Spectrum, A Scenario of The Future

‘Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History suggests that as all human societies are becoming homogenous or being homogenised, regardless of their historical origins or cultural inheritances, literal democracy that these societies have moved or are moving to might be the ultimate form of human society where history ceases to further evolve. But in fact, while the process globalisation continues unabated; liberalisation of the market continues unabated, or I should say, markets are being forced open by superpowers, hardly has there ever been any evidence supporting that an equal liberal democracy prevails, supporting the Western, or presently, the United States’ vision that the world is stepping towards an equal, open society where poverty could eventually be eradicated and people live in complete freedom – social, political and freedom of thought, and where conflicts would be effectively and peacefully resolved. On the contrary, the skewed or even polarised pluralistic world appears to be less stable and vulnerable than ever. The weaklings, permit me to say so, are in such despair that desperate measures are usually taken to get their ends met (or perhaps to have their despair heard), in front of an enemy that there exists not the faintest hope to defeat. I believe that the world in such situation becomes the source of instability. Can your scenarios describe this reality or an alternative future that meets the ideal vision? Can they also give thoughts to the options available with various stakeholders involved? Those, whose country own the nuclear warheads and absolute military advantage, have the common decency, I personally have no doubt of it; but most are simply too naïve to believe that some of their peers have done the world irreparable bad, economically or environmentally, and they are still too ignorant of knowing that their good intentions have been made use of in a distorted manner to do others harm and mischief.’ Miss Aya continued her topic rather enthusiastically. She took a deep breath and continued, ‘you know, Noam Chomsky believes that the victim of 9/11 is in fact the major practitioner of terrorism, that is to say, the use of violence for political ends. In fact, the US, according to him, is the only nation condemned in this regard. In Central America, and in the Middle East where the US has done violence on people and countries, Noam Chomsky quotes a number of examples. What are the options available in such absurd realities? We prefer, though necessarily, a world resembling a painting, as described by Edward Burne-Jones, of a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was and never will be; in better light than has ever shone; in a country that one cannot define nor remember, but only for; with divinely beautiful form.’

I was amazed at her comments again, and said with some surprise, holding my last piece of Omi beef on the fork, ‘Miss Aya, it seems that your knowledge and ideas are well beyond that which is required of an actress.’ After a brief pause, I continued, ‘Toynbee mentions in his Civilisation on Trial that in Victorian time, when Great Britain’s power reached its pinnacle, the English people believed history had become a constant. But of course, we now know how wrong such naivety is! I am sure the same applies to the belief of liberal democracy. In the US, there are people who believe the same. I haven’t read Fukuyama, and thus don’t know if he is one of those naïve. But before I systematically answer your concerns, I must qualify my work that I am only an analyst at an oil company, and with my humble power, cannot provide answers to the travesties of our world and turn it like who, the one you just said.’

Aya said, ‘Edward Burne-Jones.’ She smiled and continued, knowing that I was perplexed, ‘he is a British painter of symbolism in the 19th century.’

Perhaps just leap forward to explain how my team and myself came up with a scenario of the future called the “Spectrum”. It is one of the 4 possible futures that we made.’ Then I finished my appetiser.

The Economist - "A severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress"

This newspaper always makes me feel happy in such a way in which philosophers define happiness. The obituary in the latest copy on Ta Mok, "the surviving leader of the Khmers Rouges", who died on 21st July, is very interesting. Ta Mok commented on his comrade Pol Pot that he had fallen like "a ripe papaya" and was now no more than "cow shit". In fact, Ta Mok added, Pol Pot was less than that. Cow shit was useful.

Perhaps now with the same peasant's brutality, one may say to Ta Mok, "ditto".

I take the liberty to say, very humbly, that Ta Mok's usefulness does not lie in the instrumentality as cow shit, which provides the necessary nutrients to plants. It reminds us that we have to be intelligent and brave in order to not let the evil take charge of our lives, regardless of whether the evil is as necessary in essence to make humans more enlightened as cow shit to make plants more robust.