Category: Uncategorized

Geniuses are a product of freedom. A genius does not accept the knowledge of which the purpose he does not understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but a supernatural person who can do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to do great deeds in the fields of their interests by their nature. Everyone should have the characteristics of a genius. People are not geniuses because they alienate themselves from their nature or they cannot do what they like.

It is hard to be a genius today mostly because people are prisoners of the culture of imposed knowledge. Schools do it the most, so they are the primary origin of alienation. Students cannot pass exams if they are unable to reproduce the imposed knowledge. People who obey to imposed knowledge have to suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings and thus, they alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions, customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their lives. People who are alienated from their nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and therefore take alienated knowledge readily which develops the process of alienation.

Alienated people from their nature are not able to create genial works. They become the opposite of geniuses; they become living machines. Imposing knowledge is a misfortune to the people. Please do not get me wrong; knowledge is necessary for human development, but it must not be imposed; it should be freely accessible and accepted. However, no one can avoid the torture of imposing knowledge today. Scientists especially cannot because they cannot be scientists without a university degree. That is why there are no geniuses in the sciences today. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I do not know of any. The more the schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less the chance students will have to protect their human abilities and, in accordance, they have less chance to be geniuses.

Only spiritually free people can create genial deeds. Looking at the world around me I can recognize geniality in the band Pink Floyd. They made deeply touching, compelling and beautiful music that is distinguished from everything else I have heard. This is the music of sorrow, suffering, criticism, and hope. The music portrays our world at the turn of the millennium brilliantly. If their composing were conditioned by a finishing music conservatorium, maybe these libertarian people would have given up from the academy and would not have been allowed to compose such beautiful music. If they found the strength to finish the music academy, I believe that it would certainly somehow alienate them from their nature and they would not be able to compose such grandiose music.

***

I consider my complete education as violence to my needs and freedom, and that is what it really was. Not only was my body captured in school, the school tried to enslave my thoughts, but I resisted drastically. I cannot say the resistance was my conscious decision. It was something built in me. I did not learn anything there, and that is the reason I had to attend the fifth grade again. Then I found I had to learn just enough not to repeat the whole year.

After finishing high school, I enrolled in the study of architecture. I liked the creative work of building houses. Through considerable difficulties of studying an uninteresting program, I did graduate the faculty. A professor who led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks than mine. I knew that without him and in those times I became conscious of the fact that being a lousy student advantaged me considerably compared to others.

As a third-year student in the faculty, I was proclaimed as one of the best architects in Yugoslavia when I won the competition for the arrangement of The Republic Square in Zagreb. It needs to be stressed here that I got the reward thanks to the sound logic I managed to save through refusal of alienated knowledge, and of course, my love for architecture that gave me tremendous work energy. The sensitivity, objectivity and creativity I have been developing throughout my whole life helped me win the competition, not the studies at the faculty. If people feel their nature, loves what they are doing, and if they have a talent for what they are doing, they will achieve much better results than they could obtain by studying and receiving diplomas.

At the end of my architectural studies, a collection of books by Erich Fromm fell into my hands. Fromm strongly criticized the world we live in. I had similar views, and during those times I already created the basic ideas as to how a good world should look like, but it didn’t cross my mind that I am the one who should do something about it. By reading Fromm, I found that in the field of social improvements I could give much more to society than in architecture. That’s how I decided to change the world. It excited me a lot and gave enthusiasm and tremendous energy to work. I started writing my book “Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society,” without any doubt of my credibility.

However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires vast freedom of thoughts, which a job in the field of architecture could not give me because creative work in architecture captures too much time. That was the reason I gave up from architecture entirely right after the graduation. At that time I found the job as a fire protection inspector. An average person can learn the entire knowledge I used for this job in a few short courses. The position did not burden me much, so I was able to write, yes, the most important book ever.

Writing the book inspired tremendous creativity in me, far more significant than architecture. Good ideas about changing the world have been coming to my mind without end. When that happens, a person cannot stop even if he would like to. It brings a lot of satisfaction. But also, I needed to invest a lot of effort to compose thoughts. I did it by analysis, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. In the development of new ideas, I did not use existing sciences because I didn’t know them well. I used basic logic that was already pretty much developed in me in those times. When basic ideas were finished, I had to research existing sciences to connect my thoughts to the existing state. By understanding what my goal was, I didn’t have any difficulties in studying the issues anymore. In the beginning, I thought my book would have been finished in one year, but the problems were much more complicated than I had predicted and it was not my only preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish the book. I’ve got the power to work from understanding that my book would one day change the world entirely and create a sound and sane society.

When I finished the book, I started presenting my ideas to scientists. Unfortunately, the only support I got was from Professor of philosophy Andrija Stojković from the University of Belgrade. He wrote a review of my book. He also helped me spread my ideas among scientists in Belgrade, in Hegel Society and in the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.

Perhaps in hope to find interested people for my philosophy in the west, I immigrated to Canada, in 1993. I was trying to work professionally on my philosophy by searching for funds from various organizations and foundations but didn’t receive any. Again, I got into a situation in which I had to earn money for a living. During that time, an economic crisis was in Canada, and there were not many available jobs. The exception was new computer technology. The situation forced me to buy a computer and computer books, and I began learning computer programming. The demand for programmers was much larger than the supply so that I got the first job easily. Nobody asked me for any diploma. I was not an especially good programmer because the job was not interesting to me. My thoughts were focused continuously on my philosophy.

Fortunately, my wonderful wife Dušica had an understanding of my work and offered me to take care of our daughters and home, and to work on my philosophy in my spare time, while she earned money for life. That’s how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldn’t understand how grateful I am for that. The whole world should be thankful to her as well. She was the only person who had an understanding of my work, and without her, I wouldn’t be able to find enough free time to think about my philosophy and write what you are reading.

Criticism of sciences

Since I finished my book “Humanism,” 16 years ago, I have been sending thousands of letters to professors of social sciences trying to interest them in how the bright future of humankind would look like, but I did not succeed. I’ll try to explain why.

Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality acquired by systematic analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop sciences. Scientists naturally aim to learn higher expertise and, on this path, they create new theories that should bring conveniences to society. If such approaches do not conflict with reality directly, scientists accept their opinions as objective or accurate. However, relative harmonies of such theories with actual facts, still don’t guarantee the objectivity of such arguments. They may be subjective, or in other words, wrongful. The subjective approaches create alienated knowledge or false knowledge that alienates a person from reality. If scientists are prominent enough authorities, society accepts their alienated knowledge, which then alienates all the people from objective reality. Once received alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis in spreading alienation. Such sciences aim society to wrong path and prevent acceptance of objective knowledge. It aims society to solve problems inside frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge as a general rule brings disadvantage to society.

***

The social sciences, especially, are on the wrong or not good enough paths. They are very alienated from objective reality. The alienation has come from not sufficient challenge of ideas coming from social science authorities throughout history. The essence of social science should be creating the vision of how to build a good or at least better path to the future of humankind, but the scientists do not have it. They should be initiators of positive changes in society, but they are not. As a result, they do not have influences on social events.

In the wish to approach social sciences, I tried to enroll my master’s degree in sociology at the University of North York. One of the professors there sincerely advised me not to waste my time with sociology, explaining that I would not be able to get any job with a master degree in social sciences. I understood it as his opinion that there are no benefits of sociology. I responded to him that I had new ideas about the advancements of society, but he didn’t show any interest in listening to me, the same way thousands of other scientists didn’t. Another professor at the same University briefly reviewed my book “Humanism,” and told me that I satisfied the requirements for the studies, but my book was not acceptable as my master dissertation work.

The book that will change society entirely and make the world a beautiful place for living is not acceptable to social sciences! This example shows clearly how generations of scientists may turn into a dead-end street when they base their intellectual paths on alienated knowledge. What to say about the professors of Marxism? In Yugoslavia, Marxism was an obligatory subject in all high schools. Then the capitalist revolution came, and Marxism was revoked. What thousands of professors and doctors of Marxism do now?

Do you think philosophy is science? I don’t. If it is indeed a science, there would be some benefits from it, but I cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin which means ”love wisdom.” It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of the most significant interests of philosophers was defining the origin of the world. All of the answers philosophers proposed throughout the history of mankind were probably alienated from the objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an indefinitely large world to be able to define its origin objectively.

Great philosophers were through support or criticism of their predecessors writing large amounts of books trying to build and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did not succeed. The proof lies in the fact that philosophers did not define the basic idea for creating a good society yet. The powerlessness of philosophers to find objective answers to the questions that bother people has resulted in the creation of a massive amount of alienated knowledge. Studying philosophy today doesn’t mean seeking for wisdom because it is not known what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history of failure of human thoughts. It is harmful because an enormous amount of alienated knowledge leads people to the wrong path where they can hardly recognize the origins of problems.

Philosophers are full of good intentions, but I have not noticed that they worked seriously enough on how to improve the world. Why? One of the rare attempts did the philosopher Karl Marx. He wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers of the world unite against the capitalist exploitation!” But Marx did not define how a proper organization of society should look like.

Maybe he thought that united workers would develop the best possible self-organization of their communities, and meet the needs all of the people. However, nobody has ever succeeded in implementing it. The problem is two people can relatively easily agree on something but never about everything, all people can hardly agree about anything. Marx’s successors have solved this problem by taking all power into their own hands. They have become authorities and authorities tend to oppress people. This way, the authoritarian socialism immerged which regressed Marx’s intentions.

The problem lies in the fact that nobody has ever tried to create a system that might function without the influences of authoritative powers. I did it, and that’s the reason I succeeded in defining a good society.

Philosophers mainly agree that people must have equal rights, but in reality, they do not exist, and philosophers don’t recognize that sufficiently. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that they don’t understand the significance of the Golden Rule, which I believe first time is written in the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Or: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you!” All that philosophers have searched for to make a good society one might put into this sentence. But taking into account that the significance of this sentence was not understood clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realize the idea.

I have invented how to make the golden rule work. This will be achieved by the system of evaluations among people. I called it democratic anarchy. Each man will get an equal right to evaluate a few other people by his own choice. Each positive evaluation should bring a small, but a noticeable award to the people being assessed, and each negative assessment should carry punishments to the negatively evaluated people in the same form. What would we get with that?

The system of evaluations will remove the privileges of people which are the origin of evil in society. A small equal power in the hands of the people will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values to other human beings. Everyone will try hard to please people as best as they can and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. This will create what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach unsuccessfully, this will solve the problem of today’s democracy, this will eliminate the evil in society and create a sound and sane society.

***

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.

The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.

The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.

Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.

***

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.

The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.

The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.

Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.

***

Law is an extended hand of the political system. The science of law is alienated from its objective reality the same way all others social sciences are because it was created by the privileged class of people. Unjust society creates an unjust legal system. From this injustice emerges the cruel system we live in. A cruel system creates cruel people. Cruel criminals do cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly. The cruel justice may find its justification through preventing cruel people from producing evil, but such justice is not satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.

The law is probably the most conservative social science that ensures the official system in society. It is precious to political power. In Canada, students cannot enter the school of law before they graduate some other faculty. But because of that after the graduations, lawyers get some privileges that formally nobody besides them has. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate, cannot divorce, cannot perform legal proceedings; practically people cannot protect their rights without them. Privileges always form some sort of immorality; therefore justice can easily switch into injustice.

I would like to present one obvious example. It is about the International Court of Justice in Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour, indicted Slobodan Milošević, the president of Yugoslavia for war crimes in the middle of the aggression from her country, Canada, as a member of NATO, on Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Milošević was proved in the four years of the trial in Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, did commit a war crime indeed by sending Canadian bombardiers to kill people in aggression on Yugoslavia. The aggression was committed against the charters of the UN, Canadian laws, and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she didn’t accuse her Prime Minister of the war crimes. This immoral woman was then awarded for her deeds by promotion to the Supreme Court of Canada and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in Hague is an immoral or even criminal place that shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court is the beginning of the end of everything that is accepted as justice today.

Once the system I’ve proposed is accepted, People will have equal legislative power in society. It will be manifested by the equal rights evaluation among people. I have called it democratic anarchy. I have to repeat it because it is essential, the positive assessment will bring small awards to the assessed people, and negative evaluations will result in the same form of punishment. Such a little power in the hands of people will eliminate privileges which are the primary cause of evil in society. People will respect each other. They will learn to create the highest possible advantages to other people and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. In such a system, people will determine what is right and wrong through their own practice. Lawyers will not be needed anymore, and science of justice will probably finish in history textbooks. Then the moral time will emerge.

***

Economics is the social science that studies the production of goods and services. Today is accepted the economy of the free market or the capitalist mode of production where the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist mode of production has managed to perform the most efficient allocation of production resources based on the market competition of enterprises. Capitalism has realized the highest increase in production productivity in the history of humankind, which created the most top growth of living standard ever.

But the capitalist economy also has significant disadvantages. The economics of capitalism help capital owners. They do not deal with the exploitation of workers. Furthermore, the free market brings instability to the production process that capitalism cannot solve. Capitalists prevent the removal of disadvantages of the capitalist economy because it would necessarily endanger the survival of capitalism.

However, I have created an entirely new publicly owned economy that will solve the problems of capitalism and establish greater productivity than the capitalist form of production can. The new economy will mostly base production on consumer orders. This will create a democratic planning economy that will ensure stable production. It will guarantee employment and economic security for every person. It will achieve high productivity and stability by lowering the company’s market competition to the level of jobs. A worker who offers the highest productivity for any public workplace at any time will get a job. This is a significant change that I have presented in detail in the book “Humanism.”

The new economy will establish a very efficient system of accountability as a condition of ensuring high productivity of the economy. This will create the most productive economy possible. It will be higher than private entrepreneurship can produce so capitalism with all its negativities will go down in history.

The market will determine the amount of workers’ wages. The right to work will be provided by a worker who requires a lower salary for the same job. The more inappropriate jobs will be better compensated for income, which will equalize the interest of workers for all jobs and they will be satisfied with the wages. Work competition will eliminate privileges in the production process, which will eliminate corruption as the main source of the immorality of today’s society. Workers will be able to choose the jobs they prefer, and they will enjoy the work. Work will become a value for itself.

After capitalism, humanism will emerge, a system that will far better follow the needs of people. The economy of humanism will be simple, and every man will be able to understand it in the short term. Accepting a new economy, however, requires in-depth analysis and extensive debate in society so that it can be accepted. I never managed to accomplish this.

Conclusively, I would say that social sciences will lose their importance. The new system I have proposed will demystify social sciences to their real essence and then we will all get to know social sciences well. The same way that people speak their mother’s tongue well, without matter of the level of education, all people will become good sociologists, philosophers, lawyers, economists, psychologists, artists, etc., just because they live in the new system.

***

The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine is definitely not on the right path enough. Today, cancer is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some extent, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer more wins than losses. I would say that these methods are somewhere in the range of the Middle Ages use of leeches to cure illnesses. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has entirely abandoned medical science and won her breast cancer by changing the way of living and by eating healthy food. I’ve heard for many such cases. Why doesn’t medical science research it? The development of medicine requires serious studies of traditional alternative medicine, but modern medicine refuses it.

The fact is big corporations have taken control over methods of curing illnesses, and they earn a lot of money healing people. They don’t even have the interest to be successful in healing people because healthy people do not spend money on medicine. This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern medicine. That has happened, firstly, because the medical sciences are conceited by possessing new knowledge and secondly, because conventional medicine cannot bring profit to corporations. The documentary Vaccine Nation presents it well. Modern medicine is very inhibited. I don’t remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In fact, the same medicine change s its name to bring higher profits to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine doctors should ask themselves, is their purpose supporting the pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying that modern medicine does not bring betterment to people, but objectively it requires a general reform.

I believe that most illnesses originate from unhealthy living, through the alienation of people from their nature, and through the stress that emerges from it. Once the system I have proposed is accepted, it will enable people to live in harmony with their nature and illnesses will then significantly disappear. Also, I believe that people in the future will acquire a basis of medical sciences, as much as family doctors have so that they might be able to cure themselves alone or recognize the illnesses and visit proper medical specialists.

***

Psychology is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being. It tries to solve the problems of man’s psyche. All these problems originate from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is a wolf to man. He imposes his will to other people and tries to build conveniences to himself regardless of what effects it might have to other people. Psychology is naturally completely powerless in solving social problems, so it can’t be very successful in solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalytic Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung created their own teaching and brought hope in curing mental disorders. They were very popular, but their teaching was abandoned as unsuccessful because it was alienated from the causes that cause psychological problems. All psychological problems originate from the cruel, immoral social system, the system that puts obligations and discipline in first place, the system that kills humanity, the system with no human warmth or love. Psychoanalytic help people as much as they are able to make a human touch with people who have psychological disorders. The more the doctors show they care for their patients, the more they are able to help them, because this is what is missing most in today’s alienated society.

When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to benefit themselves at the expense of others. That will be provided by the system of evaluation among people. I will repeat it again to stress the importance. Each person will get an equal right to evaluate a few people they choose by his free will. Positively evaluated people will automatically receive small awards and people who get negative evaluations will be punished in the same form. Such assessment will be significant enough to people so that they will try hard to create the highest possible conveniences to other people and avoid or stop producing damages to them. All people will be careful and caring towards other people. In such a manner, man will become a value to another man. In such a manner man will build and develop love in him himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That will bring mental health, and I believe psychology will not be needed anymore.

***

Physics, chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought significant benefits to people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven and might be alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. All of chemistry is one big theory including nuclear physics. So far, work in these scientific fields confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesn’t mean it will stay the same in the future.

These sciences bring a lot of damage to humankind as well. Scientists give themselves rights to play with atomic and molecular modifications too easily. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure what consequences they might bring to human. If such researches may bring profits to corporations, they strongly support them without paying much attention to possible harmful effects on people.

Nuclear power plants produce vast amounts of radioactive material that is unhealthy for people in the long run. The food we eat is produced by the use of fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and chemical products that are unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are created with the intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the ground, water and air. The planet earth is one massive, unhealthy storage of waste. There is a lot of initiatives around the world to protect the human environment from pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits. Capitalist corporations are interested in profits only, not in people. It comes to my mind that genetically modified food was first produced and consumed in the U.S. Nobody knows in certainty what the consequences of such food have or will have on people. Scientists have very different opinions about that. Scientists who oppose the use of genetically modified food do not have access to the media controlled by corporations.

The disease of cancer is growing. Governments of countries around the world almost synchronically accuse cigarettes of that and therefore, prohibit smoking to make themselves look like they work seriously protecting the people. Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I don’t believe either that smoking is the primary cause that spreads cancer. A combination of some research I did shows that the United States has a smaller rate of smokers than Asia or Africa, but it has a larger the rate of lung cancer. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not follow with the highest percentage of people suffering from lung cancer. Something else causes cancer more than cigarettes, and it comes from developed countries.

More and more people are buying expensive organic foods. This is indeed not because chemically, and biologically treated food is healthy. Please see the documentary movie Food, Inc. about the food we buy and eat. In the future, people will devote more attention to healthy feeding and the protection of their environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer have the power over the sciences. Scientific research must be independent of external influences, but scientists will be required to adopt the standards of producing healthy food. The new system will stop poisoning the people and polluting the environment.

***

Technical sciences are those that have objectively developed the living standard of people and most likely bring maximum benefits to society. But if human needs are alienated, then these objective sciences become alienated from their meaning as well. In the developed world, production has overcome the real human needs, it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of survival of the system we live in than the real needs of people. I cannot find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.

Mathematics is probably the most objective science that undoubtedly, significantly contributes to advancement in society. But the question is how much is it objectively needed? The math I’ve used in my work as an engineer and programmer is probably only the math that is taught in middle school. I was required to take high-level mathematics at the University, just to meet the bureaucratic requirement for acquisition of the title Bachelor of Architectural Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the scientific world should be removed as harmful. It is at least a loss of time. It is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge, or if one is not interested. Life practice should demonstrate what knowledge a man should acquire to perform the job he wants, and then it is necessary to provide access to needed knowledge to everyone at any time.

Geniuses are a product of freedom. A genius does not accept the knowledge of which the purpose he does not understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but a supernatural person who can do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to do great deeds in the fields of their interests by their nature. Everyone should have the characteristics of a genius. People are not geniuses because they alienate themselves from their nature or they cannot do what they like.

It is hard to be a genius today mostly because people are prisoners of the culture of imposed knowledge. Schools do it the most, so they are the primary origin of alienation. Students cannot pass exams if they are unable to reproduce the imposed knowledge. People who obey to imposed knowledge have to suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings and thus, they alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions, customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their lives. People who are alienated from their nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and therefore take alienated knowledge readily which develops the process of alienation.

Alienated people from their nature are not able to create genial works. They become the opposite of geniuses; they become living machines. Imposing knowledge is a misfortune to the people. Please do not get me wrong; knowledge is necessary for human development, but it must not be imposed; it should be freely accessible and accepted. However, no one can avoid the torture of imposing knowledge today. Scientists especially cannot because they cannot be scientists without a university degree. That is why there are no geniuses in the sciences today. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I do not know of any. The more the schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less the chance students will have to protect their human abilities and, in accordance, they have less chance to be geniuses.

Only spiritually free people can create genial deeds. Looking at the world around me I can recognize geniality in the band Pink Floyd. They made deeply touching, compelling and beautiful music that is distinguished from everything else I have heard. This is the music of sorrow, suffering, criticism, and hope. The music portrays our world at the turn of the millennium brilliantly. If their composing were conditioned by a finishing music conservatorium, maybe these libertarian people would have given up from the academy and would not have been allowed to compose such beautiful music. If they found the strength to finish the music academy, I believe that it would certainly somehow alienate them from their nature and they would not be able to compose such grandiose music.

***

I consider my complete education as violence to my needs and freedom, and that is what it really was. Not only was my body captured in school, the school tried to enslave my thoughts, but I resisted drastically. I cannot say the resistance was my conscious decision. It was something built in me. I did not learn anything there, and that is the reason I had to attend the fifth grade again. Then I found I had to learn just enough not to repeat the whole year.

After finishing high school, I enrolled in the study of architecture. I liked the creative work of building houses. Through considerable difficulties of studying an uninteresting program, I did graduate the faculty. A professor who led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks than mine. I knew that without him and in those times I became conscious of the fact that being a lousy student advantaged me considerably compared to others.

As a third-year student in the faculty, I was proclaimed as one of the best architects in Yugoslavia when I won the competition for the arrangement of The Republic Square in Zagreb. It needs to be stressed here that I got the reward thanks to the sound logic I managed to save through refusal of alienated knowledge, and of course, my love for architecture that gave me tremendous work energy. The sensitivity, objectivity and creativity I have been developing throughout my whole life helped me win the competition, not the studies at the faculty. If people feel their nature, loves what they are doing, and if they have a talent for what they are doing, they will achieve much better results than they could obtain by studying and receiving diplomas.

At the end of my architectural studies, a collection of books by Erich Fromm fell into my hands. Fromm strongly criticized the world we live in. I had similar views, and during those times I already created the basic ideas as to how a good world should look like, but it didn’t cross my mind that I am the one who should do something about it. By reading Fromm, I found that in the field of social improvements I could give much more to society than in architecture. That’s how I decided to change the world. It excited me a lot and gave enthusiasm and tremendous energy to work. I started writing my book “Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society,” without any doubt of my credibility.

However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires vast freedom of thoughts, which a job in the field of architecture could not give me because creative work in architecture captures too much time. That was the reason I gave up from architecture entirely right after the graduation. At that time I found the job as a fire protection inspector. An average person can learn the entire knowledge I used for this job in a few short courses. The position did not burden me much, so I was able to write, yes, the most important book ever.

Writing the book inspired tremendous creativity in me, far more significant than architecture. Good ideas about changing the world have been coming to my mind without end. When that happens, a person cannot stop even if he would like to. It brings a lot of satisfaction. But also, I needed to invest a lot of effort to compose thoughts. I did it by analysis, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. In the development of new ideas, I did not use existing sciences because I didn’t know them well. I used basic logic that was already pretty much developed in me in those times. When basic ideas were finished, I had to research existing sciences to connect my thoughts to the existing state. By understanding what my goal was, I didn’t have any difficulties in studying the issues anymore. In the beginning, I thought my book would have been finished in one year, but the problems were much more complicated than I had predicted and it was not my only preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish the book. I’ve got the power to work from understanding that my book would one day change the world entirely and create a sound and sane society.

When I finished the book, I started presenting my ideas to scientists. Unfortunately, the only support I got was from Professor of philosophy Andrija Stojković from the University of Belgrade. He wrote a review of my book. He also helped me spread my ideas among scientists in Belgrade, in Hegel Society and in the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.

Perhaps in hope to find interested people for my philosophy in the west, I immigrated to Canada, in 1993. I was trying to work professionally on my philosophy by searching for funds from various organizations and foundations but didn’t receive any. Again, I got into a situation in which I had to earn money for a living. During that time, an economic crisis was in Canada, and there were not many available jobs. The exception was new computer technology. The situation forced me to buy a computer and computer books, and I began learning computer programming. The demand for programmers was much larger than the supply so that I got the first job easily. Nobody asked me for any diploma. I was not an especially good programmer because the job was not interesting to me. My thoughts were focused continuously on my philosophy.

Fortunately, my wonderful wife Dušica had an understanding of my work and offered me to take care of our daughters and home, and to work on my philosophy in my spare time, while she earned money for life. That’s how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldn’t understand how grateful I am for that. The whole world should be thankful to her as well. She was the only person who had an understanding of my work, and without her, I wouldn’t be able to find enough free time to think about my philosophy and write what you are reading.

Criticism of sciences

Since I finished my book “Humanism,” 16 years ago, I have been sending thousands of letters to professors of social sciences trying to interest them in how the bright future of humankind would look like, but I did not succeed. I’ll try to explain why.

Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality acquired by systematic analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop sciences. Scientists naturally aim to learn higher expertise and, on this path, they create new theories that should bring conveniences to society. If such approaches do not conflict with reality directly, scientists accept their opinions as objective or accurate. However, relative harmonies of such theories with actual facts, still don’t guarantee the objectivity of such arguments. They may be subjective, or in other words, wrongful. The subjective approaches create alienated knowledge or false knowledge that alienates a person from reality. If scientists are prominent enough authorities, society accepts their alienated knowledge, which then alienates all the people from objective reality. Once received alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis in spreading alienation. Such sciences aim society to wrong path and prevent acceptance of objective knowledge. It aims society to solve problems inside frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge as a general rule brings disadvantage to society.

***

The social sciences, especially, are on the wrong or not good enough paths. They are very alienated from objective reality. The alienation has come from not sufficient challenge of ideas coming from social science authorities throughout history. The essence of social science should be creating the vision of how to build a good or at least better path to the future of humankind, but the scientists do not have it. They should be initiators of positive changes in society, but they are not. As a result, they do not have influences on social events.

In the wish to approach social sciences, I tried to enroll my master’s degree in sociology at the University of North York. One of the professors there sincerely advised me not to waste my time with sociology, explaining that I would not be able to get any job with a master degree in social sciences. I understood it as his opinion that there are no benefits of sociology. I responded to him that I had new ideas about the advancements of society, but he didn’t show any interest in listening to me, the same way thousands of other scientists didn’t. Another professor at the same University briefly reviewed my book “Humanism,” and told me that I satisfied the requirements for the studies, but my book was not acceptable as my master dissertation work.

The book that will change society entirely and make the world a beautiful place for living is not acceptable to social sciences! This example shows clearly how generations of scientists may turn into a dead-end street when they base their intellectual paths on alienated knowledge. What to say about the professors of Marxism? In Yugoslavia, Marxism was an obligatory subject in all high schools. Then the capitalist revolution came, and Marxism was revoked. What thousands of professors and doctors of Marxism do now?

Do you think philosophy is science? I don’t. If it is indeed a science, there would be some benefits from it, but I cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin which means ”love wisdom.” It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of the most significant interests of philosophers was defining the origin of the world. All of the answers philosophers proposed throughout the history of mankind were probably alienated from the objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an indefinitely large world to be able to define its origin objectively.

Great philosophers were through support or criticism of their predecessors writing large amounts of books trying to build and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did not succeed. The proof lies in the fact that philosophers did not define the basic idea for creating a good society yet. The powerlessness of philosophers to find objective answers to the questions that bother people has resulted in the creation of a massive amount of alienated knowledge. Studying philosophy today doesn’t mean seeking for wisdom because it is not known what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history of failure of human thoughts. It is harmful because an enormous amount of alienated knowledge leads people to the wrong path where they can hardly recognize the origins of problems.

Philosophers are full of good intentions, but I have not noticed that they worked seriously enough on how to improve the world. Why? One of the rare attempts did the philosopher Karl Marx. He wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers of the world unite against the capitalist exploitation!” But Marx did not define how a proper organization of society should look like.

Maybe he thought that united workers would develop the best possible self-organization of their communities, and meet the needs all of the people. However, nobody has ever succeeded in implementing it. The problem is two people can relatively easily agree on something but never about everything, all people can hardly agree about anything. Marx’s successors have solved this problem by taking all power into their own hands. They have become authorities and authorities tend to oppress people. This way, the authoritarian socialism immerged which regressed Marx’s intentions.

The problem lies in the fact that nobody has ever tried to create a system that might function without the influences of authoritative powers. I did it, and that’s the reason I succeeded in defining a good society.

Philosophers mainly agree that people must have equal rights, but in reality, they do not exist, and philosophers don’t recognize that sufficiently. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that they don’t understand the significance of the Golden Rule, which I believe first time is written in the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Or: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you!” All that philosophers have searched for to make a good society one might put into this sentence. But taking into account that the significance of this sentence was not understood clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realize the idea.

I have invented how to make the golden rule work. This will be achieved by the system of evaluations among people. I called it democratic anarchy. Each man will get an equal right to evaluate a few other people by his own choice. Each positive evaluation should bring a small, but a noticeable award to the people being assessed, and each negative assessment should carry punishments to the negatively evaluated people in the same form. What would we get with that?

The system of evaluations will remove the privileges of people which are the origin of evil in society. A small equal power in the hands of the people will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values to other human beings. Everyone will try hard to please people as best as they can and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. This will create what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach unsuccessfully, this will solve the problem of today’s democracy, this will eliminate the evil in society and create a sound and sane society.

***

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.

The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.

The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.

Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.

***

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.

The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.

The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.

Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.

***

Law is an extended hand of the political system. The science of law is alienated from its objective reality the same way all others social sciences are because it was created by the privileged class of people. Unjust society creates an unjust legal system. From this injustice emerges the cruel system we live in. A cruel system creates cruel people. Cruel criminals do cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly. The cruel justice may find its justification through preventing cruel people from producing evil, but such justice is not satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.

The law is probably the most conservative social science that ensures the official system in society. It is precious to political power. In Canada, students cannot enter the school of law before they graduate some other faculty. But because of that after the graduations, lawyers get some privileges that formally nobody besides them has. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate, cannot divorce, cannot perform legal proceedings; practically people cannot protect their rights without them. Privileges always form some sort of immorality; therefore justice can easily switch into injustice.

I would like to present one obvious example. It is about the International Court of Justice in Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour, indicted Slobodan Milošević, the president of Yugoslavia for war crimes in the middle of the aggression from her country, Canada, as a member of NATO, on Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Milošević was proved in the four years of the trial in Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, did commit a war crime indeed by sending Canadian bombardiers to kill people in aggression on Yugoslavia. The aggression was committed against the charters of the UN, Canadian laws, and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she didn’t accuse her Prime Minister of the war crimes. This immoral woman was then awarded for her deeds by promotion to the Supreme Court of Canada and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in Hague is an immoral or even criminal place that shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court is the beginning of the end of everything that is accepted as justice today.

Once the system I’ve proposed is accepted, People will have equal legislative power in society. It will be manifested by the equal rights evaluation among people. I have called it democratic anarchy. I have to repeat it because it is essential, the positive assessment will bring small awards to the assessed people, and negative evaluations will result in the same form of punishment. Such a little power in the hands of people will eliminate privileges which are the primary cause of evil in society. People will respect each other. They will learn to create the highest possible advantages to other people and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. In such a system, people will determine what is right and wrong through their own practice. Lawyers will not be needed anymore, and science of justice will probably finish in history textbooks. Then the moral time will emerge.

***

Economics is the social science that studies the production of goods and services. Today is accepted the economy of the free market or the capitalist mode of production where the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist mode of production has managed to perform the most efficient allocation of production resources based on the market competition of enterprises. Capitalism has realized the highest increase in production productivity in the history of humankind, which created the most top growth of living standard ever.

But the capitalist economy also has significant disadvantages. The economics of capitalism help capital owners. They do not deal with the exploitation of workers. Furthermore, the free market brings instability to the production process that capitalism cannot solve. Capitalists prevent the removal of disadvantages of the capitalist economy because it would necessarily endanger the survival of capitalism.

However, I have created an entirely new publicly owned economy that will solve the problems of capitalism and establish greater productivity than the capitalist form of production can. The new economy will mostly base production on consumer orders. This will create a democratic planning economy that will ensure stable production. It will guarantee employment and economic security for every person. It will achieve high productivity and stability by lowering the company’s market competition to the level of jobs. A worker who offers the highest productivity for any public workplace at any time will get a job. This is a significant change that I have presented in detail in the book “Humanism.”

The new economy will establish a very efficient system of accountability as a condition of ensuring high productivity of the economy. This will create the most productive economy possible. It will be higher than private entrepreneurship can produce so capitalism with all its negativities will go down in history.

The market will determine the amount of workers’ wages. The right to work will be provided by a worker who requires a lower salary for the same job. The more inappropriate jobs will be better compensated for income, which will equalize the interest of workers for all jobs and they will be satisfied with the wages. Work competition will eliminate privileges in the production process, which will eliminate corruption as the main source of the immorality of today’s society. Workers will be able to choose the jobs they prefer, and they will enjoy the work. Work will become a value for itself.

After capitalism, humanism will emerge, a system that will far better follow the needs of people. The economy of humanism will be simple, and every man will be able to understand it in the short term. Accepting a new economy, however, requires in-depth analysis and extensive debate in society so that it can be accepted. I never managed to accomplish this.

Conclusively, I would say that social sciences will lose their importance. The new system I have proposed will demystify social sciences to their real essence and then we will all get to know social sciences well. The same way that people speak their mother’s tongue well, without matter of the level of education, all people will become good sociologists, philosophers, lawyers, economists, psychologists, artists, etc., just because they live in the new system.

***

The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine is definitely not on the right path enough. Today, cancer is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some extent, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer more wins than losses. I would say that these methods are somewhere in the range of the Middle Ages use of leeches to cure illnesses. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has entirely abandoned medical science and won her breast cancer by changing the way of living and by eating healthy food. I’ve heard for many such cases. Why doesn’t medical science research it? The development of medicine requires serious studies of traditional alternative medicine, but modern medicine refuses it.

The fact is big corporations have taken control over methods of curing illnesses, and they earn a lot of money healing people. They don’t even have the interest to be successful in healing people because healthy people do not spend money on medicine. This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern medicine. That has happened, firstly, because the medical sciences are conceited by possessing new knowledge and secondly, because conventional medicine cannot bring profit to corporations. The documentary Vaccine Nation presents it well. Modern medicine is very inhibited. I don’t remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In fact, the same medicine change s its name to bring higher profits to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine doctors should ask themselves, is their purpose supporting the pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying that modern medicine does not bring betterment to people, but objectively it requires a general reform.

I believe that most illnesses originate from unhealthy living, through the alienation of people from their nature, and through the stress that emerges from it. Once the system I have proposed is accepted, it will enable people to live in harmony with their nature and illnesses will then significantly disappear. Also, I believe that people in the future will acquire a basis of medical sciences, as much as family doctors have so that they might be able to cure themselves alone or recognize the illnesses and visit proper medical specialists.

***

Psychology is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being. It tries to solve the problems of man’s psyche. All these problems originate from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is a wolf to man. He imposes his will to other people and tries to build conveniences to himself regardless of what effects it might have to other people. Psychology is naturally completely powerless in solving social problems, so it can’t be very successful in solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalytic Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung created their own teaching and brought hope in curing mental disorders. They were very popular, but their teaching was abandoned as unsuccessful because it was alienated from the causes that cause psychological problems. All psychological problems originate from the cruel, immoral social system, the system that puts obligations and discipline in first place, the system that kills humanity, the system with no human warmth or love. Psychoanalytic help people as much as they are able to make a human touch with people who have psychological disorders. The more the doctors show they care for their patients, the more they are able to help them, because this is what is missing most in today’s alienated society.

When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to benefit themselves at the expense of others. That will be provided by the system of evaluation among people. I will repeat it again to stress the importance. Each person will get an equal right to evaluate a few people they choose by his free will. Positively evaluated people will automatically receive small awards and people who get negative evaluations will be punished in the same form. Such assessment will be significant enough to people so that they will try hard to create the highest possible conveniences to other people and avoid or stop producing damages to them. All people will be careful and caring towards other people. In such a manner, man will become a value to another man. In such a manner man will build and develop love in him himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That will bring mental health, and I believe psychology will not be needed anymore.

***

Physics, chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought significant benefits to people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven and might be alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. All of chemistry is one big theory including nuclear physics. So far, work in these scientific fields confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesn’t mean it will stay the same in the future.

These sciences bring a lot of damage to humankind as well. Scientists give themselves rights to play with atomic and molecular modifications too easily. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure what consequences they might bring to human. If such researches may bring profits to corporations, they strongly support them without paying much attention to possible harmful effects on people.

Nuclear power plants produce vast amounts of radioactive material that is unhealthy for people in the long run. The food we eat is produced by the use of fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and chemical products that are unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are created with the intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the ground, water and air. The planet earth is one massive, unhealthy storage of waste. There is a lot of initiatives around the world to protect the human environment from pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits. Capitalist corporations are interested in profits only, not in people. It comes to my mind that genetically modified food was first produced and consumed in the U.S. Nobody knows in certainty what the consequences of such food have or will have on people. Scientists have very different opinions about that. Scientists who oppose the use of genetically modified food do not have access to the media controlled by corporations.

The disease of cancer is growing. Governments of countries around the world almost synchronically accuse cigarettes of that and therefore, prohibit smoking to make themselves look like they work seriously protecting the people. Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I don’t believe either that smoking is the primary cause that spreads cancer. A combination of some research I did shows that the United States has a smaller rate of smokers than Asia or Africa, but it has a larger the rate of lung cancer. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not follow with the highest percentage of people suffering from lung cancer. Something else causes cancer more than cigarettes, and it comes from developed countries.

More and more people are buying expensive organic foods. This is indeed not because chemically, and biologically treated food is healthy. Please see the documentary movie Food, Inc. about the food we buy and eat. In the future, people will devote more attention to healthy feeding and the protection of their environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer have the power over the sciences. Scientific research must be independent of external influences, but scientists will be required to adopt the standards of producing healthy food. The new system will stop poisoning the people and polluting the environment.

***

Technical sciences are those that have objectively developed the living standard of people and most likely bring maximum benefits to society. But if human needs are alienated, then these objective sciences become alienated from their meaning as well. In the developed world, production has overcome the real human needs, it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of survival of the system we live in than the real needs of people. I cannot find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.

Mathematics is probably the most objective science that undoubtedly, significantly contributes to advancement in society. But the question is how much is it objectively needed? The math I’ve used in my work as an engineer and programmer is probably only the math that is taught in middle school. I was required to take high-level mathematics at the University, just to meet the bureaucratic requirement for acquisition of the title Bachelor of Architectural Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the scientific world should be removed as harmful. It is at least a loss of time. It is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge, or if one is not interested. Life practice should demonstrate what knowledge a man should acquire to perform the job he wants, and then it is necessary to provide access to needed knowledge to everyone at any time.

The Future of Sciences

Authorities have throughout history been building unjustifiably complex, mystified and alienated sciences. Not only that sciences have incorrect or insufficiently correct basis, but academic recognition gives credibility to such base, which damages society. It directs people to wrong paths, the paths that cannot solve the problems of society because they are alienated from the nature of the origin of social issues. Also, lack of critical acceptance of knowledge accustoms people to expect answers to all questions from authorities. That alienates people from the power to mobilize their own abilities to solve problems. Usually, such an attitude impoverishes a man’s abilities to recognize, understand and resolve scientific, work, and everyday life problems.

Alienated knowledge is mainly wrong; it doesn’t allow people to see the exit from the dead-end street in which humanity has entered. I’ve made a significant breakthrough because I didn’t accept alienated sciences. I kept a natural logic and felt about what is right and what is not. In preparing the solutions to the problems of humanity, I’ve just used simple reasoning with which I achieved straightforward answers that the alienated people through the system of education were not able to perceive. The basis of this logic can be expressed as follows: “In the future people will no longer go to school to learn what is good, they will learn what is good in everyday life.”

The most complex changes in the system I have proposed will probably be related to the division of work. The future economy will have to be able to follow the changes of social needs through greater mobility of labour. The only good division of labour that such changes will be able to support will be based on a constantly open free market. The worker who offers the highest productivity in any public workplace at any time will get the job.

Bureaucratic determination of necessary knowledge to perform different work tasks by formal education and examinations, will not be able to follow new requirements and will no longer exist in the new system. Bureaucratic conditions unnecessarily reduce the ability for workers to be employed in positions they want, because formal education requires a lot of time. I would say that an average person can learn most jobs in a short period. Why then does education last 12 to 20 years or even more? School in the first place has a goal to lead people to the way that authorities have imposed throughout history. In that manner, the followers of authorities guard their privileges. This is a very alienated path that harms people. Such education becomes a break for the development of society.

Formal education should not be a condition for obtaining a job because it is not a sufficient guarantee of workability. The best learning comes through practice. When a man loves what he does, he quickly learns everything he needs to perform his job. The new system that I have proposed will establish a new, highly effective method of accountability for the possible insufficiencies of the realization of working proposals of workers. The new system will enable workers to give far greater guarantees for the productivity of their work than they can through diplomas, recommendations, experience or morality in society. The responsibility of every worker will be much higher than the private entrepreneurs today have. This responsibility will be so high that nobody will try obtaining a job for which they don’t have enough knowledge.

Although diplomas will no longer be an important factor in hiring, education will continue to be necessary, but it will change significantly. The opinion formed in capitalism that education is profitable for students makes education expensive. But knowledge is beneficial for society as a whole because educated people produce benefits to society. Therefore education should be free. In the future, all of the people will have simple and easy access to all knowledge, and to all sciences.

The central principle of education in the future will be based on the shortest and most straightforward way to achieve the required knowledge. One can assume with great certainty that most students will not study subjects that disinterest them or don’t give them direct benefits. Doctrines that are not going to get interested or bring immediate benefits to society will go down in history. People will determine what sciences will survive and which will not by their own interest. Education in the future will aim to teach students the knowledge they consider necessary. This is the path of disalienation of sciences. Students will take specialized courses on their own free will. They will make their curriculum of studies on their individual needs and abilities. I assume that the lectures in the classical sense will mostly no longer exist. Knowledge is already available over the Internet, and this trend will expand and improve. I think a focus on the future apprenticeship will be based on the consultation of students with teachers, where teachers will explain to students what material wasn’t sufficiently clear to them when they were studying on their own. Students and professors will discuss problems in particular fields of work and perform exercises through workshops. These workshops will probably include online students from around the world.

I will try to explain clearly in one example what the shortest way to achieve required knowledge exactly means. Let us say that someone wants to study rocket science. He begins the studies and soon finds out that he doesn’t know enough maths to be able to follow the lectures in rocket science. He will then stop the study of rocket science until he learns enough maths to continue studying rocket science again. Education will be very accessible and straightforward in the future.

Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than twenty years. What slavery to the bureaucracy that is! What a loss of time in the most creative edge! I think that the average educated person may acquire proficiency in surgery in a much shorter time if he removes everything that is unnecessary. How? The student surgeons will typically attend the operations of experienced surgeons. When a student finishes the program to be a surgeon, he will estimate alone whether he is able to perform a surgery. The surgeons will not evaluate their own skills wrongfully because the regulation of the work responsibility will be much stronger than it is today. The patients will not be in danger of non-professional surgeons because experienced surgeons will supervise the beginners. Besides that, when a beginner surgeon feels capable of surgery, he will still need to convince patients that he is capable of doing it because patients will choose their surgeons alone. A surgeon who makes a big mistake performing a surgery might lose patients forever. So if a beginner surgeon doesn’t feel capable of delivering an operation, he could attend additional education as much as he feels he needs.

Today’s complicated system of education has created the opinion that ordinary people cannot easily overcome the knowledge used by experts. This is wrong. Everyone is able to do it if they find an interest and ability to do it. Everything in nature is simple, and that is the reason the essence of any science is straightforward. In the fields of sciences, there is nothing that cannot be easily understood. Science becomes complicated when subjective, powerless and ignorant people alienate them from their real essence. Then we are talking about alienated or false doctrines.

I think that in the future, all people will be interested to know and understand the basics of all sciences. People learn while they are alive. People in the future will understand the essence of all sciences much better, but that doesn’t mean that all people will be experts in all scientific fields. Great scientists need to study and work for years to perform at an expert level. A pianist can quickly learn where all the notes on the piano are, but a good pianist needs to practise playing for years, and that makes him a pianist. An excellent pianist must love music, and that love gives him the inspiration to sit for hours before the piano and exercise. The same applies to the experts at every workplace and every science.

Aleksandar Šarović

December 4, 2008