Farmers Market




Lewis & Quark


The Future Part III: The Universal Future

     If you're reading this, then you have to be reading it via a computer, phone, tablet, or other device with a screen. Unless you've printed this out (and even then you'd have to go to an internet, networking device to get it), you will scroll through the length of words and read this post. In other words, without technology, my words here would be impossible to both make and read. And the networking device you're reading this on is a progression. You can trace the smartphone back to the "flip phone." And then back to the house phone. To Alexander Graham Bell's first phone. Telegraphs, Morse Code, and so on. And the same could be done for the tablet or computer. Besides the idea of gratitude for the immense capabilities of a phone, there's something else worth mentioning.
     In the last 142 years (1872 to 2018), the phone has advanced tremendously. It's gone from a tool that only works over wires to a mini computer with every snippet of information publicly available and a variety of other functions. Why? Because people, lots of them, wanted to bring the phone to a higher level. Because of advancement.
    The last post dealt with us as people of the future. The world outside has to be understood in the context of inside ourselves. Once we are the people of the future, then we can go about changing the world around us. Changing the world around us utilizes all three senses of time. We learn from the past--that's relatively easy. In the past, phones were made this way (calling, leaving recordings, etc.) Then the present. Phones today have cameras, calling, texting, internet, calculators, and more. And with both of those, we move forward. Present times have to move forward. We need phones with unlimited storage for photos, no lack of data, better charge, perhaps one day an actual AI. Siri is a response machine.
     In that specific situation, one can calculate several "hows" to get the desired ends. But there's a problem. The future as it points to reality and the human race as a whole is not just technological. Actually, it would seem that technological advancement is bad for humanity. The better your phone is, the more power you hold in your hand--and there are several ways to use that. If we craft armored exoskeletons (that work), there are multiple ways of using them. Imagine having an armored suit capable of surviving deep space for extended periods of time, or entering radioactive waste sites. How long do you think it would take for that technology to be applied in war?
     Wernher von Braun was a legendary rocket scientist who pioneered rocket technology, and was instrumental in giving America the intellectual and rocket know-how to place men on the moon. His rockets were meant for research, for the furthering of all of mankind's knowledge. Instead, they were turned to war in the service of Nazi Germany. You can sell your dreams--as long as they have enough nightmare in them. Plenty of people will listen to you wax poetic about giving the world free energy. A grand system of orbital satellites, beaming energy down to deserted places forever from the sun. People will listen, and then move on to the next person who will tell them that they're good people and tickle their ears. But promise them war, promise them the ability to destroy their enemies with fiery beaming bolts from the heavens, and people will not just listen--they will pay.
     The more power people have, the more they have the opportunity to be who they are--and who they are isn't a good thing. Imagine you gave the world superpowers. From a certain viewpoint--an optimistic, futurist one, that would be astounding and spectacular. A world of fantastic possibilities! A world where new boundaries could be crossed. But before we take that step, that's huge faith in humanity. If you got a hundred million dollars, what would you do with it? Spend it on what you want--and that's not wrong. Another observation about human beings as a whole: they don't always want good things. What we want is often bad. Our plan to give the world the opportunities it could have has quickly descended into chaos, with a world ruled by "villains," who would mostly turn out to be the common man, looking for an easier way to feed himself.
     This of course, assumes quite a lot. One, the assumption that there will be enemies in the future. And two, that people are primarily economically motivated. To those points, people have always been enemies. From the beginning of time, since Cain killed Abel, there has been war. That's part of humanity. And being economically motivated is nothing more than saying that people want what they want, and money is fundamentally a means for giving people what they want. The latter situation is only up for change in salvation. The former, however, has an apparent solution. While what I'm about to say may bolt you right out of your seat in terror, hear me out. I think a World State could be good, God willing. Before you jump to any conclusions, weigh a few things. One, it's very provocative to say that. That's part of it. Two, witness the literal words of God Himself.
"And the Lord said, 'Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.'" (Genesis 11:6)
     The unity of the human race is optimal. And what better way to do that through government? If we all stopped fighting and competing, pooled our resources, and strove for a single goal, nothing would be out of the question. Mars would be colonized within the month. In theory, a World State would be incredible, but in practice, because of the nature of fallen man, it would not be. Utopia (the political dream of futurists) is not possible. Utopia demands perfection, and perfection is unattainable by man by his own nature. But utopia is not the goal, and that does not exclude the trying. Just because we cannot reach the top of a mountain, that does not mean that we should stop climbing.
     The idea is not to make a government that withstands time for all time--nothing man-made can--but to create something that will last longer than our lifetimes. An excellent example is America. Of us who live there, we know America is no utopia. It is far from perfect. But it's lasted. For all this time, for years and years and years, America has persevered. That should be the model for our political forays. Yes, morality, yes, ethical practices, but also lasting. You create the cure for cancer...but then destroy it in two seconds, or never share it with anyone. What good does it do?
      When we climb that metaphorical mountain, we do it for our neighbors. Every change to the world, every step we move forward, is not for ourselves. If it is only for ourselves, then we've failed before we've begun. Every change we make, political, social, technological, must be for others. This point cannot be stressed enough. A better world is for them. Not ourselves. After the world is better, we keep striving for even more.
     If that motivation sounds like too much, let me rephrase it. The future of the human race depends upon us continuing to strive for something more. 
“Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever.” -Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
     But at the same time, not everyone is called to the same impact on the future. Some may be those people who finally cure cancer, or create a working exoskeleton. And some may be teachers who influence generations of students. Just because we can't measure or see change doesn't mean it's not happening. As a result of technology and advancement, the world is a better place than it was ten years ago. And ten years from now, it will be even better. If we believe, if we persevere, then the world will be transformed. And that means universally--everything. 
| Designed by Colorlib