Spinal homepageSpinal homepage
Navigation: LaesieWorks home Thoughts home This page


What's your design for a better future?
If you're not satisfied with the current situation of how we all live together on this little Earth, I suggest you start writing and illustrating your recipe for a better future, a better today tomorrow. Just complaining doesn't bring solutions. Think of solutions and compare your plan with the plans of others.

My design, so far
(v 20071210)

A realistic design
I should not design a fixed model where every detail must be exactly as I think it should be. That would never work because I am only human (thus not so intelligent). Reality is very complex, the world we live in is dynamic. If a design doesn't work in reality, it's no good. The design should always be open to solutions that might work better in the current or up comming situation.

Making the best possible decisions
There should not be 1 person at control over millions of people. One human is not capable of dealing well with so much power and responsibility, nor can a small group of people. There's is simply too much going on in our world. It's already hard enough to run your own live, isn't it?!
Check out the bees, there's no smart uber bee that knows the truth and makes all the decisions. The live together in a collective, individuals that work together really well.
Now, we are no bees, but we could live together

I think that many problems can be solved but working together well. Being well educated to start with. Communication and sharing. A reward is very stimulating, but that doesn't have to be money. If you have your basic needs secured, the next things to want I think are: being liked/loved, having beautiful children, being admired, building something big-powerful-beautiful, explore, or just hanging around doing fun stuff.

Many people think that money can solve most problems. I don't think so. I think money is just fancy paper. It's meant to be a fixed value with which people can trade. I'm not sure if it is wise to get rid of money right away, but not having to pay interest when loaning money would be a good start (and not getting interest also). Inflation and deflation should be and stay zero, no greedy people who control the society by owing the money system.

Having good goals
- Bringing the Earth in balance (people, nature, technology)
- Exploring the universe
- Get everybody on this planet to talk the same language (a new artificial one)
- Impressive education
- Ending war on earth
- Ending extreme poverty
- Saving the earth from nature and cosmic disasters
- Find cures for deceases, and better repairs for broken body parts

Start from scratch
I don't think any existing country can be transformed to start with. The established powers will resist. Starting from scratch is more efficient. Starting a comunity at a place where the land is cheap and the local people don't mind. Before that would it be wise to run that way of living in a virtual computer model, if possible. This "country" should not have borders, and is ment to spread around the world.

Free will
This new style of living together should be really pleasent to live in, making others all over the world wanting to join. If people don't want to join, then there's probably something wrong with the design. Nobody should be forced to join. The power of free will is great and healthy.

One should not be in a great hurry. To transfer the world into a better place will take a long time. People are used to a certain situation, and even if the current situation is really bad, the fear of uncertainty is understandable. Speeding up the process just so you can see the result before you die, can destroy the design positive outcome easily. Some processes just take a long time, and we have to respect that.

When if a design like mine starts running (running like a program)
As things start rolling and flowing, pretty soon the designer loses direct control over the process. How things will go from there is depending on the quality of the design, and on everything that couldn't be taken in account (which is most). Adjustments will be constantly necessary.


To me, technology is about trying to understand parts of reality, and working with it. With it, we can go beyond the limitations of our human body, and do incredible things. Biology works like mainly automatic running nanotechnology on a massive scale. Our machines are still very primitive relative to biology, but both biology and our machines work within the same reality, so; they are related. Machines can be used, just like biology; for good and for bad. Technology isn't good or bad, choices and luck can be good or bad.
Technology and science play a very important role in my vision of a better future, especially communication and information technology, because the development and sharing of information is what all other technologies build on. But that doesn't mean that people then are only surrounded by machines, on the contrary: one might build their own house from natural materials and grow there own biological food in the yard. The fact that technology is available doesn't mean that one has to use it constantly. But the construction of machines does require: knowledge, attention, factories, transport, energy, and -recycled or not- materials.
How much % of our planet's area, and what kind, do we need reserve for technology?

In general, nature thrives best when left alone. Although people are animals too, part of the biological system here on Earth, we have such dominant influence on the rest of nature, that we have to protect it. We can protect it simply by not being there much, not living in it and not dumping our waste there. But we can also support it; the kind and amount of nature flourishing is depending on basic circumstances like: climate, terrain, ground water level. Some of these can be influenced by humans and boost the presence of life. A dessert for instance, above or under water, can sometimes come to life simply by placing some rocks or other objects that give shelter from: wind, sunlight, cold, predators, and give physical support for roots and nutrients. (I know there's life in a dessert, but more in a jungle). Nature is important. It's far more advanced than our technology, it's like nanotechnology on an incredible massive scale, so we can learn a lot from it. We depend on it as we are part of it. And it can be absolutely beautiful (when not being sick of a parasite and next being eaten by a wolf).
The areas populated by humans, the towns and cities, can support some parts of nature, especially: plants, insects and birds. Modern buildings often offer little to no support for birds. Buildings can easily be made bird friendly, but many people don't appreciate the bird shit and the chatter. Pets.. are in a gray area, they're certainty alive but not really part of wildlife. I'd rather let them free. Some animals enjoy being close to people, but see what kind and wonder why.
Choosing to keep nature alive and healthy, has consequences for or life style and life areas. Instead of erasing too much of the wild life area, we need to take control over the amount of people. Birth control sounds like a nasty thing to do, but overpopulating causes massive suffering and death, so the choice is simple. How many children my the average woman have to keep our number constant? About two I guess. Two children who can live in a healthy word.
So, how much % of our planet's area, and what kind, do we need reserve for wild life?

Cultivating land, producing crops, and raising livestock, to eat. Although people need sunlight and fresh air, we aren't plants. To survive people need to eat plants and animals. Humans are at the top of the food chain, which is one of the reasons people have the ability and time to think so much and develop technologies. I sometimes feel sorry, especially for the animals, but that's the way it is, and unless we're going to evolve into a completely new lifeform that can live on pure energy or such, it's going to stay like that.
In the beginning we gathered and hunted food, then we concentrated food growth, organized it for our comfort. In mid 1900, things went wrong; agriculture (and other fields, like health care) had to become as efficient as Ford's automobile factories. It became more efficient to: grow, store, transport, and sell, but in the process the land and the "products" got "raped". No respect for the plant's and animal's quality of life, the landscape destroyed, species eliminated, manipulated DNA, mono cultures, the end of the small farmer. The quality of many food products has become pretty low. There's a lot of truth in the saying "We are what we eat", thus is the quality of our lives lowered by the food we made unhealthy.
We need to grow healthy plants and animals if we want to eat healthy.
How much % of our planet's area, and what kind, do we need reserve for agriculture?

All boys and girls will be able to get very high quality education in this society, for educated people are very much appreciate. I'd like to see a school that isn't about storing information in your head, but rather a place where you learn: how to find, evaluate, develop, store, and share information. Besides the basics that everyone has to learn, kids might already have a specific interest. A traditional teacher can't possibly support a group of children in their specific interests, because he/she can't possess such wide variety of specialized experiences. Children should be frequently visiting grown ups in professions close to their interests. Nowadays, children are being kept away from the "real world" too much.
I would like to see schools that aren't just focused on professions. What all if you get children? Nowadays we need a license to drive a car, but not to raise a kid. What to do in the event of a crisis, like: depression, violent dispute, love sickness, fobic fears, loss of loved ones, crashed dreams, sickness, accidents, natural disasters.. These nasty things will happen, have great impact on people's life, and should therefore be teached on school.
School's sports activities are often focused primarily on physical strength and team game. They should also teach the children how to check and maintain their body's condition: flexibility and balance, letting go of stress, fine motor skills. A stiff body doesn't support a healthy body and mind.

Support for searching for new solutions
If there's a problem, people who are lazy too careful or afraid, want to contribute only to a solution of which is proven it will instantly solve the problem. These people make it impossible to find solutions for problems that have no solution yet! Or difficult at least, because the small group of people who dears to invest will come with new solutions.
I like to think that most problems have solutions, and I enjoy searching for them. The problem with finding new solutions is that one has to invest a lot without the certainty of success. More people will want to search for new solutions IF they are supported practically and get recognition for trying.
One wouldn't have to produce (fake-) solutions in order to get support, but one does have to prove the quality and quantity of the research. If not controlled, some people will just be hanging around and saying and even believing "yea man, I'm busy trying to find new solutions".

Sharing of Knowledge
And the end of patents. Patents are here to protect inventers. Nowadays inventers first have to invest a great lot of their own time and resources in the search for a new solution. If the inventer would come up with something new and useful, it would be unfair if others would just copy it and get all the profit. Patents protect the inventer for a certain time and area, so the inventer can profit from his/her work. The profit is needed to pay for the cost of inventing, to have an income for life support, and if possible to get a lot of wealth. The patent also honors the inventer: "I invented this".
There are however serious problems caused by patents:
- If an inventor thinks of something, but someone else has already patented that same idea, the inventor may not use his idea, or maybe when paying the other bigtime.
- How do you know if you may use your ideas? By checking all the existing patents, which cost a lot of time and money.
- If your invention can be patented, you'll have to pay for that patent.
Large companies buy a patent for every fart they produce, and they can afford: a research department, a development department, a patent research department, a legal department, a sales department. Individual inventors or even small groups can often not deal with all of that, and therefore lose the game.
Developments can be speed up tremendously by not patenting anything and instead sharing all knowledge.
The life support and funds can be arranged for a pretty large number of sensere inventors, but the drive to invent should not be to please a commission that provides the funds. Being able to invent can be a drive already, but some more wealth and honor when reaching a success are good motivators that should not be taken away.
In a way this is what you get if you work for a large company, but the company decides what you must work on, which is based on what might give the most financial profit. All these people working on the patent and legal departments could be working on sharing the knowledge instead of protecting it, IF there are no large companies fighting each other.


Sceptical people. How many people have no hope for a better future? Do you think it's possible to improve the quality of living worldwide? Young people are fresh and full of energy, the often believe it's possible. Older people are often bitter and don't want to be disappointed again. Most people think the best one can do to improve the world is be a good person, and if everyone should do so; the world would be a better place. Although I think that's a very positive opinion, I don't think it' has the power to really improve the structure of society world wide.
I don't think any country will choose to realize a plan for a better future, because most people are sceptical and afraid for change. First a few other countries will have to prove that it really works. But when -as usual- all groups are waiting for multiple other groups to take the first step, it will never happen. So, it has to be initiated another way.

There is a tiny amount of people who have so much power that they actually control most the world. Some political figures and international bankers. Their "game" isn't understand by the average civilian, but the average civilian's life is very much influenced by the chooses these few people make. If they decide a war is useful (for them), there will be war, if they decide this country should be rich and these should be poor, it will become so. I hope that no such games are being played, that it's just another conspiracy theory, and that these powerful people really try to do what is best for humanity, but I don't think any human should have so much power anyhow. If the powerful people don't want a good design for a better future realized, there is a major problem and it will not be realized. So, these powerful people should be in favor of a good plan. They would have to give away their power in the end, which they probably don't want to.

Do you agree so far, or do you have a better design?

Giesbert Nijhuis