomena serve the life flow .

It is also kindly disposed towards wars – they promote innovation and exterminate acquisition structures which are stagnating.

The life flow is also kindly disposed towards the haste of the age of technology. Wherever the national product is increased, it can automatically credit it as increase in the gross life product.

What the life flow does not like is introverted humans who look for values and the aim of their life in themselves, who do not drift, whose needs cannot be influenced. Diogenes in his barrel was a particularly disgusting energon for the life flow .

Such individuals break away from the large river, they do not increase its turnover.

Thus we have reached the point where it becomes inevitable that we must talk about the motives of human behaviour. On another occasion⁷ I went into that subject in more detail – and already mentioned the basic ideas of the energon theory. Seen from the energon theory human behaviour is one of many other phenomena.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Why and for which purpose?"
 
 

Comments:

¹ The existence of these species proves that they often enough find food. If they did not, they would not exist.
² In economic life the term “market density” stands for the number of potential customers, enlisting the services or buying the products of a particular company. Large department stores require cities of at least 500,000 inhabitants. For self-service shops of 200 square metres a trading area of up to 200 metres in radius is essential.
³ What is meant here is not advertising in its function as means of orientation for interested customers but its second function of creating demand.
⁴ An important counterargument is the following: advertising creates mass demand – thus an originally luxury good may be turned into a much more cheaper good for daily use. This is undoubtedly true. It is equally true that many people need to be influenced because they do not know what they want for their life. Militant advertising is nevertheless an offensive measure, like predatory acquisition.
⁵ These figures are taken from the  eighth plenary of the central committee of Poland (1956), in which Gomulka denounced the state-owned farms and collective farms as not functioning not well enough. H. Gross in “Gegenwartsprobleme der Agrarökonomie”, published by A. Zottmann, Hamburg 1958, S 131.
⁶ Gerhard Uhlmann, for example ,wrote that common property was the original condition, while private property was a result of sin. (“Die christliche Liebestätigkeit in der alten Kirche”, 1882).
⁷ “Wir Menschen”, Vienna 1968