PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say it is impossible to own anything?
TINNY: Consider what is meant when something is said to be owned. Ownership may be described as a social agreement of possession. Social agreement is a function of human thought, not of physical reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will anything replace the present concept of ownership?
TINNY: Ownership refers to a certain class of relationships between human beings and various other physical forms. For example it might be said some person owns a house, owns a piece of land, or even that they own a cow or a cat. In each of those cases the concept of ownership indicates some special relationship between a person and the thing referred to as owned. In the future there will still be special relationships between people and various other physical forms. These will not be based on possession as characterised by ownership. They will be based on mutual responsibility. The human being, having higher consciousness and therefore greater free-will, must accept the larger share of the mutual responsibility; but, it is important to realise that the other partner in the relationship must also accept responsibility at their developmental level. The development of these relationships of mutual responsibility is in accord with the natural order in the material plane of existence. Interference with these ongoing relationships would oppose the harmony of the natural order and would not take place in a right world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm not sure I understand the implications of what you are saying.
TINNY: We do not need to own things to maintain our right to participate in an ongoing relationship of mutual responsibility with them. For example, my parents and I do not own the land we live on; we do not own the house we live in. We have formed a relationship with the physical forms of the land and the house. In a right world no one would attempt to live on the same piece of land or occupy the same house where my family lives. The harmonious relationship which has developed between my family and the land would be respected. If we decided to move we would give up our special relationship with that particular piece of land and it would be available for another family to initiate and develop a special relationship of mutual responsibility with that land.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes the language you use to describe the various aspects of human existence seems quite strange.
TINNY: I'm sure it must seem odd. I am describing the world from the perspective of the new world view, these new ways of looking at things would naturally sound strange when first put into words.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true that when ownership is a concept which drops from usage the relationships between people and other physical forms will be on a more personal basis?
TINNY: When ownership no longer exists there will be no relationships of mutual responsibility that extend beyond direct personal influence. While at present a person can own a piece of land they have never seen, such a prospect could not occur in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This would mean no person could accumulate great material wealth.
TINNY: Wouldn't that be wonderful. We would no longer be burdened with those things which most restrict the fullest expression of our developmental progression. It is only through this shift from ownership of property, to relationships of mutual responsibility with other physical forms, which can allow every member of human society to have their material needs fully met. As long as some members of human society extend their ownership beyond their direct personal needs there will be others who cannot have their direct personal needs met. When we each seek only what we directly need, and none take more than is necessary, there will always be plenty for all. Such a condition will be an economic harmony.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't economic factors determine human history? Wouldn't this balanced economy be static? Might not human society cease to change?
TINNY: Those beliefs come from a flawed understanding of our true nature. They stem from a materialistic view of existence. They are part of a larger philosophy which has greatly influenced recent social change. It is not economic factors that determine the course of human history, and it is not violent revolution that brings about changes in human history. It is the world view which prevails in the collective human consciousness that determines economic factors and brings about social change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You refer to relationships of mutual responsibility, how can land, for example, exercise its responsibility to the human occupants? Doesn't land just passively sit waiting for things to be done to it?
TINNY: As I said, the human partner in these relationships carries the greater share of the mutual responsibility, but in this example the land has a very involved and important part to play. In a harmonious relationship the land will always fulfill its responsibilities which is more than can be said for the human partner. When land is treated with respect and its needs met it will provide for a very wide range of human needs both material and emotional. Land is a living organism which can only function to its fullest when in a healthy condition. When a human being enters into a relationship with the land the maintenance of this health is part of the mutual responsibility. It is impossible to take without giving in return. If more is consistently taken than is given in return the land will eventually die.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If human beings help the land to remain healthy the land will help human beings to remain healthy. Is this how the relationship of mutual responsibility works?
TINNY: That is the result of harmonious mutual responsibility.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the health needs of the land are taken care of is it then that the land can be made to produce its maximum?
TINNY: The goal of existence is not to maximise production but to maximise harmony. Maximised production is a short term gain, while maximised harmony provides long term gain. The greatest degree of developmental progression can only be realised through the harmonious path. Besides, we would do better in our relationship with the land if we did not think in terms of 'making' it productive but, instead, 'encouraged' it to be productive by right treatment. It is the natural condition of land to be productive and when in a balanced state it will produce abundantly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say the land will be more productive, what do you mean?
TINNY: The land will be able to fulfill more of the functions that are its basic nature. It will produce a better environment for all forms of plant and animal life. It will better meet housing needs, nutritional needs, emotional needs, and recreational needs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You view the products of the land very broadly. Products as you define them transcend the material.
TINNY: Natural production always involves more than the material factors. It is only a misunderstanding of our true nature that allowed production to be defined solely in terms of material products.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that one of the natural products of land is improved land quality?
TINNY: Unless improved land quality is one of the products of the land there will eventually be no healthy and productive land.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any land so bad that it cannot be returned to health and productivity?
TINNY: No land is yet so far gone that it cannot begin again to fulfill its natural functions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the land on which the communities of the future exist be allowed to remain in its natural state or will it be altered to best meet human needs?
TINNY: The natural state of all physical forms is determined in part by the unique circumstances of their relationship with the environment. Land before human beings came into existence experienced different environmental conditions than land after human beings developed. The natural state of the land before human beings came into existence was different than the natural state of the land after human beings developed. Land that best meets the needs of human beings will be land in its natural state given the present environmental circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the land in and around the small communities of the future have to be cleared to provide for human needs? Will all land look like cleanly cultivated fields and well planned gardens?
TINNY: In the future our whole planet will consist of natural parks and gardens. The communities will exist harmoniously as a natural part of these parks and gardens. The growing of fruits and vegetables will be fully integrated into this worldwide ecosystem. It will not always be easy to distinguish between fields, parks, and gardens.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will much attention be given in the future to the physical layout of communities and how they look?
TINNY: The physical layout of the communities will be designed to facilitate personal and social growth. All aspects of the community will be the result of conscious planning. Aesthetics will play an important and integral part in this community planning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does aesthetics mean?
TINNY: Aesthetics refers to the search for beauty.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So these communities of the future will be beautiful.
TINNY: As we seek perfection in all things the world will become a paradise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the quest for beauty really worthwhile? Might it not be better to seek practicability rather than beauty?
TINNY: If something is practical, that is good. If something is practical and beautiful that is better. As we seek to maximise our progression in all ways we would seek to maximise the beauty in that which is practical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To what extent should we include the goal of maximising our developmental progression as we go about our lives?
TINNY: Maximal progression should be the natural prime consideration in all that we do. Fulfilling our destiny should be the prime consideration in our every thought, word, and deed. If fulfilling our destiny is not the prime consideration we will be doing less than maximising our developmental progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Must we really consider maximising our developmental progression in every tiny aspect of our lives?
TINNY: There is more opportunity to maximise our developmental progression in the small, everyday things than there is in the momentous occasions in our lives. Unless we can succeed in the small things we will never realise our full potential. It is for this reason I say that all, and I do truly mean all, aspects of the community will be the result of conscious planning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't spontaneity have a place in the communities of the future?
TINNY: Our developmental progression entails the full expression of all positive characteristics. To the degree that spontaneity has a positive character it will have an increasing part in our future. The positive aspects of spontaneity will come to be perfectly manifested.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to have a community in which all aspects are the result of conscious planning and still have a place for that which is spontaneous?
TINNY: Only in a well planned community can spontaneity be expressed most positively. In a chaotic community spontaneity would more likely be expressed negatively. Order is necessary to allow potential to be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say, order is necessary to allow potential to be expressed?
TINNY: That is the nature of the physical universe. The beginning of physical existence is total chaos, electromagnetic radiation producing sub-atomic particles, scattered without any order at all. At each stage of development there is increasing order. It is this increasing order which allows the expression of new characteristics. Subatomic particles when ordered were able to express the characteristics of atoms. Atoms when ordered were able to express the characteristics of molecules. Molecules when ordered were able to express the characteristics of biological life. Biological life when ordered is able to express the characteristics of humanity. Each lower developmental stage possessed the intrinsic potential to express the characteristics of the more developed stages, but was only able to express that potential by becoming ordered.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is perfect order one of the goals of envolution?
TINNY: It is. Perfected existence is perfectly ordered.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems planning and order could be restrictive. Would you explain how spontaneity could coexist with planning and order?
TINNY: Planning and order could only be restrictive if done wrongly. The true purpose of planning and order is to allow greater freedom. Spontaneity refers to natural and unrestricted action. It is order that allows natural and unrestricted action to take place. Natural and unrestricted action comes about by the expression of free-will. It is order that allows progressively greater free-will to be manifested.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were discussing sexual behaviour I could see how that major aspect of your life was well planned for and would be called orderly. Could you give me an example from your life where orderliness carries through into small areas of daily living?
TINNY: I think the way I keep my room would be a good example. There is nothing in my room that has not been subject to conscious decision making. I have given thought to what things would have a place in my room and I have given thought to where the things in my room are placed. I try to consider every detail. Each item is placed in a way that is appropriate to its nature in relation to the unique environment of my room.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you know the way you organise your room is the right way? Couldn't other items and other placements also be right?
TINNY: Certainly. The number of right ways my room, or any room, could be organised would be virtually infinite. All of those right ways will be harmonious and aesthetically pleasing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would one of that infinite number of right ways in which a room could be organised include just throwing things around and letting them lie where they fall?
TINNY: All things progress through a series of stages. A disordered room is a stage in the progression toward an ordered room. Every stage is right in its place on the path of developmental progression. At every stage it is right to be striving toward a higher stage.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever just place something in your room without giving any thought to the harmony and aesthetics of its position?
TINNY: I'm not prefect in any of the things I do. I'm not perfect in the orderliness of my room, but I will never stop trying to improve.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Considering all the important aspects of our lives which require thought and effort to progress, might you not be using too much of your time on something of relatively small importance such as the planning and order that goes into your room?
TINNY: If keeping my room in an ordered condition took much time from other more important tasks in my life I might feel the effort was not worthwhile. What I find to be the case is that it takes virtually no more time to consider harmony and aesthetics when placing anything in my room than it would take if I gave no consideration to those matters. I have been working toward fully conscious developmental progression from a very early age. Only rarely now do I need to give undivided attention to the creation of harmony and order in my room. The process has become part of my natural way of living, it has become virtually automatic. I can now give conscious attention to the quest for harmony and order while simultaneously attending to other matters.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do your parents give as much attention to harmony and aesthetics in their lives as you do in yours?
TINNY: I think they try to but they are not as successful as I am.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: My parents grew up under different environmental conditions which did not give as much emphasis to individual developmental progression. By the time they had come to the realisation of the importance of planning and order, of harmony and aesthetics, in all aspects of their lives they had to overcome the effects of many years of learning that did not include those values. They struggle to overcome those limitations, but realise it may never be possible to achieve as much as I.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't your parents ever feel bad that you are able to achieve more than they can?
TINNY: Not at all. They take great pleasure that they had the opportunity to provide me with an environment and early learning experiences which allowed me to more fully express my potential than they were able to do. Progression is the natural process of material form. Each generation should surpass the previous generation. Children should always surpass their parents. That is the path by which the human race may achieve its grand destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can we only expect small increases in developmental progression from one generation to the next?
TINNY: It is possible for each new generation to make progress beyond the greatest expectation of the preceding generation. There are no true limits to the amount of progress that can be made from one generation and the next at the human level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there limits to the amount of progress that can be made from one generation and the next of material forms below the human level of development?
TINNY: There are limits to the progression of those material forms below the human level; although, the higher the level of development the greater the amount of progression which can take place within any given period of time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is human progression unlimited when the lower forms of development have limits?
TINNY: Human progression is unlimited because we have passed the turning point where development, which had previously been more controlled by external factors, is now more under the control of inner factors, our human free-will. External factors are bound by physical limits while free-will is linked to existence beyond the material plane, unbound by physical limits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said your parents provided you with an environment and early learning experiences which allowed you to more fully express your potential. Is it also the duty of the community to provide its members with the environment and early learning experiences that will allow each individual to more fully express their potential?
TINNY: That is the duty of human society at all levels. Individuals should provide right environments and right learning experiences for themselves. Families should provide right environments and right learning experiences for their children. Communities should provide right environments and right learning experiences for all their members. And worldwide human society should provide a right environment and right learning experiences for all the world's communities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If responsibility was fulfilled at each of those social levels human development would take place very quickly.
TINNY: There is no other way for human destiny to be fulfilled. There is no other path which leads to perfect existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are a lot of people in the world, will they all have the opportunity to fulfill their destiny?
TINNY: That opportunity will be available to all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Much of the world's population is now crowded into large cities. Would there be enough room for these city dwellers to migrate to small communities? Might not the number of small communities needed to house those leaving the cities be so large the planet would be overcrowded? When so many people are crowded into cities they do not take up nearly so much room.
TINNY: There would be room enough for all the world's present population to spread out into smaller communities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: World population is increasing at a very high rate. Will it always be true that there is room and resources enough for all?
TINNY: We must be careful the human population does not reach a point which no longer allows a harmonious relationship between the human species and our planetary home.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you suggesting it might be necessary for population growth to be restricted?
TINNY: Yes I am. Unless the present population explosion is reversed we will never be able to solve the many problems facing human society, we will never be able to attain the full blessings of human destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many of the people in the world believe it is right for as many new human beings to be brought into the existence as possible.
TINNY: I wouldn't argue against that belief, they are correct. It is indeed our duty to create as many new human beings as possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is true, how can you justify suggesting human population growth be restricted?
TINNY: The purpose of all material existence is to reach increasingly more advanced levels of development, constantly striving for perfection. The greater the number of physical forms that make progress the more the purpose of material existence is achieved. It is not only the goal of the physical forms on our planet to progress, but it is also important that the greatest number of physical forms progress. It is not only the goal of material existence that some human beings will progress to higher developmental levels, but it is important that the greatest number of human beings achieve that exalted state. Ideally all would achieve perfection. It is important to realise that the purpose of human life is not simply to maximise its number, the goal is for the greatest number to fulfill their destiny through achieving maximum developmental progression. The number of human beings must be balanced against the level of developmental progression which can be achieved. If the number of human beings is so great that general human development can longer continue to progress, that number of human beings acts against the purpose of human life. At that point it is right to restrict the growth of human population until circumstances allow greater numbers to exist while further developmental progression continues.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it true that no aspect of material existence takes precedence over the need for developmental progression to continue?
TINNY: That is the ultimate purpose of all material existence. All other aspects of material existence are sublimated to that primary directive. Nothing can be right which interferes with material existence carrying out that responsibility. Right and wrong are determined as measured against the standard of continued developmental progression. Increased human population is only right so long as the increased numbers are consistent with achieving the goal of continued developmental progression. When increasing human population acts in opposition to continued developmental progression those increased numbers are wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will one of the duties of future human development be to create an environment that can provide successful nurturance of greater numbers of human beings?
TINNY: The responsibility to ensure that the greatest number of beings are given the opportunity to reach higher levels of developmental progression is secondary to the primary responsibility of maintaining the continued developmental progression of all material existence. We must create a future world which will allow the greatest number of new human beings to be brought into the world, but it is irresponsible to bring new human beings into a world that cannot provide the opportunity to fulfill their destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem in many areas of human knowledge the truth is known, but not fully understood.
TINNY: The human species is on the verge of attaining enlightenment. So very close, but due to the many pressing social problems brought about by an incorrect world view, still so very far away. Sometimes I can almost feel the shell of consciousness enveloping our planet resonating as the threshold is approached where a quantum leap of human consciousness shall send us soaring into an enlightened state.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the small communities of the future have as one of their direct goals the expansion of human consciousness?
TINNY: The expansion of consciousness is only one of the many human attributes that will be the focus of emphasis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There will be many practical problems which must be overcome before these future small communities could become a reality.
TINNY: The problems are numerous and extensive but the solutions are well within our potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you describe these idealistic communities of the future they seem so far from the way the world is at present. Might the future ideal be so far from the present reality that the gap cannot be bridged?
TINNY: If the gap is too wide to be bridged in a sudden great leap then there is always a viable alternative. What a giant leap sometimes cannot do a successive series of small steps can always achieve. When I speak of the future small communities I am referring to an ideal, a goal. I have no illusions that the world will suddenly change from being what it is at present, with the social and physical wrongness of humanity heaped into large cities, to the emotional and spiritual health of the future small communities. Such changes may occur slowly or they may occur quickly; but, will only take place when the time is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I was wondering, what will happen to the cities as people migrate to smaller communities more conducive to personal development? Will the cities be left as empty and decaying hulks to be despised and avoided?
TINNY: If that was the way the move from the cities to small communities was done it would be a great waste of resources, and would leave a terrible blot across the face of our planet. The land occupied by the cities must be reclaimed and brought back into harmony with the natural environment. The material resources which made up the structure of the cities could be used effectively in the creation of new communities. Resources should always be recycled.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would all cities be completely obliterated so no hint of their past existence would remain?
TINNY: that would not be necessary or desirable. Most of the physical structures making up any city have no historical value and should be removed. A few of the physical structures in every city will have historical significance and should be maintained. That which remains of historical value from the world's cities will serve the function of letting future generations better understand the path which human social development has taken. The better we understand the past the better we can know the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will any of the small communities of the future occupy lands presently taken up by cities?
TINNY: Cities often cover vast areas of very desirable land. At least the land was desirable before cities stripped it of its finer qualities. That land can once again become desirable and available. This good land will once again provide a worthwhile home for part of the human population.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each small community of the future have to be widely separated from all other small communities?
TINNY: Some communities will be widely separated from others, some will be very close. The important characteristic of these new communities is that their members be able to establish a personal relationship and close ties with their particular community. Communities and their members benefit if they share an identity, each being responsible for the other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the relationship of world society to the small communities have a similar nature?
TINNY: The small communities will need to establish personal relationships and close ties with the united world society. World society and its members benefit if they can share an identity, each being responsible for the other. The individual should be an integral part of the community while remaining a unique and distinct individual. The community should be an integral part of united world society while remaining a unique and distinct community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each individual work to fulfill the needs of the local community?
TINNY: Each individual will be working to best fulfill their own needs. By doing so they will be working to fulfill the needs of the local community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each community be working to fulfill the needs of the united world society?
TINNY: Each community will be working to best fulfill its own needs. By doing so they will be working to fulfill the needs of the united world society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the united world society be working to fulfill the needs of the communities, and will the communities be working to fulfill the needs of their members?
TINNY: Every level of human social existence, from the individual to the united world society, will be in a harmonious reciprocal relationship; each level providing for the needs of all others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will happen when the population in any community becomes too large to receive the benefits of small community living?
TINNY: At that point a new and separate community will come into being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will it come from?
TINNY: As I said earlier, each community will have unique characteristics and may specialise in certain areas. As new communities form they will draw those with similar or harmonious interests into a new social bond. The resources will be provided by whichever communities have an abundance which meets the needs of the newly forming community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How will those forming a community be able to pay for all that is required to create a new community?
TINNY: The concept and function of payment will no longer exist. It will be need that will determine supply. Any new community that forms will have their needs fully and freely supplied.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will the labour come from to create a new community?
TINNY: Most of the labour will be supplied by those who will be members of the new community. Any necessary labour that is not available from within the membership of the new community will be freely provided by other communities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see why those who will be members of the new community would be willing to put their labour into its creation, they will directly benefit. Why will members from other communities be willing to freely put their labour into the development of a new community?
TINNY: Those enlightened beings of the future will know the unified nature of all existence. They will not be able to distinguish the benefits to a new community from the benefits to their own community. They will see that whatever benefits one can only benefit all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would not free material resources and labour be given somewhat grudgingly even by those who realised the unified nature of all things?
TINNY: Enlightened beings of the future will do nothing grudgingly. The opportunity to provide needed resources and labour for the benefit of others will be an experience sought after and cherished.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those enlightened beings of the future don't sound much like the human beings of today's world.
TINNY: Some of those enlightened beings of the future are the human beings of today's world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will some of those alive today really be able to change so much and progress so far?
TINNY: That degree of change is within the potential of all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In these communities of the future, who will decide what needs to be done and who will do whatever needs to be done?
TINNY: What needs to be done will be determined by the nature of the community. The needs of the community will be obvious to all. Each individual will decide for themselves what they will do to fulfill the needs of the community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Each community has some jobs that, while necessary, are not at all desirable. Who will do that work which is most unpleasant?
TINNY: Admittedly some necessary jobs in any community would be considered less than desirable. Such community needs and the work that fulfils those needs would be a high priority of future planning. As much as possible meeting those needs should be made as pleasant as possible and should take as little time as possible. Technology and innovative community planning could alleviate much of that which is unpleasant. Until it can be totally eliminated that which is unpleasant in the fulfilling of necessary community needs should be equitably and harmoniously shared.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only among enlightened beings would such a suggestion be workable.
TINNY: While unpleasant tasks remain necessary, fairly and cheerfully accepting and performing those unpleasant tasks is part of our path of progression. If we cannot accept a fair share of that which is unpleasant we cannot receive a fair share of that which is most desirable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If work that was unpleasant was fairly distributed no person would have much unpleasant work to do, would they?
TINNY: Each person would have so little to do that was considered unpleasant that it may no longer be considered unpleasant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How large a role will technology have in our future?
TINNY: We would have no future without technology.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't technology the application of our sciences? Doesn't our future involve more than science?
TINNY: To consider technology only to be the application of our science is a very limited understanding. Technology would refer to the application of all our knowledge. Our future involves much more than has traditionally been included in the fields of science. Our future involves the application of knowledge from all areas of human endeavour, scientific, philosophical, spiritual, artistic, and others. This full application of technology can make that which now seems impossible easily possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As city living declines and cities are replaced by the new small communities, will people still live in the same countries as they do now? If the whole of human population were to live in small communities they will have to be much more widespread than at present. Many of the areas where large numbers of people have chosen to live would be the most hospitable. Many of the areas presently unpopulated would be the least hospitable. Will some people choose to move to the less hospitable areas?
TINNY: Technology can assist us in ways that can make even the least hospitable area comfortably livable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that with technology we can alter the inhospitable environments and make them places where we can live comfortably?
TINNY: We should not always think of technology as a means to conquer nature. Technology can just as easily, and much more desirably be used to facilitate our attempts to live in harmony with nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would these communities of the future be able to exist in high mountains, dry deserts, dense forests, and deep seas?
TINNY: Those are but a few of the environments that will nurture human communities in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't there always be some people who will be able to live in the most desirable places and some who will have to live in the least desirable places?
TINNY: Everyone will be able to live in a place that meets their needs, both physical and emotional. Everyone will live in a place where they choose to live. Human desire is at least as diverse as the varied environments available. There will always be those who will choose to live in any environment available.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about national boundaries?
TINNY: The concept of national boundaries is an artificial one. The dividing of the planet's surface into individual countries was one of the many social wrongs which stemmed from the desires of a privileged few to protect and maintain their wealth and power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't some of the boundaries that divide countries natural?
TINNY: Our planet has many different physical characteristics, some of them at times have acted as boundaries, but that is not their natural function.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Hasn't some good come from the different paths of human development which have arisen as various sections of the world's population have been isolated for long periods?
TINNY: Isolation and separate development is one of the many ways in which the human race could have progressed. The early isolation due to the physical characteristics of the planet were of a vastly different nature than the national boundaries created for economic gain and the accumulation of power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the present distribution of human population across our planet will not necessarily be maintained in the future.
TINNY: There will be great shifts of population as a worldwide redistribution of humanity takes place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who will direct this redistribution of human population? Who will decide who can and should move to a new location?
TINNY: At present the movement of individuals and groups across our planet is controlled by governments. Passes are required to leave and permits are required to enter. No one has the right to restrict the movement of any other person around our planet. Each individual's ultimate relationship is with the whole planet, the relationship is natural. Every individual has among their natural rights, free access to any part of our shared planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be no restrictions on where any person may choose to live in the future?
TINNY: There will always be natural restrictions. There cannot be existence on the material plane without the restrictions of natural law. Every person is subject to those natural restrictions. What each person must be freed from are the artificial restrictions placed upon them by human law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all limits placed by human laws examples of artificial restrictions?
TINNY: There is no reason human law can not be in accord with natural law. In those instances human law does not place artificial restrictions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kind of restrictions will natural law place on an individual's right to live where they choose?
TINNY: As a general example, no person has the right to choose to live in a place that will bring about a lowering of the level of developmental progression that exists in that area. No person has the right to live in a place if by doing so they cause a disharmony within that community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't such restrictions be the basis for unfair discrimination, against certain individuals or social groups?
TINNY: In the present world such restrictions are often used as a basis for unfair discrimination. In a right world unfair discrimination will not exist. Natural law will serve only natural functions. In our present world, suffering from so many social ills predicated on a wrong world view, even natural law has been perverted in an attempt to achieve false goals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is sometimes difficult to understand the true nature of an idealistic future from the language, concepts, and perspective of our present troubled society.
TINNY: I feel that very much in our discussion. I feel so inadequate as I attempt to express the true nature of existence and make predictions about our utopian future. At least I know that the enlightened beings who will live in that future will be able to see beyond my flawed attempts and will not be bound by my errors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The importance of your message does not depend on the truth of the specifics. The great importance of your message is that it opens a door that has been long closed.
TINNY: I'm glad I don't have the responsibility to speak only words of perfect truth. Unless it is acknowledged I can be wrong I would be hesitant to speak.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many should heed such inner caution.
TINNY: Do you have any more questions about the small communities of the future?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have wondered how it is that you possess this type of knowledge. Surely you have not given prior thought to every aspect of community life in the future which we have discussed.
TINNY: I have given some thought to how communities would likely be in the future, but many of your questions and things we have discussed had never before crossed my mind.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems you always have an answer, and usually a good answer.
TINNY: Once the unity of all existence is truly realised new knowledge, when needed, seems to fall readily into place. I am constantly surprising myself that I know answers I had no idea I knew. The answers to even the most difficult questions become obvious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we could now discuss another area of human social difficulty in our present world. This is the last one I will ask you about, and I will not even ask you to finish the discussion of this last area of social difficulty.
TINNY: Why are we stopping here?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is a good time to leave for others the opportunity to carry out further similar discussions of areas of human social problems for themselves. You have provided a good basis and direction for such discussions, and we will leave the discussion of this next area of human social problems unfinished so as to make the transition of responsibility smooth and easy for those who take over from you in planning for a future world right in every way.
TINNY: That sounds like a good plan to me, since I am obviously not the fountain of all knowledge, nor am I the only one who will be able to understand what is necessary to help ensure a successful, right future for the human race. I will be anxious to know the ideas of others as we move into a future directed by beings understanding the true nature of our existence, and highly motivated to do what is necessary to bring about a future world of peace and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So let us move on to our last topic of discussion.
TINNY: O.K. We've been discussing the small communities of the future for quite a while now. It will be good to move on to another topic. Human social problems are so pervasive and there is so much more which could be discussed it is hard to know what would be an appropriate problem area to end our discussion on.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let us finish our discussion by considering crime. Presently crime is rampant throughout much of the world, and it is fast increasing almost everywhere. Is crime a natural part of human life?
TINNY: Definitely not. All criminal behaviour is in opposition to the purpose of human life. Crime is a very complex concept and has been defined many ways. Essentially anything which is injurious to the public welfare must be considered as a crime.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how would the public welfare be defined?
TINNY: Here a great difficulty arises. Not everything that is claimed to harm the public welfare actually does so, and some things that are not considered to harm the public welfare actually cause damage.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so difficult to determine what is and what is not of harm to the public welfare?
TINNY: Once again we see a social problem caused by the failure to understand the true nature of existence. Without an objective standard by which to judge the harmful or beneficial results of any action it is impossible to know what harms or does not bring harm to the public welfare. Unless we know what the true needs of the public welfare are we cannot know when actions stand in the way of those needs being met.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What other reasons might there be for laws except to prevent harm to the public welfare?
TINNY: Many human laws are used not to protect the true public welfare, but instead are used to protect the interests of special groups. Some laws protect the right to acquire and hold unacceptably large hoards of material goods and wealth. Some laws protect the power of a few over the rights of the many. Some laws provide special privileges to the rich and powerful. Some laws are used as a means to impose the beliefs of a few on the many.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: None of those laws would protect the public welfare.
TINNY: No they wouldn't, they would act in opposition to the true public welfare.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If certain laws act against the true public interest wouldn't those laws be crimes?
TINNY: That is true, the enacting and enforcing of some laws is actually a crime.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think crime should be defined?
TINNY: There is no difference between a criminal act and an evil act. Any act that opposes our developmental progression is an evil act. Any act that opposes our developmental progression is a criminal act.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you speak of acts that are crimes do you only mean physical actions?
TINNY: Thoughts, words and deeds are all classes of actions. Thoughts, words and deeds can all be good acts and serve to assist our developmental progression, and thoughts, words, and deeds can all be evil acts which impede our developmental progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So thoughts, words and deeds can all be criminal acts. There can be crimes of thought, crimes of speech and crimes of deed.
TINNY: That is so.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem almost everyone would at sometime think thoughts, speak words, or perform deeds which would impede developmental progression. Are all these people criminals?
TINNY: In the sense we are using the word 'crime' it is true that any person who thinks a thought, speaks a word, or performs a deed which opposes the fulfillment of our destiny through a continued developmental progression would have to be considered a criminal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have any of your thoughts, words, or deeds ever impeded the continued developmental progression?
TINNY: More times than I would like to admit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So even you have offended against the public welfare, even you have committed criminal acts.
TINNY: Yes, I have.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since every person in some form or other has committed criminal acts does that mean that everyone is deserving of punishment? Can't punishment bring an end to these wrong actions? Couldn't punishments be used to reduce or eliminate wrong thoughts, wrong words, and wrong deeds?
TINNY: The belief that punishment can be used to get rid of wrong behaviour is very widespread. It is also a completely mistaken belief. Although it would seem punishment, by definition, would always result in a decrease in the rate and magnitude of the response that was being punished, it is very often the case that in the long term punishment actually results in increases in the rate and the magnitude of the behaviour being punished or of associated harmful behaviours.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How could so many people wrongly believe in the successful use of punishment for so long?
TINNY: Punishment appears to work, so people come to believe it really does work. I don't want to go into much detail about punishment now because it will be easier to understand later when we are talking about the principles by which learning takes place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then I'll wait for that further explanation of the ineffectiveness of punishment. For now I'll accept that punishment is not an acceptable way to deal with wrong behaviour.
TINNY: Not only is punishment largely ineffective, but it is very unpleasant both for those who receive the punishment and for those who apply the punishment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree with you that all actions which in the true sense interfere with the continued developmental progression are crimes, but let's get back to crime as it is more usually thought of in today's world. Would you give some examples of different classes of criminal behaviour and some idea of why these behaviours occur?
TINNY: Most crimes have for thousands of years been mainly of three classes; crimes for material gain, crimes of aggression, and crimes of sense gratification. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the three.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me about crimes for material gain first.
TINNY: Crimes for material gain include a very wide range, all of which result in the taking of material wealth that belongs to others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the causes of crimes for material gain?
TINNY: Among the many causes of crimes for material gain are; private ownership, excessive accumulation of material wealth, poverty, excessive emphasis on the desirability of material wealth, lack of internalised moral/ethical values, and the acceptance of crime for material gain by society at large.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is not a complete list of the causes behind crimes for material gain is it?
TINNY: No list of causes is ever complete. This list is sufficient to provide a general understanding of this particular crime.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain each of those causes. It is not immediately obvious how some of them can be responsible for crimes of material gain.
TINNY: No behaviour in society, either right or wrong, occurs independent of the holistic dynamics of society. Because we live in a world of private and exclusive ownership sharing is not a widely experienced social behaviour. If our world was one where sharing predominated, crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world where some people accumulate excessive amounts of material wealth there will be others who possess very little material wealth. Because some live richly others must live in poverty. Because the desirability of possessing material wealth is so powerfully instilled into the prevailing world consciousness, that which has little true value becomes conditioned as a focus of desire of most members of the human race. If our world was a place where no one took more than was needed, where no one had to live without their material needs being met, and where material wealth did not stir the desire, crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world without an accepted body of moral/ethical standards there are fewer each generation who grow up having internalised a positive value system. If our world was one where natural law formed the basis of an accepted system of moral-ethical beliefs these would result in virtually all children growing up having internalised that positive value system, and crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world that in many ways legitimises crime for material gain by the rich and powerful, although their theft is not called crime, and where portrayals of crime for material gain are widely promoted and accepted as entertainment there is a vanishing minority who truly reject crime for material gain. If our world was one where crime for material gain was met with widespread abhorrence crime for material gain would seldom occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see now how the causes you outlined do contribute to crimes of material gain. There are people who will not like hearing your claims. You lay part of the responsibility upon those who would acknowledge no share in the causes of crime for material gain.
TINNY: It is much more comforting to lay full blame for crimes committed on those who commit them, but that is not our social reality. Those who commit crimes are victims of a wrong society and their guilt must be shared by all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you suggesting criminals are not more responsible for their own actions, and that other persons must accept as much responsibility as the one who commits the criminal act.
TINNY: Not at all. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions and no other person must accept as much responsibility as the one who commits the act.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You explained some of the causes behind crime for material gain quite well. I was next going to ask you to explain some of the causes behind crimes of aggression, but I am sure, given the example you have set, many could now answer that question without your help. I think now is the time to pass on the opportunity to the reader, who I pray will accept their obligation to use the knowledge of this new worldview they have learned to be part of the movement toward a future world better in every way.
TINNY: I hope the responsibility you are shifting to the reader is not going to scare them, it is a huge undertaking.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You and I alone, no matter how much we discuss, can never change this world full of terrible problems into a virtual paradise, a world of peace and love. Only if those who have been reading these words and learning this new worldview also take upon themselves the responsibility to help achieve this most grand of all goals can we have any hope of success.
TINNY: I know you are right. Even if the reader at this point only makes a small effort to continue understanding this new, positive, accurate, and motivational worldview it will be the beginning of a process of worldwide social transformation toward all that is good and right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We can only wait and see what the result will be.
TINNY: Dear reader I have to put my trust in you, I believe you will do something, whether it be great or small, to ensure that goodness wins over evil. This is the Holy Struggle we are all part of. I am convinced good will win - are you?
