First a foreword. People at all times have been surprisingly blind to what awaits them in the very near future. Moreover, even after the events had already taken place, they, as if unable to realize what had happened, stubbornly tried to refute its reality, believing all this to be some kind of ridiculous accident, a single mistake, etc., etc. Inertia and the conservatism of human consciousness is sometimes simply amazing. Today's time is no exception. Just as always, the overwhelming majority of people are blind and draw some illusory pictures of the future for themselves, based on their own fantasies and fetishes, which they worship, despite the fact that their inventions have nothing to do with reality.
Before describing the fantasy inventions of modern predictors separately, let us note their common features that unite all these utopias. In general, what are the characteristic features of utopia? People who write utopias don't like the present. But, if an active person, who is really ready to correct the existing society and make it better, is looking for the causes of problems, looking for solutions, trying to identify and use existing favorable tendencies, then the creator of utopia acts completely differently. He takes and simply draws a picture of his contemporary society, in which problems, no, are not solved, they are simply erased, like erasing letters from a formula written in chalk on a blackboard with a cloth. However, the utopian is not confused by this. On the contrary, the utopian is proud that he gave the world a "model" of an ideal society."Phew … I did the most important thing." - says the utopian. “So, where are the fellow mathematicians, economists and other specialists there now? Come on, quickly sketch us a plan on how to build this ideal society for us after my model. Well this is a little puzzle …”However, fortune-tellers can also tell about the ways of building an ideal society. In their representation, a diagram of reasoning is drawn, which, in its typical form, looks something like this:looks something like this:looks something like this:
1) The history of mankind until now has been some kind of misunderstanding, this is due to the fact that people did not understand what we will now tell you.
2) We know what is the problem that all this time prevented people from living.
3) We have all the means to solve this problem, and to solve it, in general, a couple of trifles, it is only necessary for the rest to support us.
4) Of course, after this will come universal and eternal happiness.
It is clear that the name of this single problem and the method of its "magic" solution may differ (see the table), but this does not change the essence of all the proposals expressed.
| The problem that is the source of all troubles | "Magic" solution | Where is offered |
| Lack of responsibility of the authorities to the people | Adoption of the law on the responsibility of the authorities to the people | AVN concept |
| Inferno, bipolarity disorder | Accounting for bipolarity and restoring balance | hermenetics |
| Violation of authenticity (deviation of a person from his God-given nature) | The return of man to his God-given nature | humanism (in the version of Semyonov and his followers from the fuel and lubricants) |
| Private ownership of the means of production | The abolition of private ownership of the means of production | Marxism |
| … | … | … |
Tab. - examples of some utopian concepts, indicating a single problem and a "magic" solution.
Promotional video:
Let's comment on the scheme of the utopians
1)I am never tired of being amazed that every new one, proposing a recipe for building an ideal society, begins with words like "until that time everything was wrong …" Well, it was wrong. Poor people have lived for so many centuries, it is not known why, poor people toiled, not understanding what is the root of all evil. Couldn't guess what to do. Alexander the Great conquered Persia? Bullshit … Fool, so many people were chopped up during his conquest. Einstein created the theory of relativity? Yes, it is even worse - I would not have created, if we would not have known today radiation and atomic bombs. Well, so about everything. A person does not want to see any sense in what was done before. However, otherwise how can you prove that only your "magic" solution will ensure the construction of an ideal society? Let's make a small digression here. Since utopian concepts of an ideal society appear in a multitude, it means thatare there any prerequisites for this? Yes, absolutely. In every society there are some, in general, quite obvious, generally recognized signs of problems and some expectations, criteria of well-being, or something, about which no one will argue too much. For example, let's talk about the current problems of our country, and everyone will agree that the demographic situation is bad, that there is not enough housing and there are problems with its availability for a significant part of the population, that we have a raw materials economy, and this is bad - to gobble up resources, it is necessary to develop complex and high-tech production and so on. There is also complete unanimity in the slogans. No one will say - "I want to come to power and establish a fascist dictatorship, after which I will drive everyone to the barracks, start aggressive wars of conquest and shoot for any criticism addressed to me." Everybody says we need freedomwe need democracy, we are for raising the standard of living of the population, etc., etc. But everyone disagrees on one thing - "How?", "What needs to be done to …". And here a bunch of concepts and a bunch of decisions appear, and from this heap, unfortunately, almost everyone is such that they choose only one particular factor and get stuck on it, claiming that everything else depends on this particular factor. In the case of a utopian concept, a particular, temporarily, for one reason or another, the protruding factor acquires a general historical or even universal significance, overshadowing everything else. However, all utopian concepts, even if their adherents come to power, are doomed to abandon the absolutized and idealized understanding of the path to a better society, and to solve specific historical tasks facing the country,to solve them often contrary to the initially adopted declarations and on the fly inventing methods that the developers of the utopian concept did not mention and did not even know about their necessity. These adherents very quickly understand that it is by no means so easy to ignore objective realities, historical trends, and that those "secondary" factors and problems that, according to their initial conviction, should have resolved themselves and behave as they should, require the utmost attention and consideration in the current policy. This was the case, for example, after the revolution of the seventeenth and the civil war, when Lenin, contrary to dogmas and initial declarations, introduced the NEP, so it was after the ninety-first, when Gaidar had to be kicked with his "shock therapy", which did not at all lead to the magical self-regulation of the market expected by the liberals … Anyway,all utopians sooner or later have to face the fact and understand that the preceding history is not a misunderstanding and not a set of random and chaotic factors, and that nothing can be simply altered and removed from the current situation without understanding the (objective) reasons for why everything turned out exactly like that and not understanding what all this can be replaced with.
2) The next, repeated, again, almost all absurd thesis - "there is one (main, primary) cause of all problems." Well, it has always been, respectively. And as this reason does not exist, there will be no problems. Absolute stupidity. Society has no single cause for all problems. Problems have always been, are and will be (if, of course, they are solved). If the problems are not solved, they will cease to exist, but together with humanity. Humanity must develop. As it develops, it acquires new opportunities, assimilates new stages of progress, but at the same time acquires new problems. In order to avoid new problems, it is necessary to mothball development, and societies that try to do this inevitably perish, as history has repeatedly shown.
3)This thesis personally irritates me the most, if you like, and the desire to refute it. Well, again, everyone, almost to one absolutely, with incredible and unshakable confidence and equanimity, declare “WHAT IS THERE THINKING ??? So we ALREADY know, let's do this and that …”While it is quite obvious and clear as day that they do not really know ANYTHING. They do not even know how to implement the declarations they are promoting, not to mention the fact that there are a great many problems lying like huge stones on the way to a better society that they do not even pay attention to. The key thesis, which must be memorized by all those calling for the improvement of society and written on their foreheads, so as not to forget, if you will, is the thesis that all the problems that have not yet been solved (despite attempts to solve them) require DIFFERENT. NEW methods of solution, compared to those that humanity has at the moment. Well, do not consider all the predecessors as idiots. Well, or to assume that some conspirators out of malice did not allow to solve problems, the solution of which is obvious, easy and everyone knows. Why is this point especially annoying to me? Because the adherents of utopian concepts, declaring in words their adherence to new values, in words speaking about their readiness to make efforts to build a better society, are killing time in vain for fussing, chatting and marking time, not even trying to start discussing those issues, finding the answers to which is required to build a better society, and this pile of questions remains untouched all the time, as a result of which they do not come one step closer to the very goal that they are constantly talking about. But they are very offended and begin to whine if you try to stir them up.
4)Naturally, there is no final ideal society and cannot be. Surprisingly, all utopians, as one, repeat the stupid thesis that now, we will build an ideal society, a person will be freed from the problems gravitating over him, and will do something there for his pleasure. Marasmus. People living in society will never be free of any problems, since they climbed down from the trees and set off across the savannah towards an unknown new life, which then forced them to light a fire, dress in skins, write some kind of squiggles on papyrus, etc. The further, the more a person will depend on those new realities that he creates, on those new conditions that he imposes on himself. “That's right,” some adherents of returning to nature will say, “the man-made civilization is to blame for everything, and only she…”. But in fact, of course, as I wrote back in the 4-level concept, one should by no means assume (although such is, unfortunately, a common misconception) that the development of civilization consists only in the development of technology, etc., the development of civilization is equally human development. For the second to continue, the first must continue. This means that a society of final universal and carefree happiness will not be built. Never.a society of ultimate universal and carefree happiness will not be built. Never.a society of ultimate universal and carefree happiness will not be built. Never.
That is where we will finish with the preface and move on to describing individual trends in (modern) utopian thought. Here we will not talk about individual concrete concepts (although their presence is implied), but about some generalized classes of similar concepts, which, however, at the very essence of the concepts underlying these classes, which for each of them is quite real and definite, is not will affect. Many concepts related to the same class have differences between themselves, usually only cosmetic.
1. Globalist version (grabber's paradise)
This concept proceeds from the fact that it is necessary to implant a liberal market economy and Western-style democracy in the whole world in order for it to achieve common good and prosperity. In the late 80s, Fukuyama, impressed by the emerging collapse of the socialist camp and the USSR and the market reforms in China, wrote theses about the "end of history" - just about we will see how liberalism will triumph throughout the world and it will become the only and final model according to which society will live. The main argument of the adherents of this utopia is the relative prosperity of the countries where these principles are adopted (i.e. declared) as the primary ones. Fortunately, the ideology of liberalism and imitation throughout the West, which was popular in the early 90s, now in Russia does not enjoy the support of any significant part of the population. And the main factorwho opposed this model were not arguments and words, but realities - the citizens of the former USSR felt on their own skin the price of the promises of the very prosperity that the liberals were talking about, saw the true face of the "democracy" controlled by the oligarchs - as an internal, Yeltsin "democracy", and Western "democracy", far from at least some friendly and honest position of Western countries in relation to Russia, which did everything to turn the Russian people against themselves and destroy all those illusions that were associated with the West in the early 90s … Today's global realities and trends also make it very difficult to doubt the effectiveness and triumph of the liberal model. In the Islamic world, the popularity of an alternative ideology based on Islam is growing,but uses this religion, traditional for many in the East, as the basis for a new non-Western (and even anti-Western) worldview and value system, and the strategy and policy of the West in relation to other countries, with the traditionally implied thesis that they can oppose the Western model and democracy only people, either poor or deceived by the dictatorial regime, suffer a clear collapse in a clash with Islamic ideology. Left-wing parties are gaining popularity in Latin America, and they also do not miss an opportunity to practice anti-Western rhetoric. The communist regime in China does not show the slightest signs of decline, and the forgotten terminology of the Cold War times, with the mention of "American imperialists", etc., is increasingly beginning to return to the Russian media. For normal people, the globalist concept is unacceptable for the following reasons:
1) globalism = capitalism
No matter how the bourgeoisie disguises their damnable exploiting system, the essence still remains the same. Globalism is a modified capitalism, and it is perfectly clear to everyone that this system is beneficial and protects the interests of the world oligarchy, first of all, that is, a small handful of the super-rich, putting the vast majority of citizens of any (even rich) country in a deliberately unequal and humiliated position, which, however, it does not exclude discrimination not only within countries, but also between countries - highlighting the parasitic countries living at the expense of the rest of the world and consuming huge quantities of the world's natural resources (primarily the United States), and countries whose population is steadily starving and barely makes ends meet. This system creates favorable conditions for people with a hypertrophied thirst for money, for cynics and people without principles,while generating a huge mass of negative social phenomena - organized crime, prostitution, drug trafficking, etc., which all have for their reason a super-role and a cult of money, with frequent closing eyes on the sources of their acquisition. In short, repeating one of the capacious slogans of the NBP, "Capitalism is shit!"
2) globalism = neo-colonialism
The concept of globalism is based on the thesis of the need to plant Western culture, Western models, Western models, etc., among the peoples of other countries, without absolute consideration and abandonment of any right of others to their own culture and their own opinion. Such a practice, well, simply cannot but meet resistance from the peoples of other countries, especially those who have their own, not at all frail traditions and culture, such as Russia, the same China, the countries of the Middle East, etc. The insolence and self-confidence of American politicians who imagined that they can dictate their rules and conditions to the whole world evokes in all normal people around the world a sharp rejection, rejection and desire to resist,in this connection, the growth of anti-American sentiment throughout the world has become one of the characteristic signs of the present time.
3) globalism = totalitarianism
It is no secret to anyone that, speaking of democracy, the world oligarchy secretly dreams of the role of Big Brother and not only dreams, but also actively acts in this direction. Methods of brainwashing, manipulation of public opinion and, in general, the consciousness of individual citizens, methods of control, surveillance and espionage, not only for objectionable, but in general for everyone, have turned into well-oiled technologies. For a long time, Western intelligence services have not disdained sabotage, murder, organizing coups in other countries, etc. Moreover, the fight against terrorism, which has been popular recently, gives the Western oligarchy the opportunity to practically unhindered and openly build up methods of total control over the population.
However, the globalist concept, which is the brainchild of the West, has no chance for the future and will definitely leave the historical perspective in the very near future, following the degeneration and collapse of Western civilization itself. You can find more detailed criticism of globalism in the article “The Threat of Globalism”, which I wrote earlier.
2. Communist version (paradise for lazy people)
Those who managed to live in the USSR remember very well how we were taught that it was once (perhaps soon) ominous and posing a threat to the world, but nevertheless, from year to year, decaying capitalism will fall and a bright communist future will come on a global scale. … And although the USSR collapsed, the utopian ideology is alive. Unfortunately, its adherents do not want to understand that this ideology really led our country to a dead end, and the collapse of the USSR had multiple and weighty objective reasons. Word for word they repeat the words of liberals and "democrats" that the disintegration of a great power was the result of the actions of a pitiful handful of conspirators paid for from abroad (however, they use these words to assess the events of 1917). Of course, in fact, there never was any communism in the USSR. What is “communism” in general? Under Stalin, the following simple formulas of socialism and communism were derived - "socialism - from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", "communism - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." At the same time, there are problems with both the first and second formulas. In the first, it is not clear how to determine the very amount (or value of labor), depending on which a person should receive remuneration. As for the second, it corresponds to the utopian picture of Marx, who imagined an ideal future, as a society in which people would work freely, without any coercion, only in order to get satisfaction from the process itself and the result of their labor. but at the same time they will not need anything. How, in fact, all this is to be realized, the communists, of course,it was not clear. After 1917, when the socialist revolution won, the Bolsheviks who came to power did not think that tomorrow they would build communism. They solved the acutely facing the country, real and current tasks - the suppression of nationalism and separatism, the restoration of an almost completely collapsed economy, electrification and the elimination of illiteracy, the creation of world-class domestic science and its own industrial base, which was vital for the existence of the USSR. The Bolsheviks solved these problems, while simultaneously killing the most characteristic negative features of capitalism - social inequality, poverty and misery, unemployment, making education, medicine and housing free of charge. However, then the inevitable happened - the movement towards a brighter future stalled halfway. It hung halfway between the real part of the declarations of the classics, which was designed to resolve and eliminate those that existed in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. really ugly social features of capitalism, and partly utopian, the fruit of unsupported fantasies of Marx and others, the path to which no one knew. And it is quite natural that today's communists by no means call for abstract communism, bringing the vector to the future, they call us to return the lost gains of socialism, bringing the vector to the past and nostalgic about the Soviet reality, with those very free housing and education, cheap consumer goods, the absence of annoying oligarchs, organized crime and other social evils typical of our time, but absent or minimized in the USSR. However,as Heraclitus wisely put it, you cannot step twice into the same river. If the communist ideology could not withstand the collision with reality in the 70s and 80s, giving rise to a lot of problems, such as nationalism and separatism of the regions, economic and technological lagging behind the West, corrupt, ossified and capable only of profiting everything from the bureaucratic system, then to of today's reality and today's tasks, its hundred times already outdated theses about the class struggle, about the uprising of the working class against the capitalists, about the world revolution and other similar garbage (which seemed plausible at the beginning of the 20th century), like the other theoretical and ideological filling of the Soviet socialist model is already completely inapplicable in any way. Furthermore,built on completely incorrect initially premises and Marx's conjectures (many of which actually repeat the fallacies of the globalist model), the communist experiment could not lead to a successful result. In the 4-level concept, I have already presented arguments against the interpretation of history that Marx and his followers tried to give, so here I will not repeat what his fundamental errors were. However, discarding particulars, one can characterize Marx's theory as a whole and his utopian ideas about an ideal society as an illusion describing the liberation of a person from external social responsibility and forced labor. For this, Marx proposed to abolish private property, family and state, that is, all basic social institutions. The society that had existed since the collapse of the primitive communal system was seen by Marx as a kind of wrong dislocation that separated man from harmony with nature, a distinctive feature of which was alienation - both between man and the results of his activity, and between people in general. From these interpretations of Marx, one can clearly see the absolute utopian character of his concept, which is characterized by details characteristic of all utopian concepts - a lack of understanding of the meaning of historical progress and the emergence of civilization and a lack of understanding of the connection between the development of a person's personality, his motives, values, needs, abilities and other qualities and the development of society as such. Because of this misunderstanding, all utopians are tempted to think of a person with all his needs, motives and criteria for happiness and the society in which he lives,as something completely separate, not connected with each other, which can be easily divided and thereby place a person in a kind of paradise, where the needs, motives and criteria of happiness will find perfect correspondence with the surrounding reality. All this is nonsense, insanity and stupidity. The values, motives and criteria for the happiness of a typical person are set by the norms, realities and principles of the structure of the society in which he exists. A person cannot be torn out of society and try to develop it in isolation, for he immediately degrades and turns into dryopithecus. Human development can only proceed in parallel with the development of society, in the process of solving problems and problems facing society,in the process of people's interaction with each other and their awareness of their social role and responsibility to society (not in the sense of the individual responsibility of one person to others, but in the sense of responsibility for the functioning of society as a whole and the tasks it faces). Marx's concept, like other utopian concepts, for example, the same liberalism, urge us “human society burdens, compels, suppresses his individuality and impulses to happiness, let's forget all these stupid traditions and responsibilities and demolish all unnecessary social superstructures nafig (for good) ". It will not work, gentlemen and comrades, it will not work.urge us "human society burdens, compels, suppresses his individuality and impulses for happiness, let's forget all these stupid traditions and responsibilities and demolish all unnecessary social superstructures nafig (for good)." It will not work, gentlemen and comrades, it will not work.urge us "human society burdens, compels, suppresses his individuality and impulses for happiness, let's forget all these stupid traditions and responsibilities and demolish all unnecessary social superstructures nafig (for good)." It will not work, gentlemen and comrades, it will not work.
3. Technological version (paradise for dreamers)
The essence of this utopia is simple and attracts a lot of adherents. The role of a magic wand, capable of solving all problems with one wave, is assigned to modern science, more precisely, to the technologies generated by this science. “We only have to wait 20-30 years,” adherents of a technological utopia broadcast, “during this period, science will certainly solve all conceivable and inconceivable problems. The problem of individual immortality will be solved, artificial intelligence will be created, billions of times superior to human intelligence, which will reveal for us all the secrets of the universe, there will be no need for factories and factories, since amazing nanomachines will be ordered to carry out the molecular assembly of any object, we do not need there will be energy resources, since compact devices will make it possible to receive any amount of energy directly from the vacuum,”and so on, etc. It cannot be said, of course, that this is all complete, not based on anything, mura. Certain discoveries, developments (not necessarily widely known to non-specialists), clinging to which, predictors of the coming scientific and technological miracle make such statements, of course, are. However. The fact is that these forecasters are not at all seriously thought out these forecasts. There are absolutely no justifications and no even the most crude and sketchy schemes, and all the "proofs" boil down to about the following arguments: "Well, a hundred years ago, people also could not imagine that we would have the Internet." Surprisingly, these people, proclaiming science as an idol and the hope of all mankind, find it extremely difficult to explain that scientific reasoning requires logic and clear argumentation, and is not based on empty fantasies.conjectures and irrational "justifications". The history of scientific discoveries shows that, according to the principle of simple extrapolation, promising predictions made on the wave of euphoria and hype around some new technologies almost never turn out to be correct. In the 60s, on the wave of impressive scientific and technological breakthroughs that went down in history, like the scientific and technological revolution (scientific and technological revolution, it was then that the first satellites flew into space, the world learned about computers that could play chess and write poetry, a hydrogen bomb was tested behind which a controlled thermonuclear fusion was seen giving mountains of practically worthless energy and a lot of other amazing things appeared), many similar predictions were made, however, they did not come true, the euphoria subsided, unrealistic utopian hopes were gradually eliminated, and practical technologies generated by these breakthroughs,have been worked out and become routine. The fact that such predictions are made again and again only testifies to the unreasonableness of humanity.
In general, a number of different aspects should be noted and considered with regard to technological utopia. Well, let's repeat once again that humanity is unreasonable. This unreasonableness means that the thinking of people is largely spontaneous, accidental, suffers from violations of logic and is directed by irrational factors. Moreover, despite the fact that they do not understand anything about a certain issue, they will argue that they do not, they understand everything, everything is completely clear here, and in general, any other point of view would be absurd. If someone believes that the situation in science is different, then this is absolutely not the case. Science is a product of the society in which it exists and repeats all its features, as I already wrote in the article "Criticism of Modern Science". An interesting pattern is observed here. If those who are specialists in a certain field work deeply and for a long time in it,in general, they adequately assess the prospects, the state of affairs and do not make stupid, unfounded, categorical statements, then the further from science itself to some pseudo-scientific circles, the more absurd and confident statements sound, in their categoricalness comparable only to the statements of some possessed religious fanatics. In fact, belief in scientific miracles is a kind of fanaticism and a kind of a certain religion, in which its adherents, directly overturning the essence and spirit of the scientific method, intolerant of dogmatism and irrational blind faith, directly contradict what they worship. “But how,” some will say, “how can one say that those who do science are unreasonable, because if they were unreasonable, they did not discover or invent anything, but look how science and technology have stepped forward over the past few centuries !“There are two aspects to the success of modern science. First, despite all the talk about the scientific method, there is no scientific method. The whole so-called. The “scientific method” is one thing: if something is not clear, we conduct an experiment. An experiment gives a certain result by which we can judge whether our theory is correct or not. If it confirms it is fine, if it contradicts it, we will think, or rather, guess further. And since one can guess for a very long time, certain outstanding personalities are advancing science. These personalities are smarter than the rest and know that sometimes you need to think and try to understand, instead of guessing and stupidly conducting stupid experiments of the same type. No, of course, one cannot do without factual material, but its abundance by no means compensates for the lack of brains. Secondly,the history of science looks relatively smooth only in school textbooks. In fact, after reading this story, you can see a lot of interesting things. For example, how a certain statement was declared by all official science to be absolute nonsense, on the verge of the inventions of a mentally ill person, after which one day it turned out that this crazy, supposedly, statement or theory is actually absolutely correct. So it was with Maxwell's theory, which predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves, so it was with Wegener's theory of continental drift, so it was with the discovery of the remains of Australopithecus in Africa (while a "fossil" skull allegedly found in England, on the existence of which the official version of human evolution was built for 40 years turned out to be a fake, as it was found later), etc., etc. Unfortunately,many of today's "facts firmly established by science" are also insanity, while the scientific community does not want to understand that it is impossible to "prove" the truth of something with the help of irrational methods, references to authorities and arguments like "everyone has known this for a long time." For example, recently the American scientific community attacked one of the NASA officials just for the fact that he suggested calling the Big Bang a hypothesis, forcing this official to resign, how, after all, about the Big Bang "everyone has known everything for a long time", they saw with their own eyes, you understand. Recently, the American scientific community attacked one of the NASA officials just for the fact that he suggested calling the Big Bang a hypothesis, forcing this official to resign, how, after all, about the Big Bang "everyone has known everything for a long time", you saw with your own eyes, you know. Recently, the American scientific community attacked one of the NASA officials just for the fact that he suggested calling the Big Bang a hypothesis, forcing this official to resign, how, after all, about the Big Bang "everyone has known everything for a long time", you saw with your own eyes, you know.
Should we expect from modern science the technological miracle described by the utopians in the near future? No, and for two reasons. First, modern science and the methods that are used in it have already exhausted their resources. Science needs a BIG BREAKTHROUGH, similar to the breakthrough that was made in the 17th century, with the advent of differential and integral calculus, the method of coordinates, Newtonian mechanics, which drew a clear dividing line between ancient science and the science of the New Time. However, there are great doubts about this breakthrough, because this requires fundamental changes in the thinking, motives and methods of people who are engaged in science, getting rid of those inherent in it today and seemingly integral features of the shortcomings, such as dogmatism, the divinatory method hypotheses, appeal for any reason to the experiment,considered a magical method of solving any problems and making discoveries, not noticing obvious contradictions within generally accepted "official" theories and blind faith in authorities. Emotionally thinking people in science must become rational, must learn to think differently, purposefully carry out a broad search and development of ideas about the world, instead of, as now, dwelling on one hypothesis based on 1-2 new experimental facts, and then doing from the hypothesis of the dogma and declare the ultimate truth, not noticing any contradictions and not thinking about any other options. Secondly, there is a dominant in society and completely absurd thesis that reason (and science, respectively, as something that is a product of the activity of reason) is just a tool,who must always obey the main task - the satisfaction of needs and the solution of any practical tasks arising from the needs. These marasmic notions impose restrictions on science that completely stifle it and do not give any prospects in terms of its further advancement and development. As the famous mathematician Arnold notes, the state in today's science is beginning to very much resemble the state that was with science in the Roman Empire (and this is no coincidence, see historical parallels, 4-level concept). Just as in the Roman Empire, fundamental science is dying out, and all funds are beginning to be invested exclusively in applied research. A practical imperative, benefit, satisfaction of needs, which are the dominant features of a society with an emotional value system,force to demand from science practical promises, to present in advance a description of the useful result to be achieved. Of course, real scientists understand all the insanity of such a thesis, but they cannot do anything with such a position, since the funding of science lies not in the hands of scientists, but in the hands of those who demand “practical benefits” for themselves. That is why, in the near future, science is expected to be much more likely not to rise, but to decline, caused by a decline in basic research and a fall in the expectations of those in charge of funding regarding the magnitude of those significant results that can be obtained from scientific research.real scientists understand all the insanity of such a thesis, but they cannot do anything with such a position, since the funding of science does not lie in the hands of scientists, but in the hands of those who demand "practical benefits" for themselves. That is why, in the near future, science is expected to be much more likely not to rise, but to decline, caused by a decline in basic research and a fall in the expectations of those in charge of funding regarding the magnitude of those significant results that can be obtained from scientific research.real scientists understand all the insanity of such a thesis, but they cannot do anything with such a position, since the funding of science does not lie in the hands of scientists, but in the hands of those who demand "practical benefits" for themselves. That is why, in the near future, science is expected to be much more likely not to rise, but to decline, caused by a decline in basic research and a fall in the expectations of those in charge of funding regarding the magnitude of those significant results that can be obtained from scientific research.caused by the decline in basic research and the fall in the expectations of those holding the funding in the hands of the magnitude of those significant results that can be obtained from scientific research.caused by the decline in basic research and the fall in the expectations of those holding the funding in the hands of the magnitude of those significant results that can be obtained from scientific research.
4. Esoteric version (heaven for refined natures)
This version also has numerous followers. Actually, people striving to declare earthly life and cares as garbage and delirium, on the basis that a person should strive for perfection, achieve enlightenment, and earthly truth is nothing compared to what the enlightened one can learn, etc., there was always enough. But lately, and not least thanks to the development of the Internet and the flooding of counters with all mystical and esoteric literature, bringing down on the heads of the uninitiated, brought up in the spirit of materialism, all shocking information about parallel worlds, life after death, travel in the astral plane, etc.., this utopia is becoming more and more popular. “The Maya predicted that the current Earth cycle will end in 2012! What do you think awaits us? "," More and more indigo children are being born on Earth,their abilities are truly superhuman! What is it for?" - sites and forums of the Russian Internet are full of headlines. The mass of people is growing, expecting some amazing super miracles from the onset of the coming Age of Aquarius, at the level that aliens will arrive and carry out a magical transformation, miraculously instantly establishing peace and harmony on Earth. Really. Isn't humanity enough for so many centuries to vegetate and do bullshit? It's time, it's time to wake up and manna from heaven … In general, another utopia and the expectation of a miracle, as in previous versions, only in its own, special, esoteric way. Lord of esotericism! I, of course, respect your desire for excellence and spirituality, but why on earth should you expect a miracle? God or other representatives of the Higher Reason will look at you and say: “Oh, you parasites! Oh you,loafers! Look what you want - give them paradise and everything ready-made as a miracle. What cataclysms do we have there, etc., so that they would be distracted from their chatter and empty dreams and get down to business, that is, self-improvement, which we sent them to do?"
Unfortunately, no involvement and obsession with all sorts of esoteric things, which the advocates of all this see as a means of developing spirituality, you know, perfection, enlightenment and knowledge of the highest truth, does not really add any spirituality and any ability to understand the truth. The overwhelming majority of these adherents of spirituality and enlightenment are the most ordinary people in the street with the same troubles as everyone, the only difference from everyone else is that they talk about this very spirituality, which remains a tinsel for them. weight their usual philistine content. In support of this thesis, you can read the opinion about spirituality of a person closer to this topic than I am (although, of course, I do not agree with him in everything). Furthermore,This obsession with spirituality and esotericism not only does not help, but, on the contrary, hurts, since a person who has become involved in this topic begins to imagine himself knows what, and come up with all sorts of stupid excuses such as: “Why! You! You can tell me! Do you really think that your wretched knowledge can mean anything compared to the knowledge that the great saints and enlightened ones possess? This is where the truth is buried to strive for! " However, what is this strange truth? What is it about? How can we adapt this received truth to the life we live on earth? Why did this very truth, which Indian yogis and Tibetan lamas were constantly impregnated with in their meditations, did not help them to build a civilization similar to the European one, but left it at the level of an underdeveloped agricultural civilization? May be,Is there something wrong with this truth? Unfortunately, glitches associated with the absolutization of the role of some subjective qualities and subjective movements, changes in the subjective position in a person are a trait not only of people striking into esotericism, but also of a fairly large number of people who are not directly involved in it, who, therefore nevertheless, they repeat the same essentially nonsense: “The main thing is to change yourself. You don't have to do anything but change yourself. Let us change everything, each of us, and we will have grace and complete happiness on Earth. " This point of view is completely wrong. Escaping from (earthly) reality and sticking one's head in the sand can not lead to anything good. I will repeat once again the thesis voiced earlier. Human development and personal development is a process parallel and interconnected with the development of society, the development of civilization,development of humanity as a whole. No truth is real truth if you sit in the wilderness and study your truth from sacred books or through meditation. Truth is what allows you to act right and do something right, in line with your ideals, in real practice. If you sit at home, like Manilov, and think that you are kind and in a good mood and that this is good, then you are mistaken. True good is that good that can manifest itself in action. If you go out into the street and see what is unkind there, but do not know how to make the unkind correct and become good, then your good is bullshit and is not worth mentioning about it and calling others to the same good. Equally in relation to society as a whole - while promoting something, some ideals and some values, it is necessary to talk not only aboutto strengthen these ideals and values in oneself, by meditating and waiting for everyone else to be strengthened and it becomes good, but also about what needs to be done in practice, what principles to follow so that these ideals and values can be and become a guiding vector for action and actions.
Summing up the review of utopian concepts of the future, I will say one more thing. Of course, the main harm to humanity is not brought by utopians. The main harm is brought by conservatives, people with ossified brains, absolutely firmly convinced that the main thing is not to do anything, to prevent everything new and that all the troubles from idealists, who, sitting in the village, with their tattered trousers, are again plotting enormous plans for rebuilding society … These citizens cannot understand that if it were not for the idealists, who are planning everything, they would not be sitting in a comfortable apartment, chewing hazel grouses, but would shiver in some cave, greedily gnawing the last pieces of meat left on a big bone lying here since last year. The mistake lies not in conceiving any plans, but in the fact that a magic solution is being sought, in thatthat instead of goals that would provide a solution to real (and specific) problems, nonsense is once again invented about achieving universal and eternal happiness.