The Record Essay about Universalism, Essays (high school) of Philosophy

Download The Record Essay about Universalism and more Essays (high school) Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! The Record Universalism To the readers... When you purchase a movie in any format, it usually includes a “makingof”. Well, at the editor’s suggestion, we decided to do a “making-of” of The Record. But rather than focusing on how it was made we’re going to talk about why it was made. What was the logic behind it? Are its proposals utopian or a necessity? Actually, hidden among the intrigue and suspense, there are various ideas that are, in short, what motivated me to write this novel. Let’s talk about it, shall we? Let me begin with a fastidious request. When I originally wrote this book, I titled it The Record, so for sentimental reasons, please don’t mind when refer to it as such. As you may have noticed, despite the story’s futuristic setting, it steers away from the inhumane and robotic societies often created by sciencefiction authors. I do not believe in that robotic man ina cold and technological society; which is why I do not reflect this in my writings. For a long time I have had a passion for studying and understanding mankind’s journey on Earth over thousands of years and it has taught me that, in essence, man has not changed since the beginning of time. We make the same mistakes over and over again, and hardly learn anything from them. We tend to think that our current technical skills make us better than previous generations, and that is a deeply flawed assessment. Indeed, history shows us that the men who walked the streets of Athens 2,500 years ago were not much different than those of today. They worried about their welfare, economics, children, politics and sports, which they were so fond of, that even wars stopped during the Olympics. They liked to have drinks with friends to chat about their city’s latest political gossip, the next much talked about divorce or the latest sports scores. They wanted to love and be loved. They wondered who they were and where they were going. Does that seem very different from people today? Consequently, there are no grounds to believe that citizens of the future will be different from citizens of today. Contemporary technology will provide the dangerous instrument, placed in the hands of the inevitably unconscious and irresponsible, will destroy humanity. This conviction was the base for the First Authority to lead the Universalist Revolution. Aware that the existing, outdated, and comfortably situated economic and political structures, will snatch any possibility of a future for man as an individual and as a whole if we do not fight for change. The solutions will never come from those that are already in power, because they feel satisfied and often think like that great cynic who was once asked, "When do you think the world will end?” He replied without blinking, "When I die.” There is no doubt that the necessary solutions should come from new people with different ideas. That is what the ruling classes symbolize in The Record. The need for this profound change is evident, as weapons of mass destruction have placed humanity at a dangerous crossroads: destroy them or be destroyed by them. It is disturbing to see how man’s behavior does not change when the circumstances are identical - even if there are thousands of years of history between them. Governments and the powers that be, whatever their political views, have never refrained from sacrificing human lives in the name of their country. They will always justify by claiming it is for the greater good, adding, of course, the prospect of economic benefits or of a potential loss of power. The dominant classes always find an excuse, whether religious or territorial, for justifying the intervention of nations in conflict behind any flag. As long as there are tribes or countries on Earth, war will exist. This conviction is what motivates the revolution that sets the stage for The Record. Everyone knows that the United States used atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, but there have been other times in recent history that we have been on the brink of a nuclear confrontation. During the Cold War, the late President Kennedy did not hesitate, even for a moment, to put humanity on the verge of a new world war when he demanded the Soviet Union to dismantle their nuclear warheads that were installed in Cuba, an independent country that had accepted them, just as Turkey had allowed the U.S. to deploy missiles near the Soviet border. Fortunately, the world was spared the imminent disaster when the Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev decided to withdraw the missiles when he realized war seemed inevitable. Meanwhile, Kennedy lived the last days of the crisis locked in his nuclear bunker, while we, the ingenuous people who inhabit this beautiful and troubled Earth, moved across its surface without any protection and without the slightest possibility of influencing the grave decisions being made from remote locations. If this has been done by countries that, theoretically, have control mechanisms in place over their leaders, just imagine what can be expected from countries that offer less guarantees to their citizens and also have full capacity for destruction; countries such as Pakistan, India, China, Israel, Korea and a long list of European countries? Surely new countries will be added to the "nuclear club" in the future, not to mention the possibility of uncontrollable international terrorist groups being added to this category. Einstein, Asimov and other wise men posed: there can be no local solutions to universal problems, and it is absolutely impossible for the governments of the more than two hundred nations that make up the current political map, to reach agreement that would be sufficient to resolve such serious and urgent matters. But the current risks are much broader. Can anyone with the slightest sense of reality really believe that an accident occurring in a nuclear center of any country will not affect the rest of us? That the existence of borders can prevent disaster from affecting them, the way it already occurred with Chernobyl? Can anyone really think that the multiple and expensive state structures on our planet can provide reasonable safeguards to prevent the existing hunger in the world from resulting in a destructive confrontation between rich nations and people who have nothing to lose except their misery? Can anyone guarantee that countries that possess weapons of mass destruction would not use them if circumstances called for it? Does anyone believe that existing borders and governments will provide some sort of protection against the consequences of radioactivity, which would claim the lives of humans on the planet? Can anyone expect a country to jeopardize its economic growth by giving up its industrial development in order to prevent the polluting gases from destroying the forests that generate the oxygen needed for the maintenance of life on our planet, without a superior political power forcing them to do so? To make this more relevant to our current reality, let’s reflect on the key issues that sustain our troubled society. In the novel we look at these issues from a balcony in the future. It is a journey from a bird’s-eye view about a society where Universalism is a reality enjoyed by all of Earth’s inhabitants. A civilization where there are no wars because there are no countries, where the global economy allows for one region to cover for another’s deficiencies through the bartering of goods. A civilization where man travels the world freely, where the only borders are his own ambitions and he is not driven by hunger. A world where national interests affecting the environment have disappeared with the abolition of all nations, and where the legal framework and the language is the same for everyone. In a nutshell, a society that II The World We Live In It would make sense that we begin by analyzing ourselves, the men and women who make up the raw materials of society, as we are the essence of our greatest concerns given that nothing is dearer than oneself and the gender to which one belongs. Both sexes are united by an overwhelming majority of common characteristics, making up what we call the human race. Like any other animal species, we are guided by the instinct of survival, which is the engine that moves everything; it is why we love, eat, have sex, strive to improve ourselves, form organized groups, seek shelter and fear death. Biology further clarifies these common characteristics. Over hundreds of thousands of years, each sex has developed distinctive behaviors that distinguish one from the other. The prehistoric period more or less made us what we are today. It was hundreds of centuries, which is a long period of time compared to the barely thirty centuries that we know as “history”, and it had the most influence in our small daily behaviors; we are still mesmerized by the figures made by fire in a fireplace, which make us feel secure and at home. This is because for thousands of years fire accounted for the only way for humans to break the darkness of night and protect themselves against predators and the cold, leaving those sensations imprinted in our subconscious minds, even though we no longer have the same needs. In addition, for thousands of years, the male human was responsible for hunting and gathering food. During this time, they developed the ability to work in teams, establish strategies and carry out physical labor. Meanwhile, their female counterparts would remain in caves procreating and taking care of children at what today would be considered a very early age. For the females it was essential that the males return with food for them and their children. This led them to develop the art of seduction as a means react defensively, brainwashing their citizens with religion and ignorance, in order to protect their world from the influences of the West, which is viewed as an enemy. Many of these leaders - as rich as if straight out of A Thousand and One Nights - are to blame for not modernizing their societies, by making proper use of the immense economic opportunities that oil provides for them (similar to what takes place in Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela). Its citizens should claim this right urgently, before the wells run dry and all they have left is the desert sand to sustain them. The fact is that not all Arab countries have oil, but the ones that do, have it in mass quantities. The leaders of these countries should be directing the development in those regions of the planet, instead of flaunting their wealth in the most exclusive places. These are the same political and religious parties that are responsible for keeping their citizens in the Middle Ages, knowing that as long as they reign and keep their people ignorant, said people will never claim their right to a more useful and fair distribution of wealth. In several Asian countries, including China, with an ancient culture that until recently was stuck in the Middle Ages, the progression toward an industrial society has developed with varying degrees of success. As for Latin American countries, here we have societies with roots in Western culture, taking continuous steps to advance and then going backwards with strong jolts from right to left, always torn between attempts at sociopolitical progress and the endemic despotism that corrodes them. This particular erratic behavior arises from these countries’ origins: they are a product of Spain and Portugal in the Middle Ages and the aristocratic world that dominated during the time of discovery and that established societies that were primarily agricultural in those lands. The Industrial and French Revolutions developed far from its borders, so their influence only reached them sparingly. For this reason, they still swing between certain medieval habits and irregular attempts to establish themselves as modern states. Much like the Arab countries, they are not taking advantage of their natural resources, including oil, which is abundant in some regions, to modernize. This phenomenon was not reproduced in North America because their first European settlers were from more advanced societies, where there was already a strong industrial and commercial bourgeoisie. This circumstance allowed practiced colonization to be different from what was developed some centuries earlier by the conquistadores from the Iberian Peninsula. The nations that emerged from the remnants of the former Soviet Union find themselves in a situation similar to that of Latin America, where there still remains a long and hard path to reconstructing obsolete structures before replacing them with those more consistent with the new times. Finally, there are the so-called Western democracies, which have passed the earlier evolutionary stages, and lead global socioeconomic progress today. To follow that evolutionary path, they had to overcome great difficulties; there were moments of deep setbacks and other significant social advances. Overall it can be said that the democratic states are the children of Greco-Roman thought and organization, recovered in Europe during the Renaissance, and the Industrial and French revolutions. Geographically these countries are distributed between Europe, North America, Australia and Japan. Although there are slight differences, their people enjoy a standard of living that has never before been achieved, but at the same time, they have a certain sense of guilt for the misery existing in other parts of the world, which is enhanced by lack of understanding and not necessarily due to a cause- effect relationship between their own wealth and the deficiencies of others. The United States is the leader of all of them. This is not the first time in history where one single nation exercises superpowers. In another era, Rome was not only a superpower but was expected to watch over the rest of the world. For the most part, it exercised this role with prudence and not a little wisdom. Its prestige was such that, when a neighboring king invaded Egypt, (both were allies of Rome), the Senate sent an ambassador to the court of the invading king to make him desist. The invading king, after hearing Rome’s arguments, said he would think about it. The Roman ambassador drew a circle on the floor around the king and told him that he would need an answer before stepping out of the circle. Immediately, the invading king withdrew his troops. The fact is that conflicts were not always resolved without the use of weapons, but it is true that the world enjoyed the longest period of peace that man has ever known. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill defined the United States as the "new Rome”. This being the case, its government should use maximum restraint and wisdom in the exercise of its sole superpower status. It is true, however, that the variable which implies the existence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, like so many other universal problems, makes this role not just difficult, but almost impossible. Today, weapons of mass destruction are available with relatively few resources and are not just in the hands of many countries, but also in the hands of groups of extremists willing to do just about anything. Consequently, it is impossible to perform the role of sentinel of the world without, at the same time, subjecting humanity to a risk it cannot assume, even if the best of intentions are utilized in that capacity. In order to better understand the general approach of the ideas proposed by The Record, and with no claim to be exhaustive as it could become boring, let’s explore with a bird’s eye view, the world around us and the obsolete power mechanisms that move it: governments, economy, culture, science, information, religion and many other elements that are so common in our everyday lives that many times they go by virtually unnoticed. III The Government Unlike many other species, the ability to establish communities along with the technological skills that mankind has been able to develop throughout his existence has allowed humans to spread throughout the Earth and stand the test of time. Government is the instrument that keeps the people organized. Without Government, there would be anarchy, leading humans to a primitive disorder, where individuals would establish their own rules of conduct, resulting in their inability to grow as a species. It would be an overwhelming combination of individual insecurities that would lead to chaos, and, by the same token, force people to live by the law of the jungle where “only the strongest survive”, putting humans just a step away from extinction. Iraq is a perfect example of what happens when a government collapses without being replaced immediately by another: passions, ambitions and selfishness of individuals translate into killings, lootings and other calamities. These acts make any attempt at collective life impossible, which is essential for citizens to be at peace. Anarchism is a beautiful poetic alternative that would be possible to implement if we were angels. However, unfortunately, this is not the case, which is why we must learn to love, be familiar with and respect each other as we are. destruction (which they would not hesitate to consider, if, at some point, they were placed in a position where they felt threatened), our borders and governments could do nothing to prevent radioactivity from eradicating life in large areas of the planet. Using globalization for their purposes, terrorism has been internationalized and is harshly punishing many nations. It is not likely to disappear from the world as long as there are countries that provide refuge and encouragement. Governments are powerless to act effectively in this area, as they would need global agreements to eradicate it. These agreements are not just difficult to achieve, but almost impossible, due to the confluence of different criteria and interests. Every year, the polluting factories of developed countries and of those in the process of developing, destroy thousands of hectares of forest that provide the oxygen we breathe. If we continue down this path, our descendants will have no Earth to inherit, as the novel says. Even with the best of intentions, each individual government alone cannot do anything to avoid the consequences of this phenomenon, a product of industrialization. The planet has become smaller. The globalization of communications has also provided universal availability of part of the economy, mainly the movement of capital and information, which, in itself, is not a positive thing without the production and purchasing power of citizens. So much so that a fall in the Tokyo stock market affects the investor in London and the bankruptcy of an English bank may result in the suspension of payments, leading to the subsequent generation of unemployment in many companies in other parts of the world. In response, there is nothing national governments can do, as they are unable to confront decisions made thousands of miles away. Shouldn’t this be enough reason for us to change them? We, the citizens of this planet will have to revolt someday, and the sooner the better. We need to revolt against the ill-intentioned message from the powers that be, in the sense that the creation of a world government is utopian. It is not true, as we will explain later in this book. But, even if it were, is there anything more beautiful than the fight for a dream? IV The Economy The concept of "economy" is very broad and has much influence in the past and present of mankind. It also bears weight on political decisions made by governments, which, while not intending to make an exhaustive study, we find it necessary to get acquainted with its general principles, in order to best describe the world we inhabit. In the novel we see an economy where large corporations have disappeared because their power nucleus is hard to control and thus they manage to impose criteria regardless of its usefulness. We propose a free economy, recovering the artisan and small farmer, but making them coexist with larger, specialized companies in those fields where it is necessary due to productive complexity. Trade should be fully globalized, so that each region produces that which their natural conditions facilitate, or that the very talent and imagination of its people make possible - all this within a universal framework. To make all this a bit easier to understand, we will try to reflect on some basic aspects of the economy. 1. Production In order to cover his basic needs, man needs access to food, shelter, clothing, and so on. In the beginning of time he tended to be self-sufficient: hunting for food, building a house or seeking a cave for shelter, and used animal skins as clothing. As the population grew, individuals began to specialize in different types of production; thus the birth of the farmer, the agriculturist, the artisan ... Later on, and in order to meet the vital needs, man started exchanging goods, and this became the forerunner of trade as we know it today. Subsequently, as societies progressed, it became unnecessary for its members to invest all of their available time in the search for food or clothing. Now, for the first time, man became familiar with free time, and so he began to create things that go beyond the bare necessities: culture, entertainment and a host of second tier goods. The increase in demand resulted in an increase in production and of course, its organization became more complex. This brought about the need for two additional specializations: entrepreneurs and workers. The first contributed the idea and the funding required to develop it, and either directly or via a delegate, managed and directed the structure of production. The latter, in return for a wage, contributed the labor required for the manufacture of the goods that society demanded. Later, as a result of the evolution of technology, mechanization was introduced to the production processes. On the other hand, the entrepreneur operated as an individual or via partnerships or corporations. Some centuries later, these partnerships or corporations decided to increase their production in several countries, and so the so-called multinationals were born. These companies, as we know them today, originated in the industrial revolution, when larger companies gradually replaced artisans who produced copious amounts of goods. In order to thrive, these mass producers needed a broader market than that offered by their own cities or countries. Also a product of the industrial revolution is the enduring mistrust between management and the workforce. This confrontation is absurd, as both are essential to one another, and the first would do well to share the profits that without their workers they would not have obtained. It would be wise to involve the laborers in the common shared adventure: the enterprise from which they all live. Currently, multinationals have become such a strong influence on the economy, that they have limited the decision-making capacity of the governments of the countries where they are settled. The great majority of these companies have developed from what we know as the capitalist world. to determine how much wheat to exchange for a sheepskin. Presumably, these transactions would be carried out after long nights of discussions, which no doubt were fascinating. Things began to get complicated when, as a result of population growth and the specialization of production, it became difficult to conduct large commercial operations and equate prices and values, which clearly held back large-scale trade. This issue was resolved with the ingenious invention of what we now know as money. Now, trade expanded rapidly since it facilitated the exchange of goods, both among individuals and between communities. Initially, as there was no monetary system, trading was done using chickens, cows or pigs as payment. In fact, the first coins that were minted by the Roman had images of these animals and were called pecunia, a term derived from pecus, which in Latin means "cattle". Before the start of the Punic Wars, Carthage had the most advanced economic system of the time. When Rome had barely started to mint rough metal coins, the Carthaginians already had banknotes: leather strips that showed different stamps based on their value. These ‘notes’ were guaranteed by the gold stored by the government. But what is money in reality? As stated earlier, it is an agreement, an unwritten agreement. Physically, it is usually a piece of metal or paper with little value in itself. Without detailing an analysis of its evolution throughout history, let us point out some important points that may shed some light on what money really is. Until recently, all money put into circulation by each country, corresponded to the total value of the gold reserves existing in the state bank. This system was extended from antiquity until almost the present day. Money was a sort of cashier's check, immediately due, issued by the government and the holder expected to convert its concrete value into gold or equivalent goods. For example, if the Bank of France had in its coffers a hundred tons of gold, it manufactured coins and bills with a total equivalent value and put it into circulation, its division into smaller units led to what was known as currency or national currency, which each country gave a different name. This meant that any currency in circulation was warranted in its value, by the percentage equivalent of gold deposited in the state bank. At other times, coins were made directly in gold or silver, so they had their own value. This system of gold as the standard, ceased to be used in the early 1930s, as a result of the deflationary crisis of 1929. It was replaced by a complex system, usually directed by the central banks of each country, with more or less independence from their governments, in which multiple factors are taken into account when deciding how much money is to be put into circulation: working capital needs of businesses and individuals as well as governments, payment balances, inflation, gross domestic product, and so on. The effectiveness of this approach has varied, depending on the use of that power made by rulers in their respective economies. There have been cases in which the authorities of a country, beset by their government debt, put large amounts of money into circulation. In these cases, the value of the currency decreases in that it represents a smaller percentage of the total current circulating needs. Consequently, with the same currency fewer goods can be bought, resulting in more expensive products and often leading to a rampant inflation. Sometimes governments make decisions that are as populist as they are irresponsible. The spending commitments they make to their citizens often exceeds the amount of taxes they will be able to collect, meaning that they are spending more than they are collecting. When this is the case, they will often turn first to the market for credit. After exhausting these possibilities (usually for breach of its payment obligations), they tend to resolve the situation with the circulation of large amounts of the country’s currency, which generates high inflation rates. This is a trick often used by governments to cover up their poor administration, with the most immediate consequence being the impoverishment of the citizens, who suddenly find that they can buy less today than they did yesterday with the same amount they receive for their for work. By the same token, their savings will automatically lose value as their ability to be exchanged for goods or services is reduced. Nevertheless, although it is the most severe, this is not the only cause for the growth of inflation. Other causes are the increased demand regarding the available supply, which is the case when society requires more goods than it produces, thus increasing the expense. Another cause is the upward movement of imported goods, resulting in an increase in domestic prices. On the other hand, if the amount of currency put into circulation is much lower than the gross domestic product or capital needs, its value increases and so does the purchasing power of the citizens. This may occur as a result of large excess in the production of consumer goods that wind up accumulating in warehouses, making the supply exceed the demand. It can also happen due to the withdrawal of money from the market. For the economy, the consequences of this situation are even worse than those of inflation. Companies experience great losses because the money used to buy raw materials has a lower purchasing power than the money received through the sale of the final product. In other words, the manufacturing cost exceeds the profit of sales. In short, they lose money and end up going bankrupt, resulting in business closures and a rampant raise of unemployment. When entering a dynamic of this sort, in which the prices of goods are higher today than they will be tomorrow, we face the phenomenon known as deflation. In any case, markets tend to regulate themselves and produce the goods that citizens request and in the quantities that they demand. Therefore, a reasonable, controlled inflation is healthy for the economy because it indicates that we are immersed in a dynamic society. Deflation, however, is a symptom of an economy in a true recession. The natural law of the market is to produce what sells, because that's what people want to buy. Governments that have attempted to replace this logic with a planned economy, where the government determines what goods are to be produced and consumed have failed miserably. As previously explained, the closest and best examples are the former Soviet Union countries, which practiced this system and it led them to the economic collapse, which in turn led to a political shutdown. Currency also reflects this unwritten market law: if there is too much of it in circulation, its value drops and generates inflation. On the other hand, if there is very little, its value rises but it leads to a recession. It would therefore be very interesting if monetary decisions were made by independent technical entities, which would remain on the sidelines of the whims of whatever political party is currently in power. In any case, responsible governments must maintain a monetary discipline that will avoid the negative consequences of both inflation and deflation, by trying to circulate only the amount of money necessary so that the purchasing power of citizens is not affected. Universalism, as referred to in the novel, takes the gross domestic product as the standard for the manufacture and circulation of money. Thus, the money In the final instance, people must hold their governments accountable for the way they use the taxes and understand that government accounts, like those of any family, must maintain a satisfactory balance between income and expenditure. 4. Trade and Prices Trade is as old as the presence of man on Earth, and is closely linked to man’s own nature, to the satisfying of his most urgent needs and his desire for possessions. It is, in short, the art of exchanging goods or services. In other sections, we describe its main features, but here, we will only deal with its fundamental relationship to pricing. First, we must accept that all movement of buying and selling is a commercial activity. When we receive, as well as when we deliver goods of any kind, products, services, etc., in exchange for money, or any other way of payment in kind. This leads us to make a fundamental observation: How are the prices of what we buy fixed? The first principle is that every demand gives rise to an offer, and if demand for a particular good exceeds the existing supply, the price will go up. In the opposite situation, it will fall. However, every product has an objective and a subjective price: one is the cost of manufacturing it, and the other is what the market is willing to pay for it. Combining these two factors, you arrive at a final price. This principle is of universal application. When you buy a house, there is an objective price, which is what it cost the builder to build it, in addition to the workers' wages, taxes, materials used and the profit to the business. There is also a subjective price, which is the value of the land, and it has a great influence on the final purchase price, which will be more or less, depending on the law of supply and demand. This means that if your municipality has abundant land for development, the house will be cheaper than if land were scarce; in the latter case, the price will tend to rise. As we were saying, prices are governed by the unwritten law of supply and demand. However, sometimes voluntary and undesirable distortions are introduced into the system. Sometimes, for example, the shortage is fictitiously created, not just for the purpose of preventing a particular product from being priced excessively low, but to keep it steady, and if possible, make it rise. We've all read or heard at times that a country has thrown their surplus agricultural production into the sea, because the year has been magnificent and the abundance of the crops has given rise to such a large demand that the prices sank to below what it cost the farmers to produce them, so the excess itself could ruin them. To avoid this overabundance, they destroy part of the crop and sell the rest at the desired price. The question everyone asks is: why not take those surpluses to other areas of the world where they are needed to feed the people? Indeed, that is what should be done, but unfortunately, experience shows that when this has been attempted, the government of the country receiving the aid has re-sold it to other parts of the world, usually in exchange for weapons to ensure their stay in power, and nothing has reached the people in need. It is not done just by corrupt governments, but also by groups of unscrupulous individuals who trade in the humanitarian contributions that other citizens of the world, with the best of intentions, have donated. On one occasion, I discussed with a senior European official, the need to send the surplus milk from our continent to Africa, as he was complaining of the high cost of storage. He replied that he had tried several times, but with frustrating results, because these surpluses, after a time, had reappeared in Europe, sold at low prices, thereby affecting local producers. He explained that the only way to ensure that aid reached those who really needed it would be by controlling the distribution in the host country. However, their own governments prevent it and make a great fuss when it is suggested, citing interference by colonialists who deliver aid. Once again, we face a difficult problem in the current global context. 5. The Stock Exchange Given the importance and popularity it has achieved in recent years, we will try to explain below what the Stock Exchange is. The Exchange began as a financial instrument for companies, as a complement or a substitute for traditional credit. In turn, it has become a mechanism for ownership in the companies, as it allows any citizen to buy in at a relatively low cost. Companies that need an injection of capital to take on new projects or to stabilize those which are in the developmental stage, have the opportunity to obtain funds through those persons or entities that have entrusted their savings to them, and thus have become shareholders. The main advantage for publicly traded companies is that, in addition to obtaining funding, they do not pay interest on money received, unlike what happens with credits. The shareholder or investor, meanwhile, becomes a co- owner of the company and therefore is subject to its financial development. In other words, if the company in which he has purchased shares obtains benefits, a portion of it will be for him, depending on his percentage of ownership. However, if the company generates losses, the shareholder may lose all the capital he invested in it. As mentioned, this financial tool has played a key role in the growth of companies in recent decades, and has increased public ownership in them, because, worldwide, there are millions of small investors who spend their savings to purchase shares in the stock market. These investments are known as risk capital, because if the company generates losses, stocks go down in value and some of the savings are lost, but if it makes a profit, the shareholder may participate in them and revalue his shares. Nonetheless, there is a subjective value to the shares, which carry greater weight each day, resulting from the law of supply and demand. If some securities have many more applications where the purchaser is making more than the seller, the price tends to rise. For the most part, this is due to capricious purchasing movements rather than the results of the operating accounts of the companies concerned. By contrast, stocks go down when the number of buyers — the amount of purchasing money — is less than the offer of securities offered at a determined price. Currently, this behavior has caused speculative movements on such a scale, that there can be overvaluing of shares in a company facing a delicate economic situation and undervaluing of others with a healthy economy. Consequently, over time, the stock has lost its usefulness as a barometer of the health of the economy of a country. The problem is that they have confused the means with the ends. The initial objective of the Exchange as a recipient of funding for business projects has been blurred, to benefit the speculating game that looks for immediate results. Hardly anyone trusts their savings to them on a longterm basis to receive the income shares of company profits when their projects succeed. In the current situation, stock market investors buy and sell stocks compulsively, seeking an immediate concrete ambitions of a group of people, who usually dressup arguments that are as empty as they are demagogic and then present them. Let’s think about this. Culture, for example, is one of the key points wielded by the defenders of nations and nationalism, to justify its existence. They often resort to the "differentiating factor" as the main argument to support their ideas. It is, therefore, advisable to continue this discussion using these terms, as they lead to considerable confusion. It is logical to suppose that man originated from a common root, but we will leave this discussion to the anthropologists. In any case, it is undeniable that, for centuries, various tribes were formed, each founded by members who separated from other tribes. These separated members settled in a different place and populated, subsequently forming cities as they expanded their territorial domains. Over the centuries, this led to what we now know as countries. In each of these primitive and isolated settlements, man evolved differently from others with whom he had no contact. He developed his own language, customs, religion, nutritional habits and craft characteristics, according to what the nature of the place provided and conditioned him to. The sum of all these characteristics forged the particular behaviors that resulted in the evolution of a unique human group. It is what we call a people’s culture. This is obviously a very broad concept, with mixed components that are closely related to the natural conditions of the environment where the different groups decided to settle. Each natural environment creates specific habits and customs according to its characteristics. Thus, it makes sense that the character of the people who inhabited the valley of the Guadalquivir, endowed with a generous nature, should be different from the character of those that crossed the African deserts. While one was encouraged by nature itself, to lead a sedentary life, the other was forced by his harsh surroundings to develop a nomadic lifestyle, as the arid soil offered no incentive to settle there. Thus the birth of different foods and their preparation, as well as different values and habits. They also adopted gods that were suited to their different needs and therefore different religions with different rites were born. All of this, in turn, gave way to different customs and cultures. As aresult of population growth and the need to find new sources of food in order to survive, tribes began to spread and settle on lands that surrounded them. Inevitably, they came up against other human settlements, which hindered their expansive movement. When two groups came in contact, they discovered they had different languages, worshiped different gods, ate different foods, and had developed different techniques and handicraft goods, although they descended from a common root. These contacts were not always friendly. However, for a time, they used to coexist, giving each other sideway glances, marking their territory for hunting and farming, and placing sentinels at their limits to safeguard them, and thus, countries were born. Sooner rather than later, be it from ambition or by an increase of their needs, these groups of people wound up confronting each other. The strongest and best organized defeated and absorbed the other and from this traumatic merging a new culture took shape with traces of both. With the passage of time, the consolidation put forth a new language, different gods, customs, cuisine, crafts, etc. As soon as they came into contact with another tribe, the process started all over again. Throughout history, these fusions of cultures have occurred continuously, even to this day. They will continue to happen, and we will continue to be enriched by it in the future, if we do not self-destruct before. Greek culture, which provokes so much well deserved admiration, was born from the fusion of the Minoan, Achaean and Dorian civilizations. The Romans took over and absorbed it, and this has continued to occur until today. Consequently, what we understand by "culture" is not set in stone: it is in a perpetual state of evolution, resulting from man’s contact with his fellow man. Let us ponder upon one of these cultural components: language. Usually, language is seen as a cultural element of the first order and a "differential factor", justifying nationalism. Perhaps the first thing we should ask ourselves is: What is its purpose? The answer is obvious: Communication between people. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that if we all spoke the same language, the ability to communicate would increase significantly. Thus it can be considered a demagogic aberration for governments to use language as a value in itself, to justify the existence of their countries. It's not a matter of making them suddenly disappear. It is simply a matter of public authorities not artificially enhancing those that, due to the passage of time and the small number of current speakers, are being relegated to oblivion. An obvious example of this practice is what is happening in the Spanish Basque Country. Let us, therefore, allow history and evolution to walk their natural path, because from a world like today’s world, with globalized communications, a universal language will undoubtedly be born as a synthesis of several existing ones, and that will facilitate communication between the people who inhabit the Earth. As the best field of sociological experimentation available to man, History offers multiple choices in this regard, so let’s have a look at it to see what our behaviors have been throughout time on these issues. Roman culture, the mother of the current Western culture, was formed with the contribution of Sabine, Etruscan and Latin cultures, to which later Greek and even Asian influences were added. And thus it is repeated because all countries leave their mark on the culture of the conqueror, through which a new one is born, with renewed vigor, and takes over the previous one. In other words, cultures do not disappear but are transformed. Attempting to stay anchored in one of them would go against evolution and against History itself, an attempt that is always doomed to fail. The Roman era is very enlightening, since, for centuries, Rome was consolidated in the known world with enormous force. They shared the laws, language, architecture, crafts, trade, and they were even responsible for the most prolonged period of peace and prosperity ever known to mankind. It was so rich and varied in its coherence that we still continue to feed off of it. Its concept of government, its laws, its language and its philosophy, still illuminate modern man. Even the Greek culture, which Rome declared to admire, has come down to us through them, because otherwise, it would have been diluted with the passage of time. No other culture has had such an impact on history, and it's a shame that most of the time we only learn about it through bad movies, Asterix comic books, political propaganda or biased legends, which, interestingly enough, have been enhanced by the Christian Church itself. What makes this even more interesting is the fact that it had to become Roman to universalize itself, and is, in some ways, the heiress of the institutions and the prestige that Rome left in memory of the people. With the fall of the Roman Empire, that world was shattered, and of those fragments, many kingdoms were born. As a result, hundreds of human groups, which until then had maintained a fluid means of communication, were once again isolated. Thus was born the era we call the Middle Ages. necessarily from religious conviction, but as a political solution as he observed that its members lived a more laborious and orderly life. With the Christians as an example, he sought to recover the ethical values that give meaning to the much-satiated existence of his people. This measure sought to curb the decline of the Roman citizen, who no longer believed in anything, not even in itself. In The Record, the rulers do something similar. They create a new religion based on the limitless evolution of man, symbolized and highlighted by The Race, which results from applying the theories of Professor Jacson. This is necessary because after years of peace and prosperity, man is showing obvious signs of decay. In short, the story leads you to the conclusion that man needs faith and values to survive his own limitations. Religions represent a set of beliefs, beyond material things, and are based on the conviction of the existence of a superior being or beings (god or gods) along with the promise of a life after death, thus resulting in the ethical and moral behavior of men. Following the Marxist views, political leftists defined religion as the opium of the people. It is likely that this assertion better fit those who sustained it, considering the damage they have caused to the very people they claimed to defend and represent. Such a definition cannot be applied to religions, as these have put hope in the hearts of millions of men and women throughout the troubled history of mankind. This is most certainly not the case for political ideologists; much less in a durable manner. Religion has played and continues to play, a key role in the evolution of humanity. It has given man a set of ethical and moral behavioral guidelines and has facilitated coexistence as well as individual enrichment. But if History has taught us anything, it is that the contributions of religions have been extremely positive only when they have adjusted to a personal scale. When religion and power have mixed, directly or indirectly it has been thrown completely out of balance. A good example of this is the Inquisition, sponsored by the Christian Church for centuries; it is no coincidence that during that time, it is closely linked to the stale and patrimonial European monarchies. These behaviors of the Church were deeply distanced from the source of their ideology, which was unifying and humanistic, but which, in contact with earthly power, became perverted in its procedures and purposes. Today, the confusion between government and religion can be seen clearly in many Arab countries, where this very mix has sunk their people back into the Dark Ages. These are the behaviors that confuse the people because, logically, they are unable to distinguish between the philosophies of the religion and how monks or friars misuse it. Followers see them as representatives and strongly believe what they preach, but in the end they become frustrated by the conflict and end up losing their religious convictions, which become empty rituals that are kept more out of habit and superstition than conviction. In fact, decreasing faith increases the pomp and folklore that surround it. The religious apathy that currently exists in the West goes hand-in-hand with the unedifying behavior of some members of the Church. Just like in the civilization described in The Record, religion belongs, and must stay, within the individual and the subjective. The duty of government is to take care of man’s material and concrete needs. Christ said: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." With this, he clearly embodied the idea of separation of church and state. The government should be secular, yet at the same time show the greatest respect for all religions and forms of worshiping, so that they can develop in complete freedom and become a key element to facilitate coexistence between men. Naturally, the government should intervene in compliance with the law, to control excessive fanaticism that may arise from any religious movement that seeks to make intolerance its strengthening instrument in society. All citizens of the world and all institutions, including religious ones, must be subordinated to a universal constitution and, through it, to human rights, which must be defended as a higher value. The idea of separation of religion and state is not new and was adopted by man a long time ago. While there are previous codes, the principle of law, as we understand it today, was set by scholars in the publication of The Law of the Twelve Tables written by the Decimvir. This happened in the Third Century B.C., when, over the protests of the people, the Roman Senate found it necessary to separate the civil from the divine, thus separating the will of the citizens from the will of the fickle gods, or rather, of those who claimed to represent them. To do this, Appius Claudius and ten other legislators were commissioned to draw up a new legal regulation, which culminated in the Twelve Tables and, since then, despite delays that persist in many countries in our world, enshrined the separation between state and religion. So it has been around for a while, and once again, we can see how many answers to what we believe are current problems are given to us by History. VII Emigration In the Second Century AD, the Emperor Antoninus, successor of the great Hadrian, was literally besieged by ambassadors from many countries and kingdoms requesting to be annexed to the Roman Empire, which enjoyed prosperity and welfare. Once he took over the Government, he deposited his enormous personal fortune into the State Treasury and from that moment on, he established a judicious administration of budgets. He requested the consent of the Senate for his government actions, and he made himself accountable for governmental budgets, dollar by dollar. He equalized the rights and duties of spouses, and completely abolished torture, which he declared to be a crime, even if it were performed on slaves, who at that moment became similar to what today is known as domestic service. He wanted peace at any cost, even if it encouraged the boldness of the Germans, who interpreted any pacifist gesture as a weakness — does this remind anyone of what would happen eighteen centuries later, right before the Second World War? The day he died, as always, he gave the password to his guard: "Equanimity". He could not have come up with a word of more significance. He later called his nephew, Marcus Aurelius, and said to him, "Son, it is now your turn." The State coffers were healthier than they had ever been, but his personal fortune had been reduced to zero. This is not a fable. It is a historical reality that immerses us into a melancholic envy; it would not hurt us to find leaders of this caliber in today’s world. However, despite being such a great leader, neither he nor his successors managed to avoid, and effectively resolve, the arrival of the foreign barbarians Such minorities should have all our sympathy and support, and must be able to replace the corrupt governments and systems that run them, and resolutely take the path of progress and social justice. Human migration has always existed and will continue to exist, as long as the Earth is our common living place. People search individually for a way to survive in lands that provide the means to do it. When it is one person or several thousands that are looking for an opportunity, we find ourselves with a tolerable migration, as they usually end up being integrated within the nation that receive them. However, when millions come in, in a disorderly way, we face an invasion, which is unacceptable by the host society and one that will generate all kinds of adverse reactions. If universalism ever becomes a reality, such as in the story presented by The Record, it would help to permanently solve this serious problem, as the system would gradually integrate all countries. For this to happen, leadership training cadres and commanders must be set up to lead the new society that the Third World nations need in order to get out of their long prostration. They would also need to replace the current leaders, as they would never be willing to promote any changes from which they cannot expect to receive any personal gain. It will have to be new men who lead their people down the path of progress and dignity. VIII Science While abandoning the search for the great questions of life, which is the basis of philosophy, man tries to study the how, which is the role of science and its main consequence: technology. Bones, and the carved stones cut by primitive man, as tools for hunting and cutting, are the earliest known evidence of technology. From those primitive times and the coming of the computer age along with the development of spacecraft, man has come a long way. Science and technology have largely fulfilled their ultimate goal, which is to make man’s life on Earth easier and more comfortable. Had we been capable of perfectly adapting to our environment, the development of these skills might not have been necessary. However, since we are not that type of animal, like say, a dolphin, the technological discoveries have become one of the main causes of our survival as a race. Without them, we probably would not have gone past the prehistoric stage and we might be one of the many species that have disappeared from the face of the planet. But, man displayed a wide range of resources and technical skills to overcome hunger, cold, disease and distances. Every scientific discovery, with its inevitable advances and retreats, became the starting point for a new discovery, and in many of them effective ways were found to facilitate man's life on this planet. It is possible that in the future we continue to be amazed by, and derive benefits from, the new discoveries and scientific advances such as antigravity, that will allow us to fly like birds and bring us closer to the rest of the universe, effective vaccines and drugs to fight the major plagues and diseases that continue to haunt us. This will extend our lives and allow us to develop crops that have greater production capacity, which will provide food for the ever-growing population, inexhaustible and clean energy such as hydrogen, which will replace the current contaminating fossil fuels, etc. But science must also urgently correct its dark side. We must not forget that many inventions are derived from research done for military purposes, or, more specifically, for the extermination of man. Occupying an obvious prominent place in this category are the atomic bomb and its derivates, the hydrogen and cobalt bombs. One has to wonder then, if science and technology have made survival possible for man, an animal incapable of adapting to the environment, will they also end up becoming his executioner. It would be a cruel irony for History! Nature has endowed us with skills that can lead us to the stars, but has also led us to the Holocaust. Biotechnology, which is still in its infant stage, is another area that we need to control, if we do not want our society to turn into the setting outlined by "Brave New World". Ultimately, the way such knowledge is used is man's responsibility. However, in principle, we don’t have many reasons to be optimistic. In any case, it seems logical to conclude that nuclear weapons, and the science that makes them possible, will only be useless when wars disappear, and for this to happen, countries must be eliminated. Let's start doing this. Technology has also created a collateral effect that should not be overlooked. Although it has managed to strengthen the presence of man on Earth, it has also made the individual more vulnerable, less independent. Think about how helpless we feel when there is a simple blackout and everything stops working. This occurs because electricity (like so many things) comes of shared specialized knowledge and expertise, which no one, individually, dominates in its totality. We have definitely created a much more complex world which appears to be the price of what we call progress. I do not know if you feel the same, but now more than ever, I miss the simplicity of freshly made bread, the conversations around the fire in the winter evenings, ample spaces and the quiet life. But this return would surely be a true utopia ... or would it? IX Anti-Globalization Following the subject of the book, it seems logical that we stop to analyze the recent movement that we know as anti-globalization. All in all, the positions that deserve more attention and in-depth analysis, within the anti-globalization movement are those represented by farmer associations of rich countries, pacifists and environmental groups. The first, manifest an unfounded fear that globalization might bring negative consequences to the economies of richer countries. This is not how it should be. The countries of the world should unite gradually, and this must involve a matching of the legal framework, particularly in reference to the social and fiscal rights and obligations of the workers and employers. A legal system that will balance the production costs under equality conditions for all the regions on Earth. This way, it prevents those that, for lack of labor rights, attempt to gain economic advantages via the laws of some nations, which will go so far as to tolerate slavery. For this reason, protective import tariffs should not be lifted until the legal equality is a reality among those countries that want to be a part of universalism. In a way similar to those that want to join the European Union, every nation that wants to become a part of this must meet certain requirements, designed to prevent a negative impact to the other members. Evidently, every case must be provided a transitional period for adaptation. This is the key to avoiding unnecessary losses during the merging of nations, in the end, everyone will benefit from the implementation. Rich nations will take advantage of opportunities provided by a borderless market, and with billions of free consumers with a rising purchasing power; this will mean a marketing field for their products beyond the imagination. Presently, just a billion citizens have a certain amount of purchasing power and a dignified living standard. In turn, universalization will create a potential market of more than six billion people, meaning that wealth would multiply six times, to satisfy the required needs. In order to meet this enormous demand, it would be essential to have the active participation of all the citizens of the current underdeveloped nations, and also the availability of their raw materials, which would be revalued due to the dramatic increase in their demand. In turn, this would result in the creation of hundreds of millions of new jobs throughout the globe, and at the same time, an increase of the standard of living of their countries. This is not a dream. It is the inevitable consequence of legal, financial and labor harmonization, within a universal Constitution, which would emerge after the disappearance of nations and the integration of these into a single world country. That was the Revolution of the first Authority. The mistake made by the anti-globalization movement as well as the leftwing parties, was to ask for the distribution of existing wealth, instead of promoting the creation of more. If we do not help wealth grow, many people in the "First World" might come to feel that the poorer countries are being helped at their expense and they would feel attacked. This is the situation with farmers, who are feeling that the level of welfare and social rights that they have reached after years of struggle is being threatened. They would understand that funding of the Third World would be made through the import of raw material and agricultural commodities from the poorest countries, which can produce them at a lower cost, not having the same level of wage demands, taxes and labor. Seeing its future threatened, they engage in this war. Given its importance, it would be interesting to dig a little deeper into this idea. The problems of the Third World nations are not due to the fact that some regions of the world are rich and others poor. The concept that wealth is a whole is dangerously wrong, as it means that if one has more, the other has less. Reality, however, is very different. The creation of wealth is only limited by the industriousness, organization, ingenuity and production capacity of the people that generate it. Just a century ago, the number of people on Earth who enjoyed a reasonable standard of living represented about 40% of the current number. The increased level of wellbeing of millions of citizens has been achieved through the generation of new wealth (GDP have multiplied in many countries) and this new wealth has not been subtracted from those who had previously achieved high levels of prosperity. We must stay on this road if we want to solve the serious poverty problems that plague the planet. This must be done without impoverishing those that are more developed; who should not be discouraged, so as to have their cooperation, which is required to carry out this Revolution. The governments of many underdeveloped countries blame the poverty of their people on the lack of solidarity of Western countries and on the historical pillage of colonial times. Naturally, shifting the blame is easier than self-evaluating its own deficient and corrupt administration, which is the true cause of their misery. Helping the Third World countries can only be done by gradually incorporating it into ours, as conditions of equal rights and obligations slowly set in for one and the other. It is a path that must be walked with determination. If we are capable of convincing ourselves that with alms, which is what we currently give, all we do is throw a few drops of water onto the seas of human needs, which, ironically, don’t even reach those people for which they are intended. In reality, all this merely serves to ease our consciences, which have been made to feel guilty by demagoguery and propaganda. Only equal rights and the disappearance of nations will allow putting an end to this sad and tragic reality of existing inequalities once and for all. In conclusion, the path to globalization must be gradually travelled by those nations that freely choose to do so. However, before joining and to begin receiving aid from countries that are already incorporated, they have the obligation to harmonize their legal frameworks with the most productive nations on Earth and with social demands that have been established by them to protect their citizens. In short, for countries to be equal, they must rise to meet the higher standards, not the opposite. This is what is actually meant when speaking of the distribution of wealth. Therefore, let us not fight globalization, as it is not the enemy. Let us fight, instead, to make the Earth a permanent home of free and organized people in one equalitarian Country. More than likely, pacifists and environmentalists will agree that the only way to end wars and the deterioration of nature is through the termination of the current system of Nations, given the inability of countries to enter into global agreements regarding issues that concern them. As long as there is a piece of land that is separated from the others and a flag representing it, there will be wars, and as long as multiple governments exist, we will not be able to reach a global environmental agreement. Universalism means no more wars, and no more armies, because once nations disappear as a political concept, territorial enemies will cease to exist, and there will be no one to fight against. The history of man during tens of thousands of years has taught us that dialogue and goodwill have never been enough to prevent wars. Universalism on the other hand, does not have to negotiate with governments the basic principles, such as environmentalism. It would be able to confer constitutional status and avoid erratic or permissive behaviors. "For once, let us learn from history and do away with the root cause of these serious problems, which is the existence of countries as exclusive territories. To achieve this, we need the active participation of all men and women of goodwill, with the necessary determination to struggle for the dream of a better world." This is what First Authority would say. The huge amount of funds no longer used to sustain warfare will allow the world government to feed and build decent housing for all inhabitants of the planet, and help the most underdeveloped countries reach the same level as those with the most progress, without the citizens feeling that their economies are negatively affected. As a result of this, the current migration, born by the need to survive, will disappear, and with it, any conflicts produced by the inability of the migrants to adapt to the host society. People would be free to settle in whichever place on Earth they choose and is best suited for the pursuit of their dreams, not pressured by the shortcomings of their region. It is a beautiful dream! Don’t you agree, dear reader? Well, actually, it is a simple consequence of the disappearance of borders, to be followed by the forced retirement of hundreds of governments, wars and armies. More than likely, you agree that the idea is worth fighting for. Let’s continue visualizing the new world to be born of the Revolution as proposed by The Record. Since people would be free to move around the planet without being hampered by the existence of borders, with the passage of time and as a result of natural evolution, a common language would be born. This new language, a merging of many existing ones, will facilitate understanding among all citizens. Trade would have a true global profile and, by the effect of communicating vessels, and not being subjected to border barriers, the economic levels of all people will tend to balance out. Let's see what History teaches us about this. In fact, let’s look at History as it is being made in our current time. With the great effort and reluctance of many "patriots", Europe is walking the path of unity, and we can see that it is producing a steady balance between income levels in different countries. Finding no obstacles to sell their products, underdeveloped nations increase their wealth, but without negative consequences predicted by opponents of all unitary movement, who insist that it would be at the expense of the wealthiest nations. In fact, the wealthiest nations are also benefiting by participating in a much bigger free market, with increasing purchasing power and without protective barriers. But Europe must also move forward towards a political merger, overcoming their fears and historic rivalries. Despite what is heard from certain official circles, the resistance to unite does not stem from the people but rather from politicians whose greater interest is maintaining their share of power. For the most part, when, without nationalistic propaganda, the people understand the benefits of uniting, they have a high predisposition to quickly walk the path of unification. They are not quite able to understand why, if the European territory becomes one single market, should there not also be a single government which cohesions and represents different regions, as long as they respect the idiosyncrasies of the people. In any case, it’s obvious that the path is opening in this old continent, which has historically been the birthplace of almost all the ideas that move the world. Another consequence of the Revolution would be the creation of a global currency, which would further facilitate trade between peoples, as this would do away with the cumbersome and expensive exchange rates. The European experience is also being positive in this regard, just as the U.S. has been doing for so long. One of the great fears of the affluent and even the working class in Western countries is losing their labor rights regarding developing countries and especially, the Third World. But this does not necessarily have to be so. The current reality of the economic and legal aspects of a non-globalized world is leading many multinationals to set up their factories in countries where those rights have so little consistency that the labor paid is comparable in conditions to those of slave societies. Their goal is simple: reduce the cost of production in order to compete with products made by these same countries in the Third World. Let’s see an example: As a result of a series of agreements with the countries of the European Union, Morocco currently sells large quantities of fruit and vegetables to Europe. The rights of the European workers are unthinkable in today’s Alawite State, such as social security, unemployment benefits, health insurance, retirement funds, and so on. These rights have an impact on business costs and make the end product more expensive than if produced in Morocco. Consequently, if a European businessman who is doomed to disappear as a result of such unfair (yet legal) competition, wishes to survive, he will be forced to move production to North Africa and from there, continue to sell his products in the old continent taking advantage of existing treaties. Many criticize this position claiming patriotic reasons, while others support it, naively arguing that this is generating wealth in the Third World. What they fail to see is that, in return, they are creating unemployment in their own country. It’s like the old adage, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Ultimately, like it or not, these individual behaviors find their logic in the very existence of the countries, which have totally different legal regulations, making these inequalities possible. The existence of a single government in the world would require the harmonization, theoretical and practical, of the fundamental rules of coexistence, and equal rights and duties for all the citizens of the Earth. This would come forth from a single Constitution, allowing each region certain rules and regulatory capacity, as long as these are not in conflict with higher laws, as contained in the Constitution or laws passed by the World Senate. This equality, whose effective implementation would be the responsibility of the judges, would suppress undesirable economic or personal practices. Offshore tax and labor havens would cease to exist, including slavery, which is still present in many parts of the world. Logically, companies would disperse around the globe for strategic reasons, in order to bring their processing centers to those that consume or produce raw materials, in order to save on transportation costs, rather than seeking cheap labor. If the Southern Cone of Latin America is rich in cereals or copper, manufacturing companies would find it profitable to finalize these products in that region. If North Africa has a great capacity to produce fruit and vegetables, the interest to establish local facilities would be logical. In each case, wealth would be created in the areas of origin of the products. This would also reasonably increase the work in various impoverished regions of the world, and thus create hundreds of millions of new consumers with purchasing power. In turn, the regions that are more technologically advanced would increase the market for their products, allowing them to maintain their standard of living. Unequivocally, History has shown that when markets and production of goods unite, wealth increases for all, and in the medium term, the living standards of the poorest, approach that of the wealthy without major trauma. Just the opposite happens when the economy is socialized: it equals, but on the low side. Another consequence that comes with universalism is the specialization of the old countries in the production of goods. Each one of them would base its main livelihood on a certain type of industry (agriculture, livestock, technology, tourism, etc.). This is not a perverse byproduct of globalization, but quite the contrary, as it will increase and improve the means of production at lower costs, making them affordable for a greater number of consumers, thereby encouraging All those that exhibited or promote these behaviors, by violating the human rights that the Universalist Constitution has established for all men, should be prosecuted as mere criminals. However, it is expected that, as the implementation of Universalist thought makes progress, these cultural aberrations would disappear. Obviously, the education of the people has a lot to say and do in this regard. The science and technology that have so greatly helped to improve the quality of life for mankind should be at our service and not become an end to serve themselves. Their objective should be to combat disease and pain, improve living conditions, and not to alienate human beings from nature by creating artificial worlds that undoubtedly contribute to their unhappiness. When man recovers his intimate relationship with nature, he will slow down and will therefore be better able to savor life. It amazes me to see how we are fascinated by speed — whether it’s a car, a projectile or a computer -, and we mystify it as an indisputable value. I not only wonder why we are going so fast, I also wonder where are we going? In conclusion, this is the world proposed by The Record, which is more than just a dream. It is a necessity if we are to have a future as a species and as individuals. So each and every one of us should go back to being the protagonists of our own lives, and thus continue being the protagonists of our hopes. THE END