IN SEARCH OF REALITY XIV



The Road towards a Global Society





A Study in Thought





by





Marius Heuff

@M.Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The usual objections against a Welfare State.
In defense of "free-enterprise".
The benefits of implementing a basic social security for everyone.
The erroneous doctrine of the essential laziness of man.
Monotony and frustration, and the remarkable exuberance of the elan vital.

Questions remain in the minds of those, who are not convinced, that governments should play an ever increasing role in the lives of ordinary citizens. "Why should we advocate a welfare State?", they ask "How can we possibly hope to avoid an early and total collapse of such a welfare State? Is man`s nature not inherently corruptible and lazy? Have experiments with a Socialist Welfare State in the past, and the present, not always led to a cumbersome bureaucracy and insufficient productivity? How realistic is it to propose, once more, a system of government, so totally ignorant of the essentially competitive nature of man? Does nature not provide abundant evidence for the fact, that a natural process of selection of the most adaptable and fittest life-forms is the essence of living existence?".

"How is it possible to decree a status of equality for all people, if we are unequally endowed with capabilities, energies, persistence and courage? How can we avoid a generalised deterioration of society into an indolent, complacent and dull-witted mass of indifferent and undifferentiated human beings, if we take-away the basic struggle for existence? How can we hope to progress further in our quest for understanding, if we let everyone live in the pale comforts of security from the cradle to the grave?".

"Are not all human accomplishments the result of a personal victory over menacing odds? Are scientific, artistic or philosophical endeavours not accomplished by people, who have been stimulated by the turmoil and turbulence of their time; who have been nourished by the chance to express themselves freely, and, who have been sobered by the inexorable sequence of victory and defeat, life and death?".

"Where would we be, without the ingenuity and vigour of free men and women, who have been given a chance by their social surroundings to excercise a free-enterprise of thought and industry? Where would we be in our technological developments, our space exploration and our fascinating scientific discoveries, if we had not been nurtured in a society that demands an effort from everyone, and leaves a reasonable degree of wealth and prestige to those, who succeed?".

For many of us, the princples of free-enterprise, as well as the ability to unfold our initiatives and ingenuity, have been enshrined in the Constitutional Guarantees of basic human freedoms, and, this way of life has become the epitomy of dignified human existence, where each individual has the right to seek a goal of prestige and financial success, with due respect, of course, for the law; with charity in our hearts for less fortunate souls, and, under the grace of God.

Freedom of expression in language and deed, equal opportunity for all those, who have been born into the privileged freedom of a democratic society; these are the lingering ideals of our Western, Capitalist societies, where the competitive drive of man was, and still is, somewhat tempered by a Christian ethic; where success and money are almost synonymous, and, where freedom and democracy are considered to be the sole prerogative of such a system of social organisation.

Not only, do we consider ourselves, in the West, to be the guardians of human rights, freedom of speech and free, individualised enterprise, but, we consider ourselves, in essence, to be the defenders of our Christian Faith. We consider ourselves as the rightful heirs of God`s design for humanity, and, we look with dark suspicions towards societies that advocate rule by the illiterate masses, the dictatorial decrees of a single political Party, and government control over all major enterprises and natural resources.

However, our darkest suspicions are leveled at governments that suppress the freedom of speech, and imprison people for their beliefs, dissenting ideas or criticisms. Inevitably, in such a society, an upper class of party-faithfuls has emerged, usurping the powers and privileges of official positions. We deplore and abhor the secrecy of their political debates, as well as their undemocratic mechanisms for leadership succession. We suspect their intentions for world domination, and, we do not miss an opportunity to point to the suppression of internal dissent and the muzzlement of individualised opinions.

We scorn their inefficient production processes, while we watch, anxiously, their military build-up. We may have a few kind thoughts for the care the average citizen receives in matters of education, housing and health, but, the limited contacts with outsiders make us suspicious about the feelings and attitudes of these isolated people, and, we suspect a great deal of manipulation of public opinion by the State.

Yet, these societies have founded themselves on the ideal of an equal distribution of the material wealth for all their members, and, they call themselves "governments from and for the people"; democratic, and free from foreign domination or exploitation. If there exists, in our judgement, such a wide gap between their ideology and their actual behaviour, we should also ask ourselves, whether or not an equally wide gap exists between our professed ideals about social organisation and individual liberties on the one hand, and, the practical realities of life in an affluent, Western democracy on the other. Do we, indeed, provide an equal opportunity for all? Are we full of vigour and enthousiasm for the privileges provided by our society? Do we have an equal say in the events of our society, or, are some groups more influential than others?

It is certainly possible to show, that a state of well-being for everyone, with a serious effort to equalise opportunities, does not necessarily mean the suppression of individual liberties, such as the right to express opinions freely, or, the right to have free access to all sorts of uncensured and unselected information. I hope to show, however, that a really free form of enterprise and an unbridled opportunity for the accumulation of personal wealth, creates, not only, a devastating divisiveness between the rich and the poor, but, we have to conclude, that, in a wider context, the concerns of economic development can not be left, any longer, to a small, profit-oriented segment of society.

We may be able to show, that the provision of basic rights and security to the individual does not have to lead to boredom, laziness or complacency, but, we have to understand the reasons, why such developments are likely to take place, and, we have to devise proper guidelines for nurturing a satisfactory level of awareness amongst the people for the functions and objectives of society. People have to be able to acknowledge, fully, the needs of the human individual, as well as those of the community as a whole.

I hope to show, that the gift of essential security will free the human being into an attitude of openness and mutual trust, since the basic causes for anxiety, suspicion and envy will have been eliminated. I hope to show, that basic security will allow us a feeling of genuine admiration and respect for each other`s capabilities, rather than the development of a defensive anxiety, whenever we see capabilities emerge in someone else. I hope to show, that an essential equality in living standards could free the human mind from this all-absorbing instinct to display wealth as a sign of success.

Certainly, the growth-pressures of healthy young people, as well as the need to develop their potentials, will have to be met, at least, to some extent, if we want to avoid a dangerous cauldron of frustration and misconceptions, creating explosive tensions of discontent within society. This points out the fact, that the human being is not fundamentally lazy, nor, does it seem realistic to believe, that the human being needs an egocentric stimulus, such as profit or financial gain, in order to develop, fully, his personality and capabilities.

If we look at the exuberant energies of youngsters and adolescents, we see quite the opposite. We see healthy, young people, literally begging for a chance to channel their energies in a manner that is acceptable to the social environment. If, however, the opportunities for work and play are stifling in their monotony and lack of meaning, (as is so often the case in highly mechanised societies), and, if the working individual is stimulated, constantly, by the ever-present anxiety to succeed and provide for his family, then, we see a slow, but constantly rising level of tension and frustration, which is often expresssed in a complete disregard for the job that has to be done. Then, we get the impression, that man is always trying to escape from his duties, avoiding his work as much as he can, but we are totally wrong to attribute these attitudes to an "essential laziness" of the human being.

The reason, why such attitudes are prevalent in many industrialised societies, is related to the high levels of frustration and boredom that come with a meaningless task in a meaningless existence. These tensions are aggravated by a lack of confidence, or, an attitude of outright cynicism towards the large industries and the policies of government. Yet, the avid free-enterpriser, having escaped to the relative freedom of a managerial office and brain-washed into believing in the need for ever increasing productivity and consumption, keeps repeating these fallacies about the essential laziness of human nature.

We forget the incredible energy-reserves of man as manifested in the explosive violence of a rebellion, or, the sudden vigour, when the individual citizen is able to work over the week-end on his cottage in the country-site. We, in the Capitalist West, perpetuate the myth that man is basically lazy, and, we encourage the belief, that we need the free-enterprise system to spur us into the "salvation" of economic productivity. Yet, look at the zealous energy of many artists, who work for the ideals of aesthetic achievement without ever getting financially rewarded for their efforts, and, let us not forget the happiness of all those, who are engaged in activities they like doing, and never concern themselves with the financial rewards.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

An obsession with financial success, seen as a "cultural trait".
The momentum of the economic colossus.
A frugal lifestyle.
The need for, and virtues of, a frugal lifestyle.
Limitations of the mechanisms of natural selection.

Man is not lazy. Man`s problem is, actually, how to channel his energies into non-combative, mutually acceptable pathways. Man`s abundance of energy, as well as his hunger for power, victory and satisfaction, are far more fundamental characteristics of human nature than the "ennui", or laziness, of the chronically frustrated industrial worker.

Our obsession with financial rewards as a measure of success is entirely the result of our particular culture. We teach ourselves and our children, constantly, that, to succeed in society, means, to have money and to be able to spend it lavishly. The incredible and frightening dependence of our entire economic and financial system upon an ever greater increase in spending and consumption, is directly responsible for the one and only dominant factor in our entire system of mass-communications; the advertisement; the spur to spend more, and to consume more, be it material goods and services; be it food, or the consumption of the emotions of sex and violence.

The commercial momentum is so enormous, and, the need for a continued performance of this economic machinery is so gigantic, that any hesitation in the wheels of consumption is associated with massive disruptions, lay-offs and unemployment, stimulating, immediately, prayers for an economic recovery and giving rise to magic rituals of "economic resurrection" in order to keep this colossus going.

We have no idea to what extent we have become enslaved to the economic giant, but, I am convinced, that we all would be affected, severely, by the collapse of this economic momentum. We all, be it in government service, private industry, a trade or a professional occupation, we all require a constant flow of cash, while, perhaps, fifty percent of our work and activities, society could do very well without. The inertia of this economic momentum is caused by our collective dependence on its continued performance, and, it is the one overriding factor making the establishment of a world-order with a more equalised and ecologically sound level of consumption, so difficult. Not only, would we have to get used to do without most of what we have become accustomed to, but, the degree of upheaval in the affluent societies, as well as the level of unemployment and social chaos resulting from a radical change in our collective lifestyle, are, at the moment, unimaginable.

Yet, logic tells us, that we have to reach a balance between the level of human consumption and the ability of our planet to provide for us and sustain us. If we fail to reach such a balance, we will leave future generations a greatly impoverished earth. Frugality will not be a philosophically admired lifestyle, but a basic necessity, because we have recognised the earth`s limitations. Free-enterprise in economic development has to be taken-over by the mechanisms of an informed, communal will, and, sound decisions have to be made to chart the course of human destiny over a prolonged period of time. We have to abandon the incentive of economic profitability for the individual or the small group, because we can no longer afford such a wasteful system of incentives to make us productive.

Equality of human existence, throughout the world, will be the only way to avoid the fatal weakening and devastating effects of massive internal conflicts, and, it is becoming clear, that the earth`s capability to withstand the ravages of wars and unbridled economic development is easier exhausted than man`s willingness to engage in such devastating activities. We may survive a modern war, but the ability of our planet to support us, afterwards, may be severely impaired.

Is there, then, no alternative to an existence in equal opportunity and an equalised standard of living, if we agree, that a significant level of inequality will always require the burden of acquiring and maintaining sophisticated weaponry, as well as the energies necessary for a suspicious defensiveness to maintain a position of privilege? Even, if we choose the method of essential equality, how can we be sure not to fall victim to nuclear blackmail?

Logically, there is no other long-term solution than to strive for a way of living together, where the main reasons for violent conflict have been eliminated. The implications and consequences of a globally just system of living conditions are so overwhelming, that we have failed, so far, to think, clearly and seriously, about all the factors that have to be looked at, if we want to create a state of reasonable harmony on a world-wide scale.

We rather squabble over the merits of this system or that, and, it is easier to congratulate ourselves with our cultural heritage and to comfort ourselves with the wisdom of our founding fathers. It is more convenient to focus, exclusively, upon our own problems, and enjoy our affluence while it lasts. We console ourselves with the obvious righteousness of our nationalistic fervor and the qualities of our affluent life. We delude ourselves by gloating over the mal-functions and errors of others, and, we keep repeating to ourselves the myth of human laziness, the virtues of freedom of speech, equal opportunity for all, and the dignity of free-enterprise. In the mean time, we listen to the radio and sit in front of our television sets, absorbing, every day, yet another stream of products to be desired; of sensations to be sampled; of monies to be spent.

Even, if we honestly believe in the merit of ruthless natural selection, (and, obviously, we only believe in this method, if we are sure to belong to the winners), and, if we believe in the ruthless pruning of the weak and feeble from society, we have passed the opportunity to let such natural selective processes work-out their ruthless mechanisms in the struggle for survival. Until recently, we were fairly certain, that continued poverty and destitution would, eventually, lead to death, and, then, another competitor for a slice of the pie of terrestial resources would have disappeared, but, now, even the weak and destitute, can get their hands on a nuclear weapon and hold a society or an entire nation to ransom. We might as well face the fact, that in our world of nuclear capabilities, we have reached, at least, one aspect of equal opportunity; we are all equally capable of destroying each other and the world.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Reasons for adopting a frugal lifestyle.
The question of "satiety".
The drive to acquire a lifestyle of luxury; seen as a substitute for the drive to excercise power.
Feed-back mechanisms of the drive to excercise power.
Another Renaissance for mankind?

If we adopt a frugal lifestyle, exclusively, because of the need to preserve the earth`s natural resources and eco-systems, we will always be subject to a lingering nostalgia for the abundance of the past. Indeed, it seems certain, that future generations, reflecting in a broad historical perspective on the past events of human existence, will have many occasions to deplore the wasteful actions of previous generations.

However, it may be superficial and inaccurate to see frugality only as a necessity. Many times in the past, philosophers and prophets, or, religious and political leaders who were concerned with the long-term prospects of their social surroundings, extolled the virtues of a frugal lifestyle, without being able to tell us, precisely, why such attitudes were virtuous. Long before we had any idea about the limitations of our planet, the problems of extravagant living habits have been with us. The devastating effects of debauchery had been noted, and, such a lifestyle always provoked a sense of revulsion in people of moderation and common-sense.

In a frugal way of life, we do not lack any of the essential needs, and there is, certainly, no reason to associate frugality with poverty, hunger, disease, or the lack of shelter and education. In biological terms, such a condition of frugality would not be considered a state of subsistence or a frustrated potential, and, the circumstances of existence we would call "a frugal way of life", would be close to the biological ideal of an optimum equilibrium.

In nature`s living systems, (the organisms of the species` of life), we see, clearly, a variety of inborn patterns of behaviour, which are triggered by wants or needs of the living organism. These behaviour patterns are necessary for the organism to survive, and, they are centered around the need to seek food, shelter and protection, as well as the urge to mate. However, once a need has been filled, or, as soon as hunger or the sexual drive have been stilled, we see a biological state of "satiety", where the organism will rest and sleep in complete relaxation and contentment, until the various drives re-assert themselves, once again.

We have no reason to believe, that our human biological heritage and physiological mechanisms are any different, and yet, we see the human being, so often, pursuing endless goals of acquisition and consumption, apparently never satisfied, never satiated, spending his restless energies in a constant seach for the fulfilment of ever receding goal-patterns. We see the same pattern in our attempts to satisfy emotional needs. We become easily obsessed with apparently never-ending desires for the excitement of violence and sex, and, we seem pre-occupied with a continuous need to feed our senses with a large variety of stimuli. This makes it more difficult to explain these behavioural traits on the basis of "biological needs".

Other animals have not learned, to any extent, the art of manipulating tools or weapons, and, they have not learned to manipulate their sense impressions. Perhaps, this explains why they have a far more easily reached point of satiety. We rarely see such a constant obsession with sexual behaviour in the animal world, and, we see very little, if any, obsession with the drive to acquire material assets outside the biological necessities of hibernating, or hoarding, in anticipation of a lean season. What we would call a lifestyle of simplicity and frugality for human beings, would be, in biological terms, a return to the basic satisfactions of organic existence.

We have to look elsewhere for the reasons and origins of our obsession with the acquisition of power and wealth. Why do we need such a constant stream of sensual stimuli? We have to find the reasons outside an explanation based upon the fulfilment of biological needs. It may well be, that this peculiarly human feature, (which has been recorded throughout history, in particular, when a society reaches a measure of affluence), is not just a search for a point of satiety in the consumptive drive of fulfilling basic necessities. It is much more likely, that this drive to consume has, in essence, very little to do with the need to fulfill basic energy requirements, but is, in reality, an expression of the drive for power. It may well be, that the drive for power does not have a similar, easily defined point of satiation, such as, e.g., the drive to still hunger and thirst.

When we discussed the hierarchical relationships within a social entity, we saw, how the attitude of responsibility became an inevitable corollary of natural leadership, and, we have seen, how the requirements of responsibility, as well as other leadership functions, demand a remarkable amount of energy from the leader. This drain on his energy resources seems to be the only factor inhibiting the drive for power and leadership. Quickly, the biological energy-flow, or elan vital of the leading individual, reaches an equilibrium with the energy he has to spend in his position as a leader. We have discussed, before, the likelyhood, that such biological limitations play an important role in limiting the sphere of influence of a natural leader, and, we know, that these limitations determine the size of a sucessful social organisation based on natural leadership functions.

If a sphere of leadership-influence is extended with the help of cultural tools, it will take a much larger sphere of leadership-influence to reach this state of equilibirum between the force-fields involved. In essence, the only natural feed-back to check the desire for power, seems to be a limit on the available energy that has to be spent in a position of power and leadership.

With the development of technological and cultural innovations, (e.g., the emergence of multi-individual leadership), the energy necessary to maintain a leadership position has been reduced. As a result, the sphere of leadership-influence has enlarged enormously, and, it has made domains of leadership possible extending over the geographical size of an empire. One of the cultural innovations that made the break-through of large-scale social leadership possible, was the emergence of a multi-individual leadership structure. We have also seen, that the energy we are talking about, here, is nothing more, and nothing less, than the well-known and by now familiar "elan vital"; the growth-pressure of the individual organism. In summary, it seems fair to state, that the burdens of leadership are the only inhibitory feed-back mechanism, or satiation point, for the drive and desire to excercise power.

How does this relate to phenomena of consumerism, extravagance and the debauchery of affluent societies? We have touched upon this before, when we outlined the need for behavioural guidelines into which a human being can channel his vital energies. In an affluent society, the overall work of social construction, (which is, obviously, a useful way to channel and synchronise the elan vital of people), has been completed, and, as a result, many of these guidelines and channels for the dissipation of the vital energies have become irrelevant. Hardships and sacrifices for the common good are becoming less necessary, and, therefore, less meaningful, and, also, less acceptable.

As long as the leadership is powerful, order persists and the struggle for power within society is suppressed through a forceful dominance by the leadership. Jockeying for a position in the social hierarchy by people who have been freed from the arduous tasks of making a living, or fighting a war, is achieved by turning the attention to the ostentatious exhibition of wealth and abundance in a lifestyle of extravagance, because this is the only way left to express the status of success, whenever the cultural regulators within society prevent the members to engage in real combat to establish hierarchical differentiations.

We see, then, how an equilibrium establishes itself. This equilibrium is similar to the mechanisms limiting the drive to excercise power. Quickly, the only feedback or inhibitory impulses to such an exhibitionistic display of power and wealth, is the energy it takes to maintain such a lifestyle, reflecting the efforts that have to be made to ensure the continuation of such a life of affluent luxuries.

The drive to exhibit power in the display of wealth and a luxurious lifestyle, is mirrored by a search for continuous excitement, because excitement is a commodity that has to be displayed in an ever greater and more impressive abundance. As a corollary to the gamesmanship of exhibiting exciting experiences, we see, how mounting frustrations are channeled into a never-ending search for excitement.

The status-quo quickly loses its exciting features, regardless, how recently this same status-quo was the objective of our surplus energies. Continuous excitement is needed to combat boredom and frustration, especially, when our objectives have become confused. We keep shifting our goal-patterns, partly voluntarily, partly driven by poorly understood drives and instincts. The result is a slow erosion of our peace of mind and self-confidence, as we slip into a somewhat meaningless and confused way of life, constantly searching for new material acquisitions or sensual experiences.

What we choose as our objectives, and, how we decide to flaunt our successes, or frustrations, is very much a matter of current fads. Few of us are original; few people are able to see beyond current and fashionable opinions. Most of us exhibit, therefore, our ego-drives in a uniform and slovenly manner, with an undifferentiated likemindedness. We think, that we are showing our individual successes by proudly exhibiting the luxuries of our lifestyle, while, in essence, we participate, rather blindly, in a common pageant of prevailing public opinions, where we only find our limitations, as well as a sense of proportion, in the inhibitory counter-pressures of financial enslavement to our consumerist way of life.

Fortunately, most of us have to work hard for the affluence we exhibit, and, for this reason, the mass consumerism of our time, with its gigantic effects on the economic mechanisms of society, as well as on the terrestial eco-systems, is, still, far less extravagant and exuberant, on an individual level, compared to the much more limited examples of unbridled wealth and display we see in historical times. If wealth was accumulated without hard personal work-efforts, but, primarily, by ruthless domination and the exploitation of other people, then, we see the truly disgusting examples of unbridled extravagance. Then, we see the most glaring examples of an unchecked search for sexual and emotional excitement, as well as the limitless cruelty of man against man, because the ruthless suppression of all opponents was the only necessity to maintain the status-quo.

We are now beginning to understand, why our pre-occupation with consumerism is nothing more than a perverted drive to excercise power, and, why the inhibitory factors, (created by the need to work hard for the financial basis of our luxurious lifestyles), are, slowly, being undermined by the greater ease of affluence, or money. Such a form of consumerism is culturally sanctioned as fashionable behaviour, and, we are, probably, justified in saying, that the phenomena of affluence and a luxurious lifestyle are the result of a common social neurosis, where the primary drive of finding a just and meaningful place in the social hierarchy has been changed into a mind-numbing obsession with the acquisition and display of material goods and exciting stimuli.

Do we agree, then, that the display of affluence is a perverted expression of our drive to dominate; to be somebody, to have a sense of meaning and self-respect? We should make it clear, that the drive to be respected, the ego-drive of self-fulfilment, does not mean, that we all want to be king or emperor. The essence, here, is the experience, that our role as an individual within society is meaningful, and corresponds, at least, to some extent, with our capabilities and inclinations.

However, a large, chaotic, socially fluid and morally somewhat confused society makes it very difficult for the great majority of its members to find this meaningful position, and, most of us latch, therefore, onto the common fad, the unwritten popular opinions of success and esteem. If we consider our consumerist objectives in this light, we see, that a return to a simpler and more frugal lifestyle does not mean at all a form of sacrifice; a regrettable necessity we had to adopt, while, secretly, we still idolise the style of wasteful abundance in our nostalgic memories of the past.

If a society finds, once again, more useful and less neurotic ways to express the achievements of its members, it may well turn away, spontaneously, from such a life-style of senseless consumerism. It may well mean, that the re-discovery of purpose will give a sense of direction to our lives and facilitate the economic curtailments that are so necessary to ensure prolonged human existence on earth.

It is quite possible, that we will wake-up with a renewed sense of purpose and individual dignity, as soon as we begin to agree upon a just and sensible course for the future developent of human existence, and, we may well witness, in the near future, a most remarkable Renaissance of human behaviour.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The neurotic aspects of consumerism.
The medical professions.
The vested interests of the military establishment and arms manufacturers.
The vested interests of us all.

While the exhibition of affluence is a powerful motivation for our consumerist lifestyle, we would like to emphasise, here, the neurotic aspects of our drive to consume, because tensions and frustrations are temporarily suppressed by the pleasure of consuming. Actually, the status-quo re-asserts itself quickly, after the temporary soothing effects of the act of consumption or acquisition have worn off, and, the awareness of the problem is often heightened, after we realise that we have done nothing to alleviate the problem permanently. On the contrary, we have aggravated our problems by enslaving ourselves further, either financially or physically. In an effort to console ourselves, our financial obligations have become even heavier than they were before, and, we feel a sense of failure and frustration, as we realise, that we are now worse of than before.

The neurotic aspects of public behaviour are seen, clearly, in the symptoms of people who seek medical advise. The dramatic rise in medical costs for societies that provide some sort of a universal health-care or insurance-scheme for their population, is, partially, a result of such neurotic tensions, but we must not underestimate the synchronous pull of medical over-utilisation. This is caused, primarily, by those physicians who are trying to milk the medicare or medicaid system for all it is worth.

We could, probably, save over fifty percent of medical expenditures, if we could find ways to reduce the public`s demand for the investigation and treatment of neurotic symptoms, and, if we could eliminate the incentive of over-treatment by placing physicians on a fixed salary. There is no doubt in my mind, that the "fee-for-service" system in medical treatment is archaic, and detrimental to the public purse, in particular, when national health-insurance schemes foot the bills for all medical costs. A well-disciplined medical profession will perform extremely well on a fair system of guaranteed, salaried income.

Every society has to be able to regulate the number of physicians, hospital beds and medical services that are available to the public, but a reduction of neurotic tensions within society will only come with a significant change in the attitudes and lifestyle of our contemporary, affluent societies. This is not an easy task, and, no easy solutions are in sight, since our medical and health-care organisations, just like our academic and government bureaucracies, are often caught in this self-perpetuating momentum of existential anxiety, when large numbers of its members are totally dependent for their financial and social security on the continued growth and perpetuation of somewhat redundant jobs and services.

Let us focus our attention, for a moment, upon another staggering social cost; the monies and efforts spent in the build-up of arms, all over the world. In our complex societies, we are totally at the mercy of, essentially unverifiable, expert opinion about our military needs, and, we are enslaved to our communal emotions of hatred and fear, without knowing to what extent our fears and emotions are being manipulated by the vested interests of the arms manufacturers and the military establishment. Who knows, what we really need for our societies? Who knows, what the real threats or challenges are going to be in the future, and, who can guarantee, that our arms will be able to stop the dissolution of discontent societies, or, the threats from determined terrorists?

We all know, that a small group of determined men and women are, technically and emotionally, capable of detonating a nuclear device in one of our major cities, and, we know, that they can hold us to ransom for anything they want in the anonymity of remote control. How are we going to defend ourselves against this distinct possibility of gigantic destruction and mass-murder from within? What, then, will be the use of our thousands of nuclear war-heads, mounted on inter-continental missiles or loaded onto manned bombers and sub-marines?

Yet, the interests of those, whose livelyhood and reasons for existence are so intricately interwoven with the perpetuation of arms-manufacture and military build-up, create a momentum of incredible waste and danger. How is it possible to change this momentum? How is it possible to escape a feeling of utter helplessness in the face of this inexorable progression of gigantic force-fields?

Before we can change the course mankind seems to be traveling, we have to become aware of these processes. We have to see, what is happening, and, we have to acknowledge, that, all of us, almost without exception, are part of this process. We have to realise, and admit to ourselves, that, in one way or another, we all have a vested interest in the continuation of economic expansion, in the perpetuation of luxury and superfluous services, in the constant flow of money that is fueling our existential needs, while changing hands so rapidly and easily.

Whether we are self-employed, or employees of government bureaucracies or business enterprises; whether we belong to the military establishment or an academic institution; whether we are pensioners or youngsters, we all depend for our income and well-being on the performance of our national economies, and, we all have become a part of the system. Even those of us who have opted-out, morally or economically, from the economic system of our social surroundings, we still accept the benefits of welfare, subsidised goods and services, as well as other benefits, such as the right to police protection and a fair trial. All these benefits are based on economic mechanisms. No-one will escape, completely, the enormous consequences that would result from a sudden and massive change in attitudes, and, we will have to be aware of the implications whenever we advocate such changes.

Yet, even if we are too old to adjust, fully, to a radical change in attitudes and a re-structuring of our lifestyle, our children may be able to embrace the insight of the need to make a change. None of us is born with a physiological dependence on affluence, but, we all need a basic dignity of existence, as well as a purpose in life.

We may make this transition possible, or, even, desirable for our children, if we could persuade the future generations of mankind to adopt a global contract of equal and just existence, as well as an attitude of mutual respect in dignity and freedom. These attitudes are only possible with a simple, deliberately frugal way of life.

The re-birth of this sense of direction towards a sensible lifestyle may well overcome the apparent enormity of the upheaval resulting from such a radical change in attitudes and the disappearance of the economic momentum. It is, by now, a common platitude to refer to the staggering quantities of monies and man-power that would come available with an overall reduction in the spending on arms. On the face of it, it seeems reasonable to assume, that all the wealth, now tied-up in arms, would easily suffice to guarantee everyone on earth a basic but adequate existence, but we should not forget, that it requires a large measure of mutual trust and a fundamental re-organisation of many societies, all over the world, in order to translate the liberated man-power and financial resources resulting from a halt in the arms-race, into a just re-distribution of equal opportunities and basic human rights.

However, there is no reason, why it can not be done, but, let us be aware of simplistic solutions and a facile faith, and, let us not underestimate the problems of diagnosing and treating the ills of social injustice. Let us not be discouraged by the seemingly overwhelming odds against accomplishing something worthwhile. We all know in what direction we have to move, if we want to remain a viable species of life.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Short-comings of Capitalist and Socialist systems.
The problem of individuality.
Dangers of a premature ideological rigidity.
The discrepancy between professed beliefs and actual behaviour.
The inevitable elitism of the privileged classes.
Diverging attitudes and abilities.
An analysis of collective and individualised mechanisms for evolutionary change.

We have seen, now, the reasons, why we need, urgently, to change from an affluent lifestyle to a style of frugal conservation, and, we also know, why it is necessary to take the major economic decisions out of the hands of private enterprise. We have touched upon the importance of placing strict limitations on the search for personal profit and egocentric security in the form of private wealth and power.

These suggestions for a frugal lifestyle for the near future will convey to many people an uncomfortable atmosphere of surrender to an all-intrusive government bureaucracy. However, let us not jump to conclusions, and, let us not take the facile road to merely glorify or reject one existing social system or another. Let us continue to delineate, carefully, what we need, in order to create a realistic social environment, where we have to consider the effects of a global integration of all societies into a federated world community. We will see, clearly, that presently existing Socialist or Communist systems of one Party government, are just as vulnerable to criticism and in need of radical change as the Western or Capitalist, free-enterprise societies.

There are obvious short-comings in current social philosophies on either side of the ideological divide, especially, when we look at the lack of understanding of the human personality. The philosophy of communal sharing and large-scale cooperation tends to view dissenting attitudes with a great deal of suspicion. The fear for individualistic opinions and the suspicions aroused by criticism and dissent, leave the current Socialist ideologies vulnerable to an abuse of power, as well as to the oppression of human rights and the growth of stifling bureaucracies. There is an inadequate theoretical understanding of the human individual and the functions of human awareness, as well as a general reluctance to investigate and think, with complete openness and intellectual honesty, about the mechanisms that make social cohesion and integration possible.

The heavy reliance upon ideas that have been clothed with the sanctity of an absolute truth, as well as the naive confidence in the self-righteousness of a single conceptual creed, make the Socialist dogmas fall victim to the same disastrous limitations and fragmentation we have seen, so often, before, in the implementation of various religious doctrines. A premature rigidity of ideological concepts leads, logically, to a harsh suppression of any form of dissent, because dissent provokes fear for the security and continued existence of the Socialist dogma. Consequently, the secular ideological creed of Socialism is bedevilled by the same unavoidable schism between good and evil, right and wrong, we and they, from which our religious creeds have always suffered, in spite of the fact, that religious ideas have contributed, as a rule, to attitudes of compassion and understanding.

The perplexing dilemma for every creed that tacitly accepts the absolute validity of its beliefs, is the inevitable and logical conclusion, that, any dissent or disagreement with the basic tenets is synonymous with an evil challenge and needs to be eradicated, or, at least, it needs to be strenuously corrected. We see, then, time and again, how the enthousiastic believer in the creed that embodies the command "love thy enemies", will resort to killing the enemy for the sake of this beloved creed, and, for the love of his God.

If someone recognises, intuitively and emotionally, the beauty of an object, a circumstance, or a belief structure, a strong sensation of happiness will result. It is natural, that such an individual will develop a great attachement to this object of beauty, and, it is logical that his hatred will be aroused, whenever someone dares to belittle or desecrate this object of veneration, or, the focus for an experience of beauty. Even, if the object of beauty is a creed that says "love thy enemies", an enemy, who scorns or ridicules this creed, will be hated and persecuted, and, the content of this creed in relation to the behaviour of its defender, becomes completely irrelevant, regardless, how strongly this creed condemns the behaviour that is being carried-out.

How can we avoid these pitfalls? As always, the beginning of a solution to a problem is found in the recognition of the problem in a clear-cut, conceptually precise manner. If a precise definition of the problem has been accomplished, and has been recognised as valid, the solution often suggests itself. The solution is, of course, that we make a clear distinction between our actions and the contents of our beliefs.

If we really believe, that we should love our enemies, we would surely recognise, that such a behavioural guideline applies, also, to those enemies who deny the validity of such a belief. If this is not the case, then, we do not recognise the fact, that our professed belief in a particular creed is nothing more than the appropriation of a particular creed or concept as our "personal property". Then, we are more concerned about the passion of ownership than about the content or dictates of our beliefs.

Similarly, if we believe, that we should share all possessions and privileges equally in a class-less society, we should recognise, that we deviate from such a behavioural guideline, as soon as we begin to accept the tacit privileges that arise, inevitably, from an elitist togetherness with those who profess, most clearly and ardently, their allegiance to current social dogmas.

As happens so frequently, the creed becomes an intellectual or emotional rallying point for elitist togetherness against the hostile or indifferent masses on the outside. The creed becomes a crutch for exclusive security, just the opposite of the intention of the creed, because most religious or ideological creeds recognise the dangerous temptation of elitist togetherness and exclusivity. Therefore, there is, frequently, if not always, a discrepancy between actual behaviour and the beliefs of those, who profess to adhere to a particular creed. We may recognise this discrepancy in others, but it is far more difficult to recognise it in ourselves.

Questioning or criticising a creed that has been accepted with the aura of an absolute truth, provokes, inevitably, a measure of anxiety, antagonism and hostility, and, we see, once again, how conflict has been born out of a belief, that, almost always, seeks to lessen conflict by guidelines stressing peaceful co-existence. This discrepancy between professed beliefs and actual behaviour is completely unrecognised by a community of fervent believers, but, it is keenly noted, and feared, by outsiders.

This same tendency is responsible for an attitude of caution and suspicion towards the trend of diverging individualisation. One of the fundamental requirements for a successful global ethical system will be a clear appreciation of these trends and difficulties. A precise and detailed consideration of the role of the individual within a social conglomerate, is essential, and, hopefully, we will learn to clear-up a few prejudices and misconceptions about the behaviour of man, be it as an individual or in a social grouping.

These concepts are so important, that I would like to sketch, once more, the mechanisms and factors operating in the development of the individual personality, and, I hope to show, that, true individualisation, or a genuine fulfilment of the human potential, is only possible within the secure guidelines of a mature and wise society. The common assumption, that there must be, necessarily, a painful compromise between the rights and desires of the individual on the one hand, and the requirements of the social environment on the other, may turn out to be a completely erroneous and damaging misconception. We will, therefore, outline, once again, our views about the development of an individual human being, who has been nurtured and protected, but also stimulated and challenged, by his social surroundings.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A review of individual unfolding within a social context.
The importance of mutual trust.
The psychology of violent conflict.
Mechanisms of individualisation.
The similiarities of cultural and genetic adaptative mechanisms.
Variability of the cultural code.
Small and large groups; sub-groupings within large social conglomerates.
Effects resulting from the formation of a globally integrated society of mankind.

A brief reminder of the circumstances that lead to the normal development of a youngster, should help us to appreciate the incalculable value of protection and stimulation. We have good evidence to believe, that the whole complex of parental care, the contacts and exchanges of feelings and awarenesses between children and parents, (as well as between the youngsters themselves), is essential for the normal development of the human personality. A smooth unfolding of these mechanisms is necessary for the ability to function usefully in society, later in life, and, these social contacts of protection and stimulation, example and attention, are also necessary for the development of the ability to speak, think and play.

The cultural inheritance from our social environment determines, not only, the language we speak, but also, what we believe; what is good and bad; what our goal-patterns will be; whom we identify with, and, who our enemies are. Just as the social and cultural guidelines of society determine, by and large, whom we will regard to be our friends and heroes, so does the cultural code also determine our feelings of hostility and prejudice.

If mutual trust within society is the lubricant to make the internal social interactions possible and efficient, so is the synchrony of our communal suspicions, hostility and hatred, the unifying force for aggressive and defensive activities. We almost always battle communally, and, we see, so often, the following paradox; we are able to show great mutual friendship, to the point of self-sacrifice, when dealing with the members of a community we identify with, while, collectively, we engage in a mind-numbing destruction and slaughter of "the enemy". After the battle is over, it is not surprising to see the survivors ask themselves, whether this carnage was really necessary.

It is not surprising, that the sight of a dying enemy soldier, who has been struck-down by the force of our weapons, resembles, so much, our own wounded and dying friends. The pain and agony are the same, the bereavement of family and friends is the same, and, how often have we not lost sight of the goals of our actions, or, even, of the reasons for the conflict itself?

In every society, the development of the personality is made possible by the nurturing protection from family members and close friends, as well as the assimilation of the cultural content as knowledge, atittudes, customs, opinions and judgements. The attitude of a stimulating competitiveness is kept within bounds, as a rule, and, it is this fine balance between mutual cooperation and the stimulation of competitive attitudes, which provides a curious mixture of openness and self-defense, trust and suspicion, cooperation and competitive strife, which makes the human being what he is; partially individualised from society, but, partially synchronous in his attitudes and opinions with this social entity; partly independent, and yet, to a large extent, dependent upon the social environment.

As a child and adolescent, we are the recipients of benefits from our social environment, but, later, we will be called upon to contribute to society, especially, when we have become a mature adult. As individuals who form, together, "the social environment", we all represent "slight variations" upon a common theme of human potentials. The spread or variability of our individual potentials and inclinations provides the basic mechanisms for social adaptation, because changes in the cultural guidelines occur, slowly, under the pressures of changing circumstances. These changes favour those talents and behaviour patterns, which prove to be most advantageous for the mechanisms of success and survival, while those cultural traits are abandoned, which seem to be the least valuable, or viable, at any particular time.

The social interactions, the discussions and debates, even, the tensions and controversies that arise from diverse cultural trends and individual inclinations, are instrumental in heightening the sense of awareness for a large majority of the people, and, this allows them to make a deliberate choice in favour of one particular option or another.

We see, here, a remarkable similarity with the genetic code, especially, in the way a cultural trait is being selected; nl., by virtue of a slight individual advantage in cultural content. The most viable cultural traits survive and are accentuated during this process of cultural adaptation, just as the mechanisms of variability within the gene-pool allow the gradual selection and preponderance of those genetic features that are most advantageous to cope with the prevailing circumstances.

An individual personality develops, therefore, within a social or communal range of tolerance or freedom. If the range of tolerance is very small, individual variability is minimal, and the adaptability of the cultural pool will be diminished. Then, a strong rigidity of attitudes and opinions prevails. There is little sense of individualisation from the group. If this rigid cultural code happens to be quite appropriate for the prevailing circumstances, the social group will be successful and confident, expansionistic and aggressive, and, it will rapidly increase in size as a result of its viability and fertility, as well as on account of a measure of dominance over, or conquest of, neighbouring social entities.

If such a rigid cultural code with little variability is less successful, an equilibrium tends to set-in, quickly, and the social entity stagnates at a certain level of development. It remains at a certain size, with a specific set of static tension-gradients that characterise the relationships with its environment. If this environment is, predominantly, a set of stable, natural forces, we see these mostly small societies persist in isolation for a remarkably long period of time, cut-off from other groupings. Such an isolated community does not participate in the rapidly changing cultural codes of mingling societies. If the rigid code is unable to adapt to a slow, natural deterioration of the external circumstances, or, to the introduction of a new element, (e.g., contact with another social grouping), such a cultural code or social entity is quickly destined to extinction, or, it will be conquered and assimilated by a foreign power.

Let us now consider the possibilities for individualisation that come-about as a result of a large and flexible social environment. The reason for a large variability in cultural content could be the intermingling of differing cultures and communities living in close contact with the main society, or, it may be a result of previous conquests and annexations. Whatever the reasons, numerous diverging cultures may be existing side by side within a single political entity. Another reason for the existence of severe adaptative pressures may be rapidly changing external circumstances, which are exerting a pressure upon the traditional cultural codes of the social conglomerate.

We see, then, that security and affluence, resulting from a recently successful cultural code, allow for a large divergence of individual variability, and, this tendency is enhanced by the need of the younger generations in these affluent societies to seek outlets for their elan vital in a variety of commonly acceptable behaviour patterns.

A significant variability of individualised behaviour patterns, (based on a large range of tolerance for diverging behaviour), could lead, theoretically, to a marked increase in the adaptability of a society, but, it depends, in essence, on a delicate balance between the "centri-fugal" forces of a large individual variability on the one hand, and the "centri-petal" forces of a common cultural core or code on the other. It depends on this balance, whether or not the mechanisms of adaptation will be successful. When such a balance is present, and functioning well, we see, indeed, a remarkable adaptative advantage. However, a large range of individual variability, also means, that many people will diverge in a similar manner from the central cultural core, and, we see, then, the development of sub-groupings, where people with related special-interests, such as the professions or supporters of a particular faith, group together.

The variability within sub-groupings is, therefore, much smaller than the variability allowed by the cultural code of a large society, and, this is the reason, why local autonomies or sub-groupings are, nearly always, less tolerant of individual variability compared to the range of tolerance shown by the national or cultural "main-stream" of the large social conglomerates.

Certainly, the strains are severe, even, within a large society, as soon as this large society allows a significant individual variability and a wide variety of diverging sub-groupings. There is always a danger, that the strength and resilience of the central, cultural core of the larger social entity will become insufficient to hold such a divergent variety of sub-groupings together. The vulnerability of a wide range of tolerance and divergence in a large, conglomerate society is well known, and, we see, quite frequently, how the remnants of a common social bond are torn to shreds by the diverging factions within a social conglomerate, when the need for cooperation and the defense of common existential interests are not recognised anymore.

Unfortunately, people rarely realise the implications of such reckless behaviour. By tearing the larger social entity apart and letting it decay into antagonistic factions, they have removed the last barriers to the outbreak of serious armed conflict. The common basis for the security of each of the sub-groupings has now fallen away, and, the tolerance of individual variability has decreased markedly, since, now, the sub-group, with its more cohesive cultural core, takes-over the primary function of protecting the individual, and, consequently, the individual becomes much more dependent upon a good relationship with the majority of such a sub-grouping.

Individual variability is sharply reduced as a result of the break-up of a large social conglomerate into antagonistic factions. The possibilities for personal differentiation have diminished, and, above all, the basis for recognising each other as belonging to the same society, has been lost. As a result, the cultural instructions for our behaviour patterns now tell us to consider as our enemies, people, who belonged to the same social environment only so recently. Fragmentation is complete, and the old culture and social structure has dissolved into warring factions, weakening and destroying, through internal strife, the remnants of the old social order.

We should all be able to recognise the fact, that such a development of increasing, and, perhaps, irreversible fragmentation of a society into warring factions, is a deplorable development, even, if it gives some of us a primitive, emotional satisfaction, as well as an illusion of power and independence. It should be possible, for all of us, to agree, that such a development is not going to help us to get along with each other on a world-wide scale.

Frequently, pure ignorance about the consequences of our actions, attitudes and beliefs, as well as a facile surrender to primary emotional and instinctive drives, contribute to the seemingly inevitable collapse of large social conglomerates. These developments should make us realise, that the road towards establishing a really large and workable world-community will require a long, sustained and patient effort, based on a deep understanding and a firm determination.

We have to be fully aware of the fact, that we have to sacrifice, to some extent, our heady feelings of victory and yearning for independence, but, we should be compensated for this loss by an increased sense of understanding and justice. We have to realise, that, for the sake of a condition of world-wide essential equality and peaceful co-existence; for the sake of undreamt of personal individualisation and tolerance, we will have to forego some of the more primitive emotional satisfactions; such as a blind desire to dominate, to be completely independent, to be free from any restrictions in our desire to accumulate power and wealth for our own little circle of concern.

If we accept the difficult task of consciously and deliberately enlarging our sphere of concern to the realm of the entire world, we will become free and responsible enough to take full advantage of the possibilities given by our individual variability in potentials and genetic endowment. It would be totally erroneous to conclude, therefore, that a world-wide government for the societies of mankind, (based on the social ideals of equality in opportunity and standard of living), will lead to an impoverishment of the human spirit. It would be erroneous to believe, that such a large-scale social integration would, inevitably, lead to a suppression of our desire for individual freedom and differentiation. On the contrary, we should be able to see, now, that there is no greater individual variability and freedom possible, than under the protection of a world-wide Constitution of an integrated mankind.

We have to acknowledge, of course, the delicate balance between the variability of individual people and the need to keep the common bonds of interest between the members and sub-groupings of a large social conglomerate in a state of good health. If the common bonds have been forgotten and neglected, individual variability turns, inevitably, into an attitude of elitism. If we allow individuals, or sub-groupings, to acquire elitist characteristics, (such as an excessive standard of living or a degree of power that alienates them from the rest of society), then, we have already reached the point, where the mutual bond of the overall cultural code, (which is based upon common needs and the attitudes of mutual respect), has been torn apart.

We can, therefore, never allow sub-groupings or individual variability to develop along the lines of elitist exclusivity, contemptuous of other people and groups of people, nor can we allow a development that leads to attitudes of egocentric pride and the usurpation of a privilege, be it wealth, power, or some other advantage. A development of individual differentiation into elitist attitudes of privilege and advantage is a form of corruption, and, corruption fouls the mechanisms of justice and mutual trust. It destroys the social cohesion that flows from the experience of cultural togetherness and mutual identification.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Practical suggestions for the creation of world government.
The need for a high level of competence and freedom from corruption.

Our main task, therefore, will be to outline practical suggestions for the creation of a gigantic, world-wide machinery of government, able to guide all the events of people and their interrelationships; a machinery, that will be based on an effort to prevent the old foes of inefficiency and corruption. Indeed, the cardinal question will be, how to prevent the dissipation of good-will and mutual trust by internal squabbling, corrupt practices, and miscarriages of justice. If we can keep mutual trust and good-will alive, we will be able to build a system of world-wide government.

Do not dismiss the suggestion that it is possible to devise an essentially corruption-free system of government, as a utopian dream, unworthy of any further attention. It can be done, and it has to be done. We will have to ensure, not only, the highest level of competence and efficiency, but, we have to impress upon the peoples of the world, that it is possible to agree amongst ourselves what a globally just society means, and, we have to show the people, that the organisation of a just, globally integrated society, with a competent government and a non-corrupt bureaucracy, can be accomplished.

We will outline the conceptual structures we need to organise the members of mankind into a world-wide network of social integration and peaceful co-existence, and, we will, also, focus our attention on the gigantic practical problems, how to initiate and carry-out changes into the desired direction. In the remainder of this sketch, we will discuss some of our ideas about the safeguards we need against corruption and incidences of injustice, as well as suggestions about how to secure efficiency and competence, which are such essential features for winning the trust and confidence of people all over the world. In the last sketch, we will tackle the difficult problems of working towards our objectives, and, we will not underestimate the upheavals such radical changes in our attitudes and judgements will bring-about.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Mutual trust as a "social lubricant".
The need for accurate, swift and complete information.
Universal access to information.
The total openness of society.
Computer technology as the key to gather and access information.

Trust and respect for each other, as well as confidence in ourselves and the governments we live and work with; these are absolutely essential lubricants for all our relationships. If trust dries-up into suspicion and cynicism, the social machinery grinds to a squeaking halt through the build-up of tensions and frustrations, and, the forces of fragmentation and hostility will have won-out, once again.

How can we preserve this fragile ingredient of trust and respect? How can we be sure, that we can trust and respect our fellow human beings, as well as our government institutions? How can we maintain this saving belief in ourselves and the future? What are the causes that dissipate trust into suspicion, and, what are the reasons for the resurgence of egocentricity and hatred? Do we have fresh answers, or, are we going back to the pessimistic dogmas of an unalterable human nature and the ravages of Original Sin?

We may piously hope to avoid a disintegration of the attitude of trust by advocating an ill-understood divine command of "neighbourly love", but, a command we do not really understand, will, eventually, be rejected as meaningless, and, we will have to search, again, as we ponder the discrepancies between a professed religious creed and the nature of our behaviour. A fervent hope for peace is not going to help us, if we mean by peace a frozen status-quo, beneficial to some, but detrimental to many others, and, a naive ignorance of human drives and motivations will not prevent this disastrous change of attitudes, where a wounded trust turns into a blinding hatred.

We can only maintain the attitude of mutual trust, if we agree with, and believe in, the essential justice of the status-quo we are living in, and, if we can accept as intellectually honest, the guarantees that have been built into the social system to safeguard against the temptations of abuse and corruption. We are only able to trust each other, if we have good reasons to believe, that we all are "playing by the rules", and, that we have the opportunity to verify, at any time, whether or not our continued trust is warranted.

This means, that all social transactions, as well as all forms of leadership and government institutions, have to be completely open to investigation by everyone. All socially significant events and functions have to be open to close scrutiny. This applies to all happenings and events, such as government functions, business dealings, and, even, the transactions between individual human beings. Openness should also apply to the judiciary, diplomatic activities, as well as the relationships with other nations and the activities of military establishments and their operations. Only, if we are convinced, that we can get accurate and unbiased information, at any time, and, about everything, (including someone else`s income, property, living standard, the activities of individuals and groups of people), only then, can we be convinced, that the apparent and transparent reality of the world we live in, is correct; that it is not an illusion, created by hidden forces, trying to manipulate our attitudes of trust and acts of good-will for their equally hidden egocentric or elitist goals.

We have to be able to make sure, that we are not being deceived, and, we should be able to allay our fears and suspicions about a possible deception by the ability to obtain accurate and comprehensive information, at any time, and, about anything and everything we would like to know.

If we abolish all forms of secrecy, and, if all governmental transactions are recorded for possible future scrutiny, we would go a long way towards laying a lasting foundation for this precious commodity, "mutual trust". Why should it be necessary for any function of government to be hidden from public view, or, the activities of intense scrutiny? Why should it be necessary for any information to be kept secret or "classified"? Why should we not know, what our leaders have in mind, what the problems are, how people in a position of responsibility are thinking? We will get used to the fact, that they have their doubts, worries and misgivings, just like the rest of us.

Why should we be kept in the dark about how, and why, governments make deals with each other; how many weapons are being stock-piled, why some firms get the contracts and others do not? Why should we not be able to know, precisely, what each bureaucrat does, what he is supposed to do, what he is able to do, and, how, and why, he does or does not do the tasks that are in front of him?

How else can we, members of the public, form an opinion about the need or justification of certain bureaucratic functions? How else can we judge, criticise or truly support our governments, industries or academic institutions? How else can we know, whether or not the bureaucratic organisation is as efficient as it can be, and should be; whether or not we are witnessing the beginning of a paralysing growth in the bureaucracy, together with the stifling inertia that comes with anxiety and a lack of accountability?

How do we know, whether or not our professors and teachers, our physicians and industrialists, our managers and other workers, are carrying-out their jobs and functions with competence, integrity and according to the needs of society, unless we have access to the conduct and actions, the interests, profits and planning of each individual and each group of people?

Why should we object to revealing what we own, what our holdings and financial interests are? Why should we object to reveal our plans, ideals and knowledge in matters of public concern? Why should we not make known our status, if there is nothing to be ashamed of? We may feel such a transparence as an intrusion on our privacy, and, I am not suggesting, that we should record and make public everything that happens in someone`s private home or bedroom, but, there is not one single reason to fear or suspect the potential awareness or knowledge of our personal assets, our professional work, our dealings and agreements with others, and, even, our quarrels with neighbours, or, the frictions and disputes with many other people or groups of people, which are likely to come to the fore in a complex web of social interactions.

Only with such safeguards, can we justifiably conclude, that we may give our trust and respect to others and to our institutions, and, with this feeling of trust, together with the security that we are not being deceived or manipulated, we tend to mobilise our energies and enthousiasm for the common good.

How are we going to make such a gigantic network of global information gathering and distribution possible, and, how are we going to make sure, that this information is fair and available to everyone? How are we translating universal access to accurate information into an attitude of integrity and a condition of social transparence in all human relationships?

Certainly, at any time in the history of mankind, even, in the recent past, such an objective would have been totally impossible. With the help of our modern computer technology, we have a realistic opportunity to translate these ideas into a practical reality. There is no reason, why we could not record, store and classify a complete profile of every human being on earth. We could be aware, at the touch of a computer terminal, about everyone`s living conditions, standard of well-being, level of consumption, level of education, as well as the degree of freedom from, or integration with, the social surroundings of anyone we happen to be interested in.

It we want, we could find out, where people are living under difficult or impoverished conditions, ravaged by squalor and disease, oppression and injustice. We could find out, where people have to live in an atmosphere of hatred and crime, or, where they are able to live in luxury and extravagance. We should know, where people live and work irresponsibly, and, where they work hard and make a contribution to their social surroundings.

Why would it be impossible to have a complete profile of natural and human resources, which would be available to anyone, who wants to learn about the world of human existence. Trends and statistics, instantaneous summaries of numerous aspects, as well as a rapidly shifting focus of attention; all this would be possible, if we would have a comprehensive system of computerised information at our disposal, where we could ask any question we want to.

Imagine what a computerised form of bureaucratic management would do for the tasks of integrating enormously complex social objectives and events. It is the only way to make sensitive and agile government possible for a globally integrated society, and, without it, even a small society becomes hopelessly bogged-down by inertia, confusion, incompetence or corruption. We will, finally, be able to make decisions intelligently and with expertise, whenever we feed into computers the unimaginable quanta of data that are necessary to record the myriad of social events and natural happenings.

With the methods of computerised summarising and classifying of information, and, with the computerised calculation of statistical correlations, every individual will be able to punch-in a simple question of global significance, and, this person will be provided with data he can trust to represent an accurate reflection of human realities; at least, these data will be as accurate and up-to-date as humanly possible. There is no other way to overcome the chaos of overt or hidden incompetence, which is an inevitable occurrence, when decisions have to be made without adequate information. There is no other way to reach a reality perception that is essentially simple and transparent, and, there is no other way to bring-about an honest efficiency in the functions of government and public institutions.

There is no reason to fear such a globally integrated network of information gathering and distribution, if our intentions are honourable and responsible. The price we will have to pay for this great measure of transparence and integrity of the social environment, is a willingness, as well as an obligation, to submit all our dealings and relationships to potential scrutiny. If we want to be able to verify the basis for placing our trust in a specific personality or institution, we will have to give this same opportunity to someone else, who may want to verify his or her trust in us. There is no way we can escape the iron logic of such a conclusion.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

Safeguards against fraud, intimidation and exploitation by computer experts.
Computerised information, as the basis for an attitude of mutual trust and informed judgement about the competence of professional functions.
The problem of dissent; various forms.
The Scholars of the State.
Continuing concerns for the limits of individual variability.

Even, if you agree with the previous conclusions, you may ask, how we are going to safeguard society from manipulations, or, even, outright intimidation, by those who are computer experts. I hope to show, that this is much less of a problem than we think. In order to ask the computer a question, one does not have to be an expert, or, to know anything about the way a computer functions. We only have to make sure, that the computer is asked the appropriate question. We do not have to know the intricacies of electronic technology or computer programming in order to operate a simple terminal, nor does anyone need a detailed knowledge of the function of a car, before being able to drive one.

Certainly, every human being will have to have a basic knowledge about the possibilities and limitations of computers, and, with a system of computerised education, this should not be a problem. If anyone can ask the computer any question, one can also ask about fraud or manipulations, and one should be able to get satisfactory answers, showing that fraud is virtually impossible. I fail to see, how it would be possible for any individual or group, regardless of expertise, to defraud, systematically, the social environment, or the networks of computerised information, without being noticed.

In essence, we all will be watch-dogs, scrutinising each other. Since most of us will live in fairly close proximity to each other, I fail to see, how it would be possible for any group or individual to engage in significant anti-social activities without being detected or suspected in the early stages of an attempt at fraudulent or subversive behaviour. If we can ask the computer, at any time, what someone else is doing and planning, or what an individual`s assets or responsibilities are, I feel, that we have a remarkably air-tight system to guard against corruption and incompetence.

We will certainly need a computerised and globally integrated system of information for our executive and decision-making processes in all aspects of government, because we visualise government, (which is the conscious guidance of society by the collective will of the people), to influence all phases of our existence. Government will truly become a reflection of the informed will of the people, and, we all have to learn to be concerned with the numerous details of important, long-term decisions, if we want to break-away from a system of government that stumbles from one crisis to the next.

We all will have to study the availability of renewable and non-renewable resources, food and energy production, and, we have to study the requirements of the various societies and populations that have to make a living and are entitled to a minimum standard of education and well-being. We will have to make sure, that there is a fair distribution of goods, foods and energy, as well as all kinds of services. We will have to know enough about each other to appreciate and evaluate specific requirements for the many different societies of mankind, because most of us live under somewhat different cultural and geographic circumstances.

We have to think about the degree of individual variability we can allow each other, without endangering the society with incipient class-divisions and the rise of suspicious attitudes. We have to know the tolerances of justice and adaptability, in order to know, what degree of stress is fair and acceptable, and, when we have to take corrective measures. All these tasks will require intensive study and thought, considered judgements and prolonged discussions, even, when backed-up by instantly available, inexhaustible sources of information from our global, computerised networks of information.

It is clear, that one important characteristic of such a global society is the absence of "classified information". Each citizen, in every community, will receive the opportunity to ask any question, and, everyone has the right to receive accurate, unbiased and complete information. The only exception to the right of complete information, will have to be made in the area of fighting crime, because the instantaneous availability of information about an on-going investigation of people who are suspected of criminal behaviour, would make it much more difficult to fight and correct such a situation of injustice.

The implications of such a situation of global transparence are enormous, and, we can hardly foresee, at the present time, what, exactly, the consequences would be of such a gigantic accomplishment. Whatever it may do for the awareness of our human potential, I am convinced, that this right to universal access of information will be the cornerstone and the cementing substance on which the cohesion of our global society will depend. There is no other way, and, there is no better way, to ensure the maturation of the attitudes of mutual trust, as well as the growth of a balanced sphere of awareness and concern.

Another question arises. If all information is available to everyone, what should be our attitude towards people, who come to the conclusion that some of the social institutions and objectives of the global society are wrong and should be changed? In short, how do we deal with dissenters, or, any non-democratic pressure for change?

There are several forms of dissent. There is dissent in the form of a conflict of interests between individuals or groups of people, ranging from a simple disagreement to the outbreak of armed hostilities. These forms of dissent are a matter for the Courts and will be subjected to a competent judicial settlement. The dissent that concerns us most, here, is the disagreement with, or criticism of, established social institutions, government policies, or, the philosophical foundations upon which the social institutions and Constitutional Guidelines have been based. This disagreement may be expressed as a rebellion, especially, when certain social groupings have experienced a prolonged period of frustration and a wounded sense of justice because of neglect, incompetence or corruption of the government institutions they have been exposed to. These forms of dissent are, in essence, a result of the failure of the system to live-up to its promises, or, the failure of specific institutions to live-up to their duties and potentials.

On the other hand, criticisms and disagreements may be, primarily, verbal or intellectual in nature, and, they may be expressed by an individual, or a small group, who has found a number of flaws or inconsistencies of the existing system, and, who is able to suggest a number of improvements. Every criticism of corruption and incompetence should be taken very seriously, and, an open inquiry should be launched, immediately, to see, whether or not the allegations are justified. If the allegations seem at least partly justified, and, if they are directed, in part, against the institutions of goverment, these matters should be turned-over to the judiciary, which has the right, and the obligation, to make sure, that incidences of injustice are corrected, damages are compensated, and inertia and incompetence are removed.

If a conflict of interest arises between individuals or small groups of people, the Courts will have the responsibility to settle the dispute and to make sure, that justice and fairness are scrupulously maintained. The roles of plaintiff and defendant should be easily reversible, because either party has the same rights as the average citizen to be protected from infringements against basic human rights. With a system of free and accurate information, there is no need for accusations to be made lightly, and, if they are made frivolously, accusations will constitute an infringement on the rights of an individual or a group.

What about the question of "philosophical dissent"; when the validity of the assumptions upon which important social institutions have been founded, is seriously questioned? If the computerised information banks do not provide thorough and detailed discussions of the issues raised in these questions or criticisms, it should be mandatory for the government institutions to instruct their scholars to address themselves to these questions, and, to register their final reply in the memory-banks of the computerised networks of information-distribution.

Questions of a theoretical nature should be debated extensively, in public, by the Scholars of the State, who have the responsibility to illuminate all aspects of the issues involved with the fullest possible background of knowledge and experience, historical precedents, and an attitude of balanced receptiveness to contradictory arguments. A full and balanced summary of all relevant cultural traditions and historical events of past societies, as well as the knowledge and thoughts of contemporary scholars, are to be made available to everyone interested in the problems that have been raised, and, certain segments of essential importance are to be distributed for study and feed-back to everyone. We will come back, later, on the requirements for, and the construction of, a comprehensive educational system, as well as the possibilities for obtaining instant feedback from a significant segment of the population about many important issues that are uppermost in the public`s mind.

Let us visualise the presence of a large body of well-informed men and women, representing all parts of the world, each with access to the specialised knowledge and information necessary to make important decisions. Every individual has been steeped in a long tradition of reflection and study, and, each one of them is fully aware of the history of mankind, the nature of human existence, as well as the philosophical foundations of the global society. Let us imagine such a body of men and women to be deliberating, carefully, the merits and short-comings of the many questions and dissenting ideas that have come to the fore.

Aspects of critical questions and dissenting ideas that are found to be useful, or, to some extent, valid, will be accepted for further study and possible inclusion into the Constitutional Guidelines by a process of slow, evolutionary adapatation. Elements that are judged to be based on erroneous concepts require a careful and expert rebuttal and counter-argument, if they have not already been dealt with.

Ideas and questions that challenge the imposed limits on the variability of human individuality, and the tolerance of such variability by the social environment, could form the core of a continuing effort to scrutinise and re-evaluate the conclusions and ideas that touch upon one of the fundamental concerns of individual and collective human existence.

.......

Chapter 10

Content

The futility and illegality of suppressing dissent.
Mechanisms for a practical and theoretical adaptation of social guidance patterns.
The problem of maintaining a finely honed sense of justice.
Crime and punishment.
Rehabilitation and capital punishment.
The competence of the judicial process.
Sentiments and sentimentalities in questions of capital punishment.

We need to study, continuously, carefully and honestly, and, we should, always, be willing to listen to new ideas or the re-introduction of old concepts that may have found a new relevance. This, after all, is the crucial mechanism whereby a society continues to adapt itself to changes and challenges, and, from the moment the mechanisms of adaptation become stifled in self-righteous dogmatism, adaptability, and, perhaps, even, viability will have been lost.

Any verbal or intellectual challenge to the ideas or opinions of the Constitutional Guidelines should, by law, only be encountered by study and rebuttal. Ideas, criticisms and dissent have to be fought by ideological counter-arguments, studies and investigations, as well as the willingness to acknowledge errors. If the State, or any institution, organisation or individual entrusted with official powers, succumbs to the temptation to counter-act criticisms by force, harassment or intimidation, such an action will be considered a criminal form of misconduct.

At no time should an idea, no matter how strange, wrong or revolting, be attacked by anything else but counter-arguments, as long as the ideas and opinions are not associated with activities that infringe on the rights of people, or undermine the security of the social institutions. Surely, erroneous opinions and facile ideas can be effectively refuted by the Scholars of the State! We know, now, that forceful repression of an idea always leads to an aura of attractive martyrdom for those, who are propagating these ideas, and, forceful suppression increases the aura of validity in the minds of many people, who suspect that a forceful reaction by the State hides an element of truth. We should have learned, by now, that forceful suppression will never overcome the persuasiveness of an idea whose time has come. It only enhances its attractiveness and prestige, if it is persecuted.

Certainly, if erroneous ideas, or criminal concepts, lead to harmful behaviour and begin to infringe upon the inalienable rights of individual people, minority groupings, or public institutions, then, counter-measures may have to be taken. Again, let wisdom and prudence guide us, first, to a careful examination of the circumstances and the emotional factors involved. These studies may explain, why an individual or a group would want to turn with force and anger against the society they have been born into; a society, that has nursed and nurtured them with the basic rights of protection, freedom and education, which is the birth-right of every citizen.

We may discover, that there are good emotional reasons for their feelings of suspicion and anger towards society, or, towards certain segments or institutions of the larger social environment. It may well be, that a certain individual or group did, indeed, not receive fair treatment or a measure of justice. It may well be, that certain inequalities were allowed to persist, and, that certain forms of incompetence and corruption were responsible for feeding an emotion of rebellion and disgust.

Let us learn from such experiences, and, let us always try to improve on our performance in bringing justice and equal treatment to everyone. Let us never forget the art of learning with humility from mistakes or incidences of neglect, regardless, how insignificant, at times, such mistakes or incidences of neglect may seem in the light of world-wide concerns. Unless we learn to be sensitive and continuously vigilant about the needs and perceptions of even our smallest minority groupings, we will, inevitably, sow the seeds of smouldering discontent, and, we will provide a foothold for corruption and egocentric attitudes, which may, eventually, lead to a deep suspicion for, and a complete disbelief in, the foundations of our global society.

After careful study and corrective measures, after patience and re-education, it may be necessary, on occasion, to take decisive measures against persistent criminal or anti-social behaviour. We will not try to define criminal behaviour, here, but, it should be possible to agree, that, as a general principle, pre-meditated acts against society or individuals with the intention to harm or reap unlawful benefits, will be considered as incidences of criminal behaviour. The more an individual is aware of the trust society has placed in him or her, the more serious this breach of trust becomes, while those, who never really understood the gift of justice, and never gained the confidence necessary for a normal personality development, may be reacting in a primitive, emotional manner that is more pitiful than criminal.

The background of criminal behaviour will be considered with compassion and a sense of sadness for the mechanisms that went wrong, and, we may well come to the conclusion, that these mechanisms have been beyond the control of the individual who has committed an offense. We will never react with anger or a sense of deep disappointment, but, we will always try to learn from our experiences, and, we will try to do a better job of protecting the victims of criminal behaviour or institutionalised neglect.

When corruption takes place amongst people who have been given important functions, and, who have been given a great deal of trust and responsibility, we will have to consider such corrupt behaviour as a serious crime, but, here again, we should carefully assess the possibilities of a break-down in personal resilience, which may have occurred under the strain and pressures of high public office. At all times, we have to give to our leaders and people in responsible functions, the option to vacate their positions gracefully. They should be able to step-down with honour, and, without fear for a loss of security and prestige, whenever they feel, that their performance is deteriorating.

If an individual has been judged to be a severe criminal, the punishment should be, at the most, a period of a few years to be spent at a forced re-education facility. During this period, a strenuous attempt should be made to make the individual fit to re-enter society again, but such a re-entry may have to be a graded process with successive stages of responsibilities, freedoms, rights and obligations. If the individual is still considered to be an unacceptable menace to society after this period of rehabilitation, and, if no corrective or therapeutic measures are available to rehabilitate such an individual, then, there should not be any hesitation to eliminate such a criminal personality with the death penalty.

We can not justify, at any time, to abolish capital punishment completely. Every society needs a method to eliminate, permanently, highly criminal or diseased forms of human existence, and, we will have to face-up, squarely, to the possibility that we may be placed in a position, where we have to make such an important judgement.

There is no reason at all to sequester an individual for many years, or, perhaps, even, for life. This is a hypocritical approach to the problem of criminality, because we condemn such people to a hopeless and meaningless existence. Obviously, we never want them back into our societies, yet, we can not bring ourselves to execute them. Why? Not, because we feel sorry for them, or, because we want to give them another chance. We feel magnanimous by granting them life, and, we avoid this terrible decision to condemn someone to death, and yet, we do not at all consider what kind of a life this is, and, what kind of risks the prison guards are exposed to, nor, do we think about the enormous costs that have to be faced by a society that can not make difficult decisions.

We either accept these criminals back after a year or, perhaps, several years of severe, punishing rehabilitation and re-education, and, we give them a genuine chance to integrate, once again, into society, or, we decide that we never want them back into society, because they are an unacceptable menace. We have to be consistent and carry-out the "organic" aspect of the death sentence, while we have already executed them psychologically by our decision to exclude them, totally and permanently, from society by a life-long incarceration.

We may hear the argument, that, occasionally, a criminal is unjustly executed, because the judicial process was faulty or incompetent. Indeed, if we are not sure about the competence of the judicial process, any form of judgement will be suspect. We certainly would not dare to condemn anyone to death, but, how would we dare to pass any form of judgement, if we are not sure of our facts or our competence? An incompetent judiciary would inflict unmentionable harm and injustice. Let us make sure, that our judicial techniques are reliable and competent enough to refute these arguments.

A reluctance to carry-out the death penalty is common in many of the more developed societies, and, this reflects, in a way, our increased awareness of the value of a human life. We tend to sympathise, subconsciously, with the lonely criminal, who is on the verge of being robbed of his most precious attribute; his life. This sensitivity is a hopeful sign in the long history of mankind, because it indicates a general refinement of attitudes and feelings.

However, there are also indications that our attitudes towards capital punishment may be the result of somewhat superficial sentiments and deep suspicions, and, then, they are not the result of a well-digested acceptance of moral principles or philosophical convictions. We seem to have little hesitation to kill our enemies in acts of warfare on the battle-fields, and, our only hesitation may be the fear for our own safety, whenever we engage in such an effort. However, the deliberate, unemotional execution of a criminal, whose crime was only directed towards a single individual, or a small number of victims, long since forgotten, tends to evoke in us a response of sympathy for the under-dog. We can not escape the feeling, that there is an uneasy discrepancy in the overwhelming pressures of the State against a lonely individual, as the prosecutor brings the case against the criminal, and, we tend to let these feelings overshadow the judicial evidence.

We tend to sympathise with the lonely man or woman, perhaps, secretly expressing our suspicions and disgust for the social system we live under, or, the government institutions we are not comfortable with. We tend to recoil from an execution, that is not supported by a passion of personal hatred or a personal experience of having been wronged. A lynching, (which is the execution of an individual by an angry mob), is, therefore, "no problem", because it is an emotionally supported, collective decision, and, because of our emotional involvement, we are not concerned at all, whether or not proper justice has been done. We have already convicted the alleged criminal in our angry assumptions, without having any firm proof that we were right. Let us punish in an attitude of calm rationality, and, let us not be side-tracked in the execution of our duties by superficial emotions.

.......

Chapter 11

Content

Reasons for objecting to capital punishment.
World-wide education by a computerised system of information distribution.
Nurturing beneficial attitudes by the dissemination of understanding and insight.

There are other reasons, why we may be reluctant to face the ultimate consequences in our duty of upholding law and order, and making sure, that justice is done. After all, in carrying-out a death penalty, we are faced with the problem of death. The feeling of uneasiness is aggravated by our inability to visualise death and our subconscious tendency to identify with the convicted criminal, rather than the forgotten victims. Therefore, we tend to be merciful and grant the criminal his life, but we throw him into prison for the rest of this life and promptly forget him completely. We do not think about the implications of a life that is being lived in a hopeless and stifling confinement, sequestered from all normal social interactions. We only realise the importance of social interactions and personal freedoms for the sanity of our personality, once these freedoms have been lost or removed.

What alternative is left to the hopeless prisoner, who has nothing more to lose, not even his life, than to adopt an attitude of defiant rebellion, reckless escapes, as well as the murder of anyone who stands in his way? We should not try to sooth our sentimental feelings by recklessly creating such an explosive and essentially unsolvable problem. We either make a serious and intense effort to correct criminal behaviour, (once we are sure, of course, that the behaviour is, indeed, criminal), but, if this behaviour is incorrigeable and incompatible with an existence in society, the criminal should be mercifully executed.

Is our attitude towards capital punishment not similar to our attitude towards the slaughter of animals that provide our food? Many of us would absolute refuse to carry-out, or, even, witness such a slaughter, and yet, we have no hesitation at all to consume a tasty piece of meat in the convivial atmosphere of a dinner party, enjoying one of the high-lights of the day. Or, is this attitude not reminiscent of the woman who would be horrified at the suggestion that she kill her newborn child, if she does not want it, but, who has no hesitation to undergo an abortion operation in the sterile sanctity of an operating room, where she is not confronted with the act of killing human life? How often are such hypocritical attitudes not hailed as a paragon of modern enlightenment?

We are still full of superficial and sentimental emotions in our attitudes and opinions, and, we will not reach coherent attitudes and consistent social developments, unless we learn to recognise these superficialities and condemn them as emotional and intellectual hypocrisies. Only, if we learn to face the facts and circumstances from all sides, will we be able to create a reality in harmony with all the people around us. Unless we temper our emotions with reason and an attitude of moderation, the persistent misconceptions and superficial sentimentalities of a shallow perception of reality, will continue to hamper the potential of human existence.

We have learned, by now, that the biological or physical expression of human life was shaped over a period of many millions of years in the form of a blind, evolutionary search for possibilities of existence. With the possibility of human existence, the capabilities of a conscious choice, individual variability and intelligent adaptability were also brought to the fore. We have learned to see, that the totality of human behaviour, as well as the actualisation of a particular human being, are dependent on the content of a cultural tradition, which functions, then, as a code of instructions, similar to the genetic code. These two codes determine, together, man`s essence and viability. We have learned about the role of the responsible choice in the mechanisms of conscious decision-making. This mechanism of a deliberate and conscious choice is a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour and governs the ability to manipulate tools, weapons and mental images, leading, eventually, to a marked ease of existence and mastery over our environment.

We have to face the fact, that we need to educate people all over the world towards adopting commonly acceptable attitudes, as well as a set of profound principles of knowledge, which will, finally, open the possibility to see each other as similar in essence and requirements. We can only hope to succeed in bringing mankind together in an awareness of commonly shared ideals and needs, if we learn to be genuinely interested in each other`s problems and existential requirements.

As we have mentioned, before, we should not try to force the unity of the world with the threat of a gun, but, with the persuasiveness of an irrefutable idea. A widespread permeation of ideas that give us an opportunity to understand ourselves as a biological organism and reveal our commonly shared processes of knowing, should allow us to communicate meaningfully and fruitfully. The mutually enforced resonance of such a comprehensive and hopeful perspective on a shared reality, will, eventually, translate into a powerful momentum that no amount of force or domination could hope to match.

We have to be patient and careful, slowly preparing people for the monumental changes that are coming. Let us not dissipate our energies in a flash of initial enthousiasm, but, let us dig-in for a long siege against the attraction of egocentric behaviour and nationalistic or elitist exclusivity. This battle will not be won easily, and, probably, it will never be won completely. Internal dissent and the threat of disruption will always be with us, even, at the most glorious and most successful period of the realisation of a global society. This, however, reflects the essence of living existence, and, we only need to remind ourselves of the diverging, distracting and potentially self-immolating forces within each one of us as an individual, (this remarkable community of cells with all its contrasts and contradictions), to realise, that internal tensions continue to exist in the appearance of every unity.

Education is, by definition, a process of cultural transmission to the following and future generations, and, the global penetration of knowledge and insights, ideas and attitudes, is going to be the pillar on which a successful global integration of mankind is going to rest.

.......

Chapter 12

Content

A generalised outline for a program of world-wide education.
Possibilities for a high level of global awareness.
Misconceptions about computer technology.
The computer as a tool.
Audio-visual techniques, and the increasing congruence of the pool of mental or cultural images.
The role of the teacher; seminars, discussions and personal relevance.
Trust and understanding as the cohesive cement of a globally integrated society.

In conclusion, we should outline a few ideas facilitating the acceptance of the fact, that a comprehensive and global educational system is possible and practical. We have to emphasise, again, that this goal of global educational standards is technically possible, only, with the help of the modern computer. We can computerise all sorts of information, including the sciences, history, the arts and the thoughts of man, and, this means, that such information will be available in a comprehensive and well-organised form, if an individual or group has access to a computer terminal that is linked to a large network of information distribution.

Eventually, a carefully crafted educational program will exist with an audio-visual representation of all significant human awarenesses. This is a gigantic task of staggering proportions, which will require the diligent and careful work of thousands of people working together in a lifetime of study and scholarship in order to make this possible. Such a task will never be really completed, since a constant revision of the material will be necessary to update ideas and concepts that have lost their validity in our constantly changing world of knowledge and interpretation.

However, an easy access to the world`s treasures of human understanding, mistakes and follies, could lead to an unprecedented awareness of ourselves, our potentials, and our limitations. The implications for mutual understanding are unimaginable at this time, and yet, we should not make the easy mistake to think, that we can educate everyone to be a philosopher, or a saint of lofty and constructive attitudes. However, the general level of understanding and awareness of each citizen can be far more comprehensive and coherent than has been possible, so far, without a network of computerised information.

We should stop thinking about the computer as an instrument to be feared for its misunderstood potentials, and, we should clearly understand what a computer can do and what it can not do. It can store information, categorise and classify information. It can show us all sorts of statistical facts and wide-spread correlations between various items of existence, and, as a result, it may show us trends or linkages we were not aware of. A computer may also carry-out abstracting or generalising functions that are somewhat analogous to the functions of the human brain, but we should always see the computer as a tool, created by the human mind to serve human needs.

Certainly, the mechanisms and functions of a computer, which are becoming apparent as we experiment with a variety of computer designs, may help us to clarify our thinking about our own central nervous system, but, to fear an "independent will" in a piece of machinery is more the result of clever science-fiction writing than a scientific reality, or, even, a serious possiblity. If there are unsuspected functions and possibilities in a computer, they will be a logical result of the way a computer has been constructed or programmed.

The computer will help us to grasp a very complex reality by presenting an enormous quantity of data in an orderly and systematic manner. Our own awareness mechanisms would be totally incapable of ordening such a large amount of information, without the help of some sort of recording and classifying instrument. The computer may also make it possible to have immediate access to gigantic files, containing all the relevant information about the world, but we should never forget, that we, human beings, have either fed this information into the computer, or, we have determined the methods and means by which the computer registers and presents the data to the user of this information.

Regardless, how we look at it, the computer will remain a tool that has been designed to help us master the enormous quanta of information that are inevitably coming to the fore. The computer helps us by a systematic collection and selection of data, as well as the orderly and flexible presentation of these data. There is almost no limit to the generalising functions we can build into a computer, but, at all times, it will require a human decision to evaluate the validity or significance of a computer read-out, and, it will require human intelligence and purposeful action to determine the functions of a computer.

By making information available to us in the form of a well-ordened audio-visual presentation, we can enlarge the scope of our conceptual grasp over any topic of interest, or any amount of information. This information has, then, been partially "digested" for us by the computer, and, we can now manage to extract a useful meaning from it, just like some foods that can not be handled by the body, unless the process of digestion has been started before-hand, (e.g., in the process of cooking or baking). By presenting the arts, sciences and the entire knowledge-sphere of human endeavour in an overseeable method of presentation, we will equalise and sharpen the precision of our mental imagery. This, in turn, will facilitate the exchange of concepts and ideas amongst ourselves.

Certainly, we may well ask ourselves, whether or not such a pre-digestion of information by the computer is going to harm our ability to think, especially, when the gathering, selection and evaluation of data is an essential part of our skills to conceptualise. Are we endangering our abilities to form mental images by the easy and pre-packaged presentation of ready-made images on the display unit of a computer, or the mass-media of television screens?

True, if we would assume, or encourage, the practice of an uncritical, passive and undiscussed absorption of a constant stream of visual images, we may well be concerned. However, in a modern, globally integrated, computerised system of education, the local teacher will be a leader in class-room seminars, where he leads the discussions amongst the pupils. Each individual will have to summarise in his or her own words, what has been learned. Each student will have to respond with a variety of acquired skills to the material that has been presented, and, in this manner, the teacher can monitor, not only, the degree of comprehension and relevance of the material, but, he can also encourage an individual`s initiatives to explore further avenues of understanding.

There should be no reason to fear, then, the atrophy of language skills, nor, should there be any reason to fear a lack of individual differentiation, but, it is true, that the common pool of mental images and attitudes, created by such a standardised form of teaching or cultural transfer, will be far more uniform than is the case now, with the limited and laborious educational methods we still employ in the more traditional forms of schooling.

We have frequently mentioned the idea, that a greater similarity in the content of our mental imagery will lead to an easier and more precise exchange of ideas and concepts. The cultural pool of notions, concepts and ideas will, then, show much less variability in the meaning and perception of current symbols, and, as a result, the perception of a meaning, whenever we communicate language symbols, will be far more standardised than is presently possible. At the present time, the definition of many ideas and notions remains vague and variable.

We have also seen, that an increased precision of understanding, (becoming possible with the increased congruence or overlapping of shared mental images), may lead to an increased awareness of discrepancies, as well as an increased ability to formulate precise questions. It may, even, lead to an ability to manipulate large sequences of related mental images with the techniques of internal logic, extrapolation and projection.

Certainly, the majority of every population will be quite happy to accept as gospel truth whatever is presented to them. Most people need careful and precise guidance-patterns to form their opinions and attitudes, and, we may be thankful for the fact, that the majority is quite willing to accept intellectual and moral leadership. If we all would become eternally questioning philosophers, the prospects of union and agreement would be slim indeed, and nothing would be accomplished.

When we have at our disposal an expertly and competently crafted source of accurate and reliable information, (far more extensive than anyone particular individual would ever be able to absorb), we create a very important atmosphere of trust. We are, then, able to adopt an attitude of trustful reliance on the fact, that the knowledge, information and ideas we are being taught and make use of, are true, in the sense, that they are the best possible conceptual synthesis of our times. Each individual human being should be able to rely, trustfully, on these gigantic "information banks" in the knowledge, that no single individual, group or leadership has the power, nor the ability, to distort this information for anyone particular purpose.

Everyone should be able to ask questions and receive satisfying answers, at any time, because, only then, will we be able to suppress our instincts of suspicion and anxiety, and, only then, will we be able to become truly interdependent upon each other.

We can not overestimate the importance of a competent system of information and education in order to sharpen communal attitudes of confidence and trust. We will be able to make people see, how their local cultural heritage gives them a sense of identity and belonging, somewhere, but, we may also be able to show people, how each local culture imposes limitations on the ability to identify with people who fall outside a particular sphere of local concerns or specific cultural traditions.

We may be able to show the citizens of the world their biological and cultural heritage, and, we may be able to show, how the possibility of a world community grew out of the fusion of local ideas and accomplishments, but, we may also be able to impress on future generations the inevitable attitudes of hostility and the irrepressible distinction between "we" and "they", our friends and enemies, which find their roots in these same local cultures.

Education has to provide the basis for a workable world community with a globally relevant cultural code, and, education is going to be a conscious and deliberate creation of this cultural code, which will determine human viability from one generation to the next. In essence, these mechanism will determine, whether the human species is still an evolutionary success, or, has already become a failure, doomed to extinction.

.......

Summary.

1. The usual objections against a Welfare State.
   In defense of "free-enterprise".
   The benefits of implementing a basic social security for everyone.
   The erroneous doctrine of the essential laziness of man.
   Monotony and frustration, and the remarkable exuberance of the elan vital.
   
   
   
2. An obsession with financial success, seen as a "cultural trait".
   The momentum of the economic colossus.
   A frugal lifestyle.
   The need for, and virtues of, a frugal lifestyle.
   Limitations of the mechanisms of natural selection.
   
   
   
3. Reasons for adopting a frugal lifestyle.
   The question of "satiety".
   The drive to acquire a lifestyle of luxury; seen as a substitute for the drive to excercise power.
   Feed-back mechanisms of the drive to excercise power.
   Another Renaissance for mankind?
   
   
   
4. The neurotic aspects of consumerism.
   The medical professions.
   The vested interests of the military establishment and arms manufacturers.
   The vested interests of us all.
   
   
   
5. Short-comings of Capitalist and Socialist systems.
   The problem of individuality.
   Dangers of a premature ideological rigidity.
   The discrepancy between professed beliefs and actual behaviour.
   The inevitable elitism of the privileged classes.
   Diverging attitudes and abilities.
   An analysis of collective and individualised mechanisms for evolutionary change.
   
   
   
6. A review of individual unfolding within a social context.
   The importance of mutual trust.
   The psychology of violent conflict.
   Mechanisms of individualisation.
   The similiarities of cultural and genetic adaptative mechanisms.
   Variability of the cultural code.
   Small and large groups; sub-groupings within large social conglomerates.
   Effects resulting from the formation of a globally integrated society of mankind.
   
   
   
7. Practical suggestions for the creation of world government.
   The need for a high level of competence and freedom from corruption.
   
   
   
8. Mutual trust as a "social lubricant".
   The need for accurate, swift and complete information.
   Universal access to information.
   The total openness of society.
   Computer technology as the key to gather and access information.
   
   
   
9. Safeguards against fraud, intimidation and exploitation by computer experts.
   Computerised information, as the basis for an attitude of mutual trust and informed judgement about the competence of professional functions.
   The problem of dissent; various forms.
   The Scholars of the State.
   Continuing concerns for the limits of individual variability.
   
   
   
10. The futility and illegality of suppressing dissent.
    Mechanisms for a practical and theoretical adaptation of social guidance patterns.
    The problem of maintaining a finely honed sense of justice.
    Crime and punishment.
    Rehabilitation and capital punishment.
    The competence of the judicial process.
    Sentiments and sentimentalities in questions of capital punishment.
    
    
    
11. Reasons for objecting to capital punishment.
    World-wide education by a computerised system of information distribution.
    Nurturing beneficial attitudes by the dissemination of understanding and insight.
    
    
    
12. A generalised outline for a program of world-wide education.
    Possibilities for a high level of global awareness.
    Misconceptions about computer technology.
    The computer as a tool.
    Audio-visual techniques, and the increasing congruence of the pool of mental or cultural images.
    The role of the teacher; seminars, discussions and personal relevance.
    Trust and understanding as the cohesive cement of a globally integrated society.

.......