There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological
method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship
without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration
camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they
will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or
brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And
this seems to be the final revolution. - Aldous Huxley
Showing posts with label vision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vision. Show all posts
Friday, July 30, 2021
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Unlimited Vision
I've learned that fear
limits you and your vision. It serves as blinders to what may be just a
few steps down the road for you. The journey is valuable, but believing
in your talents, your abilities, and your self-worth can empower you to
walk down an even brighter path. Transforming fear into freedom - how
great is that? - Soledad O'Brien
Image: James Gurney Steampunk Specs
Image source unknown but greatly appreciated
Monday, February 24, 2014
Utopian Propensity
Decommissioned power-plant.
Utrecht, The Netherlands
The Utopian propensity is a universal impulse. It’s like thinking or breathing. If we lost our minds and totally stopped thinking, then we would stop dreaming. But as long as we’re conscious, we think, and as long as we think, we’re not totally swallowed up by what’s happening in our everyday lives. We have to think ahead. We have to think of tomorrow. And we not only think about things we hope for ourselves but we also think in terms of society. If we think at all, we think that way. Sometimes we go through periods of discouragement where we don’t see the possibility of evolving to a better society. But those are very black moods and they are not sustained for long. Inevitably, we dream again. - Fritzie P. Manuel
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Resource-Based Economy
The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The World Will Not End on December 21
Mix one part science fiction, one part misunderstood Mayan history, one
part Hollywood movie hype, and quite a bit of public credulity, and what
do you get? A new wave of doomsday hysteria that is causing scientists
to step forward to reassure the public that the world is not, actually,
going to end on December 21, 2012.
The rumors flying around the Internet offer a number of ways in which
the world may end, including a planetary collision and changes to the
Earth’s rotation or magnetic field, but they all agree on that date of
doom. You can bet that the viral marketing campaign promoting the
upcoming planetary disaster movie 2012 has a little something to do with the recent uptick in paranoia.
“Two years ago, I got a question a week about it,” said NASA scientist David Morrison, who hosts a website called Ask an Astrobiologist.
“Now I’m getting a dozen a day. Two teenagers said they didn’t want to
see the end of the world so they were thinking of ending their lives". In response, Morrison put together a list of 10 frequently asked questions about the potential for
apocalypse, and refuted them one by one. The clamor has grown so loud
that Morrison coined a new word to describe the phenomenon:
“cosmophobia,” a fear of the cosmos.
Still from a movie "2012"
The frenzy has its origins in a handful
of fictional, mythological, and downright confused ideas. To take the
fiction first: a writer named Zecharia Sitchin has spent his career
promoting the idea that a rogue planet named Nibiru is on an extremely
elliptical orbit around the sun, and in 2012 it will return to crash
into the Earth - or maybe just to tragically disrupt its rotation or
orbit. Devotees of the Nibiru notion suggest that NASA and the world’s
governments probably know about this, they just aren’t telling us. But
scientists wearily note that if there was a
Nibiru heading our way, one of the 100,000 amateur astronomers on Earth
would have spotted it long ago. “You have to be pretty dumb not to
realize that Nibiru is a no-show,” Morrison says.
The mythological component comes from a misunderstanding of the Mayan
culture, a pre-Columbian civilization that had a number of
sophisticated calendars. One calendar, which is referred to as the “long
count,” measures out a cycle of 394 years; the current cycle comes to
an end on December 21, 2012, and some books and Web sites have suggested
that the Mayans foresaw the end of the world on that day.
Anthropologist Rosemary Joyce explains that the
Maya never predicted anything. The 2012 date is approximately when the
ancient calendar would roll over, like the odometer on a car; it did not
mean the end - merely the start of a new cycle. As
Morrison writes in his list: “I note that my desk calendar ends much
sooner, on December 31 2009, but I do not interpret this as a prediction
of Armageddon. It is just the beginning of a new year.”
The movie 2012 builds on all these ideas to create what looks like
an excellent bit of disaster entertainment. But some scientists are
worried that the movie’s viral marketing campaign will mislead the
gullible. Sony has set up a fake Web site for something called the Institute for Human Continuity
which uses scientific-sounding language to detail the upcoming
shredding, torching and obliterating of the world from so many
directions it makes your head spin (“large amounts of solar radiation
will bombard the Earth and heat up the molten, semi-liquid layers
beneath the lithosphere, thus allowing the crust to shift more easily”). The
site lets people vote for the leader of the post-2012 world, and
suggests that they sign up for a lottery that will determine who is
saved when the crisis comes.
Among the other ideas being circulated for what will happen that
fateful day: the direction of the Earth’s rotation will suddenly
reverse, the planet’s magnetic field will fall away, or maybe the Earth
will align with the sun or some other planets in such a way as to, um,
destroy us all. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, “It’s just Hollywood.”
Article source here
Sunday, November 25, 2012
On Vision

Both, what and how we see, are intricately interwoven with our conditioning. We see what we have learned to see. If we come out of our house in midday and see a yellow barn surrounded by a forest, that image becomes a part of our memory. Later, at the end of the day, when the evening sun is sinking over the horizon and the once yellow barn and green trees have been transformed by the fiery orange hue, we may miss that change. Our tendency will be to remember the yellow and green unless a deliberate effort is made to see things as they are. In the glow of twilight the house maybe have a pinkish tone. Trees will turn purple. Yet our mind, if we let it be controlled and fixed by our memory, will only see the afterimages of the past.
I sit here each evening and look at the same things and each evening find that I see different things. The renown Japanese Zen teacher and mystic, Eihei Dogen once asked, “Is it that there are various ways of seeing one object? Or is it that we have mistaken various images for one object?” His words come back to me again and again; ripples on the water expanding in widening circles, reaching out endlessly.
John Daido Loori Roshi
Image source here
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The Dreams of Yesterday

The dreams of yesterday are the realizations of today. We live in an age of mechanical, electrical, chemical, and psychical wonder. On every hand the human mind is reaching out to solve the problems of nature. In those solutions are hidden the mysteries and revelations of all things. While the dreamer may dream, it is the practical man of affairs, with a touch of the imaginative in his nature, who materializes and commercializes new forces and new conceptions. Step by step these men lead in the vanguard of progress. What is their conception of the needs of the world? Toward what is their imagination reaching? What in their viewpoint, is the world waiting for? What are the immediate needs of the world in practical, scientific conception and invention?
Quoted from a New York Times article from November 22, 1908!
Quoted from a New York Times article from November 22, 1908!
Labels:
dreams,
inspiration,
progress,
quotes,
science,
technology,
vision
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Happy Future Day!

Reinventing the Future by David Brin
Most of our holidays look backward, honoring past victories, dead presidents or long-standing traditions. How about a day that looks forward, toward thinking creatively about building a better tomorrow? The brand new Future Day will now be celebrated annually on March 1.
How would you (productively) observe such a day, particularly to inspire the next generation?
Google’s new TED-style project aims for technological ‘moonshots’ to develop innovative, far-reaching solutions to the problems of tomorrow, covering topics ranging from transportation to agriculture, genetics to computing. Google notes: “Moonshots live in the gray area between audacious projects and pure science fiction; they are 10x improvement, not 10%,” because we can’t afford to think incrementally for the future is a steamroller bearing down upon us. In "The World in 2050", Lawrence C. Smith takes at big picture look at the megatrends and forces shaping the civilization’s next forty years. We will need to anticipate the accelerating effects of globalization, climate change, population growth, and increased demands on natural resources, particularly water (which the author calls Blue Oil), which are likely to exacerbate inequalities across the globe.
Looking even further ahead, Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth, by Curt Stager, explores the potential long range impact of climate change on our planet. Stager notes, “We face a simple choice in the coming century or so; either we’ll switch to nonfossil fuels as soon as possible, or we’ll burn through our remaining reserves and then be forced to switch later on…We are faced today with the responsibility of determining the climatic future that our descendants will live in.”
The future of space exploration is increasingly international - yet the U.S. has backed out of five joint projects with the European Space Agency. The 2013 NASA budget slashes planetary science by 20%, with Mars exploration taking a severe hit. Fortunately, the James Webb Space Telescope avoided the merciless axe. NASA may abandon the joint NASA-ESA ExoMars missions scheduled for 2016 and 2018, as well as a joint venture to explore the moons of Jupiter. Europe is now courting Russia for the ExoMars mission. We need to show some consistency and commitment to our partners overseas and how about some commitment to our heirs and descendants? The War on Science has gone too far - if we are to remain a forward looking civilization.
Universities are critical in preparing students for a rapidly changing world, yet undergraduate education has changed little over the last century - large lecture halls, blue books and expensive textbooks still prevail. Lawrence Summers notes that factual mastery, passive learning and individual effort should be of less consequence than analytical, cooperative, cross-disciplinary thinking. In the real world, fields such as science, business and government rely on an ability to collaborate and work together, yet at schools this broaches on ‘cheating.’ A recent study showed that replacing the lecture part of introductory physics with an interactive peer-based seminars increased comprehension by 20%. Moreover, this fits already-embedded American ways of education. In addition, America will need to produce one million additional graduates in math, science and engineering to remain competitive globally, according to a recent report by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.
For too long we have been tolerant of planned obsolescence - for manufacturers know they can sell us a new and improved model in a year or two. A lovely nugget from Christian Cantrell’s hard SF novel, Containment: He describes the “Nobel Prize winning concept of ‘End of Life Plans’ or ELPs” - instructions included with every single manufactured item, specifying what to do when the item is discarded. With parts no longer tossed in landfills, manufacturers were forced to develop products using recycled/converted components. Anticipating that components would be reused, manufacturers had an incentive to use longer-lasting materials that could be upgraded for next-generation models. Make it so!
More generally, how about an overhaul of our entire trash collection system? One concept straight out of Sci Fi: Pneumatic tubes to whisk away trash. Such a system is already in place in several European cities, as well as Roosevelt Island in New York City, processing nearly 6 tons a day. The upfront costs to develop infrastructure would be substantial, yet there are long term savings in personnel, vehicle and fuel costs, as well as CO2 emissions. It currently takes 6000 heavy garbage trucks rumbling down already over-crowded streets to remove trash from New York City alone (The very model of inefficiency - these trucks get all of 3 miles per gallon!) Such pneumatic systems may be the future of municipal waste collection.
And the future of energy? The United States’ first new nuclear power plant in a generation won approval Thursday as federal regulators voted to grant a license for two new reactors in Georgia. Part of the promised “nuclear renaissance” to restart the road to energy independence… though with beefed up standards in the wake of the tsunami-caused problems in Japan. Finally, after 60 years, nukes will be required to have ample cooling liquid available on a purely gravity-supply basis. I mean geez, what’s so hard about that!
What do you get when you cross an accelerator with a nuclear reactor? The Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Reactor (ADSR) would use thorium instead of uranium. It doesn’t generate long-lived nuclear wastes and can even consume toxic wastes from traditional nuclear reactors.
The possibilities are endless!
About the author:
David Brin, a scientist and best-selling author whose future-oriented novels include Earth, The Postman, and Hugo Award winners Startide Rising and The Uplift War, is a 2010 Fellow of the IEET. Brin is known as a leading commentator on modern technological, social, and political trends. His nonfiction book The Transparent Society won the Freedom of Speech Award from the American Library Association. Brin’s most recent novel, Kiln People, explores a fictional near future when people use cheap copies of themselves to be in two places at once. The Life Eaters - a graphic novel - explores a chilling alternative outcome of World War II. His latest book Existence will be published in June.
Article source here
Thursday, February 23, 2012
A New Industrial Revolution

Some people think that nanotechnology will transform the world. Nanotechnology, to these people, is a new technology which is not with us yet, but whose arrival within the next fifty years is absolutely inevitable. Once the technology is mastered, we will learn to make tiny machines that will be able to assemble anything atom by atom, from any kind of raw material.
The consequences, they believe, will be transforming. Material things of any kind will become virtually free, as well as being immeasurably superior in all respects to anything we have available to us now. These tiny machines will be able to repair our bodies from the inside, cell by cell. The threat of disease will be eliminated, and the process of aging will be only a historical memory. In this world, energy will be clean and abundant and the environment will have been repaired to a pristine state. Space travel will be cheap and easy and death will be abolished.
Some pessimists see an alternative future - one transformed by nanotechnology, but infinitely for the worse. They predict that we will learn to make these immensely powerful but tiny robots, but that we will not have the wisdom to control them. To the pessimists, nano technology will allow us to make new kinds of living, intelligent organisms, who may not wish to continue being our servants.
These tiny machines will be able to reproduce, feed and adapt to their environment, in just the same way as living organisms do. But unlike natural organisms, they will be made from tough, synthetic materials and they will have been carefully designed rather than having emerged from the blind lottery of evolution. Whether unleashed on the world by a malicious act, or developing out of control from the experiments of naive scientists, these self replicating nanoscale robots will certainly break out of our custody, and when this happens our doom is assured.
The pessimists think that life itself will have no chance in the struggle for supremacy with these nano robots; they will take over the world, consuming its resources and rendering feebler, carbon based life forms such as ourselves at best irrelevant, and at worst extinct. In this scenario we humans will accidentally, and quite possibly with the best of intentions, use the power of science to destroy humanity.
The above quotes come from the book Soft Machines, Nanotechnology and Life by Richard Jones.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Utopian by Nature

It’s very difficult for me to imagine a world without people who dream, who have a vision of what they would like to see. I can’t think of anyone who would say, “We’ve arrived at a perfect existence, so let’s retain it.” There are always things that are distressing and that we think could be bettered, so we imagine improvements. That impulse has not died out, and if it ever does, I don’t think we’ll have human beings on earth any longer. We’ll have some other form of life, which I can’t imagine. - Fritzie P. Manuel
By Jessica Roemischer
Human beings, by nature, are Utopian. We dream and we hope, and since the dawn of civilization, we have conjured notions of an ideal and perfect existence. From the bucolic realms of the Garden of Eden to Plato’s republic of philosopher-kings, from the island paradise of Thomas More’s Utopia to the libertarian collectives of nineteenth-century America to the counterculture communes of the 1960s, the ways in which utopia has been envisioned have changed dramatically over time. But whatever forms they have taken, Utopian ideals have helped drive forward an unfolding process of reinvention, a process whereby humankind has sought, through vision and experimentation, a new and better life. Indeed, Utopian visions, and the social experiments they inspired, are a product of our most freely creative faculty, the human imagination. They are an expression of the universal impulse to create the new - to reshape culture and even consciousness itself.
From an Enlighten Next editorial
Image source unknown but greatly appreciated
Image source unknown but greatly appreciated
Monday, January 2, 2012
Are You Prepared to Design the Future?

By Jacque Fresco
Although many of us feel we can prepare for our future by thinking, acting, and learning using present methods and values, nothing is farther from the truth - especially in today’s rapidly changing world. A newborn child enters a world not of his or her own making. Each succeeding generation inherits the values, accomplishments, hopes, successes, and failings of previous generations. And they inherit the results of the decisions made by those generations.
For the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence when technologies were simple or non-existent, this may have had little impact on human life and the earth that sustains it. Each generation of hunters and gatherers, then plowmen and pioneers, passed on tools to the next generation to help them survive. Change from one generation to the next was slow and hardly noticeable. In those days there was little understanding of science and how things worked, and explanations were not scientific.
This is no longer the case in today’s high-tech world where a change that affects millions may happen in a matter of seconds. A child born today inherits a world vastly different from that of its parent’s generation, let alone that from centuries ago. Previous generations left a legacy of, exploitation, occupation, and irrelevant values that present great challenges, but also opportunities to the people of today.
The application of scientific principles, for better or worse, accounts for every single advance that has improved people’s lives. Important documents and proclamations have been issued granting rights and privileges to members of societies, but at the heart of human progress - or destruction - is the rock-solid foundation of science.
The future does not just happen. Except for natural events like earthquakes, it comes about through the efforts of people and is determined largely by how well informed people are. You can play a role in the shaping of tomorrow’s world by asking yourself questions like, “What kind of world do I want to live in?” and “What does democracy mean to me?” There are many other options of organization for the future than those typically discussed today.
Here is a scenario for you to consider: Suppose you were called upon to redesign planetary civilization without any limitations based on how things are done today. The goal is to help rid the world of war, poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation, and to create the best world for all inhabitants, given the resources at hand, for the longest period of time.
Remember, you are free to rearrange society in any way you think will work. The only limitation is that your social design must factor in the carrying capacity of the planet, which means the resources have to be sufficient to support life on the planet.
You can rearrange the entire civilization to make what you consider the best of all possible worlds, bearing in mind that any unmet need for any segment of the population reduces the standard of living for all. This may include not only environmental protection, but also city design, transportation, interpersonal relationships and the restructuring of education, if you feel it is necessary.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Utopia

By Frantzi P. Manuel
The earliest Utopian visions are that of a paradise that does not exist on earth. It’s a paradise after death. And they don’t just depict a single person. It’s a vision of a whole lot of people wandering through this beautiful garden and talking to one another. It’s not a solitary paradise; it’s a community. But there’s no connection to reality - immortality was a given, for example. These visions are ethereal. The early Utopian thinkers were not social revolutionaries or social activists; they were pure dreamers.
From the very beginning, people thought in terms of realities other than those of everyday life. And that’s apparent in the evolving nature of paradisiacal Utopias over time. You have the Garden of Eden, with the earth’s “earliest inhabitants,” Adam and Eve, and there is a sharp difference between the paradise of Eden and what happens after the serpent enters the garden. Then you have the future paradise, the days when the Messiah arrives. There is the “world to come” as compared with the world as it is.
The visions of paradise found in the paintings of fifteenth-century Italian artist Giovanni di Paolo were of literate people - nuns, priests, monks - who were meeting and talking together in a beautiful garden. There was natural beauty, but there was also lofty discourse. You then have the Age of Exploration. What vision of paradise pushed Columbus, for example, to venture out to the New World, and did he think he had come upon it when he reached South America? Because whole new lands and new societies opened up, as compared with the old lands of Europe. What pushes us? Fame? Money? We cannot create any generalities about notions of paradise. But one thing remains: There is a division or a distinction between paradise and what people are facing in everyday living.
The sense that one could create Utopia here in this world starts with the work of Thomas More in the early sixteenth century. You don’t find this kind of thinking earlier than that. Even a hundred years earlier, Utopia was much more otherworldly. But with Thomas More, man rather than God is now conjuring life on earth. The idea of Utopia is More’s invention, and it’s very much linked to the life he’s actually living in the sixteenth century. It takes off from there. He doesn’t think that his Utopia will take place after you die and get resurrected. It becomes concentrated on this world.
Thomas More thinks in terms of a whole society with nice proper gardens and decent relationships, which he describes in detail. He thinks it through. And he’s laughing; he’s enjoying it, but he’s serious, too, because he is well aware of the faults of the society in which he lives. He is critiquing the Tudor monarchy of King Henry VIII, and it is a very shaky monarchy. All sorts of things are happening, and More is very much a man of ideals, principles, and faith. After all, he gets beheaded because he upholds his allegiance to the Catholic Church and breaks with the king, which is ultimately recognized; and eventually he is canonized as a saint. He was a brilliant man, a very well educated man, a man who not only thinks ahead but acts on it. For example, he has his daughters educated. He stands out in his world. Thomas More was a different kind of dreamer.
People were beginning to explore the life of the mind and the riches that were around them, not in terms of gold and jewelry but the riches of scholarship, of thought. They were interested in whatever they could find in history, and this went along with opening up the New World, with finding out about other races. They were finding civilizations in both North and South America that they didn’t know existed. Columbus discovers the New World at the end of the fifteenth century, and very shortly after that, Thomas More writes "Utopia". So there’s a confluence of a lot of things - the artistic world, the literary world, the geographic world. An enrichment takes place, and that gives birth to a new thinking, a new dreaming. This is the birth of humanism, and of course, the religious world starts getting hacked away.
The seventeenth-century Utopians, such as Sir Francis Bacon, were imbued with a different spirit. Virtually all of them were men of action who believed that their plans could and would be crowned with success within a foreseeable, not a distant, future. "The New Atlantis", which Francis Bacon wrote in 1626, is hardly a popular Utopia of social regeneration, as was Thomas More’s. Its purpose lies elsewhere. In "The New Atlantis" Bacon introduced science into human thinking, and he had a very clear and interesting conception of how science should be employed. Of course, you had scientists before Bacon - Copernicus, for example. But Francis Bacon is the father of scientific thinking. He was setting things forth, using his imagination and then checking on that imagination, measuring, changing, and testing. Bacon wasn’t just dreaming; he was working things out scientifically. He was developing a practical way to arrive at conclusions, so he used "The New Atlantis" to help introduce the scientific method into society, to alter the thinking of the time. And he was obviously an imaginative, brilliant man.
For Utopian visions to take root and influence the course of history, you had to have a population - more than a few philosophers - that could enact them. Utopia had to be more than someone’s reverie. A Utopian thinker in the seventeenth century, for example, had nobody on whom to pin his thinking. He was isolated, not from his fellow philosophers but from the great masses of people who were barely making a living and were thus unaware of what he was envisioning.
That begins to change with the Industrial Revolution and the shifting economic and world systems. You begin to have a population that can think. People begin to find their voices. They begin to become aware of themselves, to know who they are. Working people of the period come closer to philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was articulating Utopian visions. As a result, these thinkers begin to stir things up in a way that hadn’t happened before. The French Revolution led to emancipation and the rise of a middle class. And it was happening in the American colonies as well - the Declaration of Independence is a Utopian document. It wasn’t just somebody’s dream - you have a mass uprising and different classes of people begin to have authority. These people become part of a Utopian vision of the future, and Utopian ideals actually begin to take flesh. That’s when you see a change in the thinking, the wishing, and ultimately the working of Utopian thinkers.
In the nineteenth century, a much broader Utopian thinking emerges that concentrates on creating a whole new society. Important Utopian thinkers from the period included Charles Fourier and Henri Saint-Simon in France and Robert Owen in England. Their visions were not merely dreams of the future. They were meant to be adopted by groups, by cells, by societies - and they were.
Fourier and Owen were the two major early-nineteenth-century apostles of the small-community movement. They had confidence that a single successful experiment based on their principles of organization would provide an example so compelling that it would persuade the rest of humankind to adopt their systems. On the other hand, the main thrust of the Saint-Simon movement was not directed toward establishing small communities but was rather a total reorganization of the whole scientific-technological society. He began to think in much bigger terms and also in very specific terms, down to the kind of roadways he wanted to see. To join the Saint-Simon movement was an act of commitment to the future progress of man - a world of order and limitless progress in the flowering of all capacities, a world virtually without pain, a world of love and cohesiveness. The movement, the religion, was the new world in miniature.
In the twentieth century humanity chose some ruinous and catastrophic directions. Totalitarian regimes set out to create new societies. But in this context, we talk of dystopia rather than utopia.
Immediately after World War II, dystopian novels sold more copies than any literary Utopian works in memory. Dystopia portrays the future as a living hell. You have apocalyptic visions of human beings overpopulating the earth and clawing one another for survival, of nuclear disaster, of escaped pathogenic bodies heedlessly being created by experimental scientists. Yet out of these visions, the Utopian propensity shows signs of stirring again, because at the heart of a dystopia has to be a utopia. You say, “This is awful. This is terrible. We’re going in the wrong direction.” But you’re saying that because you think there’s the possibility that it can change. If you didn’t think there was that possibility, you wouldn’t bother. Aldous Huxley, author of the ironic dystopian "Brave New World" lived to write the Utopian "Island". The impulse behind a dystopia is really Utopian.
Utopians are true realists. They know what would be good for the world. And they know that you have to have an ideal before you can move toward it. So they’re realists in that sense. Those who merely accept what is are really the non realists because they’re denying that the world is going to change, that the world moves. But what direction the world moves in is another story. And if you have no goal toward which you hope it will move, no goal you’re pushing toward, then you’re accepting everything that’s bad and you don’t need to. The Utopian thinkers of the past were often far in advance of their societies, and it’s good to know about them. Of course, sometimes the societies that were founded on their ideas didn’t work out that well. That’s certainly true of Marx, for example. But that, too, gets corrected in time. By new utopias.
If you’re alive and you’re a thinking person, then you have to hope for something, even if you’re not very optimistic that it will be achieved. You still want to work for it. You want to better this world, and you have the feeling not only that it needs to be bettered but that it can be - that its evolutionary fate is ultimately to be better. Therefore you have to align yourself with those who think similarly and not with those who either have given up or think that the world begins and ends with them.
In the twenty first century life is different, and the province of the Utopians is changing. They’re not worried about sexual freedom anymore. Economic ideals still move Utopians, but they are moving other people too. Issues that were once Utopian have become common objectives; they’ve been gobbled up by the Democrats, who are no longer called Utopian! So Utopians are really hard-put today, don’t you think? For instance, would you call the ideal of world peace Utopian thinking? I don’t think so. This has almost become a world ideal, whether you think it’s possible or not. What was once specific to Utopians has now spread to entire populations, linking what used to be Utopian with the life of humanity.
You don’t need a vast number of people to destroy the planet anymore, and that puts Utopians in a different position altogether. There’s talk of the end of humankind. In the nineteenth century, that would have been considered crazy. But people who think in those terms are not considered wild dreamers anymore. Utopian thinking now has to do with the preservation of the human race. Utopians in the twenty-first century are those who think we can preserve the world. And it’s not one class or society; it’s all of humanity. So Utopians are no longer simply isolated in little enclaves of their own. Without the whole world to back them, their ideals can’t move into a practical phase. We all have to become Utopian because we all have to believe we can preserve the world. And if we don’t, we should give up right now and go into a cave, or pray, or just think, or spend our time knitting. The alternative is the end. That sounds gloomy.
From an interview with Jessica Roemischer for What is Enlightenment, 2007
About the author:
Fritzie P. Manuel is a scholar and art historian. Together with her husband, the late Harvard professor Frank E. Manuel, she coauthored "Utopian Thought in the Western World." This seminal work chronicles the unique nature and progressive history of Western utopian ideas and their influence on the development of civilization, past to present to future.
P.S.
Caliphate is one of the latest examples of dystopia that are being
offered to the hapless, disenchanted masses. The Muslim socio-religious
engineers have no desire to keep this medieval project in their own
sandbox. They intend to implement it by force on the "infidels". This
fact is widely ignored in the West. Unfortunately...
Image source unknown but greatly appreciated
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs Dies at the Age 56

Steve Jobs, 1955-2011
"Steve's brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve." - from a statement released by Apple
The iconic founder and former CEO of Apple, Steven Paul Jobs, died on September 5, 2011, after a long battle against cancer. He was the driving force behind probably the most revolutionary technology invented in recent history and the incredibly popular electronic gadgets. He was a unique thinker who touched many people in many ways. His work ethics, creativity, and vision are unsurpassed.
Mr. Jobs was born in San Francisco in 1955 and grew up with his adoptive parents near Cupertino, CA.
After attending Reed College in Portland for one semester and auditing classes for free for several more, Jobs took a job at Atari where he was designing circuit boards. In 1976, he co-founded Apple with Steve Wozniak.
The two young men started out in a garage with little money and a grand vision of changing the world. Over the course of the past 35 years, the Apple company and Mr. Jobs have gone on to change the personal computing industry, the music and film industries, and the mobile communications industry.
In August 2004, Mr. Jobs revealed that he had undergone surgery to remove a cancerous tumor from his pancreas. He took a one month leave of absence to recover from surgery and returned to work in September 2004. For the next several years he denied any rumors about his health, but was, in reality, struggling with disease. He had a liver transplant in April 2009, but was back at work as early as June that year. He held a CEO position of Apple until January 2011 when he took a medical leave of absence. In August 2011 he stepped down from this position.
Mr. Jobs passed away only a day after the latest Apple product - the iPhone 4S - was launched. He was a creative genius and a great visionary and will be remembered as a man who changed the daily habits of millions of people around the world. He was a man who treated computers not as tools, but rather as the extensions of our minds.
Rest in peace, Mr. Jobs! You will be missed!
Rest in peace, Mr. Jobs! You will be missed!
Written on Mac by Dominique Allmon
"People who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." - from a 2007 Apple commercial
Image source here
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Happy Birthday Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla (July 10, 1856 – January 7, 1943) reading while a Tesla coil discharged millions of volts, 1899
Nicola Tesla was an American scientist and inventor of Serbian origin. He was probably one of the most enigmatic personalities and without doubt, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. He not only discovered the rotating magnetic field, but was a pioneer in the field of robotics, computers, and the missile technology.
Tesla was a dreamer and a visionary with a poetic touch and almost unbound creativity and talent. Admired by some and despised by others, Tesla allowed himself only a few close friends. Among them were the writers Robert Underwood Johnson, Mark Twain, and Francis Marion Crawford. He was quite impractical in financial matters and an eccentric, driven by compulsions and a progressive germ phobia. But in spite of that, he had a way of intuitively sensing hidden scientific secrets and employing his inventive talent to prove his hypotheses.
Tesla was a perfect subject for reporters who sought sensational copy, but a problem to editors who were uncertain how seriously his futuristic prophecies should be regarded. Caustic criticism greeted his speculations concerning communication with other planets, his assertions that he could split the Earth like an apple, and his claim of having invented a death ray capable of destroying 10,000 airplanes at a distance of 250 miles (400 kilometers).
After Tesla's death, a custodian of alien property impounded his coffers, which contained Tesla's scientific papers, his diplomas and other honors, his personal correspondence, and the laboratory notes.
Three Nobel Prize recipients attributed their scientific success to "one of the most outstanding intellects of the world who paved the way for many of the technological developments of modern times."
Monday, March 14, 2011
Dangerous Designs?

Image from the movie "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl
"In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some sixty years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
Richard Dawkins
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Global Government

By Maura R. O'Connor
In an era when the problems facing humanity, such as terrorism, AIDS, global warming, and weapons proliferation, defy the borders of nation-states, the hot topic in academia and international affairs is global governance. How can nations cooperate with one another to handle these catastrophes? What models of governance will be able to encompass the unprecedented complexity that defines international affairs in the twenty-first century? The United Nations’ inability to implement effective policies in a timely manner and the Security Council’s breakdown around the Iraq War have created a vacuum in which more and more scholars, political scientists, and leaders are attempting to plant their own models of a sustainable future.
One such model is that of Brookings Institute scholars Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. Unveiled last year in The American Interest, Daalder and Lindsay’s proposal is called a “concert of democracies” and would entail the world’s sixty democratic nations pooling their common interests to create a voting bloc in the UN and the World Trade Organization. Together, the “D-60” would work for human rights and issues of global security and would be overseen by a secretariat and advisory board of “elder statesmen” who can “deepen cooperation.” The board would include such leaders as Nelson Mandela, Václav Havel, Carlos Menem, Bill Clinton, Junichiro Koizumi, and Manmohan Singh.
Daalder and Lindsay’s proposal of an international advisory board strongly echoes Jakob von Uexkull’s concept of a World Future Council. Launched in 2004, the WFC is designed to fix what von Uexkull sees as a crucial flaw in international institutions: a lack of trust between their leaders and the general public. It will be made up of one hundred outstanding leaders in human rights, science, the environment, economics, and religion so as to create a trusted moral authority that can weigh in on international issues and come together in support of specific policies. Recently, von Uexkull reported that the first fifty members have been chosen, and the city of Hamburg has agreed to fund the launch and initial phase of the council. Indeed, over the next three years, the city will donate 2.5 million euros to the project as well as permanently host its secretariat.
Yet another new model of global governance is that of the International Simultaneous Policy Organization (SP), created by British businessman John M. Bunzl. Bunzl has been inspired by his readings of integral philosophy and is using its principles to create a system that he believes could “transform the international economy such that it operates in harmony with the global natural environment.” Bunzl’s ambitious model hinges on the theory that if international leaders implement policies at the same exact time, fears of putting their respective countries at a competitive disadvantage will dissipate and nations could begin to cooperate with one another as a genuine community. Bunzl’s proposed policy changes for the first year of SP implementation would include increasing the regulation of international financial markets, canceling Third-World debt, banning and dismantling all nuclear weapons, and halting genetic engineering and its application in agriculture, industry, and medicine. Bunzl himself recognizes that “persuading all countries to adopt SP sounds like an incredibly tall order, and indeed it is.”
Can such a tall order realistically be fulfilled? One argument against SP is that just because policies are implemented simultaneously doesn’t necessarily mean competitive disadvantages disappear. In 2002, for example, the Bush administration proposed a policy similar to SP in regard to trade tariffs. The United States would agree to eliminate all U.S. tariffs on manufactured goods by 2015, thereby opening American markets to unprecedented levels of foreign imports, provided that other WTO members would also eliminate theirs in the same time frame. The proposal stalled almost immediately, mostly because other countries, especially in Europe, generally have higher tariffs than the United States does and would experience greater disadvantages. So, despite widespread agreement that tariffs, especially agricultural tariffs, are keeping Third-World countries in poverty, the initial competitive disadvantage proved too great, even though it would have helped millions of people.
Perhaps one of the largest obstacles in the way of global governance is that people tend to see such ideas as idealistic and accused advocates of neglecting to consider the legitimate self-interest nations naturally seek to protect. Other opponents believe that less government should be the goal of the future, not more in the form of an all-encompassing super-government. In his forthcoming book Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution, Steve McIntosh addresses these two concerns by pointing out that even if the world doesn’t like the idea of global governance, increasing globalization is demanding it. According to him, it can actually happen once the levels of “integral consciousness” among the most developed peoples of the world evolve to higher levels. What is integral consciousness? McIntosh defines it as a worldview beyond postmodernism that recognizes the legitimacy and “evolutionary necessity” of the many different stages of development in consciousness, cultures, and individuals around the world today.
When enough people begin to adopt this worldview, McIntosh sees the possibility of a “world federation” emerging whose objective is to “harmonize the needs of the modern and postmodern developed world with the needs of the traditional third world.” The constitution of this federation would be modeled on the American form of democracy, with legislative, judicial, and executive branches. However, each branch would have a three-part structure representing populations, economic interests, and nations, respectively. McIntosh’s vision of how these branches would operate is at times quite creative. For instance, he proposes that each of the three executive branches could have its own “cabinet of consciousness,” a committee of advisors that would represent different stages of development in the world. These cabinet members would lobby for their constituents’ rights and seek to protect their livelihoods and environment. Membership in the federation would be determined according to the mean levels of consciousness of the individuals in a nation-state. Traditional cultures that were not democratized would be probationary members, able to receive the protection and privileges of the federation but not full membership until they became more democratized. If the system sounds inequitable, keep in mind that the UN Security Council is structured with similar imbalances of power.
Opponents of global governance might say that McIntosh is a naïve idealist. It’s a common criticism of those who believe there is a possibility of a community of nations working together as a global democratic authority. McIntosh, on the other hand, sees himself as a practical realist and his world federation model as merely the natural outcome of evolutionary pressures such as terrorism and AIDS, which are demanding that the world move forward to the next stage of development in consciousness. It’s an inspiring vision and one it seems the world needs more than ever before.
About the author:
Maura O'Connor was an associate editor for What Is Enlightenment? from 2003 to 2007 and authored several dozen articles and reviews for the magazine on topics that include everything from politics to modern design to the esoteric teachings of Kabbalah. Her writing has highlighted the social and spiritual work of her contemporaries, such as Buddhist teacher Noah Levine, environmental visionary Ocean Robbins, and business entrepreneur Brian Johnson. She has also interviewed a variety of religious scholars and leaders, including Daniel Matt, Ph.D., Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault, and Mother Antonia.
She attended Simon's Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, where she studied the liberal arts before earning her Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Art History from Savannah College of Art and Design in Savannah, Georgia. Her senior thesis drew on Ken Wilber's integral philosophy and the social evolutionary theories of Spiral Dynamics to critique the postmodern milieu, making a case for the need to reinstate a hierarchy of values into art and art criticism. In May 2008, she received a Master of Science degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, where she focused on newspaper reporting and international affairs. She is currently an intern with Agence-France Presse at their United Nations bureau in New York City.
Article source here
Image source here
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Craddle to Craddle Ecological Home

Cradle 2 Cradle Home by Coates Design Architects
Roanoke, Virginia
The C2C Home takes "green" literally.
When Matthew Coates and Tim Meldrum won the 2005 C2C Home competition (judged by William McDonough, Daniel Libeskind, among others), they hoped to see their renderings develop into an actual residence. But three years later, the team is waiting for technology, and funding, to catch up to their vision of a home that is off-the-grid, thanks to the help of Popeye’s power: spinach.
The C2C design reinterprets an age-old concept: the hearth. Made from concrete and steel, the 1,600-square-foot L-shaped home is topped with a tapered whirling chimney-like core that extends high above the roof plane. This core serves as a louvered skylight and temperature-stabilizing heat sink for the one-story home, and could one day support its revolutionary cladding: a conductive material that produces photosynthetic energy generated from spinach protein.
Based on emerging technology and scientific research, spinach protein cells sandwiched between glass may have the potential to generate energy. This living facade would not only be photosynthetic, but phototropic too. It would grow to follow the path of the sun, generating electricity.

c2c house interior
The facade is not the only green element of this home. Glass and metal panels insulated with soy foam comprise the exterior walls. A green roof absorbs and filters storm water through vegetation and soil while two large openings in the roof funnel rain to the building core. There, the rain is stored to serve for plumbing, flushing toilets, and other household needs. A bio-filtration system naturally breaks down and separates solid human waste from black water and then filters the black water under and alongside the house through a series of subsurface gravels and soils, from coarse to fine. Thus, the house does not require connection to a sewer or septic tank.
Coates Design Architects
921 Hildebrand Lane
Suite 210
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
921 Hildebrand Lane
Suite 210
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Monday, July 5, 2010
Voyage to Discovery

We are all inventors, each sailing out on a voyage of discovery guided by a private chart of which there is no duplicate. The world is all gates, all opportunities. - Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882, American Essayist, Poet and Philosopher
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Robot in Every Home

Band of Brothers by Chris Wren
oil on canvas
Although the article below appeared in Scientific American January 2007 issue, it did not lose its actuality.
By Bill Gates
Imagine being present at the birth of a new industry. It is an industry based on groundbreaking new technologies, wherein a handful of well-established corporations sell highly specialized devices for business use and a fast-growing number of start-up companies produce innovative toys, gadgets for hobbyists and other interesting niche products. But it is also a highly fragmented industry with few common standards or platforms. Projects are complex, progress is slow, and practical applications are relatively rare. In fact, for all the excitement and promise, no one can say with any certainty when - or even if - this industry will achieve critical mass. If it does, though, it may well change the world.
Of course, the paragraph above could be a description of the computer industry during the mid-1970s, around the time that Paul Allen and I launched Microsoft. Back then, big, expensive mainframe computers ran the back-office operations for major companies, governmental departments and other institutions. Researchers at leading universities and industrial laboratories were creating the basic building blocks that would make the information age possible. Intel had just introduced the 8080 microprocessor, and Atari was selling the popular electronic game Pong. At homegrown computer clubs, enthusiasts struggled to figure out exactly what this new technology was good for.
But what I really have in mind is something much more contemporary: the emergence of the robotics industry, which is developing in much the same way that the computer business did 30 years ago. Think of the manufacturing robots currently used on automobile assembly lines as the equivalent of yesterday’s mainframes. The industry’s niche products include robotic arms that perform surgery, surveillance robots deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan that dispose of roadside bombs, and domestic robots that vacuum the floor. Electronics companies have made robotic toys that can imitate people or dogs or dinosaurs, and hobbyists are anxious to get their hands on the latest version of the Lego robotics system.
Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics
Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are one of the earliest examples of proposed safety measures for Artificial Intelligence. The laws are intended to prevent artificially intelligent robots from harming humans.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm". The remaining laws were modified sequentially to acknowledge this addition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






