Chapter 125: Saving the World – The Fourth Step – Forecasting the Future of Civilisation

Abstract: paradoxically, this Fourth Step tells what we need to do to save the world before the method is released because it is a truth that the established ‘do what they do’ and it requires new generations to implement changes, so, I am forced to titillate and tantalise until this theory gains the backing to survive independently. I am using a new mathematics [of concept/context] that allows a better view of civilisation based on the certainty of a creation equation that explains why fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago.

Saving the World – The First Step – The Mechanics of Measurement – When Economics Embraces Philosophy and Dumps Physics defined a proper management group according to the construction of the universe, The Second Step – Forecasting Chaos showed that forecasting world trends became impractical over ten years, but using truths, a future can be forecast over a much greater time. The Third Step – The Holy Grail presented a plan that allowed governance to manage the number and quality of the population by the use of money. This, The Fourth Step – Forecasting the Future of Civilisation, is made possible using the previous steps, absolutes and truths and should show how the world would look in the future, if we weather the global warming, population pressure (growth), epidemics, wars and so on. In other words, recognising bottom-up organisation, knowing the absolutes and recognising the truths, we can predict and work towards a future that stabilises and protects civilisation whilst maintaining an end-plan that reduces natural disasters.

Everyone would like to know what the future holds, but Step One showed that, when viewed from top-down, ten years was the apparent maximum window before something extraordinary occurred. However, Step two introduced the concept of forecasting based on the absolutes and this allows a definitive trend-line to be placed on a graph that can be extrapolated into the future and this suggests that civilisations rise and fall around the trend-line on a regular basis and our aim, as parasites, is to manipulate conditions to suit ourselves and search for a set of conditions that allows us to prosper [that is, to keep a civilisation continuing]. The last 10,000 years have shown a way to prosper, through technology, but in such a way that excess population has endangered the environment and any gazing into a sustainable future must contain a restriction to population. It is important [Step three] to remember that the future [of life] is not random, but is directed by the physical absolutes, the restrictions and also ‘free-will’ in our making choices because every action must be a choice of two options [relativity]. This requirement of restrictions starts at the very moment of the creation in that the organisational solution requires the universe to expand [because (+1) and (-1) must be kept apart] and involves Life, with the restriction that Life must consume itself to the numbers that the environment can support.

Relativity is the creation of pairs that are orthogonal and entangled and an example is the super-powers of Russia and the United States whose cold war spurred research and spending on space-travel etc. However, the United State’s economy and democracy was based on the creation equation and, not surprisingly, was found to be superior to the man-made economy of Russia that has faltered, but the fact remains that competition is a truth that can be seen from survival of the fittest and suggests a means of tempering the mechanistic cold war. Relativity says that the world will be controlled by ‘blocks’ of population, and an example of this is that World Government has not progressed very far nor very fast in the last hundred years and the reason for this is that there is no plan on where civilisation is going, nor how the organisation of civilisation works. The purpose of Step four is to recognise an overall worthwhile plan to gain support and, if this theory was known a hundred years ago, Russia would undoubtedly have taken a different course.

Firstly, science prides itself on taking a concept, applying a certain logic to it and deriving another concept which it finds useful. Unfortunately, this simple system is at odds with the universe and as an example, neither Newton nor Einstein [nor anyone else] could derive the simple equation for gravity, nor explain Euler’s equation, as below.

Starting at the beginning, two independent things [(+1) energy and (-1) organisation] can be created from nothing and this situation is stable forever if they are kept apart [the universe is expanding] and the form that is produced is (1+(-1))=0 and it functions according to true, false, true and false at different times and chaos [logic of the half-truth]. This shows that everything (+1) is relative to something else (-1) and the only absolutes are the ratios of the dimensions that are created from an expanding space [energy, organisation, length and time] and these absolutes produce the universe: total energy (+1) and total organisation (-1) always equal and zero for all time (the conservation of (total) energy), distance divided by time is constant (the speed of light is constant to the measurer), energy/organisation divided by volume (dark energy creation to create continuity as the universe expands) and energy/organisation divided by distance (gravity).

Logical restrictions and the absolutes force a relationship called Euler’s equation that determine the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre. A sphere [of energy and organisation] can only expand if energy and organisation appear as dark energy/organisation [per unit of volume] to produce continuity. The law of gravity and Coulomb’s law of charges show relativity [the product of two masses] of the sum of energy/length and organisation/length [for each mass] to give double the Newtonian effect as Einstein predicted [twice (because of curved space) the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation]. The universe becomes a dynamic system defined by choice as evidenced by the ‘shimmer’ of the wave/particle duality required by relativity.

We are parasites that have evolved a mind/brain that works on the same physical principle as the universe, but expands it to the use of concepts [probability space is still a measuring space] and we also include and we must take cognisance of the absolutes that define the universe. In other words, a sideways orthogonality [of the creation equation] and the orthogonality of top-down and bottom-up organisation as well as the absolutes and assorted truths show the duality of specialist and generalist [and that they think with different databases].

Consider this truth, ‘we can infer that the origins of meat eating coincided with a division of labor in which females mostly gathered while males not just gathered but also hunted and scavenged. An essential hallmark of this ancient division of labor – still fundamental to the way hunter-gatherers survive today – is food sharing. Male chimps rarely if ever share food, and they never share food with their offspring.’ (The Story of the Human Body, Daniel Lieberman, p 74) This truth [restriction] is not physical, but part of humanity and shows why Russia, in the above example, could not continue the cold war. If there had been a World government, no matter how rudimentary, having this theory, it may have been able to guide the two countries into a way to continue their competition without the horrendous effect on the population in the Stalin era. Thus, although it is more complicated theoretically, relativity requires a restriction that two independent but entangled reasons are always present and to cite only one is to bias one’s case.

Churches and governments have been quick to dictate that ‘we are all born equal’ and legislate that there are no racial differences and that it is unlawful to suggest otherwise, but it is a truth that underlies evolution that we pick on the race that is easiest to catch for food and those that cannot use respect/defence die out as a species, as they should. The derivation of a possible future plan for our civilisation can not ignore our fitness to survive as government and churches do, but must use racism as the driving force because women can change their family’s appearance, religion and habits over time. This is shown by the necessity of, usually the females, moving to new groups to prevent in-breeding and their ability to change to a new creation myth that is pertinent to that group.

The question of the existence of a driving force toward homogeneity within countries is undeniable and depends on the ease of communication and the migration [or invasion] of Europeans into Australia is a good example that shows the long-held view for a White Australia. ‘Calwell …. enthused that press photographs of the early Balt arrivals, “blonde-haired and blue-eyed”, made it easy to “sell immigration to the Australian people”.’ (Beautiful Balts, Jayne Persian, p 116).

As an example from current politics, the idea of multiculturalism came out of the universities in a book called ‘Arrivals and Departures (1966) …. At the time, the government was concerned with the growing rate of migrant return; they did not want migrants to leave…. The Whitlam Government (1972-1975) …. expanded the academic conception of multi-culture. In 1973, Labor Immigration Minister Al Grassby announced a new policy of multiculturalism’ (p 186). Clearly, the Whitlam Government ignored long-term public opinion, acted in a high-handed manner to the public, allowed the economy to falter that dissuaded migrants and was eventually sacked by the Governor General, but we still have multiculturalism that panders to the malcontents that we invite as migrants.

Clearly there are good politicians and bad politicians and to be able to reliably look to the future we do not need ‘loose cannons’ and this points out that the public do not have enough control. What we call a democracy has been perverted over the years because the ancient Greeks discussed issues by informed and interested people, whereas in the modern world, voting is universal [everyone], equal [everyone above 18 years], by ill-informed and uninterested [compulsory] voting supporting biased [party] candidates with short term tenure. As the judiciary are orthogonal to the government, the long-term employed, concerned, educated judiciary, using the proper management practices [Step One] seem more sensible to chart long-term future policy, especially as the judiciary has an effective veto over the government [and vice-versa].

The aim of this plan for a renewed civilisation is to restart evolution and that requires racism as its core and the removal of the genes of the less fit by their own volition and is necessarily in opposition to the government and churches’ policies. Consider the book Rednecks, Eggheads and Blackfellas by Gillian Cowlishaw and the quotation on the back cover, ‘this thought-provoking work will speak not only to anthropologists and those interested in Aboriginal Australia, but to scholars of race more generally, especially in the burgeoning field of whiteness studies’. The title rednecks [cattle property owners], eggheads [anthropologists] and blackfellas [indigenous population] should also have contained ‘administrators’ as representatives of the government that decided policy because they have a ‘heavy hand’ in the administration. For example, ‘the laws concerning “half-castes” had become excruciatingly embarrassing for the Commonwealth Government. Internationally, racial terminology was being abandoned and the United Nations had made its second statement on race in 1951, affirming the fundamental unity of the human species and undermining the use of race as a form of biological categorisation for social purposes (Montagu 1972).’

Governments of all types love making laws and rules, and not least the racial, religious, age, sex etc. discrimination laws, like multiculturalism, above, that are trying to create harmony and happiness in the mind/brains between members of a disparate population that has been brought in from the four corners of the world for some vague reason, presumably that we populate or perish. Governments appear to have over-regulated the populous in this regard and, even worse have done so without adequate reason and down the wrong path. I believe that the disquietude felt is a good thing in that it brings the people together and not apart like multiculturalism. Considered as an orthogonality, is it better to have a nation pulling together and pursuing a better generic base, or a multicultural society divided by laws that prevent discussion and prevent a united front? If they want to retain their society, let them go back to their original country.

‘After the referendum of 1967 which saw the constitution altered … changes were wide ranging … culminating in the funding of hundreds of Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia by the new Labor government in 1972… Attempts to equalise Aborigines shattered the cultural domain of pastoral life with its characteristic racial hierarchy… immediate consequence of the state’s insistence that Aboriginal employees have the same conditions as other workers was that many aboriginal communities not only lost their access to paid work, but lost their homes as well.’ (p 202) Clearly, if some of the Aboriginal population wishes to remain on tribal land where cattle raising is marginal and they are prepared to accept a lower wage, should politicians force them to be paid a higher wage? ‘In the mid 1950s, a legislative move of breathtaking simplicity was made which eradicated “Aborigines” from legislation, replacing them with “wards” by a definitional sleight of hand.’ (p 179)

We can increase our population, as above, to any level that we choose by using money to provide stable people that will be an improvement and of the type that is required by a democratic process without the input of self-seeking politicians. There is a correct way to manage and that requires a thought-out plan, as above, with a solid base, and that brings us to the enigma of the statesman/woman. President Trump is trying to stop his country being overrun by illegals by trying to build a wall [that is meeting opposition] and, if he is successful, he becomes a ‘statesman’ and not a politician because he is helping everyone in the country. A statesman/woman is an enigma because they are supposed to help everyone, but from top-down all suggestions are guesses, but from bottom-up, using truths, it is possible to have a plan that works for the ‘common good’.