future or Future

Future as future


Or how to create a future that deserves the qualification of Future


Future is to the present a concept that is very simply derived of
constraints. As long as the system of violence determines reality in the
present, the system of violence also determines the future, and this mainly
means that there is no Future.


What remains? Constraints, biological and
mathematical, are left.


To the present future exists, but Big Future does not exist.


Future can only be if there is freedom for the future to manifest. As
long as trauma rules human attitude, future is nothing but the repetition of
traumatic attitudes derived from epigenetic imprinting on human brains. This is
pure biological determinism. Any author insisting on reality being impregnated
by violence[1]
confirms that humans are mere biological machines, simple complexity patterns
that have no self-determination. While this may be an option, it certainly is
an option that needs to be revised. Medical doctors point at the fact that many people state that violence has to be, because it is part of being human. The same medical doctors state then that this sort of statement is a good indicator for mental illness, as the patients do not seem to understand that talking this way implies that violence may hit the speaker first.


As we have shown in previous documents, human liberty, freedom of action
only exists if the system of violence does not inhibit human functions. As long
as i.e. empathy is temporarily switched of on the epigenetic level, 50% of all
options for human behavior are switched of. This leads to a poor reality, a
reality that in terms of contingency is only 50% of what it would be if empathy
is at work. Human liberty does not exist. Beyond the mathematical appreciation
of these facts, we need to assume that the quality of the future we’re
discussing simply is violent and biologically determined. This is exactly the
opposite end of humanity and it is the opposite end of what we describe as


The future is by now a mere succession of events, which lead to a new
form of coexistence between contingency (human existence and attitudes) and the
system of violence. Future instead would be a notion that would include that a
proportional reduction of the impact of violence on human behavior allows for a
substantial and relative growth in self-determination and liberty. We describe
this future as Future. In economic terms, this is the equivalent of a reduction of transaction costs as described by Douglas C. North.


The COBAWU strategy designed in terms of 7 notions for peace education
is thought to stabilize the option for the existence of a Future instead of a
future. Only a critical mass of people understanding the issue will transcend
into the future and only a critical mass out of the first will transcend into a
Future that is worth describing as such.


[1] This is true for most thinkers and authors who visualize violence as
being a permanent constraint to human attitude. Some exceptional authors
understand violence as a possible option that may vary in intensity and quality
allowing for a relative freedom, which never is expressed in absolute terms,
but in victimological terms.