Tag: CIVILIZATION

  • The End of Civilization… or the Beginning?

    The End of Civilization… or the Beginning?

    “We have to understand that we are now at the end of civilization.

    Those words were spoken by Lyndon LaRouche in 2008. He warned that the policies being pursued in the United States and Europe were leading humanity towards a global disaster in the near future.

    I am not interested here in defending LaRouche’s politics, his economic proposals, or his particular predictions.

    But that sentence interests me.

    The end of civilization

    Because when we hear those words, we instinctively imagine catastrophe.

    Cities in ruins. Institutions collapsing. Supply chains breaking down. War, hunger, chaos. Perhaps even the extinction of humanity itself.

    But there is another possibility.

    What if we really are approaching the end of civilization as we know it?

    And what if that is a good thing?

    What if what is ending isn’t civilization at all, but an extraordinarily primitive way of organizing it?

    Perhaps the end of civilization as we know it could finally become the beginning of civilization as it ought to be.

    Are we civilized?

    We call ourselves civilized.

    It is worth asking why.

    We have magnificent cities. We have universities, governments, courts, hospitals, museums and concert halls. We have satellites circling the planet and machines exploring other worlds. We have mapped the human genome. We communicate across continents instantaneously. We have developed artificial intelligence capable of processing amounts of information no individual human could comprehend.

    Technologically, our achievements are astonishing.

    But technology and civilization are not the same thing.

    Imagine describing humanity to an intelligent extraterrestrial visitor without using the word civilization.

    There are more than eight billion members of the same species living on a small planet.

    They have divided the planet into approximately 200 territories and drawn imaginary lines between them. They compete for resources. They maintain enormous military organizations to defend those lines and their respective interests. Some possess enough weapons to destroy entire cities within minutes.

    Members of the species regularly kill other members of the species because they belong to different nations, religions, ethnic groups, political movements or economic interests. Is this truly civilized? Not in my eyes. 

    Using massive amounts of resources to “defend” one country and attack others only to “secure resources” is not civilized to me. Rather, it is the peak of human stupidity, as instead of doing that we could rather communicate and optimize all resources to the benefit of everyone and thus avoid war completely. Create paradise…?

    Meanwhile, access to virtually everything people need to survive is mediated through an artificial accounting system called money.

    Food can exist while people remain hungry because they cannot afford it.

    Homes can stand empty while people sleep on the street.

    Medicine can exist while sick people cannot obtain it.

    Useful products can be destroyed because distributing them would not be profitable.

    People can be prevented from contributing their abilities because nobody can afford to employ them or they don’t fit in.

    Entire industries depend upon persuading people to consume more, replace things sooner and continually increase economic activity, while the physical planet supplying the resources for that activity remains finite and is depleting.

    And somehow we have decided that this is civilization.

    Perhaps we should reconsider the definition.

    Organized madness

    The strange thing about our world is that much of its madness isn’t caused by a lack of intelligence.

    It is caused by intelligent people operating within systems whose incentives produce vastly unintelligent outcomes.

    A corporation can understand perfectly well that endless material extraction and consumption cannot continue indefinitely on a finite planet while simultaneously being compelled to pursue increased sales.

    A government can understand that war is catastrophic while simultaneously spending billions preparing for it because other governments are doing the same.

    Individually, these decisions can make sense within the rules of the system.

    Collectively, they become madness.

    That is one of the defining contradictions of our “civilization”.

    We have created a system in which rational behavior within the system by individual participants can produce irrational outcomes for humanity as a whole.

    And then we spend enormous amounts of effort trying to repair the consequences without questioning the underlying structure producing them.

    We redistribute some money.

    We regulate some pollution.

    We negotiate another treaty.

    We impose another sanction.

    We create another subsidy.

    We hold another climate conference.

    We elect another government.

    We adjust interest rates.

    We increase or decrease  taxes.

    We move the pieces around the board.

    But the board remains.

    Let it end

    So when somebody tells me that civilization as we know it may be approaching its end, my reaction is not necessarily despair.

    Part of me thinks:

    Good.

    Let the madness end.

    Not humanity.

    Not our accumulated knowledge.

    Not nature.

    Not science.

    Not technology.

    Not medicine.

    Not art, music, literature, architecture or culture.

    Not friendship, love, curiosity, exploration or everything beautiful human beings have created.

    Keep all of that.

    Let us preserve the extraordinary achievements of humanity and finally abandon the primitive structures that keep turning those achievements against ourselves.

    Let the endless economic competition end.

    Let artificial scarcity end.

    Let the insane waste end.

    Let the obsession with perpetual growth end.

    Let the exploitation of people and nature end.

    Let the hoarding for the sake of hoarding end.

    Let the idea that another human being must lose for me to win end.

    And, above all, let us stop killing each other.

    Surely that should be the minimum requirement for a species calling itself civilized.

    Growing up

    Human civilization is remarkably young.

    For most of our existence we lived in small groups struggling against scarcity, disease, predators, weather and one another.

    Competition was understandable.

    Hoarding could mean survival.

    Territory mattered enormously.

    Resources were difficult to locate, extract, process and transport.

    Information moved slowly.

    Production required enormous amounts of human labor.

    Our economic systems developed under those conditions.

    But those conditions have changed.

    We now have global communications, advanced automation, robotics, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, sophisticated resource monitoring, global transportation networks and the ability to coordinate human activity on a planetary scale.

    For the first time in history, humanity is developing the technological capacity to ask a completely different question.

    Not:

    How do I secure enough for myself?

    But:

    How do we organize Earth’s resources so everyone can live well within the ecological limits of the planet?

    That is a civilization-level question.

    And we are still trying to answer it with institutions largely designed for competition based on the time we lived in tribes.

    Perhaps that is the transition we are actually facing.

    Not capitalism versus socialism.

    Not left versus right.

    Not rich versus poor.

    Not one country against another.

    Something much larger.

    A transition from humanity competing over the planet to humanity consciously managing the planet together.

    There is no money.

    There is no trading.

    There is no ownership of Earth’s resources. 

    There is only stewardship.

    People no longer spend their lives competing for the financial means to survive.

    Resources are managed according to availability, sustainability and need. Technology and automation are used deliberately to reduce unnecessary human labor rather than threatening people’s livelihoods. 

    The civilization he knew is gone.

    And that is precisely the point.

    Humanity survived its end.

    People didn’t disappear.

    Cities didn’t disappear.

    Technology didn’t disappear.

    Creativity didn’t disappear.

    Human creativity didn’t disappear.

    Life didn’t disappear.

    Only the madness disappeared.

    And what emerged in its place was not the end of civilization.

    It was its beginning.

    Civilization

    Maybe we have been using that word far too generously.

    A technologically advanced society is not necessarily civilized.

    A society wealthy on money is not necessarily civilized.

    A powerful society is not necessarily civilized.

    A society capable of building nuclear weapons, manipulating financial markets and producing billions of disposable products is certainly sophisticated.

    But civilized?

    I would reserve that word for something more meaningful.

    A civilization should be capable of ensuring that everyone has what they need while respecting the ecological boundaries of the planet that sustains them.

    A civilization should use knowledge for the benefit of everyone.

    A civilization should regard resources as something to steward intelligently rather than prizes to capture.

    A civilization should make cooperation easier than exploitation.

    A civilization should allow human beings to develop their abilities without forcing them to compete for the right to exist.

    And a civilization should have learned something so elementary that a child can understand it:

    We do not kill each other.

    That would be a civilization worthy of the word civilized.

    Perhaps we are approaching the end of civilization as we know it.

    I hope we are.

    Because civilization as we know it has given us extraordinary things, but it has also brought us to a point where our technological power is growing faster than our collective wisdom.

    Continuing indefinitely along the same path that we are on is not progress.

    It is insanity.

    So.

     Perhaps our task is not to save civilization as we know it.

    Perhaps our task is to save humanity from civilization as we know it.

    To preserve everything worth preserving, abandon everything that no longer serves us, and finally build a system designed around the reality that there is only one humanity sharing one planet.

    No enemies required.

    No winners and losers required.

    No endless struggle for survival required.

    Just human beings finally learning to live together like the civilized people we have always claimed to be.

    If that is the end of civilization, I welcome it.

    Because maybe, finally, we can stop all this madness.

    And begin a real civilization that works for everyone.

    The Beginning

    This is the world explored in Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity which is one vision of what that beginning could look like.

    The bewildered billionaire Benjamin Michaels goes to sleep in our civilization.

    When he awakens a century later, almost everything he regarded as fundamental to society has disappeared.

    Cooperation has replaced economic competition as the organizing principle of society.

    To Benjamin, this initially seems impossible.

    But then he finds out…

    Discover his story

    :::

  • The Unavoidable Predicament

    The Unavoidable Predicament

    What happens when humanity creates machines that can do most work better, faster, cheaper, and eventually more intelligently than humans themselves?

    At first, it sounds like paradise.

    No more dangerous or tedious labor. No more exhausting repetitive tasks. No more people breaking their backs merely to survive. Factories running automatically. Food systems optimized by AI. Self-driving transport. Robotic construction. Automated logistics. Automated farming. Automated manufacturing. Automated administration.

    The dream humanity has chased for centuries.

    Until one realizes something disturbing:

    The entire monetary system depends on humans needing jobs.

    But the solution is not to stop technological development, but rather to rethink the system itself.

    Not because work itself is noble.
    Not because humans love commuting, stress, burnout, debt, and survival anxiety.
    But because money only circulates if enough people:

    • earn wages
    • spend wages
    • borrow money
    • repay debt
    • consume products and keep the economic wheel spinning.

    But robots do not receive salaries. AI does not go shopping. Machines do not take mortgages. Algorithms do not buy dinner. Computers do not pay rent.

    And suddenly humanity arrives at what may become the greatest economic predicament in history.

    The success that breaks the system

    For generations, technological progress created new industries while destroying old ones.

    The tractor reduced farm labor, but factories emerged.
    Factories automated, but office work exploded.
    The internet disrupted industries, but created entirely new digital economies.

    The system survived because humans were still economically necessary.

    But AI and robotics are different.

    This time it is not merely muscle being replaced.
    It is increasingly:

    • perception
    • analysis
    • driving
    • coding
    • writing
    • logistics
    • diagnosis
    • administration
    • customer service
    • manufacturing and even parts of creativity and decision-making.

    The more successful automation becomes, the less human labor the economy structurally requires.

    And this creates a paradox:

    The very technology humanity develops to free itself from labor may simultaneously destroy the labor-based monetary system itself. This leaves us with limited choices.

    The three roads ahead

    Humanity now appears to face three broad possibilities:

    1. Patching the system

    Universal Basic Income.
    Robot taxes.
    Debt expansion.
    State subsidies.
    Artificial job creation.
    Shorter work weeks.

    These measures may temporarily reduce suffering and buy time.

    But they do not solve the deeper contradiction.

    Because eventually society risks entering a strange loop where:

    • machines produce most value,
    • a minority owns the productive systems,
    • governments redistribute money merely to maintain consumption,
    • and money circulates primarily to preserve the existence of the monetary system itself. The ultimate paradox.

    Meanwhile millions of people may increasingly feel economically unnecessary in a civilization where survival and dignity are still tied to income.

    2. Extreme concentration

    The second path is darker.

    As automation advances, ownership of AI, robotics, infrastructure, energy, data, and resources could become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

    Not necessarily because individuals are uniquely evil.
    But because automation naturally centralizes power.

    One AI system can replace thousands of workers.
    One automated factory can replace entire industries.
    One global platform can dominate worldwide distribution.

    And eventually a civilization can emerge where:

    • fewer humans are economically needed,
    • purchasing power collapses for large parts of society,
    • inequality explodes,
    • and social instability intensifies.

    In some ways, it begins resembling ancient slave civilizations.

    There was an upper class using money, land, trade, and luxury among themselves.
    While the laboring class largely existed outside real economic participation.

    Ironically, the robots themselves would not suffer.
    They would simply be machines.
    In one sense, they would become humanity’s mechanical servants.

    But unless the majority of humans are to become economically irrelevant as well — dependent, excluded, and disconnected from meaningful participation in civilization — humanity would have to fundamentally rethink the structure underneath the system. The humans who don’t own robots will only exist to justify the monetary system itself, keeping it going through consumption, loan payments and monetary circulation.

    Even the ultra wealthy would not truly be safe in such a world. Because a civilization built on permanent exclusion eventually destabilize itself.

    And that is precisely what leads toward the third possibility:

    3. Redesigning the system itself

    The third path asks a more fundamental question:

    What if the purpose of technology is not to preserve profit and employment… but to reduce unnecessary labor?

    And if that is true, why should survival continue depending entirely on selling labor? Ultimately, we could have one huge global “upper class” being served by the machines. And no other classes. Basically all humans being in the same “class” which is one of dignity and respect for each other, nature and the planet itself. 

    This path does not mean a world without contribution, responsibility or purpose.

    It means reorganizing civilization around:

    • free access instead of artificial scarcity/money,
    • stewardship instead of ownership,

    because in a world with a global “upper class,” who would actually own the machines?

    The most logical solution may ultimately be: no one.

    Instead, humanity becomes the steward of the systems supporting civilization.

    • optimization instead of waste,
    • and human and planetary well-being instead of endless monetary growth.

    In such a system, technology becomes a tool for civilization rather than merely a machine for profit extraction.

    AI and automation would help optimize:

    • food systems,
    • transport,
    • housing,
    • recycling,
    • renewable energy,
    • water management,
    • healthcare,
    • education,
    • ecosystem restoration,
    • and resource coordination.

    The irony is profound.

    The same technologies currently threatening the monetary system may also make possible the most abundant civilization humanity has ever seen.

    Technology may decide for us

    People can debate endlessly whether humanity should move beyond the monetary system or not.

    Some will defend capitalism.
    Some will argue for reforms.
    Some will insist the current system can continue indefinitely.
    Others will call any alternative unrealistic.

    But beneath all ideological debate, something deeper is happening.

    Technology itself may be making the decision for us.

    Because the monetary system fundamentally depends on human labor, wages, purchasing power, and continuous circulation of money through billions of human economic participants.

    But automation steadily removes humans from that loop.

    You can say whatever you want about reasons for or against abandoning the monetary system.

    It increasingly appears that technology is abandoning it for us.

    Unavoidably.

    And the more successful AI and robotics become, the harder it becomes to avoid the contradiction.

    If machines can increasingly produce abundance with minimal human labor, then eventually humanity must answer a difficult question:

    How can survival remain dependent on selling labor in a world where labor itself is no longer structurally necessary?

    And not only will there be fewer jobs.
    There will also be less money in circulation.

    Because money is tied to people.
    Working people.
    People participating in the economic machine.

    People not working means no monetary circulation which ultimately means no monetary system. 

    Not because someone politically abolished it.

    But because technology gradually make it structurally obsolete. 

    The real question

    Perhaps this is the unavoidable predicament humanity now faces:

    Technology is making human labor increasingly unnecessary.

    But the monetary system still ties survival to labor.

    Those two realities cannot expand forever side by side.

    Eventually humanity must answer a civilizational question:

    Do we continue forcing humans to compete for survival inside a system increasingly run by machines?

    Or do we finally use our technology, intelligence, and resources to create a civilization where life itself is no longer dependent on economic struggle?

    That may ultimately become the defining question of the 21st century.

    And perhaps the most important realization of all is this:

    The predicament itself is not the tragedy.

    The tragedy would be refusing to rethink the system even after technology has already made the old one obsolete.


    A glimpse into the civilization beyond work

    If technology is making the old system obsolete, what kind of civilization comes next?

    That is exactly the question explored in the book Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity  a story about a former billionaire who wakes up 100 years into the future only to discover that humanity has moved beyond money, ownership, and artificial scarcity. If you want to see what happens to him you can:

    👉 Discover the book here.

    And if this resonates with you, please share this article.

    Maybe our children can enjoy this new world…