Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Changelog: Jan 18, 2025 – Jan 28, 20225
Email: info@uffmm.org
TRANSLATION: The following text is a translation from a German version into English. For the translation I am using the software @chatGPT4o with manual modifications.
CONTENT TREE
This text is part of the TOPIC Philosophy of Science.
CONTEXT
This is a direct continuation of the preceding text “WHAT IS LIFE? WHAT ROLE DO WE PLAY? IST THERE A FUTURE?”.
INTRODUCTION
Anyone who compares the graphic at the beginning of this text with the one from the preceding text can easily see that two new elements have been added. These are the topics “DEMOCRATIE@WORK. Do it Yourself” and “CITIZEN@WORK. Face to Face.” Why this addition?
WHAT IS LIFE? … DEMOCRACY – CITIZENS
The elements EARTH@WORK and Life@Work are “set,” as they represent the “inescapable starting point” for our bare existence.
The topic PHILOSOPHY@WORK represents the dimension of shared communication and understanding, without which no collective action would be possible. Thus, it is indirectly also “set.”
The topic SW@WORK is not imperative. It has “emerged” over the course of the life process on this planet; it is a “product of life.”
For the topics “DEMOCRATIE@WORK. Do it Yourself” and “CITIZEN@WORK. Face to Face,” the situation is slightly different.
“CITIZEN@WORK. Face to Face” seems, on the one hand, unavoidable, as humans in everyday life cannot achieve much without “direct interaction” (at least in the early days of humanity, direct interaction was an absolute survival necessity). As life forms became more complex, this dimension “partially faded.” Currently, it is an open question whether humanity can entirely dispense with this “face-to-face” situation. When “positively cultivated,” however, “face-to-face” situations can exert a strong positive influence on humans and make things possible that previously seemed “impossible.”
“DEMOCRATIE@WORK. Do it Yourself” is a very, very late phenomenon in the history of human life on this planet. It characterizes a form of coexistence through which the “entirety” of a society seeks to build “inner strength” by granting “everyone” a maximum degree of freedom without endangering the “common good.” However, early experiences show that the current forms of democracy exhibit significant weaknesses in “creating a shared overall picture.” This includes, in particular, that all processes which extend beyond the dimension of everyday life (space, time, interaction between different processes, etc.) have so far evidently exceeded the planning capabilities of democracies.
The history of life on this planet so far shows that humans, in particular, as part of “life,” have developed an influence that — according to current knowledge — increasingly and massively damages their own foundations of life. Depending on interpretation, this points to a “near end” or at least to a massive “crisis of what has been customary until now.” Without a significant improvement in the “shared understanding” of the situation and possible “futures,” effective action seems difficult or even impossible.
In this context, the element SW@WORK appears indispensable, but even the best software is of no use without the corresponding knowledge, without real cooperation, and — probably — without a functioning democracy. The “weakening” of democratic societies leads many to suspect that “autocracies” might be the better solution. The fact that autocracies have so far always arisen from the absence or failure of democracies only shows that the societal form of democracy is significantly more demanding than an autocracy. Does this mean that democracies are “too demanding” for this world, or does it mean that life on this planet will only be able to meet current challenges if humans can also meet the “challenges of democratic societal forms”? Much points to the latter.
This will be analyzed step by step in the following.
CONTINUATION
For a continuation see HERE.
