A WORLD FEDERATION OF NATIONS


the global integration of mankind




A Study in Thought

sa054



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Unknown friends.
A look at the title.
A number of questions.
Is it really necessary to integrate on a global scale?
The ever-recurring choice between competitive strife, and, cooperation on the basis of essential equality.
Short summaries; "flash-backs" to previous essays.
An ambitious project.
The apparent ingratitude of those who have been helped.
Mechanisms of polarisation.
We like to close our eyes to the miseries around us.
Changing social conditions.
The price of commitment.

My friend, I welcome you to the world of my thoughts, but, I can not know, of course, what your reactions are, when you read the title of this essay. I do not know, whether or not you give any thought to the title of a book. Perhaps, you plunge immediately into the text, or, maybe, you are a browser, who first glances at a work, before you decide to read it.

If I would be the reader, I would certainly look at the title, and, I would immediately have a number of questions; "What do you mean by this title" Are you going to talk about the efforts people have made when trying to organise a world-body for international contacts? Are you going to give us a history of man's attempts and thoughts about the formation of a world federation of nations, or, is your emphasis going to be on future developments? If so, explain, then, why it has to be a federation and not a tightly governed, centrally organised world-society, or, one global nation? Explain, also, why you think, that the nations of today will persist as units in a future federation, or, are you using the word "nation" more broadly, as "Regions", which are more or less equivalent to each other and are united by a single, overseeing body; an Executive Council of the World-Federation of Regions?"

After these questions have been answered, there are others. It may be, that the initial imagery evoked by the title was so satisfying and so full of promise for exiciting thoughts and ideas, that the question of relevance did not come up, but, even, if such a happy course of events would take place, and, even, if the reader would have been so completely swept-up by a grand vision of hope-giving and beneficial relationships between peoples on a very large scale, chances are, that the reader, after finishing the essay, or, when returning to a more critical frame of mind, still has a few more questions to ask.

"Is it realistic to expect a world-federation of nations or Regions to be a viable objective? Is it, indeed, necessary to come to such a grand-scale federation? Can we not live happily and harmoniously without such a complex and ambitious attempt to bind the whole of mankind together by an all-pervasive bureaucracy of administrative and leadership functions? Is it not more realistic to let each nation or region develop according to its own ideas and potentials? Are we really accomplishing much by trying to set-up such a federation?

Who is going to enforce decisions? Are we not already faced with the sad spectacle of an impotent and bickering United Nations? Who guarantees, that the decisions and guidelines of the leadership of a world-federation will be followed and heeded? Make it clear to me, from the beginning, that we are not talking about another utopia, a philosophical dream-world of a lonely fantasiser, who has no obligations to test his ideas against a practical reality. Make it clear to me, that we have a very good theoretical foundation for such a grandiose conceptual scheme. Make it clear, that I will not be wasting my time reading your work."

We have, here, a tough but realistic series of questions and commands, and, these are the sort of questions I would ask, if anyone wanted me to read such a work. Indeed, I will discuss, primarily, the requirements for a globally integrated society of man, and, I will not discuss specific historical or contemporary efforts. We will discuss the plausible and necessary developments that will make such a global society, not only, logical, but, a necessity, provided, we are serious in our efforts to find a collective mode of behaviour that will enhance the viability and dignity for us all; not only, for those who live, now, but, for countless future generations as well.

If we are not convinced, that we have to work towards such a goal of universal justice and long-term viability, then, these writings will seem superfluous and meaningless. If you still think, that you can go on your own merry ways, you do not have to read any further. If you think, that you have the right to hold-on to your position of privilege and affluence, and, that you have the right to suppress, with force, if necessary, anyone, who dares to challenge you, this essay is not for you. If you adopt, once again, the age-old and primitive solution of violent combat as a means to resolve tensions, you behave with a stone-age mentality, and the entire design of all my writings will be incomprehensible to you.

However, if you feel, somehow, that it is worthwhile to re-think our concepts of reality, of our origins, of human behaviour and goal-patterns, then, you will find some new ideas. Perhaps, you will be disappointed, that it is not easy to come quickly with clear-cut and definitive solutions. You may be discouraged, at times, because you have to wade through lengthy discussions and nearly inextricably complex and inter-woven relationships, and, every time, you think, you have discovered a certainty, this certainty is again qualified by conditions of dependence, and, this certainty or truth is made slippery and flexible by the concepts of relativity in the perception and interpretation of reality.

I will do my best, as I do, every time, when I sit-down to write. I will do my best to be as clear and as complete as I can. If problems and questions come-up in my mind about the statements I am making, I will have to mention them, and, I will have to deal with them. We can not solve problems by ignoring apparently contradictory, illogical and incomplete trains of thought, and, I am not trying to place a completely worked-out, ready-made package of philosophical guidelines before you. I am, in essence, extending you an invitation to think and argue with me about a whole variety of fundamental questions and problems. I am convinced, that many of you could elaborate and improve on certain aspects of my thinking, just as we always use the philosophical ideas of past generations as a starting point for our own grasp over reality.

It is not possible to start from scratch in each essay and begin with a resumé of the ideas, that lie behind the concepts of an evolutionary development of life, as well as a biological or existential interpretation of conceptual awareness. However, in order to indicate some continuity of thought, we will always refer back, sometimes with a short summary, to concepts that have been treated, elsewhere, in more detail. We will start with an effort to make it clear, why a search for continued and long-term viability has to evolve along lines of a "global integration of mankind", or, a "federation of nations or large Regions", and, why every alternative to such such an approach is always a solution that opts for strife and violent conflict.

We also hope to make it clear, that we have, now, a sufficient grasp over the nature of our own existence to describe, with reasonable accuracy, a set of conditions and guidelines we all could accept as fair and just. In addition, we will review the reasons, why we should consider man's most satisfactory way of life to be a development and unfolding of individual capabilities that have an opportunity to take place within the shield of security provided by a large, complex, sophisticated, intelligent, but, above all, just society.

We will frequently refer to interpretations and conclusions we have formulated and elaborated on previous occasions. We will do this in order to show a smooth evolution of the changes from man, the biological organism, to man, the thinking human being; and, finally, to man, the fully developed, conceptualising individual, who has found his freedom in a voluntary contract of responsible relationships with other human beings and his terrestial environment.

Is this a worthwhile task? Only you can make the decision, whether or not the time spent thinking and writing about these matters, was worthhile. I have made the decision to make this effort, and so far, I can honestly say, that I have enjoyed it.

You and I, we all, have been involved in a situation of conflict, at one time or another, and, after the dust has settled, we were inclined to review the ravages and ask ourselves; "Was it all necessary?" Yet, how easy is it to be drawn again into a fight? How much do we love to see or participate in a "good fight"? Our emotions are aroused, excitement runs high, and, if we are spectators, we do not even run the risk of getting hurt or being beaten.

Sometimes, fights are serious and are not limited to a squabble amongst friends or members of a family. A quarrel between neighbours is, often, already a serious matter, and, sometimes, the atmosphere of chronic discord leads to a grim determination to carry the fight to the bitter end. And, the end is usually bitter, far more so than envisaged by those, who committed themselves to continue the feud.

But, a fight or a quarrel does not have to serve, solely, as a vehicle to stir emotions. It can also become the object of a serious and thoughtful study, and, we can always begin by tracing a history of the events that led to the situation of conflict. We see, then, how, gradually, as a result of reciprocal acts of reprisal and revenge, attitudes hardened. The belligerents have, then, become prepared to fight, physically as well as psychologically. They have armed themselves to the teeth, and they, as well as we, we all, are determined to fight for our rights, and correct the injustices we have suffered. We fight to get rid of a hated oppressor, and, the feelings of caution and anxious forebodings about a possible disaster, are ignored.

Perhaps, we do not belong to guerillas or freedom fighters, who are trying to dislodge a tyrannical dictatorship. Perhaps, we belong to a beleaguered minority that has gradually been put on the defensive by those ungrateful rebel-rousers. We are bitter, because we look back upon a long history of attempts to educate and help those poor; "and what is their reaction to this? Armed rebellion. As the first, lucky individuals of a long line of poor and deprived peasants, these youngsters were given a chance to get an education and become useful citizens. We hoped, that they would help us with the reforms, we all agree, have to be carried-out. We opened our doors to them, and, we, even, started to consider them as equals. Now, they are spear-heading a rebellion. We can not even talk to them anymore. They seem to be determined to destroy everything our fore-fathers have worked for. There is only one solution. We have to hunt them down and exterminate them like rats, before they make life impossible, here. We are not going to be routed by a bunch of anarchists!".

You may not belong to either category. Your sons and daughters may have joined the guerilla forces, but, you are the owner of a small plantation. You have worked hard all your life, and, you can see, that there has been a great improvement for the poor peasant and his family. There have been more reforms in the last twenty years than in the fifty years before. Your children got a chance to learn a trade and become educated. How much easier will their lives be compared to your's; and now this! They have chosen to join the rebellion. They have disappeared. You do not know from, one day to the next, whether or not they are still alive.

Your life has come under a cloud of suspicions. The government officials and the soldiers are increasingly hostile to you and the other members of the family, because they suspect you of sympathising with the rebels. If your children would dare to come home, you could lose all your belongings. The soldiers would probably burn-down your place, and the government would confiscate your land. Your are lucky, if you and your wife would escape with your lives!

What is the world coming to? Everything is misery and destruction, hatred and death. Is it really necessary, you ask yourselves, to try to accomplish reforms this way? These ambushes, shoot-outs, attacks and killings on both sides only lead to a paralysis of normal life. Nothing is being done. The crops are not planted or harvested. The factories are idle or have been destroyed. Our currency is not worth much, and, other countries have stopped trading with us and do not invest anymore in our enterprises. Only weapons are coming in; weapons and ammunition for the rebels are coming-in from one side, and, weapons and "economic help" for the government are being supplied by the other side. If you do not choose for one side or the other, both sides are against you, and you do not have a chance to stay alive. Is this really necessary? When are we going to learn to solve our problems in a more peaceful manner?"

If these are the circumstances you have to live under, you have experienced, for yourself, in your own environment, what it is like, when people become polarised and are being torn-apart by a civil war; where the willingness to seek peaceful solutions has disappeared in a grim determination to fight to the bitter end.

But, if you look back, years ago, when the situation was still peaceful and the peasants were just starting to enjoy somewhat better conditions, you recall, that, in another area of your country, or, in a neighbouring country, but, certainly, somewhere on earth, there was also a violent conflict taking place; a similar conflict as the one that now threatens to destroy your livelyhood and your family. As a matter of fact, now you think about it, there have always been such conflicts going-on, somewhere on earth, often, in far-away countries you hardly knew anything about. Often, more than one such conflict was taking place at the same time.

You knew, that many countries had oppressive regimes, where a small and privileged minority would own nearly everything, leading a life of leasure and luxury, while a great majority of the people slaved their entire lives in poverty, misery and deprivation. Many poor people and children would die unnecessarily, each year, because the living conditions were so impoverished. There was virtually no medical help for them. No-one bothered to check the living conditions of the great majority. People worked in dangerous and unhealthy situations all their lives, and, if they got sick, it was usually a disaster. If they had no family to take care of them, they would literally starve to death on the streets of their slums, because there would be no food, no shelter, no place to get better; only a place to die a death that was often welcomed, because it made an end to a senseless, miserable and sub-human existence.

We feel a bit guilty, now, don't we, that we never really cared all that much about what was happening to other people? Are you surprised, then, that no-one cares all that much about what is happening to you? We all tend to be primarily concerned with our own well-being, and, we have accepted the fact, that this is natural and nothing to be ashamed of, but, we never gave much thought to the consequences of such an attitude.

Do you remember the long talks you had with your son and daughter, after they came home from college? You were fascinated and a little frightened by all those new-fangled ideas. You had the uneasy feeling, that their enthousiasm and total commitment to these new ideas of social justice and radical reforms, would spell trouble. Do you remember, how enthousiastic they were about these ideas that explained the natural origin of man and the existential or biological purpose of human existence. These ideas were so different from those, which the priests had taught us in all those years. They came home with the idea that there is no God, and, that the working people of the world had to rise-up against their exploiters, the over-lords and the rich, who lived at the expense of the working poor.

Now, your children are gone, in hiding, fighting, then here, then there, always in danger of being killed. Their spirits are high, but have you noticed, that you can not debate with them anymore? If you dare to say something against their ideals and goals, you are a reactionary and an enemy of the people. They have become just as rigid in their beliefs as the dogmas of the Church, which maintain that the teachings of the Church are infallible.

At least, with the priests, you could talk. Most of them were ordinary human beings, who had never been to Rome and had never even seen the Pope. They were not quite sure, what it meant that the Church was infallible, but their answers usually boiled down to the fact, that they had faith and trusted God. They trusted, that God would not let the Church die, and, that He would not allow the Church to deceive the faithful. After all, this would be self-defeating, would it not? First sending His Son to begin the task of Redemption, and, then, letting the Church go astray.

Yes, if you asked the priests about the Reformation and the splintering of the Church of Christ, the sensible priest would smile and throw-up his hands; "I am sure", he would say, "that God will find a place for many more people in Heaven than we think is possible. Let us stop making judgements which are God's to make. Let us trust, that He will show as freely His mercy to others as He has shown his mercy to us."

No, the revolutionaries are uncompromising. In a way, it is understandable, that they behave this way. The have staked their future and their life upon "The Cause". They have made a radical commitment, and they can not go back into society. Under such circumstances, you have to believe, that you are absolutely right, and, you can not allow yourself to doubt the wisdom of your actions and beliefs. Life is difficult enough without the burden of doubts and questions. Perhaps, these are, indeed, remarkable phenomena, worthwhile thinking about.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Entrapment in a condition of social polarisation.
A strong impulse to fight.
A sense of inevitability.
Why is it so difficult to foresee the consequences of violent behaviour?
To suffer and weep in silence.
The power of primitive instincts.
Religious and evolutionary interpretations of our existence.
The symbiotic harmonies of cellular inter-dependencies.
A possibility to exist by forming bonds of inter-dependence.
The essence of a living structure; a rivulet for the dissipation of an energy-gradient.
A review of the existence possibilities for living organisms.
The elimination of a rival.

It seems, that the strength of a belief is directly proportional to the commitment that has been made in the name of this belief or conviction. Certainly, this commitment is often made with hesitation, and, it is frequently forced upon us by the pressures to make a clear-cut choice, but, it seems, that life under polarised conditions is only bearable, if we do not question the validity of our beliefs and opinions.

Indeed, how difficult would it be to attack and kill a group of soldiers in an ambush, if you were not absolutely convinced, that it was the right thing to do. Even, if you, as a reflective revolutionary, would have some doubts, once in a while, you learn, quickly, not to voice your doubts, and, you learn, also, that you are trapped in the social environment you have chosen to belong to.

You have no choice anymore. If your commanders send you on patrol or on a mission, you will have to kill, or you will be killed; if not by the enemy, then, your own comrades will execute you as a traitor or a coward. The ability to choose has disappeard, and, decisions are now made for you. You have to participate and contribute to the carnage, whether you want it or not.

Is it necessary, you ask, to get stuck in these kinds of circumstances? Is there really no alternative anymore? At the present time, we fight, Capitalist against Socialist, right-wing against left-wing. One race against another, religion against religion. It is ironic, that, often, the most violent conflicts take place between religious groups which are so closely related in their beliefs, that an outsider would have great difficulties understanding, how these religious beliefs differ from each other, and, what the reasons are for their violent confrontations.

Indeed, the impulse to fight is so strong in all of us, that we have to analyse and discuss the reasons, why we are endowed with such a violent behavioural trait. Man has understood, intuitively, and, for a long time, that the miseries of violent conflict are often senseless and futile, because in the ability to describe a situation of dramatic tensions, we portray, in essence, a conflict-situation where the final outcome is misery and death.

We often seem powerless to change a chain of events, and, we also appreciate, vaguely, that many of our rationalisations and justifications of the righteousness of "The Cause" are shallow and false. However, the dramatist places the players in a juxta-position of circumstances, which allows us to see the inevitability of the miserable outcome. With the present grasp of the mechanisms of nature, this sense of inevitability has shifted from a responsibility attributed to the gods, or the powers of fate, to a psychological inevitability.

I am not pretending to be a dramatist, or to have any talents for sketching dramatic tensions. Let others move us with their intuitive precision in the portrayal of human motivations and psychological necessities. Let me do the intellectual clarification of these psychological mechanisms, and, let us be convinced, from our own experiences, that we need to understand ourselves, and our fellow human beings, much better, intellectually as well as intuitively, if we want to become a more peaceful and enduring species.

Let us be convinced, that it has become necessary to understand ourselves in an emotionally more neutral framework of concepts and beliefs, after having recognised the truthfulness of this need in dramatic portrayals. We have to be able to think clearly, before we can understand, why people, sooner or later, slide into a deadly conflict with each other.

The human species has thrived, so far, in spite of the high toll of chronic suffering and death its violent behaviour has brought-about, and, it seems justified to state, that man's culture and his awarenesses are due, in large part, to the fact, that he has suffered and has been baffled, time and again, by the unpredictability of his own behaviour. One of the few predictable features of human existence is the certainty of encountering a situation of conflict, sooner or later. This prediction is almost as certain as the knowledge, that we all die, at some time in the future. True, most of us do not die a violent death, but the fact, that we have to face death and conflict, is a certainty.

What is more surprising to me, is the fact, that it does not seem natural for man to recognise the consequences of violent behaviour. Anyone, who has witnessed a violent conflict, or, who has heard about it from history, and, anyone, who is somewhat familiar with the events taking place in the world at the present time, will have recognised the fact, that there is always a loser in any confrontation, and, that many people suffer in every situation of conflict.

There are even people who suffer severely on the side of the winner, but, how often do we think about those, who lost a son or daughter in a war that was won by our side? While we celebrate, they suffer and weep in silence, as they try to remember their child as a happy, living member of the family; this child has now been irrevocably deprived of this wonderful quality of being alive, and, its highest sacrifice has made the senseless and insensitive jubilations possible for those, who survived or stayed behind.

For those people, who are now profiting from victory, they gave their life. Was it worth it? The parents are just as forgotten and unnoticed as those who died, and, they suffer for many years the silent agony of doubts and non-understanding; "Whas it really necessary, that our sons and daughters, fathers and friends died for this?"

Most of us have great difficulties visualising the consequences of a violent conflict, and, there are good existential reasons for this. Our self-confidence would be severely undermined by such thoughts and reflections, and, we see, therefore, that the psychological preparations that take place before combat, actively suppress any thoughts and feelings about the possible adverse effects of the coming battle.

The attitude of belligerence is a powerful "organiser" for our behaviour. It is a primitive instinct, that does not allow any rational arguments. We have to learn to control our drives and instincts, and, we have to learn to give priority, again, to the forces of rational thought, but, we first have to learn to see ourselves with a clear perspective, acknowledging the basic patterns of our instincts and drives. Yet, we notice, quickly, that such an objective is still controversial.

In our times, many people seem to believe, that emotions are more important than rational faculties, because our rationality is held responsible for the disastrous and frightening consequences of modern technology. Then, there is another important controversy in interpretation. Do we see ourselves as a creature, created by God in His Image, spoiled by the act of Original Sin, or, do we see ourselves as a product of natural evolution?

While the religious interpretation of human existence gives us many problems in understanding the nature of God and the fate of man, the interpretation of our existence on the basis of natural evolution is for most people an even more frightening and abhorrent idea, because such a point of view seems to lead us into an immoral jungle of ruthless strife and endless misery.

The religious intepretation forces us to see many of our traits and characteristics as "evil", or un-natural, but, the traditional evolutionary point of view seems to transform all ethical behaviour into a mere illusion. This is a bleak interpretation indeed, and, it is not surprising, that it often provokes a rather vehement reaction of disgust and hostility.

However, is it correct to come to such a gloomy and unsatisfactory concept of human nature, whenever we base the interpretation of our existence upon a biological, evolutionary chain of events? Not really, because, so far, the traditional scientific image of the evolution of life in general, and, of human life in particular, is incomplete, and, it has not even tried to forge a link between the history of our physical evolution and the make-up of our personality. Let us see, in a brief summary, whether or not we can interpret, satisfactorily, our characteristics, our mode of behaviour, as well as our psychological and intellectual potentials, when viewing these developments in the light of evolutionary and naturally selective mechanisms.

We have learned to see, that the cell is a complex conglomerate of a large number of biochemical chain-reactions. It found a possibility to exist during the long protoplasmic evolution that took place, before uni-cellular life-forms arose. Together, in a system of utterly complex inter-dependencies, these biochemical chains of inter-dependent reaction-patterns found a possibility to exist, and, this possibility of existence extends far above and beyond the range of conditions and circumstances these biochemical reaction-patterns could tolerate without being locked into a protective, symbiotic harmony.

This does not mean, however, that there are no tensions within such a complex society of biochemical reaction-patterns. There are numerous tendencies towards disorganisation and disruption, and, these tendencies have to be kept in check. Damage to the cellular unit occurs all the time through the processes of wear and tear, and, biochemical reaction-patterns have a tendency to diverge and disrupt the unity of their cellular unit. There is also an accumulation of unwanted products, as well as a slow leakage of ions across the semi-permeable membrane, separating the protoplasm with its biochemical reactions from the generally hostile environment. All these processes require energy to be counter-acted. Besides, many biochemical reactions require a constant influx of energy, because they are only stable in a constant process of renewal, just like a water-fall can only exist, if there is a continuous influx of water.

The organisation of living existence is, therefore, a complex, cellular network of inter-dependent substances and reactions-patterns, which is able to react to a multitude of stimuli in a way no inorganic substance can. The cell shows a measure of fluidity in its ability to adapt to a variety of circumstances, and, it can react "positively", with a movement towards a stimulus that is beneficial, while it can react "negatively", or defensively, by moving-away from a stimulus that is harmful or potentially harmful.

The organisation of viable cellular structures arose over an evolutionary period of a billion years or so, but, the reproduction of a cell and all its important components and biochemical sequences, can take place within a time-span of, perhaps, twenty minutes, because its genetic code creates "special circumstances" in a carefully controled and guided sequence of events, allowing all these components of the cell to be duplicated and organised into a viable pattern of biochemical inter-dependence.

The process of reproduction induces, eventually, a physical separation of the cell into two identical halves, which can complete the reproductive process by growing to the size of the original cell. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the observation, that the components and biochemical sequences in a cell are far more viable together, in a state of functional inter-dependence or social integration, compared to a state of being alone. This means, that the continuous search for "possibilities of existence", (as we see in the behaviour of living organisms), is based upon the simple physical principle, that, any fluid substance will explore its possitibilities of existence as long as it is being driven by a suitable energy-source to which it can yield.

We have elaborated, elsewhere, the imagery of the "inundating valley", and, we have seen, how the rising water-table explores numerous gullies and indentations, as it slowly fills this valley. The driving force for the water, flowing into an inundating valley, is the force of gravity, while the fluid, biochemical reactions of the uni-cellular and multi-cellular life-forms find their source of energy in the capture of photons by excitable electrons, forming high-energy electro-chemical bonds. The living structures can, therefore, be considered as "rivulets" that dissipate a biochemical energy-potential, created by the capture of sunlight in the form of high-energy electron bonds.

The development of multi-cellular life was another monumental break-through, where the processes of task-differentiation, cellular specialisation and symbiotic integration, opened-up existence possibilities that were completely out of reach for the uni-cellular life-forms. Think only about the momumental changes that took place when life left the sea and invaded dry land, or the sky. Such a step would not have been possible, to any significant extent, without the development of multi-cellular life, but, it is true, that the main spur for the development of multi-cellular colonies of cells, fusing, eventually, into an efficient, multi-cellular unit, was the search for more stable existence possibilities, rather than the drive to explore the existence possibilities on dry land. It was, therefore, not only, a search to invade or occupy ecological niches that had not been used, as yet, but, the drive to explore possibilities of existence represented, also, the search for an escape from the fierce competitive pressures that existed, and still exist, at the level of uni-cellular and multi-cellular life-forms at their place of origin.

The break-through of uni-cellular existence, just as the later break-through of multi-cellular life, created strong population pressures because of the rapid development of dense populations, and, as a result of these trends, we see new, and, often, aggressive modes of behaviour emerge. We have discussed, before, how severe competition for the available food or energy leads to a balance, where the deaths of the older and weaker organisms compensate for the growth-rate of the healthy and successful life-forms. These conditions imply, that a significant amount of energy is used-up in this process of competitive strife, and, the ability to utilise debris from dead organisms, or the protoplasmic constituents of the weakened but still living organisms, leads to the development of scavenging, parasitism and predation.

"Saprophytic behaviour" is the scavenging of dead organisms for useful building-blocks, while in "parasitic behaviour", a still living organism is depleted or robbed for the benefit of the parasite. If one organism kills another outright, in order to make use of its building-blocks, we are seeing the phenomenon of "predation", while a division of tasks or functional specialisation may lead to a "symbiotic harmony", where a colony of cells seeks important existential advantages by close internal cooperation, and, by sharing and sub-dividing the necessary chores of survival.

All these forms of existence have become supremely successful, and, we see many examples of each way of life, if we look around us. The predatory nature of life is well known to us, because this is the example we are, primarily, confronted with in the world of animal existence. Whether we like it or not, it seems an undeniable fact, that human life belongs to the world of animal existence, which is characterised by the predatorial way of life; killing plant or animal life, or both, as a necessity to maintain existence.

True, inter-human conflict is not so much an example of predatorial behaviour, as well as an utterly ruthless form of competitive strife, leading to the active elimination of competitors. We see no need for the energy-value of a slain body, but, the killing of an opponent or enemy, and the confiscation of his property, or domain, have become a common and most effective way to settle a serious conflict of interests between people or groups of people.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

We have to accept our animal nature.
Animals and plants.
The potential for the faculty of "conscious awareness" finds its origins in existential requirements and evolutionary adaptations.
Reasons for the evolution of behavioural flexibility.
Feed-back mechanisms; a method for adapting to changes.
Back to a gloomy interpretation of human nature.
How can man be an ethical creature of natural evolution?
The "socialisation" of the human being.
Man's behaviour can not be controled, exclusively, by genetically encoded mechanisms; the price of behavioural flexibility.
A legacy of contradictory trends.
The twin developments of conceptual mastery and technological innovation.
Shaping the circumstances and conditions of an event.
The biological anlage for a multi-centric sphere of concerns.
Escape mechanisms for early social groupings.
Entrapment, and the vulnerability of being exploited.
Territoriality and hierarchical differentiation.
When a privileged elite starts to lead a life of "luxuries and privileges".

We know, now, that all animal life, including the human species, has become completely dependent upon other living structures in order to survive. We have to ingest pre-fabricated organic materials, and, for this reason, we have to kill life, be it animal- or plant-life. All animal-life has abandoned the laborious process of photo-synthesis upon which the energy-supply of plant-life rests, and, every animal species has to obtain its food by eating other living or recently killed organisms. This is a biological fact of life, and we can not deny it. We have to accept our animal nature, regardless, how repugnant such a notion may be.

Already during the emergence of uni-cellular life, we see, that the fierce competitive struggle for energy led to many different forms of existence, and, the basic division between animal- and plant-life took place at the level of uni-cellular evolution. Some cells became predators, killing other cells, and, some of them remained photo-synthesising organisms, using the mechanisms of photo-synthesis and other chemical reaction-patterns as the basis for their existence. For these cells, the inorganic materials within their immediate environment remained the building-blocks for their organic structure, as well as their possibility to exist as a living organism.

Multi-cellular plant-life has been extremely successful, as we see in the dense vegetation and the huge trees of the terrestial forests. Some of these multi-cellular units of plant-life, such as these enormous trees, have achieved near-immortality, and, they certainly have achieved a life-span, or, at least, a potential life-span that has remained unparalleled in the animal world.

The development of neural structures and the musculo-skeletal apparatus is an exclusive evolution of the animal world, and, it is an evolutionary development that became necessary, in order to accomplish an ever more sophisticated hunt for food. As long as animal-life preyed on plant-life, the efforts required were fairly simple, and, the motoric requirements were rather easily met, but, as soon as animals began to hunt other animals, a vigorous competitive development took place, which stimulated the capabilities of speed, coordination, sensory registration, power and intelligence.

Yes, indeed, we can trace the evolution of awarenesses, including conscious and verbalisable awarenesses, to these same evolutionary developments and existential pressures; the need to hunt for food, to escape from highly capable predators, and, to find a mate.

We have traced the evolution of man before. Let us review, here, only the fact that man is an example of the experiment of natural evolution with the potentials of "behavioural flexibility". Many of the larger and complex multi-cellular animals became slow in their "genetic turn-over". This meant, that the raising of a new generation was a slow and laborious process, taking a long time to accomplish and producing only a limited number of individuals. Genetic encoding became "too slow" a process to let these species' make fully use of the rapidly fluctuating circumstances of their environment, and, one way to overcome this handicap, was, to allow for adaptations or modifications in the behaviour-patterns of individual members of such a large and complex species, reflecting the experiences of the individual or the experiences of the parental generations. The latter could be made use of by "imitating" apparently successful behaviour-patterns of the parental generations.

With the development of special sense-organs and a highly coordinated musculature, together with the evolution of a central and peripheral nervous system, nature had already explored the possibilities of "feed-back mechanisms". We see already in the single cell, how biochemical production processes are, not only, regulated by genetic structures, but, production is also regulated by feed-back processes that maintain the level of a product within a specified range. If a certain substance would accumulate, a feed-back mechanisms would slow-down its production, and, vice versa.

In the development of multi-cellular mobility, we see many complex examples of feed-back mechanisms at work between the sensory organs and the musculo-skeletal structures. As a final elaboration of the principle of feed-back, we see, that the classification and interpretation of sensory data, (which are coming-in as a stream of contemporary sense-impressions reflecting the situation in which an organism exists), can be modified by comparing these sense-impressions with previous experiences of a similar nature.

The brain had to acquire the ability to record experiences in an orderly and systematic manner, before it was possible to make use of such a sophisticated form of feed-back as the comparison of incoming sense-impressions with previous sensory data. The human brain also acquired the ability to form "abstractions" through the verbalisation and conscious awareness of qualities that served as common denominators in the ordening of sense-impressions. The mechanisms of cerebral classification of incoming sense impressions, the symbolic representation of memory-traces, and, eventually, the symbolic representation of common denominators of verbalisable awarenesses, all play a role in the feed-back mechanisms that allow a human being to change its evaluation or interpretation of incoming sense-impressions.

The development of this ability to change the interpretation of a sense-impression was a break-through that was comparable to the break-through of multi-cellular life itself. As a result of these capabilities, man broke-away from the natural balance between species' and their environment. This break-through occurred to such an extent, that man has no natural predators anymore, except for a few pathogenic organisms, and, man's only serious enemy is, now, another human being. Man's flexibility interpreting his sense-impressions, and, his ability to stimulate memory-recall with symbolic representations, provided such an existential advantage, that the only serious limiting factors for a human population explosion were the processes of competitive strife or competitive inhibition, leading to all-out combat, as well as the destructiveness and devastation associated with modern warfare.

"Well", you will say to me, "we are back to a very gloomy picture of man, because you say, now, yourself that man would create intolerable population pressures, if he would not inhibit its population expansion by strife, warfare, killings and wide-spread famines. This is exactly the bleak picture we object to, but, it seems inevitable to come to such gloomy conclusions, whenever we try to explain human nature on purely biological grounds. How do you explain, then, that man can be ethical; that man can be a friend, as well as a killer; that we can experience love and a feeling of awe? Why can man conceptualise a loving God and a Christ, who died for the sins of mankind, if man is nothing more than a run-away experiment of nature with the dangerous combination of a flexible intelligence and a ferocious killer instinct?"

Yes, these questions, and, this implied religious interpretation of reality, are undoubtedly valid. However, there is more to man's nature and potentials than we have sketched so far. Man is also heir to an evolutionary trend, where increased viability was sought in the evolution of the attitudes of cooperation between the members of a species. In a sense, this trend is a parallel to the development of multi-cellular life, where we saw, how a colony of single cells began to differentiate in form and function, and became a compact, symbiotic entity of living existence.

The development of "socialisation" of the human being is quite different, however, when compared to the mechanisms of cooperation within a multi-cellular unit. The individual members of a unit of cooperating human beings remain physically separate identities, and, the differentiation takes the form of learned or acquired special skills, which do not become inherited traits or genetically encoded functional and anatomical differentiations, as happens with the cells of a multi-cellular organism. After all, we are dealing, here, with a specialisation in function, based, primarily, on a voluntary choice, as well as the accentuation of a potential skill that is available, at least, in outline, in every healthy and normal member of the species of mankind.

However, the most important difference between the society of cooperating, multi-cellular and behaviourally flexible animals, on the one hand, and, the organisation of a symbiotic colony of cells into one single multi-cellular organism, on the other, lies in the fact, that the multi-cellular organism can be completely controled by genetically encoded regulations and control mechanisms. This can not be done in the social organisation of behaviourally flexible individuals, because the genetic code has already relinquished the details of adaptative behaviour to the judgement of the living organism itself. The only approach left for the forces of natural evolution and the genetic encoding of behavioural instructions, was, to reward, with an increase in viability, the attitudes of cooperation and efficient organisation, as well as the attitudes of care and concern for the off-spring and the weaker members of a small social unit. At the same time, a courageous, even, ferocious attitude towards competing social groupings, including the large and dangerous animals, was also rewarded with the quality of survival.

The most nature could do, and did, in the final genetic molding of the human biological heritage, was, to shape a somewhat contradictory and confusing set of impulses into the nature of the human being. The human being would be most viable, when courageous, fearless and ferocious in its contacts with a threatening "outside world", but, tender, compassionate and concerned, when dealing with a helpless infant, a frail mother, or a wounded comrade.

Together with the ceaseless re-stimulation of memory-traces by gestures, mimicry and other symbolic representations, man developed a vocabulary of conscious awarenesses that was unparalleled in nature; at least, so far as we know. This led, eventually, to the ability to communicate, rapidly and efficiently, with the help of a stream of vocalisations, or, "speech", and, it led, eventually, to the elaboration of structures of conscious awareness, which became accepted and shared as "beliefs" by an entire community.

Here, we have the beginning of a "belief structure" or a cultural code, but, we also note, how such a structure of beliefs begins to influence the behaviour-patterns of the members of a community who are sharing such a structure of beliefs. The human animal had become fully human, because he did not respond, anymore, entirely according to genetically given instincts, drives and emotive patterns of behaviour, but, he also fashioned, consciously and deliberately, a behavioural response, that was, at least, in part, based upon this structure of shared beliefs.

The development of conscious structures of belief makes it possible to comprehend, better, the forces man sees and experiences around him. This grasp takes the form of a coherent structure of "explanations". If a coherent point of view is successful, it will provide a measure of "predictability" to the outcome of a "recognised" event, in particular, if the processes of classifying events into similar groupings has been sharpened by a more refined interpretation of the sensory data.

We will not elaborate these mechanisms, here, in detail, because we have done so before. It is clear, that man's ability to manipulate the circumstances to his advantage, has been greatly enhanced by the twin developments of conceptual mastery and technological innovation, which tend to take place, simultaneously.

Here, we see a remarkable parallel of the mechanisms of behavioural flexibility and symbolic representation, on the one hand, with the much older mechanisms of genetic encoding, on the other. The genetic code can steer circumstances in such a way, that an event is guided and compelled to take place; an event, that would occur extremely infrequently, if the composition of the favourable circumstances was left to chance. In a way, human intelligence accomplishes the same as the genetic code, because, it too, is able to direct the circumstances, increasingly, in such a way, that the events man wants to take place, are compelled to happen. This is the essence of the use of tools and technological innovations in general.

Our biological heritage has left us with the beginnings of a development towards social inter-dependencies, but, we have also inherited a much stronger and much more ancient set of behavioural instructions, which places our own individual existence at the center of our concerns. The drive to cooperate and care is strongest developed as part of our parental intincts, and, on previous occasions, we have developed the idea, that, ethical behaviour, or, the behaviour that takes the concerns of others into account as well, can best be seen as an extention of our parental attitudes and concerns.

However, it is very important to understand, clearly, that our biological heritage gave us an "anlage" for social and ethical behaviour in a small grouping, living under essentially nomadic conditions, but, our biological heritage and natural trends are not adequate to cope with the problems of living together in a much larger and more complex society. One of the reasons, why the genetic instructions for socially oriented behaviour have a tendency to fail when trying to form a large social entity, lies in the fact, that people can not know all the members of a larger society. In addition, they are unable to leave a large society, if they are not happy, and, we also note, that an insufficient number of larger societies have existed to allow the mechanisms of natural selection to excercise any influence on the genetic constitution of successful, large-scale social behaviour.

Our biological heritage is geared towards a rather flexible hierarchical order in a small group, where the advantages of belonging and not-belonging are automatically and continuously balanced against each other. If it seems more advantageous to leave the group because of an oppressive behaviour by the dominant members, or, because of insufficient protection by those who have assumed the responsibilities of leadership, then, there would be relatively few obstacles to leaving the group and starting another social nucleus in the neighbouring territories. To leave a large society, or, to leave a position of privilege in society, is not easy in our contemporary societies, and, because of this "entrapment", we are vulnerable to the practice of exploitation.

I hope, that it has become clear to the reader, that the conditions, circumstances and guidelines regulating the events and happenings of a viable, but large and complex society of human beings, have to be shaped and fashioned by a deliberate, conscious and collective effort of the human mind. However, before we can discuss all the factors involved, we have to consider the concepts of fair and just Constitutional Guidelines, and, we will have to analyse and discuss the phenomenon of hierarchical stratification.

When a successful evolutionary development is rewarded with a significant improvement in the viability of a species or, at least, a population of a species, we see, that a rapid growth in population takes place, until, once again, a sort of equilibrium sets-in. A dense population, means, invariably, a strong competition between the near-identical members of the species, and this factor of competitive strife induces a dispersion or distribution over as large an area as possible. Each member has, then, its own territory to feed from, and, each individual will defend this territory against intruders.

Before any sort of cooperative mechanism can lead the way to socialisation, including task-differentiations and the development of complementary functions, this instinct of territoriality has to be subdued, at least, to some extent. It is then replaced by a hierarchical order, where a group ordens itself, completely subconsciously, of course, according to strength or the ability to dominate. The stronger members become "dominant", while the weaker members accept this dominance in exchange for the privilege of being protected and allowed to feed in the territory of the dominant members.

This hierarchical order may have to be tested and re-tested, if changes occur in the relative strength of the members of the group. The advantages of such a break-through in behaviour are numerous. A much closer contact between members is now possible with a corresponding increase in population-density.

The mechanisms of hierarchical ordening constitute the first important step to explore the possibilities of differentiation and complementary functions. The weaker members gain protection from the stronger ones, while the stronger members gain a larger territory, together with an opportunity to excercise their initiatives by organising a variety of cooperative and complementary functions and chores.

The dominant members start to live a life of "luxury and privileges", but, at the same time, we see, that they have to assume a responsibility for the entire group, as well as for the defense of a much larger territory. Perhaps, the submissive attitudes of those who seek protection, stimulates a parental form of behaviour in the dominant members, and makes them behave with the attitudes of care, concern, and, perhaps, even, affection. Yet, at any time, the dominant leadership may have to fight-off a challenge from those, who are high in the hierarchical order, and the moment the leader loses such a challenge, the leadership position goes over to the winner.

We have also seen, how easy it is for social groupings of animals to split-apart, especially, if the group becomes too large and unwieldy for the hierarchical order to work properly. We know, now, that, each member must be aware of the relative position of each other member in this hierarchical order, and, the leadership must also know each member well enough to make, intuitively, the right decisions, when called-upon to settle a dispute.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A natural sense of justice.
The ability to test a hierarchical position.
Absorbing surplus vital energies.
Inherited advantages and privileges.
Why the practice of "favouritism" is an affront to our sense of justice.
Good leaders will always try to avoid the practice of favouritism.
A vulnerable and thankless position.
It is so easy to alienate large segments of a population.
The quality of "feed-back" is difficult to judge.
Social decay and deteriorating bureaucratic channels.
Future societies can not afford haphazard methods for the selection or succession of a leadership.
The role of precisely delineated Constitutional Guidelines.
The feeling of being "left behind".
We are constantly manipulating hierarchical positions.
To impress and to be impressed.
Why is it so difficult to keep human relationships on an even keel?
Analysing, carefully and logically, the complexities of human relationships.
The art of letting-go of privileges and special powers.

There is never any question, whether or not an animal considers its position in the hierarchy "justified", because, the moment it feels, that it deserves a higher position, it will challenge a member who is just above it in the hierarchical order, and, it will then "test" the "question", whether or not the hierarchical position is the right one.

Of course, there is no question, here, of a deliberate or conscious decision. Each animal seeks its level of existence by trial and error, just as a species adapts to a suitable ecological niche by a process of trial and error. Each animal will seek the level of resistance or challenge that will absorb its vital energies, or surplus "elan vital", rather completely. We see, again, the establishment of a "natural balance" during an essentially blind process of trial and error.

The moment this fluid process of finding the appropriate place in a social hierarchy is changed by other mechanisms, we encounter problems. For example, even, in animal societies, there is some evidence to believe, that a hierarchical position could be perpetuated or inherited by the off-spring, because, those coming from lowly placed parents seem to occupy, frequently, a lower position, compared to those, who come from more highly placed individuals. We do not have to elaborate the fact, that the mechanisms of an inherited position play an important role in human societies.

There are other factors that may distort an "earned" hierarchical position. The leader may "choose" certain individuals and elevate their position arbitrarily, as a means to increase his own safety by "buying" the loyalty of supporters, and, of course, many individuals are willing to "sell" their services and support the leadership in return for an arbitrarily elevated position in the hierarchy.

This process is so widespread and common in human societies, that we accept its occurrence as "normal", or, at least, as inevitable, but, we fail, by and large, to note the severe tensions that are created by these practices. If someone is treated more favourably than another, equally placed individual, one's position becomes elevated, but one may not be able to "earn" or protect this hierarchical position with one's own strength, and, the individual will need continuous help or protection from the leadership. In exchange, such a person functions, then, as a loyal supporter, an informer, or a soldier, and this function can delay a process of challenge and overthrow of a leadership, after it has lost popular support.

These arbitrary changes in the order of a hierarchical position create a feeling of severe resentment, and, they are an affront to our "sense of justice". If you think, that favouritism belongs in the realm of court intrigues, I would like you to examine the practice of "connections". If we gain access to a job, or a good deal, by "knowing the right people", we are, in essence, participating in a process of favouritism, because the acquisition of this job, or such a "good deal", does not depend upon an open competition on the basis of personal merit, but, it is given to us as a favour. Even, if the favour does not have to be repaid immediately, this type of dealings between people creates a network of nepotism and privileged relationships, which works depressing and alienating upon the rest of the people, especially, if they are excluded from these relationships.

Any leadership worth its salt, has recognised, at least, intuitively, that tensions are aggravated, and, that the sense of justice is affronted by the practice of favouritism. Few leaders will deliberately use these practices from the beginning, unless they happen to come to a position of power without adequate qualifications and support from the people, but, even, those, who are gifted leaders, with good and honourable intentions, are extremely vulnerable to the practice of favouritism or nepotism.

The leadership position is often difficult and thankless, where even the best of intentions have a tendency to go wrong. Slander and misinformed criticisms sour the enthousiasm and good-will of the leaders, and, the forces of envy, jealousy and intrigue are always waiting for a chance to do their devastating work. How easy, then, is it to become defensive, to gather a group of trusted and loyal supporters around oneself, and, to distrust or ignore anyone, who dares to criticise or disagree. How easy is it to lose contact with large and important sections of society, where resentment and suspicion can grow silently for a long time, completely unsuspected and undetected, until, suddenly, the resentment breaks lose in a rebellious violence, with clashes and work-stoppages. If it is so easy to alienate large segments of a population, how easy is it, then, to neglect, completely, less vocal and less powerful minorities!

Any leadership that has functioned with a measure of intelligence and understanding, has been aware of the need to obtain adequate feed-back from the people, in particular, when the society is complex and large. The problem has always been to find efficient and reliable channels, allowing a fair and unbiased feed-back, undistorted by special interests, or the existential concerns of those who are involved in the process of gathering information for the leadership. The quality of feed-back is so difficult to judge; is it fair and representative? Why does it become, so quickly, a shrill cacaphony of dissenting and egocentric voices, each clamoring for their own cause, totally oblivious of the relationships with, and requirements of, other people?

It is understandable, that the tasks of leadership in a complex society become easily a frustrating experience, and, it is not surprising, that a leadership is always on the verge of being defensive. Many times, leaders of good-will must have come to the conclusion, that the only way to restore order and to beat some sense into a confused and egocentric populace, is to rule with an iron hand, and to dispense justice as they see fit. These attitudes may be temporarily successful and advantageous, in particular, if a society has suffered recently from chaos and turmoil, but, in the long run, these attitudes are insufficient to provide adequate and competent leadership.

The problems of adequate feed-back and education of the population are not solved by the practice of an "iron rule". The criteria of justice remain arbitrary. Law and order become a veneer to hide resentment and injustice. Fear, rather than understanding rules. Sooner or later, such a leadership will have to give-way to a successor, and, chaos and strife are likely to erupt, once again. Besides, such a tough-minded, single-handed approach to the problems of leadership over a heterogeneous population, is, often, unable to solve the complex demands for a meaningful contact with other societies. Lucky circumstances may give the people a period of "peace", at least, for one or two generations, but, afterwards, a lot of adjustments will have to take place, rather quickly.

The high prestige and integrity of a forceful but just leader may be a powerful factor in keeping a government bureaucracy efficient, honest and on its toes, but, the chances of finding a suitable successor to a highly efficient, integer and forceful leader are slim, because the forces of intrigue, together with the jockeying for a favourable position by potential rivals and successors, tends to create a poisonous atmosphere of distrust, and, this sharpens the more primitive instincts for survival and the lust for power.

Rarely is a society fortunate enough to get a succession of competent, integer and justly forceful leadership personalities, and, future societies with a global dimension can not, and must not, rely upon such haphazard methods for the selection of their leaders and officials, or the competence of their bureaucracies.

Before we continue to describe an alternative leadership system with extensive and precisely delineated Constitutional Guidelines, we should return to a discussion of the conditions and circumstances that have to be satisfied, before a large society can function in harmony and peace. It seems, indeed, justifiable to give the "concept of justice" a position of prominence in this constellation of factors necessary for a successful and stable society with large and complex dimensions, but, we should make a distinction between the emotive forces that are released whenever our sense or feeling of justice has been affronted, and, the intellectual concepts that grasp the essential features of regulatory mechanisms, satisfying the sense of justice for most people within a socially integrated environment.

Our sense of justice seems to be related to the process of hierarchical positioning; at least, it seems plausible to trace a relationship between these two mechanisms. We all know, how our sense of justice is affronted, if we are treated differently from the way we think is appropriate. We have described the example of being "left behind", when someone else is being given undeserved or un-earned favours and privileges, but, there is also a corollary on the other side of the coin, and, this is the case of an active discrimination against us. This brings us much closer to a situation we can all identify with, because we all share the sense of outrage and injustice, if we have become the victim of an act of discrimination.

These two mechanisms form a sliding scale. We can be, on the one hand, wronged by being left behind, and, by being passively demoted by the arbitrary elevation of someone else we do not and can not recognise as deserving a status of privilege, but, we can also be actively demoted, if we are, e.g. accused falsely of an action or a type of behaviour that is judged to be "low" or unbecoming. Indeed, how acutely is our sense of justice wronged by unfair accusations of one sort or another!

This last mechanism will be recognised, much more easily, as a direct insult to our sense of justice. We have to keep in mind, that our sense of justice is insulted, not only, by being falsely accused of criminal or unethical behaviour, but, we can be just as much insulted by a slight hint or an inuendo, because, even, the slightest hint of wrong-doing may give us the impression that our position in society is being undermined.

In our attitudes towards each other, we constantly manipulate hierarchical positions, even, if we are not aware of this, or call it by a different name. How often do we not look-down upon someone, or a group of people, for reasons that can hardly be justified on reasonable grounds or by an objective evaluation? We often use the attitude of condescension or prejudice, either towards a group or an individual, as a means to bolster our self-esteem and elevate our own standing; at least, in our own judgement.

We often use "cultural tricks" to establish such a hierarchical differentation. We consider people, who speak, dress, eat or behave differently from our own particular culture, as people, who do not quite know, what is "appropriate behaviour". We tend to forget, so easily, that the criteria of "appropriateness" are completely arbitrary. Similarly, we feel much more confident to receive strangers or potential enemies on our own territory, compared to a situation, where we go out to meet our adversaries on their home grounds.

We differentiate from each other by many different activities; by differing achievements in schooling, skills or training, by artistic or sports-achievements, by the successes and failures of business activities, the accumulation of money or assets, or the lack of it, and, we become very different from each other in the way we live.

Indeed, when we look at these phenomena closely, it seems very difficult for us to consider ourselves truly as equals to each other. Not only, are we constantly trying to impress other people with our accomplishments, our social standing, knowledge or strength, wealth or ability to spend lavishly, but, we are also anxiously looking towards other people to see, whether or not they are higher in social standing, have accomplished more in scholastic or artistic activities, or in sports; whether or not they earn more, live in a more luxurious home, or display more consumer items.

Because we play this game all the time, be it primarily subconsciously, we are also sensitive to being impressed by others. In this way, we create a complex structure of flexible and largely subjective differentiations in position and achievement. A large part of our time, effort and earnings is absorbed by a pre-occupation with social standing, until we realise, suddenly, that it is all an illusion; a great spectacle of mutual deception, where we blindly obey, rather sheepishly, the age-old competitive instincts of our common human nature, urged-on by the seductive but equally deceptive manipulations of the advertising industries.

Indeed, it seems very difficult for us, common citizens in society, as well as for our leaderships, to accept and practice, faithfully, the principles of essential equality in position and opportunity, and, yet, what is more logical, and more compelling, than the conclusion, that we have to come to accept each other as equals in a complex and large society; if we ever want to avoid this unnecessary attitude of competitive strife and internal rivalry?

Is there a more beautiful conclusion than to state, that the only sensible solution to an ever more chaotic juggling of positions and jockeying for favours, is, to declare, that all citizens of society are, in essence, equal and will be treated equally by the leadership and the laws of society? How far-sighted has been the leadership in this distant past, which recognised such a sensible and effective method to end internal strife? How far-sighted was it to declare a scrupulous equality for all people, and, to practice a scrupulous fairness and openness when dealing with each other, with bureaucratic institutions, or, with the leaderships and peoples of other societies?

Yet, this monumental insight and deep psychological wisdom was nearly always doomed to failure, after, perhaps, a short flurry of success. Nearly always, these ideal conditions for inter-personal contact and transactions would disappear, once again, in a morass of suspicions, secret dealings, injustices and acts of oppression.

Why is it so difficult to keep human relationships on an even keel? Why does it seem inevitable, that the good-will and enthousiasm of wise leaderships decay into nepotism, corruption, incompetence, strife and hatred? Why is it so difficult to keep a society healthy and viable for any length of time? We see, that these principles can be a very successful foundation for the cohesion, effectiveness and good-will of a small group, but, even, the smallest groupings have a tendency to fall-apart by disillusionment, disappointment and neglect.

Why is it so difficult to keep the sense of justice and good-will intact? Why does it seem inevitable, that the sense of justice will be affronted for many people? Why is the reaction to a condition of chronic resentment and injustice, so often, the beginning of another series of injustices and resentments?

In order to answer these many questions, we have to analyse, carefully and systematically, the complex happenings that take place in human relationships, and, we have to refer, again and again, to the characteristics of human behaviour and its motivations, which have been shaped by the long evolutionary history of our biological heritage. While the situation is complex, and, while it is true that many contradictory mechanisms play a role, we will see, that it is now possible to give a clear and lucid explanation of all these common phenomena and recurrent trends in human relationships.

For example; it is quite easy to agree with each other, at least, in principle, that a society can be kept stable and viable, if we respect each other's sense of justice, but, in agreeing with such a lofty principle, we forget to look at the many difficulties of interpretation. What is justice for one, is an affront to another, and, what was acceptable as just, yesterday, does not seem to be just anymore, today, as our ideas, goals and interpretations are changing so quickly. What seemed a lofty principle is often impossible in practice, and, the promise of reform and improvement, often remains just that; idle talk and little action.

If we belong to a privileged sector of society, it is often very difficult to let-go of these privileges and special powers. More often than not, we do not actually see any reason, why we have to give-up anything. We worked hard. We were full of idealism and enthousiasm to help others to reach a similar level of existence, and, we find it ignorant and ungrateful, if people complain, when their expectations are not immediately fulfilled.

Any challenge to our position of power, authority and privilege by those, whose conditions we helped improve, is quickly interpreted as an act of treason, and, we become more defensive and fearful for our safety and possibilities of existence. Indeed, does this not happen every time? The moment we give people a hand to pull them out of their misery and ignorance, they bite the hand that helped and fed them.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A divergence of opinion about what is right and wrong.
Discrepancies between feelings and concepts of justice.
A patient and diligent search for consensus.
Every youngster has the ability to listen and learn.
Practical suggestions for the implementation of social justice.
Essential equality has to apply, eventually, to a globally integrated social environment.
The shared legacy of existential requirements.
Questions.
The ravages of chaos and confusion.
The tone is bitter, but the complaints are justified.
Our contemporary societies of affluence can not serve as a model for the future.
Distortions of the democratic ideal.
Creating a condition of transparence with the help of the computer.
The blessings of an informed "collective will".
Is it really so difficult to design, implement and maintain a state of justice on a global scale?

Obviously, there is an incredible divergence of opinion about what is right and wrong, and, there is also a discrepancy between our feelings and concepts of justice. It is not sufficient to state, that we have to respect each others feelings of justice, or, that we impose a package of human rights and lawful obligations upon the members of a society. These measures do not guarantee, that the sense of justice will be preserved.

Obviously, it is impossible to bring everyone to a high level of luxurious living conditions and privileged circumstances, and, it is difficult to acknowledge, that many of us need to give-up some of our privileges and advantages, in order to help others achieve and advance.

True, we can not accept as just and equitable the fact, that our efforts to help and educate the poor are rewarded with armed insurrection and an attempt to separate us from our possessions and privileged conditions. The privileged have a sense of justice as well, just as the poor, and, it is not justified to consider the privileged and rich as our arch-enemies, unless they fail to recognise the principles of justice and essential equality, after a long and patient period of negotiation, persuasion and explanation.

Let us not impose, quickly, our particular concepts of justice on everyone else, but, let us search, diligently, patiently, and logically, for a persuasive way of looking at generally acceptable concepts of justice and human dignity; for rich and poor alike. We can only hope to persuade the privileged people to share their good fortunes with us, if we acknowledge, that they will get defensive when threatened with force or violence. Let us never forget, that there are many people of good-will and compassionate concern amongst those who are privileged, and, let us not forget that they are human beings, just like the rest of us, who will react defensively, if they are challenged, without understanding why this is happening to them.

I agree, that, many of the privileged will not even listen or consider any idea or philosophy that suggests the slightest challenge to their right to hold-on to these privileged conditions, but, let us not underestimate, what careful arguments, logical explanations, and gentle, but sustained pressures can do to make them listen, and, gradually, accept a more enlightened outlook on life.

Everyone has the ability to learn and listen, especially, when young and idealistic. Let us not spoil the chance to win the support of the privileged for a just and comprehensive way of looking at social relationships, by adopting an attitude of hatred and contempt for a class that is held responsible for all the injustices, misery and oppression of our societies. Let us not forget, how easy it is to become perpetrators of injustice and oppression ourselves, especially, if we trample upon the rights and sensibilities of privileged and powerful people, in a hasty, revolutionary commitment to bring radical reforms to our social environment.

We have to start with the search for a consensus, together with the construction of a communications network that lets us discuss these problems on a truly global scale. We will have to outline a rather specific set of conditions and circumstances we all can accept as fair and just, but, we also have to agree amongst ourselves, that we can not change the criteria of fairness and justice arbitrarily to suit our particular vision of how we would like to live. For example, we can not allow a spiral of rising expectations to shift, artificially and disastrously, our sense of justice towards a state of ever more frantic consumption, while ignoring the consequences of such a shift in attitude for other societies, or future generations.

We have to base our sense of justice on living conditions that can be obtained by all the members of mankind, without dangerously exhausting or polluting the environment. We have to go back to the basics, and, we have to state categorically, that each human being has the right to sufficient nutrients to sustain one's body and mind in a state of good health. These rights are granted on the basis of having been born a human being, but, the acceptance of a right has to be linked to the acceptance of an obligation; the obligation of every human being, who is healthy and well, to help, whenever possible, or, when asked to do so. We all have an obligation to help with the distribution of these basic rights to all the peoples of the world.

Together with the right to be healthy and free from hunger, and, to receive essential physical and psychological sustenance, we visualise a package of services ensuring a basic standard of medical and educational facilities for every human being, so that everyone has the opportunity of access to all important information. This should give each human being a chance to receive, at least, a basic education, that will, eventually, be standardised on a global scale.

True, before we can agree amongst ourselves, what to teach our children, we have to agree amongst ourselves, how to interpret reality. It should be possible, in the next few generations, to adopt a perception of reality that lets us see, how futile the search for an absolute reality, really is, and, how we can reconcile the religious and scientific interpretations of reality, if we keep in mind, that, all our conscious imagery, as well as our subconscious motivations, have been developed as a result of our exstential requirements.

Here, we have a chance to agree, because it is not so difficult to acknowledge, that we all need to eat to be healthy, and, that we all have to be educated, before we can understand. We should be able to agree amongst ourselves, that we all have a drive to become someone; that we like to develop, at least, some of our potentials; that we want to know something about other people, and, that we want to know, to what extent other people live and think differently.

Is it really so difficult to agree amongst ourselves, that it is natural to become suspicious and defensive, if we see, that other people try to exploit our efforts, or, if they live a life of privilege and luxury that is not available to us? Is it so difficult to understand, that we all are caught in a spiral of rising expectations, if we allow a small segment of the population to live in ostentatious luxury and a consumerist abundance? Is it really so surprising to state, that, people would be able to trust each other much more, if they could see, what everyone is doing? If we can scrutinise each other's actions, plans and sources of income, we have a much better chance to judge, whether or not someone's privileges are justified and based on merit.

You see, this is one of the crucial points to understand. We all want an equal opportunity in life to make something of ourselves, but, we do not resent it, if some of us achieve great things, while most of us accomplish only modest goals and objectives. We like to have people we can look-up to; we need our heroes to inspire us to exemplary behaviour, as well as a measure of guidance and self-discipline. We do not mind, if someone is famous, adulated or influential, but, we want to be able to verify, at all times, that this position of privilege is justified and earned, and, we do not think that it is necessary for children and grand-children to profit from their achievements.

Similarly, we will look-down upon those, who violate the accepted code of social and individual conduct, as well as those who accept their rights but not their duties. This is a natural form of justified discrimination, and, if most of us could honestly believe, that the guidelines of society are essentially right and just, we would all participate with enthousiasm in their maintenance.

Now, most of us are confused. We do not know, what, or whom, to believe. We do not believe in our work, because, so often, we can not see any sense or value in it. We do not even want to work, because we see that others, just as healthy as ourselves, are receiving some sort of hand-out and live just as well, without doing any useful work at all. We see, that most jobs and many privileges are obtained by "knowing the right people", and, we know, that we can only get justice, if we have money enough to pay a good lawyer.

We do not believe in saving, because inflation robs us, constantly, of the buying-power of our savings, and, we do not believe in paying taxes, because we see, how governments waste money, and, how bureaucrats draw large salaries without accomplishing anything worthwhile. We are suspicious about big business, because prices are rising all the time, and, we see the ostentatious life-style of their executives. We are fearful of the labour-unions, because they have come into the hands of professional managers, who get their salaries, regardless, whether we are on strike or not. We are suspicious, that many strikes are precipitated, either, by the need of union-leaders to chalk-up another victory over a powerful company, or, because the company is over-stocked and could use a period of being shut-down without having to pay its workers.

We can not get information about the people, who own most of the land around us. We do not know how much they pay in taxes; how people are hired or fired; what profits are being made, or, what incomes the professionals and executives enjoy. We are suspicious, and, we fear being squeezed by inflation and rising prices. We are being exploited from all sides. Everyone is after our money. The price of housing is rising steeply, taxes go up, our cars are getting more expensive, and labour costs are out of sight. We can not afford to hire people to do work for us, and, many of us feel trapped and poor, in spite of an affluent life-style and a large income.

"How can we even begin to argue about what is fair? How can we begin to discuss a philosophy of life, or a consensus in reality perception? How can we begin to promote transparence and mutual trust, if the tensions of suspicion and the lure of opportunism are still rising all the time? If I do not hold-on, anxiously, to everything I have, I may wind-up with nothing! You must be out of your mind, if you think, that we are willing to go back to only the bare essentials of sufficient nutrition and a basic education. Why people starve in other areas or nations is none of our business. They have independent countries, as well as their own leaderships. Look at the corruption and incompetence of the powerful elites of these poor countries. Look at the callous attitudes of many of leaders towards their own people. Look at the way so many become rich while others starve. Look at the way many unscrupulous leaders come to power".

"It is a long litany of military take-overs, executions, graft and oppression. We have been saturated with appeals to help the poor. We are fed-up with these appeals, because we think, that the greatest part of our donations goes to the pockets of corrupt officials. Look at the millions and millions of dollars we have spent on "foreign aid". What has come of it? Starvation is, probably, even more wide-spread, now, than before all this aid. We do not believe, that there is any need to help the poorer nations, as long as there are so many poor and disadvantaged people in our own societies. As long as we are not convinced, that aid and contributions are really going to make a difference in the suffering and misery of the poor, we will pressure our politicians to cut-back the level of foreign aid".

The tone is bitter, but the complaints are justified, in many ways, and, these arguments show, how suspicious we have become, and, rightly so, because, indeed, all our efforts of good-will seem to drown in a sea of inertia, inefficiency and corruption. Yet, our despair is also a sign of our own inertia, and, we all know, subconsciously, that most of the affluent nations of today are decaying and will fragment sooner or later, either, by weakening inner tensions, or, by a swift and efficient take-over from the outside.

Let us agree, then, that we can not take our affluent societies as a model for a future, healthy, stable and just social environment, but, we should not discard all the fruits of affluent civilisations, either. We should have a good look at some of the more beneficial and hopeful trends and products of these societies. Perhaps, one of the most valuable ideas of our affluent societies, is the concept of popular representation in the leadership, together with its legislative institutions, in spite of the fact, that the forces of capital accumulation always undermine the principles of true democratic representation.

In spite of the disastrous commercialisation of our societies, we have, by and large, held-on to the concept that a leadership should represent the people, and, that it should be re-elected at regular intervals. This principle is the basis for future societies as well, but, it has to be elaborated a great deal, because we see, how our present governments are unable to cope with the complex tasks required to maintain a large society in a state of good health.

Government channels are clogged by the existential anxieties of the bureaucrats, as well as by the pressures of influential lobby-groups, but, if, and when, we learn to wed the principles of popular representation with computerised communication-links and information gathering processes, we may see a leadership come to the fore that is again abreast of what is going on, and, we may see a leadership in action that has a firm grasp over the total inventories of resources, peoples, problems and other important happenings and events.

Only with the help of the modern computer has it become technically possible to categorise and manipulate the numerous aspects of a complex society, which have to be accessible and well ordened, before sensible, definitive and comprehensive decisions can be made, because these decisions will rest upon the accuracy and completeness of the information that is available. In addition, computerised information services will enable our leaderships, as well as every member of society, to monitor, constantly, in a comprehensive manner, what is going-on, and, it will allow us to diagnose potentially dangerous and undesirable trends and developments, before they have done any harm.

Modern technology has brought, not only, the ideals of global communication, education and comprehensive information into the realm of realistic objectives, but, we are now increasingly aware of the fact, that the ability to provide every human being with decent living conditions, is only possible, if we make a concerted effort to do so with the help of all sophisticated technological instruments at our disposal.

We will need large, mechanised production processes to grow sufficient food, and, to make sufficient consumer goods in order to provide this basic package of health and education to every individual. Only an informed "collective will", together with an intelligent application of a global network of information and technology, will elevate this simple concept of a universal human dignity from the realm of a naive utopian fantasy into a workable reality.

We need our communication systems to educate ourselves, collect data, and inform the people, but, we do not need our media to tell us about the lure of one luxury or another. Like any other instrument, a technological development, such as the computer, can become a pillar upon which the viability of many nations will rest, or, it may become a highly dangerous and, perhaps, fatal weapon, which destroys our common sense and our collective will, bringing decay and suffering on a global scale.

I am asking you, again; is it so difficult to agree on the simple principle, that we should give each human being a package of basic rights, because this human being has been born into the species of mankind? Is it so difficult to agree, that this package of rights should include, also, a package of balanced obligations? The right to receive adequate nourishment, shelter and education, to live without hunger or fear, and, to have a chance to develop, at least, some potentials, is balanced by the obligation to become aware, and, to remain aware of the fact, that these rights have to be extended to everyone, and, that it is a duty, even, a privilege, to contribute to this process of distributing human rights, whenever possible, or, whenever called-upon.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A few more questions.
Suspicion, ignorance and misunderstandings are the principle factors that sour the atmosphere of openness and good-will.
A chance for everyone to fill belly and mind.
A standardised program of education.
A continuously up-dated profile of society and its members.
People will understand, why openness in our relationships is essential.
Most people show an amazing willingness to give their confidence and trust.
Implications of the concept of essential equality.
A Federation of Regions.
A nearly unavoidable process of alienation.
Problems with contemporary Socialism.
Rule, based on Constitutional Guidelines.
Removing the existential anxiety of "having a job".
A continuous exchange between officials and ordinary members of the public.
A globally integrated Civil Service.
It requires constant care, vigilance and energy to preserve the integrity and health of a social life-form.

You may want to ask me another question; "How do you keep such a spirit of good-will alive, or, do you visualise the motivation of fear to keep people appreciative for the fact, that they have received this basic package of rights and obligations? How do you prevent their expectations from rising? How do you keep the willingness alive to help others? Why would the situation not revert quickly to the way it has always been; a few, rich, privileged and intelligent people are in control of nearly all economic, political and military powers, while the others have let themselves become enslaved to their new over-lords? How are you going to prevent this development, which seems to be nearly inevitable, after a situation of justice and equality has been established?"

Indeed, we need to respond, carefully, to these questions. Let us first answer the question, how we are going to keep and safeguard such an idyllic and ideal situation of global justice, while, in the past, every effort has failed. Only, if it is possible to formulate a satisfactory response to this question, will it make sense to discuss, how we could get there; how the trend toward a situation of gobal equality and justice can be brought-about.

All efforts to maintain a viable and equitable society center around a network of communications and educational facilities. Suspicion and mistrust, ignorance and misunderstanding are the principle factors that will sour an atmosphere of openness and good-will. We have to make sure, that each member of mankind is given the opportunity, and is forced, at least, to some extent, to develop his or her potential for understanding.

This goal may seem highly improbable at a time, when, perhaps, half the world population still lives in sub-standard conditions. We have no idea, what will be possible in the future, if everyone has a chance to fill belly and mind with the proper nutrition. I am convinced, that it is possible, for most people, to grasp the essence of living in the world, of knowing about all the major regions and the different peoples on earth, and, to know the essential factors, that ensure everyone's security and dignity. There is no reason to believe, that it is impossible to cultivate an attitude of global concern in nearly everyone, because these attitudes do not depend upon a highly sophisticated philosophical ability, but, simply, on the type of information and the quality of life that will be available.

If people, all over the world, are educated for twelve years in a program that is nearly identical everywhere, and, if they are taught the reasons, why it is possible for everyone to exist without hunger and unnecessary hardships, it will certainly be possible to feel affinity for those, who live thousands of miles away, but, who can be reached, talked to, or questioned, at the touch of a computer key. Perhaps, our electrical power comes from far-away, or, some essential foods and materials come from many different regions all over the world, while our particular area contributes a small item that is also distributed world-wide.

Even more important is the constant need to cooperate with each other, to protect ourselves from dangerous pollutants, which previous generations have left us in their frantic and irresponsible rush to consume. The peoples of the future will be so much better informed about their problems and possibilities of existence, about what is going-on, and, about what their leaders are planning, that they will be able to avoid, by and large, this paralysing and poisonous attitude of mutual suspicions.

Everyone will have the opportunity to receive high-quality information and complete answers to every possible question, and, if no definitive answer can be obtained, an expert exposition or resumé will be given to explain the current approach or evaluation of a specific problem. No-one has to feel, anymore, that he or she, or any one particular group, is being neglected, because an extensive network of information gathering devices and institutions for the distribution of information, monitors, not only, every significant event on earth, but, it will also register complaints, questions, moods and other psychological parameters.

There will be a total openness in society, and, people will understand, why it is so necessary to have total openness. People will understand, that such a complete transparence in society is necessary to avoid the temptation of hidden privileges or secret advantages. We have to be able to verify, at anytime, whether or not our fellow human beings, including our leaders, are worthy of our trust. If we want to be able to check on everyone else, everyone else will have to be able to check on us. This is simple logic, and these conclusions will become widely accepted as "common-sense".

Such a society is only possible, if a gigantic effort has been made to construct a network of computerised channels, gathering and dispensing information. The level of education and comprehension of each citizen in the world will depend on it, and, the level of trust and the satisfaction of the sense of justice depend on it as well. A successful organisation of this communications network is the prime requirement for a stable and happy society, because, if we all know, that we shoulder, equally, the burdens of shortages, hard work, or, restrictions in one field or another, we will be glad to shoulder these burdens and hardships. We may even be willing to shoulder these hardships to the point, that we are willing to go somewhat hungry, for a while.

However, if we can only suspect, that others are profiting from our sacrifices and hard work, our attitudes will change radically; from a spirit of good-will, cooperation and joyful vitality, to disappointment, suspicion and outright hatred. Therefore, this seemingly incredible network of communications is essential to create the necessary conditions of openness, mutual trust and good-will, and, without these attitudes being present on a global scale, extended towards every group of people on earth, we do not have the slightest chance to maintain a situation of essential equality and global justice.

Do not dismiss these ideas as ridiculous or utopian, because we know, that the atmosphere of good-will and cooperation in a small group is based upon mutual trust and confidence in the leadership. We also know, that the people, who work happily and full of enthousiasm in such small groupings, do not have, as a rule, such stringent criteria for giving their trust, neither do they have the technological means, or the conceptual clarity, to organise such a rigorous system of checks and balances; to see, whether or not their trust is justified. Many people show an amazing willingness to give their confidence and trust, in the hope, and the expectation, that their trust will not be abused.

If it is possible for so many people to give their trust and confidence without adequate safeguards, how much easier will it be, when we can check-out, at any time, whether or not our attitudes of trust and good-will are justified?

We have to come to an agreement with each other about the conditions of justice, as well as the definition of a dignified human existence. We have to accept the fact, that there are no more goods and services than we have provided for. We have to realise, that there is nothing more disastrous for our sense of justice and trustful attitudes of good-will, than to see, or hear, that some people are starting to live a little better and a little more privileged.

We may think, that such an attitude of watching each other closely for slight differences in income or privileges, is childish, and, we may believe, that we should out-grow such an attitude. This is wrong, and, it shows an erroneous conception of human nature. We have to acknowledge, that the basic reason for adopting an attitude of good-will and trust towards other people, is the principle, that a social organisation should benefit all participants equally. In a global contract of essential equality, it is essential, that such an equality of benefits and burdens is maintained with the utmost precision.

Our drive to egocentric orientation is strong, much stronger, than the drive and willingness to cooperate with each other. We have to have a clear concept of the fragility, as well as the importance, of this commodity of good-will and mutual trust, and, we have to do everything in our powers to keep these attitudes alive, because on these pillars rests the entire structure of the global society, or, a "Federation of Regions".

If we do not take every precaution to let the attitude of cooperation prevail over our instincts of egocentric preservation, we will destroy the global society. We have to recognise, how fragile and labile these attitudes of good-will are, and, we have to acknowledge, that they require constant vigilance and protection in order to survive. Let us make no mistake; these are the really important concerns. These concerns are far more important than the question of technological development, standard of living or consumption, or, the details of bureaucratic and economic organisation.

Not even the Socialist governments of today know, how to avoid this subtle process of gradual alienation between the people and their governments, and, we see the curious spectacle, that a government that has arisen from a worker-uprising against the elite, is considered "foreign" or estranged from the interests of the working classes. We see, then, the ironic demands for "free" trade-unions, unfettered by government controls, whenever a general strike threatened to paralyse a Socialist country and invoked the risk of foreign intervention.

We will not discuss, here, whether or not the workers were justified in demanding their free trade-unions. Let us only point to the anachronism or conceptual inconsistency of such a demand in a Socialist society, where, supposedly, the government was already a government of the people, and, in particular, a government of the woring classes. We only use this example as an indication, that it is, indeed, very difficult to avoid a gradual alienation between the people and their governments, especially, in complex societies.

How are we going to avoid such an alienation, when we deal with even much larger and much more complex societies that have become integrated on a global scale? Again, the answer is to nip any development of suspicion, resentment and alienation in the bud. We see, indeed, that, even, the most idealistic Socialist or Communist governments become elitist and corrupt in their functions and attitudes, in particular, when a single political Party dominates life completely, and prevents truly free discussions and frank criticisms.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see a process of alienation between governments and their peoples come to the fore, and, it seems of little importance, what kind of social doctrines the government adheres to. Any government that does not allow truly democratic elections, free and open discussions of all problems, as well as a regular check on its performance and popularity by free and fair elections from a genuine political spectrum, will find itself in the role of a dictator or oppressor, regardless, how good its intentions are, or were.

Certainly, it is understandable, that concerned Socialist leaderships fear chaos, as well as the emotional manipulation of the masses by clever dissenters, (including the ruthless appeal to egocentric instincts by a variety of commercial interests), but, we have to accept the fact, that we can not suppress these tendencies by force or censure. Any attempt to suppress dissenting view-points, or, to ostracise a different way of life, only exerts a powerful lure and grows in an atmosphere of oppression.

Let us combat the lure of egocentric gain by education, as well as a complete openness in society and all government institutions. The only way to avoid a defensive elitism by a ruling Party or organisation, is to make all transactions completely open to scrutiny, and, to make sure, that a leadership has access to all events and happenings that are taking place in society.

There are other important safeguards we can introduce to prevent a disastrous process of alienation between social groupings, in particular, between a leadership and its people. Total transparence in all aspects of society is a gigantic and radical change, which will certainly be the main mechanism to preserve trust, but, such a gigantic change will come slowly, and, perhaps, in a rather fragmented and haphazard manner.

There are other mechanisms, such as the rule by Constitutional Guidelines, rather than by personal initiatives. Our leaders and public institutions will be guided, in the future, by a set of detailed guidelines and regulations that have been worked-out collectively. These guidelines will determine the range of actions and decisions our leaderships can carry-out, and, they will also govern the way these Constitutional Guidelines can be changed, amended or reformed in a process of slow, evolutionary change.

By removing the existential anxieties associated with "having a job", all leaderships and bureaucratic functions become "fluid" positions, which are not occupied by any one person for the duration of an entire career. Here, I think, we have another important way to avoid the processes of alienation between bureaucrats and ordinary people, because all positions of leadership and expertise should be rotated, often, but not haphazardly. Undoubtedly, many functions are going to require extensive experience, as well as a high level of competence and expertise, and, perhaps, the people will be happy to see a trusted individual occupy this position, year after year, but, let us give the people a chance to make this decision through a process of elections, renewing the mandates of trusted leaders and their officials.

Besides, many junior positions are not dependent upon a specific degree of expertise or experience, and, it should be possible for most or nearly all people in society to occupy a position of some responsibility, some form of leadership, at one time or another during their life-time. If we accomplish a continuous intermingling between ordinary citizens and "government officials", we will, eventually, make any distinction or polarisation between a government and ordinary citizens, meaningless.

We have discussed and outlined, before, how all young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two, upon completion of their secondary schooling, should be organised into a globally integrated Civil Service or Task-Force, where they are exposed to most of the major prolems and Regions of the world. Because the human being is then physically at its most active and dynamic stage, it seems reasonable to use this age-group for most of the hard physical work that has to be done.

All societies, Regions and communities will benefit from the assistance and labours of these young people in the Civil Task-Force, but, we should keep in mind, that the primary reason for such a task-force is educational. We have to give our young people a wide exposure to the peoples of the world, as well as the problems of contemporary existence. Their hard, demanding labours, together with the chance to intermingle with a large variety of ethnic and cultural groupings, should make it possible to create a sphere of concern and a feeling of understanding and familiarity, which will seem utopian and dream-like in our present sphere of narrow, egocentric concerns.

It is possible, technically as well as psychologically, to prevent alienation between people and groups of people, regardless, whether it is a process of alienation between individuals or small groupings, between larger societies, or, between peoples and their governments. However, let us not assume, that, success means a complete absence of tensions, hostilities and suspicions, because the ideal situation will always be a condition we have to work towards. In a way, this optimum stage of human relationships is just as fragile, and just as constantly in need of repair, as the cell that is experiencing a continuous influx of unwanted ions and fluids across its semi-permeable membrane.

The cell requires continuous vigilance and an on-going energy-expenditure in order to avoid a dangerous level of chaos and deterioration for the mechanisms of life, brought-about by the biochemical togetherness of complex organic-chemical sequences. It is not surprising or illogical to see, that the social life-form is subject to the same needs and requirements as any other living organisation.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The temptation to engage in egocentric opportunism, fraud or deception will always be with us.
We have to rely on education, understanding and transparence to promote the fragile attitudes of good-will.
We have to be firm with criminal behaviour.
A lax attitude towards crime represents a form of injustice.
A definition of criminal behaviour.
To understand does not mean a vacillating judgement of right and wrong.
Compassion does not mean a week-kneed attitude towards criminal behaviour.
The ability to admit having made mistakes.
The ability to discuss options in the perception of reality.
A free distribution of ideas and concepts.
A few practical suggestions.
Becoming aware of the jungle of egocentric motivations and efforts.
The responsibilities of good citizenship.
Resisting the trends towards protectionism.
People have to be ready for the global society.
The arbitrariness of national boundaries.
No quick insights and promising trends, but, neither should we believe that the globally integrated society will always remain a dream.

The temptation to practice egocentric opportunism, fraud or deception will always be with us, and, man is not going to turn into a saint of good-will and altruistic feelings, without some powerful incentives to do so. We have to acknowledge, that, altruism and concern for others, is, in essence, based upon a contract; a social contract, where we adopt, consciously or subconsciously, a mode of vulnerable inter-dependencies, with the understanding, that the burdens and benefits of such a way of life are distributed with scrupulous fairness and equality.

While we rely, primarily, on education, understanding and openness to promote this fragile attitude of good-will, we will have to have firm and efficient mechanisms to deal with criminal behaviour. If we do not have efficient and just mechanisms to investigate, judge and punish criminal behaviour, the sense of justice will again be jeopardised.

We do not advocate an attitude of vengeance, where the sense of justice is satisfied with a personal act of retribution for wrong-doings, but, we do advocate a swift and complete reaction to criminal behaviour-patterns. If criminal behaviour is not punished immediately, people will see that crime pays, and the road towards an egocentric orientation will again be exerting its powerful lure.

Criminal behaviour is, in essence, behaviour, that seeks to gain, deliberately and systematically, a personal advantage at the expense of someone else. We should not necessarily consider an impulsive anti-social outburst, provoked by frustration, as a criminal act, without assessing the underlying causes for such an outburst, which may have been brought-about by an affront to someone's sense of justice or dignity. Perhaps, such an outburst was provoked by the carelessness and neglect of government policies or institutions. In such a case, we will forgive the wrong-doer, especially, when a feeling of regret or repentance shows, that the individual has acknowledged, that his actions and attitudes have injured the rights of other people.

All fraud, deception or outright opportunism, as well as deliberate infringements upon the basic rights of other people, have to be considered criminal acts, and, they should be taken seriously, regardless, whether these criminal acts are committed by individuals, groups of people, or government officials. We will not repeat, here, the ideas behind the definition and treatment of criminal behaviour, except to say, that criminal behaviour is, either, corrected in a process of treatment and rehabilitation, or, if judged incorrigeable, the perpetrator will be eliminated from society. This could mean, in some instances, the death-penalty. No society can exist efficiently without invoking the death-penalty, at least, from time to time, but, we are right, if we are hesitant about using this ultimate penalty, and, we owe it to ourselves, as well as every member in society, to make sure, that, indeed, justice is served and not affronted, when the death-penalty is carried-out.

Let us re-iterate, here, that mere verbal dissent is never a crime, regardless, how erroneous the ideas, or, how repulsive a philosophy may seem, but, as soon as verbal dissent is coupled with actions that distort the situation of justice, then, dissent becomes a criminal act, and, it will have to be treated as such. To be understanding does not mean a vacillation in the judgement between right and wrong, and, compassion does not mean a weak-kneed or uncertain attitude towards the problems of criminal behaviour.

Often, agonising appraisals have to be made when trying to judge, whether or not a certain action has become criminal and endangers the inalienable basic rights of people. It is clear, that we will always need a cool head, constant attention to details, as well as an ever-present willingness to learn and re-evaluate. We need an efficent decision-making and executive mechanism, monitoring, carefully, the effects of our individual and collective decisions, in order to determine, whether or not intentions and results correspond closely.

Let us never be afraid to admit our mistakes, and, let us never be afraid to abandon an action, which does not seem to have the intended effects, but, let us also not be afraid to make drastic and fundamental decisions, whenever we know that they have to made. Let us always be on our guard against patch-work decisions and actions that fail to come to grips with the real problems, and, let us guard, closely, against the temptation to gloss-over the importance of embarrassing information or difficult questions for which there are no easy answers.

Transparence in society will help us avoid these pitfalls, because it will be nearly impossible to suppress information, push a biased view, or to avoid embarrassing questions. You may ask me, however, whether it is indeed possible to rest the structure of a future society of mankind on such seemingly simplistic principles of justice, equality and dignity, including a number of practical measures, regulations, institutions, a complex network of computers and communication links, as well as transport facilities for goods, services, electrical power and people. Do we not need a far more elaborate description of departments, parliaments, organisations, as well as methods of election and representation, before we can even begin to form an idea, how we have to put-together such a global society?

We have discussed, on previous occasions, more specifically, how a global society could or should be organised, and, it seems more important, here, to outline and emphasise the main mechanisms that play such an essential role in the formation of the necessary, beneficial attitudes.

Without a genuine and lasting willingness to come to an attitude of cooperation and trust by an overwhelming majority of the peoples on earth, no amount of organisational planning is going to help us. However, if we really understand the mechanisms of good-will and cooperation, and, if we are able to communicate meaningfully with each other, then, the structural organisation necessary to implement the visualised and agreed-upon changes, as well as the safeguards for a continuation of the conditions of good-will and cooperation, will suggest themselves. They will come to the fore as tools that are not difficult to conceive, construct and put to good use.

The primary task, then, centers around the ability to discuss a number of options in the perception of our realities, especially, the understanding of human nature and goal-patterns. Just to accomplish the global spread of an atmosphere of cooperation and a willingness to discuss and exchange views, will seem a monumental departure from the ever more anxious and egocentric clamoring by vocal and strident special-interest groupings. To secure the free distribution of ideas and concepts that may challenge established view-points and the institutions of autocratic rule, is already a task, that may require more than one generation to accomplish.

After we have made a start with the creation of an atmosphere, where people are, again, willing to think and to listen to each other, we should start to think, seriously, about the computer networks we are going to need to construct a preliminary inventory of human and natural resources, as well as the problems of ecological stress and social disparities. Initially, these efforts will have to depend upon private initiatives and resources, and, they can, therefore, not even begin to resemble the type of network a truly comprehensive system of information gathering and distribution eventually needs. Eventually, we may be able to convince governments to collect data more comprehensively with a scholarly objectivity, but, until the time that leaderships will have accepted these ideas wholeheartedly, it will be up to private individuals and groupings to begin the process of constructing this global network of communication links and computerised information services.

An increasing efficiency in data-gathering and -processing, as well as the gradual acceptance of the ideals of a more open society, will already represent a giant step forwards, because it will expose leaderships and governments that have something to hide. It will high-light those leaderships which have not been elected democratically, or, which practice nepotism, favouritism and corruption.

It should be possible, in the next few decades, to make public opinion aware of the fact, that leaderships and governments should be elected in a process of fair and free elections, and, it is, perhaps, possible to put sufficient international pressure upon governments without a broadly-based popular support, to make them more responsive to the needs and wishes of their own peoples.

At the same time, we have to make people aware of the dangers, when free, democratic elections become a jungle of egocentric power-struggles. Democratic elections have to be linked with the insight, that the elected leadership has to lead and govern for the sake of society as a whole, as well as the benefit of every member. We have to acknowledge the fact, that we imperil the existence of free and democratic institutions, if they become paralysed by internal strife and ceaseless competitive activities. If a democracy deteriorates into chaos, the level of injustice and frustration rises so high, that a take-over by one segment or another becomes inevitable, and, the forceful suppression of dissenting opinions, becomes, once again, an inevitable course of events.

The mechanisms of popular representation, as well as the rising influence of the people on the leadership, have to be coupled with an awareness of the responsibilities of good citizenship. We have to impress upon all people, that it is unfair and unjust to demand more than one's fair share, and, any pressure to obtain such an unfair distribution of the benefits of society, alienates other groupings, and sets into motion this nearly irreversible process of tension and resentment, sharpening everyone's egocentric instincts.

Therefore, the practice of special-interest groupings, lobbies, be it labour, industry, professionals or bureaucrats, lobbying for their particular interests, will have to be phased-out and declared unconstitutional. The behaviour of special-interest groupings, regardless, how much their origins can be justified on historical grounds, tends to distort the relationships of justice and democratic equality, because these lobbies can, by virtue of their disruptive practices upon society, acquire a level of influence that goes far beyond their democratic strength, and tends to accentuate the discrepancies between the various groupings within society.

For similar reasons, we have to condemn the claim to jurisdiction or ownership of any one particular resource or territory on the basis that the peoples in a nation, or a region, have traditionally enjoyed this right to ownership. All resources, all possibilities of existence, as well as all the burdens of hard work, responsible behaviour-patterns and clean-up efforts, have to be shared fairly and equally by all peoples on earth, and, the more we think about such a drastic principle of essential equality, the more inescapable such a conclusion becomes.

Let us resist the temptation to solve problems by local measures only. Let us resist solutions within a sphere of concern that incorporates only our own society, because such a solution is nothing more than a pseudo-solution. It is not really a solution at all, because it shifts, nearly always, an additional burden of unfairness and injustice upon other peoples, in another society, or, to a future generation.

Look at the practice of protecting a local or national industry whenever it is threatened by foreign competition. It seems reasonable and logical, at first sight, to restrict imports from foreign competitors in an effort to protect our own industries, but, then, is this not one of the fairest ways to promote a more equal distribution of the wealth and assets all over the world?

If others can make a product more economically, we should acknowledge, that these people are, then, willing to work harder for less money. The only restriction we should place on the free competition between various countries and societies, (as a temporary and transitional stage in the evolution towards an integrated world-society), is the condition that the profits are, indeed, shared fairly amongst the peoples, and are not increasing the wealth of a small elite, nor, should these goods have been made through forced labour of one sort or another.

We should indeed watch carefully for the possibility, that cheap labour is possible because workers are working under conditions of exploitation. We should not insist, however, that they have to earn as much as we do, because we may earn much more than is justified. We should make sure, that the willingness to work hard and provide a good product for a reasonable price, results in benefits that are fairly distributed over the entire population.

Obviously, the change towards a more equitable and just world-society has to come in small and graduated steps, and, it has to come with common consent. No-one can force a world-order, if the people are not ready for it, but, here and there, an obstinate pocket of entrenched resistance by an egocentric, exploitative minority, may have to be "persuaded" to yield, with a little pressure.

In our present times, we seem to move into the opposite direction, as the competition for the remaining resources and territories of the high seas and the earth's poles is heating-up to a shameless grab for the largest slice and the biggest profits. Our attitudes of egocentric concern and anxious defensiveness seem to be increasing, rather than diminishing, as many of the nations are experiencing severe tensions and pressures from restless, frustrated groups inside their national boundaries.

Perhaps, this trend is unavoidable, and, it may help to bring the hidden tensions and injustices into the open, because, undoubtedly, most nations have been forged by the sword of the conqueror, and, most nations have diverse ethnic groupings that exist, rarely, in a relationship of equality and harmony with each other.

Ironically, the common wisdom, so popular at this time, that the sovereignty of each nation is sacrosanct, has diverted the attention away from conflicts between countries, and, this trend has given rise to the possibility for powerful minorities to raise their voice and register their discontent. Perhaps, this adjustment of internal tensions within nations will help to define, and sharpen, the concepts of sovereignty and independence, essential equality, as well as the balance between rights and obligations.

Perhaps, the arbitrariness of national boundaries and claims to national sovereignty and independence, will become more obvious, as we contemplate the shrill contrasts between the rich and poor. We see, increasingly, that the polarisation between the rich and the poor represents an unavoidable and irreversible chain of events, which takes place, whenever there is corruption, secrecy, non-democratic government, or the monopoly of a small, wealthy and well-organised elite.

The present rise in militancy and anxiety, as well as the clamor of belligerent attitudes and suspicious accusations that can be heard in so many places, may lead to a severe confrontation between groups of people, or, even, entire nations, and, perhaps, we will then recognise, once again, the need to cooperate, and, to institute really effective measures to ensure that a condition of equality, justice, frugality and common-sense, endures.

Perhaps, we will recognise, then, once again, the dangers of secret dealings, the emergence of a new elite, the resurgence of corruption, as well as the demise of justice and essential equality. We can not expect to see insights and results come quickly to the fore, but, neither do we have to despair and believe, that such changes in attitude and insight will never come-about, and will remain, forever, an impossible dream.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

One more important question.
Keeping the Constitutional Guidelines relevant for successive generations.
The problems of boredom and complacency.
Reasons for the disappearance of relevance from a code of conduct.
A poor example of egocentric militancy.
Becoming responsible world-citizens.
No mass-production of a stereo-typed personality, but no uncontroled freedom or undisciplined personality formation, either.
Satisfying the criteria of justice.
Our sphere of concern will stretch to the outer limits of awareness.
A profile of man's personality in the future.
Changing direction, at least once, during one's career.
Authentic images of the past.
We still have problems coming to grips with historical events.
In the future, we will have a much better grip over the past.
There will be nothing left of contemporary ignorance and carelessness.
There will always be some tensions.
The judgement of having reached a state of global justice and integration will always be debatable and somewhat arbitrary.

Let us address, in the final pages of this essay, one more important question. You may have concluded, that it is likely, or, at least, probable, that people will forget the need to remain cooperative and integrated, especially, if it would have been possible to create a condition of near flawless justice and essential equality. Man forgets quickly, when born into a privileged situation of global equality and justice, and, it is necessary, therefore, to safeguard these conditions carefully.

The citizens of the global society are likely to become bored and restless, just as we see, how a privileged generation, born into affluence and luxury in a contemporary society, becomes restless, bored and irresponsible in its behaviour. How, then, are we going to prevent an attitude of boredom and complacency? How are we going to keep the need for togetherness, cooperation and stringent safeguards alive, when people have never known what it means to live under conditions of injustice, misery and oppression?

"Is not one of the crucial problems in human behaviour the fact, that we forget, so quickly, and, that we tear, so easily, a social fabric apart, which may have taken generations to build? How are you going to keep these awarenesses alive? How are you going to keep the cultural and Constitutional Guidelines relevant for successive generations, living in nearly ideal circumstances?"

We have defined boredom as the pressure of a healthy elan vital, which manifests itself, primarily, in young people, who do not know, how to channel their energies into useful and meaningful avenues. Existing channels may have lost their meaning, because the accepted beliefs and codes of behaviour may have lost their relevance in a process of "ageing".

Codes of behaviour, belief structures, customs and mores are all inherited from previous generations, and, if these cultural structures and guidelines were suitable for a vigorous, hard working generation that was still in the process of building-up a nation, finding a measure of security or dominating and conquering their neighbours or a tough environment, then, these cultural guidelines and contents may, indeed, lose their relevance for a generation that is born into affluence, especially, if this generation does not see any need to work hard, has plenty of time, opportunities and means to experiment with all sorts of novel life-styles, and, if it does not see any sense in dominating or conquering someone else.

Indeed, there is always this problem for a society that has finally become successful and vigorous. The code of conduct which made this success possible, loses, slowly but inevitably, its relevance in times of success, because this code usually imposes rather stringent criteria of behaviour and curbs the trends towards egocentric diversification, emphasising, in stead, the virtues of hard work, frugality and self-discipline; all features that are unattractive to easy-going, somewhat lazy and spoiled youngsters, who enjoy an abundance of opportunities to pursue the pleasures of leisure and excitement.

It is logical, then, that affluent youngsters become bored with their culture, rebel against un-understood and meaningless dogmas of their parents, and refuse to comply with guidelines that impose restrictions, self-discipline, hard work and a curb on egocentric pleasures. Are we going to face the same problems with the generations born into the globally integrated society, which, after a long struggle, has been able to create a measure of universal equality and justice? Yes, and no.

Indeed, we have to be aware of the very human tendency to forget the struggles of our forefathers, and, to pursue a life of empty pleasures and undisciplined behaviour, but, we should not forget, that such a tendency occurs, only, if the social environment allows such a development to take place.

In our contemporary, affluent societies, we have not appreciated, with sufficient clarity, the great importance, and need, to channel the energies of our young people into useful and meaningful activities. We, the older generations, give them an extremely poor example with our egocentric stridency for ever more pay or profits; with our disregard for the virtues of frugality and hard work, as well as the commercialisation of our life-style and the constant appeal to immediate sensual gratifications. No wonder, our youths are confused, distrustful and disrespectful of the old guard, and, it is not surprising, that they are rebellious against those few individuals, who still try to impose a measure of discipline upon them.

In the society of the future, we hope to have a healthy, coherent and comprehensive philosophy and life-style, whenever this marvelous phenomenon of the first global society of mankind has arrived. We can be sure, that, without such a sophisticated, far-sighted philosophy of life and a far-reaching insight into human psycho-dynamics, such a global society will not come-about. We know, that we have to create the right conditions with our collective will and intelligence, before such a happy event can take place, and, it seems logical to state, that an indispensible element of the development of such a comprehensive philosophy will be the conditions and guidelines that transform the younger generations into responsible world citizens.

This conclusion seems especially appropriate in view of the fact, that the creation of a just society will be taking place over the life-span of many generations. Each generation will have to contribute, with collective and conscious insights, to the viability of the future social organisation, and, every generation will have to contribute to the cultural Constitutional Guidelines to help realise this future society of global integration.

For example, a vigorous program of education, interspersed with practical exposure to the problems of contemporary existence and followed by a compulsory program of Civil Service, will make the first twenty-three years, busy and exciting, but, also, demanding and rewarding. Certainly, there will not be any idling-away of the time in useless, near-criminal activities, but, on the other hand, the life of our youngsters and mature citizens will not be so regimented, that it stunts the processes of individualisation and differentiation.

The cultural and Constitutional Guidelines of the future society will ensure, with great care and precision, that each individual gets an equal chance to develop, at least, a part of his or her potentials. Certainly, we can not allow an unbridled and uncontroled development of potentials, and, the unfolding of potentials and personalities will have to strike a balance between the specific wishes and inclinations of an individual, and, what is possible and fair under the circumstances. We do not visualise the mass-production of a stereo-typed personality, but, neither do we foresee an uncontroled freedom or undisciplined unfolding of the personality.

I am convinced, that the realm of possibilities open to a healthy and ambitious youngster will be wider than we can visualise at the present time, in spite of the many restrictions that will have to be imposed in order to satisfy the criteria of justice and essential equality. After all, the entire world will be the domain of their experiences, and, all youngsters will have been educated at the end of their tour of duty in the Civil Task-Force, to an extent and a depth of understanding we can only dream about, today. The development of a personality will, then, be more varied and more exciting, than at any time in man's history, and, we will have overcome the erroneous beliefs, that social requirements and personal freedoms are essentially incompatible with each other.

No, boredom should not be a problem, because there will be plenty to do. Our activities will, then, not be neurotically pre-occupied with the production of consumer goods, but, we will spend far more time and effort keeping our terrestial environment in a good state of health. We will have to monitor the living conditions of every individual, wherever he or she may be, and, we will have to ensure the gathering and processing of accurate, comprehensive and balanced data, as well as the production of quality foods and other consumer items that are needed to live a healthy and productive life in a state of justice and mutual trust.

We will be much more frugal in our consumptive habits than we are at the present time, but, in the realm of education, knowledge, awareness and the appreciation of arts, sports and other human achievements, we will be far more advanced and thoughtful than we are now. Our personalities will not be very different from the way we are now, but, we will have a much greater insight into the structure of our personality. We will understand, better, the need to control our emotions and appetites, and, we will have a much better insight into the need for an open and trustful social environment. We will have learned to get-by on what we need, and, we will thoroughly appreciate a little extra, whenever, after long debate and deliberation, we have collectively decided, that it is prudent to raise our level of consumption slightly, over the entire world.

Our sphere of concerns will stretch easily to the outer limits of the human society, just as it stretches, now, to include our family and friends. Most of us will be able to discuss a large variety of topics with a calm and broadly based comprehension, looking at the aspects of reality from all sides. We will be fit, lean and patient people, well informed and controled, inclined to trust everyone, but, quick to point-out an erroneous or superficial way of looking at a particular happening or event.

In spite of many similarities, we will all be different from each other. Some of us will be more emotional than others, and, we will all have special fortitudes and weaknesses. It would be a mistake to see ourselves, in the future, as a society of cool and dispassionate intellectuals, in spite of the fact, that we will be far more capable of discussing problems than we are now. This capability will have developed for the simple reason, that, so many of our decisions will require an extensive and informed debate, because these decisions will have to be made collectively. Such a debate is much easier to accomplish in the future, because we all will be drawing upon the same pools of computerised information.

After the period of Civil Service, people will, either, go back to the area they came from, or, they will be given an opportunity to specialise and occupy a position of prominence and leadership, in one field of expertise or another. At all times, peoples of the future will avoid boredom, and, an individual will not be kept too long in a particular position or function. At the same time, people will also avoid complacency, as well as the heady feelings of power, or the mistaken conviction that one is irreplaceable.

Similarly, the peoples of the future will be watching, carefully, anyone, who occupies a position of responsibility, and, people will make sure that leaders and public personalities are not placed under too severe a strain. We should encourage the possibility to change direction, at least, once during a career, so that one retains a flexible mind and a broad view of reality, even, when getting older.

The tasks of society will be organised in such a way, that we utilise the natural life-cyle of the human being. We will tap the incredible energies and vitality of young and adolescent people, and, we will give the most demanding tasks of responsibility to those, who are in their period of vigorous maturity, while a still healthy individual may be promoted to an advisory role or specialist function, when getting older and less flexible. We have discussed these ideas before, and, we will not repeat them, here, only to assure you, that, young people, as well as everyone else in the future societies of mankind will be usefully occupied, and, we do not have to fear, that there will be nothing to do.

There is a special technique of education that will give the peoples of the future a much better insight into contemporary problems. This method or technique will also be helpful to remind us about the dangers of becoming careless and complacent. As an integral part of the comprehensive, computerised systems of education and information, it will be possible to present every student with an authentic image of the past. Of course, this imagery is a simulated reality, which depends upon a contemporary interpretation of these past realities, but, it seems likely, that our grasp over human affairs, including our studies of historical events, will then be capable of presenting a relevant, interesting, scholarly valid and yet comprehensive picture of this fascinating field of our human past.

At the present time, we still have a great deal of difficulties comprehending the past, and, we seem to have progressed little further than the presentation of a series of chronological facts, whose occurrence is beyond dispute.

Because every event in the past is subject to varying interpretations about the mechanisms of origin and significance, we seem to regress, often, to a monotonous recitation of wars, and the years in which they took place, or, we memorise the time-span of a monarchy, or some other reign of questionable value. Here, at least, the facts of specific events are not disputed, and, we keep silent, or, we show a great deal of hesitation, when trying to interpret the other events of history.

We feel a little more confident, when reviewing the history of our own social environment, including the many conflicts with neighouring peoples and nations. Because of the shared patriotic orientation of the majority, we are, at least, safe from severe criticisms, if we present the history of our nation or society in a patriotic light, and, this technique seems, indeed, to have been adopted in every society.

Certainly, some people make a genuine effort to present history as objectively and as scientifically as possible, but, unfortunately, history becomes, then, hopelessly complex, and, most people lose interest. One of the reasons, why we have difficulties grasping history with scientific view-points and attitudes, lies in the fact, that we look at history, primarily, analytically. While many fascinating and important details are unearthed and described with great skill, it becomes increasingly difficult for a lay-person to see the relevance of this detailed picture, and, it becomes difficult to relate these details to the overall framework of historical events.

We have difficulties seeing the broad, overall lines of history, because we still do not have a clear picture of the human personality, and, we are still confusing the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, with the play and inter-actions of existential requirements and basic human drives, whenever we are trying to comprehend the reasons why a certain historical event took place.

In the future, we will have a much better grasp over our past, because we will know human nature so much better. We will recognise the essential existential elements of human behaviour much more clearly, and, we will also be aware of the great flaws and weaknesses of the human character. This will make it easier for us to watch for those weaknesses and anticipate the occurrence of a trend to forgetfulness or complacency.

We will know, how to keep the memory alive of man's follies of the past, because we will have a vivid and common imagery of this past etched into our minds by the computerised educational aids. Because these images are synthesised according to the best possible, collectively accepted interpretations of our realities, we will have a much more standardised image of history compared to the present time.

The knowledge of history is, at the moment, still a pass-time for the professional teacher and historian, and, he becomes, almost invariably, a specialist in one or other forgotten corner, because, only with such a specialised knowledge can he write the books and articles with which to impress his colleagues and maintain his academic standing.

History will become common knowledge, and, even, if these mental images are re-created in the minds of the living generations, (reflecting, thereby, the interpretations of the present, rather than the past), these images will play a vital role in our daily lives, and, they will function as one of the main guardians against complacency and forgetfulness. They will remind us, how foolish man can become, and, how foolish he has acted in the past. We will, then, be sufficiently aware of the similarities in character and biological make-up between the peoples of the past and the living generations, to appreciate, how easy it is to fall into the same traps of belligerence and egocentric behaviour.

I am not so concerned, anymore, about the problems of complacency and forgetfulness, because we will necessarily have found adequate cultural guidelines to combat these trends, but, perhaps, it is indeed too optimistic to believe, that whole generations will be born into such a utopian or paradise-like existence. First of all, there will be nothing left of the innocence and carefreeness, which we associate with an existence in paradise, because the living generations of the global societies of the future will, undoubtdly, have to be cautious and vigilant, constantly monitoring pollution-levels and watching for sudden exacerbations of the terrestial eco-systems.

Because of chronically high levels of radio-activity and other pollutants, the genetic code may have become unstable, and, the incidence of birth defects may be distressingly high. Many times, the generations of the future will look back to the "good old days", when man could walk freely, wherever he pleased; when he could breathe fresh air in any country-site, and still had large areas of undisturbed nature at his doorstep, rather than in specialised and heavily protected parks.

The conditions of social justice and essential equality may not be perceived by everyone as an unmitigated blessing, and, we can be sure, that there will always be a need, even, in the societies of the future, to enforce the law and round-up criminal elements. Even fairly large populations may try to break-away from the global standards of justice, as they want to live independently from, and without reference to, other societies and other peoples.

Perhaps, we will still see armed conflicts, from time to time, as well as the insurrection of rebellious people, who think to have been wronged, and, probably, on close scrutiny, many of their complaints and motivations will be found to have a kernel of truth. Perhaps, then, the conditions of global justice and essential equality will not be that much different from the conditions we face now, and, perhaps, even, then, many people will shake their heads and ask themselves, anxiously, what the world is coming to.

Perhaps, the ideas and ideals of justice and stability will, then, look as remote as they seem to us now, because a status-quo of achievement is so easily taken for granted within a few generations, just as we take for granted, what we have reached in the way of justice and equality within many of the affluent societies.

Indeed, the judgement of having reached a state of global justice will be debatable, and, even, somewhat arbitrary. In many ways, many problems of today will still have to be faced by the peoples of the future. However, the great disparities and injustices of today will have disappeared, and, the problems will center more on the question, how to maintain this precarious balance of justice, rather than on the question, how to achieve global justice and the inter-dependence of mankind.

.......

Summary

1. Unknown friends.
   A look at the title.
   A number of questions.
   Is it really necessary to integrate on a global scale?
   The ever-recurring choice between competitive strife, and, cooperation on the basis of essential equality.
   Short summaries; "flash-backs" to previous essays.
   An ambitious project.
   The apparent ingratitude of those who have been helped.
   Mechanisms of polarisation.
   We like to close our eyes to the miseries around us.
   Changing social conditions.
   The price of commitment.
   
   
   
2. Entrapment in a condition of social polarisation.
   A strong impulse to fight.
   A sense of inevitability.
   Why is it so difficult to foresee the consequences of violent behaviour?
   To suffer and weep in silence.
   The power of primitive instincts.
   Religious and evolutionary interpretations of our existence.
   The symbiotic harmonies of cellular inter-dependencies.
   A possibility to exist by forming bonds of inter-dependence.
   The essence of a living structure; a rivulet for the dissipation of an energy-gradient.
   A review of the existence possibilities for living organisms.
   The elimination of a rival.
   
   
   
3. We have to accept our animal nature.
   Animals and plants.
   The potential for the faculty of "conscious awareness" finds its origins in existential requirements and evolutionary adaptations.
   Reasons for the evolution of behavioural flexibility.
   Feed-back mechanisms; a method for adapting to changes.
   Back to a gloomy interpretation of human nature.
   How can man be an ethical creature of natural evolution?
   The "socialisation" of the human being.
   Man's behaviour can not be controled, exclusively, by genetically encoded mechanisms; the price of behavioural flexibility.
   A legacy of contradictory trends.
   The twin developments of conceptual mastery and technological innovation.
   Shaping the circumstances and conditions of an event.
   The biological anlage for a multi-centric sphere of concerns.
   Escape mechanisms for early social groupings.
   Entrapment, and the vulnerability of being exploited.
   Territoriality and hierarchical differentiation.
   When a privileged elite starts to lead a life of "luxuries and privileges".
   
   
   
4. A natural sense of justice.
   The ability to test a hierarchical position.
   Absorbing surplus vital energies.
   Inherited advantages and privileges.
   Why the practice of "favouritism" is an affront to our sense of justice.
   Good leaders will always try to avoid the practice of favouritism.
   A vulnerable and thankless position.
   It is so easy to alienate large segments of a population.
   The quality of "feed-back" is difficult to judge.
   Social decay and deteriorating bureaucratic channels.
   Future societies can not afford haphazard methods for the selection or succession of a leadership.
   The role of precisely delineated Constitutional Guidelines.
   The feeling of being "left behind".
   We are constantly manipulating hierarchical positions.
   To impress and to be impressed.
   Why is it so difficult to keep human relationships on an even keel?
   Analysing, carefully and logically, the complexities of human relationships.
   The art of letting-go of privileges and special powers.
   
   
   
5. A divergence of opinion about what is right and wrong.
   Discrepancies between feelings and concepts of justice.
   A patient and diligent search for consensus.
   Every youngster has the ability to listen and learn.
   Practical suggestions for the implementation of social justice.
   Essential equality has to apply, eventually, to a globally integrated social environment.
   The shared legacy of existential requirements.
   Questions.
   The ravages of chaos and confusion.
   The tone is bitter, but the complaints are justified.
   Our contemporary societies of affluence can not serve as a model for the future.
   Distortions of the democratic ideal.
   Creating a condition of transparence with the help of the computer.
   The blessings of an informed "collective will".
   Is it really so difficult to design, implement and maintain a state of justice on a global scale?
   
   
   
6. A few more questions.
   Suspicion, ignorance and misunderstandings are the principle factors that sour the atmosphere of openness and good-will.
   A chance for everyone to fill belly and mind.
   A standardised program of education.
   A continuously up-dated profile of society and its members.
   People will understand, why openness in our relationships is essential.
   Most people show an amazing willingness to give their confidence and trust.
   Implications of the concept of essential equality.
   A Federation of Regions.
   A nearly unavoidable process of alienation.
   Problems with contemporary Socialism.
   Rule, based on Constitutional Guidelines.
   Removing the existential anxiety of "having a job".
   A continuous exchange between officials and ordinary members of the public.
   A globally integrated Civil Service.
   It requires constant care, vigilance and energy to preserve the integrity and health of a social life-form.
   
   
   
7. The temptation to engage in egocentric opportunism, fraud or deception will always be with us.
   We have to rely on education, understanding and transparence to promote the fragile attitudes of good-will.
   We have to be firm with criminal behaviour.
   A lax attitude towards crime represents a form of injustice.
   A definition of criminal behaviour.
   To understand does not mean a vacillating judgement of right and wrong.
   Compassion does not mean a week-kneed attitude towards criminal behaviour.
   The ability to admit having made mistakes.
   The ability to discuss options in the perception of reality.
   A free distribution of ideas and concepts.
   A few practical suggestions.
   Becoming aware of the jungle of egocentric motivations and efforts.
   The responsibilities of good citizenship.
   Resisting the trends towards protectionism.
   People have to be ready for the global society.
   The arbitrariness of national boundaries.
   No quick insights and promising trends, but, neither should we believe that the globally integrated society will always remain a dream.
   
   
   
8. One more important question.
   Keeping the Constitutional Guidelines relevant for successive generations.
   The problems of boredom and complacency.
   Reasons for the disappearance of relevance from a code of conduct.
   A poor example of egocentric militancy.
   Becoming responsible world-citizens.
   No mass-production of a stereo-typed personality, but no uncontroled freedom or undisciplined personality formation, either.
   Satisfying the criteria of justice.
   Our sphere of concern will stretch to the outer limits of awareness.
   A profile of man's personality in the future.
   Changing direction, at least once, during one's career.
   Authentic images of the past.
   We still have problems coming to grips with historical events.
   In the future, we will have a much better grip over the past.
   There will be nothing left of contemporary ignorance and carelessness.
   There will always be some tensions.
   The judgement of having reached a state of global justice and integration will always be debatable and somewhat arbitrary.

.......