My education
I am a genius. It seems to me that people think geniuses are rare individuals with high intelligence. Intelligence is just an excellent asset to a genius, but it isn’t necessary. A genius is a person who preserves his nature, who feels strongly about which way to go, and who can select the most essential information from an unlimited quantity. He unmistakably feels which note to choose when composing music. A genius is a person who knows and does great deeds.
Geniuses are a product of freedom. A genius does not accept knowledge whose purpose he does not understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but a supernatural person who can do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to do great deeds in the fields of their interests by their nature. Everyone should have the characteristics of a genius. People are not geniuses because they alienate themselves from their nature or they cannot do what they like.
It is hard to be a genius today mostly because people are prisoners of the culture of imposed knowledge. Schools do it the most, so they are the primary origin of alienation. Students cannot pass exams if they cannot reproduce imposed knowledge. People who obey imposed knowledge must suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings, and thus alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions, customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their lives. People alienated from their nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and therefore readily accept alienated knowledge, which develops the process of alienation.
People alienated from their nature cannot create genial works. They become the opposite of geniuses; they become living machines. Imposing knowledge is a misfortune to the people. Please do not get me wrong; knowledge is necessary for human development, but it must not be imposed; it should be freely accessible and accepted. However, no one can avoid the torture of imposing knowledge today. Scientists especially cannot because they cannot be scientists without a university degree. That is why there are no geniuses in the sciences today. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I do not know of any. The more schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less chance students have to protect their human abilities and, in turn, the less chance they have to be geniuses.
Only spiritually free people can create genial deeds. Looking at the world around me, I can recognize geniality in the band Pink Floyd. They made deeply touching, compelling and beautiful music that is distinguished from everything else I have heard. This is the music of sorrow, suffering, criticism, and hope. The music portrays our world at the turn of the millennium brilliantly. If their composing had been shaped by a finishing music conservatoire, maybe these libertarian people would have given up on the academy and would not have been allowed to compose such beautiful music. If they had found the strength to finish the music academy, I believe it would have alienated them from their nature, and they would not have been able to compose such grandiose music.
***
I consider my complete education as violence to my needs and freedom, and that is what it really was. Not only was my body captured in school; the school tried to enslave my thoughts, but I resisted drastically. I cannot say the resistance was my conscious decision. It was something built in me. I did not learn anything there, and that is the reason I had to attend the fifth grade again. Then I found I had to learn just enough not to repeat the whole year.
After finishing high school, I enrolled in architecture. I liked the creative work of building houses. Through considerable difficulties of studying an uninteresting program, I graduated from the faculty. A professor who led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks than mine. I knew that, without him, and in those times, I became conscious that being a lousy student advantaged me considerably compared to others.
As a third-year student in the faculty, I was proclaimed one of the best architects in Yugoslavia when I won the competition to arrange Republic Square in Zagreb. I should stress that I received the award thanks to the sound logic I managed to save by refusing alienated knowledge and, of course, my love for architecture, which gave me tremendous work energy. The sensitivity, objectivity and creativity I have been developing throughout my whole life helped me win the competition, not the studies at the faculty. If people feel their nature, love what they do, and have talent for it, they will achieve much better results than they could by studying and earning diplomas.
At the end of my architectural studies, a collection of books by Erich Fromm fell into my hands. Fromm strongly criticized the world we live in. I shared those views, and by then I had already formed basic ideas about what a good world should look like, but it didn’t cross my mind that I should do something about it. Reading Fromm made me realize I could contribute much more to society through social improvement than through architecture. That’s how I decided to change the world. It excited me and gave me the enthusiasm and energy to work. I started writing my book, “Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society,” without doubting my credibility.
However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires vast freedom of thought, which a job in architecture could not give me because creative work takes too much time. That's why I gave up architecture entirely right after graduation. At that time, I found a job as a fire protection inspector. An average person can learn everything I needed for this job in a few short courses. The position did not burden me much, so I was able to write, yes, the most important book ever.
Writing the book inspired tremendous creativity in me, far more significant than architecture. Good ideas about changing the world kept coming to mind. When that happens, a person cannot stop, even if he wants to. It brings a lot of satisfaction. But I also needed to put in a lot of effort to organize my thoughts. I did it by analyzing, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. When developing new ideas, I didn't use existing sciences because I didn’t know them well. I used basic logic that was already well developed in me at the time. Once I had the basic ideas, I had to research existing sciences to connect my thoughts to the current state. Once I understood my goal, I no longer struggled to study the issues. At first, I thought I'd finish my book in a year, but the problems were far more complicated than I had predicted, and it wasn't my only preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish it. I had the power to work from the understanding that my book would one day change the world entirely and create a sound and sane society.
When I finished the book, I started presenting my ideas to scientists. Unfortunately, the only support I got was from Professor of philosophy Andrija Stojković from the University of Belgrade. He wrote a review of my book. He also helped me share my ideas with scientists in Belgrade, in the Hegel Society and the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.
Perhaps hoping to find interested people in the West for my philosophy, I immigrated to Canada in 1993. I tried to pursue my philosophy professionally by seeking funding from various organizations and foundations, but I didn’t receive any. Again, I needed to earn a living. At the time, Canada was in an economic crisis, and few jobs were available. The exception was new computer technology. The situation forced me to buy a computer and computer books, and I began learning computer programming. Demand for programmers far exceeded supply, so I easily got the first job. Nobody asked me for any diploma. I was not an especially good programmer because the job did not interest me. My thoughts were constantly focused on philosophy.
Fortunately, my wonderful wife Dušica understood my need to be a philosopher and offered to take care of our daughters and home and, in the spare time, write philosophy, while she earned money for our life. That’s how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldn’t understand how grateful I am. The whole world should be thankful to her, too. She was the only person who supported me in my work, and without her, I couldn’t have found enough free time to think about my philosophy and write what you are reading.
Criticism of sciences
Since I finished my book “Humanism” 16 years ago, I have sent thousands of letters to professors of social sciences, trying to interest them in what the bright future of humankind would look like, but I have not succeeded. I’ll try to explain why.
Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality acquired by systematic analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop science. Scientists naturally aim to develop greater expertise and, along the way, create new theories that should benefit society. If these approaches do not directly conflict with reality, scientists accept their views as objective or accurate. However, the relative harmony of such theories with actual facts still doesn’t guarantee the objectivity of such arguments. They may be subjective, or in other words, wrong. Subjective approaches create alienated or false knowledge that separates a person from reality. If society sees scientists as prominent authorities, it accepts their alienated knowledge, which then may alienate people from objective reality. Once received, alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis for spreading alienation. Such sciences lead society down the wrong path and prevent acceptance of objective knowledge. They aim to solve problems within frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge, as a general rule, brings disadvantages to society.
***
The social sciences, especially, are on the wrong path or not good enough. They are very alienated from objective reality. This alienation stems from insufficient challenge to ideas by social science authorities throughout history. The essence of social science should be to create a vision for how to build a good, or at least better, path for humankind's future, but scientists do not have it. They should initiate positive change in society, but they do not. As a result, they have little influence on social events.
In my wish to pursue social sciences, I tried to enroll in a master’s degree in sociology at the University of North York. One of the professors there sincerely advised me not to waste my time with sociology, explaining that I would not be able to get any job with a master's degree in social sciences. I took it as his opinion that sociology offers no benefits. I told him I had new ideas about the advancement of society, but he didn’t show any interest in listening to me, just as thousands of other scientists didn’t. Another professor at the same University briefly reviewed my book, “Humanism,” and told me that I met the requirements for the studies, but my book was not acceptable as my master's dissertation.
The book that will change society entirely and make the world a beautiful place to live is not acceptable to the social sciences! This example clearly shows how generations of scientists can hit a dead end when they base their intellectual paths on alienated knowledge. What to say about the professors of Marxism? In Yugoslavia, Marxism was an obligatory subject in all high schools. Then the capitalist revolution came, and they revoked Marxism. What do thousands of professors and doctors of Marxism do now?
Do you think philosophy is science? I don’t. If it is indeed a science, it would have some benefits, but I cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin that means “love of wisdom.” It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of philosophers' most significant interests was defining the world's origin. All the answers philosophers proposed throughout human history were probably detached from objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an indefinitely large world, so we cannot objectively define its origin.
Great philosophers, by supporting or criticizing their predecessors, wrote many books, trying to build and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did not succeed. The proof is that philosophers still have not defined the basic idea for creating a good society. Philosophers' inability to find objective answers to the questions that bother people has resulted in a massive amount of alienated knowledge. Studying philosophy today doesn’t mean seeking wisdom, because we don't know what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history of human thought's failure. It is harmful because an enormous amount of alienated knowledge leads people down the wrong path, where they can hardly recognize the origins of problems.
Philosophers have good intentions, but I have not noticed that they have worked seriously enough on how to improve the world. Why? One rare attempt came from the philosopher Karl Marx. He wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers of the world unite against the capitalist exploitation!” But Marx did not define what a proper social organization should look like.
Maybe he thought united workers would develop the best possible self-organization of their communities and meet everyone's needs. However, nobody has ever succeeded in implementing it. The problem is that two people can relatively easily agree on something but never on everything; all people can hardly agree about anything. Marx’s successors have solved this problem by taking all power into their own hands. They have become authorities, and authorities tend to oppress people. This way, authoritarian socialism emerged, which regressed Marx’s intentions.
The problem is that nobody has ever tried to create a system that could function without the influence of authoritative powers. I did, and that’s why I succeeded in defining a good society.
Philosophers mainly agree that people must have equal rights, but in reality, equal rights don't exist, and philosophers don’t recognize that enough. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that they don’t understand the significance of the Golden Rule, which I believe was first written in the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Or: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you!” Everything philosophers have searched for to build a good society can be summed up in this sentence. But because people did not understand the significance of this sentence clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realize the idea.
I have invented how to make the golden rule work. This will be achieved by the system of evaluations among people. I called it democratic anarchy. Each person will have an equal right to evaluate a few other people of his choice. Each positive evaluation should bring a small but noticeable reward to the people being assessed, and each negative assessment should carry punishments for the negatively evaluated people in the same form. What would we get with that?
The evaluation system will remove the privileges of people who are the source of evil in society. A small, equal power in the hands of the people will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will value one another. Everyone will try hard to please others as best they can and diminish or abolish all forms of disadvantage. This will create what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach unsuccessfully; this will solve the problem of today’s democracy; this will eliminate the evil in society and create a sound and sane society.
***
Political scientists have created a complicated political science that is deeply alienated from society's nature. This happened because political science has lacked deep enough analysis of political reality throughout human history. Political science certainly cannot answer today’s problems and lacks a vision of what a good political system, acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, along with other social scientists, have never reached a consensus on what a developed democracy should look like. The problem is not the impossibility of reaching such an agreement; it is the complete lack of will to form it. Political scientists are the extended hands of the state political system, and they have no desire to change or confront it.
The most prominent professors and doctors of political science today do not analyze politics to offer the best solution for people; they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit the rich's agenda. They know their best bet is to get airtime in the media and become successful political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show that has nothing to do with democracy. If political scientists try to go deeper into science, the media won't support their work, and nobody will know they exist. Political science wouldn't help either because it depends on rich people. The media also air the opposition, but only those who don't threaten government policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s why we live in a formal democracy in which people have almost no influence on shaping society's policies.
I define a developed democracy as one in which people directly influence all questions of interest to them. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.
People will primarily focus on creating society's macroeconomic policy, which is unthinkable today. Each person will directly participate in deciding the community's minimum income. The average value of all statements will determine workers' minimum salary. In this way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income-based interest in work.
Also, each person will decide what share of their gross income they want to allocate to taxes. The sum of everyone's decisions will form society's tax policy. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes in proportion to their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all people's statements will determine how tax money is allocated. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. Collective consumption will no longer be alienated from the people. It will satisfy people's needs in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established, political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is that the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy.
***
Law is an extended hand of the political system. The science of law is alienated from objective reality, like all other social sciences, because the privileged class created it. An unjust society creates an unjust legal system. From this injustice emerges the cruel system we live in. A cruel system creates cruel people. Cruel criminals do cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly. Cruel justice may justify itself by preventing cruel people from producing evil, but such justice is not satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.
Law is probably the most conservative social science, ensuring the official system in society. It is precious to political power. In Canada, students cannot enter law school before graduating from another faculty. As a result, after graduation, lawyers gain privileges that no one else formally has. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate, divorce, or conduct legal proceedings; practically, people cannot protect their rights without them. Privileges always breed some form of immorality; therefore, justice can easily slip into injustice.
I would like to present one obvious example. It is about the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour, indicted Slobodan Milošević, the president of Yugoslavia, for war crimes in the middle of the aggression by her country, Canada, as a member of NATO, against Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Milošević was proved during the four-year trial in The Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, did commit a war crime indeed by sending Canadian bombardiers to kill people in an aggression against Yugoslavia. The aggression was committed against the charters of the UN, Canadian laws, and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she didn’t accuse her Prime Minister of war crimes. This immoral woman was then rewarded for her deeds by promotion to the Supreme Court of Canada and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague is an immoral or even criminal place that shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court marks the beginning of the end of everything accepted as justice today.
Once the system I’ve proposed is accepted, People will have equal legislative power in society. This will be manifested through equal rights evaluation among people. I have called it democratic anarchy. I have to repeat it because it is essential: a positive assessment will bring small rewards to the assessed people, and negative evaluations will result in the same form of punishment. Such limited power in the hands of the people will eliminate privileges, which are the primary cause of evil in society. People will respect each other. They will learn to create the greatest possible advantages for others and diminish or abolish all forms of disadvantage. In such a system, people will determine what is right and wrong through their own practice. Lawyers will no longer be needed, and the science of justice will probably end up in history textbooks. Then the moral time will emerge.
***
Economics is the social science that studies the production of goods and services. Today, the free-market economy, or the capitalist mode of production, is accepted, where the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist mode of production has managed the most efficient allocation of production resources through market competition among enterprises. Capitalism has produced the greatest increase in productivity in human history, leading to the highest growth in living standards.
But the capitalist economy also has significant disadvantages. The economics of capitalism help capital owners. They do not address worker exploitation. Furthermore, the free market brings instability to the production process that capitalism cannot solve. Capitalists prevent removing the disadvantages of the capitalist economy because it would necessarily endanger capitalism's survival.
However, I have created an entirely new publicly owned economy that will solve capitalism's problems and achieve greater productivity than the capitalist form of production can. The new economy will mostly base production on consumer orders. This will create a democratic planning economy that will ensure stable production. It will guarantee employment and economic security for every person. It will achieve high productivity and stability by reducing market competition to the level of jobs. A worker who offers the highest productivity for any public workplace at any time will get a job. I present this significant change in detail in the book “Humanism.”
The new economy will establish a highly efficient accountability system to ensure high economic productivity. This will create the most productive economy possible. It will be more productive than private entrepreneurship, so capitalism, with all its negativities, will fade into history.
The market will determine workers’ wages. The right to work will go to the worker who requires a lower salary for the same job. More undesirable jobs will be better compensated, which will equalize workers' interests across jobs, and they will be satisfied with the wages. Work competition will eliminate privileges in the production process, eliminating corruption as the main source of today’s immorality. Workers will be able to choose the jobs they prefer, and they will enjoy the work. Work will become valuable in itself.
After capitalism, humanism will emerge, a system that will better follow people's needs. The economy of humanism will be simple, and every person will be able to understand it in the short term. Accepting a new economy, however, requires in-depth analysis and extensive debate so society can accept it. I never managed to accomplish this.
***
Psychology is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being. It tries to solve the problems of man’s psyche. All these problems originate from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is a wolf to man. He imposes his will on others and tries to create conveniences for himself, regardless of the effects on others. Psychology is naturally powerless to solve social problems, so it can’t be very successful at solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung created their own teachings and brought hope in curing mental disorders. They were very popular, but their teachings were largely abandoned as unsuccessful because they were detached from the causes of psychological problems. All psychological problems originate from the cruel, immoral social system, the system that puts obligations and discipline in first place, the system that kills humanity, the system with no human warmth or love. Psychoanalytic help helps people as much as they are able to make a human touch with people who have psychological disorders. The more doctors show they care for their patients, the more they can help them, because this is what is missing most in today’s alienated society.
When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to benefit themselves at the expense of others. The system of evaluation among people will provide that. I will repeat it again to stress the importance. Each person will have the right to evaluate a few people they choose of their own free will. People who receive positive evaluations will automatically receive small awards, and those who receive negative evaluations will be punished in kind. Such assessment will be significant enough that people will try hard to create the highest possible conveniences for others and avoid or stop causing them harm. People will be careful and caring toward others. In this way, a person becomes valuable to another person. In this way, a person will build and develop love within himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That will bring mental health, and I believe psychology will not be needed anymore.
In conclusion, I would say the social sciences will lose their importance. The new system I have proposed will demystify the social sciences and reveal their true essence, and then we will all come to know them well. Just as people speak their mother tongue well, regardless of their level of education, everyone will become a good sociologist, philosopher, lawyer, economist, psychologist, artist, etc., simply by living in the new system.
***
The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine is definitely not on the right path enough. Today, cancer is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some extent, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer wins more than it loses. I would say these methods are somewhere between the Middle Ages' use of leeches to cure illnesses and modern medicine. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has entirely abandoned medical science and won her breast cancer by changing her way of living and by eating healthy food. I’ve heard of many such cases. Why doesn’t medical science research it? Developing medicine requires serious study of traditional alternative medicine, but modern medicine refuses to do so.
The fact is, big corporations have taken control of how illnesses are cured, and they earn a lot of money healing people. They don’t even care about healing people because healthy people don't spend money on medicine. This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern medicine. That happened, first, because medical science is constrained by new knowledge and, second, because conventional medicine cannot bring profit to corporations.
Modern medicine is very limited. I don’t remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In fact, the same medicine changes its name to bring higher profits to the pharmaceutical industry. Should medical doctors ask themselves: is their purpose supporting the pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying modern medicine does not benefit people, but objectively, it requires general reform.
I believe that most illnesses originate from unhealthy living, through the alienation of people from their nature, and through the stress that emerges from it. Once the system I have proposed is accepted, it will enable people to live in harmony with their nature and illnesses will then significantly disappear. Also, I believe that people in the future would build a foundation in medical science so they can cure themselves or recognize illnesses and see the proper specialists.
***
Physics, chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought significant benefits to people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven and might be alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. Chemistry, like nuclear physics, is one big theory. So far, work in these scientific fields confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesn’t mean it will stay the same in the future.
These sciences also cause a lot of harm to humankind. Scientists give themselves too much leeway to experiment with atomic and molecular modifications. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure what consequences it might have for humans. If such research may bring profits to corporations, they strongly support it without paying much attention to possible harmful effects on people.
Nuclear power plants produce vast amounts of radioactive material that is unhealthy for people in the long run. The food we eat is produced using fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemical products that are unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are created with the intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the ground, water and air. The planet Earth is one massive, unhealthy waste dump. Many initiatives around the world aim to protect the human environment from pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits. Capitalist corporations care only about profits, not people. Genetically modified food was first produced and consumed in the U.S. Nobody knows for certain what the consequences of such food have or will have on people. Scientists have very different opinions. Scientists who oppose the use of genetically modified food do not have access to the media controlled by corporations.
The disease of cancer is growing. Governments of countries around the world almost synchronously accuse cigarettes of causing it and therefore prohibit smoking to make themselves look like they are seriously protecting the people. Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I don’t believe either that smoking is the primary cause of cancer. A combination of some research I did shows that the United States has a lower rate of smokers than Asia or Africa, but it has a higher rate of lung cancer. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not have the highest percentage of people suffering from lung cancer. Something else causes cancer more than cigarettes, and it comes from developed countries.
More and more people are buying expensive organic foods. This is not because chemically and biologically treated food is healthy. Please watch the documentary Food, Inc. to learn more about the food we buy and eat. In the future, people will pay more attention to healthy eating and protecting the environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer control science. Scientific research must be independent of external influences, but scientists will be required to adopt standards for producing healthy food. The new system will stop poisoning people and polluting the environment.
***
Technical sciences objectively develop people's living standards and most likely bring maximum benefits to society. But if human needs are alienated, then these objective sciences become alienated from their meaning as well. In the developed world, production has overcome the real human needs; it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of the system's survival than of people's real needs. I cannot find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.
Mathematics is probably the most objective science and undoubtedly contributes significantly to societal advancement. But the question is how much is it objectively needed? The math I’ve used in my work as an engineer and programmer is probably only what's taught in middle school. I had to take advanced mathematics at university just to meet the bureaucratic requirement to earn the title Bachelor of Architectural Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the scientific world should be removed, as it is harmful. At the very least, it wastes time. It is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge or is not interested. Life practice should show what knowledge a person needs to do the job they want, and then provide access to that knowledge to everyone at any time.
The Future of Sciences
Authorities have throughout history been building unjustifiably complex, mystified and alienated sciences. Not only do these sciences have incorrect or insufficiently sound bases, but academic recognition lends them credibility, which damages society. It directs people to wrong paths, paths that cannot solve the problems of society because they are alienated from the nature of the origin of social issues. Also, a lack of critical acceptance of knowledge accustoms people to expect authorities to answer all questions. That alienates people from the power to mobilize their own abilities to solve problems. Usually, such an attitude impoverishes a man’s abilities to recognize, understand and resolve scientific, work, and everyday life problems.
Alienated knowledge is mainly wrong; it doesn’t let people see the exit from the dead-end street humanity has entered. I’ve made a significant breakthrough because I didn’t accept alienated sciences. I kept a natural logic and a sense of what is right and what is not. In preparing solutions to humanity's problems, I used simple reasoning to reach straightforward answers that, through the education system, alienated people could not perceive. This logic can be expressed as follows: “In the future people will no longer go to school to learn what is good; they will learn what is good in everyday life.”
The most complex changes in the system I have proposed will probably be related to the division of work. The future economy will have to follow changes in social needs through greater labour mobility. The only division of labour that such changes can support will be based on a constantly open free market. The worker who offers the highest productivity in any public workplace at any time will get the job.
Bureaucratic determination of the knowledge needed to perform different work tasks through formal education and examinations will not keep up with new requirements and will no longer exist in the new system. Bureaucratic conditions unnecessarily reduce workers' ability to get the jobs they want because formal education takes too much time. I would say that an average person can learn most jobs in a short period. So why does education last 12 to 20 years, or even more? School, in the first place, aims to lead people in the way authorities have imposed throughout history. In that way, followers of authority protect their privileges. This is a very alienating path that harms people. Such education becomes a brake on society's development.
Formal education should not be a condition for obtaining a job because it is not a sufficient guarantee of workability. The best learning comes through practice. When a worker loves what they do, they quickly learn everything they need to do their job. The new system that I have proposed will establish a new, highly effective method of accountability for the possible insufficiencies in the realization of workers' proposals. The new system will enable workers to give far greater guarantees for the productivity of their work than they can through diplomas, recommendations, experience or morality in society. Every worker will have a much higher responsibility than private entrepreneurs do today. This responsibility will be so high that nobody will try to obtain a job for which they don’t have enough knowledge.
Although diplomas will no longer be an important factor in hiring, education will remain necessary, but it will change significantly. The capitalist view that education is profitable for students makes it expensive. But knowledge benefits society as a whole because educated people produce benefits for society. Therefore, education should be free. In the future, all people will have simple and easy access to all knowledge and to all sciences.
The central principle of education in the future will be based on the shortest and most straightforward way to achieve the required knowledge. One can assume with great certainty that most students will not study subjects that disinterest them or don’t give them direct benefits. Doctrines that don't generate interest or bring immediate benefits to society will fade from history. People will determine which sciences survive and which do not based on their own interests. Future education will aim to teach students the knowledge they consider necessary. This is the path of disalienation of sciences. Students will take specialized courses of their own free will. They will build their curriculum based on their individual needs and abilities. I assume that the lectures in the classical sense will mostly no longer exist. Knowledge is already available on the Internet, and this trend will expand and improve. I think future apprenticeships will focus on students consulting teachers, where teachers explain what wasn’t sufficiently clear when students studied on their own. Students and professors will discuss problems in specific fields and practice exercises through workshops. These workshops will probably include online students from around the world.
I will try to explain clearly, with one example, what the shortest way to achieve required knowledge exactly means. Let us say that someone wants to study rocket science. They begin their studies and soon find out that they don’t know enough maths to follow the rocket science lectures. They then stop studying rocket science until they learn enough maths to continue. Education will be very accessible and straightforward in the future.
Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than twenty years. What slavery to the bureaucracy! What a loss of time at the cutting edge! I think the average educated person could acquire proficiency in surgery much faster if he removed everything unnecessary. How? Student surgeons typically observe experienced surgeons perform operations. When a student finishes the program to become a surgeon, he will assess whether he can perform surgery. Surgeons will not evaluate their own skills incorrectly because regulations on work responsibility will be much stronger than they are today. Patients will not be in danger from non-professional surgeons because experienced surgeons will supervise beginners. Also, even if a beginner surgeon feels capable, they still need to convince patients they are capable because patients choose their surgeons on their own. A surgeon who makes a major mistake during surgery might lose patients forever. So if a beginner surgeon doesn’t feel capable of delivering an operation, he could attend additional education as much as he feels he needs.
Today’s complicated education system has created the impression that ordinary people cannot easily overcome the knowledge used by experts. This is wrong. Everyone can do it if they find an interest and the ability to do it. Everything in nature is simple, and that is the reason the essence of any science is straightforward. In science, nothing is too hard to understand. Science becomes complicated when subjective, powerless and ignorant people alienate it from their real essence. Then we are talking about alienated or false doctrines.
I think that in the future, all people will be interested in knowing and understanding the basics of all sciences. People learn while they are alive. People in the future will understand the essence of all sciences much better, but that doesn’t mean everyone will be an expert in every scientific field. Great scientists need to study and work for years to perform at an expert level. A pianist can quickly learn where all the notes are on the piano, but a good pianist needs to practise for years, and that makes him a pianist. An excellent pianist must love music, and that love gives him the inspiration to sit for hours before the piano and practice. The same applies to the experts in every workplace and every science.
Aleksandar Šarović
December 4, 2008