Society

Public nature

Erich Fromm was a German sociologist, philosopher, social psychologist, psychoanalyst, a member of the Frankfurt School, and one of the founders of neo-Freudianism and Freudo-Marxism. He used the concept of “social character.” ^[19]. This refers to a set of values and behavioral rules characteristic of society rather than the individual, yet they significantly influence the actions of that individual. According to Fromm, the social character is entirely dependent on the form of existence of society and, consequently, on the social and economic structure. For example, while frugality and ownership were once valued, now it is the ability to use and live on credit that holds importance.

During the feudal era and the time of subsistence agriculture, trade was conducted by a narrow layer of merchants who were not respected by society. They earned respect later, in subsequent generations and on a different turn of the historical spiral. One might wonder why the feudal lords, having a clear advantage in financing and the ability to leverage more powerful financial resources, did not engage in trade. After all, in trade, the key factor is turnover. The more money invested in circulation, the more efficient the business. The answer is simple: it was beneath the dignity of an aristocrat to engage in such a base activity as trade.

In our time, everyone is involved in trade. We always know how much our apartment is worth, when we buy a car, we immediately think about when and for how much we will sell it, and we even perceive our employment as a sale or rental of ourselves.

With a change in the social order, the nature of society naturally changes as well. What was once considered completely normal (such as slavery, for example) now seems outrageous, and conversely, the concept of human rights would have appeared to a slave owner as an offensive interference in his economic activities. Similarly, as we transition to a new economic system, some things that are commonplace today will become unacceptable, while much that seems unthinkable now will become quite ordinary.

The social character emerges as a tool for an individual to adapt to the norms accepted in society. Instead of analyzing each step in terms of its acceptability or practicality, we simply do “what is customary” or “what we’ve always done.” This saves a lot of energy. However, when external conditions change, it can also be quite obstructive. Remember how, after changing jobs, you sometimes found yourself “on autopilot,” going to places you needed to go in the past few years, rather than where you need to go now.

It is very difficult to calmly discuss things that have become part of the public nature, as we are taught from childhood that they are unchangeable and natural. Yet, only a few generations pass, and what was once considered a crime becomes a virtue, and vice versa.

Jim said that he was getting hot and cold because he would soon be free. And I must admit, I was feeling the same way; it only just hit me that he really would be free soon, and who was to blame for that? Me, of course. My conscience was troubled, and I couldn’t find any peace. I was so tormented that I couldn’t sit still. Until now, I hadn’t understood what I was doing. But now I realized it and couldn’t forget it for a moment—it burned inside me like fire. I tried to convince myself that I wasn’t to blame; after all, I didn’t take Jim away from his rightful owner. But that didn’t help; my conscience kept reminding me: “You knew he was a runaway, you could have gotten to the shore by boat and told someone.” That was true, and I couldn’t escape it. That was the crux of the matter! My conscience whispered to me: “What did poor Miss Watson ever do to you? You saw her slave run away, and you didn’t say a word to anyone. What did that poor old woman do to deserve this? She taught you to read, she taught you how to behave, she was as kind to you as she knew how. She never did anything bad to you.”

I felt so uneasy and ashamed that I could have died. I ran back and forth on the raft, scolding myself, and Jim was also pacing back and forth beside me. We couldn’t sit still. Every time he jumped up and shouted, “There it is, Cairo!” I felt a jolt go through me like a bullet, and I thought that if it really turned out to be Cairo, I would die right there from embarrassment.

Jim was talking loudly the whole time while I was thinking to myself. He said that in the free states, his first priority would be to start saving money and that he wouldn’t waste a single cent; and when he saved enough, he would buy his wife back from the farm where Miss Watson lived, and then the two of them would work together to buy back both of their children. And if the owner didn’t want to sell them, he would get some abolitionist to help him steal them.

Such conversations sent shivers down my spine. He would never have dared to speak like that before. Just look at how he has changed at the mere thought of soon being free! There’s a reason the old saying goes, “Give a black man a finger, and he’ll take the whole hand.” This is what happens, I think, when you act impulsively, without thinking things through. This very man, whom I didn’t care about and helped to escape, suddenly found the courage to declare that he would steal his children, and I don’t even know their owner or have seen any harm from him.

I was hurt to hear that from Jim — such a low blow on his part. My conscience began to torment me more than ever until I finally said to her, “Just leave me alone! It’s not too late: I can go to the shore as soon as I see a light and make a statement.” I immediately felt calmer and happier, and my heart felt much lighter. All my troubles seemed to vanish in an instant.

Mark Twain, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”

Much of what is now considered natural and correct is actually just a remnant or, in fact, a manifestation of “Stockholm syndrome.” ^[117]. when the victim justifies their tormentor to hide from themselves the unbearably humiliating and painful reality. “Maybe this is how it has to be? …Perhaps this is the redemption, the purification, the great sacrifice…” we think, following in the footsteps of Vasily Lohanin, as we endure yet another “beating.”

For example, we are quite calm about censorship. Simply because it has always existed. But how much evidence is there that free access to any information does more harm than good? Those in power usually seek to limit the spread of information that could complicate their lives significantly. But that’s not our problem, right? So what if one group loses its privileges while another gains them? This is only important to them, but since they control powerful information flows, they manage to scare people with threats of extremism and separatism quite effectively. The age-old tale of “security” and “stability.”

Practice shows that calm discussions of any problem are more likely to lead to a solution than bans and censorship. For instance, Japan has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world, while pornography is sold on every corner (of course, there are also sex education programs in schools). Countries where it is possible to freely criticize the authorities at any level tend to be more stable and resilient. Moreover, this principle applies not only to information—any absolute bans are ineffective. The successes in combating smoking in developed countries are much more noticeable than in the fight against illegal drugs. The catastrophic experience of Prohibition in the United States illustrates the same point. Any undesirable phenomenon is easier to control when everything is out in the open and there is a legal alternative. It is impossible to combat the illegal drug trade without creating a legal one alongside it. It is impossible to control the spread of information if even speaking out is prohibited.

Crime and Punishment

The obsession with prohibitions and taboos is yet another vestige from the times when words were believed to have magical significance, when people did not fully understand the difference between an object and the word that represents it. Our ancestors were afraid to utter the names of dangerous animals, believing that they might come upon hearing their name. Today, instead of snakes and bears, we have drugs, child pornography, and extremism.

The powerful create yet another committee to protect public morality and lists of materials banned from distribution, just like ancient shamans monitored the observance of taboos. The effectiveness of such measures is not just zero; it’s negative—the forbidden fruit is sweet. Plus, there’s the “side effect” of a huge number of “criminals” violating these senseless bans. Or maybe it’s not a side effect, but the main one? After all, today’s leaders are not as naive as the shamans of old. It’s quite convenient when there’s something to hold over almost anyone, isn’t it?

In a transparent society, the free circulation of any information is implied by definition. However, since transparency is mutual, the very act of requesting, for example, recipes for making explosives cannot be hidden either. Thus, dangerous information effectively protects itself. Those who need this information for entirely legitimate reasons, or even just out of idle curiosity, will obtain it without any issues. Meanwhile, a potential terrorist will steer clear of it—why leave such a trace? A natural consequence of access to such information will be the impossibility of abusing it with impunity. So, what is the point of prohibitions?

The same mechanism can be applied in a broader context of crime in general. The common practice of combating crime today involves prohibitions and punishments. However, punishment does not rectify the wrongdoing. Punishment does not prevent the recurrence of the offense. Punishment does not educate the offender. Significant resources are spent on enforcing punishments.

The authorities use punishments not as a means of control, but as a means of communication and self-expression. Like a small child, if asked to show with their hands how upset they are, they will spread their arms wide. We live in a society that evaluates the severity of a transgression “scientifically,” in numbers: “from 8 to 15 with confiscation.” And we find this appropriate and fair.

Let’s rewind history 500 years and recall some archaic legal systems. For example, it was considered normal to take revenge on the owner of a donkey if that donkey, whether rented or even stolen, threw off its rider or killed him with a kick. How would you feel about applying such a norm today, say, filing a lawsuit against a leasing company because a leased excavator hit a power line and killed the driver?

Funny, absurd? Well, punishing is also absurd. Neither fines within a company nor prison in society address the main issues: eliminating consequences, genuine remorse, and preventing future offenses. The primary purpose of punishment is emotional demonstration and nothing more! After all, punishment focuses the punished on avoiding punishment next time, rather than on not committing the offense in the first place. It breeds resentment, and the person often starts to harbor (usually in a theoretical way) plans for revenge. There can be no talk of loyalty to those who punished them. Punishment fosters neither trust nor respect, neither from the punished nor the punisher; it creates a hostile, antagonistic environment, leading the person to convince themselves that “they are the bad one,” instead of fostering the necessary reflections in this situation. Punishment does not encourage thoughts of atonement for the offense. On the contrary, the punished believes that since they have been punished, they have paid for their wrongdoing and feel no further remorse. In other words, they have paid and are free to repeat the offense. Moreover, a system that relies on punishment requires constant external control.

So why is punishing so popular among us? Why do managers fine their subordinates, make them write explanations, and issue reprimands? Why is our entire system for combating crime based on the application of punishments? Or does it exist precisely because it creates work for itself? Or is it just “the way things are done here”?

Complete mutual transparency provides much more effective mechanisms for combating crime. First and foremost, it makes committing crimes difficult to the point of near impossibility. When there are cameras, scanners, and sensors everywhere, and “every move is recorded,” petty theft becomes more complicated than robbing a bank. If you take something from a supermarket shelf, the cost is automatically deducted from your account. Can one even think about stealing in conditions where there is nothing to steal, nowhere to steal from, and no one to steal from?

Of course, one could argue that the impossibility of committing a crime is purely an external factor and, unlike moral prohibitions or the fear of punishment, it cannot guarantee that a person won’t steal something as soon as they are sure no one is watching. But is that really the case? In the “Wild West,” where there was plenty of space to hide and little police presence, murderers and robbers felt quite comfortable. A life could be taken for just a handful of dollars. Today, committing murder and escaping punishment is much more difficult. So, is the modern person more bloodthirsty? On the contrary — we have become unaccustomed to violence. A civilized person simply doesn’t think of resorting to violence in situations where a Western hero would have long since drawn his revolver. Why should it be any different in the future? The absence of examples of criminal behavior from childhood is the best protection against crime.

The broken windows theory is a theory formulated by James Wilson and George Kelling in 1982. ^[118]. According to this theory, if someone breaks a window in a house and no one replaces it, soon there won’t be a single intact window left, and then looting will begin. In other words, visible signs of disorder and the disregard for accepted norms of behavior prompt others to forget the rules as well. As a result of this chain reaction, a “decent” urban area can quickly turn into a slum where people are afraid to go outside.

The theory found wide practical application—first in New York, and then in many other cities across the USA, Europe, South Africa, Indonesia, and so on. By carefully monitoring street cleanliness and removing graffiti from walls, New York authorities not only encouraged citizens to behave more civilly but also achieved a significant reduction in crime in the city. ^[119]. Текст для перевода: ..

Sociologists from the University of Groningen (Netherlands) conducted a series of experiments to test the validity of the broken windows theory. ^[120]. The first experiment was conducted on a street with many shops, by the wall of a building where Groningen residents park their bicycles when they come to shop. There was a bright, eye-catching sign on this wall prohibiting painting on the walls. At first, the wall was clean. The experimenters attached a note to the handlebars of each bicycle that read, “Wishing everyone happy holidays!” along with the logo of a non-existent sporting goods store. There were no trash bins on the street, so a person could either throw the note on the ground, hang it on another bicycle, or take it with them to throw away later. The first two options were considered violations of accepted norms, while the third was seen as compliance.

Out of 77 cyclists, only 25 (33%) behaved uncivilly. The experiment was then repeated under the same weather conditions and at the same time of day, but this time the wall was painted with meaningless drawings beforehand. This time, 53 out of 77 people (69%) littered. Thus, the violation of the ban on drawing on walls turned out to be a significant stimulus that provoked people to break another commonly accepted rule — not to litter in the streets.

The second experiment aimed to determine whether the broken windows theory applies only to widely accepted norms or if its effects extend to local rules established for a specific situation or location. The researchers blocked the main entrance to a parking lot with a fence, leaving a wide gap. Next to it, they hung a sign that read “No Entry, Detour 200 m to the Right,” as well as a notice stating “No Bicycles Allowed to be Locked to the Fence.” The experiment was again conducted in two variations: “order maintained” and “order violated.” In the first case, four bicycles were placed a meter away from the fence, clearly not locked to it. In the second case, the same bicycles were locked to the fence. From a hidden spot, the experimenters observed how people coming for their cars would behave: would they go around the fence or squeeze through the gap? The results were telling: in the “order maintained” scenario, only 27% of car owners squeezed through the gap, while in the “order violated” scenario, 82% did.

The third experiment was conducted in the underground parking lot of a supermarket, where there was a large and clearly visible sign saying, “Please return shopping carts.” In the “order maintained” situation, there were no carts in the parking lot, while in the “order violated” situation, there were four carts present. The same type of notes as in the first experiment were attached to the cars. The results were similar: in the first situation, 30% of drivers threw the note on the ground, while in the second situation, 58% did.

The fourth experiment resembled the first, with the difference that the signs of “norm violations by others” were now auditory rather than visual. In the Netherlands, the law prohibits the use of firecrackers and fireworks in the weeks leading up to the New Year. It turned out that cyclists are much more likely to throw paper on the ground when they hear the sound of exploding firecrackers.

In the fifth and sixth experiments, people were provoked into committing petty theft. An envelope with a transparent window was sticking out of a mailbox, clearly revealing a 5-euro bill inside. The experimenters observed passersby, counting the number of thefts. In the “order maintained” situation, the mailbox was clean, and there was no litter around. In the “order violated” situation, either the mailbox was covered in meaningless graffiti (experiment 5) or there was trash scattered around (experiment 6).

In the situation where “order is maintained,” only 13% of passersby took the envelope. However, from the painted box, 27% of passersby stole the envelope, and the scattered trash prompted 25% of people to commit theft.

According to the “Broken Windows Theory,” the mere fact that the number of crimes decreases due to their impossibility or unprofitability (rather than solely because of moral persuasion or strict punishments) leads to a further decline in crime rates. Today, New York—where this theory has been applied most extensively and consistently—is one of the calmest and safest cities in the U.S. In the 1980s, however, there were over 1,500 serious crimes committed every day and 6-7 murders daily. ^[121]. Текст для перевода: ..

But what to do if a crime has been committed? The inevitability of punishment, almost 100% guaranteed by a tracking information system, allows for the regulation of the severity of that punishment naturally through a reputation management mechanism. The more unacceptable the act, the greater the stain on the criminal’s reputation. They won’t be able to get a good job, and they won’t be granted credit until they “clean up” their image. In a sense, they will be temporarily isolated, “exiled” from society.

Moreover, natural consequences of actions will inevitably follow. Stolen property must be returned, and any damage must be compensated by the perpetrator; if that is not possible—such as in the case of murder—the killer will be required to pay alimony to the family of the victim. With such a system, written laws or courts will be largely unnecessary. The question of “Did they commit the act or not?” can be trivially resolved through the analysis of OIS records, as can the questions of degree of guilt, motives for the act, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The measure of punishment will be determined automatically based on reputation and natural consequences. This mechanism ensures that the current situation, where a person can be imprisoned for several years for actions that most people do not consider dangerous or deserving of such punishment, is impossible, and conversely, that one can evade the consequences of a crime by exploiting loopholes in the law.

There remains a tiny percentage of psychopaths and maniacs whom nothing will stop. However, this issue is more related to medicine than to criminology. Restraint jackets and closed psychiatric hospitals are not going anywhere.

International politics and national idea

In developed countries, the concept of national borders is already losing its significance. Corporations conduct business all over the world, people travel to the other side of the globe for vacations, and they make free calls on Skype to another continent. The world is gradually moving towards a global society with a unified political, economic, and cultural space. Moreover, this process is happening peacefully, which has never been seen in human history before. It is precisely the rejection of violent methods and the guarantee of human rights and freedoms that have made such unification possible. In this context, the division based on the principle of “us vs. them” loses its meaning. International politics has transformed from a matter of life and death into something akin to a dispute among neighbors about who should pay how much for cleaning the stairwell.

Moreover, public policy, both domestic and foreign, often serves as a platform for settling scores among alpha males, measuring the range of ballistic phalluses, dividing territory, and engaging in other fascinating activities of higher primates. Fortunately, the animalistic aspect of politics is gradually diminishing due to the overall reduction in the role of the state and the weakening of power verticals. This leads to the blurring of national and cultural boundaries. After all, nothing fosters the growth of national consciousness and patriotism quite like brutal occupation and genocide.

People’s attachment to a national idea is often as painfully strong as their attachment to the idea of privacy. The main reason for this is fear. Both privacy and patriotism are defensive reactions to external threats. They represent an attempt to defend individual or collective independence in a hostile environment. This is sacred. People can die or kill for it. However, if the threat is removed, the need for protection disappears. What remains is merely an inadequate habit that no longer reflects reality. This is what we observe today. A war between developed nations is currently impossible for economic reasons. Modern weaponry can inflict such damage on the economies of the warring parties that the only rational strategy for them is a categorical refusal to engage in war. Wars are fought only against those who cannot retaliate. The same applies at the individual level. Today, the productivity of labor and the damage caused by strikes or sabotage are so significant that even the greediest exploiters understand that high wages, social guarantees, and strict adherence to workers’ rights and freedoms are far more beneficial than brutal coercion and slavery.

In the modern world, a person who is keenly interested in national identity resembles a thug who first wants to know, “Which neighborhood are you from?” But what difference does it really make? Russian, Chinese, Jewish, Ukrainian — does it matter? It only matters to those who have grievances against each other, like Arabs and Jews, for example. For everyone else, it’s more of a personal matter. Meeting someone of your nationality in a foreign country is like running into a fellow countryman or a classmate. Sure, it’s nice for the first few minutes, but then it turns out you have far fewer common interests with them than with a colleague from somewhere in Australia.

The scariest thing is that patriotism ^[122]. It not only arises from hostility and division, but also supports and provokes them. Nationalist rhetoric is the forte of all dictators and political frauds. With manic persistence, they tell us that dying to defend the Motherland is cool. Although it has long needed protection only from such politicians, rather than from external enemies, who are actually more interested in trading than in waging war against us.

People have a strong desire to trust one another, to feel a sense of unity, and to be among their own. Patriotism and nationalism create a sense of belonging among a large group of people who share certain common traits, which, to be honest, are often not the most important—language, skin color, religion, rituals, and customs. In modern multicultural metropolises, a similar role is played by belonging to subcultures, a favorite football team, or music preferences. When we encounter a new person, we face a choice in how to relate to them: we can either try to deeply understand and get to know them, or we can resort to fitting them into stereotypes—“intellectual,” “boor,” “Jew,” “Caucasian,” “emo,” and so on. Naturally, the second approach is far more cost-effective.

In a reconnaissance society, a third option emerges — the ability to instantly obtain detailed information about a person from the internet. Instead of relying on approximate heuristics like national, religious, and other stereotypes, one can receive an accurate answer to most questions right away.

Another argument in favor of patriotism and national identity is cultural diversity. The appreciation for the value of this diversity emerged during a time when conquering nations preferred to disregard the local population and forcefully obliterate that very diversity. Naturally, many unique elements of the cultures of conquered peoples disappeared without a trace. However, even under such circumstances, not everything was lost. For instance, the European barbarians who ravaged Rome effectively became its cultural heirs. No culture disappears without a trace; it enriches the younger or more aggressive culture that absorbs it.

Moreover, the uniqueness and distinctiveness of cultures are often overestimated. Different cultures intersect significantly. The same fairy tale plots and legends, similar linguistic structures, music, and architecture—these are all repeatedly duplicated with minimal variations. The propagandistic image of the exceptional role of one specific culture serves selfish and aggressive purposes and has little to do with reality.

Thus, currently and in the foreseeable future, mergers and acquisitions of cultures will not lead to significant losses. Unique and sought-after elements of the absorbed culture are incorporated into the global culture. There is no tragedy in this; quite the opposite. Those who lament the fact that dozens of languages disappear every year should remember that the creation of a universal language has been humanity’s most cherished dream since ancient times. Moreover, the presence of cultural and linguistic barriers is a constant source of conflict and war. Cultural globalization does not mean unification and standardization. Modern global culture is much richer and more diverse than any single national culture.

New elite

As society transitions from one formation to another, the composition of the elite expands, and governing methods become more lenient. Slave owners relied on force, while during feudalism, access to land—the primary source of food—was strictly controlled, and besides the monarch or emperor, landowners held a significant share of power. Capitalists were even more numerous, and their methods of exploitation were gentler. Finally, the era of informism allowed bureaucrats and hired managers to join the elite, direct violence has fallen out of fashion, and even monetary incentives are no longer as relevant— in developed countries, a minimum wage is often sufficient for a decent living. The main tool of governance now is the manipulation of consciousness and the artificial stimulation of needs through advertising. It is reasonable to assume that under reconism, the ruling class will become even more numerous, and methods of influence will become even more humane.

To us today, it may seem that the concept of a ruling class will completely disappear in the future. Its boundaries will be so blurred, and the advantages and privileges will be so insignificant against the backdrop of a generally high standard of living, that we won’t be able to notice any difference between the “leaders” and the “led.” However, a feudal lord or a slave owner could have said the same about today’s world — complete chaos, the common people live like kings and show no respect for authority, while those in power can’t even punish their subordinates, let alone execute them. It’s utter lawlessness!

Who will be the ruling class in a reconceptualized society? Declaring absolute equality feels somewhat unrealistic, given its utopian nature. One could argue that modern capital managers are already working not with means of production, but with information, and they thrive on it. It will be entirely against their interests for everyone else to know what they know. So where will they go? They will either fade away quietly like slave owners or make a loud exit like the nobility. This isn’t about their physical disappearance; rather, their role in society will gradually diminish. Whose role will be on the rise? Naturally, in a society driven by information, the role of information generators will grow. Research laboratories, universities, software producers, design firms, media companies, and even internet projects will take center stage. The owners of these companies will rule the world of the future and, in fact, have already been ruling the world of the present for some time now.

To find the sources of the new elite, it’s worth looking at modern realities. Everyone reads Wikipedia. Many contribute to it, while some monitor the content and actively participate in the project, forming clans and groups. It is these individuals who essentially decide what should and shouldn’t be included in Wikipedia, and in what form. So, will there be a kind of “moderator” class? There will clearly be more of them than bureaucrats currently, and the management methods they can employ will be more lenient. This means the main trend will remain.

The key resource of the future is likely to be reputation, which will also serve as a numerical expression of the quality and quantity of information produced by an individual, making it a derivative resource in relation to information. It has very interesting properties. Unlike the key resources of the past and present, reputation is fundamentally inalienable; it cannot be traded or exchanged. It cannot be taken away or hidden. It has a tendency to fade over time—people change, and actions taken many years ago hold less significance than those of today. This is reminiscent of inflation, but without harmful consequences, as reputation is not a medium of exchange or accumulation. While all other resources need to be somehow converted into power and influence, reputation does not require such conversion; it is power and influence in their purest form. Moreover, it represents power in its highest and most perfect form—power that is not seized by force, not bought with money, and not obtained through deception, but rather voluntarily and consciously granted by subordinates themselves. This power evaporates instantly at any attempt to abuse it, thus possessing immense moral authority and trust.

The future elite are those whose reputation at some point will be sufficient to influence public processes. It’s vague and unclear, really. Almost anyone can occasionally be part of the elite. It’s easy to get in, but even easier to get out.

Bored aristocrats

Our ideas about the future society usually boil down to three options, which have been described many times in science fiction literature and film. The first option is a utopia, like in the books of Soviet science fiction writers about the arrival of communism. The second is a dystopia, as seen in the works of anti-Soviet science fiction writers, or a few popular dystopian variations—“a world after a nuclear apocalypse,” “a world after a rebellion of machines,” “a world where everyone has degenerated into a brutish state because robots do all the work.” The third option is essentially the same as today, just with spaceships and blasters.

Most likely, while reading this book, you got the impression that the authors lean towards the first, utopian option. In reality, it’s not that simple. We are indeed describing an optimistic scenario for the future. First of all, because there are plenty of pessimistic future scenarios out there. It is human nature to think ahead about dangerous and complex situations in order to prepare and thereby increase the chances of survival. If everything is fine in the future, then there’s nothing to worry about. Secondly, despite all the complaints and criticism of the modern world, the notion that our ancestors were “wiser” and lived in some special “harmony with nature,” or were “more spiritual,” to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality. Just a couple of centuries ago, the overwhelming majority of the planet’s population lived in terrible poverty, oppression, disease, and ignorance. People worked from dawn to dusk for pennies, drank heavily, fought each other, and committed robbery and murder far more than they do now. Life was shorter, more senseless, and more hopeless. So the authors’ optimism is merely an extrapolation of the changes that have occurred in humanity over the last one to two hundred years.

Moreover, we have a rather lukewarm attitude towards a “society of total surveillance.” We share the same taboos and complexes as most people. It’s just the lesser of two evils. Universal tracking through computers is such a convenient and effective tool that it’s unlikely people will be able to give it up. Combining it with strict adherence to privacy and anonymity is physically impossible. A society that blocks the development of tracking and accounting technologies in favor of privacy will, in a few decades, fall hopelessly behind a more open and transparent one. Its economy will not function as well, and crime and corruption will be higher. So this process cannot be stopped. Therefore, it needs to be led. Universal mutual transparency is better than one-sided transparency. Cameras and scanners will be everywhere, whether we like it or not. The only question is who will control them.

In our view, a reconist society will resemble the “upper class” of the past the most — a community of aristocrats and those closely associated with them, who could afford not to engage in hard labor for their livelihood. Thanks to machines, the need for heavy physical work has almost disappeared today. Computers are rapidly taking over the realm of non-creative intellectual labor — administration, resource allocation, accounting — all the tasks that clerks and managers used to handle for the aristocrats. The emergence of affordable home robots that will perform the work of servants and footmen is not far off. At that point, the analogy will become nearly perfect.

The upper class was a self-sufficient and insular community. Aristocrats often communicated with each other and with commoners in different languages. If machines and robots had replaced peasants and servants, the masters would hardly have noticed any difference, making it a very convenient model. Reputation played a huge role among the nobility; everyone knew each other or could quickly gather information. A single disgraceful act could lead to a person being permanently expelled from high society. The nobility was under constant scrutiny from their servants, and the personal lives of the elite served as a popular subject for gossip and newspaper stories. In the UK, since the late 19th century, a directory called “Who’s Who” has been published, containing brief biographies, addresses, and many other details, including hobbies and clubs that members of high society belong to. The very word “noble” means “famous” or “well-known.”

So, how did the nobility live? First of all, the lack of necessity to work did not lead to universal degradation, if only because degradation is very boring. Secondly, parental instinct compelled them to provide their children with a decent education and upbringing. An educated person finds it doubly boring to waste their life on primitive entertainment. These factors can be carried unchanged into the future. Boredom and concern for children will not go away. Of course, there will always be people who are perfectly content with beer and football on TV as their main life pursuits, but their numbers will not be overwhelming and will likely be even fewer than they are now. After all, the desire to regularly escape reality through drugs, TV shows, or gambling directly depends on the state of that reality. The harsher and more hopeless life is, the more one wants to forget.

The “bottom” of society during the reconceptualization will be relatively comfortable and safe. This is already becoming evident—today in modern Europe, one can live better on unemployment benefits than an average worker could a hundred years ago. This situation is often criticized for turning people at the bottom into parasites who don’t even attempt to find work. There is some truth to this. However, firstly, these passive parasites are far less harmful than active ones who thrive on theft, corruption, or selling products in 900-gram packages disguised as kilogram ones. Secondly, as labor productivity increases, it becomes easier and easier for society to support this ballast. The main thing is that those at the bottom do not cause inconvenience to others and have the opportunity to rise as soon as they feel motivated to get their act together.

The next layer of society is the “ordinary people.” Those who want to live quietly and peacefully, to be no worse than their neighbors, and to provide a decent future for their children. This group will be the majority, and that is perfectly normal. We have no illusions akin to the communist idea of a “bright future”; we do not believe that everyone will be painting, writing poetry, advancing science, and conquering space.

And finally, the “cream” of society. In the aristocratic circles of the past, there were plenty of people who sincerely served their country, engaged in charity, wrote books, and made discoveries. Or at least actively increased their wealth, thereby contributing to the economy. Many of them had everything, yet they couldn’t sit still. In the future, there will be more such people, because even today, it is very rare for wealth to be inherited. To have “everything,” one must work hard. Moreover, science and literature, which were once little more than hobbies, are increasingly well-paid today. Besides the selfless “itch to make a difference,” people will be driven to engage in science, art, and public service by tangible financial incentives and the desire to enhance their reputation.

The main difference between a reconciling society and the noble circles of past centuries will be that war and politics will lose their significance and authority. In a society where horizontal connections and transparent decision-making methods prevail, specialists in intrigue, manipulation, and violence will no longer be in demand.

So what is it, a utopia, a dystopia, or something else? A bit of everything. Yes, perhaps the society of the future may seem to some like a comfortable and safe zoo, where one can live life without much effort. But isn’t such a zoo better than a livestock yard, where animals are fed well only to be slaughtered later, and where Mozart’s symphonies are played in the barn just to increase milk production? Moreover, in our livestock yard, it often happens that animals are butchered more frequently than they are fed, and instead of Mozart, there’s just criminal chanson playing. The fears that everyone will turn into passive consumers are completely unfounded. After all, humans always strive for the top of Maslow’s hierarchy. ^[123]. if nothing is hindering him.

Despite the great chaos and disorder, today’s society bears much more resemblance to a zoo than to a reconciling one. From childhood, we get used to the abundance of “free” public goods around us. There is always authority above us that knows better how and why we should live. Our desires and whims are delivered to us ready-made by advertising. To make us act together or at least not interfere with one another, often the best method found is coercion and violence.

We are alienated from each other and from the social goods created by our own labor. Reconism removes this alienation. It allows us to see and feel the connection between our actions and their consequences. When we can trace the path of every penny, no one can justify tax evasion by claiming that it will be embezzled anyway. When power is gradually distributed among everyone, there is no point in rebelling against it. When you have set the rules yourself, there is no reason to break them.

Once, the understanding that we should treat each other humanely was either instilled from childhood as an absolute, religious truth, or it was enforced under the threat of punishment (more often, a combination of these methods was used). This didn’t always work. When you know almost nothing about your enemies, it’s easy to convince yourself that they are monsters and inhuman beings who can and should be killed in the name of the Lord, who taught love. Religion and culture, existing as unquestionable dogmas, make little distinction between the statements “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not wear a skirt above the knee,” “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath,” “Thou shalt not litter” and “Thou shalt not whistle, or you won’t have any money.” Why? Because!

Of course, the shift from blind adherence to dogma to conscious following of laws did not begin today. With the development of trade and navigation, tribes and nations with different systems of taboos increasingly came into contact, and it became clear that social laws are not absolute. ^[109]. There emerged an understanding of the significant difference between the laws of nature, such as the law that the Sun rises every day, and social laws. People realized that some taboos could be broken without serious consequences.

Universal mutual transparency can replace this bizarre mix of reasonable rules of conduct and absurd superstitions with a simple understanding of how everything is interconnected. Why “don’t litter”? Because both the trash can and the janitor’s work are paid for out of your pocket without intermediaries. Why “don’t steal”? Because you have no reason to believe you’ve been wronged, as every thief deep down is convinced they are merely restoring justice. Why “don’t kill”? Because there it is, the person you want to kill, right in front of you — just like you, not a monster, not a beast, not a robot.