PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't there always be some rules necessary in the schools?
TINNY: All rules limit the ability of the individual to maximise their progression. Just as the future of human society is to exist without laws, the future of schools is to exist without rules. When the members of society reach a sufficiently enlightened state to make right decisions without external influence laws become unnecessary. When the students in school reach a sufficiently enlightened state to make right decisions without external influence rules become unnecessary.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But that high level of consciousness has not yet been achieved. What should be done until then? Can laws and rules be forsaken before enlightenment is achieved?
TINNY: Without enlightened consciousness a world without laws and rules would be self-destructive. Until that high conscious state is realised we must have some laws and some rules. It is extremely important, though, that the laws and rules be kept to an absolutely necessary minimum and even these few being under constant evaluation, to be dropped as soon as is practicably possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is harmful to have either too few or too many laws and rules.
TINNY: If we have too few laws and rules before we can handle the freedom this stands in the way of our progression. If we have too many laws and rules after we can handle the freedom this also stands in the way of our progression. If the discrepancy between our ability to accept personal responsibility and the imposition of laws and rules becomes great enough it can result in the destruction of human society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean either too few laws and rules before we are ready or too many laws and rules after we are ready can result in the destruction of human society?
TINNY: Ultimately either could have that result if taken to the extreme. As with all aspects of material existence, and certainly of human existence, the point most conducive to maximum progression is one of balance and harmony. The greater the imbalance or disharmony the greater the potential for harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this true only for the social whole or is this also true for the individual?
TINNY: This truth about the necessity for balance and harmony is true for all material existence from the simplest to the most complex, both the individual and all the varying degrees of social groupings. Balance and harmony provide the perfect path to the fulfillment of our destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't oppose all rules in schools, just unnecessary rules.
TINNY: I would never oppose that which must be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who should decide whether or not certain rules are unnecessary?
TINNY: This is not a matter for anyone to decide. What is right and wrong at any level of physical development is determined by the natural order. Laws and rules should be determined by this natural order until the only law is natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But someone will have to interpret the natural order.
TINNY: The laws and rules to be applied at any time should then be objectively determined by the logical assessment of the natural order. Subjective opinion would have no legitimate place in these decisions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is never easy to separate the objective from the subjective in human decision making.
TINNY: This is why it is so helpful to have a good understanding of the true nature of existence. A world view such as the unified theory of existence allows decisions on matters that would have previously been largely subjective to be measured against an objective standard.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools do not cater to individual needs; that schools are too difficult for the slow learner and too easy for the fast learner.
TINNY: Each person is different in many ways, their preferences, their abilities, even their perception and thinking processes. Schools, because of their inability to understand learning or develop appropriate teaching-learning environments, have had to make do with an essentially one dimensional teaching plan and have required all students to fit into that program. This means the educational program, while designed for the so-called average student, actually fails to fit the specific needs of even one student.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the educational program is designed for the average student how can you say it meets the particular needs of no students?
TINNY: Because there is no such thing as an average student. This is a concept with no objective reality in everyday life. Every student is different. Those who are less far from the average are harmed less than those who vary greatly from the average, but no one really gets the educational opportunity that would benefit them most.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do those who are above the average suffer as much as those who are below the average?
TINNY: Those who are below or above the average suffer differently. It could not be truly said that one group suffers more than another. Neither those who are below the average nor those who are above the average are able to reach their potential for learning. Those who are below the average may learn that education is difficult and to be avoided. Those who are above the average may learn that education is boring and to be avoided. Both groups will tend to experience a number of emotional and behavioural problems as they find themselves not fitting into the educational system.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the long term effects of this failure of the educational system to meet the individual needs of the students?
TINNY: The students lose the opportunity to maximise their progression and tend to lead lives that bring them into conflict with society. As a result they are often not happy and satisfied with their lives. Many also end up being punished by society because they do not fit established norms. It is not only the individual that loses, but there is a loss to all of society. The loss of potential of the many millions who do not conform to the average which schools are geared to teach is immense. Many potentially good workers and fine minds are lost to society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that one of the problems with schools is that they are compulsory. If schools were not compulsory then very few students would go to school. Isn't it necessary to make school attendance compulsory?
TINNY: No schooling should ever be compulsory. If it is necessary to make going to school compulsory to ensure attendance then there is something wrong with schools. School should be such a desirable and rewarding experience that no student would be willing to miss the opportunity. If schools were not compulsory educators would be required to provide school opportunities more relevant to the student's needs. With compulsory schooling the true needs of the students are often neglected in educational planning. Schools are presently more often created around the educational philosophies and personal preferences of administrators than the true needs of the students.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't school administrators know better than students what is needed in education?
TINNY: Nobody knows as well as the person being educated what their educational needs are. The student should have the ultimate say in every aspect of the educational process. They should decide what they will learn, how they will be taught, and who will teach them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that students should really be allowed to choose who will teach them?
TINNY: No student should ever have any teacher forced upon them. Any teacher that lacks the qualities that make them a desirable teacher in the eyes of the students should not be allowed to teach.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Almost any large school would have some teachers that virtually all students dread. What should happen to the teachers that no students want to be taught by?
TINNY: They should be given the choice of becoming a teacher who is desirable to the students or giving up teaching.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't you being a bit hard on the teachers? You are saying that if enough students don't like a teacher then that teacher should not be allowed to teach. It takes a lot of time and training to become a teacher. How could you ask then to give that up?
TINNY: Being a teacher is much more than just a job. Being a teacher is a sacred trust. No one should ever become a teacher unless they are fit to teach. It takes more than time and training to be teacher. If you are not a good and right person you should not teach. It is no one's right to become a teacher. It is an honour to be allowed to teach, an honour that must be rightfully earned. Far too much harm can be done by an unfit teacher to allow an unfit person to continue teaching.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are already processes by which an unfit teacher can be removed from teaching duties.
TINNY: The present criterion of what makes a teacher unfit is virtually meaningless. Any teacher who is not a good teacher is an unfit teacher. There are many teachers who are not good teachers.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools restrict individual expression and stifle creativity.
TINNY: This is another negative outcome of the attempt to teach to the average student. Anything in personal or academic behaviour that falls too far from the expected norm is seen as detrimental to the overall learning situation. This often results in individual expression and creativity being punished, or at least not rewarded. There is a conscious attempt in most schools to teach conformity. Schools have no right to do this.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is conformity desired and taught in the schools?
TINNY: Conformity is desired and taught for two main reasons. One is that teachers often believe that anything that is different is disruptive, and therefore hinders their teaching plan and activities. The other main reason is that the established social order requires conformity among its citizens to maintain control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by the established social order?
TINNY: Society as a whole, government, and all other organisations both private and public that are part of the established social order. All of these are threatened by individual expression and creativity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do individual expression and creativity really threaten the established order?
TINNY: They surely do and rightfully so. As long as society consists of public and private organisations demanding control there will be a threat from those who express their individuality and creativity. Without individuality and creativity the human race will not continue to progress. As long as any person or organisation attempts to control others there will be threats to that control. It is in accord with the natural order that control shall be overcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that students have little desire to learn.
TINNY: As with all these statements of problem areas in schools this is a generalisation. Children during their early years are consumed by an almost overpowering desire to learn. This desire to accumulate knowledge could continue through our lives and would provide great benefits if it did. The school environment very often quashes this thirst for knowledge. School can make the process of learning a task to be avoided.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does this happen?
TINNY: By association with things that are negative. Learning often becomes associated with punishment, hard work, boring experiences, and other negative aspects of the school environment. If anything is associated with that which has a negative nature then that thing tends to be perceived negatively. Anything that we perceive negatively we tend to avoid. Schools should be allowing the natural desire to learn to grow and remain strong. For this reason it is important that learning be associated with positive experiences at school so that learning will gain from this positive association.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that students often treat each other badly, teachers often treat students badly, and students often treat teachers badly. Also that teachers often don't like or respect students, and students often don't like or respect teachers. It seems that poor interpersonal relationships predominate in the schools.
TINNY: This is because the overall school environment is very sick, so therefore it produces sick social behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this only the fault of the school environment?
TINNY: Not at all, the specific problems in the schools stem from the general problems in society. Human society is very sick, and produces sick social behaviour in all areas of social activity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you use the word sick what exactly do you mean?
TINNY: I'm using the word sick in this case to mean mentally ill. I am referring to the fact that human society has become insane. It is this insanity that pervades every human social endeavour. It is this insanity which exists in the schools and is the cause of the many problems in the school environment. It is for this reason that teachers and students are unable to relate to each other in a manner which is conducive to positive, caring feeling for each other and right treatment of each other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree that is generally true. Would you explain specifically how the poor treatment, dislike, and lack of respect come about?
TINNY: The insanity I refer to as existing in society and in the schools results from an inability to correctly perceive reality. Since students and teachers do not have a clear and correct perception of the true nature of reality their behaviours are based on false beliefs, and are then not very likely to be right behaviours. Therefore they present a danger to themselves and others. This results in educators using negative influence to teach and manage students. This results in students using negative means to fight against those who attempt to teach them things they don't want to learn, using a teaching approach they don't like. Teachers are met with hostility and rejection by students. Teachers are faced with avoidance, aggression, and violence from students. Students are met by all these same negative social attitudes and behaviours from the teachers, and from their fellow students. The negative actions of the students promote and support the negative attitudes of the teachers. The negative actions of the teachers promote and support the negative attitudes of the students. An environment is created where positive social interaction is seldom rewarded and negative social interaction is often reinforced. Few feel the social responsibility to treat others in a right manner. Few feel the social responsibility to care for, like or respect others. This social insanity breeds and intensifies in schools just as it does in world society. The school environment becomes less productive and more destructive just as in world society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can this trend be reversed?
TINNY: It can be reversed in the schools and it can be reversed in world society. We need only understand the true nature of our existence and these social problems will disappear. If we continue to remain blind to the true nature of our existence the human race will die.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we can talk more about education later. I can see the recurring cause of all the problems we have discussed so far and realise the truth of the one solution to all those problems.
TINNY: If only we all could do that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we move on, is it really necessary for teachers to be good role models for their students?
TINNY: This is more important than any other aspect of the educational system. Teachers must be good and right people in all areas of their lives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even their private lives?
TINNY: Due to the interconnected nature of all things there is no such thing as a private life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Shouldn't teachers be as free as any other person to live their lives as they please and to believe whatever they choose?
TINNY: No person is free to live as they choose or believe as they choose without the responsibility of their effect on others. Those who teach children have a particularly great responsibility since they affect so many lives during the critical early phases of development. If a teacher cannot live as a good and right person they should not teach.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How should it be determined whether or not a teacher is a good and right person?
TINNY: That issue is decided by the natural order. If a teacher lives in accord with natural laws and understands the natural order then they are good and right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And no person who does not live in accord with natural law and who does not understand the natural order should be allowed to teach.
TINNY: They should not.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps in the world today to have such stringent prerequisites for teachers would mean that no one would be eligible to teach.
TINNY: However things are at any time is the immediate reality. That reality must be accepted, but with that acceptance must come an objective evaluation of the present state and a constructive plan by which we can move closer to the ideal, ultimately to perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should actually be done about deciding who can teach at this present time?
TINNY: Teachers should be chosen who live as closely as possible in accord with natural law. Teachers should be chosen who best understand the natural order. Teachers should be chosen who will strive to live in closer accord with natural law and will strive to better understand the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is asking a lot of teachers.
TINNY: No one who is unwilling to give that much is worthy to teach.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As is often the case your unwavering idealism is likely to offend.
TINNY: No offence is ever meant. It is unfortunate that human society has gone so wrong that to speak simple and obvious truths may be seen by some as offensive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel toward those who may take offence to the truths you propound?
TINNY: I feel very sorry that I offend them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if you are right and they are wrong?
TINNY: If I do or say anything that causes discomfort to another I feel sorry that I have done so regardless of whether I am right or wrong. Perhaps if I were a better person myself and understood better the true nature of our existence I would be able to say these truths in a manner which would offend no one. At present I can only act from this imperfect level of progression which I have reached and offer my sincerest apologies to all who are offended.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps if some truths offend you should not speak them.
TINNY: I am under high moral obligation to offer whatever truths I may possess. I must do so even if it occasionally offends. I accept the responsibility for my actions. I only hope that the positive outcome outweighs the negative. If I can maximise the good while minimising the evil then I have fulfilled my responsibility at my present level of progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I hope any who find discomfort from your words will forgive you.
TINNY: I do too.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that schools in the future will be very different than they are today. I suppose communities will also be very different in the future.
TINNY: Every aspect of human society will be different. Communities being one of the most basics aspects of human society will change drastically.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the main problems with communities at present?
TINNY: Probably the worst types of human community at present are the cities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is so bad about cities?
TINNY: Cities have virtually no good points. Cities are unnecessary and dysfunctional.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you be more specific?
TINNY: Cities bring too many people together in one area. Cities breed crime and violence. Cities are dirty and polluted. Cities promote and maintain many wrong social values. These are but a few of the many problems with cities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If cities are so detrimental to human well being why do they exist?
TINNY: Cities originally developed for two main reasons. One was to provide protection from roaming barbarians bent on rape and pillage. The other initial function of cities was to provide an opportunity for great material wealth to be amassed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So cities arose out of human violence and materialism.
TINNY: Two of the major wrongs of the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the practice of violence and the desire for material gain were not part of human culture wouldn't cities still have developed?
TINNY: Not unless they developed in response to some other wrong in human society, cities are not included in the natural progression of the human race. If human society had not strayed so far from the natural order we would never have developed cities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most of the world's population now lives in cities.
TINNY: For this all human society pays a great price.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What type of community would better meet human needs?
TINNY: The primary consideration would have to be size. As soon as any community gets too large it loses its ability to successfully nurture human development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since big cities are so harmful, what size community would be best?
TINNY: The ideal size would be a small town.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The term 'small town' is pretty general. What population would you say was the maximum that could exist in a town before the harmful effects of size began to be felt?
TINNY: I wouldn't like to give a specific number, but I could still give a fairly definite answer. The ideal size for a community would be small enough so every member of the community knew every other member, and large enough so that quite a long time could pass without any two members seeing each other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Compared to today's cities that would be a very small town.
TINNY: It would be more than a few hundred and less than many thousand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so important that towns be small?
TINNY: There is probably only one critical determining factor. Our present level of social development is better able to function within those limits. Once we go beyond those limits we tend to lose the powerful social influences which moderate and facilitate our personal interactions in a small community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As the level of humanity's social development rises will the limits upon the practical size of the community change also?
TINNY: There will come a time when such a question will no longer have meaning. Until that time comes many different social living arrangements will probably be tried. Some which now would seem most unreasonable or impractical may prove to be of great benefit. I doubt though, regardless of what progress is made in the level of human social development, that vast cities as we know them will ever prove functional or desirable in the future. As consciousness rises needs will be reassessed. It is unlikely beings of higher consciousness will be attracted to that which is only offered by large cities and massed populations. There is little if anything of true value in the cities that could not be available in the small towns.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say there is one critical factor, the level of human development, which makes small towns the ideal human living situation. There are many other benefits to small community living, even if they could not be considered critical, aren't there?
TINNY: There are innumerable benefits, which would come from life in small communities. It might be valuable if we discuss a number of these since they typify the solutions and changes which society as a whole must undergo to insure a future for the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The problems which arise in large cities are not simple.
TINNY: They are extremely complex. It appears that all forms of life have an ideal population density and once that is surpassed social problems of all different forms occur of greater magnitude and with increased frequency. All that had earlier only existed as potential wrong begins to exist as expressed harmful reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The dense populations of cities magnify the existing flaws in our present level of human social development.
TINNY: For example, we humans still have the potential for aggression and violence so in cities aggression and violence occur of greater magnitude and with increased frequency.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What effect does a high population have on positive social characteristics?
TINNY: All positive human social characteristics occur of lesser magnitude and with decreased frequency in the densely populated cities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: City living brings out less of our good qualities and more of our bad qualities.
TINNY: In general that is true. Of course there could be individuals who do not follow the general pattern, but they would be a small minority.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everyone lived in small communities trade, manufacturing, government, in fact virtually all organisational structures of human society could no longer exist on a large scale.
TINNY: That is one of the many benefits of small community life. Without cities centralisation would begin to disappear.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. Without centralised organisation and control everything related to the ongoing success of the local community is the responsibility of the local community.
TINNY: Local responsibility and control are a step toward individual responsibility and control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So big cities by their very nature tend to restrict the exercise of individual free-will.
TINNY: Most definitely.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And small communities by their very nature tend to enhance the exercise of individual free-will.
TINNY: That also is, or at least can be, true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't that mean the ideal living situation would be that of a hermit?
TINNY: As in all things balance is the ideal. If we live among too many people or too few, restrictions are placed on the degree to which we can fulfill our developmental potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If production and distribution were done on a small scale rather than on a massive scale wouldn't the cost be much greater? Wouldn't the profit be much less?
TINNY: Now we are entering the realm of economics. The answer to those questions hinges on our long term goals. I would say that profit should not be a consideration and that cost involves factors which must be considered far beyond the scope of traditional economics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say profit should not be a consideration?
TINNY: I mean there should be no profit. There should be no profit from production, and there should be no profit from distribution. Indeed, no human endeavour should result in profit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that no individual should profit or that no profit exist at all?
TINNY: I mean no individual, no organisation, and no government should receive a profit from human endeavour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you don't mean to say no person or social group should receive the benefits of human endeavour do you?
TINNY: The true benefits of human labour are the purpose of our existence. Profit has no place in the development of our potential. Profit refers to surplus, meaning that which is left over after costs are deducted. In a truly balanced society nothing would be left over.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain the idea further?
TINNY: We can consider our planet as a closed system. All that exists within that system has a goal, to maximise the overall developmental progression. To simplify we will just consider the human beings which exist on our planet. We have some specific number of individuals. Those individuals have certain needs which must be fulfilled if they are to be able to maximise their developmental progression. The combined efforts of all the world's individuals should be directed toward fulfilling those needs. The full requirements of developmental progression will always be greater than the combined efforts of human endeavour. The collective endeavour of the world's individuals would ideally result in a perfect balance of cost and production. As cost, or more specifically time, labour, and resources increased, production would increase; always remaining in a harmonious balance of maximised developmental progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand now how profit or surplus cannot exist in such a system. Increased production takes the place of profit. Increased production is of collective benefit to every individual.
TINNY: This is only possible because increased production can never meet the demand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maximised developmental progression has seldom if ever been considered as a product.
TINNY: It is the only truly meaningful product. It is the natural product of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The concept of cost will alter greatly with the product being maximised developmental progression.
TINNY: That's true, vastly different factors will be involved than in determining costs of production for profit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know the differences will be many but would you give me an example of this different perception of cost.
TINNY: When financial considerations determine cost it is often the case that it is deemed desirable to receive the maximum amount of labour for the minimal wage. In other words, there is an attempt to get as much as possible from the worker and give as little as possible in return. Such a system invariably results in exploitation of the worker. But, when maximised developmental progression is the desired product financial considerations play only a small part in economic decisions. Since satisfaction and happiness on the part of the worker are critical aspects of human developmental progression they become part of the product not part of the cost. Time and resources spent to enhance worker satisfaction and happiness become valuable and necessary expenditure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we could talk more about economics later, but for now we can get back to how this new perspective on costs relates to the type of community people live in?
TINNY: When financial considerations and profit are the prime consideration centralisation of production and distribution are necessary. Therefore cities become necessary. Mass production requires a massive labour force, mass distribution requires massed consumers.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With small community living mass production would not be possible, would it?
TINNY: Certainly mass production wouldn't be possible as it is at present.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might this not cause problems in meeting demand for products?
TINNY: We could not have a world as it is now without cities. There would be far fewer material items available to all people. This does not cause a problem, instead it provides a solution. We need a de-emphasis on material acquisitions so that we may more fully realise our spiritual nature. The desire for financial gain, beyond all realistic needs, provides the motivation for a large portion of all items presently mass produced. The greater the diversity and quantity of the items sold the greater the profits. Realistic human needs don't determine the nature and quantity of the products, only the market potential influences those decisions. Since many of the products do not fulfill natural needs and desires the market must be artificially created. Virtually the whole present social structure of the human race plays some part in creating and sustaining this artificial market. The very nature of small community living would serve to overcome this artificially created desire for material acquisition. Small community living could provide for the full material needs of every member of human society. This is a goal which the present profit oriented system of production and distribution could never achieve.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes it is hard to imagine how different the world of the future will be.
TINNY: It will be the long sought, but always believed to be unattainable, utopia. Few believed utopia could ever come to be; now remarkably we find there can be no other future but utopia.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our choice is heaven on earth or extinction of the human species.
TINNY: I've made my choice. If enough others make the same choice utopia is ours.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you say the future will have less emphasis on material goods, do you foresee these small communities of the future forsaking modern technology and reverting to a more primitive way of life?
TINNY: This future I foresee is not one of the noble savage living in a simple, primitive harmony with nature. To the degree that such a lifestyle ever existed, other than in the minds of philosophers, it is part of the history of human development. I expect small community life in the future to utilise science and technology to a degree never before attempted or possible. Human life, both individual and social, has certain requirements which must be fulfilled. Some of these tasks will be edifying and enlightening, some will be far less than that. All these tasks must be carried out to sustain and advance human development. All science and technology that truly facilitates our further development should be welcomed and accommodated. Science and technology rightly used can lessen our burden and quicken our journey.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't the small communities of the future be isolated from each other? Might they not be cut off from the benefits of new knowledge and achievement? Won't they be bound to subsist on that which is in near proximity and have restricted access to the abundance of distant places?
TINNY: All of those potential difficulties can be overcome by efficient and available transport and communication. These communities will have instantaneous worldwide communication with full access to news, information and new knowledge. Transport also will link all corners of the world. Nowhere need be more than a brief journey away.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't all this advanced communication and transport be prohibitively expensive?
TINNY: They will be free to all; they will be among the readily available products of a world economy geared to maximising the developmental progression of all life on our planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it will not only be human progression that is the goal, but the progression of all life on our planet.
TINNY: As human brings become enlightened, aware of the unified nature and destiny of all physical existence, we will seek not only our own continued progression but will seek also to assist those forms of physical existence less envolved than ourselves. The dominion we have been given over less developed forms of life on this planet carries with it certain responsibilities which must be met if we are to achieve our full destiny. We must prove ourselves worthy of the grand glory that is our destiny. We cannot progress unless those we share this planet with also progress.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say transport and communication will be free in the future world. What about all other things such as food, housing, and clothing, will they also be free?
TINNY: Everything we need or desire will be free.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everything is free, why would anyone work? Their wages would have no value.
TINNY: In a world where everything is free there would be no need for wages. Wages are a way of exercising external control over the behaviour of individuals. People will work because of inner desire. That desire will be for the advancement of all life toward perfection. Every product of every person's labour will act in some way to further the developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everything is free won't some people take too much?
TINNY: Only in a world conditioned to falsely value material wealth does such greed exist. An enlightened being would never take more than was necessary. Either more or less than is necessary leads one from the harmonious path. The inhabitants of these small communities of the future will have reached a sufficient state of enlightenment so that their desires would not exceed their needs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have a great trust in human nature.
TINNY: I do not say such things through trust. If we are fulfilling our potential then such a future will exist and such idealistic behaviour will be natural. If we are not fulfilling our potential then such idealistic behaviour will not exist nor will it be expected. In a right future world it will be easier to never take more than is necessary than it is to take more than is necessary in today's world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even though all things will be free won't there still have to be some controls on how much people take?
TINNY: The only controls will be inner controls.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say these communities of the future will make use of high technology. Will there still be a place for that which is natural?
TINNY: Technology is natural at the human level of development, but I think you mean will these communities have the characteristics of sterile laboratories.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is what I meant.
TINNY: Harmony with all nature is an important part of our developmental progression. I could not predict how these small communities of the future will look, but I am sure they will be designed to exist in harmony with the natural environment. It may well be that houses as they are at present, both in concept and design, will have no place in the future. The particular structure of each community will vary greatly depending on the combined special needs of the residents and the local environmental conditions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the small communities of the future be self-sufficient or will they depend on other communities for some of their basic necessities
TINNY: Each will be as self-sufficient as circumstances allow. This will mean some will have virtually all their basic needs internally met, while others will be able to supply few of their basic needs internally. Individuals within each community will joyfully share with the other members of their community. Communities throughout the world will joyfully share with other communities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each person require a return equal to that which they give? Will each community require a return equal to that which they give?
TINNY: Never a thought would be given to the equality of the return. Such concerns only have meaning in a world that emphasises material acquisitiveness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since these communities of the future will have as their sole emphasis the maximised developmental progression of all life, might not life in these communities become a bit dreary?
TINNY: Many are the ways in which the advancement of the human species may be realised. All of these ways can provide great enjoyment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But will people still have time for the arts, for sports, and for recreation?
TINNY: Advancement can certainly be made through the arts, through sports, and through recreation. In a world not seeking financial gain and material wealth there will be much more time to devote to such activities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Developmental progression is a very inclusive process, isn't it?
TINNY: All right action is directed to developmental progression. All action which is in accord with the natural order at our level of progression is part of our developmental progression. There is a greater range of human behaviour possible that can further our quest than has ever been expressed before. The communities of the future will provide the opportunity to expand our behavioural horizons to limits never before imaginable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How will all this be possible in small communities? Wouldn't it require the resources of sizeable cities to provide so many opportunities?
TINNY: Please don't ever underestimate the potential of a small community of totally committed, enlightened human beings. That small community could provide resources beyond those of any city today. Besides, it is wrong to think of these small communities of the future as being isolated, they will be linked units of a world community, having the full facilities of a whole planet available.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will life in these future communities be private or communal?
TINNY: Aspects of both private and communal life will be combined. People will be free to be as private as they choose or as communal as they desire.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will some communities emphasis private living and some emphasis communal living?
TINNY: Various communities may specialise through a commonality of interests in many different aspects of human endeavour. Some may choose to emphasise private living and some may choose to emphasise communal living. The majority may choose to accept the benefits of both systems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be competition between various communities to prove their choice the more successful?
TINNY: It is likely every community will be an experimental living environment. Whatever competition exists will be within the community as they strive to improve their individual situations and community practices. No community will be trying to outdo any other; each will simply be trying to improve themselves. Those in any one community will welcome the progress and success of all other communities. Each will gladly share their successes with others and will welcome input from other communities who have made valuable discoveries.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since many of these new communities will function communally, will there still be private ownership?
TINNY: In many ways the concept of private ownership stems from selfish material acquisitiveness. Such feelings will not exist in our future so private ownership as we now know it will not exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would the community own everything?
TINNY: The community would own nothing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then who would own everything. If no one has anything which can be considered their own does this mean any person could freely take the belongings of another?
TINNY: It would be useful if we discussed some specifics of the concept of ownership. Ownership is in reality a construction of human thought. In the true sense ownership has no meaning. Given the nature of the physical existence there is no mechanism to allow ownership.
