[Freeman Rader]

Creating positive visions of the future requires knowledge of resources and how to assemble and use them in constructive and creative ways. So … the best way of looking at the elements of “knowledge” and “imagination” is not with the question of which is “more important” — but rather “how to use the best of both”.

As far as the “components necessary to inspire and empower people to actually create positive potential futures” are concerned, the following components are necessary.

1. An underlying personal/social philosophy which places its belief in human potential rather than supernatural forces is needed in which people recognize that nature is neither kind nor cruel but impartial, and that it is up to individuals to determine what makes life meaningful and what kind of world we create. This philosophy is articulated in the book BOLD NEW WORLD and the POTENTIALIST MOVEMENT (https://www.amazon.com/BOLD-NEW-WORLD-POTENTIALIST-MOVEMENT/dp/1500968587) which promotes human responsibility and constructive beliefs and values for SELF, SOCIETY, and ENVIRONMENT in the 21st century that gives individuals the power and potential to make the most of life and the world around us. (Without a healthy and constructive underlying philosophy of life, creating positive visions of the future is impossible.) Sad to say, but most authors do not have this type of philosophy and — accordingly — their books and what they vision most often represent bizarre escapism, and portray a future with negative outcomes. It’s pretty simple: as our values go — so goes our future.

2. The ability to view objects and knowledge as “resources” rather than elements with some perceived “purpose” is a needed component. Too many people look at things as they are currently being used and can’t recognize that those same things can be used in different and resourceful ways. For example, something as simple as vinyl flooring can be used as a waterproof wraparound shower wall, yet most people glue small pieces of rock together (tile and grout) — a dumb way to handle a wet environment. When materials are viewed as “resources” rather having “assigned purposes”, all sorts of innovative and imaginative results are possible. Imagination usually isn’t some magical vision from out of the blue, but rather starts out by rearranging existing materials and perceptions to create something new.

3. As the word “vision” implies, some form of good visualization is required as a key component to getting concepts across. Good writing skills are required, but drawing and illustration skills are even more valuable. Yet many authors fail to incorporate the latter and, thus, the end result is that what needs to be visualized by the audience is often unclear.

4. Greater attention needs to be focused on “implementation strategies”. It does little good to paint a positive picture of the future, if there is no clear path to start to achieve it. As a result, nothing much happens to turn vision into reality.

While several key components are required in order to create positive visions of the future, first and foremost is need for a person to have a positive constructive philosophy of life of their own. Sad to say, here in the 21st century where people are now empowered to create or destroy the very world in which we live, work, and play — what is most lacking is a healthy constructive 21st century philosophy for living. Maybe science fiction writers need to devote more time to adopting a positive outlook on life as a prerequisite for imagining and portraying positive visions of the future.

[Freeman Rader]

First of all, there is a difference between “can a person’s creativity be improved ?” and “can it be taught and learned ?” Secondly, it’s important to perceive creativity mostly as “basic problem solving” rather than “artistic ability.” (For example: Thomas Edison was a “problem solver” not an “artist.”) Creativity is most often the ability to create something better or different than what exists. But often (as with many artistic expressions), it is a form of escapism and entertainment rather than a way to have a major impact or solve some form of problem. (Painting a picture or writing a new song doesn’t really have much impact on the overall scheme of things. It’s nice and enjoyable — but relatively inconsequential.)

With this in mind, let’s try to answer the questions involved.

“Yes,” a person’s creativity can be improved through continually putting it to use and learning from experiences gained. But, “no” — creativity can’t be successfully taught and learned by taking a course in how to be creative.

Creativity stems from a lot of underlying factors in terms of a person’s makeup and how one is raised. Creativity stems from a combination of factors which include (1) an individual’s level of sensitivity, (2) discontent with what one senses, (3) the degree to which one is conditioned by education, parenting, and training to conform and fit in, (4) the degree to which a person feels free to change things rather than just use or do things as assigned, (5) the level of security and confidence a person has in oneself, and (6) individual and cultivated skill levels.

If there is one axiom that is involved, it is that “discontent is the root of creativity.”

For example: a person has to be sensitive enough to sense that something is wrong with what exists and have a level of discontent as a motivating factor to want to change things. Then it’s necessary to have a sense of personal confidence and skill levels to start to manipulate change. But none of this is possible if the individual has been groomed to conform, fit in, and do things in an assigned way. To think that after 20 years, an 8 or 16 week college course can fundamentally change a person’s mind set and behavioral set is unrealistic. First of all, most courses have short term effects, and afterwards much is forgotten. Most attempts to teach creativity amount to puzzles and games (with some problem solving involved). They are carefully directed, and often involve a “group think” process of solving the puzzle. Seldom is individual solitude and introspection involved. The outcome is often that students learn to play the game during the course, but don’t radically change the underlying factors which make individual creativity possible.

If we are serious about facilitating creativity, then it is necessary to cultivate the underlying factors at an early age — rather than thinking that a course in how to be creative will do the trick.

[Freeman Rader]

Carrie,

Speaking for myself, I greatly appreciate good conversation and substantive inputs by others. I have frankly been disappointed that more members of the project don’t have more to say or offer much in the way of interesting ideas about the future (especially if they are prospective writers).

This project offers a great forum for people to express themselves. Often times people don’t want to express themselves until the know what they are talking about … when, in reality, they won’t know what they are talking about until they express themselves. Take advantage of this great opportunity and don’t worry about what others think and do. Seize the moment.

[Freeman Rader]

Thank you so much, Randal, for bringing this fine essay to our attention.

What Asimov says has much merit. We need to know more about “creativity” and what facilitates it. It has been my experience that most people who talk about it don’t know much about it — and usually do little things that actually undermine and constrict it (such as promoting silly “games and exercises” that supposedly “free up the mind.”) I don’t think there is a “formula” for group interaction that works.

I would add a few points that contribute to the understanding of how creativity works: the first is that “discontent” is the root of creativity. When a sensitive person perceives something as being abrasive or inconsistent to one’s senses, the impetus exist to provide something better.

The second involves dismissing the idea that everything has a “purpose.” When we think of things (and even of people) as having some kind of assigned purpose, we become locked into that “purpose” and can’t think of things in any other way. Instead, we need to look at things as simply being “resources” to be used in whatever way is open to us. (That’s when we can use something that is used for one thing and yet see that it can be used and applied for something else.) For example, vinyl sheet flooring (without the paper backing) can quite easily be used as a one piece floor to ceiling water-impermeable membrane to wrap around a shower wall. (But just tell a flooring salesman that you want so many square feet of flooring for your shower wall and see what he tells you. Invariably, he’ll tell you “you can’t do that — it’s for flooring.”

The third is that some of the best ideas come from people “outside” a particular field of interest. That’s because they are not locked into conventional thinking that permeates that field. We are guilty of paying attention to people who have “credentials” and dismiss those who don’t have them. Yet often the most creative ideas come from “free-ranging problem-solvers” who don’t have credentials and haven’t been blinded by being formally educated in
that field.

The fourth is that “self-expression” is the precursor to self-actualization and creativity. We as individuals accumulate a vast amount of information in our lifetimes, but that information is like the bits and pieces of a puzzle that make no sense until the bits and pieces are put together ostensibly for others to understand. It’s the process of “expression” that takes “raw perceptions” and constructs them into “completed concepts and conclusions.” Most people don’t want to express themselves until they know how they feel about something, when, in reality, they won’t know how they feel about something UNTIL they express themselves.

Overall, the reality is that you can’t create sessions that produce “creativity.” Instead, an individual can tap into one’s own resourcefulness by skipping conventional thinking and being a “sensitive, expressive, creative problem-solver.” (Kind of sounds like what writers of science fiction are ideally suited for, doesn’t it ?)

[Freeman Rader]

Thanks for joining the conversation, Carrie.

There is the common misconception that a clear difference exists between what is “natural” and what is “man-made,” and that the two of them are somehow alien to each other. A change of perception is needed. If man is part of nature, then what man does and what man creates can reasonably be considered an integral part of nature. (We often think of beaver dams as being “natural,” but the dams we as humans create as being “unnatural.” The reality is that they are basically the same thing except for the materials used and the sophistication involved.) “Nature” and “technology” are part of the same construct.

While we tend to look to nature for beauty, we often overlook the fact that man can create equally beautiful environments — if only we will. Instead, we don’t pay enough attention to the environment in which to live, work, and play. Why is this the case ? In part it is due to our misplaced human values wherein unbridled capitalism, economic materialism, and regard for monetary wealth prevail beyond any other values — rather than taking pride in what we create and trying to make our man-made environment as beautiful and functional as possible. It makes no sense that the urban environments in which we live, work, and play (the ones WE CREATE) are ugly and abrasive, and then we escape out of them for a brief reprieve in nature before having to go right back into the mess we create (where we spend most of our lives). We need to reverse this process and focus on making our man-made habitats beautiful and livable. More often than not, we do just the opposite. For example, many business entities will construct a facility that offers the most square footage for the least amount of money (often an ugly box-like structure) and then those entities will buy some type of artwork to put on the interior walls to make the unimaginative box look better. Instead, they should look at the earth as a canvas on which to create something that is beautiful in itself and graces the overall environment. (But that would eat into their profits, right ? And so … again we’re back to the importance of the VALUE SYSTEM that serves as the foundation for how we as humankind operate.)

To correct the situation, it all starts with a philosophy that recognizes that SELF, SOCIETY, & ENVIRONMENT are all interdependent upon one another and that we as human beings are responsible for the well-being of all three. Once this underlying principle is firmly established, people will be inclined to be more concerned and responsible for what we create. That’s why the concern for “environmental design” should be stressed as much as possible — and writers of science fiction should be more focused on painting a vision of what our future habitats should look like and be like. (Sad to say, but most science fiction paints just the opposite vision — most often a dystopian one.)

Just as we have the ability and potential to create beautiful man-made environments, we must take care to wisely develop our machines and technology that help us in that behalf. There doesn’t need to be a “technology vs. nature” scenario. Instead, the two should complement each other and work together in harmony.

Good “environmental design,” good “societal design,” good “industrial design,” and the wise design of “artificial intelligence” should complement each other in a healthy and holistic way. But this outcome is not possible if what we create is based upon an immature “macho competitive” value system, rather than a grown up “cooperative/collaborative” value system. A simple case in point is how we design man’s favorite machines — today’s automobiles. The trend is to design cars that look “macho, mean, and aggressive;” have growling mouth-like grills, bulging tires, and 500 horsepower (that can’t possibly be used in grown up ways). Instead of sleek and elegant design, today’s car designs look like “bloated frogs during mating season” (e.g. the new 700 HP Dodge Charger, the Camaro, and even a lowly econo-box such as the Nissan Juke). Then we design 12 lane highways to accommodate them — where frustration, stress, and road rage usually result accordingly. (Just what we need if we are cultivating a “macho aggressive” mentality, right ?) If our cars are used to express and vent our “sick skewed psyches” — can’t you just imagine how artificial intelligence will be misused ???

As a result of a massive overabundance of cars, highways, and roadway systems; we live in a man-made environment that is like living in amongst a swarm of bees and ants. (The hum and frenetic movement is incessant.) And then to further create an ugly environment, we add an ever-increasing assortment of oil wells with their up and down pumping motion and an assortment of huge wind farms with their round and round twirling motion. Really ? Is this the type of environment we want to create ??? Is this the best we can do ??? (I’m afraid that the same mentality and sense of values that is behind designing “mean and aggressive” cars — is the same one that permeates science fiction.)

If this trend continues, the “artificial intelligence” we create may serve only as an expansion and extension of our “macho aggressive” mentality. But it doesn’t have to be this way if people operate on the basis of more enlightened values, adopt a well-balanced outlook and philosophy of living, and have an inspiring vision of what is possible. The man-made environment — as shaped by our technology and machines — can be just as beautiful as the best of what exists in undisturbed nature — if only we will make it that way.

So where are the science fiction writers who can tell inspiring stories and paint a picture of how nature, mankind, machines, and technology can live and work in harmony with each other ??? And what are our “goals” ??? (That is the overriding question — “what are our GOALS” ???)

How ironic it is that we most often use our human intelligence unwisely — yet we forge ahead with artificial intelligence. And how ironic it is that we can’t do justice with the world we inhabit — yet we seek other worlds to inhabit.

[Freeman Rader]

Hi, Chris,

Always good to year from you.

Yes … there’s room for all types of Science Fiction. The question is whether or not there is much chance that the members of Project Hieroglyph can fill the void which requires optimistic and uplifting stories. As I alluded to, I think the real void begins with writers not having an underlying philosophy of life that provides direction for their stories. That’s why I am suggesting that writers give more thought to what their own philosophy and outlook on life is. We tend to think that “philosophy” is some horribly complicated esoteric dissertation on what constitutes truth and knowledge when, in fact, it can be something quite simple and basic.

While I devoted 480 pages to writing my philosophy book and novel, it was only afterwards that I discovered that early on I had pretty well stated a philosophy of life in a fairly short and simple way. (I’ve included an excerpt from the book to show what I mean).

I guess I’m urging more people to construct their own outlook on life — in hopes that the stories written will have the foundation needed in order for substance to exist with some commendable contribution being made toward providing life with meaning and direction. (What I am saying is relevant to our discussions in regards to people having a great deal of free time and extended life periods. Making the most of it, then becomes very important.) My biggest complaint with so much of literature and entertainment sources is that “a great deal of literary eloquence is devoted to inconsequential drivel,” In other words, after the last chapter is read and the book is closed, there is nothing that contributes much to making the most of life and the world around us. If this is the case, then we as writers are guilty of providing just so much “inconsequential drivel.”

In reading your commentaries, I’ve been impressed with the substance, and have noted that you refer quite a bit to other people’s works. This leads me to wonder if you have constructed a clear and comprehensive philosophy and outlook on life of your own. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your philosophy and outlook on life ? (in your own words). The danger of reading what everyone else thinks before expressing one’s self is that fresh insight is lost and the real self is never discovered or created. (Don’t let your doctoral program do this to you.)

Chris, this seems like a good place to close. So I’ll do so and will look forward to follow-up conversations.

Best regards,

Freeman

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Freeman Rader]

The reality is that the future is one in which we will have more people than we have jobs !!! (Correction: this is already the case). This is why we need to be thinking of how to reduce overall population and educate people better for what few jobs do exist. In addition to replacing human labor with machines and technology, there will be a major switch from us being a “mobile society” to that of being a “home alone society.” Instead of people traveling from place to place to get to work, conduct business, do their shopping, go to school, go to the movies, etc. etc. — people will operate from a home based operating environment wherein all of these activities will come to them rather than them going to it. Chances are that something like Elon Musk’s vacuum tube transit system will exist, but instead of endlessly transporting people back and forth from place to place, it will be used for home deliveries of merchandise purchased over the internet and for regular items such as groceries that are delivered to one’s residence. (No need for millions of delivery drones overhead,) Since many people will elect to not have children, and marriage will be delayed or bypassed entirely, the likelihood is that people will increasingly be living the “single life,” will enjoy their independence, and get together only when they actually want to be together.

While in many respects, the combination of these forces and trends will revolutionize the way we live and operate, we need to think about how to handle the “home alone syndrome.” Chances are that we will increasingly become more sedentary and overweight and we’ll live in a virtual world of entertainment where we have a vast range of programming to escape into. And by being able to select what we want to watch — and skip over anything that doesn’t interest us — we will inadvertently limit our exposure to what is going on in the rest of the world and become even more detached. To a large degree, our interaction and relationship with others will be “virtual interaction and relationships.” (Much of what is being described is not a future possibility but rather is already happening with retired people.)

So, yes … we need to start thinking about what we as individuals do to make life interesting and rewarding when we have more time to do it and will live in a “home alone environment” that is quite different than our current frenetic mobile environment.

At first, this all sounds rather dystopian, right ? But it is within our power to capitalize upon the situation by realizing that we will have more opportunity than ever to make of life what we will and make the most of the world around us. Not only do we need to figure out what is important in life and what we value, but we should take more of an interest than ever before in environmental design (shaping the environment in which we live, work, and play into one which is beautiful, functional, and stimulating). Instead of our reliance on single family homes and urban sprawl, we need to think about designing new mixed use communities where activities are co-located together and interaction is facilitated. No, we don’t want a dense-pack environment like New York City — but rather “Atrium Tower Communities ” like those proposed in the book BOLD NEW WORLD and the POTENTIALIST MOVEMENT. Just little things such as getting people to join others for dining in community dining facilities, breaks up the “home alone syndrome,” and gets people to interact with each and develop honest to gosh human relationships (rather than virtual ones). (Maybe we need to leave our iPhones “home alone” so we can have actual person to person conversations. Novel idea, huh ?)

A great opportunity exists for us to design new environments that make for better living. Doing so, can be fun, rewarding, and exciting. Now — if just science fiction writers will focus constructively on what kind of world we realistically want to create in the near future (rather than escaping to new planets and glorifying galactic conflicts) — we just might be able to shape the immediate world around us into a dynamic and exciting place to live, work, and play.

[Freeman Rader]

Brant,

I appreciate that you are well-intentioned, but the best approach in dealing with people who are into some kind of pathetic power play between men and women is not to “accommodate” their neurosis but rather to “put a stop to it.” Instead of devising some complicated technology which enables some subliminal sensors to appease each other’s mistrust, some alarm should go off to alert them to seek counseling and warn them against ever having sex and bringing a new life into the world. Heaven knows, the poor child that might result would have a terrible upbringing living with dysfunctional parents where mistrust, conflict, and inability to have a sensible considerate conversation prevails.

While I firmly believe that sex should be consensual, if either the man or the woman does not want to bring a child into the world, then it is best not to do so. Think about it … if either one isn’t a willing partner, doesn’t that have a bad effect upon the child ? Imposing parenting upon someone who, for any reason, doesn’t want the responsibility — is a bad thing. Yes … it’s nice if it is consensual, but don’t you think it is nice for a couple to actually be able to talk and communicate together — rather than let their “sensors do the talking.” (We’re in enough trouble already with people who can’t hold an intelligent conversation with anybody.) Instead they text each other or use Email when they just as well could pick up the phone and talk in person.)

I’m afraid that you’re thinking that sex is a nice cerebral activity when — for the most part — it is an instinctual function that is driven by simple pleasure seeking. Casual sex is quite common. (I’m not advocating it, but recognize reality). Many people who engage in sex don’t even know each other well enough to know if they actually like each other — leave alone are concerned about wanting to synchronize their respective expensive extrasensory implants so they can make a $250,000 investment in creating and raising a new human being. Instead, people tend to seek instant mindless gratification and then go about their business as if something kind of strange and mysterious happened that they are actually embarrassed to think about. (That’s when most of the unplanned for children in the world “happen.”) Hopefully sex is something that can be better understood, appreciated, and dealt with in healthy responsible ways, rather than in the bizarre ways that some people apparently perceive it to be.)

I appreciate your efforts to work out all the details for how people who don’t trust each other and can’t communicate with each other — can have sex with the help of their “mutually agreeable sensors.” But I think the simple solution is for each person to be responsible for one’s actions, be considerate of one another, and try to raise the next generation where senseless power plays between men and women no longer exist.

[Freeman Rader]

Elizabeth,

The situation you describe with Jubal is similar to what is reportedly said by Spock in one of the Star Trek movies. (See image.)

It appears that you have a good sensibility regarding religion.

200 years may seem like a short time for a major shift in philosophical thinking, but then you need to recognize that the conditions of existence that are occurring are changing more dramatically now than in all of previous history. Religion has experienced a dramatic decline in Europe, China has long been opposed to religion, Catholicism is experiencing a dramatic decline, and the decline of religion in the U.S. is starting to manifest itself in reduced patronage (except for mega church entertainment venues and political misuse).

All the factors exist that are coming together to predict major changes in religion in the highly developed countries of the world. The question is “what will replace religion as we know it at present ?” For all practical purposes “economic materialism” is the new 21st religion. Is that really what we want as the guiding principle for humankind’s goals and objectives ?

If a sensible alternative to traditional religion isn’t developed, then we can predict that “economic materialism” and “macho gamesmanship” (in the form of power struggles) will predominate in the next centuries to come. Overpopulated countries will vie for natural resources to feed consumerism, and power plays will result (we’re already seeing this with China). The only problem is that technology and weaponry will empower nations to be more threatening than ever (we’re already seeing this with China).

Unfortunately, science fiction writers tend to feed off of these trends and contribute to fears of the future mostly because that is the standard fare of science fiction and most writers have no philosophical foundation that provides them with visions of any other type of future. Ask most science fiction writers what their “philosophy of life” is — and they couldn’t tell you. “As they go — so goes their stories.” That is why I am suggesting that the first order of science fiction writers is to come up with a o healthy “philosophy for living” if ever their works are to portray what is constructively possible for the future. Without a healthy philosophical foundation, science fiction writers can’t possibly reverse the trend toward dystopian stories.

If there is a hope for more constructive stories about the future to be told, such stories will likely come from female writers (rather than their male counterparts) because women seem to be by nature more “relational and nurturing” (and less power obsessed and competitive) than men. So I urge female writers (or potential writers) to capitalize on their sensibilities to write constructive stories about the future. For heavens sake, don’t imitate the men. You have something vitally important of your own to bring to the writing table.

With this in mind, what is your philosophy of life and what would you like to project in the future ??? How do you think women can influence science fiction ?

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Freeman Rader]

John,

In response to your question — and prior to it — I knew nothing about “extropianism.” After looking into it, it appears that the goals are too generalized (e.g. what does perpetual progress mean ?). Optimism is fine, but if there is no clear vision and implementation strategies regarding intended outcomes, then optimism is just well-intentioned wishful thinking.

The real weakness is in “strategy.” Any strategy that focuses on libertarianism and just “self-interest” is doomed to failure, because if any real change is to occur, then shared vision and collaborative effort are required. The reality of the world (and a scientific principle of nature) is that SELF, SOCIETY, & ENVIRONMENT are all interdependent upon each other. (See attached symbol.) When only the component of SELF is the focus, there is no way to maintain and nurture the other elements that are necessary in order for everything to work together in harmony. In other words, the well-being of each components depends on the well-being of all components. A well-constructed set of beliefs and values for the future requires well-thought-out “values” and “responsibilities” for all three — SELF, SOCIETY, & ENVIRONMENT.

It appears that extropianism is much like Ayn Rand’s “objectivism” which respects individual strength and accomplishment, promotes self-interest, relies solely on market capitalism, disdains any governmental influence, and holds collective effort in contempt. It has had little success over the years except that it was practiced extensively in Wall Street circles and proved to be an unmitigated disaster in bringing about the economic collapse in 2008 (Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan was an ardent supporter and devotee of Ayn Rand).

I think it is fair to say that individuals and organizations that don’t want to have any type of detailed documentation and doctrine and are libertarian and anarchistic in nature end up not having much influence over anything. They “relish independence but languish in impotence.”

I would put “extropianism” in the class of being a poorly thought out concept that offers little in the way of providing much hope for the future.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Freeman Rader]

Yes, Thor, with man now in the driver’s seat and at the helm for establishing direction in the future and for giving “meaning” to life, there is always the danger of individuals coming up with nonsense. To counteract this, more attention needs to be paid to individuals developing well-thought-out concepts to fill the “god-sized hole.” That’s why more science fiction writers should be giving as much thought to “philosophy” as to “technology.” May the best philosophy win. The POTENTIALIST MOVEMENT as described in the book cited, articulates a sensible new approach. What are your thoughts as to the type of philosophy or scientific religion that is needed in the future ???

[Freeman Rader]

John,

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

It is a common mistake for people to believe that “religion” requires a belief in some form of god or supernatural power or supreme being. The truth is that it does not. Buddhism doesn’t have a god nor do Buddhists believe in a supernatural being. Likewise, most members of the Unitarian/Universalist Church don’t believe in supernatural forces. Confucianism has no god either. Yet, all are broadly recognized as legitimate religions. Even Secular Humanism is considered to be a religion as per various opinions expressed by members of the Supreme Court. (See Torcaso vs. Watkins.)

So … if a belief in any kind of supreme being is not a required part of “religion” — they how should “religion” be defined ???

Most lower courts lean toward a very broad and loose definition for fear of getting themselves into trouble by too narrowly interpreting the Constitution. Probably the closest the federal government comes to defining religion comes via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) because it has to determine “tax exemption status” when various organizations apply. Looking into the criteria listed by the IRS provides probably the closest thing to a “legal definition” of what constitutes a “religion.” (Check out IRS criteria for details.) The definition provided in my discussion is based heavily on incorporating IRS requirements.

For the reasons cited — along with others — a broad definition is appropriate. Not only does a broad definition prevent groups from excluding others who don’t believe what they do, but it opens up possibilities for what “religion” can evolve into being in the future. It is estimated that humankind has created over 10,000 gods and religions over time, thus pretty well establishing that religions and gods are created by man — and that religion is an institution that dramatically changes over time and is constantly evolving. With the great expansion of knowledge and scientific discovery currently underway, it is to be expected that religion will continue to change — probably more now than ever before. As such, it is possible that a new type of religion will evolve that is science based and humanistic in nature ? For example: the scientific fact alone that “nature is neither kind nor cruel but impartial” undermines the whole notion of some grand plan for things. If there is no force either working for nor against man nor providing the “meaning of life,” then humankind is free to give life whatever meaning we wish to give it. There is great freedom — but with it comes great responsibility. Now it becomes more important than ever for man to figure out what makes life meaningful and what it takes to make the most of life and the world(s) around us.

You suggest that “if religions will still exist in two hundred years … It will depend on if religions still offer people something that they want, and can’t find elsewhere.” (I would suggest that the 10 universal concerns listed in my discussion provide the ongoing need and impetus.) While science itself is in the business of producing “facts” rather than “philosophies,” I would think that it is up to science fiction writers to assemble the new philosophies of life that are needed — a new science based humanistic religion. If a new religion is not assembled and put forth, the direction of the future will likely continue to be dystopian. But with a new 21st century scientific humanistic religion to provide direction — some amazing things can happen. One such view is articulated in the following book:

[Freeman Rader]

Weller

As a point of clarification and finality, I don’t challenge everyone who joins the conversation — just those who totally misinterpret a legitimate proposal regarding a better form of birth control as (1) either some sinister attempt to turn a genuine human concern into some pathetic “power play” of men vs. women, or (2) some attempt to sterilize all peoples in underdeveloped nations, or (3) turn a simply scientific challenge into some super complex procedure that only complicates matters unnecessarily or (4) can’t possibly see things in a constructive and optimistic way as Project Hieroglyph proposes.

So … relax — no more replies directed toward your comments, or waste of time on my part. Your comments are enough to aptly demonstrate all of the above listed misinterpretations and negativity. There are too many other worthy aspects regarding ways of creating a better future that deserve attention.

[Freeman Rader]

Weller,

Thinking about the future shouldn’t require that we do everything in the most complicated and most expensive way possible — especially if we are trying to create technology that can actually be implemented. (Remember … that’s what Project Hieroglyph is supposed to be about.) “Wrinkles make for better stories ” (your quote) but they don’t contribute much to technological solutions. Sometimes it pays to “get real” instead of living in “fantasy land.” Have you ever actually built anything ??? How do you think that a super complicated and expensive approach would work if we’re trying to reduce overpopulation in the Congo or Bangladesh and overcome horrendous poverty and deplorable living conditions in underdeveloped countries ? Maybe you should be thinking in terms of short range solutions so mankind doesn’t have to escape to some other planet in a couple hundred years — because we’ve made such a mess out of our own planet.

Come on … enough of comments and discussions that focus on innocuous details and yet miss the whole substance of what is being proposed.

[Freeman Rader]

Iga

Thanks for the reply and the suggestion. I’m familiar with the male anatomy but not the female anatomy (at least in terms of birth control). With the male anatomy, manual access is available when the valve is in the scrotum. With the female anatomy, I don’t know if manual access is feasible. I suspect that the physiology is more internal and complicated with females. If manual control is available for the female — great ? but I’m not aware of such at this time. if possible, then that option is certainly something to be explored and welcomed. Got any ideas ? In any case, the underlying concept (and place where I’m coming from) is that creating new life involves great care and consideration, rather than it being an “unplanned happening” that leads to unplanned (and often) dire consequences. The latter is not just a problem for the undeveloped world, but for the developed nations also. Over half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce, and surveys have shown the 76% of those whose marriage remains intact indicate that they are not happy. Invariably, children pay the price for being born when careful planning and responsibility are not involved from the very beginning — and then they are raised in a hostile environment thereafter. No wonder there is so much crime, substance abuse, and unhappiness (even in developed countries).

Being an optimistic person and writer who fully promotes equal respect and opportunity for all people, the thought of there being the issue of some sort of “power play” between men and women regarding birth control never entered my mind. If that is still an issue for some people, then that’s even more reason for why equal respect and opportunity should be promoted in everything we do. Otherwise, there is conflict and rancor between half of the human race with that of the other half — male vs.female. That’s no way to promote consideration, cooperation, and collaboration that should be at the core of envisioning a better future for humankind.

I would hope that writers of science fiction can dwell upon constructive and optimistic aspects of measures to create a healthier population and society — rather than to view everything in a negative way and from a frame of mind that sees everything in terms of “power plays” and conflict. When writers of science fiction (themselves) don’t have a constructive and optimistic frame of mind and outlook on life — their works can’t possibly convey the constructive and optimistic outcomes that the Hieroglyph Project promotes. That’s why a close examination of one’s own philosophy and outlook on life may be what’s necessary before a person attempts to write optimistic stories about the future.

I hope this clears up the matter somewhat. So where are your stories and suggestions for how to create a happier and healthier society in the future ? I have written mine and they are available at the following link: (Check it out)

[Author]

Posts