My clash with
I am genius. It seems to me that people think
geniuses are those rare individuals who have a high intelligence. I think that
intelligence is just a good asset to a genius but it isnít necessary. A genius
is a person who preserves his nature, a person who feels very well which way to
go, the one who is able to select the most important information from an
unlimited quantity. He is a person who
unmistakably feels what note
to choose when composing music.
A genius is a person
makes great deeds. Geniuses are a product of
freedom. A genius does not accept knowledge of which the purpose he does not
understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but
a super natural person who has the ability to
do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to make great deeds in the fields of
their interests by their nature. Everyone should have the characteristics of a
genius. People are not geniuses because they alienate themselves from their
nature or they do not have the ability to do what they like.
It is hard to be a genius today mostly because people are prisoners of the culture
of imposed knowledge.
Schools do it the most so they are the main origin of alienation.
Students cannot pass exams
if they are unable to reproduce the imposed knowledge.
People who obey imposed knowledge
have to suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings and thus, they
alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions,
customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their
lives. People who are alienated from their
nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and
therefore accept alienated knowledge easily which develops the process of
Alienated people are not able to create genial works.
They become the opposite of geniuses; they become living machines. Imposing
knowledge is a misfortune to the people. Please do not get me wrong; knowledge
is necessary for human development but it must not be imposed; it should be
freely accessible and accepted. However, no one can avoid the torture of
imposing knowledge today. Scientists especially cannot because
they cannot be scientists without a university degree. That is why there are
no geniuses in the sciences today. Forgive me if I'm wrong,
but I do not know of any.
The more the schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less
students will have to protect their human abilities and, in accordance, they
have less chance to be geniuses.
Only spiritually free
people can create
genial deeds. Looking at the world around me I can recognize geniality in the
band Pink Floyd.
They made deeply touching, exceptionally
powerful and wonderful music that is distinguished from everything
else I have heard. This is the music of sorrow,
suffering, criticism, and hope. The music portrays our world at the turn of the
millennium brilliantly. If their composing were conditioned by a
finishing music conservatorium, maybe these libertarian people would have given up from the
academy and would not have been allowed
to compose such extremely beautiful
music. If they found the
strength to finish the music academy, I believe that it would certainly somehow
alienate them from their nature and they would not be able to compose such
I consider my complete education as violence to my needs and freedom, and that
is what it really was. Not only was my body captured in school, school tried to
enslave my thoughts but I resisted drastically. I cannot say the resistance was
my conscious decision. It was something built in me. I did not learn anything
there and that is the reason I had to attend the fifth grade again. Then I found
I had to learn just enough not to repeat the whole year.
After finishing high school I registered myself in the study of architecture. I
liked the creative work of building houses. Through large difficulties of
studying an uninteresting program, I did graduate the faculty. A professor who
led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks
then mine. I knew that without him and in those times I became conscious of the
fact that being a bad student advantaged me compared to others. As a third year
student in the faculty, I was proclaimed as one of the best architects in
Yugoslavia when I won the competition for the arrangement of
The Republic Square
in Zagreb. I need to stress here that the reward brought me the healthy logic I
managed to save through refusal of alienated knowledge and of course my love for
architecture that gave me huge work energy. The sensitivity,
objectivity and creativity I
have been developing throughout my whole life helped me win the competition, not
the studies at the faculty. If a person feels his nature, loves what he is
doing, and if he has talent for what he is doing, he would achieve much better
results than he could achieve by studying and receiving diplomas.
At the end of my architectural studies, a collection of books by Erich Fromm
fell into my hands. Fromm strongly criticized the world we live in. I had
similar views and during those times I already created the basic ideas as to how
a good world should look like, but it didnít cross my mind that I am the one who
should do something about it. By reading Fromm I found that in the field of
social improvements I could give much more to society than in architecture.
That's how I decided to change the world. It arose my enthusiasm and gave me
huge energy to work. I started writing my book
Humanism without any doubt of my
However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires a vast freedom of
thoughts, which a job in the field of architecture could not give me because
creative work in architecture captures too much thought. That was the reason I
gave up from architecture completely. At that time I found the job as a fire
protection inspector. An average person can learn the entire knowledge I used for this job in a few
short courses. The job did not burden me much, so I was able to write,
certainly, the most important book ever.
Writing the book inspired a huge creativity in me, far larger than architecture.
Good ideas about changing the world have been coming to my mind without end.
When that happens, a person cannot stop even if he would like to. It brings a
lot of satisfaction. But also, I needed to invest a lot of effort to compose
thoughts. I did it by analysis, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. In the
development of new ideas I did not use existing sciences because I didnít know
them well. I used basic logic that was already pretty much developed in me in
those times. When basic ideas were finished I had to research existing sciences
in order to connect my ideas to the existing state. Understanding what my goals
were, I didnít have any difficulties in studying the issues any more. At the
beginning, I thought my book would have been finished in one year but the
problems were much more complex than I had thought and it was not my only
preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish the book. Iíve gotten the power
to work from understanding that my book would one day change the world
completely and create a good and sane society.
When I finished the book, I stated presenting my ideas to scientists.
Unfortunately, the only support I got was from Professor of philosophy Andrija
Stojković from the University of Belgrade. He wrote a
review of my book. He also
helped me spread my ideas among scientists in Belgrade, in Hegel Society and in
the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.
Perhaps in hope to find interested people for my philosophy in the west, I
immigrated to Canada, in 1993. I was trying to work professionally on my
philosophy by searching for funds from various organizations and foundations but
didn't receive any there. Again, I got into a situation in which I had to earn
money for a living. During that time, an economic crisis was in Canada. There
were not many jobs. The exception was a new computer
technology. A higher force made me buy a computer and computer books and I began
learning computer programming. The demand for programmers was much larger than
the supply then, so that I got the first job easily. Nobody asked me
even for any
diploma. I was not even an especially good programmer because
the job was not interesting to me. My thoughts were constantly focused on my
Fortunately my wonderful wife Duöica had an understanding for my work and
offered that I take care of our daughters and home and work on my philosophy in
my spare time while she earned money. Thatís how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldnít be
able to understand nearly how grateful I am to her. The whole world should be
grateful to her as well. She was the only person who had an understanding for my
work and without her I wouldnít be able to find enough time to think about my
philosophy and write what you are reading.
Criticism of sciences
Since I finished my book, The Humanism, 16 years ago, I have been sending
thousands of letters to professors of social sciences trying to interest them in
how the bright future of humankind would look like, but I did not succeed. Iíll
try to explain why.
Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality
acquired by organized analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop
sciences. Scientists naturally aim to learn higher knowledge and, on this path,
they create new theories that should bring conveniences to society. If such
theories do not conflict with reality directly, scientists accept their theories
as objective or accurate. However, relative harmonies of such theories with
objective realities, still donít guarantee the objectivity of such theories.
They may be subjective, or in other words, wrong. The subjective theories create
alienated knowledge or false knowledge that alienates man from reality. If
scientists are big enough authorities, society accepts their alienated
knowledge, which then alienates the whole society from objective reality. Once
accepted alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis in
spreading alienation. Such sciences aim society to wrong path and prevent
acceptance of objective knowledge. It aims society to solve problems inside
frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge as a general rule
brings disadvantage to society.
The social sciences,
especially, are on the wrong or not good enough paths. They are very alienated
from objective reality. Alienation results due to lack of criticizing ideas of
social science authorities throughout history enough. The essence of social
science should be creating the vision of how to built a good or at least better
path of society to the future but they do not have it. They should be initiators
of positive changes in society but they are not. In fact, they do not have any
influence to social events.
In the wish to approach social sciences, I tried to register for the masters
degree in sociology at University of North York. One of the professors I turned
to there sincerely advised me not to waste my time with sociology, explaining
that I would not be able to get any job with a master degree in social sciences.
I understood it as his opinion that there are no benefits to society from
sociology. I responded to him that I had new ideas to advance society, but he
didnít show any interest in listening to me, the same way thousands of other
scientists didnít. Another professor at the same University leafed through my
book, The Humanism, and told me that I had satisfied the requirements for the
studies, but my book ďThe HumanismĒ was not acceptable as my master dissertation
work. The book that will change society completely and make the world a
wonderful place for living is not acceptable to social sciences. The sample
shows clearly how generations of scientists may turn into a dead-end street when
they base their intellectual paths on alienated knowledge. What to say about the
professors of Marxism? In Yugoslavia, Marxism was an obligatory subject in all
high schools. Then the capitalist revolution came and Marxism was revoked. What
are thousands of professors and doctors of Marxism to
Do you think philosophy is a science? I
donít. If it is indeed a science, there would be some benefits from it, but I
cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin which means, Ēlove
wisdomĒ. It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and
their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of the greatest interests
philosophers have had was defining the origin of the world. All of the answers
philosophers proposed throughout the history of mankind were probably alienated
from objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an endlessly large
world to be able to define its origin objectively.
Great philosophers were through support or
criticism from their predecessors writing large amounts of books trying to build
and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did
not succeed. The proof lies in the fact that philosophers have not yet defined
their ideas for creating a good society. The lack of power from philosophers to
find objective answers to the questions that give people great difficulties has
resulted in the creation of a huge amount of alienated knowledge. Studying
philosophy today doesnít mean seeking for wisdom at all because nobody actually
knows what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history
of failure of human thoughts. It is even harmful because a great amount of
alienated knowledge leads people to the wrong path where they cannot realize
objective origins of problems. By the way, I want to emphasize that winners
write history mainly for the purpose of justifying their bad intentions and deeds. Such
history builds bad intentions for new generations and creates big problems. Roger
Waters presented this nicely in the line: "History is for fools."
Philosophers are full of good intentions,
but I have not noticed that they work seriously enough on how to better the
world. Why? Philosopher Karl Marx wrote in his famous 11. theses of Foerbach:
ĒThe philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is
to change it.Ē He also wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: ďWorking
man of all countries, unite!Ē Marx did not define how a good organisation of
society should look like. Maybe he thought that united workers would develop the
best possible self-organisation of their societies, and meet the highest
benefits for all of people. However nobody has ever succeeded in implementing
it. Marxís successors have solved this problem by taking all power into their
own hands. They have become authorities and authorities tend to oppress people.
This way, the authoritarian socialism immerged which regressed Marxís
intentions. The problem lies in the fact that nobody has ever tried to create a
system that might function without the influences of authoritative powers. I did
it and thatís the reason I succeeded in defining a good society.
Philosophers mainly agree that people must
have equal rights, but in reality they don't have them and philosophers don't
recognise that sufficiently. Therefore, it isn't surprising that they don't
understand the significience of the Golden Rule, that is written in the Bible:
"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you!" Or: "Do not do onto others
that which you would not have them do onto you!" All that philosophers have
searched for in order to make a good society one might put into this sentence.
But taking into account that the significance of this sentence was not
understood clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realise the
idea. I have invented a system that will realize the idea of this sentence.
I have called it democratic anarchy.
man will get an equal right to evaluate a few other people by his own choice.
Each positive evaluation should bring the evaluated people a small, but
noticeable award, and each negative evaluation should bring the negatively
evaluated people punishments in the same form. What would we get with that? The
system of evaluations will remove the privileges of people that are the origin
of evil in society. A small equal power in the hands of the people will make
people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values to other
human beings. Everyone will try hard to please people as best as they can and
diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. This will create
what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach
unsuccessfully. That will create a good and sane society.
The scientists of political science have
created an unnecessarily complex political science that is very alienated from
the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of
political reality throughout the history of humankind. The science certainly
cannot give answers to the problems of todayís society and does not have the
vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look
like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However,
scientists of political sciences, together with other social scientists, were
never able to form a consensus to state what the developed democracy is or how
it is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make
such a consensus; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists
of political science are extended hands of the state political system and they
do not have any wish to propose or change anything, especially not confront it.
Thatís the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost donít
have any influence in forming the policy of society.
I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all
questions of their interests. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct
democracy. People will be interested in making
decisions about the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today.
Each human being capable of voting alone will directly participate in deciding
what minimum income is in society. The average value of all statements will
determine the minimal income of workers. In such a way, the direct decisions of
people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based
interest to work. Also, each man will be involved in the decision as to what
part of his gross income he wants to allocate for taxes. The sum of all
decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then
be taken from peopleís incomes proportionally to the height
of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money
is going to be spent. Each man will decide what part of his tax money he wants
to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc.
The sum of all the statements of all people will simply define the allocation of
tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective
consumption will not be alienated from the people any more. It will satisfy the
needs of the people in the best possible way. People will be very satisfied. The
people will have the power in their societies so that they will accept their
societies more. This is the way to disalienate society. Such a democracy will be
very clear and simple to all so that political science will not be needed any
Law is an extended hand
of the political system. The science of law is alienated from its objective
reality the same way all others social sciences are because it was created by
the privileged class of people. This is the reason the system of law is unjust
from its beginning. The cruel system we live in emerges from this injustice.
Cruel criminals make cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly.
The cruel justice may find its justification through preventing cruel people
from causing evil to all they do not like much, but such justice is not
satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.
The science of law is probably the most conservative social science that insures
the reigning system in society so that it is very valuable for the political
power. In Canada, students cannot register the school of law before they
graduate some other high studies. Society has developed the opinion that law
school is too complex of a study that ęnot developed enough brainsĽ cannot
comprehend or accept them. This certainly isn't the reason. After studying the
alienated knowledge of law long term, people may hardly accept right orientation
if it confronts the knowledge they accepted through the study of law. But there
is a reward for it. After graduations, lawyers get some privileges that formally
nobody besides them have. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate,
cannot divorce, cannot perform legal proceedings; practically people cannot
protect their rights without them. Privileges always form
some sort of immorality, therefore, law can easily fall to the wrong side or
I would like to present one excellent example. It is about the International
Court of Justice in Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour,
indicted the president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Miloöević for war crimes. This
occurred in the middle of the aggression from her country, Canada, as a member
of NATO, on Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Miloöević
was proved in the four years of the trial in Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour
took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister, Jean
Cretien, did indeed commit a war crime when he sent Canadian bombardiers to kill
people in the aggression on Yugoslavia. It was done against the charters of the
UN, Canadian laws and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she
didnít accused her Prime Minister. This immoral woman was then awarded for her
deeds by promotion to the justice of Supreme Court of Canada and UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal
for former Yugoslavia in Hague is an immoral or even criminal spot that
shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court is the beginning of
the end of everything that is accepted as justice today.
Once the system Iíve proposed is accepted, morality will start. People will have
equal legislative power in society. It will be manifested by the equal rights of
people who evaluate other people I have called democratic anarchy. I have
to repeat because it is very important, the
positive evaluations will bring the evaluated people small awards, and negative
evaluations will result in punishment of the same form. Such a small power will
teach people to respect each other, offer highest possible advantages to other
people, and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. In such
a system, people will learn what is good and bad through their own practice and
observe to this. Lawyers will not be needed any more because they will
practically have nothing to do. The science of
will probably finish in history textbooks.
Economics is the social
science that studies the production of goods and services. Today, the economy of
free market, or the capitalist mode of production where the means of production
are privately owned, is accepted. The capitalist mode of production has managed
to perform the most efficient allocation of production resources based on the
market competition of enterprises. Capitalism has realized the highest increase
of production productivity in the history of humankind, which created the
highest increase of living standard ever.
But the capitalist economy also has big disadvantages. A large number of factors
exist that cause instability in the capitalist economy, which forces capitalist
enterprises to fight for their survival on the market continuously. In this
fight the strongest win and take all. Capitalism is cruel. Besides that,
capitalism has enforced money as the greatest value to society. Such a value has
induced huge alienation to society, which invokes huge problems. The cruelty of
capitalism, along with the alienation of people, causes almost all the evil in
today's society: immorality, crime, destructions, etc.
Nobody works hard enough to eliminate the disadvantages of the capitalist
economy because the elimination of the disadvantages contradicts the survival of
capitalism. I have created a completely new economy that will enable natural
development of society. The new economy will be publicly owned. It will
guarantee the economic survival to all people as condition of building
productive relations in society. The new economy will base its production on
consumer orders in great extend so that it will be very stable. It will lower
the market competition of companies to the level of work posts. The worker who
offers greater production to each work post will get the job.
The new market of work will bring huge benefits to society. In the first place,
it will establish the most productive and profitable economic production. It
will be significantly greater than the economy of private enterprises can
perform, so it will send capitalism, with all its disadvantages, to history. The
new market of work will eliminate privileges in the reprocess of production what
will eliminate corruption, the main origin of immorality of today's society.
Workers will be able to choose jobs they like more and therefore, they will
enjoy working. Work will become value in itself. Inconvenient jobs will be
compensated with higher salaries that will balance interests for all jobs. The
freedom of choosing jobs will enable workers to find where real values in
society are and that will release people from alienation. The new economy will
establish a very effective system of responsibilities of workers as a
precondition of establishing large productivities of workers. High
responsibility from workers will result in cooperation of workers at all levels
of production processes, which will contribute to the productive orientation of
society. Responsibility of people will contribute to elimination of all kinds of
destructivity in society. After capitalism humanism will step in, the system
that will much better follow the needs of human beings.
The economy of humanism
will be that simple so that everyone will be able to understand it in very short
period of time.
Conclusively, I would say that social sciences will lose their importance. The
new system I have proposed will demystify social sciences to their objective
essence and then we will all get to know social sciences well. The same way that
people speak their mother's tongue well without the level of education having
much impact, all people will become good psychologists, sociologists, lawyers,
economists, philosophers, artists, etc., just because they live in the new
The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine
is definitely not on a good path enough. Today, cancer
is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some
extend, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer wins. I would say
that these methods are somewhere in the range of the Middle Ages use of leeches
to cure illnesses. Recently, the father of my wife Duöica died after his
third treatment of
chemotherapy. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has completely abandoned medical
science and won breast cancer by changing her way of living and by eating
healthy food. I've heard for many such cases. Why doesnít medical science
research it? The development of medicine requires serious studies of traditional
alternative medicine but the modern medicine refuses it.
The fact is big corporations have taken control over methods of curing
illnesses and they earn a lot of money curing people. They donít even have an
interest to be successful because healthy people do not spend money on medicine.
This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern
medicine. That has happened, firstly, because medical sciences are conceited by
possessing modern knowledge and secondly, because traditional medicine cannot
bring profit to corporations. The documentary
presents it well. Modern medicine is very inhibited. I donít
remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In
fact, the same medicine change s itís name in order to bring higher profits to
the paramedical industry. Medicine doctors should ask themselves, is their
purpose knowing the names of every bone in human body, support to the
pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying that modern medicine
does not bring betterment to people, but objectively it requires a general
I believe that most illnesses originate from unhealthy living, through the
alienation of people from their nature, and through the stress that emerges from
it. Once the system I have proposed is accepted, it will enable people to live
in harmony with their proper nature and illnesses will then significantly
disappear. Also, I believe that most people in the future will need to acquire a
basis of medical sciences, about as much as a family doctor uses daily, so that
they might be able to cure themselves alone or recognize the illnesses and visit
proper medical specialists.
is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being.
It tries to solve problems with a man's psyche. All these problems originate
from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is wolf to man. He
imposes his will to other people, and tries to convenience himself regardless of
what effects such behaviour might have to other people. Psychology is naturally
completely powerless in solving social problems, so it canít be very successful
in solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalytics Sigmund Freud and Carl
Gustav Jung created their own teaching and brought hope in curing psychological
disorders. They were very popular, but their teaching was abandoned as
unsuccessful because it was alienated from the causes that cause psychological
problems. All psychological problems originate from the cruel, immoral social
system, the system that puts obligations and discipline in first place, the
system that kills humanity, the system with no human warmth or love.
Psychoanalytics help people as much as they are able to make a human touch with
people who have psychological disorders. The more the doctors show they care for
their patients, the more they are able to help them, because this is what is
missing mostly in today's alienated society.
When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to
benefit themselves on the expense of others. That will be provided by the system
of evaluation among people. I will repeat it
again to stress the importance. Each person will get
an equal right to evaluate a few people he chooses by his free will. Positively
evaluated people will automatically receive small awards and people who get
negative evaluations will be punished in the same form. Such evaluations will be
important enough to people so that they will try hard to create the highest
possible conveniences to other people and avoid or stop damages to other people.
All people will be careful and caring towards other people. In such a manner,
man will become a value to another man. In such a manner man will build and
develop love in him himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That
will bring psychological health and I believe psychology will not be needed then
chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought large benefits to
people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven, and might be
alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. All of chemistry is
one big theory. Nuclear physics as well. So far, work in these scientific fields
confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesnít mean it will stay the
same in the future.
Work in these fields of sciences brings a lot of damage to humankind as well.
Scientists give themselves rights to play with atomic and molecular
modifications too easily. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure
what consequences they might bring to man. If such researches may bring profits
to corporations, they strongly support them without paying much attention to
possibly negative consequences to people.
Nuclear power plants produce huge amounts of radioactive material that is
unhealthy for people in the long run. Food we eat is produced with the use of
fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and chemical products that are
unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are produced with the
intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the
ground, water and air. The planet earth is one huge, unhealthy storage of waste.
There is a lot of support in the world to protect the human environment from
pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits.
Capitalist corporations are interested in profits only, not people. It comes to
my mind that genetically modified food was firstly produced and consumed in the
U.S. Nobody knows in certainty what the consequences of such food have or will
have on people. Scientists have very different opinions about that. Scientists
who oppose the use of genetically modified food do not have access to the media
controlled by corporations.
The disease of cancer is growing. Governments of countries around the world
almost synchronically accuse cigarettes for that and therefore, prohibit smoking
in order to make themselves look like they work seriously protecting the people.
Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I donít think either that
smoking is the main cause that spreads cancer. A combination of some research I
found shows that the United States have a smaller rate of smokers than Asia or
Africa, but it has a larger the rate of lung cancer. Greece has
the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not follow with the highest rate of
people suffering from lung cancer. Something else causes cancer more than
cigarettes, and it comes from developed countries.
More and more people are buying expensive organic foods. This is certainly not
because chemically and biologically treated food is healthy. Please see the
about food we buy and eat. In the future,
people will devote more attention to healthy feeding and the protection of their
environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer have the
power over the sciences. Scientific research will be independent from external
influences, but scientists will be required to adhere to the adopted standards
for health maintenance for people. The standards will be established through a
consensus of scientists. The new system will will stop poisoning the
people and polluting the environment. Every person shall have the
power to negatively evaluate scientists and apprentices who use unacceptable
means or methods in scientific research and production. The evaluation might
have such a large, direct impact on producers and apprentices that they would
not dare use harmful ingredients in their research and production. The great
advantage of the new system stems from the fact that the greatest power will be
directly in the hands of the people and therefore might not be corrupted.
sciences are those that have objectively developed the living standard of people
and most likely bring maximum benefits to society. But if human needs are
alienated then these objective sciences become alienated from their meaning as
well. In the developed world, production has overcome the objective human needs,
it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of
survival of the system we live in than the objective needs of people. I cannot
find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.
Mathematics is probably the most objective science that surely, significantly
contributes to advancement in society. But the question is how much is it
objectively necessary? The math Iíve used in my work as an engineer and
programmer is probably only the math that is taught in middle school. I was
required to take high-level mathematics at the University, just to meet the
bureaucratic requirement for acquisition of the title Bachelor of Architectural
Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the
scientific world should be removed as harmful. It is at least a loss of time. It
is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge,
or if one is not interested. Life practice should demonstrate what knowledge a
man should acquire to perform the job he wants, and then it is necessary to
provide the access to needed knowledge to everyone at any time.
The Future of Sciences
Authorities have throughout history been building unjustifiably complex,
mystified and alienated sciences. Not only is it that science largely has
incorrect or insufficiently correct basis, but academic recognition gives
credibility to such basis, which damages society. It directs society to
incorrect paths, the paths that cannot solve the problems of society because
such paths are alienated from the nature of the origin of social problems. In
addition, lack of critical acceptances of knowledge accustom people to expect
answers to all questions from authorities. That alienates people from the power
to mobilize their own abilities to solve deeper problems. Normally, such an
attitude impoverishes a manís abilities to recognize, understand and resolve
scientific, work, and everyday life problems.
Alienated knowledge is mainly in the wrong; it doesnít allow people to see the
exit from the dead end street in which humanity has entered. Iíve made a big
breakthrough because I didnít accept alienated sciences, because I kept a
natural logic and feel about what is good and what is not. In preparing the
solutions to the problems of humanity, Iíve just used a very simple logic with
which I've achieved very simple solutions that the alienated people, through the
system of education, were not able to perceive. The basis of this logic can be
expressed as follows: "In the future people will no longer go to school to learn
what is good, they will live what is good every day ."
The biggest and most complex changes in the system I have proposed will probably
be related to the division of work. The future economy will require a greater
mobility of labour, which could be able to follow the changes of social needs.
The only good division of labour that such changes will be able to follow is
based on a constantly open free market competition of work. The worker who
offers the highest productivity in any public work place at any time will get
Bureaucratic determination of necessary knowledge to perform different work
tasks by formal education and examinations will no longer exist in the new
system. Such conditions unnecessarily reduce the ability for workers to be
employed in positions they want, because formal education requires a lot of time.
I would say that an average person can learn
most jobs in a very short period of time. Why then does education last 12 to 20
years or even more? Education in the first place has a goal to point people to
the way that authorities have imposed throughout history. In that manner, the
followers of authorities throughout history guard their privileges. This is a
very alienated path that harms people. Such education becomes a brake for
development of the society.
Formal education should not be a
condition for obtaining a job because it is not a sufficient guarantee of work
ability. The best learning comes through practice. When a man loves what he
does, he quickly learns everything he needs to perform his job.
The new system that I have proposed, will establish a new, highly effective
system of accountability for the possible lack of realisation of working
proposals from workers. The new system will enable workers to give far greater
guarantees for productivity of their work than they can through diplomas,
recommendations, experience or morality in society. The responsibility of every
worker will be much greater than the responsibility of private entrepreneurs
today. This responsibility will be so high that nobody will try getting a job
for which they donít have enough knowledge.
Although diplomas will no longer be an important factor in hiring, education
will continue to be necessary, but it will change significantly. Formed in
capitalism is the opinion that education is profitable for students and because
of this education is expensive. But education is profitable for society
as a whole because educated people produce benefits to society.
Therefore education should be free. In the future all of the people will have a
simple and easy access to all knowledge, and to all sciences.
principle of education in the future will be based on the shortest and simplest
way to achieve the required knowledge. One can assume with great certainty that
most students will not study subjects that disinterest them or donít give them
direct benefits. Doctrines that are not going to get interest or bring
immediate benefits to society will go down in history. People will determine
what sciences will survive and which will not on their own interest. Education
in the future will aim to teach students the knowledge they themselves consider
necessary. This is the path of disalienation of sciences. Students will take
specialized courses on their own free will. They will make their curriculum of
studies on their own needs and abilities. I assume that the lectures in the
classical sense will mostly no longer exist. Knowledge is already available over
the Internet and this trend will expand and improve. I think a focus on the
future apprenticeship will be based on the consultation of students with
teachers, where teachers will explain to students what material wasnít
sufficiently clear to them when they were studying. Students and professors will
discuss problems in particular fields of work and perform exercises through
workshops. These workshops will probably include online students from around the
I will try to explain clearly in one example what the shortest way to achieve
required knowledge exactly means. Let us say that someone wants to study rocket
science. He begins the studies, and soon finds out that he doesnít know enough
math to be able to follow the lectures in rocket science. He will then stop the
study of rocket science, until he learns enough math to continue studying rocket
science again. Education will be very accessible and simple in the future.
Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than
twenty years. What slavery to bureaucracy that is! What a loss of time in the
most creative edge! I think that the average educated person may acquire
proficiency in surgery in a much shorter time if he removes everything that is
unnecessary. How? The student surgeons will
normally attend the surgeries of experienced surgeons. When a student finishes
the program to be a surgeon, he will estimate alone whether he is able to
perform a surgery. The surgeons will not estimate their own skills wrongfully
because the regulation of the work responsibility will be much stronger than it
is today. The patients will not be in danger of non-professional surgeons
because experienced surgeons will supervise the beginners. Besides that, when a
beginner surgeon feels capable for surgery he will still need to convince
patients that he is capable of doing it because patients will choose their
surgeons alone. A surgeon who makes a big mistake performing a surgery might
lose patients forever. So if a beginner surgeon doesn't feel capable of
performing a surgery, he could attend additional education as much as he feels
Today's complicated system of education has created the opinion that ordinary
people cannot easily overcome knowledge used by experts. This is wrong. If I
could overcome the formal knowledge of an architect, police inspector and
computer developer alone, in which I was not even interested in, then I think everyone
is able to do it if they find an interest and ability to do it. The same applies
to all professions. Also, the opinion that experts need years of studies in
order to understand their sciences is accepted today. That is wrong as well.
Everything in nature is simple, and that is the reason the essence of any
science is very simple. In the fields of sciences, there is nothing that cannot
be easily understood. Science becomes complicated when subjective, powerless and
ignorant people alienate them from their objective essence. Then we are talking
about alienated or false doctrines.
I think that in the future, all people will be interested to know and understand
the basics of all sciences. Man learns while he is alive.
People in the future will understand the essence of all sciences much better,
but that doesnít mean that all people will be experts in all scientific fields.
Great scientists need to study and work for years in order to perform at an
expert level. A pianist can quickly learn where all the notes on the piano are,
but a good pianist will practise playing for years, and that makes him a
pianist. A good pianist must love music and that love will gives him inspiration
to sit for hours before the piano and exercise. The same applies to the experts
at every workplace and every science.
December 4, 2008
Back to Top