Category: Book

  • But What Can We Actually Have?

    But What Can We Actually Have?

    This is one of the most honest and important questions I get from readers of Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    People ask:

    “But what can we actually have in a world like that?”

    And it’s a fair question.

    Because when you hear about a world beyond both capitalism and communism, this is exactly where your mind goes.

    So here, I’ll try to answer it.

    Because let’s be clear:

    • In communism, everything was collected, measured, and distributed by the state.
    • In capitalism, we can accumulate as much as we can manage to control — money, land, resources — often far beyond what we could ever use.

    And many people instinctively reject both.

    They don’t want to stand in line for a ration.
    They don’t want to live in a world where a few own everything either.

    So the real question becomes:

    What can we actually have in the new kind of world described in the novel?

    The False Choice

    We have been taught that there are only two options:

    1. Central control → where someone else decides what you get
    2. Unlimited accumulation → where individuals compete to take as much as possible

    But both models share the same flaw:

    They disconnect access from actual use.

    • In communism, access is restricted regardless of abundance
    • In capitalism, access is expanded regardless of need — yet still restricted for many despite abundance

    Neither asks the most important question:

    What is actually needed, possible, and sustainable?

    A Different Starting Point

    In a resource-based, post-monetary world — like the one explored in Waking Up — the question shifts entirely.

    Instead of asking:

    “What are you allowed to have?”

    We ask:

    “What can be provided — for everyone — without harming the environment that supports us?”

    This is not ideology.
    This is engineering.

    In Waking Up, Aweena — a guide in the future world — puts it simply when guiding Benjamin, the protagonist who has awakened into it and is made of questions:

    “It’s really just simple accounting. If we have the resources and they can be utilized sustainably and at no one else’s expense, why shouldn’t everyone have what they want and need?”

    That’s it.

    But What About Unlimited Desire?

    Today, voices like Elon Musk suggest that in the future, technology — AI and robotics — may be able to fulfill almost any human desire.

    And that raises a natural question:

    What if I want something extreme?

    What if I want a gold-plated castle… just for me and my family?

    Clearly, not everyone can have that in the physical world.

    So does that mean we go back to limitation, rationing, or hierarchy?

    Not necessarily.

    Two Layers of Reality

    In Waking Up, this challenge is approached differently.

    There is a distinction between:

    • Physical reality (what actually consumes resources)
    • Experienced reality (what we perceive and feel)

    Through advanced nano-lens technology, people can experience environments that feel completely real — including living in a golden castle, if they wish.

    It looks real.
    It feels real.
    But it does not require vast physical resources.

    Meanwhile, the actual physical world is designed intelligently and sustainably.

    So instead of forcing reality to match every fantasy…

    we expand experience —
    while keeping physical systems in balance.

    The Real Constraints

    When it comes to the physical world, the limits are not political — they are practical.

    How much land do we actually have?

    The world has about 104 million km² of habitable land.

    But not all of that should be used by us.

    We want to preserve:

    • natural reserves
    • as much forest as possible
    • biodiversity and ecosystems

    So instead of looking at all habitable land, let’s focus on what is already part of human use:

    • cities and settlements
    • agricultural land (which in many cases can be regenerated and optimized)

    And let the rest remain for nature.

    It’s also worth noting that some currently barren or desert areas are already in the process of being regenerated — for example in parts of Africa and China — meaning that over time, additional land could become both habitable and productive again. This also means that the percentage of land available for dwellings could increase over time, without encroaching on forests or natural reserves.

    So let’s do a simple thought experiment

    If we kept the global population stable at 10 billion people, and we assume an average of 4 people per household, that would mean about 2.5 billion families. The UN’s household database defines household size as the average number of usual residents per household, which is the basis for this kind of estimate. (unstats.un.org)

    If we reserved:

    • 5% of habitable land for homes, gardens, and local community space, that would give about 2,080 m² per family
    • 10% of habitable land for that purpose, it would give about 4,160 m² per family

    Those figures are simple arithmetic based on global land area and assumed household size. They are not a prescription, but they show something important:

    even with 10 billion people, the question is not only whether there is space — but how intelligently we choose to use it.

    So what does this actually mean in real terms?

    Let’s take a clear, tangible example:

    What if every family on Earth had around 4,000 m² of land?

    Let that sink in.

    EVERY FAMILY ON EARTH could have this if we simply divided land and distributed resources intelligently.

    And of course — not every family would even want or need this much.

    And that’s the point.

    In a world designed around reality instead of scarcity and competition, we could actually have what we want — at least, for the most part.

    On that land, a family could have:

    • a 500 m² house — spacious, well-designed, lasting quality and highly functional
    • built to stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter
    • with room for the whole family — and guests

    And still have:

    • a large garden with trees, food production, and open space
    • privacy, swimming pool, nature, and room to breathe

    And this is not an extreme scenario.

    It fits within a framework where we:

    • preserve natural reserves
    • keep large forest areas intact
    • maintain efficient agriculture
    • and even expand usable land over time through regeneration

    So the real realization is this:

    we are not lacking land.

    We are lacking intelligent distribution and use of it.

    That is the difference.

    What About Location?

    Of course, this raises another very human question:

    What about where people live?

    We would have to be adults about this — not fall back into fighting over the most desirable locations.

    A fair approach could combine belonging and chance:

    • If a family is native to a place, or has lived on a piece of land for generations, they should have first choice to remain there.
    • For new allocations, or when multiple families want the same location, there could be a transparent draw.

    If two families want the exact same spot, a simple, fair draw resolves it — not wealth, not power, not influence.

    This may feel unfamiliar at first.

    But compare it to today:

    Access to the best locations is already decided — just by money.

    A fair system would simply replace that with belonging, transparency, and equality of opportunity.

    Available Resources

    If we stop wasting, hoarding, and duplicating unnecessarily, the equation changes dramatically.

    We must look at:

    • Food production
    • Materials
    • Energy
    • Manufacturing

    And ask:

    What is truly possible when everything is designed for efficiency instead of profit?

    From Ownership to Access

    Today, we ask:

    “Who owns this?”

    In the new model, we ask:

    “Who needs this — and how do we provide it intelligently?”

    You don’t need to own ten houses. You need access to the space you actually use.

    You don’t need to hoard goods.
    You need reliable access to what improves your life.

    When systems are designed properly:

    Access becomes more abundant than ownership ever was.

    An Example From Reality

    Think about it this way:

    Today, a billionaire might own five tropical islands — but only has access to those five.

    In a system based on shared access instead of ownership, that same person could potentially enjoy thousands of tropical islands.

    In other words, when we share, everyone will have more.

    Less ownership.
    More access.

    And in the end — more freedom.

    So… What Can You Have?

    You can have everything that can exist:

    • within physical limits
    • without harming ecosystems
    • without depriving others

    And beyond that?

    You can experience far more than physical reality alone could ever provide.

    What You Cannot Have

    Let’s be equally honest.

    You cannot have:

    • Unlimited private control over shared resources
    • Excess that comes at the expense of others
    • Systems that degrade the planet for personal gain

    Not because of ideology.

    Because it simply doesn’t work.

    The Real Answer

    So what can you actually have?

    You can have:

    Everything that can be created, sustained, and shared — without taking it from someone else or from the future.

    That’s the boundary.

    And within that boundary:

    There is far more available than we have ever allowed ourselves to imagine.

    A Final Thought

    This is not about less.

    It is about alignment with reality.

    Because when access is based on what is possible — rather than what can be bought or controlled —

    we stop fighting over pieces…

    and start building a world that actually works.

    Curious what such a world could really look like, what it would be like to live in one?

    If so, read Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity

    And if this article resonates with you — feel free to share it. I would appreciate that immensely, and thank you.

  • The Convenient Explanation

    The Convenient Explanation

    The fear of overpopulation is not new.

    It rose to global prominence in the 1970s, when predictions warned that humanity would soon outgrow the Earth’s capacity to sustain us. At the time, the global population had just passed around 3.7 billion, and many projections assumed near-exponential growth—doubling again within a few decades. Books like The Population Bomb warned of hundreds of millions starving by the 1980s and 1990s. Mass starvation, collapse, and crisis were expected within decades.

    But something interesting happened.

    Those predictions did not come true.

    We did not reach the catastrophic population levels that were forecast.

    So the obvious question is:

    Why not?

    What Actually Happened

    Population growth did not continue unchecked.

    In many parts of the world, it slowed down naturally.

    Why?

    Because of education.
    Because of improved living standards.
    Because of access to healthcare and family planning.

    But today, another factor is increasingly visible:

    Because of economic pressure and social stress.

    Rising housing costs, job insecurity, long working hours, and financial strain are making it harder for many to start or grow families.

    When people feel secure, informed, and supported, they tend to have fewer children.

    No coercion required.

    The Fear Returns

    Today, the fear of overpopulation has reemerged.

    Once again, it is presented as one of the central problems of our time.

    And on the surface, it makes sense.

    More people means more consumption.
    More pressure on the planet.

    It appears to be the simplest explanation.

    And therefore, the simplest “solution.”

    But simple does not mean correct.

    The Convenient Explanation

    Blaming overpopulation is convenient.

    It directs attention toward people—

    instead of toward the system we have built.

    Because the uncomfortable truth is this:

    The core problem is not how many we are. It is how we manage what we have.

    Carrying Capacity Is Not Fixed

    Yes, the Earth has limits.

    Of course we must keep our population within its carrying capacity.

    But that capacity is not a fixed number.

    It depends entirely on how efficiently we use our resources.

    According to scientific assessments, the Earth can sustain around 10 billion people—

    if resources are managed properly.

    That means:

    • Optimized production
    • Minimal waste
    • Sustainable use of materials and energy
    • Distribution based on real human needs

    A Note on Space, food and Land

    Another often overlooked point is how misleading population density can be.

    Most of us experience the world through cities, where people are packed closely together. This creates the feeling that the planet itself is overcrowded.

    But globally, that is not the case.

    There are roughly 4.8 billion hectares of agricultural land on Earth. That equals about 48 trillion square meters.

    If we divide that by a global population of around 8.3 billion people, it comes out to roughly:

    ~5,800–6,000 m² PER PERSON.

    This includes land used directly for crops, land used for grazing, and land that contributes to food production or can potentially be restored.

    In other words, a family of four would have access to around 2.3–2.4 hectares of land contributing to their food supply.

    Of course, land is not evenly distributed, and not all of it is equally productive. And if we also include cities, deserts, forests, and other land types, the total available land per person becomes even greater. But the conclusion is difficult to ignore:

    We are not running out of space or resources.

    What we are running into is the limits of how we manage that space and those resources. The same applies to food: globally, we already produce more than enough to meet human nutritional needs—yet hunger still exists, not because of lack of production, but because of how access and distribution are organized.

    The System We Actually Use

    But this is not how our current system operates.

    We do not manage resources directly.

    We manage money.

    And the monetary system is arguably the most wasteful system ever created—it is highly efficient at creating wealth for a few, but not at creating abundance for all.

    It prioritizes:

    • Profit
    • Growth
    • Consumption

    Which leads to:

    • Overproduction
    • Overextraction
    • Overconsumption 
    • Massive waste

    Not because we need it—

    but because the system depends on it.

    When Population Looks Like the Problem

    In our current system, more people will naturally seem like a problem.

    Because the system is already inefficient.

    Already wasteful.

    Already misaligned with real needs.

    So the conclusion becomes:

    “Too many people.”

    But that conclusion is misleading.

    Because what we are really seeing is:

    Too inefficient a system.

    And this is the remarkable paradox:

    We are already around 8.3 billion people on Earth—

    even within this highly inefficient and wasteful system.

    Which means the issue is not that the planet cannot support us.

    The issue is that this system cannot scale much further without increasing stress, inequality, and environmental damage.

    So yes—within this system, many more people do become a huge problem.

    But that only reinforces the real point:

    It is not humanity that has reached its limit.

    It is the system.

    A Better Way to Stay Within Limits

    If we truly care about staying within the Earth’s limits, the answer is not to reduce humanity through fear or force.

    The answer is what has already proven to work:

    • Education
    • Stability
    • Access to knowledge and healthcare

    This naturally leads to balanced population levels over time.

    A Practical Boundary

    It is also worth stating something very simple:

    If we stay around two children born per woman, we are roughly at replacement level.

    That means:

    • No exponential growth
    • A stable global population over time

    This is not a radical idea. It is already happening in many parts of the world—without coercion.

    And importantly, this can be achieved through education and empowerment alone.

    So what are the alternatives often implied?

    Culling? Inhuman.
    Antinatalism? A path that ultimately leads to the extinction of humanity.

    None of these are real solutions.

    The only viable path is the one we already see working:

    Informed, secure, educated societies naturally move toward stable population levels.

    And at the same time, we must address the deeper issue:

    How we manage resources as a global society.

    The Real Shift

    The real challenge is not population.

    It is transition.

    From a system that:

    • Extracts beyond need
    • Produces beyond use
    • Distributes based on purchasing power

    To one that:

    • Optimizes resources
    • Reduces waste
    • Serves real human and ecological needs

    Final Thought

    Overpopulation may look like the problem.

    But more often, it is a reflection of something deeper.

    Because in a world that manages its resources intelligently,

    humanity itself is not the problem.

    The system is. And the system is also the solution.

    A Different Perspective

    What if the problem was never the number of people?

    What if the real issue is the system we’ve been taught not to question?

    And what if a completely different way of organizing the world is not only possible—but already imaginable?

    That is exactly the journey explored in Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    Benjamin Michaels wakes up 100 years into the future… and discovers a world where money is no longer the organizing principle of society.

    👉 Explore the book HERE.

    And if this made you see the overpopulation question from a new angle—please share it. That’s how perspectives shift and we create a new world.

  • Beyond Class War: Why a Livable Future Must Include Everyone

    Beyond Class War: Why a Livable Future Must Include Everyone

    Many visions of social change are built on a familiar story: the poor rise up against the rich, the powerful are overthrown, and a new reality is born from struggle.

    This narrative has deep historical roots. Revolutions, political movements, and countless novels have told the story of history as a conflict between classes.

    But if humanity truly wants to build a peaceful and livable future, we may need to question whether a transition based on class war can ever lead to lasting harmony.

    A Critique Worth Considering

    A recent one‑star review of Waking Up criticized the novel for not following the traditional class‑struggle narrative found in many utopian or socialist novels. The reviewer argued that in most classic works about moneyless societies, change comes from ordinary people struggling against the wealthy. In his words, it is “working people struggling to survive” who should create the transformation, not “the super‑rich who get together to decide to abolish money and property.” He also pointed to other well‑known works in the genre such as Looking Backward, News From Nowhere, and The Dispossessed, suggesting that these stories portray social transformation more realistically.

    This critique is interesting, because it highlights a fundamental assumption that many people bring to discussions about systemic change: that any transition to a better world must be driven by conflict between social classes.

    But is class war really the best path to a better future?

    A Clarification

    It is also worth clarifying a point that the reviewer appears to have misunderstood. In Waking Up, the new world is not created simply because a group of wealthy people decide to abolish money. The character Amo — the daughter of Benjamin Michaels — initiated the first experiments by using the resources available to her to begin creating moneyless communities, the early Cities of Light, within the existing system. These early initiatives acted as prototypes. As the model proved workable, the idea spread and people across the world participated in building and expanding the new system. In other words, the transition was not an elite decision, but a collective evolution that gradually included people from all parts of society.

    The Problem With Class-Based Transitions

    Class conflict may explain parts of history, but building a future on resentment and victory over others creates a dangerous foundation.

    If one group defeats another, the underlying psychology of power and domination often remains. The roles simply reverse. Yesterday’s oppressed can become tomorrow’s oppressors.

    Us Versus Them

    A truly stable and cooperative world cannot emerge from a mentality of “us versus them.” It must move beyond the idea that society is fundamentally divided into enemies.

    Systems, Not People

    Many of the problems humanity faces today are not caused by individual moral failures. They are consequences of the systems we operate within.

    Our economic structures reward competition, accumulation, and short-term gain. People within those systems often behave according to the incentives placed in front of them.

    This means the challenge is not to defeat a particular class of people, but to rethink the systems that shape behavior. History shows that many revolutions replace the people in power while leaving the underlying system of money and ownership largely intact, allowing the same structural problems to reappear with different players.

    But if the rules of the game, and thus the system itself change, human behavior often changes with them.

    An Inclusive Transition

    A future that truly works for everyone cannot exclude large parts of humanity from the process of building it.

    Scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, workers, artists, teachers, and even those who currently benefit from existing systems all possess knowledge, skills, and resources that will be needed to design a better world.

    Instead of framing the transition as a struggle between rich and poor, it may be more productive to see it as a collective realization that the current system no longer serves humanity or the planet.

    When that realization spreads, people from all walks of life can begin contributing to the redesign.

    From Conflict to Cooperation

    History shows that cooperation is one of humanity’s greatest strengths. Entire civilizations have been built through collaboration across cultures, professions, and social groups.

    The challenge of the 21st century may not be to win a class war, but to learn how to coordinate our collective intelligence for the benefit of all.

    The technologies we have today — automation, artificial intelligence, global communication — make it increasingly possible to organize society in ways that were unimaginable in the past.

    But technology alone is not enough. Technology is merely a tool; without the cultural and philosophical mindset to use it wisely, it cannot create a better world.

    A Future Built Together

    If humanity is to create a truly livable future, it may need to move beyond narratives of victory and defeat.

    The real challenge is not to defeat one another, but to redesign the systems that govern our lives.

    That work will require the participation of all of us.

    And perhaps the most hopeful possibility is that the future will not be built by one class triumphing over another — but by humanity discovering that it is, in the end, one family sharing the same planet.

    If this perspective resonates with you, please share this article.

    A world beyond money, conflict, and artificial scarcity is explored through story in the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    Feel free to check it out.

  • THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    The phrase new world order has for many people become associated with fear.
    A hidden plan. Control. Manipulation. Domination.
    A world where ordinary people lose even more power while wealth and influence gather at the top.

    But what if we reclaimed the phrase entirely?

    What if the new world order was not an order of control, but an order of awakening?
    Not a world built on profit, fear, and division — but on love, respect, cooperation, and mutual understanding.

    That is the kind of new world order I support.

    Not one where humanity is ruled more efficiently.
    But one where humanity finally begins to live more wisely.

    The old world order

    The world order we have now is presented as normal.
    We are told that competition is natural.
    That war is often necessary.
    That poverty is unfortunate but unavoidable.
    That greed is simply part of human nature.
    That they must lose so we can win.

    But perhaps this is not civilization at its peak.
    Perhaps it is merely an old operating system that humanity has outgrown.

    Because what kind of order is it, really, when entire economies depend on scarcity, anxiety, debt, exploitation, and endless growth on a finite planet?
    What kind of order calls itself successful while people struggle for food, housing, safety, and dignity — in a world that already has enough resources to care for everyone?

    This is not a true order.


    It is organized disorder.


    A system that keeps producing crises and then asks us to believe the crises are accidental.

    The real war

    We are constantly encouraged to take sides.
    This nation against that nation.
    This religion against that religion.
    This ideology against that ideology.
    This political tribe against that political tribe.

    And meanwhile, the deeper conflict remains largely untouched.

    The real conflict is not between ordinary human beings.
    It is between two ways of organizing life on Earth.

    One is based on fear.
    Fear of lack.
    Fear of others.
    Fear of losing status, property, access, security, identity.

    The other is based on love.
    Not sentimental love, but mature love.
    A love that recognizes that humanity shares one planet, one biosphere, one future.
    A love that understands that no system can truly work if it works only for some.

    The old order trains us to see each other as competitors.
    The new order begins when we recognize each other as fellow beings.
    Not enemies. Not obstacles. Not markets.


    But participants in a shared human story.

    Why do we resist peace?

    This may be one of the strangest questions of all.
    Why is resistance to peace so strong?
    Why do freedom, compassion, and cooperation sound naive to so many, while domination, militarization, and economic brutality are treated as realism?

    Maybe because we have been conditioned for so long that the abnormal now feels normal.
    Maybe because many have built identity, wealth, and power inside the old system and cannot imagine life beyond it.
    Maybe because fear is profitable.
    Maybe because division is useful to those who benefit from it.

    And maybe also because genuine peace asks more of us than slogans do.
    It asks us to grow up.
    To listen.
    To understand.
    To stop projecting evil only outward and begin examining the structures we keep participating in.

    A different kind of world order

    A true new world order would not be built on domination from above.
    It would be built on alignment from within.

    It would begin with a simple recognition:


    the Earth and its resources are the common inheritance of humanity.

    From that recognition, everything begins to shift.

    The purpose of society would no longer be to maximize profit.
    It would be to maximize well-being, freedom, meaning, health, ecological balance, and human flourishing.

    As someone once put it in a simple but powerful way: “Love is the currency of the new Earth.”

    And you could say that in the world of Waking Up, this is exactly what has emerged — or as they call it: GROJ: Gratitude, Love, and Joy.

    Not as a literal currency, but as the underlying human energy that replaces fear, scarcity, and competition — shaping how we relate, create, and live together.

    Technology would not be used primarily to enrich a few.
    It would be used to serve all.

    Production would no longer be driven mainly by what is most profitable.
    It would be guided by what is most intelligent, humane, and sustainable.

    Politics would not revolve around managing permanent conflict.

    It would be replaced by a planetary stewardship system focused on solving real problems for all life on Earth.

    And other human beings — no matter where they were born — would no longer be seen as threats by default, but as members of the same human family.

    The world of Waking Up

    This is exactly why I wrote Waking Up.

    Because sometimes the clearest way to describe a better future is not through argument alone, but through story.
    Through a world that people can enter.
    Through a character who opens his eyes and finds that humanity did not destroy itself after all, but evolved.

    The world of Waking Up is, in many ways, the true new world order.
    Not a dark global regime, but a planetary civilization based on cooperation instead of competition, stewardship instead of ownership, and intelligent sharing instead of artificial scarcity.

    A world where love is not just a private emotion, but a civilizational principle.

    That may sound unrealistic to some. But perhaps the truly unrealistic idea is believing that the current system — with its wars, waste, stress, inequality, ecological destruction, and permanent insecurity — is the best we can do — or even something that is sustainable at all.

    Time to reclaim the future

    So yes — I support a new world order.

    But not one of fear.
    Not one of coercion.
    Not one of profit-driven control.

    I support a new world order rooted in love, respect, mutual understanding, and the recognition that we are not separate from one another.

    Humanity does not need better ways to dominate.
    It needs better ways to live.

    And perhaps that is where the real awakening begins.

    If this vision resonates with you, please share this article. Thank you.

    And if you want to explore this kind of future through story, have a look at the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    Because maybe the most powerful thing we can do now is not merely to fear the future — but to imagine it better.

  • The Paradox of Our Time

    The Paradox of Our Time

    In Norway — one of the richest countries on Earth — homelessness is now rising sharply.

    A country with vast wealth, strong institutions, and a well-functioning welfare system is seeing more and more people without a place to live.

    Pause for a moment and let that sink in.

    This is not happening in a failed state or a poor country.

    It is happening inside one of the most successful systems we have ever built.

    Now zoom out.

    200 million homes

    Around the world today, roughly 150 million people are homeless. At the same time, an estimated 200 million homes sit vacant.

    In simple numerical terms, humanity actually has more empty homes than homeless people.

    Yet the two groups rarely meet.

    Why?

    ⸻

    The Strange Paradox

    If we looked at the world purely from a practical or engineering perspective, the problem might seem straightforward.

    We have vacant homes.

    People need shelter.

    Connect the two.

    Problem solved.

    But the real world does not operate according to that logic. Instead, housing is governed by a very different architecture — the architecture of money, ownership, and markets.

    Within that system, a house is not just shelter. It is also:

    • an investment

    • a store of wealth

    • a speculative asset

    • a tradable commodity

    Once housing takes on these financial roles, something unfortunate happens: a home no longer needs to be lived in to have value.

    In fact, it can sometimes be more valuable when it is empty.

    This became especially visible after the financial crisis of 2008, where failed property investments left entire developments standing unused — something still visible today in places like the Costa Blanca in Spain, where rows of houses built for speculation never found residents.

    ⸻

    When Shelter Becomes an Asset

    In many cities around the world, property prices rise year after year. Investors buy homes not primarily to live in them, but to hold them while their value increases.

    Second homes, vacation homes, speculative apartments, and investment properties accumulate.

    Meanwhile, people without sufficient income cannot access those same homes — even if they are standing empty.

    The market does not ask who needs shelter.

    It asks who can pay — and ignores everyone else.

    This is how a strange situation emerges:

    • Homes exist.

    • People need homes.

    • Yet access is blocked by purchasing power.

    The result is the paradox we see today: an abundance of buildings, yet scarcity of access.

    ⸻

    A System Designed for trade

    To be fair, the monetary system was not originally designed to distribute housing based on human need. It was designed to organize trade and exchange.

    In that framework, property belongs to owners, and owners decide how and when it is used.

    From the perspective of the system, nothing is broken.

    An empty house still has value. It can be sold, rented later, inherited, or held as an asset.

    But from a human perspective, the contradiction becomes obvious.

    When people sleep without shelter while homes stand empty, the question naturally arises:

    Is the problem a lack of resources — or a flaw in how we organize access to them?

    ⸻

    Rethinking the Question

    The homelessness crisis is often framed as a shortage of buildings. But the numbers suggest something different.

    Humanity clearly has the technical ability to house everyone.

    The deeper challenge may lie in the structure we have built to manage resources.

    A ystem that prioritize ownership and financial return can produce outcomes that appear irrational from a human perspective — even while functioning exactly as designed.

    And this is why what is happening in Norway matters.

    Because it shows that even at the highest level of wealth and development, the same pattern appears. The monetary system is ruthless and does not care about the general standard of living in a country. It works the same everywhere.

    ⸻

    A Thought for the Future

    Perhaps one of the most important questions humanity faces is not simply how to build more houses.

    It may be how to design a system that ensure the basic necessities of life — food, shelter, water, healthcare — are accessible to everyone, not just to those who can successfully compete within the marketplace.

    If we are capable of building cities, skyscrapers, and entire global supply chains, surely we are also capable of building systems that make sure no human being is left without a safe place to sleep.

    The empty houses are already there.

    The question is no longer whether we can solve the housing problem.

    It is whether we are willing to.

    But is this how it must be forever?

    Is this the peak of our civilization?

    Or are we even civilized when people sleep on the streets while homes stand empty?

    Maybe there is another way.

    And that is exactly what Benjamin Michaels discovers when he wakes up after 100 years of cryonic sleep…

    Through his journey, the question is no longer theoretical. It becomes lived experience: what happens when stewardship and access replaces ownership, and when a civilization decides that no one should be left without a place to call home?

    If this reflection resonates with you, I urge you to please consider sharing this article so more people can join the conversation.

    You can also explore the ideas above as story in the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

  • The Fourth Industrial Revolution

    The Fourth Industrial Revolution

    We are often told that humanity has entered something called The Fourth Industrial Revolution. The concept was popularized by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum in 1971.

    The Transformation

    According to the popular narrative, new technologies—artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, sensors, and global data networks—are transforming the world faster than any previous technological wave in history. Factories are becoming autonomous. Cars are beginning to drive themselves. Algorithms now perform tasks that once required trained professionals.

     His argument is that governments, corporations, and global institutions must cooperate to guide the transformation responsibly.

    Schwab warns about risks such as:

    • massive job displacement

    • technological inequality

    • social instability

    ⸻

    The transformation is real. But the real question is not technological.

    The real question is what kind of society these technologies will create.

    The Three First Industrial Revolutions

    The first industrial revolution mechanized human labor with steam power.

    vintage photo of the train
    Photo by Malcolm Hill on Pexels.com

    The second industrial revolution introduced electricity and mass production.

    large parking with cars of manufacture
    Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

    The third industrial revolution digitized information through computers and the internet.

    turned off vintage white and black computer
    Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

    Increased Productivity

    Each industrial revolution dramatically increased productivity and reshaped society. At the same time, because the economic system remained based on money, ownership, and capital accumulation, each wave also tended to concentrate power and wealth into fewer hands. The owners of the new technologies—factories, energy systems, and later digital platforms—captured disproportionate gains, allowing influence and economic power to accumulate around a relatively small number of individuals and institutions.

    Now the fourth Industrial revolution promises something even more profound:

    automation of both physical and intellectual work.

    portrait of a humanoid robot
    Photo by igovar igovar on Pexels.com

    Machines no longer just replace muscles.

    They increasingly replace thinking.

    The solution?

    The most discussed solution is the possibility of policies such as Universal Basic Income, where people receive a basic payment from the state even if they are not employed.

    But this approach raises a deeper question.

    How would an economic system built on wages and taxes survive at all in a world where human labor is increasingly unnecessary?

    The Likely Outcome

    If the fourth industrial revolution unfolds while the underlying economic architecture remains unchanged, the most plausible result is what could be called extreme techno‑capitalism.

    In such a world:

    • automated factories produce most goods

    • artificial intelligence performs much intellectual work

    • autonomous systems run logistics, finance, and infrastructure

    But ownership of these systems remains private and highly concentrated.

    The result is simple.

    Machines produce the wealth.

    Owners accumulate the wealth.

    Everyone else must somehow survive within the system. Jobs will be scarce, pay will be little and goods barely affordable.

    Governments may attempt to stabilize society through subsidies or basic income programs. But this merely keeps the old system functioning artificially. 

    Instead of workers earning income through meaningful contribution, large parts of the population could become economically redundant.

    The social consequences of such a structure are difficult to imagine as desirable. 

    surveillance

    In order to maintain stability in a society with extreme inequality and large populations that the economic system no longer needs, governments and corporations would likely rely heavily on technological monitoring and control. Massive AI-driven surveillance systems could become normal: cameras and sensors everywhere, automated facial recognition, predictive algorithms monitoring behavior, and robotic security systems patrolling streets to ensure that no one steps out of line. The world could begin to resemble the dystopian futures long imagined in science-fiction films.

    Extreme inequality, social tension, and heavy technological monitoring would likely become permanent features of the system.

    The Hidden Contradiction

    The deeper contradiction is rarely discussed.

    Industrial revolutions increase productivity by reducing the need for human labor.

    But the modern economic system distributes purchasing power primarily through wages from labor.

    When machines increasingly perform the work, the foundation of the system begins to erode.

    Trying to preserve this system through subsidies or basic income is like attempting to maintain a horse‑based transportation system after the invention of the automobile.

    The technology has already moved beyond the structure.

    A Different Possibility

    There may be another way to think about this transformation.

    If automation can produce most goods and services, society could begin organizing itself around direct management of resources and production, rather than around prices, wages, and ownership.

    Instead of distributing money, societies could ensure access to what people actually need.

    The technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution—AI, global data networks, and automated production—make it possible to monitor resources, coordinate production, and distribute goods far more efficiently than any price system ever could. It would literally be a priceless world. 

    The real challenge, therefore, may not be technological at all.

    It may be institutional imagination.

    Imagine This

    Imagine waking up in a world where humanity has finally solved the problem it struggled with for centuries.

    Not by redistributing money.

    Not by building bigger governments.

    But by redesigning the system itself.

    In this world, the extraordinary productivity of automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence is no longer used to create unemployment, inequality, surveillance and competition for survival.

    Instead, it is used to provide what humanity has always wanted:

    Security.

    Freedom.

    Time to live.

    Cities that are clean, quiet, and filled with greenery.

    Transportation that moves silently through the streets and through the air.

    Production that is largely automated, coordinated locally and globally, and optimized to minimize waste and environmental damage.

    Food, goods, and services are available through distribution centers — places that look like stores, but without prices.

    People simply take what they need.

    Because when abundance is organized intelligently, the fear of scarcity disappears.

    Trust becomes the operating principle of society — just as it already quietly is in countless parts of our lives already.

    People create, research, build, explore, teach, design, and invent — not because they must earn a salary to survive, but because human curiosity and creativity finally have room to flourish.

    This is the world Benjamin Michaels wakes up to after one hundred years of cryonic sleep in the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    But the story is far from a simple tour through a perfect world.

    Because even in a better world, the debate about how society should function never completely disappears.

    Especially when humanity begins waking people from the past — former billionaires and secret agents whose minds were shaped by the old monetary system.

    Some of them are not convinced the new world should exist at all…

    And that is exactly where the story begins.

    If this perspective resonates with you, I urge you to share this article. Thank you.

    The question now is whether we will simply automate the old system…

    or whether we are willing to design something better.

  • Life After Redesign

    Life After Redesign

    In the previous article, Redistribution vs. Redesign, I suggested that many of the challenges humanity faces today may not be solved by redistributing wealth within the current system, but by redesigning the system itself. Redistribution attempts to adjust the outcomes of the existing structure, while redesign asks a deeper question: whether the structure itself is what creates the problems in the first place.

    The Question

    That idea often leads to an immediate question:

    What would life actually look like after such a redesign — a redesign that leads to a world without money and ownership?

    Would shops disappear?
    Would production collapse?
    Would society fall into chaos?
    Or could everyday life actually become simpler and more human?

    The Confusion

    For many people, the idea of a world without money or trading sounds confusing at first. But that confusion mainly comes from looking at the question through today’s mindset, where the planet is divided into ownership and access depends on money. If no one owned the planet and no one could claim exclusive ownership over parts of it, there would be nothing to trade in the first place. Money would simply have no role. Instead, the question would shift to something much more practical: how humanity can organize the most intelligent and fair ways of sharing this planet as one global family.

    The Production

    But the assumption of chaos also comes from confusing money with the systems that actually produce and distribute the things we need.

    The farms that grow food would still exist.
    Factories would still produce tools, clothes, and technology.
    Logistics networks would still move goods around the world.
    And places where people collect what they need — shops, distribution centers, or community hubs — would still be there.

    What would disappear is not production or distribution.

    What would disappear is simply the payment step.

    Instead of the chain looking like this:

    Production → Transport → Shop → Payment → Access

    It could simply look like this:

    Production → Transport → Distribution → Access

    In other words, people would still walk into a place where food and everyday goods are available. The difference is that access would no longer depend on having the right amount of money.

    The Trust Based Economy

    At this point many people ask a very practical question: what would stop someone from simply emptying the store and taking far more than they need?

    The impulse to hoard usually comes from fear of scarcity. In a system designed around continuous access to goods, hoarding quickly becomes pointless. If you know you can return tomorrow and find the same items available, there is little reason to take more than you need today.

    Human societies have always relied not only on rules but also on social norms, trust, and simple practicality. Even today we constantly trust each other to honor agreements and to act in good faith. When we buy something in a store, we trust that the contents of the package are actually what the label says they are. We trust each others to heed agreements that we have made. We trust that the money we pay with are not counterfeit. Most people already take what they need in shared situations — at buffets, public spaces, libraries, or community resources. Physical limits also apply: a person can only carry so much, store so much, and consume so much. What can easily be hoarded today is not products themselves but money — a compact, abstract unit that can be accumulated without practical limits. Especially when they are only numbers in an account.

    In smaller, human-scale communities, where people feel connected to the places they live and to each other, social responsibility often becomes a natural regulator. Taking wildly excessive amounts would quickly become visible and socially questioned. And practical limits apply as well — how many bananas could someone realistically hoard anyway? Most fresh food spoils quickly, which naturally discourages stockpiling. Physical good take up space and are not always easily transported.

    In other words, the system would not rely on money to regulate behavior, but on a combination of abundance, transparency, trust, and human social norms.

    Would There Be Enough?

    Another question people often ask is: would there actually be enough for everyone?

    This question also comes from the experience of living inside a system where access depends on money and where scarcity is often artificially created by price, marketing, and competition.

    In reality, modern production systems are already capable of producing enormous quantities of goods. The challenge today is not primarily production or resources, but distribution and the economic rules that control access.

    Food is often destroyed while people go hungry. Houses stand empty while people need housing. Warehouses are full of products waiting for buyers.

    A redesigned system would simply focus production on meeting real human needs rather than maximizing sales. That alone would likely make abundance far easier to achieve.

    Product Design

    Another interesting question is how products themselves might look in such a world — and here too it would largely be up to our own creativity how we design and decorate packaging.

    Today many products are designed primarily to compete for attention. Packaging is colorful, flashy, and optimized for marketing because companies must constantly fight for visibility in stores.

    In a system where products are simply available rather than competing for sales, packaging could become far simpler and more practical.

    A toothpaste tube might indeed look very simple — perhaps mostly white, with a clear label that simply says:

    TOOTHPASTE

    But that does not necessarily mean the world would become dull or boring. Quite the opposite. When products no longer need to scream for attention in order to sell, design can focus on durability, usability, beauty, and sustainability rather than marketing—and it could still be colorful and expressive if that is what people enjoy.

    If we prefer simple black-and-white toothpaste tubes, we can design them that way. If we prefer colorful and playful products on the shelves, we can create that too. Colors and aesthetics would still exist — but they could serve human enjoyment rather than commercial competition.

    The result might actually be environments that are calmer, less visually noisy, and more thoughtfully designed.

    Communities

    Another likely change is how we organize our living environments.

    Today many people live in enormous megacities largely shaped by economic forces. But humans tend to function better in environments that are more human-scale.

    It is easy to imagine communities of perhaps a few thousand to around ten thousand people — large enough to support schools, healthcare, culture, and local production, yet small enough that people feel connected to the place where they live.

    Food could be grown locally where possible, supported by regional and global logistics networks that distribute what cannot be produced close by.

    Contribution

    In such a world, people would no longer need to choose their activities primarily based on what pays the bills.

    Instead, people could contribute in areas where their interests, talents, and curiosity naturally lead them.

    Some people genuinely enjoy farming.
    Some love engineering.
    Some enjoy teaching, cooking, building, researching, or creating music.

    Human beings are naturally curious and creative. When basic survival is secured, contribution often becomes something people want to do, not something they are forced to do. In such an environment, creativity would likely blossom in every field — from science and engineering to art, music, agriculture, architecture, and new ways of organizing everyday life.

    Technology

    And the work that few people enjoy — dangerous, repetitive, or exhausting labor — is exactly the kind of work that modern technology is increasingly capable of handling.

    Automation, robotics, and AI are already transforming industries today.

    In a redesigned system, these technologies could finally be used for what they were always meant to do:

    to free human beings from unnecessary labor — something that is already increasingly possible today, as AI and robotics are reaching the level where they can perform many of the tasks humans currently do.

    Imagine Through Story

    For many readers, this may still feel abstract. After all, we have lived inside a monetary system for so long that imagining life beyond it can be difficult.

    This is precisely why I wrote the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    The story follows Benjamin Michaels, who wakes up one hundred years in the future in a world where humanity has redesigned its systems and learned to organize society in a way that works for everyone and for the planet.

    It is not simply a guided tour of a better future. The story unfolds as a real drama, where Benjamin encounters allies and opponents — including a former secret agent who tries to bring back the old monetary system. He also meets long-lost family, forming relationships that add emotion, tension, and discovery to the journey.

    Through his eyes, readers get a glimpse of what life might actually feel like in such a world — not as theory, but as lived experience.

    Because sometimes the easiest way to explore the future is not through economic models or political debates…

    but by stepping into it through a story.

    If this vision resonates with you, you can explore that world through the novel:

    Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity

    If you think more people should be part of this conversation, please share this article. Thank you.

  •   Redistribution vs.  Redesign 

      Redistribution vs.  Redesign 

    Our world today is a dense jungle of ownership.

    Property borders. Intellectual property. Patents. Land titles. Corporate ownership structures. National borders. Mineral rights. Water rights. Airspace. Fishing quotas.

    Layer upon layer of legal claims about who owns what.

    And on top of this already complex system sits money — the universal measuring stick that is supposed to tell us what all these claims are “worth.”

    How much is this land worth?
    How much is this company worth?
    How much is your property worth compared to mine?

    Lawyers argue. Real‑estate brokers estimate. Buyers negotiate. Sellers speculate.

    But a deeper question is rarely asked:

    How much is the land actually worth to humanity?

    Or even more fundamentally:

    Should the planet itself be something that can be owned at all?

    The Redistribution Idea

    Many people sense that the current system produces extreme inequality. A small number of people control enormous wealth, while billions struggle.

    The intuitive response is therefore often:

    “We need redistribution.”

    Take wealth from those who have too much and give it to those who have too little.

    At first glance this sounds fair. But redistribution faces a profound problem.

    It assumes that the underlying idea of ownership itself is correct — and that the only issue is who currently holds the pieces.

    But what if the real problem is not distribution?

    What if the real problem is the design of the system itself?

    Redistribution Inside a Broken System

    Imagine attempting to redistribute everything on Earth in a fair way:

    Land. Companies. Natural resources. Intellectual property. Infrastructure. Housing.

    Who would decide how it should be divided?

    Nations? Courts? Committees? International negotiations?

    Every border would be contested. Every claim debated. Every group arguing why their share should be larger.

    In a world already filled with conflict over territory and resources, redistribution could easily create even more conflict. No one wants to give up what they own when that ownership was somehow fought for and legal.

    We already see what happens when ownership claims collide.

    Countries fight wars over land.
    Corporations fight lawsuits over patents.
    Nations compete over oil, minerals, and trade routes.

    Sometimes the country with the largest military simply takes what it wants.

    And when oil fields burn, the smoke does not stay inside borders. The pollution spreads across the planet and harms even those who bombed them from afar.

    Redistribution inside the same ownership framework risks becoming little more than a new round of conflict over the same pieces of the game board.

    A Different Question

    Instead of asking:

    “Who should own what?”

    What if we asked something far deeper:

    “Why should anyone own the planet at all?”

    The Earth existed long before any legal system. Forests, rivers, oceans, and ecosystems are not human inventions.

    They are the foundation of all life.

    Yet humanity has divided this shared inheritance into billions of pieces of property, each with its own legal owner.

    From a planetary perspective, the situation is strangely chaotic.

    Redesign Instead of Redistribution

    Rather than redistributing ownership, we could imagine redesigning the system itself.

    A simple reset principle could look like this:

    No one owns the Earth.

    Instead:

    Humanity belongs to the planet — and shares responsibility for it.

    Land and resources would no longer exist primarily as objects of speculation and trade.

    They would exist as shared assets that must be stewarded intelligently.

    In such a system the goal would not be maximizing profit from land, but maximizing:

    • ecological health
    • long‑term sustainability
    • human well‑being
    • efficient use of resources

    Cities, agriculture, forests, and infrastructure could then be organized according to what actually works best for people and nature — not according to historic ownership claims that may be centuries old.

    But this does not mean people would suddenly lose their homes, farms, or places they love. The transition would not be about taking land away from people, but about changing the relationship to the land itself.

    Those who already live on and care for land would simply continue doing so — not as owners, but as stewards.

    If your family has lived on a farm for generations, nothing would prevent you from continuing to live there after such a transition, if that is what you wish. The farm would remain your home and your responsibility.

    The difference is philosophical rather than practical: instead of claiming permanent ownership of a piece of the planet, you would steward it on behalf of the living world and the human community.

    In other words, people would not lose their land — they would gain a new role: caretakers of the part of the Earth they know best.

    Equal Belonging, Not Identical Pieces

    When people hear the idea that humanity shares the planet, they sometimes imagine that everything must be divided into perfectly identical pieces.

    But equality does not necessarily mean identical plots of land.

    It means equal belonging to the planet.

    In a redesigned system, different families and communities might live on different amounts of land depending on geography, lifestyle, preference and needs.

    One family might live on two hectares.
    Another might live on three hectares.

    Some might prefer an apartment with much less responsibility.

    But if land is no longer something to accumulate or speculate on, those differences stop being a source of competition.

    They simply reflect different ways of living.

    One family might grow food or keep animals and therefore use more space.
    Another family might prefer a smaller homestead and rely more on shared community resources.

    Instead of rigid ownership boundaries, communities could cooperate.

    Neighbors might share tools, knowledge, gardens, or even land use when it makes sense.

    A family with more land might share agricultural knowledge with others.
    Another family might contribute technical skills, medicine, teaching, or craftsmanship.

    The planet becomes not a battlefield of property claims, but a network of stewardship.

    Sharing the Fruits of the Land

    A natural question then arises: if land is no longer owned as private property, how are the products of that land shared?

    The key lies in a very simple principle that humans have practiced in communities for thousands of years:

    Use what you need. Share the surplus.

    A family cultivating three hectares might produce more food than they personally need. Instead of selling that surplus for profit, the excess simply becomes part of the natural flow of resources within the community.

    Nearby families, communities, and cities draw from that flow according to need. In return they contribute in their own ways — through other crops, technical skills, medicine, teaching, construction, research, art, or care.

    Importantly, this does not require a central authority collecting everything and redistributing it, as many historical attempts at centralized planning tried to do.

    There is no need for a state warehouse where all production must be delivered.

    Instead, sharing happens organically through human relationships, cooperation, and mutual trust.

    Families use what they need from the land they steward. The surplus naturally flows outward — to neighbors, nearby communities, or even further away when needed.

    People already possess an innate sense of fairness and reciprocity. When the pressures of competition, scarcity, and profit disappear, that sense of respect and brotherhood becomes the natural organizing principle of society.

    In other words, the question shifts from:

    “What can I sell this for?”

    to:

    “Who can benefit from what we have more than enough of right now?”

    Modern Technology

    Modern technology can help coordinate this flow by mapping needs and resources so that food, materials, and services move efficiently to where they are most useful, and it can also assist directly with growing, monitoring, and harvesting crops so that land is cultivated in the most efficient and sustainable way possible. And of course transport and distribute it to where it is needed.

    Instead of millions of isolated transactions, the economy becomes a living network of contribution and shared abundance.

    Within such a system the family on two hectares and the family on three hectares are not competitors. They are simply different contributors to the same shared world.

    The Only Universal Principle

    Every culture on Earth already contains the same moral intuition:

    Respect. 

    The common denominator

    Respect for neighbors.
    Respect for different beliefs.
    Respect for life.
    Respect for the land that sustains us.

    When respect becomes the guiding principle rather than competition over ownership, the logic of the system changes.

    The question is no longer:

    “How much can I extract from this piece of land for myself?”

    The question becomes:

    “How can we care for this part of the Earth so that both nature and humanity can thrive?”

    From Jungle to Garden

    The current system resembles a jungle of legal claims, property lines, and competing interests.

    A redesigned system could begin to resemble something else entirely:

    A carefully tended garden planet — where land and resources are organized with intelligence, cooperation, and long‑term thinking.

    The choice facing humanity may not be between capitalism and socialism, or between markets and redistribution.

    The deeper choice may be between:

    • endlessly fighting over ownership

    or

    • redesigning the system itself.

    If this perspective resonates with you, I urge you to share this article. Thank you.

    And if you want to explore a vision of how a redesigned world could function in practice, imagine how it must have been for the former billionaire Benjamin Michaels when he wakes up after 100 years of cryonic sleep only to find that money and ownership doesn’t exist anymore… He journeys through this new world first hand in the novel:

    Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity

  • The role model for the world?

    The role model for the world?

    Yesterday Spain made a remarkable decision.

    As tensions rise in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, Spain refused to be drawn into the war. The Spanish government denied the use of its military bases for offensive operations and signaled clearly that it would not participate in military escalation.

    Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez summarized the position in four simple words:

    “No a la guerra.” — No to war.

    The position was not without pressure. The United States reportedly pushed hard for cooperation and the use of Spanish bases, but Madrid stood firm. Rather than joining the escalation, Spain held its line and called for restraint. In the wider European Union, several leaders signaled understanding and support for Spain’s stance, reinforcing the idea that diplomacy — not another expanding war — should guide the response.

    In a world where nations often line up quickly behind military alliances, that refusal stands out.

    Spain did not deny the seriousness of the situation in the Middle East. But it chose a different response. Instead of contributing to escalation, it called for restraint, diplomacy, and de‑escalation.

    This stance is not accidental. It reflects something deeper in Spanish society.

    Spain knows what war does to a country.

    Civil War

    The Spanish Civil War tore the nation apart. Families were divided. Cities were destroyed. The trauma of that conflict echoed through generations. Even after the war, decades of dictatorship reshaped the country politically, socially, and even environmentally through massive infrastructure projects that altered landscapes and water systems.

    The lesson was harsh, but it was learned.

    War leaves scars that last far longer than the battles themselves.

    Perhaps that is why modern Spain developed such a strong cultural instinct for peace.

    In 2003, when the Iraq War began, millions of Spaniards filled the streets with a simple message:

    “No a la guerra.”

    The same words that echo again today.

    No To War

    Spain still maintains an army and remains part of international alliances. But within Spanish society there is often a strong skepticism toward war and military escalation.

    The culture leans toward something else: coexistence.

    And this may not be surprising.

    For centuries Spain has been a crossroads of civilizations. Romans, Arabs, Jews, Christians, and many others have shaped its culture. When so many cultures have lived on the same land, the simplistic idea of “us versus them”becomes harder to sustain.

    You begin to realize something deeper:

    We are all part of the same human story.

    In a world that often seems to drift toward confrontation, Spain’s stance in the current crisis offers a quiet reminder of another possibility.

    Human history has been marked by wars for centuries. Empires rose and fell through conflict. Nations armed themselves in endless cycles of fear, retaliation, and dominance.

    But what if that long chapter of history is not the final one?

    What if humanity eventually learns from those scars?

    Are we Waking Up?

    In Waking Up, the world of the 22nd century looks back at our time much the same way we now look back at the brutal wars of the past. Humanity finally realized that endless conflict was a dead end. Instead of competing for control, people began organizing the world around cooperation, shared stewardship of the planet, and the understanding that we are ultimately one human family.

    Seen from that perspective, moments like Spain’s decision today feel like small glimpses of that future — reminders that nations can choose restraint instead of escalation, and dialogue instead of destruction.

    Perhaps these moments are early signs of a lesson humanity is slowly beginning to understand.

    Could you imagine a world that truly moved beyond “us vs. them”?

    Benjamin Michaels wakes up in such a world in Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity — a future where humanity has learned to organize itself around cooperation rather than conflict.

    Please share this article if it resonates.

  • Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities

    Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities

    We hear it everywhere:

    “There is too much inequality.”
    “We need a fairer world.”
    “Reduce inequality within and among countries.”

    The United Nations has even made it a global objective — Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities — not merely as a moral gesture, but because persistent inequality is linked to political instability, social unrest, fragile economic growth, migration pressure, and declining trust in institutions. In other words, reducing inequality is viewed as a way to preserve systemic stability at both national and global levels.

    That sounds noble. Necessary. Urgent.

    But here is the deeper question:

    What is inequality actually a symptom of?

    The Surface Debate

    Most public conversations about inequality focus on distribution of money.

    • Tax the rich more.
    • Strengthen welfare systems.
    • Introduce Universal Basic Income.
    • Improve access to education.

    All of these operate within the existing structure.

    They assume the architecture itself is sound — it just needs adjustment.

    But what if inequality is not merely a distribution issue?
    What if it is a hardwired structural outcome?

    The Systemic Mechanism

    Our modern economy is built on three core principles:

    1. Hoardable tokens (money).
    2. Legally protected ownership claims that almost can be infinite.
    3. The ability for assets to compound over time.

    When tokens can be stored indefinitely,
    When ownership rights can be accumulated without upper bound,
    And when returns on assets generate further returns,

    concentration and inequality is not an accident. It is a predictable mathematical outcome.

    This is not a moral accusation.
    It is system dynamics.

    If returns on capital outpace overall economic growth, wealth will consolidate. If wealth consolidates, influence consolidates. If influence consolidates, opportunity narrows.

    Inequality then becomes structural.

    Inequality vs. Diversity

    There is another confusion in the debate that deserves clarity.

    Equality of rights does not mean sameness of people.

    A world in which every human being has secure access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, and safety would not become uniform or grey. Quite the opposite.

    When people are fed and safe, survival anxiety decreases. When survival anxiety decreases, creativity expands. And when creativity expands, diversity flourishes.

    Art, science, entrepreneurship, philosophy, culture — all blossom more freely when basic insecurity no longer dominates attention.

    Reducing structural exclusion is not about making everyone identical.
    It is about removing artificial barriers so human variation can express itself without fear.

    True diversity requires security.
    True equality of rights enables difference.

    Inequality vs. Exclusion

    Two people being unequal is not automatically a crisis.

    The destabilizing threshold appears when inequality turns into exclusion.

    When large portions of a population:

    • Lack secure access to essentials.
    • Experience frozen mobility.
    • Feel the system is rigged.
    • Lose trust in institutions.

    Then inequality shifts from statistical difference to systemic fracture.

    Global institutions acknowledge this. High inequality correlates with political instability, social unrest, polarization, and fragile growth.

    In other words:
    Inequality destabilizes systems.

    But notice the subtlety.

    The official response is not to question the architecture of ownership.
    The response is to manage inequality so the system remains stable.

    The Structural Question

    Here is the uncomfortable possibility:

    What if the very permission structure of exclusion — the ability to accumulate almost unlimited claims over finite resources — is the generator of recurring inequality?

    If that is true, then redistribution of tokens can soften symptoms, but cannot remove the underlying dynamic.

    The debate then shifts from:
    “How do we reduce inequality?”

    to:
    “What kind of system generates secure access without requiring exclusionary accumulation?”

    That is not a small reform.
    It is a total design change.

    Beyond Redistribution

    History shows that pressure has shaped humanity.
    Ownership and trade accelerated development, coordination, and innovation.

    But systems evolve.

    At some point, a structure that once created growth may begin to generate instability.

    If we are now facing ever widening gaps, environmental overshoot, political polarization, and systemic fragility, perhaps the question is no longer how to manage inequality — but whether the architecture itself needs to change.

    A mature civilization will not eliminate all differences.
    But it would ensure universal sufficiency.

    It would guarantee secure access allowing everyone to thrive.

    It would treat planetary resources as shared inheritance rather than infinite private claims.

    The Real Conversation

    This is not about resentment.
    It is not about class war.
    It is not about punishing success.

    It is about structural coherence.

    If inequality repeatedly destabilizes the system,
    then perhaps inequality is not the disease.
    Perhaps it is the signal.

    The real question is not:
    “Who has too much?”

    The real question is:
    “What kind of architecture produces recurring exclusion — and what would a post‑exclusion system look like?”

    That is the conversation we have barely begun.

    If you like this article, please share it.

    And if you want to explore what a structurally different civilization might look like, you can begin with the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity.

    The story is only just beginning.

    And don’t forget, the free companion book is out now.