Road to Social Utopia

If spiritual transformation is the key on the road to utopia for both the rich and the poor, then what is the key for society to become utopia for everyone, at all times. In other words, what is the key for a society, at what ever level of development to become, to evolve eventually into the self-sustaining, utopia where everyone can live happy and fulfilling lives?

We come full circle again to the original thread of this blog - where a discussion of the recent technological advances compared to Star Trek led to a discussion of Plato's Republic, Rousseau's Social Contract, etc. One of the many considerations that were in the minds of the American founding fathers was to create a society based on a division of power, so that each citizen has a fair share. And a key contribution by Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, in addition to their work on the Declaration of Independence, is their work on promoting the education of the general public, not for just the rich.

Jefferson made sure public education is a key priority becaused he believed that an educated well0informed public is the foundation of a democracy, is the shield against the mob mentality that destroyed not only the French Revolution, but most other populist movements. All successful social movements have been based on education, because spiritual transformation is indeed a part of the educational process. The purpose of education is not memorize facts and figures, but to transform the thinking processs, the perspective of a person, to affect a paradigm shift.

Ben Franklin popularized the concept of the self-learned man, not only by example, but also by promoting and supporting public institutions, like libraries and associations for adults to exchange ideas and learn. A major feature of utopia must be the continuous learning process of everyone, not just children. Indeed, the adults must be like children in utopia.

Another key feature of utopia must be the civic involvement of all citizens, not just politicians, where decisions are made by everyone as a community, not just a few, where discussions can take place freely and with civility. It is this public civic community that requires a well-educated citizenry. If even one or two people cross the wrong-side of the Solzhenitsen line, public discussion of important issues cannot possibly be effective, and when there is a critical mass of these wrong-minded people, partisan politics is assured.

When everyone in society takes responsibility for doing the right thing, then utopia is based on a community of leaders, instead of a government leading a society of followers. Indeed, when everyone in society is striving to do the right thing at all times, there is little need for much of a government. Utopia is the dream of the right wing politicians who want to minimize government's role in the life of the people. It is also the dream of anarchists who want no government at all. But, ironically, utopia belongs to the liberals, who believe that everyone in society has a right to living a happy productive meaningful life, with or without the help of society. What distinguishes utopia from the left-wing totalitarian nightmares that passed as utopia in the past, is the role of government or the lack of it, and the role of individuals. Instead of government programs and legislations, instead of police enforcement and judicial deliberations, utopian decisions and actions are made by individuals, as a part of a group, a community, each striving to do the right thing, for the moment, for that particular part of the whole, a fractal society.

So the key for a society on the road to utopia, is amazingly, remarkably similar to that for an individual, spiritual transformation. Traditional social structures must be transformed, just as industrial societies have to transform to fit into an information age, as hierarchal organizations have to transform into a networked organization to function in the new society. A key feature of utopia's social transformation is the minimization of itself, fewer government agencies, fewer legislations, fewer expenditure, fewer taxes, fewer social programs, fewer intrusion into the life of the individual. Yet, ironically, the life of the individual is fuller and more connected to the others in the community. Instead of relying on the formal structure of governments to make connections to others in society, individuals in utopia find their own connections, spontaneously, dynamically, and constantly changing, adapting.

Contrary to the dreams of all the utopians of the past, the road to utopia is not more government, but less.

The Rich Road to Utopia

Unlike the Poor Road to Utopia, the rich do not travel alone.

Contrary to popular beliefs, being rich is not the same as being happy. The rich can have just as many miserable problems as the poor. They just have more ways to deal with them. And just like the poor, there are just as many traps, from addiction, to relationship nightmares.

The road to utopia for the rich, in a simple phrase, is to become poor.

Chirst told a rich young man, from a righteous family, who obeyed all the laws, and tithed and cared for the poor, that to enter the kingdom of heaven, he must give away all his riches and follow Christ. The man went away very unhappy, and Christ told the disciples the parable of the camel and the needle. The disciples lamented what chances then, would they and the poor have. Christ replied that all things are possible.

I don't think it is simply to give away all the money. I think it has to do with what Christ's ministry was all about. He was among the people, rich and poor, living with them daily, doing day-to-day activities. He lived among the people. One of the greatest misery of being rich is the isolation forced on them by their fame and riches. Poparazzi not withstanding, just the constant worrisome prudence of second-guessing people's motives when they are getting near, physically or emotionally, must be a tiresome burden. What Christ offered the rich young man was not just giving away the money, but the freedom that comes from not worrying about the money. I don't think it would have been enough for him to just, for example, make a huge donation to the temple. Christ never asked anyone to give money to his disciples, and least of all to himself. I think the road to utopia is to become personally involved in the lives of others, to give freely without reservation and without conditions, to use the power and influence that comes from riches, to raise the others out of poverty, out of misery. That was the kingdom of heaven that Christ asked of the young man. The difficulty comes from the habits of the rich. They become rich by habits of holding on, of acquiring, not of letting go, not of giving. An ancient Chinese proverb says that it is easier to move mountains and change the courses of rivers than it is to change habits and characters.

Yet, even though it is more difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, Christ has said that it is possible. Mathematically speaking, there is no topological reason that a camel cannot transform and morph through the eye of a needle. Similarly, there is no spiritual reason that a rich person cannot transform and enter the kingdom of heaven.

The same key, spiritual transformation, works for both the poor and the rich on the road to utopia. What does a society need to transform, then, in order for it to become utopia for both the rich and the poor, both the old and the young, for everyone?

The Poor on the Road to Utopia

Just like mental patients suffer from many simultaneous determinant factors, not just one or two, poverty is also caused by the convergence of different factors in a person's life, before it manifests economically. Right wing pundits have often blamed the poor themselves for not working hard enough, not saving deep enough, not thinking smart enough, not having characters or guts enough. Left wing pundits have often blamed society, or technology, or globalization, or foreign outsourcing, or part-time employment, or low minimum wage, or big corporations, or anyone and everyone else except the poor themselves. The truth is stranger than fiction, and each case is unique. Poor people are poor not because they want to be poor, not because they make themselves poor, although there are contributing factors, and also actions they can implement to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, to use an old cliche.

The road to utopia for the poor is not the same as the one for the rich, which is another story. Indeed, the road to utopia is different for each individual, as diverse as individuality in our society.

For some, the first step towards utopia is to conquere substance abuse and addiction of any sort, including behaviorial addication, such as gambling, shopping, etc. For others, the first step is to conquere inner demons; while for others, it is to face up to external bullies. However, there is a general plan for all that has proven successful for many in the past. A whole industry has grown out of books such as Steven Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, or Anthony Robbin's series of Awake the Giant Within, or numerous other books aimed at those who want to become empowered for self-transformation. The key is empowerment, and self-transformation. We cannot change other people, and depending on our position in society, often, we cannot change much of our external conditions. For the poor, the powerless, the only reality they can change is themselves. And the first step towards utopia is to change themselves so that they are empowered, to make more changes, both in themselves, and in the world. With time, and cumulative changes, like compound interest, their wealth in transformation will grow and pull themselves up and out of poverty.

The problem for most people is time. Most people today have been conditioned by media and technology to expect instant gratification. We see it in children today far too often, and in adults, too. Another cliche says that Rome wasn't built in a day. Poverty will not be eradicated in a decade. Children expect to live the same standard of living as their parents, but don't want to work at the same level of productivity, and long hours, and intensity. Expectations and attitudes are the most serious roadblocks on the poor's journey to utopia. The roadblocks are fed by the circumstances beyond their control, such as social conditions, and prejudices. The truth is stranger than fiction. Poverty is not the result of the poor's own doing, nor is it the result of social injustice. It is a manifestation of individual and social attitudes towards life.

Until we, as individuals and as a collective society, change our attitudes towards different aspects of life's meaning, utopia will be forever out of reach. Our progress is merely a spiral running in circle, getting nowhere with more technology, faster and faster, staying alive longer and longer, doing nothing better and better, and leaving the earth for our children and grand-children, a little poorer and poorer with each subsequent generation.

The road for society towards utopia is the same as the one for an individual: a spiritual transformation of empowerment, not only of the self, but also of others, and of society as a whole. For the poor, when their circle of influence include only themselves, the road to utopia is mostly self-transformation; for the rich, with progressively larger circles of influence that come with greater wealth, the road to utopia is social-transformation as well as self-transformation. Changes must come first from within. Even for the poor, with limited resources, they can affect others in their lives, in day-to-day living. Christ has said that it is harder for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. I have always puzzled over this. For anyone who has attempted to change their old habits, old attitudes, old prejudices, it is not far-fetch to believe that it is more difficult to change the neural pathways we know and love, than it is to change the physical world we can manipulate.

Utopia, Justice, and Disasters

An article in BusinessWeek's September 26 issue, on page 146, by Laura D'Andrea Tyson, titled "Land of Unequal Opportunity" highlights succinctly the issue of the responsibility of the rich towards the poor in a just society, like utopia. Some statistics from the article:

The pretax income of the top 1% of Americans is greater than the bottom 40% combined.

The household wealth of the top 1% of Americans is greater than the bottom 90% combined.

The proposed repealed estate tax benefits this 1% of the population the most, with two-thirds of the benefits going to them. While the government, of the people, by the people, for the people, has to content with a reduction of an estimated $745 billion over 10 years, while dealing with the increase cost of health care, pension plans, and the demand for higher education.

Another good point mentioned in the article is the faith people, especially poor people place on the government, especially in the event of disasters. Here is the lead paragraph of the article:

"Just days before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the U.S. Census Bureau published its annual report on income in America. The poverty rate increased in 2004 for the fourth year in a row, and 37 million Americans (12.7% of the population) were living in poverty - 4 million more than in 2001, despite three years of economic recovery. Sadly, more than 15 million of these improverished Americans, many of them children, lived in households headed by full-time workers."

I previously mentioned the responsibility of the top 5% of the population towards the bottom 10%. I pulled these figures out of thin air as an initial estimate of the disparity, the skewed distribution of wealth in the population. In the case of Americans, the curve is even more skewed than that. The ratio is more like 1% to 13%.

No matter what the ratio may be, the responsibilities are the same. And the article raised a very good point, regarding the needs during an emergency event, such as natural disasters. There are also disasters to consider, such as personal health and accidents. We already have many altruistic organizations helping the poor, the sick, and the displaced. But the support for these great organizations are mainly from grass-root average citizens. It is time for the very rich to dedicate themselves to the advancement of the very poor. Bill Gates already poured billions into his foundation for many worthwhile causes. If all of the top 5% of America walk their talk of justice and opportunities for all, then utopia is not far behind. Until then, any talk of equality and justice is nothing more than that.

It is true that life is not fair, and that justice is an ideal created out of human society. Nature has never been fair or just. Nineteenth century laissez-faire proponents have always used Darwinian arguments of survival of the fittests for their predatory policies against the weak. We have seen how wrong they were during the Second World War. When society abandon the poorest and the weakest members, some other group becomes next in line. Society is a result of a social contract that protects everyone from the strongest. Without it, we are all in peril, especailly in times of crisis. That's when we need civility the most.

Instead of a bloated government bureaucracy to regulate the rich fulfilling their responsibility towards the poor, it should be a voluntary, self-regulated social action. Instead of an army of accountants deciding who belongs in the top 5%, and who belongs in the bottom 10%, it is much more efficient for each person to decide according to conscience. Furthermore, with their proven abilities, the rich will certainly be able to come up with ideas and methods to help, which are beyond that of a bureaucracy. The Cold War has proven that free-enterprise is more effective than central planning.

Utopia is not a matter of governmental regulations of the citizens, but each person making every decision to land on the right side of the Solzhenitsyn line, dividing good and evil, that runs through every heart, regardless of race, creed, or ideology. Doing the right thing sometimes require governmental intervention, sometimes simply social and peer pressure. The correct balance between the two depends on the social context. In utopia, it will be mostly the latter; in today's Land of Unequal Opportunity, it may be more of the former.

Utopia and the Poor

Christ said that the poor will always be with us. In utopia, there will be those, for whatever reasons, are deprived of the abilities or opportunities to achieve the same level of self-sufficiency, or independence that the average population enjoys.

In the Star Trek universe, being poor is not measured in material terms, since everyone would enjoy the same material abundance that comes from almost-free energy and technology. Instead, becoming poor is a result of mental and psychological discontinuity with the rest of society, like those whose psychic abilities keep them from a normal life, or whose anti-social behavior keep others from their lives.

Traditional treatment of the poor range from apathy such as ignoring them, to authoritarian admonition-like "do this to improve yourself or else". More recent liberal democratic methods range from the left-leaning social welfare safety net, to the right-leaning workfare. Our treatment of the poor reflects who we are as a society, highlighting the relationships we have with each other, with the greater whole, and within each individual.

I think that in utopia, the poor will be neither pitied nor condemned. Just as we no longer pity those born with disabilities or handicaps, utopian poor will be simply another member of society who can contribute whatever they can. Just like the criminals in utopia will be treated with rehabilitation instead of simple punishment, the poor will be treated with education and self-actualization instead of simple hand-outs.

Most of the poor of today are poor not because of one or two reasons, but have been affected by a multitude of factors, sometimes simulatanuously, sometimes sequentially. Some of the poor are affected by addictions or substance abuse, others are affected by relationship abuse, and many are simply affected by the circumstance of being powerless. The poorer they are, the less able they are to affect changes, no matter how great their desire, how strong their character, or how smart their intelligence. Some of them are simply trapped by circumstance.

In utopia, the poor will find resources available to them to extricate themselves from those traps. Just like children learn from experience, and gain confidence from doing, from acting on their own volition, making their own decisions, the poor must also learn by their own mistakes, and celebrate their own victories. Hand-outs deprived them the oppportunities in victories, and apathy deprived them of opportunities. The poor need the same nurturing and protection that children receive from parents. It is the responsibility of governments to protect the poor, by legislation, and the duty of the rich to nurture them, by philanthropy.

The simple hand-outs of social welfare cultivates a culture of dependency, creating adults who live like spoiled-brats, wanting more, yet not working for the rewards, and not learning at all.

The simple laissez-faire policies of past industrial nations created the oppressive poverty that led to revolutions, and social instability, not only in the past, but also visible in some of the poor nations of the world today.

A middle ground of paternal nurturing is needed to care for the poor as we would children. The poor will always be with us. How we treat them reflects on our character as individuals and as a society, a community.

How a poor person extricate himself or herself from a trap of circumstance, is a reflection of the personal character that we all admire when there is succees.

Utopia and the Rich

Ideally, everyone in utopia is rich. Without getting into a detailed definition of what is rich, let's just say that the rich, in this case, simply refers to the top 5% of the population. In the US and Canada, this represents the people who owns more than 50% of the assets, or is that 50% of the income. In any case, it is a highly skewed curse, nothing Bell, nothing Gaussian, nothing normal about it. In utopia, hopefully the distribution is more even.

In utopia as well as today, the rich has a responsibility to act as the leaders of their society. In the old days, the kings ruled by divine right, the aristocrats ruled by hereditory lineage. Both are by coincidence of birth. Today, the rich get there by the strength of their character, the intelligence of their decisions, and the hard work of their courage; they get there by the coincidence of their genes, and to some extent, the coincidence of circumstances called good fortune. Bill Gates was there at the right place, and the right time. Admittedly, without long hours of hard work and being smart enough to anticiplate the trend of personal computing, no amount of good fortune would be enough. However, just like oxygen is to fuel, no amount of hard work and intelligence is enough without good fortune. Hence, the responsibility of the rich, with the power given to them, is to be stewards of society, to help shepherd the rest of us towards utopia. With great power comes great responsibility, so says one of my favorite movies.

It is a wonder that the powers bestowed on our richest and most powerful have not produced more corruption and evil in our society. After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think it has to do with the democratic institutions of our society, and the vertical mobility that allowed the best to rise to the top. Most people who reached the top the hard way usually remember their origin. Combine that natural humility with the checks and balances of a civil society, and it is no wonder that the liberal democracies of the world continue to get richer and more prosperous than any other time in history.

However, what has been missing in our society that would be highly visible in utopia, I think, is the work of the rich to support the bottom 10% of the other end of society. For whatever reasons, there are always the poor amongst us. In a just society, the poorest is not much poorer that the richest. Until we reach utopia, the poorest will always be much poorer. The definition of "much" is left to another time, but it is not as important as the work of the rich for the poor. The concept of a leader washing the feet of his disciples was revolution in Christ's time, and even today it is rare.

When Immanuel Kant taught his classes, he focused his energy at the middle of the class, the average student. He reasoned that the brightest students will always find their own level, and learn according to their own abilities, while the bottom of the class required much more time and energy than he could reasonably provide. By lifting the average students to their highest level, he hoped that he added something to society in the most efficient and effective manner.

In the same way, governments can only lift the average population to their highest level, while allowing the best and brightest to achieve their levels. And in all cases, except perhaps the most idealistic of societies, like communes, the bottom always suffer, not from ill-will, or from conspiracy, but from simple neglict, because resources are limited, and those least able to fight for themselves, to speak up for themselves, receive less than everyone else.

It is this reason, that the rich has the responsibility to speak up in a just society, for the poor, to give strength to the weak, and give voice to the voiceless. It is this emerging trend that is becoming evident in American society. What is needed, is for this generosity of spirit to extend across boundaries of prejudices, to stand up as the good samaritan did, not only for those in our family, our ethnic group, our country, by for all mankind.

Julius Caeser was popular with the Roman people because he spent the riches after his return as a conquering hero, not to buy up votes from the aristocratic senators, but to build public projects such as roads and buildings for the people. For this generosity, the senate became jealous and accused him of ambition. Shakespeare told the story much better than I can in his play.

In utopia, jealousy is a negative emotion recognized for what it is, and people of all strata in society, though not immune to it, will see clearly and be able to deal with it without resorting to daggers, real or verbal. Only then, when society is a community, without hidden agenda, can it become utopia when everyone works together for the whole, instead of fighting for the small portion of their own.

The rich, by virtue of winning the biggest portions, has the responsibility and the luxury to reach back to the least able in society, to lift them up to the average, by providing opportunities, not hand-outs, so the less fortunate would have a level-playing field in luck, to climb up out of the hole, the abyss, that separates them from the rest of society.

This generosity of spirit will also free the government from the demanding tasks of caring for the few whose needs drain the public purse the most, effectively keeping the average from rising to its highest possible level. Instead of inefficient public bureaucracy taking on the duties of caring for the bottom 10%, it requires the skills and effectiveness of the top 5% to shepherd the stragglers and keep the community together.

The poor, on the other hand, also has responsibilities in utopia but that's another chapter in our story.

Utopia and Children

Christ has said that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again.

Utopia is not for adults with their hearts filled with preconceived notions and prejudices. When a child learns to be prejudiced, that child loses the innocence that entitles entrance into utopia.

We need to teach our children in ways that will free their minds from the chains that bind the older generations, while keeping them safe from the evil that lurks on the streets, in the computers. That's a tough balancing act.

What will utopia do with criminals, or children who misbehave? The entire correctional and penal industry depends on a seemingly endless supply of criminals. Utopia is only sustainable when it can deal with a system that is designed to phase out, when all the criminals are gone. What kind of criminal justice system can it be?

Star Trek has rehabilitation centers. That's easy when energy is cheap and resources plentiful. What choice can a society make, when the choices are between saving the lives of children who are starving, and making the lives of criminals comfortable. I think the Bible has a very good illustration of these choices. In the Old Testement, when it was a society of poor slaves running away from their enemies, the Law was tough and ruthless; in the New Testement, when it was a society living in peaceful times, as a major trading partner of the Roman Empire at the peak of its power, Christ taught the spirit of forgiveness. I have always been puzzled by the dicotomy of the Bible in this respect, and is only now reasonably certain that a society must adapt its law with circumstances. As Christ said, the laws were made for men. As long as the laws hang from the two great commandments, or the principles which form the foundation, the constitution of a society, then changes to them are necessary as societies evolve.

We cannot reach utopia in a single giant step. And on the long journey there, we must adapt the rules, to suit the circumstances, as long as the adaptations are made in the right spirit, i.e., going in the right direction on the long journey, then forgiveness truimps over all. Some place in the book of Isaiah, I believe, is the basis of the message of forgiveness that Christ taught: a righteous man who sins, even if he was righteous all his life, becomes a sinner, and similarly, a sinner who repents and sins no more, even if he was a sinner all his life, becomes righteous.

Each country is on a different path towards utopia, and different points in the journey. Each must decide for itself what is appropriate for its criminals. Just like each person must decide for himself or herself what is appropriate in each decision, trusting in each person's conscience alone, each society must decide of themselves, according to their own collective conscience, weighing the choices and resources. No country has not had dark days in its past, and so none is in a position to dictate what anyone else should or should not do. Any attempt will sound hypocritical.

When we reach utopia, we will have more freedom to make the right choices, and not be faced with the dilemma that we must face today, everyday. Until then, we can only teach children to make the right choices, with an open mind, a pure heart, and be careful of the evil on the streets, not necessarily to fear them, definitely not to hate them, but to pity the ones who can see no hope in the future, no joy in their lives, but to resort to the lowest form of existence that was the beginning of human evolution, to fight and steal from each other. Utopian reactions to criminals and misbehaving children, I believe, would be a balance of firm consternation and compassionate concern. What can be done for them, depends on the resources and abilities of the time.

Utopia, Dystopia, and Prejudices

Sometimes life happens in seredipity, and coincidences occur far too frequently than statistics would suggest.

After posting the last blog on utopia, and mentioning Bill Joy's article, I googled it to refresh my memory of what I recalled to be an inspiring article. After finding it and re-reading it, I realize how poignant it is, especially since the Grand Challenge came up with a winner, an autonomous vehicle that traversed difficult terrain for over a couple hundred miles, in under seven hours. The amazing aspect of the Great Challenge is that within one year of the past failed attempts, when all the participants failed within sight of the starting line, over a quarter of the two dozens participants this year finished! And the top five finishers are witnin an hour of each other. Bill Joy predicted that self-replicating, almost sentient robots may be technically possible by the year 2030. Humanity has a quarter century to prepare for utopia or dystopia. Is our future heaven or hell?

To mix my metaphors a little, I would say that heaven and hell are separated by the Solzhenitsyn thin line, the thin line that runs through every human heart, regardless of race, creed, political ideology, or any other labels. Prejudices and hatred is barely beneath the surface of every human heart, covered by a thin veneer of civility. In the Oct. 7 issue of Nature, there is a study published by the US National Institute of Aging, which looked at stereotypes of different nations, and the perceptions of people with respect to their own stereotypes. Most people have a misconception of themselves, and their own fellow citizens. And coincidentally, the movie "Crash", starring Sandra Bullock, deals with similar issues.

Prejudices are based on misconceptions. Until we can learn to base our decisions on true and reliable data, utopia will be forever out of reach. Worse yet, with the transforming power yet to come, in the new technologies yet to be invented, dystopia will surely come pouring forth from the hearts of people who, out of ignorance, or arrogrance, or anger, or hatred, unleashing species extinction. If we, humanity, cannot contain our own community, then perhaps we deserve extinction.

With the new powerful technologies yet to come, we have a responsibility, collectively, to ensure that power does not fall into the wrong hands. History has shown the indiscriminate nature of technological power. Fire burns brightly, gunpowder explodes loudly, and nuclear weapons terrifies, no matter who wields the power. History has also shown that suppression is not the answer. Hackers and software vulnerabilities have shown that knowledge and suppression of knowledge is incompatible. Knowledge, like water, will always find a leak.

What we must do, as a community of humanity, must solve this problem together, not as individuals, but as a family. Just like in a family, it is always the children who learn and adapt new technology best, so too we must ensure that children acqure the responsibility to decide, to act, on the good side of that fine line which separates us from the abyss. The time is short, and the task immense, but if we begin immediately, and accomplish small tasks together, we can ensure a new generation of children will matures into responsible adults, who know the limits of their abilities, and look both way before stepping into the highway of the future. First and foremost, we must teach our children to transcend above prejudices, above the misguided stereotypes, and look at the world as individuals, without preconceived notions, but for what it realy is, for better or for worse. Most of all, in spite of all the darkness of the dystopic visions of extinction, we must have hope and optimism, to bring about utopia. And the first step in this journey together, is for the rich nations, the rich individuals, to give hope to those who have not. Instead of wasting energy on material things, humanity must focus more on fellow hearts and mind, to ensure that each thread in the tapestry of life, will shine, that each child in the family of humanity will look forward to living in the future.

It is this latest trend of altruism in American culture that gives me hope of the utopia yet to come, and not the dystopic Armmggedom found in Bill Joy's article, or in Revelation. When people like Oprah and Dr. Phil, and many others, decide to give voice to those without voice, to give strength to those in despair, to give hope and joy to those who are desparate, to give without expectation of reward, to love without judgment, this is the brightest thread in our collective tapestry that will bring for a beautiful future. Yet, nature is full of examples where life is on the verge of tipping over; we all stand at the edge of the precipice, a little more effort and we are safe, a little less and we all perish. Like the parable of those waiting for the master's return, vigilance and not a moment's lax attention is required if we are to reach heaven's door.

Bush had the right idea, when they came up with the jargon, "Leave No Child Behind". What we need is to extend that for all children in the world, and not just those in any one particular country, or any economic social strata. The war against terrorism can be won by showering each child with love; the war of attrition against suicide bombers can be won only by cutting off the supply of angry disillusioned young men who see no hope, no joy in the future. "Love thy enemy" is literally the best strategy.

What is Utopia?

Looking back at the titles of my previous posts, I realize that my stream of consciousness progressed from blogging in the Millennium, to reality shows, to nomadic devices, to freedom, to will, to bullies, to finally utopia. Back to the future. A little twisted stream but that's the nature of digression. Looking at the last post, which I confess is rather dark and heavy, I could follow the darkness and get into the history of Nazi Germany, how an advanced society can return to savagery, or I could reiterate the injustice of apathy concerning bullies, or I could dive into a religious study of Solzhenitsyn's comment on good and evil, the nature of repentence being an opportunity to cross that fine line every time we make a decision. So many topics to choose from, and so many words in my mind. I think it would be best if I stick to looking at the future through mirrored glasses, so that I can see what has been, but also, and more importantly, where I am heading, hopefully. Reflections that are meaningful to the future are always better than reflections that are merely for the purpose of self-edification. So, what is utopia and how can we get there?

There have been many attempts to define utopia, from Plato's autocratic republic, to Rousseau's social contract, the communists' attempt of totalitarianism, and Christian's kingdom of heaven on earth. One can fairly say that three millenniums of history has been a grand attempt in social experiment in search of utopia.

I think the closest we have come to real utopia is, ironically, in television, specifically, in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. I don't mean the original adventurous Wagon Train to the Star's concept. I mean the eventually evolved universe of United Federation of Planets, with its Prime Directive of non-interference with other cultures, and freedom and liberty for all. Of course, it is not real, and could never become real, unless energy is cheap, gravity is artificial, and matter can be beamed off the planet. Nevertheless, this utopia in the Star Trek universe is no less real than Plato's republic, or the communist's planned economy. The only difference lies in what we accept as possible, and what we accept as impossible. There lies the rub, our own assumptions of how the universe operates. The communist losts the Cold War not because they thought they could planned the lives of millions of people better than those people themselves. The same with Plato and his republic, and the committees during the Frech Revolution. Men have always wanted to dominate others, and thought themselves, by virtue or vice of having more power over others, are better qualified to run their lives. The highest virtue of all is the wisdom to be humble, to know enough about the world to know that each man knows far too little in the real universe. Newton said that if he saw further than others, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. There are always giants where we don't see them, our blind spots, who will remind us of what we don't know. It is this wisdom of humility that prompted Gene Roddenberry to create the Prime Directive in his universe, to remind us that we don't know enough to decide for other cultures what is best for them. The Fords and Rockefellers of yesteryears, thought they were great philantropists by giving medicine and saving lives in poorer countries. Yet, without a truely loving spirit to follow through with the lives of the people they saved, the result is far worse today, with more poverty and misery than ever. Life doesn't respond to simple fixes. That's what the Prime Directive says. The utopia in the Star Trek universe is one that practices "Live and let live." Life is hard enough without having more hardship created by conflicts or ignorance or misunderstanding. As Scott Peck said in his book, "Road Less Traveled", life is difficult. In utopia, life is not less difficult, just that people have learned, by standing on the shoulders of giants, the tools and techniques necessary to make life easier to bear. How can lions lie down with lambs? Only when they have been fed, and feel content. Can lions be vegans? In a Star Trek universe of replicators and cheap bountiful energy, why not? I hear soy steaks are fairly tasty.

So how can we get there from here? Can we invent the holodeck? What is possible to implement today from the Star Trek universe? In fact, most of the communication technology, except the subspace portion, already is common place today. Even most of the computing technology is technically feasible, except Data's positronic matrix (but that's really from Asimov's universe, and that's another story). The really challenging, ahem, impossible technology is the energy conversion stuff. From warp, to gravity, not to mention shields and phasers, none of it can be created today, given the laws of physics as we understand them. But who knows...

What about the social structure of utopia? Instead of the autocratic rules of the republic, we can postulate that the UFP is a liberal democracy of some sort, although no mention of it can be found in any of the episodes or movies. And one can assume vertical mobility as well as meritocracy of some sort. With endless energy and money being of little worth, work is whatever one finds interesting. It is at this point, that I think the Star Trek universe breaks down. In the same way that communism broke apart under the weight of misguided human psychology, a society cannot function with its member doing whatever it pleases without some kind of reward and motivation. Perhaps we move up the ladder of self-actualization, and the reward for good work comes in the form of recognition, instead of food and shelter, etc.

Indeed, we already have a nascent economy in this form. It is called the open source community, where people do not work for monetary rewards, but for a sense of satisfaction. Will this trend continue and become the major economic force of a future utopia?

There are still issues of energy and resources to consider. Even in the Star Trek universe where energy is cheap, in the form of dilithium crystals, they still have to be mined. The trend towards a sustainable economy, with the three R's: Reduce, Re-use, and Recycle, must be a pillar of our utopia. It would be impossible otherwise. Solar and wind energy already gained ground since the energy crisis of the '70s. Nuclear power still has problems with disposing waste, but that is being worked on while greenhouse gases and acid rain are reduced. Alternative fuel and hybrid technology, in combination with new lighter and stronger material, and construction techniques will reduce our dependence on petroleum. The ultimate test of utopia will be our ability to create a sustainable community in space, or underwater, with limited resources, or at least, self-sufficient resources.

It seems to me that we are standing at the edge of new possibilities, as long as we don't drop the ball and allow our own pride and prejudices to propagate conflicts and destruction; utopia will be within our grasp, if not ours, than our children's or grandchildren's. Every age probably has the same feeling, from the days of explorers, and pioneers, all to the first community with fire, or horses, or the first harvest. Yet, with each new technology, unless human hearts also find a higher place, our dream of utopia is but a dream; and when our willful disregard for others fill the whole world, Armaggedon becomes the final nightmare. A fine line runs through every human heart, separating utopia from Armaggedon, a thin line at a time.

Together, we can weave a tapestry of heavenly beauty, or of hellish ugliness. We contribute to our collective destiny, one thread at a time.

Bullies, Hackers, and Terrorists

Bullying is one of the oldest social disease in human society. Hacking (or more appropriately speaking, cracking) is one of the newest social disease in the last millennium. Terrorism has at its root in the same source and origian as bullying and cracking, in the depth of the human psyche.

Scott Peck wrote in his book, "People of the Lie", that the root of all evil is not in money, not even in the desire for money, but the exaggerated love of self, the love the pushes out love for any other. Bullies, hackers, and terrorists share the same exaggerated love of self excluding all others.

Rudolph Giuliani's idea that we must stand up to bullies is a good start because when we stand and be counted, to say, "here I am", the bully must stop, and take notice of someone outside of himself. Depending on the depth of the sickness, such an act of strength is sufficient to bring the person back to normalcy. Rarely does it takes an extreme act like it did with Nazi Germany, when an entire nation must be forced to re-examine its own self-love.

The other aspect of these social diseases are the need to dominate, to control their victims. Bullies sometimes dominate not only by physical force, but also with words of criticism, of demeaning comments, of psychological rejection. They can also dominate by controlling, by taking away a person's choices, a person's inalienable right to liberty. In the same sense, hackers, when they become crackers engaging in criminal activities, seek control and domination by breaking down the electronic defenses of others, to prove to themselves that they are superior in some way, in the same way that bullies who pushes little kids around in the playground have issues with their own self-esteem.

Are terrorists fanatics loyal to their cause, whatever they may be? Or, are they merely another form of bullying, hurting innocent powerless victims who can't fight back?

The new millennium has brought us new technology, nomadic devices that both free and bind us, standards of living that are at the same time highest in human history, and poorest in some places.

In his book, "Gulag Archipelago", Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that there is a fine line that run through every human heart, regardless of political ideology, of race or creed, or any other artifical label or distinction. This fine line separates good from evil, and every human heart can make a choice, a free will determination of which side of the line to land, to walk, to live. Every step we take, every decision we make, crosses that line. Until we change every heart so that old evil does not become new terror, technology is not a solution, only a path to the world described by Bill Joy in his article warning against rogue individuals who uses technology to harm not only a few, but many. Technology is merely a neutral multiplier. How we use technology depends on what is in our heart. Until we can change every human heart to land and live on the good side of that fine line which runs through every human heart, we won't achieve utopia or a kingdom of heaven on earth.

Triumph of Freedom and Will and Faith

The amazing aspect of the Kyle Maynard story is the opposite outcome of what most people might expect.

Following the discussion of an early post on Jacques Attali's Millennium, and seeing the other guests that were also on the Oprah show with Kyle, I see a pattern emerging out of American culture that is to be applauded. Instead of following blindly in the footstep of the bullies of the masses, Kyle's parents, with love in their hearts flowing from their strong faith in a loving God, deflected the bullying of the "Norm", and declared an extraordinary son normal. That is the irony and heroism of the story. Unlike other parents, who insist their average children are stars and have impossible expectations, Kyle's parents expect a child with challenging obstacles in his way to grow and mature like a normal child, and with love and nurturing, they achieve what most other parents dreamed impossible.

The tyranny of the masses, as the French Revolution has inspired so many writers to descibe, can be a horrifying force. When a mob of average people, whether wielding pitch forks or hurtful words, whether throwing stones or stabbing glances, can be a destructive force against which, an individual has no defence, except a faith as strong and formidable as God.

Some of us have lived through those years in school when bullies have nothing better to do than to impose their will, and anger on those who would accept it. Dr. Phil's show had a guest who was so filled with anger from her childhood, that she inflicts terror and fear on her children everyday, yelling and screaming, insulting and swearing. Bullies merely pass along what they cannot control, releasing the demons in their past, past on to them from their earlier years of innocence and helplessness. Rudolph Giuliani once said that he learned at an early age to stand up to bullies. I will add that we also need to pity them because, as Christ said, they know not what they do. Some of these bullies are also victims who have been so filled with anger, that their brains are no longer their own. They simply repeat the sins of their fathers. However, there are also bullies who are truly evil, in the sense of what M. Scott Peck described in his book, "People of the Lie."

Fortunately, even evil bullies, like those in Nazi Germany, can be conquered. Scott Peck's other books, "A Different Drum", and "A World Waiting to Be Born", as well as his classic "A Road Less Traveled", describe the process of community building that is the antidote to evil. It is the loving community behind Kyle Maynard that made his triumph possible; it is his personal courage that makes his triumph admirable.

On the same Oprah show with Kyle were Emmanuel Ofusu Yeboah and Jim MacLaren who are depicted in the movie Emmanuel's Gift. Their story is also a triump of freedom and will. Emmanuel, with the loving support of his mother, changed the bullying attitude of a nation, and freed his fellow citizens from a life of scorn and rejection.

These examples of courage gives me hope that our future is not as bleak as some futurists might tell us, nor as rosy, either.

Triumph of Freedom and Will

I was inspired by someone on Oprah's show last week. Kyle Maynard was born without hands and feet, with something called congenital amputation that caused him to be born with arms that end at the elbow, and legs that end at the knee. Yet, he was a nose tackle on a football team in elementary school, and a champion in varsity wrestling. He can type faster than most adults, wrote a book, and is making a living speaking, and inspiring millions. He lives not only to be independent, but to inspire others to rise above the physical, to live with "No Excuses".

His motto "It's not what I can do; it's what I will do."
is the paragon of Nietzche's superman, without the twisted self-agrandizement of Triumph of the Will. His story is the epic journey of a person who rises above his or her limitations, beyond what is conventionally accepted as possible, and achieve by virtue of Will. That is freedom - to choose to dream the so called impossible dream, to go beyond what others cannot even see, to Be just because you Will.

Beyond the Triumph of Freedom and Will, is his Faith. Words can hardly do justice to the wonder of seeing Faith in action. To me, that's what his triumph really signifies, to believe in a God with greater powers than mere mortals, and to live up to the high standrads, and boundless grace, and as Christ said, "easy yoke". Few people invoke such response from me in the past. Pope John Paul II was one just person, whose faith freed millions behind the Iron Curtain. Perhaps, in time, Kyle Maynard will free the millions now bound in wheel chairs and institutions.

His book, "No Excuses" is only released recently, and not available in all bookstores.

He has achieved all this before his university graduation. With a movie planned, starring himself as himself, Kyle Maynard will have a long journey of inspiring not only millions in America, but billions around the world and for generations to come.

He is a classic superman.