My clash with sciences

Back Home Up Next








My clash with sciences


My education

I am genius. It seems to me that people think geniuses are those rare individuals who have a high intelligence. I think that intelligence is just a good asset to a genius but it isnít necessary. A genius is a person who preserves his nature, a person who feels very well which way to go, the one who is able to select the most important information from an unlimited quantity. He is a person who unmistakably feels what note to choose when composing music. A genius is a person who knows and makes great deeds. Geniuses are a product of freedom. A genius does not accept knowledge of which the purpose he does not understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but a super natural person who has the ability to do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to make 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 do not have the ability to 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 main origin of alienation. Students cannot pass exams if they are unable to reproduce the imposed knowledge. People who obey imposed knowledge have to suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings and thus, they alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions, customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their lives. People who are alienated from their nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and therefore accept alienated knowledge easily which develops the process of alienation. Alienated people are not able to 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 the schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less the chance students will have to protect their human abilities and, in accordance, they have less chance 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, exceptionally powerful and wonderful 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 were conditioned by a finishing music conservatorium, maybe these libertarian people would have given up from the academy and would not have been allowed to compose such extremely beautiful music. If they found the strength to finish the music academy, I believe that it would certainly somehow alienate them from their nature and they would not be 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, 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 registered myself in the study of architecture. I liked the creative work of building houses. Through large difficulties of studying an uninteresting program, I did graduate the faculty. A professor who led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks then mine. I knew that without him and in those times I became conscious of the fact that being a bad student advantaged me compared to others. As a third year student in the faculty, I was proclaimed as one of the best architects in Yugoslavia when I won the competition for the arrangement of The Republic Square in Zagreb. I need to stress here that the reward brought me the healthy logic I managed to save through refusal of alienated knowledge and of course my love for architecture that gave me huge 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 a person feels his nature, loves what he is doing, and if he has talent for what he is doing, he would achieve much better results than he could achieve by studying and receiving 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 had similar views and during those times I already created the basic ideas as to how a good world should look like, but it didnít cross my mind that I am the one who should do something about it. By reading Fromm I found that in the field of social improvements I could give much more to society than in architecture. That's how I decided to change the world. It arose my enthusiasm and gave me huge energy to work. I started writing my book Humanism without any doubt of my credibility.

However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires a vast freedom of thoughts, which a job in the field of architecture could not give me because creative work in architecture captures too much thought. That was the reason I gave up from architecture completely. At that time I found
the job as a fire protection inspector. An average person can learn the entire knowledge I used for this job in a few short courses. The job did not burden me much, so I was able to write, certainly, the most important book ever.

Writing the book inspired a huge creativity in me, far larger than architecture. Good ideas about changing the world have been coming to my mind without end. When that happens, a person cannot stop even if he would like to. It brings a lot of satisfaction. But also, I needed to invest a lot of effort to compose thoughts. I did it by analysis, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. In the development of new ideas I did not use existing sciences because I didnít know them well. I used basic logic that was already pretty much developed in me in those times. When basic ideas were finished I had to research existing sciences in order to connect my ideas to the existing state. Understanding what my goals were, I didnít have any difficulties in studying the issues any more. At the beginning, I thought my book would have been finished in one year but the problems were much more complex than I had thought and it was not my only preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish the book. Iíve gotten the power to work from understanding that my book would one day change the world completely and create a good and sane society.

When I finished the book, I stated 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 spread my ideas among scientists in Belgrade, in Hegel Society and in the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.

Perhaps in hope to find interested people for my philosophy in the west, I immigrated to Canada, in 1993. I was trying to work professionally on my philosophy by searching for funds from various organizations and foundations but didn't receive any there. Again, I got into a situation in which I had to earn money for a living. During that time, an economic crisis was in Canada. There were not many jobs
. The exception was a new computer technology. A higher force made me buy a computer and computer books and I began learning computer programming. The demand for programmers was much larger than the supply then, so that I got the first job easily. Nobody asked me even for any diploma. I was not even an especially good programmer because the job was not interesting to me. My thoughts were constantly focused on my philosophy.

Fortunately my wonderful wife Duöica had an understanding for my work and offered that I take care of our daughters and home and work on my philosophy in my spare time while she earned money. Thatís how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldnít be able to understand nearly how grateful I am to her. The whole world should be grateful to her as well. She was the only person who had an understanding for my work and without her I wouldnít be able to find enough time to think about my philosophy and write what you are reading.

Criticism of sciences

Since I finished my book, The Humanism, 16 years ago, I have been sending thousands of letters to professors of social sciences trying to interest them in how the bright future of humankind would look like, but I did not succeed. Iíll try to explain why.

Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality acquired by organized analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop sciences. Scientists naturally aim to learn higher knowledge and, on this path, they create new theories that should bring conveniences to society. If such theories do not conflict with reality directly, scientists accept their theories as objective or accurate. However, relative harmonies of such theories with objective realities, still donít guarantee the objectivity of such theories. They may be subjective, or in other words, wrong. The subjective theories create alienated knowledge or false knowledge that alienates man from reality. If scientists are big enough authorities, society accepts their alienated knowledge, which then alienates the whole society from objective reality. Once accepted alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis in spreading alienation. Such sciences aim society to wrong path and prevent acceptance of objective knowledge. It aims society to solve problems inside frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge as a general rule brings disadvantage to society.


The social sciences, especially, are on the wrong or not good enough paths. They are very alienated from objective reality. Alienation results due to lack of criticizing ideas of social science authorities throughout history enough. The essence of social science should be creating the vision of how to built a good or at least better path of society to the future but they do not have it. They should be initiators of positive changes in society but they are not. In fact, they do not have any influence to social events.

In the wish to approach social sciences, I tried to register for the masters degree in sociology at University of North York. One of the professors I turned to 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 degree in social sciences. I understood it as his opinion that there are no benefits to society from sociology. I responded to him that I had new ideas to advance society, but he didnít show any interest in listening to me, the same way thousands of other scientists didnít. Another professor at the same University leafed through my book, The Humanism, and told me that I had satisfied the requirements for the studies, but my book ďThe HumanismĒ was not acceptable as my master dissertation work. The book that will change society completely and make the world a wonderful place for living is not acceptable to social sciences. The sample shows clearly how generations of scientists may turn into a dead-end street 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 Marxism was revoked. What are thousands of professors and doctors of
Marxism to do now?


Do you think philosophy is a science? I donít. If it is indeed a science, there would be some benefits from it, but I cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin which means, Ēlove wisdomĒ. It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of the greatest interests philosophers have had was defining the origin of the world. All of the answers philosophers proposed throughout the history of mankind were probably alienated from objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an endlessly large world to be able to define its origin objectively.

Great philosophers were through support or criticism from their predecessors writing large amounts of books trying to build and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did not succeed. The proof lies in the fact that philosophers have not yet defined their ideas for creating a good society. The lack of power from philosophers to find objective answers to the questions that give people great difficulties has resulted in the creation of a huge amount of alienated knowledge. Studying philosophy today doesnít mean seeking for wisdom at all because nobody actually knows what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history of failure of human thoughts. It is even harmful because a great amount of alienated knowledge leads people to the wrong path where they cannot realize objective origins of problems. By the way, I want to emphasize that winners write history mainly for the purpose of justifying their bad intentions and deeds. Such history builds bad intentions for new generations and creates big problems. Roger Waters presented this nicely in the line: "History is for fools."

Philosophers are full of good intentions, but I have not noticed that they work seriously enough on how to better the world. Why? Philosopher Karl Marx wrote in his famous 11. theses of Foerbach: ĒThe philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.Ē He also wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: ďWorking man of all countries, unite!Ē Marx did not define how a good organisation of society should look like. Maybe he thought that united workers would develop the best possible self-organisation of their societies, and meet the highest benefits for all of people. However nobody has ever succeeded in implementing it. Marxís 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, the authoritarian socialism immerged which regressed Marxís intentions. The problem lies in the fact that nobody has ever tried to create a system that might function without the influences of authoritative powers. I did it and thatís the reason I succeeded in defining a good society.

Philosophers mainly agree that people must have equal rights, but in reality they don't have them and philosophers don't recognise that sufficiently. Therefore, it isn't surprising that they don't understand the significience of the Golden Rule, that is written in the Bible: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you!" Or: "Do not do onto others that which you would not have them do onto you!" All that philosophers have searched for in order to make a good society one might put into this sentence. But taking into account that the significance of this sentence was not understood clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realise the idea. I have invented a system that will realize the idea of this sentence. I have called it democratic anarchy. Each man will get an equal right to evaluate a few other people by his own choice. Each positive evaluation should bring the evaluated people a small, but noticeable award, and each negative evaluation should bring the negatively evaluated people punishments in the same form. What would we get with that? The system of evaluations will remove the privileges of people that are the origin of evil in society. A small equal power in the hands of the people will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values to other human beings. Everyone will try hard to please people as best as they can and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. This will create what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach unsuccessfully. That will create a good and sane society.


The scientists of political science have created an unnecessarily complex political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of todayís society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, scientists of political sciences, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to state what the developed democracy is or how it is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such a consensus; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system and they do not have any wish to propose or change anything, especially not confront it. Thatís the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost donít have any influence in forming the policy of society.

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interests. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy. People will be interested in making decisions about the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human being capable of voting alone will directly participate in deciding what minimum income is in society. The average value of all statements will determine the minimal income of workers. In such a way, the direct decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work. Also, each man will be involved in the decision as to what part of his gross income he wants to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from peopleís incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. Each man will decide what part of his tax money he wants to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will simply define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people any more. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. People will be very satisfied. The people will have the power in their societies so that they will accept their societies more. This is the way to disalienate society. Such a democracy will be very clear and simple to all so that political science will not be needed any more.


Law is an extended hand of the political system. The science of law is alienated from its objective reality the same way all others social sciences are because it was created by the privileged class of people. This is the reason the system of law is unjust from its beginning. The cruel system we live in emerges from this injustice. Cruel criminals make cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly. The cruel justice may find its justification through preventing cruel people from causing evil to all they do not like much, but such justice is not satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.

The science of law is probably the most conservative social science that insures the reigning system in society so that it is very valuable for the political power. In Canada, students cannot register the school of law before they graduate some other high studies. Society has developed the opinion that law school is too complex of a study that ęnot developed enough brainsĽ cannot comprehend or accept them. This certainly isn't the reason. After studying the alienated knowledge of law long term, people may hardly accept right orientation if it confronts the knowledge they accepted through the study of law. But there is a reward for it. After graduations, lawyers get some privileges that formally nobody besides them have. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate, cannot divorce, cannot perform legal proceedings; practically people cannot protect their rights without them. Privileges always form some sort of immorality, therefore, law can easily fall to the wrong side or even injustice.

I would like to present one excellent example. It is about the International Court of Justice in Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour, indicted the president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Miloöević for war crimes. This occurred in the middle of the aggression from her country, Canada, as a member of NATO, on Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Miloöević was proved in the four years of the trial in Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, did indeed commit a war crime when he sent Canadian bombardiers to kill people in the aggression on Yugoslavia. It was done against the charters of the UN, Canadian laws and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she didnít accused her Prime Minister. This immoral woman was then awarded for her deeds by promotion to the justice of Supreme Court of Canada and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in Hague is an immoral or even criminal spot that shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court is the beginning of the end of everything that is accepted as justice today.

Once the system Iíve proposed is accepted, morality will start. People will have equal legislative power in society. It will be manifested by the equal rights of people who evaluate other people
I have called democratic anarchy. I have to repeat because it is very important, the positive evaluations will bring the evaluated people small awards, and negative evaluations will result in punishment of the same form. Such a small power will teach people to respect each other, offer highest possible advantages to other people, and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. In such a system, people will learn what is good and bad through their own practice and observe to this. Lawyers will not be needed any more because they will practically have nothing to do. The science of law will probably finish in history textbooks.


Economics is the social science that studies the production of goods and services. Today, the economy of free market, or the capitalist mode of production where the means of production are privately owned, is accepted. The capitalist mode of production has managed to perform the most efficient allocation of production resources based on the market competition of enterprises. Capitalism has realized the highest increase of production productivity in the history of humankind, which created the highest increase of living standard ever.

But the capitalist economy also has big disadvantages. A large number of factors exist that cause instability in the capitalist economy, which forces capitalist enterprises to fight for their survival on the market continuously. In this fight the strongest win and take all. Capitalism is cruel. Besides that, capitalism has enforced money as the greatest value to society. Such a value has induced huge alienation to society, which invokes huge problems. The cruelty of capitalism, along with the alienation of people, causes almost all the evil in today's society: immorality, crime, destructions, etc.

Nobody works hard enough to eliminate the disadvantages of the capitalist economy because the elimination of the disadvantages contradicts the survival of capitalism. I have created a completely new economy that will enable natural development of society. The new economy will be publicly owned. It will guarantee the economic survival to all people as condition of building productive relations in society. The new economy will base its production on consumer orders in great extend so that it will be very stable. It will lower the market competition of companies to the level of work posts. The worker who offers greater production to each work post will get the job.

The new market of work will bring huge benefits to society. In the first place, it will establish the most productive and profitable economic production. It will be significantly greater than the economy of private enterprises can perform, so it will send capitalism, with all its disadvantages, to history. The new market of work will eliminate privileges in the reprocess of production what will eliminate corruption, the main origin of immorality of today's society. Workers will be able to choose jobs they like more and therefore, they will enjoy working. Work will become value in itself. Inconvenient jobs will be compensated with higher salaries that will balance interests for all jobs. The freedom of choosing jobs will enable workers to find where real values in society are and that will release people from alienation. The new economy will establish a very effective system of responsibilities of workers as a precondition of establishing large productivities of workers. High responsibility from workers will result in cooperation of workers at all levels of production processes, which will contribute to the productive orientation of society. Responsibility of people will contribute to elimination of all kinds of destructivity in society. After capitalism humanism will step in, the system that will much better follow the needs of human beings. The economy of humanism will be that simple so that everyone will be able to understand it in very short period of time.


Conclusively, I would say that social sciences will lose their importance. The new system I have proposed will demystify social sciences to their objective essence and then we will all get to know social sciences well. The same way that people speak their mother's tongue well without the level of education having much impact, all people will become good psychologists, sociologists, lawyers, economists, philosophers, artists, etc., just because they live in the new system.


The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine is definitely not on a good path enough. Today, cancer is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some extend, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer wins. I would say that these methods are somewhere in the range of the Middle Ages use of leeches to cure illnesses. Recently, the father of my wife Duöica died after his third treatment of chemotherapy. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has completely abandoned medical science and won breast cancer by changing her way of living and by eating healthy food. I've heard for many such cases. Why doesnít medical science research it? The development of medicine requires serious studies of traditional alternative medicine but the modern medicine refuses it.

The fact is big corporations have taken control over methods of curing illnesses and they earn a lot of money curing people. They donít even have an interest to be successful because healthy people do not spend money on medicine. This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern medicine. That has happened, firstly, because medical sciences are conceited by possessing modern knowledge and secondly, because traditional medicine cannot bring profit to corporations. The documentary
Vaccine Nation presents it well. Modern medicine is very inhibited. I donít remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In fact, the same medicine change s itís name in order to bring higher profits to the paramedical industry. Medicine doctors should ask themselves, is their purpose knowing the names of every bone in human body, support to the pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying that modern medicine does not bring betterment to people, but objectively it requires a 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 proper nature and illnesses will then significantly disappear. Also, I believe that most people in the future will need to acquire a basis of medical sciences, about as much as a family doctor uses daily, so that they might be able to cure themselves alone or recognize the illnesses and visit proper medical specialists.


Psychology is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being. It tries to solve problems with a man's psyche. All these problems originate from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is wolf to man. He imposes his will to other people, and tries to convenience himself regardless of what effects such behaviour might have to other people. Psychology is naturally completely powerless in solving social problems, so it canít be very successful in solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalytics Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung created their own teaching and brought hope in curing psychological disorders. They were very popular, but their teaching was abandoned as unsuccessful because it was alienated from the causes that cause 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. Psychoanalytics help people as much as they are able to make a human touch with people who have psychological disorders. The more the doctors show they care for their patients, the more they are able to help them, because this is what is missing mostly in today's alienated society.

When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to benefit themselves on the expense of others. That will be provided by the system of evaluation among people. I
will repeat it again to stress the importance. Each person will get an equal right to evaluate a few people he chooses by his free will. Positively evaluated people will automatically receive small awards and people who get negative evaluations will be punished in the same form. Such evaluations will be important enough to people so that they will try hard to create the highest possible conveniences to other people and avoid or stop damages to other people. All people will be careful and caring towards other people. In such a manner, man will become a value to another man. In such a manner man will build and develop love in him himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That will bring psychological health and I believe psychology will not be needed then any more.


Physics, chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought large benefits to people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven, and might be alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. All of chemistry is one big theory. Nuclear physics as well. So far, work in these scientific fields confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesnít mean it will stay the same in the future.

Work in these fields of sciences brings a lot of damage to humankind as well. Scientists give themselves rights to play with atomic and molecular modifications too easily. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure what consequences they might bring to man. If such researches may bring profits to corporations, they strongly support them without paying much attention to possibly negative consequences to people.

Nuclear power plants produce huge amounts of radioactive material that is unhealthy for people in the long run. Food we eat is produced with the use of fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and chemical products that are unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are produced with the intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the ground, water and air. The planet earth is one huge, unhealthy storage of waste. There is a lot of support in the world to protect the human environment from pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits. Capitalist corporations are interested in profits only, not people. It comes to my mind that genetically modified food was firstly produced and consumed in the U.S. Nobody knows in certainty what the consequences of such food have or will have on people. Scientists have very different opinions about that. 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 synchronically accuse cigarettes for that and therefore, prohibit smoking in order to make themselves look like they work seriously protecting the people. Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I donít think either that smoking is the main cause that spreads cancer. A combination of some research I found shows that the United States have a smaller rate of smokers than Asia or Africa, but it has a larger the rate of lung cancer. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not follow with the highest rate 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 certainly not because chemically and biologically treated food is healthy. Please see the documentary movie
Food, Inc. about food we buy and eat. In the future, people will devote more attention to healthy feeding and the protection of their environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer have the power over the sciences. Scientific research will be independent from external influences, but scientists will be required to adhere to the adopted standards for health maintenance for people. The standards will be established through a consensus of scientists. The new system will will stop poisoning the people and polluting the environment. Every person shall have the power to negatively evaluate scientists and apprentices who use unacceptable means or methods in scientific research and production. The evaluation might have such a large, direct impact on producers and apprentices that they would not dare use harmful ingredients in their research and production. The great advantage of the new system stems from the fact that the greatest power will be directly in the hands of the people and therefore might not be corrupted.


Technical sciences are those that have objectively developed the living standard of people 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 objective human needs, it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of survival of the system we live in than the objective needs of people. I cannot find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.

Mathematics is probably the most objective science that surely, significantly contributes to advancement in society. But the question is how much is it objectively necessary? The math Iíve used in my work as an engineer and programmer is probably only the math that is taught in middle school. I was required to take high-level mathematics at the University, just to meet the bureaucratic requirement for acquisition of the title Bachelor of Architectural Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the scientific world should be removed as harmful. It is at least a loss of time. It is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge, or if one is not interested. Life practice should demonstrate what knowledge a man should acquire to perform the job he wants, and then it is necessary to provide the access to needed knowledge to everyone at any time.

The Future of Sciences

Authorities have throughout history been building unjustifiably complex, mystified and alienated sciences. Not only is it that science largely has incorrect or insufficiently correct basis, but academic recognition gives credibility to such basis, which damages society. It directs society to incorrect paths, the paths that cannot solve the problems of society because such paths are alienated from the nature of the origin of social problems. In addition, lack of critical acceptances of knowledge accustom people to expect answers to all questions from authorities. That alienates people from the power to mobilize their own abilities to solve deeper problems. Normally, such an attitude impoverishes a manís abilities to recognize, understand and resolve scientific, work, and everyday life problems.

Alienated knowledge is mainly in the wrong; it doesnít allow people to see the exit from the dead end street in which humanity has entered. Iíve made a big breakthrough because I didnít accept alienated sciences, because I kept a natural logic and feel about what is good and what is not. In preparing the solutions to the problems of humanity, Iíve just used a very simple logic with which I've achieved very simple solutions that the alienated people, through the system of education, were not able to perceive. The basis of this logic can be expressed as follows: "In the future people will no longer go to school to learn what is good, they will live what is good every day ."

The biggest and most complex changes in the system I have proposed will probably be related to the division of work. The future economy will require a greater mobility of labour, which could be able to follow the changes of social needs. The only good division of labour that such changes will be able to follow is based on a constantly open free market competition of work. The worker who offers the highest productivity in any public work place at any time will get the job.

Bureaucratic determination of necessary knowledge to perform different work tasks by formal education and examinations will no longer exist in the new system. Such conditions unnecessarily reduce the ability for workers to be employed in positions they want, because formal education requires a lot of time.
I would say that an average person can learn most jobs in a very short period of time. Why then does education last 12 to 20 years or even more? Education in the first place has a goal to point people to the way that authorities have imposed throughout history. In that manner, the followers of authorities throughout history guard their privileges. This is a very alienated path that harms people. Such education becomes a brake for development of the society.

Formal education should not be a condition for obtaining a job because it is not a sufficient guarantee of work ability. The best learning comes through practice. When a man loves what he does, he quickly learns everything he needs to perform his job. The new system that I have proposed, will establish a new, highly effective system of accountability for the possible lack of realisation of working proposals from workers. The new system will enable workers to give far greater guarantees for productivity of their work than they can through diplomas, recommendations, experience or morality in society. The responsibility of every worker will be much greater than the responsibility of private entrepreneurs today. This responsibility will be so high that nobody will try getting a job for which they donít have enough knowledge.

Although diplomas will no longer be an important factor in hiring, education will continue to be necessary, but it will change significantly. Formed in capitalism is the opinion that education is profitable for students and because of this education is expensive. But education is profitable for society as a whole because educated people produce benefits to society. Therefore education should be free. In the future all of the people will have a simple and easy access to all knowledge, and to all sciences.

The main principle of education in the future will be based on the shortest and simplest way to achieve the required knowledge. One can assume with great certainty that most students will not study subjects that disinterest them or donít give them direct benefits.  Doctrines that are not going to get interest or bring immediate benefits to society will go down in history. People will determine what sciences will survive and which will not on their own interest. Education in the future will aim to teach students the knowledge they themselves consider necessary. This is the path of disalienation of sciences. Students will take specialized courses on their own free will. They will make their curriculum of studies on their own needs and abilities. I assume that the lectures in the classical sense will mostly no longer exist. Knowledge is already available over the Internet and this trend will expand and improve. I think a focus on the future apprenticeship will be based on the consultation of students with teachers, where teachers will explain to students what material wasnít sufficiently clear to them when they were studying. Students and professors will discuss problems in particular fields of work and perform exercises through workshops. These workshops will probably include online students from around the world.

I will try to explain clearly in one example what the shortest way to achieve required knowledge exactly means. Let us say that someone wants to study rocket science. He begins the studies, and soon finds out that he doesnít know enough math to be able to follow the lectures in rocket science. He will then stop the study of rocket science, until he learns enough math to continue studying rocket science again. Education will be very accessible and simple in the future.

Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than twenty years. What slavery to bureaucracy that is! What a loss of time in the most creative edge! I think that the average educated person may acquire proficiency in surgery in a much shorter time if he removes everything that is unnecessary. How?
The student surgeons will normally attend the surgeries of experienced surgeons. When a student finishes the program to be a surgeon, he will estimate alone whether he is able to perform a surgery. The surgeons will not estimate their own skills wrongfully because the regulation of the work responsibility will be much stronger than it is today. The patients will not be in danger of non-professional surgeons because experienced surgeons will supervise the beginners. Besides that, when a beginner surgeon feels capable for surgery he will still need to convince patients that he is capable of doing it because patients will choose their surgeons alone. A surgeon who makes a big mistake performing a surgery might lose patients forever. So if a beginner surgeon doesn't feel capable of performing a surgery, he could attend additional education as much as he feels he needs.

Today's complicated system of education has created the opinion that ordinary people cannot easily overcome knowledge used by experts. This is wrong. If I could overcome the formal knowledge of an architect, police inspector and computer developer alone, in which I was not even interested in, then I think everyone is able to do it if they find an interest and ability to do it. The same applies to all professions. Also, the opinion that experts need years of studies in order to understand their sciences is accepted today. That is wrong as well. Everything in nature is simple, and that is the reason the essence of any science is very simple. In the fields of sciences, there is nothing that cannot be easily understood. Science becomes complicated when subjective, powerless and ignorant people alienate them from their objective essence. Then we are talking about alienated or false doctrines.

I think that in the future, all people will be interested to know and understand the basics of all sciences. Man learns while he is alive. People in the future will understand the essence of all sciences much better, but that doesnít mean that all people will be experts in all scientific fields. Great scientists need to study and work for years in order to perform at an expert level. A pianist can quickly learn where all the notes on the piano are, but a good pianist will practise playing for years, and that makes him a pianist. A good pianist must love music and that love will gives him inspiration to sit for hours before the piano and exercise. The same applies to the experts at every workplace and every science.

Aleksandar äarović

December 4, 2008


 Back to Top

facebook  twitter

Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada           Last updated: December 28, 2016
For problems, questions, or comments regarding the website please contact