The State of Social Maturity
by
Gernot M. R. Winkler

Introduction

Maturity is generally understood as the state of complete development of potential abilities. As applied to individuals, it means that a person has reached the ability for self control and objective judgment. If maturity is not reached, then the individual is not able to control himself and cannot make objective judgments. Such a person will have problems living by himself, even in a modern society. Can we extend this idea of maturity to society itself ?  It would have the same meaning of making good decisions and surviving as a society. A simple way to get some ideas would be to look at the maturity of a large number of individuals, because these are the voters who have to select their leaders and influence the policies. What pertinent information can we find to allow some estimates?  I am looking at this problem with the background of a long life in various countries and I am well aware that this experience could be helpful, or it could bias my views in an uncontrolled manner. A second problem to be aware is, as I found, that as long as we only look at people with a subjective bias, as this person or that person, - and not as objects of nature - we understand nothing because the temptation is too great to interpret their actions as personal failings. This leads to the old blame game and eventually nowhere because there are always new culprits to blame. For my purpose, I wanted to consider our affairs from the systems point of view, to see systemic problems. At the same time, we must keep in view the whole range of subjective effects to understand individual decisions. Confusing?  Not if we remind ourselves to do this in parallel and avoid mixing things inappropriately.

The worldwide scene is actually revolting if you have lived through the events of the 20th century. A huge number of people, following their leaders, have failed to see the opportunities available to them and instead made truly disastrous errors, thus perpetuating the chronic mistakes of mankind. Moreover, it is continuing!  It is not history which repeats, but the people make the same old mistakes despite the stern warnings of the past. Watching generation after generation reaping the same disasters is tantamount to having to watch the same pathetic scene until you want to scream, "Stop" !  Can't people ever learn from the mistakes of their predecessors? It is infuriating that they don't understand! Why can't they see the obvious?  Even if you point to it ? Repeated attempts to explain things patiently make it clear that they do not want to understand! Those of us who are aware of the horrendous consequences of man's past stupidity find this upsetting and hard to accept.  I have spent a great amount of time trying to understand the reasons for this behavior because there is a reason why the same people who are smart enough to send a man to the moon, do not want to listen to reason in their own daily situations.

What is missing in our education that makes us adults so disrespectful for the lessons of the past?  Is it, as they say, “human nature” which we have to accept? But this nature is able to learn from mistakes! Some pundits always like to claim that old experience is no longer useful because, as they say, we have progressed too far and face a completely novel situation. I remember this exact argument as it was used by the Nazis in 1938!  If you do not know much and are only impressed with all the progress in modern times this may look acceptable - nevertheless, it is terribly harmful nonsense and anybody who prides himself of being educated should not be so stupid to believe it. The antique author of Ecclesiastes (1,9) knew better! The fact is that we do know our basic problems since a very long time, but refuse to admit where the core of the problem is. In  the  play Antigone by Sophocles we "hear" the new ruler talk at length how the money is a destructive curse in society. We know Plato's idea in his "Republic" how to avoid the money problem, but the few attempts to put something equivalent in practice by Communism, ended up with the hypocrisy of "paying" the powerful with the goods and privileges instead of with the money. Of course, it happened because the measures taken did not address the real problem. The corruption in the state was the same, but in the effect worse than before because of the totalitarian absolute force. Therefore, it is not a simple problem helping people to resist temptations to be foolish. Recently, somebody in a blog wanted to abolish money as the means to improve mankind !  Of course, this is childishly stupid. It is not the money that decides where it goes, - we decide and we are the point where corrective action must be taken, if we want to be effective. The excessive greed, the love for pretense, and the ubiquitous lies that are at the root of the man made disasters must be somehow defused for any real improvement of the human life. Could this be done? Of course!

And how about the "new" problems?  Why should warnings about the old poison be disregarded if new, additional poisons have become known? When even the old personal and social “poisons” of the past are plaguing us more than ever? Moreover, the new stuff is not all that new; it is merely the old in new guise. Can't we see that the temptations for folly do not change and that we have learned absolutely nothing about how to deal with them?  How to prepare the young for these temptations? We desperately need to face reality! The following is a little discussion about several aspects of maturity which we can see without difficulty. It will suggest conclusions. This is a very simple approach, modest in its goals compared to the wealth of the information one can find in the interesting World Values Survey Web site:  ttp://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/  

Are we mature?

A while ago, a poll [1] was conducted to find out which questions adults would ask a supreme being if they could get a direct answer.  The most frequent questions people wanted to ask, and the respective numbers were
                                                         asked by
    1.    What is my purpose here?           34%
    2.    Will I have life after death?          19%
    3.    Why do bad things happen?         16%
    4.    Not sure what to ask                   12%
    5.    Is there intelligent life elsewhere?   7%
    6.    All others                                    12%

These answers are quite revealing. Taking questions #1 and 4 together would mean that 46%, almost one half, do not know what to do or even what to ask! This  should give us pause. Obviously, this means that the most important subjects are not sufficiently discussed in a public which is intellectually saturated with ephemeral trifles such as power struggles of the politicians, scandals, gossip about celebrities, fashions, and similar subjects. The poll suggests how extremely necessary it would be to advance ourselves beyond the common trivialities of the day, because guidance for our fellow beings would, if done with wisdom, be most beneficial for all. They seem to have never received such guidance.
 
Before bothering the Supreme power with questions, would it not be appropriate to use first what presumably was given to us by this power, namely our own reason?  In conformance with the old rule Help yourself then God will help, a little thinking would bring the questioner to the realization that his most natural and promising activity would be to work on his own person, to perfect his own knowledge, skills, and character. This would be immensely more productive than trying to work on others (namely on those who also think that they are perfect). The need for individual improvement has been recognized since ages, but apparently not with great success. Of course, if we cannot see how to improve ourselves (to see this requires already some maturity), our education should condition us to always strive to do the very best we can in our job, wherever we find ourselves  - or we can follow the example of the many who see their mission in helping those who need help desperately. This would bring a noble purpose into our life and by actually doing it, we would not feel the need to find out what to do. That there is a very great need for helpers is obvious. It is heart wrenching to see how persons with great natural talents can waste their life and perish in misery, presumably because they could not find a mentor who can pull them up into a healthy, reasonable life. Or is it because we really hate to hear what would be beneficial for us?  The best mentor is useless if nobody wants to be mentored. How many teenagers of your acquaintance have expressed an interest in an adult mentor ? How could we get beyond this problem?

After the wish to know about our purpose in life, the next remarkable thing to note is the apparent absence of self doubt. In a strongly religious society (on the basis that America shows the strongest support for organized religion), one could have expected a question such as Can my life find approval in Your eyes? But no, there is no great desire to find out while there is still time, and this ought to worry us! However, we should not be surprised. In large organizations, a very frequently voiced complaint is about a lack of communications, that people do not know where they stand. This is claimed to be a source of insecurity which management ought to correct. But in reality, we have proof that many people are not honest with themselves and, when the opportunity arises, they are not at all eager to find out. I have experienced twice a convincing demonstration of this. Many people, among them even high performers, have been reluctant to hear an honest and confidential information about their standing.

This is worrisome because without self doubt that can lead to action, where else from could motivation for improvements come? One gets the strong impression that the “cores” of many people have not been developed sufficiently into a mature person.  This is a major problem not only for these individuals, but for society which is but the aggregate of all individuals. I cannot express this strongly enough how much the general happiness and life satisfaction depends whether or not the individuals have found a purpose in their life. The community can help with this by improving the general education and motivating the media to be more responsible in their operations, but the spark of interest and commitment can only originate in the individuals themselves. Can we help others to have this spark, the blessing which makes life worthwhile ?  My firm answer is Yes! 

To explain this we need to remember that, and how, our exercise changes our physical posture. One of the ways is through the increased breathing which with time, does affect our basic outlook. Persistent exercise that has become a habit, has a definite overall beneficial effect on the person. But this also increases the likelihood that our imagination can get "fired up" by some specific topic which could become a lifetime interest, even a profession that we can practice almost with enthusiasm.  Similarly, increased intellectual activity, also improves our mental performance.  At any rate, the important point is that more personal power and energy come from the use of power and energy and the worst we can do is to fall into idleness or helpless passivity. Good leaders are aware of this and will generate projects for their group that can focus the energy and increase overall activity. Of course, to invent useless projects leads to waste and must be avoided.  A positive national example has been President Kennedy's Space project. It was a national goal of extraordinary merit with countless benefits in all areas and a gain for the nation far beyond the propaganda value that has been the original driving idea.  (Of couse, I do not want to appear endorsing automatically any gigantic superexpensive large program. We must be critical and have a scale of values).

Regarding life after death, we can expect to find three groups in the population: Those of strong religious faith should have no question about this because they are certain of the after life. Those of little faith are likely to ask this question, while those who are completely secular in their orientation, will probably never ask because they are equally certain about this point, or better, they think they know. This would suggest that the next best thing to do for the believers after worrying about our own salvation would be to help strengthen the faith of the brothers in the second group (one in five!), as a promising project. Whether it can be done wisely without making unsupported claims is quite another problem.

The third most favored question appears to be the most significant for us. It is truly amazing that so many people are not aware that bad things happen because individuals are the ones who make the bad and reckless decisions! Of course we have also natural catastrophes, and we come to that in a moment. But by far the greatest disasters have all been man-made! (We must not forget that the worst disasters came from people who wanted to improve the world - by force!)  It is hard to admit in an optimistic culture (although an admission is indispensable as the first step toward correction), but the major troubles originate right within us individuals due to our congenital weaknesses (as a species that evolved in a brutal process). We prefer to point fingers and say that it is the system or the bad society that made us do it. Or, the devil made us do it. But it is in us; we must admit it and point at ourselves. The truth seems to be that we prefer frivolity to serious thinking. We like to act without much regard for consequences (action is so important and not thinking - is this true? Karl Marx and other revolutionaries felt this way.) and we vote for people for all kinds of superficial reasons, but rarely for their competence and character as revealed by their past performance. And most important, our unchecked desire, the greed to obtain ever more things, because it is working in all of us, produces a global systemic effect which damages all of us.  The existence of great exceptions to all this means, however, that none of the above is really necessary!  So, what can we do?

We do things not because they are good or beneficial, but because we hope there is something in it for us immediately. Actually, when still immature and before everything else, we like to have fun and seem to believe that to have fun is the only purpose in life. Then, after we have given away our precious time and our fate to foolishness, and the hard consequences arrive, we complain. If we remember how we, as a species, came through evolution, this behavior is understandable, but not the best we are capable of. Through tens of thousands of generations, "we" had to look for our advantage regardless of others;  it was bitterly necessary and those who did not, perished - but times have indeed changed and we find ourselves now as members of societies where excessive egoism is not a virtue at all. In fact, how to live in a free society where we get a terrific support when we are sick or old (provided we have been prudent), is our major problem. The support we get is due to the benefit of the collective efforts of all, excessive greed is not necessary any longer. On the contrary, we must become social beings who are considerate because, if we cannot control ourselves to keep our needs within modest bounds, we generate problems for ourselves and for all others.

How to accelerate maturation

The big question for man today is whether a transformation into civilized beings can be accomplished by a true education which includes a sustained, radical conditioning of the young individuals, - or whether it must be done primarily by force of the state by threatening the adults with jail or labor camp "education", as it happened in the notorious Gulag of the Soviets. It has become more important today to know how to behave than to know the multiplication table by heart. The first approach is favored by individualists and freedom lovers, whereas the second appears to be the unavoidable result of a failure to do the first. It seems clear to me that we have all the evidence to know that only the first approach through early and deep conditioning allows a truly human development. Unfortunately, with exception of insufficient attempts, this has almost never been effectively done and this failure allowed the series of irresponsible decisions that eventually brought down the countries where great individual freedom had been tried before.  Of course, the other approach to social organization, reliance on force, also failed. Nevertheless, I am convinced that work on the individuals is much more helpful and appropriate for humans than the reliance on laws and force. I am confident of this because I have seen to a sickening degree the effects of the environments out of which most people are released into their freedom. They are almost totally unprepared. The simplest things have never been effectively explained.

The second approach has produced systems that preclude the full use of the human potential (perhaps with the exception of war industries). These systems become with time a totalitarian straitjacket by eliminating freedom and centralizing personal decisions. The difference between the two approaches is striking in the results. The free society is attractive to people, the second is hated and avoided. The most visible example is America which millions try to enter even at risk of life, whereas they try to flee Cuba, at mortal danger. The same things, but now almost forgotten, happened in Germany where the communist regime in the East had to erect a wall with armed guards to stop the flight of its own people (and many died trying to flee). America must also have some wall, but this is to prevent people form coming here.  ---  If one is surprised about my strong defense of America at a time when some Americans who have not lived in other places think that the country is responsible for all wrongs, then I think it is due to the fact that I have lived in these other places, and only accidentally survived, whereas the critics have not and believe that the unavoidable problems of life are due to the American Constitution!  The fact is that America is a unique country also because it is the only one that I know has helped others to free themselves. Of course, things could be even better and I believe what I am writing here, is a way to achieve this.

It is clear how much the free societies are not perfect. It is my belief that both approaches have been mistaken in their basic assumption about human nature - although, the errors are of very different gravity in their effects. In both cases (of the two approaches), we have wrong opinions about man's natural tendencies: we expect too much: Without sufficient conditioning, man is not naturally a social being, but the raw product of a grim natural selection that, for hundreds of millennia, killed all but the most aggressive individuals. This could only produce types that do not conform with the image of naturally good human beings that are only corrupted by society, an idea that was created by Rousseau and became the core idea of the Romantic movement. On the other hand, the bad tendencies hidden in human nature are recognized and seen by Christianity as the consequence of original sin. To admit our primitive part freely is, of course, more realistic compared with the unjustified optimism of most secularists with which they destroy Western society. Beyond the awareness of our moral weakness, a distinction must also be made between the intellectual capabilities of the individual when he deals with matters of his own concern (where even stupid persons are surprisingly capable), as opposed to what these individuals can do in matters not of their own concern - where it is difficult to to be smart and watchful for the consequences. It is the source of strength of the free societies to make more individuals conscious of their own concern when they work.

I know, of course, the old saying velle non discitur, that willing cannot be learned. But, even if that be true, even if the basic character of homo sapiens is inflexible (which is not exactly true), it is beyond question that most bad and stupid acts are committed without any idea of the most likely consequences. Most perpetrators of such acts had no idea into what this would get them. Most have never received guidance often and deeply enough so that this envisioned future could become part of their mental resources. My conviction about these things is based on my own vivid experiences.

As a young man in military service, I had acquired a severe addiction to smoking. However, on October 4, 1957, I smoked my last cigarette.  How could I do it? I had seen anatomical samples of lungs that had come from heavy smokers. It was a shocking experience and instinctively, I knew that I did not want my lungs to look like this. I wanted to rid my body of this terrible poison as soon as possible. With these pictures absorbed in my memory, abstaining from cigarettes was almost natural.  Such an experience is of general significance. An enlightened mind will not commit the kind of atrocities that horrify us afterwards, provided that his power of imagination is sufficient to convince his weak ego. It is true that some wretched characters will do evil things to others even if it hurts their own person; but these are a minority, perhaps even an exception. The large majority of the inmates of our jails do not belong there, we are ruining their life by jailing them for longer than, say, two years; they will leave in worse shape than when they came in. If by instilling vividly into their mind, in time, the kind of experience that prevents an older, experienced person from repeating the foolish or malicious acts of his youth, we give the young the tools to resist most of their bad inclinations. This will make the world into a much better place.

The individualistic approach, i.e., the original Liberalism - and not its modern distortion which is a disguised socialism - while superior by not damaging human motivation, is therefore very difficult. People do not realize this. It requires not only some compromises to make a very free system workable, but most importantly, a more effective education and conditioning of the young is absolutely indispensable. What already Plato saw as a social necessity is the turning around of the soul of the young, from domination by narrow, shortsighted egoistic desires toward personal responsibility, and an improved ability to use objective reason with a vision for the consequences of every act. The main requirement for this conditioning is a recognized civic code (see the essay Ethics ), which is not a specific law but general guidance. Its applications must be discussed repeatedly in the training sessions, supported by superior media techniques in every detail, in all sorts of situations together with a sound scale of values and precedence. On the top of these values must be the need to be truthful. This means simply that we need to accelerate the maturing process. Our advanced media technologies can be of tremendous help instead of brutalizing them as it happens now.

The public seems not to understand the problem, or it is misguided by ideologies, and we must explain much better to our fellows that the best way to minimize bad things in society, things over which humans have some control, is first, to learn seeing things as they really are - i.e., to reject euphemisms and pretense as a matter of principle,  - and then to make the decisions in the most considered way. Without voluntary restraint and adherence to a moral standard as an ingrained habit, an advanced free society is impossible [3]. Anybody who realizes this, has become a responsible key person because if we cannot influence ourselves to do the right thing, it will be hopeless to make others do it. We must hold this thought as firmly in our mind as possible. The most important function of the more mature among us is to imprint this wisdom in the minds of our friends, assistants and pupils: Man is the source of most of his own sufferings, and not an impersonal "society", or a bad "system", or the devil.  These are convenient excuses, but they are evidently not true.
Why would some people want to "modernize" the Constitution?
First of all, the founders took for granted a common system of ethics as it exists in Christianity. This is now effective only for a minority of observing believers. Second, the environment out of which everybody had come, was much more demanding for the individual and less forgiving. We are incredibly soft compared with people of only one hundred years ago, and we have a much weaker sense of loyalty to the community relative to a stronger valuation of purely impersonal, legal grounds. It would have been unheard of to let a murderer go free on procedural grounds. But, perhaps most importantly, the authors of the constitution had as their most important goal the protection of the citizenry from arbitrary government as it had been experienced under the English crown. That any government tends to exploit its people is only well understood by the "Conservatives". A number of provisions in the Constitution make it deliberately difficult to govern, which is contrary to the wishes of ignorant activists who want to impose their ideas as quickly as possible on the country. Therefore, many people today wish to seek every possible way around the old provisions of the Constitution because the need for them has been forgotten. Moreover, the individuals are less under the supervision of their fellows as they were in the small villages and towns at the times. Since the middle of the last century, migration into the cities has been nearly complete. In the big city environment, people are much less under the influence of the churches and their neighbors. Even the old ethics is now under attack and ridiculed in the "progressive" media. In other words, the people are no longer in the same condition as those for which the Constitution has been designed.

The change in the most basic attitudes of the people is expressed in their valuation and implied precedence of how to do things. An example is evident in the pronouncements of certain "progressives" (Progressive). A major factor in this attitudinal change is,  I am quite certain, due to the success of modern civilization in shielding its people from the worst aspects of life. Most people who live today have only read about the great disasters of mankind and have no real life experience. They have heard that 6 million Jews with women and children have been murdered by the Nazis in their death camps, or that 700000 soldiers died in the WWI battle of Verdun.  But this is abstract information that does not really count in the minds of the protected. It has no emotional weight that can produce action or change attitudes because it lacks the heart wrenching pain of actual experience. In my view, we observe here a special case of a natural system that reacts with effects which will eventually prevent that the "trees cannot grow into heaven" as an old German saying put it.  By opposing things that have made Western civilization so successful, this civilization is being destroyed and will disintegrate of its own success (the protection of its members), just as a giant tree falls down due to the excessive weight if it has grown to much.

It is obvious that there are now two possible roads into the future: Make changes in the Constitution by amendments and "creative" interpretation of the existing document.  This is a process of effectively lowering the standards; it has started, but it is slow because the Constitution has made amendments deliberately difficult. However, by neglecting to take education as serious as it should be, by not educating the young in the basic ideas of the nation, the standing of the Constitution itself has been weakened and almost anything can now be expected from a Supreme Court whose members are under some political influence and pressure. The alternative is for the nation to try bringing the people back to the high standards of the past by specific conditioning to enable them to live in freedom and luxury without the many rules and regulations that the first approach makes necessary.  Since I see the present situation as a slippery slope into complete chaos or tyranny, or a combination of the two, I strongly favor the second approach.  I am aware, of course, that the chances to convince a soft democratic majority of the need to accept this, are very low, at least as long as the Media cannot see the advantages, and the actual need for taking this road. I say need, because I see additional reasons why the relaxation of standards would be an extremely costly luxury against which already Jefferson cautioned us.

The perennial dispute about the educational system confuses an issue and a symptom - low academic accomplishments - with the real problems, i.e., the shocking lack of discipline in society and most schools, and the cultural environment at home (especially if both parents are working). The first thing that is needed is to teach respect for the fellow being. In the past, people insisted that youngsters address their elders appropriately. That this important custom has been abandoned is one of the damages that a misconceived equalitarianism inflicted upon our society. We even need to adopt a few boot camp ideas for the process that is needed in the effective conditioning of young males because there is ample evidence that, in addition to the lagging behind of our biological nature in the rapid development of civilization, the human race has inherited from much earlier times a dangerous tendency for male violence (Richard Wrangham & Dale Peterson, 1996, Demonic Males. Apes and the Origins of Human Violence). The jungle erupts everywhere often enough and is visible for all, but the full degree of violence that the human race is capable cannot be imagined by the socially protected people in Western countries !

The horrible things that happened in Europe during the Holocaust should be well known, and I urge you to read my review of Littell's book. Less known is what has happened in India, in Indonesia, in Africa where millions were butchered for no reason other than that they did not belong to the group which was in power. In Sierra Leone, armed bands hacked off the hands of the people they catch, tens of thousands of them, to disable all potential laborers for the diamond mines of the competitor. In the more civilized countries, such outrages are not mass events at this time, but are now confined to individual or small group deviations. But we are in a fools paradise to think that such bestialities can be easily controlled. On the contrary, we are sitting on ticking time bombs and we do not know at what time and where the next will go off. Moreover, the problem is not new at all, and it has nothing to do with economic needs or systems of government. Until the end of the Thirty Year's War, it could  happen in Europe that prisoners were roasted in bakers ovens to the entertainment of the spectators! Nevertheless, with all this happening, or ready to happen at the next opportunity, humankind has persistently indulged in its delusive dreams - by listening to the romantics (J.J. Rousseau), the equalitarians, or to religious fanatics - and has therefore not taken the right measures. It refuses to admit that the problem is becoming ever more serious with increasing population density, more communications (copycat crimes), and much cheaper technology. The people in the West are simply not much concerned, the problem of terrorism, e.g., is often denied or belittled, just as the French elite behaved before the guillotine got them.

All this is by no means a new idea. We have countless records, new and old, to attest to the dormant evil in us. The great writers of tragedies from Aeschylus and Sophocles (496 - 406 BC) on, said it in the most impressive way. At the end of his Satire X, Juvenal (d. 127 AD) says that if we had prudence, Fortune would not be a goddess, it is we who make her into this and place her into heaven. Beyond negligence and stupidity, we meet from time to time real evil in full brutal clarity: it comes from deliberately bad, destructive human actions. But again, ever since the cause of evil in the world has been first debated, and because we did not want to blame ourselves, we invented the devil, and later the bad "society", the "capitalism", as culprit instead of controlling those whose actions are bad. To reduce evil, we have to educate ourselves and our fellow beings - effectively!  Preparation of the young is the foremost duty of the family. But we have a problem because in many families, both parents are working, and they may not know how and why to educate effectively. However, we must find ways to accomplish the task. We cannot just wait for the Judicial system to do it for us, its record is very poor. It only incarcerates malefactors after the deeds have been done, if at all (many go free).  Moreover, even long jail terms are not an effective treatment for most criminals. The many repeat offenders are a proof of this:  The U.S. Department of Justice reports that two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested within three years.

It is true that the traditional religious upbringing achieved for many what we need, but it cannot do this for people with weak beliefs or for those who are totally estranged from religion. Moreover, we question whether a secular state can depend on various religious organizations to accomplish this most important social task also for the irreligious! The general impression is that it cannot. Moreover, any effective conditioning with moral education has in the past been represented as the exclusive responsibility of a religious training because it was claimed that values cannot be dealt with outside religion. As explained in the essay on Ethics, this is simply not true and certain conditions can be met easily (as a reasonable consequence of the first Amendment, the state must not interfere with a religion).  Indeed, experience shows that the state does not really do the job we are concerned with, in contrast to the training in general knowledge and skills. The fact is that the problem of an effective moral education has not been recognized in its extreme importance with the result hat we have (as in most Western countries) an excessive criminality of vast numbers of young people whose actions show that they do not know the most elementary requirements of social life.
 
Furthermore, to rely solely on government to deal with the problems created by a population that is largely not ready for freedom is a very poor idea since it is only a system of people that we ourselves have installed on the basis of noisy advertising, wild claims, emotional attachment, but without much thinking. This will not change unless we change! This is entirely possible, the price to pay is very modest although unpopular:  we must let go of pet ideas and face reality as it really is. This requires a firm self education as the indispensable step. It will teach us that the only way to improve this world is to work on its actors, which is ourselves. As long as we find this inconvenient, we will prefer changing the system, the laws, what have you. But since this leaves the actors the same, it is a futile effort that makes things worse through more overhead (I saw it reported that every year, in America over 100000 new laws and regulations are created by all authorities together; but we do not increase the police correspondingly).

We suffer also natural disasters.

Natural disasters, on the other hand, are unavoidable, they are in the course of nature. Of course, if we can foresee a problem that can be averted by engineering, we are not helpless and with technology we have protected ourselves from the blind forces of nature to a very great extent. But apart from this, any physical world system operates with action of each event on many others. We envision this as the inescapable cause effect relationship and without it, there would be no world system and nothing could happen. The world moves because of the inner necessity in the physical details and the mathematical laws that govern the behavior of the most elementary particles of which all things consist. The idea, that mathematical necessity is the basis of the world, goes back to the antique visionary Pythagoras of Samos, (b. c. 580 BC). His idea has a powerful demystifying effect. (For more, see essay 13).

We have to accept the natural problems of life because a state of constant bliss is impossible. Change is the most basic feature in nature under the continuously arriving influences from everywhere. Moreover, due to the infinitely complex details and the numerous feedback loops within and among all natural systems, the smallest causes can produce huge effects. This is the notoriously chaotic nature of things. It is particularly evident in war, but it happens always. The smallest detail can determine the course of history (because of a little sticking tape left on a door, the Watergate affair started, a President had to resign, and a war was lost, with tens of thousands of refugees, many perishing at sea). The fate of millions was affected because in the critical moment, a leader failed with his character (the first principle violated in the Watergate affair was that noble ends - as it was believed - do not justify bad means).

History does not repeat, it is chaotic and unpredictable. However, we can and should avoid making the same  mistakes that brought human disaster before. With all the experience of history, we ought to know these mistakes very well. Our main problem is that we do not always want to recognize the warning signs. The conditions at the moment of decision seduce us to follow the siren songs of the tempters!  A prime problem is the insufficient regard of truth by the average person.  It must always receive the top priority and we must work for it. This is important and difficult, as is explained in Essay 1 (Truth . .).  Unless we can recognize the objective situation, unmoved in our mind by the efforts of the deceivers who want to confuse us, we cannot hope to do the best thing, but will be led to do something that is not the best response. The result of countless rejections of reason by the voters is the obvious fact that by and large, with a few very remarkable exceptions, the free societies are not successful in their selection of leaders. The proceedings of the UN are a telling indication for the general lack of maturity of the global population. The chaotic system of nature in which we find ourselves would require moderation and consistency in a well selected strategy with proven principles of action. We are far from this, hence the importance of character in the leaders because only they can impose consistency. But even here in America, character of the elected representatives and senators is not a great concern of the media at large.

Discussion

Having substantial reserves and skills, is the only safe way to protect yourself - saving for the bad times when you will need resources to regain control over the events. This is a strong argument against the notorious "sufficiency policy" (doing things only as much as necessary, and not as well as possible), a sign of immaturity, which has replaced the idea of quality as the main goal.  Speed of execution and to be economical are desirable, but if we can envision the potential calamities of an uncertain future, we must always and everywhere do as well as we can in order to be prepared for the evil days, for the unforeseen, and for errors of judgment for what is needed.

The chaotic physical processes in the world happen without the least regard to individual fates, suffering, despair, or rare states of happiness. Therefore, we cannot follow Leibniz' thought in the Theodicée that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire ridiculed this to no end in his famous Candide. But with all due respect for the great Voltaire with his brilliance and sharp wit, in this ridicule he was superficial: by following the above sketched ideas of strict objective necessity, we will realize that our world, because it is necessary in its basics (seen in the physical laws), is the only one possible. The large features of the world are the statistically necessary result of the exigencies that govern nature. Only a few systems can gain, for a time, real subjective freedom. These are the souls of mature persons!

When we wake up to awareness and  understanding, from the processes that brought us into this world - , we find ourselves with marvelous survival tools, which no other animal species has gained. These tools are reason and speech, supported by memory and, for the last couple of millennia by the social memory of the species, by written records and a fantastic collective technical knowledge and capability. The best we can do is to use these assets to the fullest extent. As the Spanish say: Este mundo es un fandango, y quien no lo baila, es un tonto! Obviously if we are to dance, for our own sake, we should do it as well as we can. Complaints are not only futile, they are harmful. We could even believe that complaints offend the Divinity because they imply a criticism by a silly worm - one out of a zillion that come into being every second and die again quickly - that the Creation was not perfect and the world process could be different. What idiotic arrogance!  We can think that even prayer is an ignorant audacity if we have not done our own share! In any case, complaining is very bad because by focusing on bad things, the complainer falls inevitably into a feeble state.

Finally, the last question of the survey, the question about life elsewhere in cosmic space, can we say anything? This goes well beyond genuine science, even at the rather advanced state of today. Nevertheless, there has been a long and heated debate of pure speculation  <Steven J. Dick (1982), Plurality of Worlds, Academic Press >. Given the incomprehensibly huge number of stellar systems which we have detected in the space that is reached by our telescopes, but also based on the example of the extent and variety of life on our own planet, in every niche, we can be certain that life appears wherever it can find stable and favorable conditions. According to the often noted capability of organic matter to exploit every opportunity, life will develop higher forms with large central nervous systems if there is a sufficiently long time available.

On Earth, it has taken 4.5 Billion years from the formation of the planet to the present state when communication with other intelligent beings could be attempted. During this time, the conditions in our solar system have remained remarkably stable (but with several disastrous catastrophes) to allow this evolution. We can also say that it is exceedingly unlikely that we ever will obtain evidence which goes beyond a discovery of remains of very primitive life, or just organic substances. A direct contact with other intelligent beings is so exceedingly unlikely because of the insurmountable problem of timing. This is so in two ways: due to the impossible length of message travel time even to our next “neighbors” in space, but also due to the extremely unlikely matching of the momentary state of other civilizations with our state of development at this moment of cosmic time. These civilizations could have started and perished at any time in our galaxy during the last, say, four billion years, and it seems that the window of “opportunity” (to find others to contact)  is extremely short between a species reaching a level where communications with outside worlds could be attempted and the time this civilization perishes, or loses interest again (which will happen more quickly than we imagine for a variety of reasons). Nevertheless, several programs currently are engaged in listening for messages from space, - a victory of wild optimism over exceedingly low chances. (See also Essay 11/1, [2]).

We can put numbers to our estimate.  Assume we are at the center of a sphere with 100 pc (326  light-years) diameter. It is a very optimistic assumption that we could receive "man" made signals from a distance of 160 light-years - our sun would not be visible with the naked eye! Anyway, in this ball we have about 5x10E4 stars. Assume that 10% of them have planets with similar conditions as ours. This gives 5x10E3 planets. Assume that 10% of them, 500, have developed a higher life. All this is exceedingly optimistic. We hope, therefore, to have as many as 500 "intelligent" populations in our cosmic neighborhood. They could have developed a capable civilization anytime during the last, say, 2 billion years. (The sun and most stars in our area have come into existence about 4.5 billion years ago - even though, there are also older and much younger stars). The big question is now how long such a civilization can maintain this capability and interest in interstellar communication. From what we observe in our case, this period cannot be arbitrarily long. A brain that has developed to the level of a human brain is a very delicate instrument. As we observe, we have right here on earth many thousands of individuals who are anxious to please their adopted idol by destroying the infidels and sacrificing themselves in this operation. I suspect that in very few decades of further technological development, it will be easier even for single individuals to destroy large scale. How long a time do we think this can continue until someone destroys the whole globe?  I think this period is less than two hundred years (ten generations).  Of course, a total tyranny over the whole globe can, with drastic measures, prevent this from happening. But in this case, all individual invention and initiative will also have to be turned off (Samuel Butler's Erewhon, 1872) and the civilization will continue in a sterile form and no high technology efforts will be allowed. In either case, the window of capability is extremely short in relation to the biological and geological times we must consider. The probability of a contact is in my estimate less (and most likely very much less) than 0.005 %  (500 times 200/2x10E9), at the very best, an almost hopelessly small chance.  A good recent discussion of details that can refine this rough estimate is the article The New Habitable Zones by Chris Impey in Sky & Telescope, Oct. 2009, p. 20 - 25.

Optimists will say, but there could be a civilization that is more advanced than what we have seen here on Earth. It could be immune to the dangers of ideologies. I am afraid this is not likely to be expected. Any civilization of individuals with brains that come from a merciless Darwinian evolution will have the same problem. The workings of the brain are chaotic and the number of crazy ideas is unimaginably large. Just look critically into your paper, especially into the blogs. I am shocked when I take the time to read a few. As the result of a more thourough analysis I am convinced of the very short time window available for any civilization to maintain capability and interest in extraterrestrial communication.

In any case, what is intelligent life? Is the present human life intelligent? We must doubt it. A few facts show, however, that man could reach a level that can save him from himself. Three conditions must be fulfilled: (i) that man desires this, (ii) that he respects the facts and knows how to obtain them reliably and, (iii) that he understands his values. Since the human race does not yet meet these conditions at large - in fact it is still in the grip of ideologies that are pointing to a worldwide destructive war - it is most difficult to predict where humanity will go in the future. It raises the basic question how any civilization can develop and exist beyond the point of rapid technological progress where it has gained the power to destroy everything. The answer hinges on the global state of education and maturity - up to now not humankind's asset by any criterion. As one example, the UN had to set up during the last twenty years, 47 peacekeeping operations! (UN . .). The idea that man is peace loving is absurd. Theoretically, yes. But certainly not in practice. Only fear prevents more wars and armed conflict.  With increasing scarcity of natural resources, the danger of wars breaking out is going to increase sharply.

All this makes very clear the critical need for superior education and leadership - or otherwise, we will face a global totalitarian control that would inevitably come. It will terminate the present state of freedom. Of course, the people in free civilizations still like to believe they can control things solely with talking about them, and more and more laws, as it is being done with tens of thousands of new restrictions every year, administered by hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats with the police to enforce them. But this approach will be more and more obviously futile; moreover, in its inevitable progress to more and more complexity, it is the way to destroy creative life as we have seen it happen wherever the state assumed near total control. A system which is based on oppression, by a tyrant or by bureaucracy, leads to an anthill and not to an advanced society. In a totally controlled social system, the adventurous spirit and initiative are extinguished, and further development halted - if two such competing societies under the total control of unethical and incompetent leaders do not eventually destroy each other.

A single society of intelligent, but immature creatures faces an even more certain danger: the unchecked growth leading to a sudden collapse. This danger has been shown by the late Sir Fred Hoyle in the last chapter of his outstanding popular book Ten Faces of the Universe (1977, Freeman). The reason for the collapse will be the inability (as demonstrated until now) to achieve restraint in procreation, i.e., Malthus’ old argument. The problem is not primarily due to a limitation of food - which was the only thing Malthus could see in his time -  but it will come in any case through the total energy and resource use of an excessive global population, which can happen sooner than an exhaustion of the terrestrial food production, and it will be more critical. Of course, long before such a general breakdown happens, life will become very unpleasant for a variety of other reasons in the large population centers.  If maturity of a sufficient number of people can be gained, and the population stabilized, this outcome can be avoided as shown by Weinberg & Hammond in [2], an article which assumes restraint.  However, judging from the objections which we encounter at the present when we explain the need for a limit of the human population, the outlook is dim.

Conclusions

From a global vantage, we must admit that the dominant part, obviously the large majority, of the human population is almost hopelessly immature, if not really infantile. If you think this is too pessimistic an assessment, think of the big companies in the most advanced countries that have been guided by a supposed "elite", but need to be saved from bankruptcy -  think about the tens of millions of homeowners who must be bailed out because they cannot manage their own affairs in a responsible way by accepting debt they can never expect to repay -  or think of the way in which democratic elections are decided by the media created popularity of a celebrity and not by ability and experience. Consider how the people in these advanced countries accept an intellectual domination by their mass media which are guided by greed and group think. And then consider the many countries where the people accept an almost total control by belief systems that prevent their material advance. People get, indeed, the rulers they deserve. Of course, since this is, I think, a realistic assessment, it ought to be of the most serious concern for our future [4].

Moreover, there are indications that the fantastic support that we receive from the collective ability ot the modern state, is taking a secondary effect in a slow decrease of the average operational (as used in daily life) intelligence in the population. I remember papers about this several decades ago. At that time, the question was some indication of a decrease of this effective intelligence since about 1900. In particular, Aldous Huxley [5] was very persuasive about related points. Even their own language has become a problem for people who do no longer understand the difference between "I" and "me", or "who", and "whom" and have a problem reading more than a few paragraphs. Many performance and acceptance standards (except in sport) have been substantially relaxed during the last century and many people with marginal personal resources can exist now only because of the substantial help that the modern society makes available. But, all these people talk in public, they vote, and have a great influence on the fate of the whole society and the total globe, while their positive contributions can be minuscule - if they are not simply parasites, some of them extremely dangerous. Once more, however, our big problem is not insufficient intelligence:  we are not too stupid  - we are morally weak. Our character is weak (and untrained), not our intelligence (even though, I would not object to a little more intelligence). I am almost convinced that the human species has created a monster with the rapid creation of collective abilities that has left the people behind in an ever more rapid material progress which supports an unchecked nearly explosive population increase, but cannot yet furnish the means to govern it. Two possibilities seem to exist: sliding gradually into a total tyranny which would regulate everything including procreation and thought (as envisioned by Huxley in his Brave New World, and implemented in part in China) - or an effective conditioning of the young for a life in liberty.

If we prefer the second alternative, it seems inescapable that the state will have to step in by organizing this conditioning to prevent a regression into social chaos, or a progressive emphasis on "law and order". An agreement on a common secular code of ethics that is compatible with existing codes of the major religions is necessary to support these efforts. - Without the fantastic progress in technology and science, - which is a collective achievement made possible by freedom due to the collapse of the intellectual repression in the European medieval, - the human population could not be more than it was at the beginning of 1900 (ca one billion), a small fraction of what it is today. But with technology, the human race, even mere individuals, have also gained terrible means for destruction. With the clearly visible danger to mankind as a whole - even without a murderous internecine struggle which is desired by a horde of ignorant hateful fanatics - we are forced to understand that it is extremely urgent to improve work on our own maturity so that we can muster the necessary moderation with self-restraint and face reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be.


Notes and References

[1]  Yankelovich Partners for Lutheran Brotherhood.  <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_3_96/ai_55010468>   I have taken the first answer as it is, without taking account of the interpretation and additional information in the report. This makes it clear how very important the religious belief  is for the believers. While 45 % of them state that they understand their purpose (as inferred from the teachings) very well, nevertheless many want to confirm it with God and ask the question, not a sign of great confidence. I assume, the purpose they have in mind is not a secular, but a preparation for the after life, which means they do not know what to do here in the meantime. This is confirmed by the information that they are asking for guidance by prayer.

Of course, we must not consider polls as more than, at best, rough indications. There are many polls being taken constantly by a variety of groups. Recently, e.g., a boy found a parcel with $10000,- in a washroom. He turned it in. The paper which reported this, conducted a quick poll:  "Would you have done this, if you had found the parcel?"  The result was that close to 50% said they would not!  I find this result hard to accept for a nation as I have come to know America. It could be taken as another indication how important the proposed conditioning would be.  On the other hand, without any control of, or information about, the sample used, this statistic is just a conversation piece.

[2] The key to the energy problems for road transportation in the future will be the availability of cheap hydrogen (which, in order to be "green", requires a huge amount of economically produced electricity) as it was recognized a long time ago (A. M. Weinberg & R. P. Hammond, Limits to the Use of Energy, American Scientist Vol. 58, #4, pp. 412-418, 1970). This paper explains that a quasi inexhaustible source of energy with minimal impact on the environment is available for a stabilized population  via conversion of the natural isotopes U238 and Th232 in advanced “breeder” reactors. This technology can overcome in an economical way the scarcity of the two isotopes in the natural minerals that are currently needed for use in power reactors. The persistent agitation by short-sighted environmentalists has up to now prevented the timely development and implementation of this approach in America. This is irrational because nuclear power generation can avoid almost all of the carbon dioxide production and most of  the chemical pollution of a power generation by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. It is also an error to believe that the present caloric stations do not pollute with radioactive materials. Coal contains about 10E-7, and up to 10E-6 parts natural Uran and Thorium. This seems to be a very small amount, but considering the millions of tons of coal, the total is appreciable. All this ends up, of course, in our air.  This is much more pollution than the strict rules for nuclear power generation allow. 

Certain groups (not limited to the environmentalists) produce a hysteria of fear that is unjustified. Every large scale engineering project carries some danger. The nuclear power generation is not different from others in principle, although it is far more complex and has more stringent requirements for the selection of personnel. The US Navy has operated and maintained many nuclear reactors under very difficult conditions over more than fifty years, with total success (thanks to mainly Admiral Rickover). France is using nuclear energy for 80% of her electricity generation. These users continue with advanced reactor technology and have solved the main problem of an effective screening and selection of personnel. Regarding the disposition of the radioactive waste, two solutions have been worked out. First, most of the waste can (and is in France, see Reprocessing) be reprocessed and the actual waste substantially reduced compared with the amounts that are currently stored at over one hundred reactor sites in America. These will eventually, if the objections can be resolved, be transported to the national nuclear waste facility in Nevada (http://www.yuccamountain.org/). Possibly, by the time the administrative difficulties are resolved, it will be less expensive to use reprocessing for a drastic reduction of the amount of critical material. Of course, other sources of energy must and will also be used as they are economically available, but it is clear, that the huge electric base load of the present and much more so in the future (the part that is always needed, in darkness and without sufficient winds) cannot be satisfied economically (when we face prohibitive prices for oil and gas), unless a substantial number of large nuclear power stations are on line.

The most urgent need is to stop burning coal in its raw condition because of the high cost in air pollution, especially Sulfur, Hg, Uran and Thorium. Coal is also such a valuable raw material for the chemical industry and for liquefaction that its waste by burning it raw is not advisable. Various methods of coal liquefaction are known and have been used by Germany during the World Wars for the production of motor and jet fuel. In this case, purification is relatively easy and it is not clear why this method could not help in the transition period to hydrogen fuel. This whole field of energy supply is terribly confused in the public mind which makes it difficult to implement good engineering decisions. Burning coal in the massive amounts of the present time is more costly in human lives than all nuclear power stations together, perhaps even including the Chernobyl accident of 1986!  Globally, every year we seem to lose hundreds of lives in the coal mines in China alone. Even in America we have had such losses. And the health penalty due to the pollution (mostly lung diseases) was far greater during the last 50 years than the costs in lives of the now much better policed and regulated nuclear power stations. These numbers (I have no reliable numbers) must go globally into many thousands per year.  One has to read the article in Wikipedia about the Chernobyl disaster to appreciate why the scandalous personal problems (and political pressure to maintain pay status for the crew) have been the direct main cause, plus the negligent design that had among other defects, no good containment structure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster.

This disaster had profound effects on the energy policy of the various countries. How they reacted is, by itself, also a possible clue for their social maturity.  Instead of recognizing the scandalous negligence, the political pressure, and the shortcomings of the reactor design, with a decision to avoid these in the future by effective measures, a number of countries have been gripped by such a blind fear that they simply passed laws which will over a few years, outlaw all nuclear power generation and force the decommissioning of a number of good, well designed stations. This provision is still in force in Germany and Austria (but nowhere else), two countries that in historic times have reacted in an opposite direction by cultivating a militaristic culture, glorification of virile courage, and engaging in reckless wars.  From a variety of other events, I conclude that these countries have changed their culture in a profound way due to their  immense losses during WWII.  The degree of this change is astonishing.  A German warship is participating in the pirate surveillance off the Somali coast.  However, due to their laws, until recently, they have not been permitted to fire their cannon if a pirate ship refuses to comply. They have then to call the US. Navy to come and bring the pirates to compliance. This is the same nation that sank cargo and passenger ships without compunction and killed 6 million Jews in their death camps. Under considerable diplomatic pressure, Germany dispatched a unit of their military to Afghanistan, where they refuse, however, to be deployed where they could be shot at.  A failure to observe priorities and the right measure is certainly also an indication of maturity.

On the other hand, the French, after the fantastic rejuvenation of their state by General DeGaulle, are perfectly normal in their reactions. In my mind they are the leading nation culturally in Europe - with high intellectualism and a very vigorous and productive R&D. Even the railways are leading. They are using nuclear power massively, and building more, presumably to be ready when, as expected, the Germans will be desperate to import more electricity after they have shut down their coal fired power stations and their nuclear stations. Actually, Germany's situation is even more precarious because their remaining electricity generation, if not by solar panels or wind mills, in which they invest heavily, will be totally dependent on Russian natural gas. Is this the behavior of a mature nation?  I doubt it.

The most realistic energy policy has been adopted in Japan (Japan) where the total planned power generation includes electricity requirements for hydrogen generation (which avoids all CO2).  The use of hydrogen as power source for personal transportation is most advanced in this nation also. Considering that Japan has also gone through the terrible times of WWII and the hard transformation after the war similar to Germany, the difference today in the maturity and posture of the two countries is striking. I am not sure that it can be explained solely from the fact that a part of Germany had been under Soviet domination for almost half a century, Nevertheless, Japan had to go much further than Germany and it has considerably less physical resources.  I see the very different culture in Japan as the major source of its resilience.

On the other side, Russia is in clear decline and one can ask what this has to do with the seventy years of communism that the country had to go through. Having seen how a totalitarian ideology can affect a great nation (Germany) in only a dozen years, I am convinced that the enforced ideology had the most significant effect. One has to read an objective report on the current demographic developments (Report), and remember the history of the last century to obtain an idea of the profound, totally unexpected, but lasting changes that resulted from the idealistic ideas of some intellectuals (the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Marxist movement). These people had no practical experience, but in their arrogance decided the fate of their nation by deliberately destroying its culture. Of course, a true believer will find a hundred excuses in other causes, and arguments are useless. There are many things that one has to experience to understand them - abstract explanations cannot do it.  I know, of course, that we usually observe the result of a number of simultaneous developments and one is wise not to be blind to the others, most of  all to the effects of the rapid change in our life, as discussed.  Perhaps it is meaningful to say that these events in Russia show what can happen if you destroy the culture (if not the soul) of a people. It is a well known human experience,  normally inflicted by an enemy or a victorious enemy culture. However, the wise treatment of Japan by a victorious America after WWII, as represented by her supreme local commander General McArthur, avoided these effects. It will be remembered and appreciated for a long time. It is a pity that the wisdom of true magnanimity is so rare and even forgotten by some people of the "new" America where hate and not reason are cultivated.
[3]  We cannot say that a society is advanced that keeps incarcerated over 2 million of its citizens, many for decades. The essay on Democracy (number 9) brings up additional points. The essay on Ethics (part of number  11, Ethics . .) discusses the problems of ethical standards in great detail. The main point I am trying to bring across is that one cannot hope to improve society other than by improved personal conduct. The crucial importance of personal integrity requires it to be the main social concern. Our present educational efforts are simply insufficient. Otherwise, we can change to a different system, but populated by the same people, it will be making the same mistakes, allow the same transgressions. Improved conduct as needed in a modern complex society cannot be accomplished effectively by sole reliance on laws because laws cannot force people to be virtuous. Laws can prevent many harmful actions, but only to the degree that there are enough people around who will respect laws. Furthermore, they cannot generate a positive spirit and better habits in the people. Lastly, laws are decided today not as envisioned by the founders, by upright, wise, experienced persons -  but by professional politicians who are (with most remarkable exceptions) mainly interested in their own re-election and have the means to keep good relations with the media.

[4]  It has been my consistent observation, in Europe and in America, that the so called upper classes tend to be less mature, or mature later in life, than many common people I met and often had to depend on. Many most surprising experiences pointed to this. Common sense and critical observation seem to be depressed, or are less required, and group (class) think is more dominating in the environment of upper classes (especially academics) compared with the environment of common people. Of course, this has remarkable exceptions. A conjecture I can think of would be that the need to worry about the simple things keeps also the common sense alive and a more intimate connection with nature and basic life, which is, apparently, not so much needed in the average life of the upper classes who seem to live in a more artificial world.

[5]  Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (1958;  58-12451).  Huxley is a visionary who has been shown by the last fifty years as substantially correct with his predictions that he made half a century ago.  We may judge some of his concerns as less important today than others, but his analysis of the vulnerability of the modern "free" society is outstanding.

Copyright © 2006, Gernot M. R. Winkler        Last correction, augmented,  09/20/2009