Paralel Bitcoin only for conscious living individuals

The discourse revolves around the critical perspective on how institutions and technological entities, such as machines, are managed and their impact on humanity. It emphasizes that these bodies should fundamentally serve the interests of living beings, pointing out a significant concern: many institutions do not prioritize human needs and existential problems, including hunger, quality of life, and inequality, from their inception through to their public operations, such as listings on stock exchanges like NASDAQ. The critique extends to the observation that institutions often pursue egocentric objectives, such as the concentration of resources and power, sometimes being granted more rights and protections than individuals, particularly in certain jurisdictions.

The narrative introduces a proposition for managing the digital and financial autonomy of non-conscious entities, suggesting the creation of sub-wallets controlled by living, conscious individuals. This idea aims to ensure that the activities of machines and institutions align with the broader goals of improving or expanding life, promoting common good and humanism. The underlying argument is that without a clear alignment towards these positive outcomes, non-conscious entities might contribute to negative impacts, framed here as "extinctionism" versus humanism, a dichotomy that underscores the potential existential risks posed by misaligned institutional and technological advancement.

This discussion implicitly questions the philosophical foundations of our relationship with technology and institutional governance, hinting at a deeper inquiry into whether these structures inherently serve humanity or if they veer towards self-serving agendas that could ultimately harm human existence. The reference to a global division between humanists and extinctionists, as highlighted in the provided link, further enriches the argument by situating it within a broader societal and philosophical debate, suggesting that these issues may be better explored under the domain of philosophy to fully address the ethical and existential dimensions involved.