Scope Unwholistic

WHOLISTIC TRUTH SEEKING METHODOLOGY

Unwholistic social reforms Can Be Disastrous,

Redesigning of Economic Order As An Example
The following is not an exhausive discourse on economic political systems, but merely uses it as an example to reveal the problems of unwholistic social problem solving

Original Chinese Text Writer: Pang, Yiu Kai 作者：彭耀階 Hong Kong

2023年2月

Original Text: Chinese

English Translation: Pang, Yiu Kai (彭耀階), and ChatGPT

Initial Rough Translation: ChatGPT

Final Polishing & Editing: Pang, Yiu Kai (彭耀階)

有關作者彭耀階：

整全求真方法論及中國整全教育哲學開創人，中國學術界亦於201O年以其理論創立北京市整全教育科技研究院(Reference01 以電腦進入後點擊右邊「整全教育理念研究」) (Reference02)。

Excerpt from Wholistic Truth Seeking Methodology Volume Three, Method one: Self-reflection

After completing introspection on one's mentality and foresight, the next step is to consider whether the scope covered is sufficient, which is one of the key principles of wholistic truth-seeking. If one only focuses on economic productivity and technological innovation, they are likely to support laissez-faire or free-market economies (note that free-market and laissez-faire economies are not the same. The freest market economy requires a certain degree of order regulated by the government in line with public opinion, such as antitrust regulations, while a laissez-faire market economy involves the government making minimal interventions in economic order). On the other hand, those who only consider wealth distribution and livelihood security tend to lean towards supporting state-owned industries or socialist economic systems. The truth is that both are just two sides of the same coin, and a coin without either side cannot function at all. If a free or laissez-faire market makes the flow of money to the grassroots dwindle, leading to a significant reduction in consumer base transactiom. On the other hand, state-owned industries or centrally planned socialist economies (not all socialist economies involve state ownership or central planning) may stagnate production efficiency due to the lack of competition and micro-decision-making, only achieving equality of poor livelihood. What's more important is that wholisticism must also encompass the understanding that the coin itself is encircled by the natural ecology and all beings beyond humans. Failing to see the encircling ring means not recognizing that the increase in grain prices is mainly caused by environmental degradation, such as pollution, and global warming leading to a drastic reduction in bio-productivity of farmland, the explosion of population and modern lifestyles causes a surge in energy consumption, driving up energy prices while emitting more greenhouse gases and pollution, further deteriorating the environment, ecology and bio-productivity of farmland, leading to further decrease in grain yield together with an increase in transport cost due to energy price rise and the two all add to the further increases in grain prices. But those who only see the ring focus solely on narrow ecological economics, such as renewable energy and natural resource recycling, without considering the need for a wholistic perspective to cover the interactive relationships among the three factors. For example, a free or laissez-faire economy exacerbates economic competition, and intense competition discourages governments and individuals from implementing sufficient environmental protection regulations; companies tend to shift costs to the environment and the interests of others. Individuals under this economic order tend to focus all their energy on pursuing wealth and leisure activities as stress relief, leaving little room to improve society, the environment, or themselves, or merely absorb relevant knowledge. State-owned enterprises or centrally controlled socialist structures weaken individual freedom, leading to a loss of creativity and diligence in individuals. These structures lack flexibility and effective feedback mechanisms, making it particularly difficult to identify and address the inherent problems in the economic operation. Even a narrow focus on ecological economy alone cannot solve the ecological crisis because it overlooks the structural constraints imposed by economic systems. Even if renewable energy sources with good cost-effectiveness are established, if everyone is relentlessly pursuing economic growth, they will only pay lip service to environmental concerns, especially in developing industrial countries where the general population lacks civic knowledge and consciousness. Therefore, to address the multifaceted issues related to the economy, it is crucial to understand the structural problems that different economic systems inevitably bring and examine the feasibility of solutions within those systems.

Political systems are closely intertwined with economic systems

The choice of economic system by a country is also crucial and not merely coincidental. Representative democratic countries mostly adopt some degree of progressive taxation and social security within a laissez-faire or free-market economy framework, while some might lean towards a certain degree of socialist free-market economy, as seen in Nordic countries. Centralized power states, on the other hand, tend to move towards a regime controlled market economy, with a minority adopting centrally controlled socialism or communist systems. Therefore, under a wholistic view, looking at economic systems alone is not enough; it is essential to also consider political systems to understand the operational characteristics of different political systems. For example, in electoral democracies, how political parties and politicians rely on substantial donations to incite and influence the masses, gain media attention, and secure seats, leading the public to be manipulated by media and influential figures. It is evident that even persons with genuine insights, it is challenging to get exposure in the media or influence significant decision-making behind the scenes. This manipulation of policies and culture by money or power results in a general disillusionment among the people. On the other hand, centralized power countries struggle with challenges related to power transitions, government abuses, ideological manipulation, corruption, and ineffective governance, further deepening the psychological imbalance in society, so that lacking of motivation and creativity in identifying and solving new problems at both social and individual levels ensues. For example, in addressing environmental issues, centralized power countries can implement commendable measures like Laos' complete reliance on nuclear-free zero-carbon electricity production or Russia's efforts in promoting organic farming. However, the discoveries and advancements needed for resolving environmental crises, such as new technologies and regulations, primarily come from individuals within representative democratic systems, with minimal contributions originating from authoritarian regimes. Without the efforts of individuals within representative democratic systems, the world may continue towards catastrophic consequences from fossil fuel usage without much awareness or intervention.

Some economic systems must be complemented by appropriate political systems to function properly.
The political system not only significantly affects the economic system adopted by a country, but for laissez-faire and free-market economies to function properly, they must also be accompanied by an appropriate political system. The reason is that both of these market economies can trigger intense competition. While competition can enhance production efficiency, reduce costs, significantly improve the quality of products that consumers can understand and compare, and stimulate the research and development of high technology and automated production, it also leads scholars, activists, and politicians to ignore the various unintended consequences and unexpected problems that may arise from the rapid development of high technology and automated production. Intense competition also leads companies to shift costs onto employees, making it even more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises to make profits and earn less. As a result, the circulation of money faces significant obstacles, and less money flows into the hands of small and medium-sized enterprise owners and employees, causing the largest consumer base in the middle and lower classes to shrink due to a lack of spending money. This economic contraction, caused by a slowdown in the flow of money, triggers a recession cycle. The role of democracy effectively utilizes the advantage of the majority of middle and lower class voters, utilizing the political avenue of voting to redirect money to the hands of middle and lower class consumers, restoring the smooth flow of money circulation. This allows middle-income individuals to have some work-life balance. If the democratic political mechanism is removed, laissez-faire and free-market economies would actually be very weak.

Political systems and their relationships with different individual, social, and natural values
Discussing political systems, one cannot only consider their economic function, as this would be incomplete and insufficient. All kinds of values within a social system, including individual, social, and ultimately various values related to nature, must also be taken into consideration. Which political system can best satisfy the value demands of the majority of people to the greatest extent? If various political systems can only benefit to a certain extent in fulfilling certain value objectives, how should one decide between them? And if it is believed that existing political systems all have numerous drawbacks, and the differences between them are merely a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils, is it possible to develop a new system that can fully satisfy the above-mentioned values?

Ignorant reforms can lead to great disasters
Those who seek solutions to environmental and ecological crises know that relying solely on the narrow sense of ecological economy cannot solve the problem. Are they attempting to envision new political and economic systems? However, for market economy to operate successfully, in addition to the laws of supply and demand, at least not until the concept of "micro-planning" was proposed by Carl Popper in the late 20th century in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies," one of the keys to the success of market economy had not been fully discovered. In a society, there can be billions of individuals with diverse needs who are involved in production within millions of large, medium, small, micro enterprises and self-employed individuals to satisfy the various needs of these billions of people. If the millions of businesses and self-employed individuals are unable to accurately meet the various needs and make production decisions accordingly, and if they cannot adjust quickly and precisely when there are deviations, then it would be difficult to satisfy the needs of individuals, society, and nature. Market economy allow decision-makers in large, medium, small, micro enterprises as well as individuals to plan and make precise production and adjustment decisions based on the needs of their target audience. These decisions cannot be made through macro planning by society based on the decisions made by the government departments, so Carl Popper refers to it as micro-planning. In addition, in order to come up with a successful reformed economic order, one must not only understand Popper's concept of micro-planning but also understand the concepts of efficiency feedback and feedback information. The decision-makers of large, medium, small, micro-enterprises, including business owners and self-employed individuals, are the ones engaging in micro-planning. After making production decisions, can their products meet the values of individuals, society, and nature? If they are not well informed, they may continue to produce products that do not meet the needs, leading to inefficiency and waste in production. The benefit of a market economy is that when companies and self-employed individuals engage in inefficient production, customers do not support them and money does not flow to those businesses. Thus, whether or not someone continues to support becomes the feedback for production decisions, and the money flowing from customers to the business is precisely the positive feedback message. Although the principles of information and feedback were proposed by Bayes in the 18th century, it wasn't until the microeconomic decision making model was introduced by Carl Popper that people realized every micro decision is accompanied by a feedback loop as proposed by Bayes. In addition, those envisioning improvements to the economic order must understand the true meaning of money, as it serves as a medium of transaction and feedback information, far more than just wealth. Furthermore, money must flow in order to fulfill its functions as a medium of transaction and economic information. In conclusion, individuals conceptualizing improvements to the economic order must not only understand the supply and demand mechanisms of the market economy, but must also master at least these three key aspects: 1) micro planning, 2) value fulfilment feedback and feedback information, 3) the significance of money as a medium of transaction, feedback information, and money circulation as the amount of production and consumption. It is not to say that a set of improvement concepts must possess these mechanisms, but rather, if one attempting to make improvements is completely unaware of the supply and demand and other key mechanisms of the existing market economy mentioned above, one cannot expect this person can come up with a workable new economic order.

Those who seek solutions for environmental or ecological degradations are well aware that many effective policies and regulations have not been passed; many eco-friendly new technologies that could address issues do not receive sufficient funding to develop; the government invests a huge amount of money to promote a culture of consumption, but is reluctant to allocate funds to promote environmentally friendly practices and raise awareness through cultural and recreational activities. When greenies are persistently faced with such disappointments, they are highly likely to lose balance psychologically, hoping that someone can advocate for a green centralized government, or even fantasizing that existing centralized authorities are already green. Then, they won't have to go through struggles like Australia did in finally passing the carbon tax law in 2012, where the effectiveness was immediately apparent, but two years later, voters and businesses who only faced with a little additional costs abandoned the carbon tax along with the political party. Yet these few insightful individuals also cannot escape from the bound of unwholistic thinking, failing to simultaneously consider the fate of the centralized system mentioned earlier: the difficulty of smoothly transferring power, the lack of legal restraint when power is abused, corruption, difficulty in establishing the rule of law, lack of effective feedback in governance, and a lack of creativity in identifying and solving problems by government, businesses, and individuals. This raises great doubts as to whether a green centralized system can be more successful in solving environmental ecological crises than a representative democratic system, or if it would only lead to a worse situation.

Based on facts and scientific methods, examining the existing models

Furthermore, whether it is to explore the path to environmental ecological recovery, the best economic solution, or the fulfillment of the most basic and ultimate values of individuals, society, and nature, it is necessary to look at the various existing political systems to determine which political and economic system performs best as a reference for comparison. Otherwise, it would still be incomplete. This then leads to the question of which scales should be used for comparison. Considering the various values and their interrelationships mentioned earlier, we can outline the following five factors for evaluation:
1) National happiness level,
2) Effectiveness of environmental conservation,
3) Per capita gross domestic product in terms of actual local buying power,
4) Degree of wealth distribution equality (i.e., Gini coefficient),
5) Ability to self-correction

There is no mention of armed forces here, not because a country does not need military forces, but because it is merely a tool for defending a country's values, rather than a value in itself. When there is no need to use it to defend the realization of values, military force is unnecessary. Apart from the fifth one, there are already institutions with sufficient expertise and high credibility that conduct research and surveys continuously regarding all the aforementioned factors, including UN agencies, with online release of public survey methods and results, making it easy to find answers.

Gradual change is better than dramatic change
Any changes involving political or economic systems will have significant impacts on the livelihoods and even survival of the people. Thorough and drastic changes will inevitably bring about huge disruptions. For example, in democratic reforms, peaceful transitions that build on existing imperial systems, like in the cases of England and Japan, are usually smooth. On the other hand, revolutions that seek to completely eliminate existing powers often lead to prolonged chaos or even wars before some countries achieve success, such as in the case of France. Similarly, in socialist economic system reforms, countries that smoothly transition and successfully implement changes are usually those that build on traditional or existing market economic orders, like the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark) and post-World War II England. Countries that shift to non-market socialist systems often experience decades of low productivity or inefficiency before one or two small nations achieve successful operation, such as Cuba.

Upon examining different existing political systems, it can be observed that the Nordic countries are the most successful according to the four aforementioned criteria. These countries have achieved success by improving upon the existing democratic and market economic systems, creating a "social democracy" system that leans towards socialism but is not completely socialist. They have adopted a market economic system that is slightly lower in productivity compared to completely free market economies. Furthermore, they have made some improvements to representative democracy to address the shortcomings of parliamentary elections. Unlike countries like China and Russia that implement complete socialism, or France, which rapidly uprooted the imperial systems to embrace democratic reforms, the Nordic countries have gradually improved upon the existing systems to create their current successful model.

The world is never absolute, and this is also one of the key points to think of drastic measures
Of course, in the face of some urgent worsening situations, strong measures has to be considered. But just because of this, before implementing strong measures, there must be a thorough and comprehensive examination of the proposed actions, including their impact on one's mindset.

Failing to understand that Nature has her own wiser way cannot be considered wholistic
The scope that needs to be covered is sometimes beyond imagination. For example, the social order that naturally emerges and is not constructed by humans, such as different traditional market orders in various regions of the world. People often have only a superficial understanding of these orders and fail to recognize the intricate mechanisms behind things formed naturally. The human body is a typical example. Markets are a relatively recent discovery, as mentioned earlier. However, naturally formed markets are not completely free or laissez-faire, but vary in size and are referred to as traditional market economies by economists. These traditional market economies possess mechanisms like supply and demand, micro-decision-making, effectiveness feedback, feedback information, trading media, and currency flow. Another crucial aspect of traditional economies that is rarely explored by economists is the optimization of competition. When a regional market matures to a certain extent, competition becomes intense, leading businesses to form guilds to collectively set prices and eliminate explicit price competition. However, implicit price competition, quality of goods and services, competition with other alternative products, still exist. Guilds only reduce the intensity of competition rather than eliminate it. Mainstream economists today believe that the freer the market, the better. Therefore, this moderate competition practice is deemed as unfavorable for the economy as it can drive prices up. Nevertheless, they also acknowledge that in a completely free market, the profits of all enterprises theoretically reduce to zero, making it difficult for businesses to generate profits. They will also try to reduce wages, cut jobs, or increase working hours. However, mainstream economists fail to recognize that when businesses find it too hard to profit, it can result in a situation where money becomes very difficult to flow into the hands of lower and middle-income consumers, thus causing a severe contraction in the largest consumer sector, leading to economic downturns. Therefore, it is not just too little competition is an economic problem, but excessive competition is also a significant issue. It is necessary to seek optimization of competition, which has long existed in traditional market economies. Guilds or trade associations are not necessarily the best mechanisms for regulating competition, but they are brainstorming ways to regulate competition, which is a key element in envisioning economic solutions.

Economic-political system envisioned together
Based on the political system, which is a higher order determining factor for what economic system to adopt in society, we may say that independently conceiving an economic system can be said to be a move detached from reality. Economics must be discussed together with the political system to have substantial significance. The Nordic countries refer to their political system as a social democratic system, meaning it is a set of political and economic system, not just political. Social democracy generally refers to achieving a socialist economic system through equal democratic political power for all. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that the means of production are owned by the state, but rather, under public consent, socialism achieves the guarantee for all people from cradle to grave protection through progressive taxation and the state only operate industries which are more appropriate to be run by the state. As a result, as already discussed in the comparison of the four sets of metrics previously mentioned: National happiness level, Effectiveness of environmental conservation, Per capita gross national product, Degree of wealth distribution equality (i.e., Gini coefficient), the Nordic countries are at the forefront among various political systems globally. This justifies the fact that politics and economy must be discussed together to have substantial significance. It is not to say that the Nordic phenomenon alone is enough to arrive at the conclusion, but rather that the Nordic countries provide a real evidence supporting this discourse. The success of social democracy lies in the fact that it redefines socialism, no longer limited to nationalization of the means of production, and no longer a planned economy. Thus, key mechanisms such as supply and demand, micro decision-making, effectiveness feedback, feedback information, media of transaction and currency flow can continue to exist within their new socialist economic system. Although representative democracy falls far short in terms of democratic components compared to direct democracy, it can still play a role in reducing government abuse of power, suppression of human rights, and corruption that hinder key economic mechanisms, and it can also strengthen human rights, civic awareness, and the rule of law that support key economic mechanisms. Through political means, wealth can be redistributed from outside the market to achieve the new socialist value goal of ensuring government protection for all people from cradle to grave. The decision-making process for this wealth redistribution also includes effectiveness feedback mechanisms and feedback information that can effectively guide decision-makers to make decision revisions.

Exploration of values is even more necessary
However, when discussing political systems, it is not enough to only consider which political system tends to give rise to which economic model. It is also crucial to explore which political system is more conducive to and more difficult to serve certain values. Otherwise, there would still be gaps in understanding. Most people only think about gross domestic product and wealth distribution, while the more insightful consideration of human rights and the rule of law, yet there remains a lack of connection. Values need to be categorized into at least foundational and ultimate layers. However, many mistakenly believe that values are only divided into utility and ultimate categories, with different values within each category prioritized according to their importance. In addition to this, it is important to understand that values should be divided into foundational and ultimate layers. For example, there are many idealistic individuals who sacrifice themselves for their ideals. Even if you make them carefully consider the consequences and remove social and peer pressure before taking action, they will still act without hesitation, even enduring suffering and hardship on the spot without regret. However, when asking them to endure extreme torture for their ideals for long long time is a different story. Most people, after thoughtful consideration, would change their minds, while the rest would regret their decision when facing extreme suffering, even if their ideals could be achieved as a result. This means that when faced with the choice of enduring long-term severe suffering or not achieving their ideals, they would inevitably give up on the ultimate value. Idealistic individuals would never consider avoiding suffering as the ultimate value in life, as that would go against the essence of being idealistic. However, their unconscious minds may not be aware that there is another type of value that, when in conflict, even their most cherished and ultimate values would be forsaken to satisfy this value. The value of "no long-term extreme suffering" is such a value. For an individual, any value in conflict with this must be relinquished. Short-term extreme suffering, however, varies among individuals in terms of the degree of willingness to endure in order to achieve their ultimate value.

Society needs to fulfill three major sets of values
Most people are not aware that society has three major categories of values that need to be met: individual, social, and natural values. Those who understand the need to explore values mostly only recognize individual and social values, without acknowledging the importance of taking care of natural values. Just as "no long-term extreme suffering" is to individuals, the value of "maintaining at least the basic environmental ecological quality" in a country's natural values is a fundamental necessity that cannot be compromised with any other values. If this basic environmental ecological quality is not met, then all other values will eventually be unattainable. Individual values can be expressed simply through Maslow's hierarchy of needs, although this is not complete as there are unconscious spiritual needs that exist within people. As for this spiritual need, Maslow's self-actualization at the highest level is not fully addressed, and most people are not aware of it, as it requires examining the thought and behavior patterns of the general public to discover their search for religious solace, metaphysical wisdom, and the fulfillment of social or natural values, all of which arise from these unconscious desires. When these spiritual needs are not met over the long run, desires will sink and may be diverted to indulgence in sensory stimulation, negative behavior, exploitation of others, or anti-social behavior. As for natural values, the ultimate ideal would be for the environment and ecology of the earth, including land, oceans, lakes, rivers, to be restored to the conditions when human ancestors first appeared on earth, at the very least they should be restored to such an extent that the demands of environmental activists and conservationists can be met. Regarding social values, it fundamentally differs from individual and natural values in that while we can distinguish the existence of individual and natural values from individuals or nature themselves, social values are not derived directly from society but rather from how certain structures, arrangements, concepts, etc., within society can enable the fullest and easiest realization of individual and natural values. For example, if the majority of people in a country cannot share in a high gross domestic product(GDP), i.e., the Gini Coefficient is extremely high, then this high GDP is still meaningless, it's no more than highlighting a social model akin to slavery!!! Additionally, human rights and the power of rulers, the former being a social value directly related to the realization of individual and natural values, while the latter is merely a mechanism within the social structure. Likewise, the rule of man and the rule of law, with the general population viewing the rule of man negatively and valuing the rule of law as an important social value due to its indispensable role in the realization of individual and natural values, while the rule of man often obstructs this. Many individuals place any national values above individual values due to a lack of awareness regarding the differences in social values mentioned above, this is yet another example of errors caused by unwholistic contemplation. It can be said that any social value that does not directly or indirectly benefit individual as well as natural values is unnecessary and should not be considered.

The relationship between political systems and the three major sets of values is closely interrelated with concrete evidence.

The conceiving of political and economic systems should be about how these three categories of values can be maximally satisfied through the institutional framework derived from this. If a certain system tends to satisfy certain values more and others less, how should choices be made? For example, pure representative democracy and laissez-faire market economy are most conducive to the development of high technology and industry, but fall short in terms of wealth distribution and environmental protection. On the other hand, social democracy is to some extent the opposite, most beneficial for wealth distribution, environmental protection, but not particularly prominent in the development of high technology and industry. The relationship between the aforementioned political systems and the values mentioned is not a scientific conclusion but can be inferred from the operational mechanisms of different systems, and there is concrete and consistent evidence to support this. By arranging countries in the world from those with the most representative democracy and laissez-faire market to those with the most social democratic character, such as the United States is a prime example of representative democracy and laissez-faire market, the Nordic countries represent social democracy, and Western European countries fall somewhere in between, we can then observe a continuous variation in the realization of values like technological development, industry, wealth distribution, environmental protection, and social cultural development. We can thus conclude that economic-political systems are value inclined, the two have a strong co-relation.

Apart from the three major sets of values, it is also necessary to examine the impact of political and economic factors on the average citizen's quality of the nation

Social democracy is considered most beneficial for fulfilling various values in the realms of the individual, society, and nature. However, if its operation is not conducive to the enhancement of their citizens' character (which, according to commonly accepted rules, includes qualities like sincerity, diligence, positivity, pursuit of goodness, etc.), general knowledge abilities, rational pursuit of truth, and civic awareness of their citizens, collectively referred to as the citizens' quality, then after successful operation over many years, it may still result in a gradual decline in this quality. This decline, in turn, could erode the successful operation of the existing system. Therefore, just considering the embodiment of the three major value categories is not enough; we also need to assess how a set of political and economic institutions will impact citizens' quality. Will it lead a country from prosperity towards chaos and decline? In pure theoretical terms, a positive citizen quality is precisely the most conducive quality for realizing the three major value categories, such as civic(including environmental, ecological etc. nowadays) awareness, sincerity, diligence, positivity, goodness, general knowledge, and rational abilities, love of Nature, pursuit of truth, universal love and aesthetics, concrete action rather than mere pondering, which are easily understood by all.

Centralized power systems often suffer from stagnation, as the inability of the general public to participate in discussions and decisions concerning public and political matters leads to a decline in various aspects of citizen quality. Historical evidence shows that centralized political systems inevitably tend towards disorder and decline, but the contribution of declining citizen quality as a key factor remains unclear. Representative democracy, on the other hand, nurtures a higher level of civic awareness among voters who must address social, environmental, and political issues over time. However, they are often led by the media, celebrities, and political figures towards shallow, short-sighted rationality and narrow general knowledge levels, shifting their focus away from important issues. For instance, in recent years, some Americans have been advocating for gender-neutral bathrooms, allowing individuals to choose their gender based solely on their own preference rather than biological structure, even suggesting the existence of multiple genders and the ability to change their claimed gender at will. Furthermore, a significant portion of the population may adopt a stance of indifference towards social, environmental, and political issues due to the inability of their preferred political views or personalities to gain power over time. However, when we look at developed Western representative democracies over the past two to three hundred years of democratization, they have transitioned from their eras of colonial expansion and dominance to willingly in ending overseas colonial territories, while also advancing rule of law, human rights and promoting knowledge from social to natural aspects. Even in Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, which only transitioned to representative democracy in recent decades, improvements have been seen from street side security to factional conflicts, with atrocities such as "anti-Chinese riots" (referring to indigenous people targeting Chinese populations for arson, looting, rape, and murder) no longer occurring. Economies are also constantly improving, albeit at the cost of environmental degradation and population growth, reflecting ongoing enhancements in the quality of their citizens across a certain aspects except those beneficial to Nature and environment. Overall, representative democracy can lead to a certain degree of enhancement in citizen quality in a foundation level, but falls short of reaching high enough levels, posing a significant obstacle in addressing deep and significant crises.

For example, the crisis of a nuclear world war, which had threatened the world since World War II. The two opposing camps of Soviet communist bloc and representative democracy nations developed their own mutually assured destruction nuclear retaliation capabilities to ensure that no one would initiate a nuclear war. As a result, everyone had to live under the shadow of a catastrophic nuclear war and saw no way out for a while. However, whether it was divine intervention or something else, the Soviet Communist bloc dramatically collapsed in 1989, with the core regions regaining independence under the name of Russia and transitioning to a system of representative democracy and market economy. The reconstruction of the political system can be considered a mixed situation, but the biggest hurdle lies in the obstacles to transitioning to a market economy, leading to prolonged stagnation in people's livelihoods from which they cannot escape.

Of course, the democratic camp that has always embraced a market economy felt relieved, as the decades-long threat of nuclear war was finally alleviated. At that time, individuals in developed Western countries with civic awareness and social knowledge should have realized that they should cherish the newfound peace and ensure that they do not fall back into a nuclear war crisis in the future. Unfortunately, few of them had the foresight to understand that the key to maintaining nuclear peace lies in the successful democratic transformation of Russia's political system. Simply focusing on nuclear disarmament without paying attention to Russia's economic transformation could hinder the successful establishment of a democratic system. It is essential to assist Russia in transitioning to a market economy to prevent future opportunists from exploiting Russia's political loopholes caused by immatured constitution and puerile public opinion, hijacking the national machinery, and potentially leading to a resurgence of the shadow of nuclear war looming over the Earth's sky.

The above insights are not profound philosophical ideas, but individuals who have long been concerned with political and economic current affairs will understand. Under the problematic representative democracy system, where voters seek immediate and superficial gratification, politicians are reluctant to address such an idea. Even if there are knowledgeable individuals, they lack channels to intervene through mainstream media or appeal through airwaves, as these channels are already controlled by celebrities and media adept at pleasing the masses and skillfully avoiding various powers or even subtly catering to hidden financial backers. It was not until the outbreak of Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 that the world was awakened by the gunfire, revealing that the threat of a nuclear world war not only has revived but has an unprecedented likelihood of erupting.

Social democracy is still superior
Social democracy shines in the performance of citizen quality, surpassing all existing political systems in the world. Although it is not reflected in the citizen quality index, mainly because reliable surveys of this kind have not yet been published, it can be seen in the practical solutions to various environmental issues and crises, where the Nordic countries are far ahead of all other nations in this regard. In addition, in the search for the future direction of mainstream industrial civilization, deep ecological theories and practices are led by advocates and scholars from the Nordic countries. They have long been criticizing the increasingly popular neoliberalism and trade globalization that has been embraced globally for decades, and if people were not blinded by media celebrities, academic endorsements, and even Nobel Prizes, the 2008 global financial crisis would not have occurred fundamentally, and the many lingering consequences would not still be tormenting the entirety of humanity to this day.

Why can social democracy in politics and economics also contribute to the improvement of citizen quality?

Simply put, it's because, on the one hand, its relatively more effective representative democratic system frees it from the restrictions of centralized power on the freedom of common people. Everyone can freely express their opinions and advocate for the development of civil society. On the other hand, the successful operation of its new socialist market economy system provides livelihood security and a relatively comfortable life for the general public, without forcing people to invest all their time and energy in the pursuit of money, as is often the case in laissez-faire, liberal, or free market economic societies. This creates space for the release of the pursuit for the value of life desires hidden within human nature. Social democracy also faces problems like those mentioned earlier, "media manipulation, celebrity adulation, ignorant masses, and politicians' propaganda”but the balanced and comfortable living conditions allow for alternative channels of expression for opinions and significantly more people with time and energy to seek the truth. Genuine insights, sharp analysis, and unique perspectives are much more accessible to the public. This leads to a greater elevation of the public, causing mainstream media and mass broadcasting, which usually cater to and entertain the public, to adjust their standards and introduce non-sensational but insightful perspectives. Eventually, this can trigger a positive cycle of in-depth and broad discussions of opinions.

Examine Anti-Wholisticism
Those who oppose wholisticism are bound to present a rebuttal, clearly detailing the enormous amount of time and effort required to master a set of political or economic theories, in addition to reading extensive papers, literature, clippings, video news, and documentaries to discuss whether it is possible to integrate so many sets of political, economic, philosophical, and humanistic knowledge, not to mention the synthesis and writing that follows! Furthermore, considering that after the synthesis one must then conceive a set of political and economic solutions that can better meet the needs of all parties and solve their problems more effectively, how is that possible!!!

In fact, this rebuttal at the same time also acknowledges the inadequacy of micro approaches and exhaustive citations in addressing various real-world social and natural problems. Over the past few decades, thousands of people around the world have been writing specialized articles on minor issues every day. Unless someone first sorts out a structured body of knowledge, and then a very sizable academic team goes through a detailed review and fills it into the structure, and then uses it to elaborate the entire context mentioned in this methodology, of course, to thoroughly examine various macro frameworks and their relationships, as proposed by the main text(this article is a very short excerpt of Merhod 1, Volume 3 of the Wholistic Truth Seeking Methodology), requires people with sufficient wholistic capabilities. However, in this way, such an academic group would no longer operate according to the current mainstream academic system but rather as a very large scale wholistic academic research organization.

Freidman is precisely a representative of anti-wholistic academia. Throughout his life, besides fulfilling the demands of the mainstream academic establishment, enabling himself and his followers to win no fewer than ten Nobel Prizes, even in his primary theory of Freidmanist free-market economy, he never mentions that his economy has to rely on political means to redistribute wealth for sustainable maintenance. He spent his whole life only observing the excellence of the laissez-faire type of market economy through a microscope, ignoring the fact that this mainstream academic method has been overlooking the brilliant flowerbed of social democracy, which has long been flourishing with economic security, welfare, civic consciousness, appropriate technology, etc. It is due to the obsession of his supporters that the global Freidmanist economy collapsed overnight in 2008, and anti-wholisticists focus only on economic rescue without recognizing the effects of the 08 global financial tsunami has caused people to begin doubting democratic systems, and reigniting the embers of dictatorship/authoritarianism.

The discourse here also greatly appreciates the dedication of these opponents' detailed pursuit of knowledge. However, when it comes to navigating long distances, it is impossible to carry a detailed 1:100 map, but only rely on several 1:100,000 and several 1:20,000 contour maps. Holding such a 1:20,000 map, many terrain details are indeed not displayed. Fortunately, the areas that are not shown are not significant enough to have a decisive impact. Moreover, hikers have already learned through other channels outside the map what conditions along the way are not shown due to map scale limitations, and these have been taken into account in trip planning. Therefore, they will not discover on the spot the paths not shown on the map and end up with all previous effort wasted. The concerns of anti-wholistic thinkers are also the same. The wholistic exploration of politics and economics will not adopt the methods they learned while pursuing their doctorate, which are skills used to understand the world through a microscope, where the knowledge obtained by such a tool in the field only consists of soil composition, rock structure, and not the ways to navigate through a maze of mountains and rivers to reach the destination.

One way to explore the wholistic political and economic discourse is through a "historical framework approach." This involves examining the historical rise and fall of various political and economic models, especially in contemporary times. Each different political or economic structure is a framework, initially rough but easy to understand the interactive relationships between different frameworks. Then, different social phenomena, realities, cutting-edge discussions of experts, etc., are continuously incorporated to enrich and even correct the original frameworks. It is essential not to follow blindly but to look at key historical facts, such as how the Industrial Revolution transformed traditional market economies into laissez-faire market economies, leading to severe exploitation and significant wealth inequality, which then led to the armed Marxist communist revolution and in the other approach the introduction of democratic elections to improve grassroots income and welfare under the existing economic order. ......... Understanding the approximate framework first, then introducing the numerous discussions by different scholars on certain micro issues/situations one by one into macro frameworks. For example, in understanding the market economy, start with mainstream economics like supply-demand mechanisms and then add derivatives of finance, micro-decision-making, performance feedback, feedback information, the meaning, role, and circulation of money, wealth redistribution through non-economic mechanisms, and universal voluntary consensus, ........... Only through this method of exploration can it be wholistic and allows the findings of anti-wholistic thinkers can also appropriately be utilized as well, rather than just sitting in the library waiting for another horned scholar/Ph.D. student to come in and read, producing a mono-perspective Friedmanism, after hitting a snag, then followed by another group of anti-wholistic thinkers bringing out a new Marxism, just like the circulatory, reproductive, excretory, etc. ten systems taking turns on stage, but lacking wholistic integration, ultimately failing to piece together a human body!

Social Democracy and wholisticism
Examining the different political and economic systems that have existed in modern times, it can be understood that the most successful one is the social democracy adopted by the Nordic countries. The path to its success lies in the ability to integrate multiple political and economic mechanisms, as well as peaceful gradual processes, into a system, with the primary theorist and practitioner being Eduard Bernstein, a seeker of a human future through theory and practice. Leaving school at the age of sixteen, Bernstein soon immersed himself in the labor movement, diligently studying theory and promoting practice. He was definitely not someone who merely followed mainstream academic methods mechanically. It can be observed that social democracy, which emphasizes the development of a new socialist political and economic model based on effective democracy and market economy through peaceful and gradual means, not only closely aligns with the wholistic approach promoted here but also evolves in a relatively wholistic manner.

Wasn't it mentioned before that those who do not understand the mechanisms of supply and demand, micro-planning, performance feedback, feedback information, money flow, and their roles and meanings cannot conceive a viable political and economic system? Why then could Eduard Bernstein and other social democracy theorists do so? Weren't people of that era only familiar with the supply and demand mechanism? The answer is that social democracy merely applies the gradual change thinking, grasps the most crucial social values derived from it, slightly modifies the existing VIABLE political and economic models, integrates them appropriately towards realizing their defined values, and emphasizes progress through non-violent means. Since this system still follows a market economy plus representative democratic models and does not have fundamentally new ideas in core concepts of political and economic systems, even if advocates do not understand the intricacies of market economy, it will not pose a significant problem.

This Methodology here does not aim to conclude that humanity has found the most ideal political and economic solution. People in different countries still need to wholistically explore solutions based on their existing national conditions, especially addressing the structural weaknesses of different political and economic systems mentioned earlier. The focus is on how social democracy, when evaluated against the four sets of criteria mentioned earlier, can rank among the top among various systems. Social democracy has exhibited the path to success and how it aligns with the wholistic approach discussed here.

Brutal Good Guys
In contemporary times, most of the disasters, hardships, and evils have been caused primarily by the reckless actions of those who are not thoughtful and wholistic in participating in or supporting change. Enthusiastic movements advocating various political, economic, and even social principles are constantly emerging. If these individuals' advocates had been really true, everything they had said had been correct, had been close to the truth, then the world should have long entered a utopian state and become a heavenly kingdom. However, the reality is quite the opposite. But so long as these fervent individuals had possessed a certain sense of wholistic truth seeking and could recognize their own fallacies, most of the disasters, hardships, and evils in contemporary times would not have occurred. Therefore, every idealistic individual who seeks a way out for society and the environment, even if he is just a self-serving opportunist or a vested interest, he must also carefully question themselves whether they have thoroughly examined all relevant aspects, considered all possible consequences and unforeseen negative outcomes that may arise once their ideas are put into practice. Will they then proceed to cover up, deny, or shift blame to others for their collective errors, only later scrambling to remedy the situation when it is already too late?