"Take one beam of light
Break the white light down
Seven rays appear"
Todd Rundgren's Utopia – "Seven Rays"
"You would like to see our current project?" the cloaked man asked me in the breakfast table.
"Yes, I do"
"Come along", the white cloaked man said. And we left walking down the beach behind the next cape.
When we got in there, some kind of a gate was visible. I asked him about it.
"It is a gate to another virtual reality environment", he answered.
He seemed to have some sense of dramaturgy, because he was leading us in here. If I had understood
anything from this virtual reality stuff, couldn't we have transferred to another virtual reality environment without this walk?
I began to think about this more. Perhaps he just
wanted somehow to help to think about this. No doubt, it was easier to think that this "project" was located behind the cape and not on the beach in front of my cabin where everything else was.
Evidently, I still wanted to think that the "project" was located physically in somewhere. I mean in a definite place – what it really does not have, a physical place, in here. Even the time was
not what it was naturally thought to be. I am in the future, in comparison to some other time, but on the other hand, I am just now. But I am in no particular place, where my senses are telling
me to be, but instead I am inside a virtual reality generator and still being myself. This is something like this, I thought.
"Where are all the others – I mean those who were
present in the beach party?" I asked him. I had not dared to ask him earlier – maybe a stupid question. The party, it was now like it had happened in the distant past, I thought.
"They have their own virtual reality environments", he said briefly.
"But we were in the same environment once", I wanted to know more.
"Yes, we wanted to see how you
are communicating with each other and how it stimulates your thoughts. And what those thoughts are in the first place. Normally, with that we can get into the alien thought patterns quickly. As
you see, we have got good subjects with that study. Otherwise it would be difficult to understand the level of your thinking", he said.
Has he got something to discuss about or some things to lecture, I thought?
"Please, step in!" he said.
The reality did not shake, the world did not rumble and nothing
of that sort happened. All of a sudden we were in a room, which looked just like a telecommunication satellite launch centre.
"We have generated a user interface that we think is proper for your intelligence", the man said.
"Thank you very much, I am sure there are enough buttons for a very intelligent person", I sneered.
My comment was rewarded with a smile. What the devil is this man always smiling
at? I guess he thought that my comment on great intelligence was funny. Perhaps it was if they have hundreds of years of knowledge available to them instantly.
"I am sure that you
are wondering what this project "The Sun" really is. In short, we need to reduce the mass of the Sun. We have decided to extract material from the Sun so that its life span increases with 10
billion years. We have about half a billion years time to do that, but we thought about doing that within the next 10 million years. That gives a good error margin, if everything does not go as
These dudes are serious in their business, I thought.
"I am sure you understand why? Our Sun with burn out all the hydrogen within the next 10 billion years,
it is now 10 billion years old as you know. After 5 billion years the Sun will start to toast the Earth. The easiest way to increase the life span is to decrease the mass, which will slow down
its fusion reactions. When this is done at the early stage, we do not need to compensate the decreasing energy production that much. We could of course move away from the Earth, but we have
decided to stay in here." he explained.
My appreciation towards this society dressed in a white cloak was radically increasing. These are serious mother Gaia activists. I wondered
what kind of a paralysis the environment activists of my time would have got, if somebody had suggested the manipulation of "the natural processes of the Sun". Well, that was not really an
"Ten billion years has been calculated to be long enough. After that we can substitute the Sun with an artificial sun that is enough for … whatever", the man
interrupted his sentence.
"Enough for what?" my curiosity was arising. What would they do THEN? If a culture of 1 million years does things like this, what happens after 10 billion
years? A mind blowing scenario!
"We have that being planned, it is better that you know that only when the time comes", he said.
"When the time comes", I thought, does
that mean after 10 billion years? Well, there were no alternative than to let it go. It seemed like the end of the discussion.
"The control panels of the ship you can see in here.
This section is meant for general observations. In here you can monitor how the project is proceeding, like you would be watching it from the monitors on Earth.
You must understand
by now that this is just a simulation to the real work. Nothing actually happens. Do you have any questions?"
"A lot, I clearly need guidance to these controls and …" I started to talk.
Out of the thin air, a lady appeared next to me: "Hey! How can I help?"
The cloaked man
said: "She will guide you in all the details. She is completely a virtual reality person, if that is what you are wondering about."
"… But first", I continued my talk a bit confused
though, "what are you actually doing in this task of decreasing the mass of the Sun? I must confess, but I have never done this to an object with the size of the Sun."
Laughter, I guess it was a good sign. The virtual reality person did not smile. Not that good.
"We are bombing the Sun some millions of years from the ships which are close enough to
the Sun, using anti-matter. The anti-matter reacts with the material of the Sun and they both disappear. Actually they do not disappear but are converted into virtual particles and the energy of
the vacuum, but we do not need to care about that too much", he lectured.
Who would care about the energy of a vacuum and virtual particles anyway, I thought, what is there to care for?
"When we do this for millions of years, the mass decreases but it has
no heavy, apparent effect to Earth or the other inhabited planets.
Oh, I see, the Earth and the other planets were still okay. Damn, I had not even thought about that. It seems that
lying on the beach, even in the virtual reality, makes you lazy. A worry as big as the mass of the planets was relieved from my shoulders. I had not even seen the Earth for the whole time,
because I had been in the virtual reality, or had I?
"I already thought that you had succeeded in destroying the planets, because you did not mention them earlier", I said to him
grinning a bit.
"What do you mean by "we" ", he smiled back, "but this is the project in a nutshell. I will leave you two to work out the practical tasks." (no we)
left practising flying the space ship and using the anti-matter cannon. At the same time I was able to see from the monitors how the project was proceeding. It seemed that there were around 1000
vessels around the sun.
It was already dark, when I walked back to the beach and into my cabin. I looked at the stars and I could see some of the planets as well. At least Mars was
blinking close to the horizon.
BUILDING UP THE ANT HILL
"The day the circus horses
will stop turning around
running fast through the green valleys.
We'll sing and cry and shout
loud, loud, loud, loud.
- Aphrodite's Child – "Loud, loud, loud"
"I have been thinking …" I started from behind a 15 cm tall glass of orange juice.
"Good!" the man said.
I continued, but wondered if the man had told a joke – I suppose he cannot even do
that: "You have told me about your theories, but I have a few of my own. Do you want to hear them?"
"But of course", he said and looked at me like a psychoanalyst looking at a client.
His looks were beginning to have no effect in me. He can do whatever he wants. I started to present my theory of thoughts and evolution.
"Darwin had a great intuition when he presented his
theory of the beginning of species. One of his simplified thoughts was that the strongest will survive and the weakest will die. This thought is used by politicians when trying to justify with
make-believe scientific grounds why no government support is needed in a certain case. At least they use this if the support would harm their own businesses – well, this is going beside the point
now. Anyway, this kind of pseudo-science is a very common thing as such. Obviously together with the survival of the fittest, you should also talk about the development of the environment and the
effects coming from outside. These are having a random effect in the game of survival of a species. Plainly put the survival of the strongest species is a myth, a very narrow view to the matter
anyway and that was not the intention by Darwin.
In the end the question is about the survival of genes not species – as long as I can understand it. Richard Dawkins has been writing about the
selfishness of genes and that is the real case in this. At the time of Darwin, genes were not known and thus his view was limited when compared to Dawkins' view.
The life and evolution happens
with genes. The best of the genes will survive. The best of them are capable of replicating and thus capable of transferring their heredity into the future and spread it around. Genes are always
mutating. Viable mutations will live and the wrong choices will die immediately or after some time. The evolution happens also through the mutations. Individual beings and species which are using
these virile genes will survive. The survival of the genes will also give feedback to the survival of genes. Environmental incidents will randomize this. But anyway, through these processes the
evolution works and progresses, although it can momentarily go backwards."
"And this was your great theory?" the cloaked man asked innocently. He looked too innocent to be not thinking
something sharp to comment.
"No, this was just the introduction and I beg our pardon if this is too slow for you", I snapped at him.
The man lifted his shoulders and looked like "why, what
could possibly be better than watching an ant building up an ant hill".
"What happens if we use the same theory with ideologies or better with the individual thoughts not directly dependent on
ideologies? For instance if we use as an example the thought: "You must not kill".
An individual thought is the same as an individual gene. A thought is the smallest fragment in the evolution
of ideologies. A thought can spread around. For instance you can think that this thought, presented as a law by Moses, is spreading to some new religions of the 21st
century. This is the equivalence of the spreading of genes and surviving to future generations.
The thought can also mutate. In some new religion the thought might change to: "Do not kill the
people of your own religion. All the others you can kill."
In principle this kind of a new thought can survive better than the general idea of an old religion or it can die. The thought
mentioned in the example would die soon in many countries, because it is against the current laws. And thus its possibilities for replication are limited.
You can think that the ideological
evolution is working through individual thoughts. New thoughts are spreading and incorporated in ideologies. In the other words the idea of ideologies competing with each other is just a narrow
minded, short term simplification. The real evolution is going on different paths."
"And this is the theory? You mean an analogy of genes-thoughts?" the man asked.
"Yes", I answered.
"Ideology or a religious belief system, they are almost one million year old concepts.
I can understand why you are still swelling in these thoughts about "ideologies" in your small brains. You
need them to be able to decide anything. Your brain capacity would not be enough to understand the consequences if you did not use them.
So, you need to have a prefixed thought pattern in your
brains in order for you to make decisions. Of course, sometimes accidents happen if the ideology or in better terms, the prefixed thought pattern, happens to be wrong. Didn't you get some tens of
millions of people dead in Europe when the "ideological thinking" got side tracked? All this happened in your near past within a ridiculously short period, one century. Well, I guess, you cannot
help that", the cloak man offered a relief.
"You mean that when almost 100 million people got killed, it was nothing?" I had to snap at him. Was this little devil mocking the whole mankind?
"No, it was not good in any sense. But you should understand that ALL ideologies are ridiculous. They are just simplifications from really complex matters, which you otherwise cannot handle or
understand. If the ideology goes awry, it seems that letting the ideology go, is very difficult for you. Sometimes you need tens of millions of people dead, before you understand that the basis
for the ideology is wrong. If you did not understand that in Europe, then you did not. There was not much to be done about it", the man explained.
"For us the ideologies are unnecessary. We can
use the knowledge of one million years and almost an unlimited computing power to analyse the information. We can make decisions, which have a predictable future", he continued.
So my theory
about the evolution of thoughts was reduced to his claims that the ideologies that the thoughts were supposed to form were unnecessary. So trying to influence the man's thoughts did fail
miserably. In a sense, I anticipated this, but I was still interested in what the result might have been.
Or was the concept about the evolution of thought not in vain after all? Maybe it was
comforting to think that there is a way how thoughts and ideologies evolve. Maybe with this we can somehow achieve the integrity, which prevailed in the cloaked man's society? At least that is
how he had made me believe.
I was not going to let the discussion end that easily.
"Isn't it a bit ridiculous to claim that you have no ideologies? How can you agree on things? I would think
that you have different opinions? For dealing with those you need ideologies", I was casting the dice.
"Ideologies are only needed for dealing with the big matters of life. Those are for
instance: "ownership rights, food, reproduction and certain pleasures.
None of these matter in our society. We can offer all of these, following your thought patterns, endlessly. No disputes
can be made with these. The other matters can be decided with agreements, which are based on, like I explained earlier, exact knowledge and accurate analysis", he was trying to convince me, "For
instance at your time there were no disputes about a simple shopping bill, because both the buyer and the seller were able to calculate was it right or not. Before that, it was common that trade
was causing killings because sensible agreements were too difficult to make."
I began to wonder what their society is really like. I guess that would clear out later. It sounded a bit too good
to be true, but, perhaps? And hey, this is what we have achieved or could have achieved if this had happened in some of our parallel universes.
The man in the cloak was looking at me again with that stare of a psychoanalyst.
"In your society, it seems that politics, ideologies and religions go hand in hand? " he asked.
course they go hand in hand to a certain degree", I answered cautiously and thinking what was he plotting now. Again, I might add.
POLITIICS AND RELIGIONS
"You that hide behind walls, you that hide behind desks,
just want you to know, I can see through your masks"
- Bob Dylan –"Masters of War"
"I have been studying the archives of
your time and I see that you did not have a central, planet-wide government at your time", the man stated.
"There was … I mean there is … well, okay … United Nations, but individual countries
make their own decisions. And then there is EU, European Union, which makes certain decisions within most countries of Europe about certain matters. And …" I said.
"That sounds arbitrary", the man in the cloak said.
"This is how it has been developing since the antique models for society and perhaps you should understand that these things take time
to mature", I challenged him.
"But of course. Still the talks of your politicians make me wonder. The politician present at the beach party was talking about the freedom of religion.
"Yes, that kind of freedom is true to any modern society", I said with some passion.
"And the politician was saying: "God bless our country".
"He just happened to be a very religious man", I answered him, "and certainly there is nothing bad with that."
"Really … oh, okay, you cannot grasp any longer logical patterns", the man said a
bit too sharply. I was getting enough from his talks.
"Damn you! I think he has the right to hope the best for this people!" I burst out.
"Let us see what this means. This is a longer story, but I guess we have the time", said the man.
"Okay, let us hear it. But I need a beer first." I said. The bar opened and there was a nice,
chilled pint of lager on the table. This world had its good points, too.
"The national leader says to his people: "God bless our country". Normally, this kind of talk take place in some
remarkable event or when something extraordinary has happened or when the nation is about to do something significant.
We have to presume, I think, that the leader is supposed to talk to all of
his people, not for instance to some religious group, only.
Let us try to find some logic in this. I think we can presume also that the comment was somehow logical? And thus we can assume that
he is not just talking something?" he asked.
"Of course he isn't just talking", I said impatiently. I thought that I will probably not like where this is leading to.
"So the leader was hoping
that the God will bless them. Since all of these "modern societies", as you called them, have many religions with incompatible gods, we have to ask which of these gods he was talking to?
of all, did he give some kind of an order to the gods that they have to bless our country? No, because the very definition of a god means a being that is superior to man. And thus no man
can tell what a god must do. So we can rule out this alternative as contradictory.
Now some of your religions have many gods. Still the leader was talking about a god in singular. This is a
clear conflict. With that he is saying to people of those religions with many gods: "I do not even care to talk to you". This is politically apt, because the number of those people serving
several gods within a single religion is small – in his country that is. And if he would support those, he would irritate for instance Christians, because the Christian belief system does not
approve of those religions which serve many gods. In the order words, the leader's statement is in contradiction to the concept of freedom of religion and favours the political purpose.
"Are you trying to say that we do not have a real freedom of religion?" I asked.
He looked a bit confused if you think that it is possible.
"That is the smaller evil in all of this", he said quietly and continued.
"We have to make one remark though. When we are talking about the Christian belief systems, the loss of freedom of
religion does not apply to them. They actually have a system of three gods: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. But still in Christian belief systems it is said that a single god is just manifesting
himself in those three ways and thus the question is not about three different gods. The Christian systems themselves accept that God can be talked about in singular. Earlier, I used to say it in
the plural "Christian systems", because it is a bit odd to talk in singular about systems which are quite different and rivals to each other. They are different to each other and they have been
different within themselves at different times. They are also denying their own old systems, like medieval systems. So, there is no logical ground to talk about the Christian belief systems in
But now we are talking about religions, which are not having only one god within that religion, but are having different incompatible gods compared to each other. The religions
themselves deny that a Christian god and Islamic god would mean the same thing. So we can assume that the national leader cannot assume that the gods would be the same. So what we have left in
this alternative is that the national leader considers him to be above the gods and know, after all, that the gods are the same. But like it was stated above, this would be against the definition
of godhood of those religions.
We reached a dead end with that logic, and what we have left is the choice that the politician is talking to different gods of different religions and asking for
their blessing. But didn't you say that the leader was a religious man when talking like this? What is the religion that he is practising? If he is practising one of these religions, how can he
beg for blessing from the gods of other religions? This would be against the teachings of those religions, because the gods are incompatible in those religions. And you cannot think that the
leader would be above those religions and dictate their teachings. So we are at a logical dead end.
The only rational explanation is that the leader is a pagan and does not practise any of
these religions. However, he appears like a religious man when talking to a god.
Because he is really talking to a god, and does not believe in it himself, because he is a pagan, he is thus
assuming that the god exists in some other way. This means that the leader thinks that all the followers of a religion create their own gods. The leader thinks thus that the gods do not exist in
reality, but they are artificial creatures within those particular religions. And the leader is in fact talking to the followers of those religions to ask for blessings from their god. And all of
this happens without the leader really believing in the existence of the god.
The logical summary from this is that the leader's sentence:
"God bless our country", is a lie presented by a
pagan, targeted to gain favour in the eyes of religious people. And at the same time he throws out, from the concept of freedom of religion those religions which are having more than one god.
This seems to be an almost perfect lie for fooling religious people", the man ended his testimony.
The man's logic was really thought provoking. How could we ants build up our ant hill so that,
it would last until this moment in time?
It certainly looked like we would live in a spider web of lies. Politics, religions, ideologies and superstitions support each other by trying to blur
the meaning of human life and the entitlement for human life.
The religions rip the self esteem from man. Any random punishment from a god can fall upon us. We are blackmailed to pray that this
would not happen. They try to make an addiction from that. Our earthly leaders have put this spell aside, but are still trying to control their people by making use of these methods. All the
methods that mankind has ever invented for mental control are now being used.
On the other hand some people somewhere have partly got rid of these themselves. The play in churches is only
followed as a curiosity. Many think that the religious role play is insignificant. It is not even unbelievable but it is considered indifferent. Some religions have stopped trying to intimidate
people with hell. Some main religions do not even think that a physical hell exists. People can no longer be frightened even with the concept of eternal torture.
Religions push nations to wars inevitably. The wars for religion are not in the past even in the 21st
century. People can still be led by religion, even with the Christian belief system, which has its medieval marks in well-known history.
Religions teach moral values. Those are not taught,
generally speaking, in other circumstances. So, how could the laws of ethics and morality be implemented in a society without religions? The addictive religious teaching uses suggestion as a
method. It is an effective way. How can that be changed? Is the teaching without suggestion any less effective and is the end result of that actually better?
Or should we just rely on the
thought, sense and intelligence in man? Those are the questions. Unfortunately we do not have the analytical capabilities of the cloak dressed man to prove what the best ethical norms are for
survival. Science cannot prove that "do not kill" is the right norm. We do not have the knowledge of one million years either, which we could study when we confront problems.
On the other hand
the example of the cloaked man pointed out that it is possible to survive till this time. This can be the destiny of our universe.
"I suppose you want to continue with the project "The Sun" tomorrow?" he asked.
"Of course", this would have been evident without asking.
"Good! Walk down the beach in the morning and you
will have the chance to fly to the Sun, still in virtual reality of course", he said, "but I think that you have never seen anything like that."
I was left waiting with fervour.
To be continued...