Dubravko Starman: Today is the 2006. Do you consider yourself responsible for the perennial traffic collapses in Zagreb?

Zvonko Pečenić: Yes and no. And by that I do not mean only in Zagreb.

Yes – I have developed the whole (supra) organization of the city public transport (CPT in further text) in 1992 which included hybrid vehicles (zero emission). No – it has showed impossible to enhance the CPT at that time due to the current primitivism, mysticism and the degree of corruption.

By analyzing the existing PCT I have realized that it does not meet any of the appreciable criteria (safety, usability, attractiveness, utility, effectiveness and the most important one, total cost). For example, the average tram speed between 6 and 12 km/h has become intolerable to the citizens because it causes unnecessary costs in citizens' lives. Uncultured people, responsible for this situation, have assured and still are assuring the semi-cultured population (in average) that the situation is even worse in other cities implying that they should be thankful for this "better" situation in Zagreb?! As we tried to explain to these "bosses" five - six years ago that the effectiveness of the "new" trams was 0,39 (instead of 0,94) - they were looking with no comprehension (for they have never heard of effectiveness before) and antagonistic (for they have felt as if that was something against them)!

I have heard of safety, usability, attractiveness, utility as well as effectiveness. What are total costs, which you say are the most important criteria and what are the unnecessary costs?

I have devised TOTAL COST in 1992 as an appreciable criterion for human activity in general. Goal was to make total cost applicable for projects evaluation, as they are source of the most damaging human activity. As to the PCT, it was very important to me to distinguish GOOD FROM BAD - as to the quality of transportation projects with emphasis on ecological and entropic aspect of the solution. In that sense, people have shown themselves very negative. I have then realized it was for the best to fence myself from highly positioned, but simple minded and corrupted persons and their activities. These people are at the same time gravediggers for highly educated engineers. Their solutions have been approved with no antagonism whatsoever by so called municipal companies' owners while our highly sophisticated solutions were mostly ignored but yet exported (treacherously sold) abroad - it is well known that in Croatia a cow (or a herd) is being executed for only one stake.

I have not been able to define accurately total cost for twelve years because only in 2005 I have realized that the total cost is minimally two-dimensional. I find the invention of total cost the most valuable inheritance of human culture yet.

You have not explained total cost!

I have published it online. In short, total cost is the sum of necessary and unnecessary capital, capitalized, ecological and entropic cost caused by human activity. That accounts up to eight costs! As you can see, I never mention revenues or profit. In the case of us humans who share the Planet with around 10 million other living species, the Sun sends us 1,4 kW per m2 radiation for millions of years (above the Earth's atmosphere). Whatever we do, we keep spending some sort of converted energy from the Sun. Unfortunately for a few cultural people, due to aggressiveness of those powerful, but retarded, and we all became cannibals (we are degenerates who devour our own habitat). Such behaviour is wrong for it causes violent and precocious end of existence of life on Earth - including human life - directors of this cannibalism do not see that life goes on through generations.

Has the information about 1,4 kW/h some hidden meaning?

Certainly! It is known as the Sun constant. People produce hardly 1/100.000 part of energy emitted on Earth by Sun by burning fossil fuels (in 2004 produced energy by burning fossil fuels on Earth was: 36,3% from oil, 25,8% from natural gas and 23,9% from coal). It is not unknown fact that raw oil - as irrecoverable source of, for example, quality plastic - should not be burned at all! Consequences of burning raw materials are disastrous for many life forms so it is strongly recommended not to burn anything inside our biosphere only to meet our needs for energy. However, at the same time, a small number of "damaged" people keep violently selling fossil fuels as they own it. As misfortune never travels alone, energetic balance of the Earth has been additionally disturbed by burning fossil fuels. Not because they represent significant source of energy on Earth, but because burning has caused huge emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They keep blocking Suns' energy, which heats Earths' atmosphere and surface, as well as Earths' energy, which is supposed to leave the surface entirely. Massive animal farming for human consumption is additionally producing greenhouse gas methane (more damaging than CO2). Third harmful greenhouse gas which is produced by human activity is nitric oxide. The result of greenhouse gases emission is average biosphere temperature raising which further results in defrosting huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane stored in, until recently frosted, Earth crust! Therefore, the process of heating shall proceed on exponential curve i.e. the process will speed up! If by that we add weakening of Earths' magnetic field (the most important fatal source of life), for which more Sun energy (irradiation) ends up as Earths' insolation, the situation shows no good! Finally, there is no magnetic field and no atmosphere, which has already happened to our neighbour, Mercury. Optimistically, we still have from 70 to 1.000 years left to solve our existential problems.

Therefore, from the view of Suns' energy balance, there wouldn't be any problem if humans produced at least 2/100000 from the Suns' energy, but human technologies of energy conversion shouldn't change the Earths' biosphere in any way!

So you suggest hydroelectric power plants, photo voltage panels, wind power plants, heat pumps, geo-thermal sources, bio-fuel, nuclear power plants, etc?

Actually, none of the above if they refer to the existing solutions. The existing hydroelectric power plants cause huge problems - from drinking water contamination to the frequent woods extinction, precocious plant and animal species extinction on these locations and everything that follows the same. Rising and lowering of the underground water flow levels is very dangerous and even lethal for all the living species that exist there for tens and hundred thousands of years (in these areas many have already precociously extinct!). The existing sun panels are no less dangerous - which can easily be seen if you perceive their total cost. The existing wind power plants also have a huge total cost. How many people know that not only the existing large and medium sized wind power plants further heat already over-heated Earths' biosphere, but they also annihilate birds and other life species that habit in these areas for they represent the source of acoustic pollution? Wind power plants convert wind, river and see flow (when they are submerged) energy - but who has until now faced their ecological and entropic cost? Heat pumps have already caused huge ionosphere pollution. Heat pumps would have a small total cost if spiritedly bare monetarists invested in research whose goal would be to find the adequate heat pump medium. Bio fuel represents one of the dumbest human inventions ever which can easily be seen from its' total cost. As everything has limits except (maybe) space and, for sure, stupidity, it's no wonder governments can't and won't agree upon total costs of water, earth, humus, and air. Polluting those resources constitutes the biggest problem we have to face (even bigger and more dangerous than greenhouse gases). Human activity causes more pollution every day than these resources can bear considering their ability to recover. I can see a small problem with geothermal heat source in additional cooling underground iron and nickel flows (these flows are the source of Earths' magnetic field). The main problem is not knowing how long Earths' nuclear core can keep these metals liquid. Do they transform in the core, as water transforms to ice in very small temperature differences? In the last fifty years, measurements show that the magnetic field weakens more and more each year - it has weakened more than 10 % in the last fifty years. Limited storms (hurricanes), earthquakes, tsunamis and volcano activities measuring methods also present a problem. Nuclear power plants would make a suitable heat and electricity source considering total cost, if only there would exist appropriate solution for nuclear waste. You see, that solution already exists and it is provided by the combination of hybrid technology and hybrids. It would be interesting to see the total cost comparison of all the solutions mentioned above, considering solely electricity production. I find it important to say that huge amounts of Sun energy are available to us regardless of our will to use it, whose conversions would not cause any harm to its' source or Earths' biosphere.

On the other hand, investing into automobiles driven by fossil fuels based upon "scientists" (ancillary scientists who distinguish knowledge from meaning) and irresponsible technicians' wits makes no difficulties to the money owners - even though they are more than dangerous to the living world?! Isn't that the strongest proof of human impiety of capital algorithms, which consequently eliminates us from this planet?

You have once told me that people without any better suggestions from those they tend to criticize should not criticize them unless these solutions do not threaten their lives. If not all mentioned above is good enough (except perhaps heat pumps and nuclear power plants) I will be free to suppose you have your own solutions.

That would be correct. The theme "Family, garden and hybrid technology" deals with lifestyle changes from harmful to non-harmful for the biosphere. Making our own lives shouldn't be harmful to the biosphere. No one has that right. The result is always the same - sociocide. Due to such harmful behaviour, new life forms will be developed which were not supposed to exist at all. Therefore, it is not surprising that Stephen William Hawking continuously suggests we should build new habitats outside the Earth. The well-known data such as the Sun constant tells us that we should be well organized and deal with cannibalism directors on Earth. How many children as well as adults do you think are aware of the Sun constant? Earth is a beautiful place to live at due to the Sun! The steer of life should be taken out of the hands of mystics and primitives. Otherwise, we are all doomed to extinction. Then would the ideas of habitats outside our planet come to where they belong - in the imagined world of the unworthy!

Please be more specific!

It makes sense that children are entitled by birth to healthy development. Only then will they be ready to face the battle of non-harmful production of their lives, which is a battle we already lost.

Therefore, their parents (as well as the Government) have to ensure a house with garden - supplied with hybrids that will make them independent from energetic dependency and make the production of life non-harmful and with small total cost. Parents should give more attention to the combination of measurable and accidental successful upbringing and education of their and other children. Children should not be made idiots but through supra-education, discipline, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary taken to supra disciplinary. Furthermore, these children will create their own development path through unintentional learning. Teachers have great responsibility to raise them in the sense of respecting other peoples' opinions and rechecking the information regardless of who is providing it. That is how they will be made resilient from the so-called authority. These children will naturally have purpose to solve the existential problems, which us adults cannot or will not solve up until today.

Why do you think that will be possible in the near future?

Because there is no alternative! Primitivism (especially mysticism and nationalism) has shown to be solvable when "to be or not to be" problems become realized. Up till now, people have shown extraordinary ability to overcome different obstacles but only under huge external pressure. The necessity of pressure disappears due to upbringing and education by which the solving serious problems synergy grows. Then life becomes loved and respected. Therefore, the philosophy of "Family, garden and hybrid technology" has no alternative unless people decide to live more meaningfully.

Let us assume your way has solved lives of parents, children and grandparents (families). What about the others?

The project involving States has not been successful. Thousands of years old desire for globalization and its' modern materialization contribute to precocious disappearance of many living species - including humans. Many people have the "cattle" status and they are being treated as such. Consequently, damage is huge: cities overgrow, all kinds of pollution become greater and have irreversible consequences for our biosphere - which becomes more and more unstable (earthquakes, electric outbursts, floods, overheating).

Therefore, the others will be forced to live in buildings with a certain number of floors below and over the see level with no less than the capacity of five thousand people. There should be no pollution caused by life within those buildings with gardens. I suppose they need to have hybrid appliances that convert all available energy resources into any desirable and needed energy forms. Such buildings ensure enough of Earths' heat to ensure heating and cooling of living spaces, and the height of the buildings ensures Sun and wind energy conversions that could be used for making drinking water supplies. For floating, yet anchored cities, the rules remain the same. See shores, lowland, meadows, swamps, deserts, mountains need to be unburden from the Homo Sapiens Sapiensis. These parts of Earth might be at humans' disposal only if humans would not devastate it by their presence - something like protected Earth's parks. People would not want to inhabit the endangered parts of the Earth. These areas would be interested only to science. Finally, a wish to live on the "own" land also demonstrates the arrear of a human brain (considering its' possibilities to solve problems) of around fifty thousand years. In the years from 1960 to 2005, the number of large natural disasters increased six times due to irresponsible human habitation of the insecure areas.

Intelligent use of today's expertise enables the change of harmful human lifestyle into the non-harmful. Changing the lifestyle would facilitate the humus food and plants manufacture, which is most crucial for the future life certainty.

You have already mentioned on your website how should the PCT be like including hybrid vehicles with the zero emission. You have connected it to human habitats. Do you plan to describe the houses that children and their families would live in?

Absolutely. I plan to write a text on that subject and introduce it at the fourth "Family, garden and hybrid technology" conference.

What needs to be done at this very moment?

Scientific associations should explore and (I hope) except the measurable criterion Total cost. Only total cost can through its' more dimensionality measure objectively the harmfulness of human entrepreneurships. Namely, there are too many influential but uncultured and violent technicians. They all have one thing in common - they were never taking responsibility for their own actions.

After the total cost verification, things should take their places by default and the goal of non-harmful life within the biosphere would become reachable!

In addition, the last question would be in what way could individuals affect lifestyle changes from the harmful to non-harmful on an everyday basis?

Civil society institutionalization process is still not speeded up. That can easily be seen from harmful electrification of 2 billion people's homes. Therefore, individuals should seize the opportunity already given to them by the existing processes of constituting civil society. That can be done by engaging in civil associations' work or by self-engagement in constituting civil society (on the horror of today's globalists). Every person should also every morning asses his or hers actions by total cost method. That is actually an excellent activity, which can assist in becoming accustomed to not doing any unnecessary costs. We then start realizing the absurdness of existing lifestyle. From my personal experience I know that this is the way to start appreciate life more and get an insight of its worth. It becomes clearer that life happens over generations, not only a single individuals' existence.

I accent one more time: The problem lies in human lifestyle, not in their number. The today's society is aware of the fact that human entrepreneurship caused the almost end of life as we know it!

Thank you. I hope this will not be the last time we have a conversation.