The global crisis of Humanity

     and the scientific technological progress.

                            A. Voin
                                                      16. 2.09

    The fact that the scientific and technological progress is not necessarily good, I have written more than once («Прогресс», «О вреде науки», etc.). I wrote about this and others. Here I want to consider, anyone, as far as I know, is not considered until now, a negative relationship between the scientific and technological progress and crises. Crises in the narrow sense, including the current financial and economic crisis and the crisis of global humanity, which has already begun and threatens to unpredictable consequences. This review will help us to predict these effects and to understand that we must do to avoid them.
    To understand the relationship between scientific and technological progress and economic crises, we turn to economic history and economic science. As I showed in the article "Эволюция кризисов и экономические модели” economic crises in one form or another have appeared since then, as people moved from hunter-gatherer society to work initially in the form of farming and hunting. But this study I will not start with the first agricultural settlements or the beginning of economic science and start with the Great Depression of 1932 - 1939-ies. This depression has led to an understanding of economic science, not only of Marxist and Western, that the crisis is caused in one sense or another by wrong distribution of the total social product, or expressing its value for money. Roughly speaking, the crisis appear when in a market economy supply exceeds demand. Effective demand. And this demand depends just from the above distribution. From it, by the way, depends on also the motivation of producers to produce. Hence, another variant of the crisis of the market economy or slowing its development - the option due to low profitability of production (an extreme case - negative). A reflection of this fact (due to depression or independently of it) has created such well-known economic theories, like Marxism and Keynesianism, and some less well-known, including emerging today. For example, at the developed in the Institute of Global and Social Movements (IGSO) by V. Koltashov theory outlined in his book " Кризис глобальной экономики " (Moscow, 2009). All these theories converge in the recognition of the irregularity of the existing distribution of the total social product and
expenditure in determining what is the correct distribution. I also attached to these things hand and proposed a formula for crisis-free economic development, which gives the correct in my understanding the distribution of the total social product. («Формула бескризисного развития экономики», «Уточнение формулы
бескризисного развития экономики», «Судьба формулы»).
    Regarding the recent recipes of distribution, including mine, they are not tested in practice. But for the Keynesian and Marxist models such an inspection carried out by history. In both cases, it gave the same result. I mean, a purely economic result. In all other respects: in relation to freedom, human rights, democracy, security cards, etc., these two models have nothing in common and, accordingly, their results are diametrically apart. But purely economically, both models initially led to success, but eventually became untenable. Planned Marxist economy allowed the Soviet Union to catch up (at least on the shaft), the advanced capitalist countries, but then again began its economic backwardness, which culminated in its collapse. Application of the Keynesian model has led to the "Keynesian prosperity" of the economy of western countries in 60-ies, which then entered a period of local crises and completed the present global, of which has not yet released.

    Since these two models are very different, you can suppose the cause of such an outcome of their application is in the models themselves, each separately. But in the article " Эволюция кризисов и экономические модели " I show that the reason for similar results using two very different models is the same- the evolution of the economy. This evolution leads to the fact that any
good model (not talking about the bad) is suitable only for the period close to its creation, and then a new model is demanded. And I see in that article that evolution at the level of the phenomenon. That is, I consider how the economic relations of participants of economic play are changing in the transition from subsistence to commodity, with the appearance of money and credit and finance, upon the occurrence of globalization, etc. But I did not consider the causes of this evolution, its driving force. In this article, I just also want to do it.

    The reason for the evolution of the economy do not have far to seek. It lies on the surface. Naturally, it is - the scientific and technological progress. –Is it discovery? –Cry at this point the reader. - It is well known! – Yes, of course, we all know the positive impact of scientific and technical progress on the evolution of the economy. It is known that scientific and technological progress increases the productivity of labor, that he is the main cause of economic growth. Known also about the negative side effects of this progress in the form of damage to the environment, for example. But I want to draw attention to the scientific and technological progress as the cause of economic crisis. As well as the cause of the global crisis of humanity, but not mediated through the environment, etc., and acting on the other line.
    It was shown that the immediate cause of crisis is a misallocation of the total social product, leading to an imbalance between effective demand and supply. And that in cases where the correct distribution is achieved (correct in the sense that it helps to overcome the crisis and to receive at the new economic prosperity) then some time later this distribution became be not correct and either a new crisis break again or slowing economy, even regression. This suggests that behind all this is some deeper reason. As I said, this reason is the evolution of the economy. But what exactly in this evolution causes to crises or recessions, appeared after each, seemingly successful distribution of the total social product? And what mechanism operates here?

    The scientific and technological progress, which is responsible for most of the evolution of the economy, is also the specific factor in this evolution, which leads to crises or recessions after
any successful at the time distribution of the total product. Recall that a hobby of John Maynard Keynes is employment. His main work is called "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. It is in the growth of unemployment he sees the main cause of crises (as well as the slowdown in the economy). This does not contradict the fact that, as said above, he sees this cause in the wrong distribution of the total social product. Unemployment, underemployment, etc. can be regarded as a variant of the wrong distribution of the total product. She, as well as misallocation leads to a fall in effective demand, and through this - to the crisis. That is only one of the factors causing the fall in demand and, as for me - not the most important. But it has not much matter in this case and we will not dwell on them.
     Well, what does in this plan scientific and technological progress? Scientific and technological progress increases the productivity and, consequently, increases the supply. And on the effective demand directly the scientific and technological progress is not affected. However, indirectly it still affects: thanks to market mechanisms effective demand in the form of wage employment in manufacturing is also growing with the growth of labor productivity. But, as
is easy to show, it grows less quickly. Even if the salary of employees in the private sector is increases in proportion to increases in productivity (which in fact is also not true), then the wages and pensions at a constant rate of taxation will inevitably lag behind because of the changing relationship between number of workers in the private sector and civil service and retiree. This follows from the fact that scientific and technological progress is accompanied, in general, not only by productivity growth, but also by reductions in the number employed in manufacturing. It is well known that the Luddite movement that ravaged the machines was caused by the dismissal of workers to replace them by machine labor. Of course, this picture is smeared because the part of laid-off then finds employment in new kinds of production arising due to the same scientific and technological progress. Nevertheless, the overall downward trend in the relative number employed in the manufacture takes place. If a couple of centuries ago, the vast majority of the population were employed in agriculture and industry, today in developed countries, the majority are employed in the public sector, trade and services, where technological progress has relatively small impact on productivity growth. Thus, scientific and technological progress in a market economy without additional regulatory
measures leads to an imbalance of supply and demand and, consequently, to the crisis.
     Well, what about the regulatory measures, in general, can we talk? There are two fundamentally different options. First, Marxists - is simply to abandon the market and planning from the top to determine who, what and how much to produce and distribute all produced between members of society. Here the balance between supply and demand is achieved elementary, but disappears the economic incentive for producers, there is no competition and, as experience
has shown that sooner or later, such a system begins to lag behind economically from the market. The second option - is to save the market, but to regulate it by so-called economic measures: taxes, credit rates, emissions and central bank intervention in the interbank foreign exchange market, etc. This second option is divided into many (infinite in principle) of sub-options that differ from each other those with whom and how to take the tax, as these taxes are used and in what moments related to the evolution of the economy, change the tax rates. The problem is not simple, as is evident from the number of different theories - models of this second option and the fact that none of the used so far such theories do not relieve us from the crises, moreover, the power crisis is only growing bigger. Nevertheless, it is clear that in this way we can find an optimal distribution of the total product, not abandoning the market and competition, and I would argue that this distribution is given in my formula crisis-free economic development. And from it also follows, when you need to regulate system. But in this second scenario, it is important to note one fundamental point: what would be the formula we do produce a redistribution of social product, the essence of redistribution is that we take the part of the product from those who produce it and share it with those who did not directly produce . And with the development of scientific and technological progress and the associated productivity gains we are forced to take an increasing part of product from producers and share it with those who did not directly produce. As I said, the forms of selection and redistribution can be different, but in this place in this aspect difference is negligible, so take for simplicity redistribution through increased tax rate for manufacturers. And we immediately see that sooner or later, this method of adjustment of market economy has faced difficulties in any formula of redistribution.
    Before going further, it is necessary to clarify the above about the redistribution of the total social product. In addition to the above-mentioned redistribution carried out by the state, there is, so to speak, a natural redistribution and it makes a significant change in the picture painted above. Much of the total product, in monetary terms, leaves the manufacturing sector to other sectors of the market economy without the assistance and intervention of the state. In trade and finance, although they do not directly produce the goods, at the expense of such redistribution can be accumulated monetary bubbles, leading to crises, not less than in the most productive area. Moreover, the scientific and technological progress does not affect on this redistribution: grow profits in the manufacturing sector at the expense of scientific and technological progress - trade and banks dashing and easily taken away from him his share. That is, scientific and technological progress, increasing productivity, leads to an increase in the joint share of the total product in these three sectors combined, but the proportions of distribution among themselves is not affected. But because modern production can’t exist without commerce and the financial sector, then trade and finance in this aspect can be considered as part of the production sphere, and then made it to the above conclusions not affected.
    But there's a natural redistribution, which in this aspect can not be attributed to the production sphere. This is redistribution through the provision of a countless number of types of services to engaged in the production sector people by people in this area is not occupied. This is restaurants, tourism, entertainment, etc. This redistribution is also without direct government intervention and here also money (gross product), created in the manufacturing sector, over to people which does not produce goods. The share of this sector in the total pie are also increasing due to proportion employed in the public sector, but not as rapidly as a share of themselves engaged in the manufacturing sector.
     To complete the picture must also take into account such an important detail, as the distribution of the total product within the production sphere (similar to the trade and financial). It is clear that the owners and top managers are far greater share than their workers and employees. Moreover, as science and technology progresses the internal distribution changes in the direction of increasing the relative share of owners and top managers. All this complicates the picture of the distribution - the redistribution of the total product in connection with scientific and technical progress, but does not alter the above finding: technological progress without further regulatory action violates state optimal allocation of the gross national product and leads to an imbalance between production and consumption.
   We now turn to the impact of scientific and technological progress in the global crisis of humanity. Much of this influence is well known. This is, first and foremost - environmental destruction, the spread of civilization diseases (cardiovascular, nervous, cancer, etc.), the danger of man-made disasters such as Chernobyl and weapons of mass destruction in the war or even terrorists, etc. Individual thinkers due to such consequences of scientific and technological progress even leads to the slogan "Back in the cave!". But humanity as a whole is not going to deny the scientific and technological progress, especially its benefits. This is not referring to the utopianism of such return: to go "back to the caves," i.e., give up the benefits of civilization, obtained through scientific and technological progress, we must reduce the number of people on the planet to several million. A higher number will not be able to subsist without the achievements of scientific and technological progress. But on the other hand increases the feeling that something still needs to be done, need some radically new ideas.
     But before to construct such ideas we need to further investigate to where we are now moving, and, above all, the influence of science and technology on our lives. And this influence is not limited to those listed above. And just to that part of this influence, which remains today more or less in the shade, I want to go. I mean not the negative effects of scientific and technological progress has on our environment and not to potential threats to our personal and collective existence in the form of new diseases, man-made disasters, and war with weapons of mass destruction, but its influence on us, on the human qualities people. Or, if you want, to approach or removal of people to the "image and likeness of God." Consideration of the impact is closely linked to the spiritual evolution of the human race since its inception to the present day, and it is a topic, which requires for its insight into many volumes. So here I am forced to consider this evolution in the maximum scale.
    The first thing to say about this evolution in this context is that it is determined by not only scientific and technological progress. Suffice it to recall the impact on her so-called axial religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, which are irrelevant to the scientific and technological progress. Or to recall the influence of the sexual revolution, which to the scientific and technological progress has not, at least, a direct relationship.
     But the impact of scientific and technological progress does not deny the accounts. Something of this influence is already known. So Marxism and some other philosophies teach that scientific and technological progress, freeing man from the hard physical labor, contributes to its intellectual and spiritual development. Like, eliminating the need to continuously and seriously work for the sake of physical survival, a person is able to spend more time on the intellectual and spiritual development. This is true, but there is another side to this influence. More precisely, it is not quite so. Freed from the heavy physical labor, the person receives more opportunities for his intellectual and spiritual development, but we can’t say that he has no such opportunity, doing physical labor. But the main thing in another - whether a person will necessarily use the additional time for his intellectual and spiritual development? For early humans, as well as representatives of some tribes, today's leading primitive lives, living in good conditions "tropical paradise" could have and now have no less free time than, say, a bank clerk in a modern developed country. They lie idle for a banana and rise only to frustrate easily some fruit and eat. But for some reason this did not help and does not contribute to their intellectual and spiritual development. In order for people to utilize the time, frees from the hard work, for its development, still need some additional conditions. It escaped the attention of Marx and other philosophers. And that is due to an objective reason. In Marx's time overall trend was such that in most cases, people still used frees time for their own development. And with his characteristic tendency to consider trends over time, as the immutable laws, Marx, and this trend introduced as law.

    But today this trend has changed. Nowhere is this better reflects the change in the Soviet anecdote about the old intellectual, i.e., the tsarist times, and the new - the Soviet one. "The old intelligent was always up to blue-shaven, slightly drunk, and knew everything from Bach to Feerbach. A new - always slightly shaved, to blue drunk and knows all of Edita Piekha to you go on ... ". And Solzhenitsyn the new Soviet intelligentsia as intelligentsia in general is not considered, and called smatterers, bearing in mind that people with higher education in the Soviet Union was incomparably greater than it was in tsarist Russia, but higher education gives a person a specialty, but not necessarily transforms it in thinking, the more spiritual person. But when he was kicked in the West, he was convinced that there is the case even worse. In the Soviet Union in a sea of smatterers there was not such a thin layer of people with broad interests, a lot of reading great literature, classical in particular, visited the theater, museums, listening to symphonic music, and most importantly the people with the concepts of honor, if not, then at least of decency. And today in the former Soviet Union, as in the West, this layer has almost disappeared or turned into its own ersatz (but within the Union in last period of its existence, it degraded rapidly and disappeared, so that's not matter of system). Today the meaning of life of people with education, as without it, have the money, success and kicks, and education became the only means of achieving these goals. The number of readers has decreased dramatically, and read serious literature is practically extinct. Today people read “chernukha”, porn, detective stories, comics, blank glossy magazines with the "high life" gossip, and books about healthy and delicious food and the food tasteless, but diet and other guidance on self-healing, and, of course, the literature in their field. Like any accounting, giving the sea of spiritual nourishment and makes the person a broad thinker. However, there are claiming that they read serious literature. Under the serious literature, they understand “shizy” with psychoanalytic bent, mysticism, in the spirit of Madame Blavatsky, Klizovsky and below them, the pseudo-scientific claptrap with UFO bias and vile picking in the life of a great persons of past with a view under the guise of serious investigations to slander these great and so exalt themselves and deliver a nasty pleasure corresponding class of readers. Dan Brown - one of the representatives of this "serious" literature.
     And what do in freeing up time instead of reading those who do not read? They "pulled away" if not in the cafes, restaurants and performances on the show, then lying on the couch watching television, according to which watching the same show presentation, overloaded cold sex, "high life" gossip and humor below the belt. It is possible for a long time to paint in colors and paint this picture, but since I'm writing an article, rather than a multi-volume study, I limit myself only with that.
     Now back to the scientific and technological progress. As I said, it does not determine completely the spiritual evolution and, consequently, does not determine completely and this change in her. The current spiritual state of Western society is largely determined by the philosophical ideas that formed the basis of the sexual revolution (which I once wrote). But its essential contribution to this state makes scientific and technological progress. Marx, in general, completely subordinated spiritual to the material: being determines consciousness, matter is primary, and spirit (mind) are secondary, the proletariat, which produces wealth - the salt of the earth, and the intelligentsia, which produces the spiritual and intellectual values, spunk, and she paid in the Soviet Union less than the proletarians and so on. Axial religions and the sexual revolution show convincingly that Marx was wrong: not being determines consciousness completely. First monotheistic religion, Judaism emerged in the middle of sea surrounding pagan peoples, and nothing substantially different material existence of the Jewish people from the surrounding was not. On the other hand, the ideas, once it has arisen, may themselves significantly affect the material being, the best evidence of which is very scientific and technological progress, driven by just ideas. Thus, there is no unilateral determining influence on the consciousness of existence, but there is mutual influence each other, direct and feedback. Bearing this in mind and remembering that at the present spiritual state of Western society has had a significant influence sexual revolution, consider the impact on his scientific and technological progress. That is, how scientific and technological progress contributed to the above changes in spirituality of society.

     This effect manifests itself through the fact that scientific and technological progress, combined with those values, which dominate today in Western societies, makes most of the members of this society of parasites in the broadest sense. A considerable part of society, he turns to the parasites and in the narrow sense. This is, above all, the unemployed, living on benefits. And some of them in America, for example, have become a lifelong and hereditary eaters of Wellfer. In addition to this obvious and recognized by all groups of parasites is a variety of somewhat less obvious. These are those for which the government, struggling with unemployment, creates unnecessary indeed for society jobs This was the main scourge of the economy of Soviet socialism, in which, moreover, and in the right places people not working at full strength. But the main mass of parasites today for those not considered. It's the people who produce goods and services, which are in fact society does not need, but find demand as satisfy the artificially created demand. These requirements are in order and are created and inflated to give earnings, profits, and even fabulous profits to those who then meet them by respective goods and services. A striking example of such goods and the artificially created demand is drugs, their manufacture, distribution and consumption. True, this is prohibited, criminal activity. But this is because the drug brings obvious harm to society in the form of injury of consumers and their antisocial behavior as a result of the use. But in the vast majority of cases these goods and services do not cause direct harm to society or the injury is masked more or less aware. The term "consumer society" has the meaning that in this society, most goods and services supply at artificially created and fanned needs. This is, above all, goods of fashion and prestige. Fashion is created and constantly updated in order to artificially create a human need, which by nature they do not, and even to someone it improves lives, but not to society as a whole. This is a huge part of the pop art and a considerable part of the elite art. Every day there are created and then disappear into oblivion all kinds of pop stars with the sole aim of creating an artificial demand and capitalizing on this. Under the guise of elitist art it is intruded in the brain of reach people that some kind of scribble on the canvas or installation of dog shit - this is great art, though none but a select few can understand it and that's worth to pay a few million for it in order to feel superiority over the gray mass that this art does not understand. This is the army of psychoanalysts, psychotherapists and other graduates from medical charlatans traditional and alternative. And most importantly, it is a huge army of officials, without much of which could be dispensed with, but we need something to hold people. We must hold people liberated from productive labor as a result of scientific and technological progress, generating productivity growth. And since to find for them a useful job in the current coordinate system is becoming increasingly difficult, then there is a continuous increase in the implicit and explicit parasites. Hence is the vanity of all the world's governments to deal with endless bureaucratic bloat. With one hand, it reduces, and another immediately increase, because as you have to give employment to the growing horde of not finding himself useful to society people. Hence is the spontaneous reproduction of any kind of unnecessary public industries, such as the above. 

      How parasitism is related to spirituality? Or why the multiplication of parasites multiplies the lack of spirituality? Spirituality is a ministry of supra-personal: community, truth, justice, God. Can a person, which is parasite on society, to serve him? To do this he must first stop being a parasite. Can the parasite cry to God for justice? In fairness it should sit hungry, and he usually lives much better than many truly useful members of society. 

     The situation is aggravated by the fact that today is generally difficult to determine whose work, even zealous, brave, talented is helpful, and whose work is useless or harmful, may even be very harmful. In the era before scientific and technological progress was not such a problem. Hunter, extracting more than any other meat for the tribe, knew that he was the most useful member of the tribe. Still others thought so. And never was that after a while it became clear that what he himself and all others considered useful, in fact, was harmful. But today we in brilliant and heroic work are discovering atomic energy and obtain an atomic bomb, and then start tearing our hair out and fight for the non-use, non-proliferation, etc. Or, open the GMO and do not know what it is we will come out sideways. (This is not to say that in modern science, especially the post soviet, there is bulk of parasites in the simple sense of the word, i.e., the untalented, vain salaried and prevents talented people to move science to benefit society or to his injury). 

    But not only in the science is this situation. Here sits the clerk in the bank and charges, according to the instructions any surplus. And getting a solid salary and bonuses is in a deep confidence in its usefulness to society. Suddenly it turns out that the bank has given wrong loans and as a result he is ruined, and many of its investors are left without deposits, tearing their hair and for the diversity of their own lives. Or cases of global financial and economic crisis and it turns out that the bank has extended correct loans, but because that was done by all the other banks, it is what led to this crisis.. And may be not that. And in general, it is not clear what it was necessary to make the clerk, if it is nothing really depends on him. 

     Or turning some crank bolts on some modern sophisticated production, not having a thin concept, if need a society end product of production, in which he - a small cog. That is, it is clear that the product is functional, it is, generally, you can ride on it or to hammer nails by it. But a similar product produces a lot of other companies and one does not know which better. More precisely, it is unknown whether it will produce income and, therefore, whether the product sold and consumed. Somebody up there hopes that will bring. Then, bam, on a market appears a stunning cheap device for hammering nails and production, where the crank worked, is closed. And it is unclear whether his work is useful to society or nobody needs it. Moreover, in order to properly turn the nut, it is still 5 years studied (also work), and when finished, it turned out that the scientific and technological progress canceled this profession. 

      Thus, we have the situation in which almost no one can say with certainty whether his work is useful to society or not. This distorts the assessment of himself and evaluation of each one by society. If the first person valued for real benefits that it brings to society, it is now - for some highly conditioned its equivalent. And as such equivalent act money and position in society. No matter how one earns a lot of money, no matter that in order to climb up, he betrays his friend and superior, and even ordered his assassination, but if he has money or power (and preferably both of them), he is an honorary member of society. And if God gave him talent, but also the conscience and dignity, and he doesn’t want to make money dishonestly, to climb up the bones, or to please by his art baser tastes of the general public for the sake of cheap popularity, then he is a contemptible loser. And this is not characteristic of capitalism alone, as Marx supposed. Under socialism, money plays the smaller role and a great value has position in society, but the deformation of human values in society, in principle the same. And the main reason of it is a scientific and technological progress. 

   Now we need clarify something said above. Refinements requires comparison human been value for society today and in the past. In the past I took to compare just the primitive tribes. But one could argue that in the continious, when appears slavery and so on, the estimate of value was deformed and may be even stronger than now. And this is without any connection with the scientific and technological progress. 

    It is true that the value was deformed and that deformation was not connected with the progress. But, the fact, that it was deformed in the past for other reasons (in connection with the system, for example), does not abolishes its deformation today in connection with the scientific and technological progress. Secondly, I believe that after all this deformation in the past has never been as strong as today. Take for example slavery. Of course, a slave, no matter how he may be talented, skilled, industrious, stood in the social ladder below any incompetent, lazy, etc. free citizen, not to mention noblesmen. But there was a certain rational point. Slaves were caught in the war, and wariors are not  slaves but free citizens. That is, potentially the most talentless citizen was the producer of the very slaves, including the most talented, who then makes all sorts of useful things. Comparison of the same value of slaves was determined sufficiently clear at the time of their usefulness to society or to the owner, i.e., in the end, all the same to society.  Likewise, the value of free citizens was determined to clear enough by their business acumen and military merit.

   Speaking about the deformation of human value in today's society, we must also take into account cumulative effect of scientific and technological progress. In each created today items (goods) sits in higher or lower proportion labour of scientists and inventors of the past. Modern physics, biology, etc., which bring to us all the new products and greatly increase the productivity of their production, could not occur without the axiomatic approach developed by Euclid, without differential calculus of Newton - Leibniz, without the classical Newtonian mechanics, etc. Any modern scientist stands, I do not remember on whose figurative expression, on the shoulders of previous generations of scientists. And if, thanks to the works of some contemporary scientist a new technological process is created, it is still a question whether its contribution to the creation of this process is greater the contribution of Newton, Euclid, or Maxwell to it. Contribution made by all previous scientists in any modern manufacturing process is not just superior to the direct contribution of its creators, but simply not commensurate with it. That is, roughly speaking, our modern material well-being in the most part, is simply a gift to us from previous generations of geniuses and talents, and that further exacerbates the parasitism of modern society as a whole, and complicates the task of evaluating the usefulness of a particular person to the society. 

    In summary, we can say that scientific and technological progress frees up time for the spiritual and intellectual development of people, but in combination with other factors, today he is not pushing them toward spiritual development. He is pushing them towards spiritlessness and parasitism in conjunction with the deformation of valuation of the individual to society .

    Now consider how all this affects the global crisis of humanity. Clearly, this can not influence for the better, but consider the subject more closely.

    One of the main manifestations of the global crisis is the creation, dissemination and the growing danger of weapons of mass destruction, as well as increasing the danger of man-made disasters on a global scale associated with the development and use of super-energy and ultra-high efficiency technologies. Scientific and technological progress has allowed people to acquire enormous amounts of energy, nuclear in particular, and technology extremely effective, such as biotechnology, which can be used and are used for the benefit of people. But they also can be used and have been used, although still very  limited, with the aim of annihilation and destruction, in the form of atomic, biological weapons and so forth. Moreover, their use with good intentions, but not enough wisdom and foresight or negligence, can lead to disaster no less than their conscious use for the destruction and annihilation. Chernobyl - the most striking example of this have already implemented disaster, in which lack of wisdom and foresight of its creators

(creators reactors WGT) combined with amazing irresponsibility of people, working on it.

    Less bright, but much more powerful disaster – the destruction of ecology on a global scale as a result of less energy-intensive, but on a larger scale of the technologies on the basis of  hydrocarbon fuels. It is also apparent folly in conjunction with the irresponsibility of those who create these technologies, and those who useing them create their wealth, without regard to anything else. Added to this is a very long list of local man-made disasters, amount of which in the world is not decreasing, but growing, and the potential catastrophe that has not happened yet, but may also occur and eclipse all former are still together.

   What role in this catastrophism and the conscious

application of science to destruction does lack of spirituality and a distorted system of values, evaluating people in particular play? Great discoveries in science, leading to massive shifts in energy generation and  the creation of revolutionary technologies, make the geniuses who have, as a rule, high spirituality, not to mention intelligence. But at the pinnacle of power whether political or academic in the current coordinate system break enough people of average intelligence, which produce a lot of talk about the spirituality and the interests of society and humanity, but only pursuing their own selfish interests. Decisions on the creation and use of weapons of mass destruction or a mass launch of risky technologies that provide immediate economic benefits, but with unknown

 consequences in the longer term, take these power, unspiritual (option – a false spiritual religious fanatics like Humeyni and his followers) mediocrities. And ingenious creators of the theories on which the development of new energy sources, new weapons and new technology is based, scrubbed from their creations. In the best case they have glory of the great scientists, but from the influence on the fate of their discoveries they move. 

Einstein wrote an infinite number of letters to the U.S. government with requests and demands to stop the further establishment of the atomic bomb, arguing that Germany was already defeated and there is no danger that it will make this bomb before. These letters went unanswered, and further creation and development of the atomic and then nuclear bombs was transferred to scientists less talented than he is (now that the theory was created, it was possible to do and such), but more accommodating, unspiritual, for which the main was their personal prosperity, scientific career. 

    The same thing happened with Sakharov.

 Sakharov - a scientist with a conscience - was removed and replaced by scientists although talented, but more flexible and quarrying. 

   Same with genetics. Its creators Weismann and Morgan did not live to genetic engineering and GMOs, otherwise, I think, they too have rebelled against such a risk in terms of long-term effects of it. And come to replace them nimble developers of their theories are concerned only for their careers and thick salaries. And much to the industrial firms who derive enormous profits from GMOs, so to say, no words to express... Generally, the greater the power of the human race has, the greater should be responsible for its application. But what responsibility can you expect from people only concerned with career and money? Namely these people are pushing up by distorted assessment of the individual in society. But parasitism of main part society, coupled with the almost complete disoriented people in that there are good and bad for society ('good' came down to a demand for "bread and circuses"), leads to the resignation of masses of people or to senseless, and sometimes bloody protests leads to the destruction of the existing, including the useful, to replacing him by even worse.

   Another manifestation of the global crisis is the increase in the number and scale of conflicts on the planet, leading to the external and civil wars, and increasing the danger of weapons of mass destruction. This growth is also closely linked to the lack of spirituality and the deformed valuation of a man in society, which leads to the fact that the political elite are slagged by careerists who actually don’t care about the fate of their people, not to mention the fate of mankind. They stir up nationalism, xenophobia, separatism or imperial ambitions under the guise of care about people, but really care only about their political career. The playing on the national feelings is the easiest way to career success in politics. Enough to declare: "They beat us, for me guys!" for an ancient instinct lead masses of the people after you.

   To the relationship of the global crisis with lack of spirituality and distorted evaluation of human worth to society is relevant the fact that the global crisis requires new ideas, new philosophy, and lack of spirituality and deformation evaluation of human worth in the highest  degree prevent the emergence of such ideas and their acceptance. The need for such ideas are well understood by society today and not once voiced by politicians and journalists. But if the scientific elite in the field of natural and exact sciences career intoxicated mediocrities, in the humanities and especially in the philosophy such mediocrity formed a cork, through which can not penetrate any idea, which society really need it. In the field of natural science somehow worked rational criteria permited to distinguish true science from pseudo. In the field of exact sciences to the same purpose uses a criterion  testing by practices. But in the sphere of humanitarian and, especially, in the philosophy these criteria are not working and not blocked at least a small degree of upward career path of mediocrity. The number of engineers produced by educational institutes of the country, somehow (and even not bad, in a market economy) is governed by the real needs of industry in them. (Another  matter whether all the goods, produced by that industry, supply normal, natural needs of the population or artificially created). But the number of philosophers, produced annually by all universities in the world (tens of thousands), has

nothing to do with the real need for them. After all, society needs only to those philosophers who are able to move it to understand how best to live. But the overwhelmingly majority of bachelors, masters and doctors of philosophy does not even pretend to it. They are typical parasites, which went into philosophy only because they are unable or unwilling to earn a living by work, really useful for society. But they must something to write and publish, because it is they need to their career growth. As a result, today there is such an orgy of scientific-sounding waste writing that even the mountain of writing of Soviet philosophers who developed, supposedly, Marxism under the leadership of the Communist Party ( "step right, step left from the general line is an attempt to escape") that after the collapse of the Union were not indiscriminately on recycled waste paper, against this background look like a serious philosophy. (Incidentally, the former Soviet chiefs of philosophy, and now continue to guide her in Russia and Ukraine). Naturally, such a philosophical elite is unwilling to accept real philosophy, so that its background is not lit up their incompetent. About how this is done in practice in Russia and Ukraine, I wrote a whole series of articles (for example, “Полемика с профессором Смирновым” ) and I will not repeat here. But in the West the situation is not better, both in terms of what there is now recognized for real philosophy, and in terms of opportunities a good philosophy to be recognized.

   First, about the "recognized". In philosophy generally, and especially in modern philosophy

the notion of recognition has never had and even more so today does not have the sense that it has in the natural sciences, for example, in physics. Newton’s or Maxwell's theories were and are recognized by the world community of physicists. With regard to modern theories such as string theory, dark matter, etc., they do not yet have such universal acceptance, but this is due to the fact that they are still in the stage of formation, development, testing and refinement. Moreover, this formation occurs in the interaction of supporters and opponents of these theories. Philosophy is divided into many schools, between which there is no interaction, and even attempts thereof. Here's how, for example, writes Michael Dummet, one of the representatives of the Oxford analytical school of philosophy, about Haydegere - one of the pillars of existentialism: "Haydeger was figer of fun, too absurd to treat it seriously, for the direction of philosophy practiced in Oxford” (Dummet Michael: "Truth and other enigmas", "Duckwarth", London). That is, what is taken as a serious, real philosophy in one school, the other does not notice at all and dialogue between representatives of different schools is not

happening. In the best case - a lazy and indiscriminate abuse of opponents.

   With regard to the depth of each school of philosophy in isolation, then the mere fact of their isolation from each other and the lack of a common language between them shows not in favor of this. This is not the place to study even the principal of these schools, not to mention all, but to illustrate situation I want to say a few words about one of them. That is the american school of “Modern theories of cognition”. So they call themselves, from which it does not necessarily mean that no other modern theories of cognition does not exist. On the contrary, there are many others and in Europe, for example, in field of the theory of knowledge today dominates the post positivist school, whose representatives, as should be expected, nothing want to know of their American contemporaries. And many do not even know of their existence.That does not prevent the Americans consider themselves and only themselves representatives of modern theory of cognition. And we can not say that they are self-proclaimed sleepwalkers from philosophy willing to preaching their ideas willing to listen to them on the market. Quite the contrary, the representatives of this school led many philosophical faculties in universities, publish philosophical journals, publishe books used by school students. They even branched into 5 areas: faundizm, coherent theories, probabilism, reliabilizm and direct realism. But here is what the head of one of these directions (direct realism) J. Pollock writes about representatives from all other branches of the school: "All the theory discussed above (faundizm, coherent, probabilism, reliabilizm - mine) have a common flaw: none of them can not able to give a coherent definition of the concept of justification, which they use” (Pollok John: "Contemporary theories of knowledge", Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, USA, 1986). I add: they not simply use this concept, it is their core, the cornerstone of all these theories and of Pollok’s direct realism, too. For the starting point of all these theories is the refusal to accept the notion of truth and its replacement on the justification. So, it turns out, this basic notion of justification, none of them can not clearly defined. So what then is value of these theories and what has been a fuss? 

  But, perhaps, Pollock correct this fundamental deficiency, which destroys all future construction? (After all, if it is not clear about what we say, it's like Stanislaw Lem: "Do not root stsorg in the dark", but does not say what is stsorg). Pollock defines justification for using the normal rules of construction of epistemological theory. But now it would be necessary to determine what the normal epistemic standards are, but it forgets to Pollock. However, as an example of such rules, he gives automatically to maintain balance while riding a bicycle (it's good that no gut peristalsis). How with similar rules can determine the justification for, say, the theory of relativity, I personally can’t guess. Pollock also from further explanations on avoiding. And now, as the poet said, "this whole pile of nonsense some call" modern theories of  cognition. (Wishing to deepen an analysis of school of “Contemporary theories of knowledge" refer to the entry in my book "Неорационализм" (Kiev, 1992).

    It is clear that if you create a new philosophy, not just being developed post positivists, “Contemporary theries of knowledge” or some other school of philosophy, but also disproving their approaches, there no chance to publish it in philosophical journals belonging to these schools will not. But other is absent. And even attempt to break through the Internet brings to such philosopher a war on all fronts, becose the new big philosophy touches not only mediocre philosophers, but politicians of different directions, and other high and mighty. (About details of such a war against me personally, I repeatedly wrote). The result is a vicious circle: to solve the global crisis caused by scientific and technological progress, humanity needs a new great philosophy, but it is impossible to such philosophy to appear and to be accepted by society, because of the dominance in the power of political and academic careerists.

     What we can and must take, based on the above review done? I mean, what we can take on part of parasitism stemming from scientific and technical progress and its influence on the spirituality of the society and in particular on the deformation of evaluation of individual in society?

    Let me remind you that the scientific and technological progress is only one of the factors leading to these adverse developments, and he operates here in conjunction with certain philosophical ideas gained currency in the West and led to the relativity of knowledge and morality, to an ill-conceived pluralism and hedonism, to a system of values consumer society and to the dominance of art that reflects this value system and received, along with the system name of modernism and postmodernism. In this case there is a direct and inverse mutual influence of scientific and technological progress and these ideas: the idea moves at scientific and technological progress in concrete direction, and it creates favorable conditions for their proliferation. Thus, in order to change the situation, it is necessary to change the direction of scientific and technological progress and deal with these ideas. But, since consciously change the direction of scientific and technological progress, we can only sorted out the ideas and providing a way where we want to or need to move, with the ideas and begin.
     Speaking of ideas, which, together with scientific and technological advances have led to the current situation, I mentioned existentialism and post-positivism. Historically, the greatest influence in this direction had a philosophical school of existentialism. The starting point for her and a lever with which she turned the world is the concept of unreliability and relativity of human knowledge and contrasting him credibility of our senses. It naturally follows the relativity of all morals. Morality is based on the idea what is good and what is bad for society. And because these ideas are based on the knowledge that, with what and how things are connected in the society, if this knowledge, as well as all our knowledge is relative, then relative is the notion that there are good and bad, and the resulting morality. Today, we believe that it was good, but tomorrow it turns out that in fact, it is bad and vice versa. And no chance to come to something objective and reliable in the field of morality, if we accept the concept of relativity of knowledge, we do not. And then it turns out that the only credible and reliable, that we have and what worries are only feelings and personal freedom.
     Naturally, setting out the concept of existentialism, I, of necessity, associated with the task of the article, have simplified it. But lest the reader is the feeling that I am at the same time distorting the essence of this concept, I refer him to my book «Неорационализм» (Kiev, 1992), where I analyze it in more detail.
     This concept is perfectly arranged for all the parasites liberated from the valuable work by scientific and technological progress. Now you can with a clear conscience to live on Velfer and the money earned by any unfair or even criminal way. “Honestly", "Dishonestly” now become relative concepts, and the only authentic things are personal freedom and pleasant sensations, which are provided by the presence of money, no matter how obtained. It is understandable how it has affected society in general and the crisis of global human and the current financial and economic. Just now there was talk about the morality of bankers, about mad bonuses, which they currently pay and pay, even during the crisis, the money lent to them by the Government, i. e. by the people. Thus, people who suffer because of the crisis, the crisis that erupted through the fault of those same bankers and their greed. Obama had unsuccessfully appealed to their morality, before proposing legislation to restrict. And what kind of morality we speak about? Morality became of the relative and who has money is right.

    By the way, this talk about the morality of bankers in the mouths of high politicians and journalists is something new. It appears after my article "Экономика и мораль” disposed by me on the Internet for over a year ago in which I showed that, contrary to the concept adopted in Western society since the days of Adam Smith and stating that the market economy needs no morality (say, the market adjust itself all), she still needs it, especially today in the oligarchic stage of development. But the references to me in these conversations is not done. This is also a manifestation of the same mentality generated by ideas of existentialism in combination with parasitism occurring due to the scientific and technological progress. On the one hand, this mentality leads to the fact that important new ideas can’t penetrate through the cork leading academic mediocrity. On the other - sometimes these ideas are stolen at the root, which, however, is rarely the case - a living author can raise the noise. More popular is stealing of piecemeal, like something no man's land, as it is in the air and does not require reference to the author. At first glance it may seem that it's better than nothing at all: let the author of resentment, but at least the public benefit. In fact, and society has from this more harm than benefit. For instead of truth society gets the half of truth, which is worse than a lie.

     Here and now, not yet managed to pass new laws restricting the bankers had already heard a doubt, will they benefit or harm. And right sound. For each regulation has its reverse side, the fruit of corruption and killing the competition. And it must be very accurately determine what and how to regulate. And for that we need a comprehensive macro economic theory, a new one (the former has shown to be ineffective). I have such theory developed and presented in a series of articles on the Internet. But my theory is not published, is not discussed and is not recognized
    Let us return to existentialism. Today existentialism is no longer the dominant philosophical school. His arguments “prove” relativity of our knowledge, been refuted, but generated by them (in conjunction with scientific and technical progress), a value system continues to prevail in the West, drawing on all the same relativity of our knowledge, only based now not on arguments of existentialists but on post positivists.

     Existentialists were so-called philosophers of life, in the natural sciences and the theory of knowledge, they are based, disassemble. So the refutation of their arguments concerning our knowledge, it was a simple task. Post positivists were well versed in the natural sciences, physics in particular, and built his argument on the complexities and paradoxes of modern physics. Their arguments still remain have not been refuted. Thus, in order to change the crisis situation must first of all, to refute the arguments of the post positivists, which “prove” relativity of our knowledge, if possible. I contend that it may be done. Moreover, I did it in a series of articles devoted to a general method of substantiation of scientific theories. The method is based on the theory of knowledge developed by me (“Неорационализм” Part 1). In addition to refuting the arguments of the post positivists (Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Popper, Lakatos) the method provides criteria to distinguish science from imitations of it. I also showed the possibility of using the general method of substantiation in the humanitarian sphere and in philosophy in particular. This gives to philosophy a common language, which she has not, and creates a theoretical possibility to clear philosophy from the cork layer of mediocrity, climbed to leadership positions. Three articles on the general method, I managed to publish in the magazine “Философские исследования” (№ 3, 2000; № 1, 2001; № 2, 2002), others - on the Internet. But later philosophical elite vetoed the discussion and dissemination of the method.

     But back to what should be done to change the crisis situation. Refutation of arguments of the positivists paves the way for the recognition of the objectivity of morality. But you have to formulate the main provisions of that morality, specify rules to draw conclusions from them for the infinite variety of situations in life and, more importantly, to substantiate all this, that all people living on earth could accept it. Otherwise we will stay with the Nietzscheanian "Each nation has its own good and its evil” or with Kant's moral imperative, according to which there is no need to determine what is good and what is bad, because it sits within the definition of each of us in the form of the notorious imperative and one need only turn to him. In practice, the adoption of the Kantian imperative leads to the fact that each gets their own morality. In general, and in both cases we arrive at what we have today - one of the main manifestations of the global crisis of conflict between peoples separated by different conceptions of morality, that is good and what - bad, bright as exemplified by today's confrontation between the Muslim world and western civilization. In short, we need the best theory of morality.
     Such a theory, I also developed, starting from the common, which is in the nature of each person, and in the nature of any society, regardless of the political system and the level of technological development of it. (“Неорацоинализм», Part 4). I also showed that, in its basis the optimal morality coincides with that contained in the teachings of Christianity and Judaism. (It is possible to show that Islam, too, but that I have not done). I also developed a new hermeneutics, based on the general method of substantiation. Applying this method to the text of the Bible (what I did in the book «От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи», Kiev, 1999), permit us to extract from it the only possible interpretation of the teachings and thus stop the eternal dispute between various branches of Christianity. (As well as between Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I stress that we are talking about the scientific understanding of what is good and what is bad in human actions, i. e., how we live, rather than purely theological questions such as whether Jesus Christ is God or just the Son of God . The discrepancy between the faiths and religions in theological matters, or in rites, no one today does not hurt, might even adorns life. Dangerous state of conflict, as I said, is generated by the different understanding of good and evil. And if the optimal moral theory eliminates this different understanding for people of unbelievers, that application of the general method to study the teachings of the Old and New Testament and the Qur'an addresses the believers to these three religions and their various denominations.
    I think it is difficult to overestimate the importance of these results to solve the global crisis of humanity. But, as in the case of the general method of substantiation and the theory of optimal morality, my voice is a voice crying in the wilderness. Top of the clergy, that a Christian all his confessions and that of the Jews are pursuing under the guise of serving God their private interests, as well as academic and political elite, which should serve as a truth, and the other people, but they serve only themselves. Needless to say, that I am not aware that all of these elite, receiving a letter from me with the appropriate application of my work (and I have sent numerous letters to the presidents of academies, Presidents simply, the Pope and others) must fall down and immediately take or ordered to take my results. But if they served God, the truth or the people, they would have to show at least some interest and to indicate their advisers to evaluate such an important, if only for claims work. But in most cases the answer is generally no, and if it comes, its authors don’t seek truth, but only to protect their ambitions. Such as in case of reviews of my article “Formula crisis-free development of economics” («Формула бескризисного развития экономики») of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (See article «Полемика с украинской Академией Наук»). Thus, one can only hope that even before the global crisis will end global catastrophe, people including elite will be ready to overcome their selfishness in the name of society needs the truth.
     Now back to the scientific and technological progress, and to the parasitism produced by it. Suppose that, using a general method substantiation, the theory of optimal morality, consciousness and enthusiasm of people, we clean up the science, politics and management, and even so-called self-employed stop produce and sell each other useless, the more harmful, products and services. But the percentage of people, not engaged in really useful production, will continue to grow as further scientific and technological progress. What to do with them, and how then redistribute the aggregate social product, that was the balance of supply and demand and there was no economic crisis?
     If we ignore the motives driving men, then no problem is not here. As is known from mathematics, the division can be made ad infinitum. That is, no matter how much the total product produced by producers and how little part of society they are, still we can always divide the product at all in any given proportions. And the mechanisms for this have a choice: it may be socialistic with a forced distribution or capitalistic - through taxes and benefits. The only problem is that if the producers think that they do not get honored for their opinion of remuneration for their labor, they have no desire to produce. And this applies as capitalists - entrepreneurs and as wage workers. For this reason, just collapsed and the Soviet economy, and in the free-market crises occur. In the former Soviet Union, people simply stopped working, and the market economy, no matter how pressing the capitalists taxes, they slip out and leave yourself more than you need for balance, or too longer to produce, and instead invest the money in speculation in real estate, football clubs etc. This suggests the conclusion that I came to in the article («Экономика и мораль»), namely: economy depends on the morality and the more the more. More precisely, it depends even not from morality, but more widely - from a system of values. And today, the dominant value system of the consumer society must be changed. How exactly it needs to be changed?
     Once at the dawn of mankind the most important thing was obtaining food and other means of survival: clothing, shelter, weapons for protection from wild animals. In the very near future when more will develop all these bio and nano technologies and automation with robotics, we are purely technological (abstracting from the human relations) will be able to provide a haven, communism, or as someone more like a call. In short, nobody will work, it will be enough, lying down or sitting, clicking on the button panel and the dumplings themselves would jump into his mouth. More precisely, we have today, with the current level of technology could provide everyone fairly decent material existence, without bringing him any claim to part of its parasitism. But this does not happen and the huge masses of people on the planet are suffering and even dying from hunger and even in developed countries is not negligible percentage of those. It does not happen due to the nature of human relationships. Why in times of crisis, even in developed countries are experiencing a decline in production, many people remain without shelter, and in underdeveloped countries, even more people simply put their teeth on the shelf? What, suddenly disappeared somewhere production capacity? No, they just are not working. Technically and technologically, they could very well work, but do not work because of the nature of human relations, because of the value system, because of incorrect assessment of the contribution of people in common cause. The crisis occurred because of the fact that entrepreneurs and bankers to overestimate their contribution and they took too large a share of the total product. As a result, the moment when the rest of the parasites or not, has not got the money to buy all the work. And after that producers did not make sense to produce. And even before the crisis the industry of developed countries was not working at full capacity. Ensure the effective demand of this industry within the country or outside, and she almost immediately increase production doubled, tripled, etc. But in order to ensure that market demand should be the optimal distribution of the total product, and when society is trying to implement such a distribution, from manufacturers at their present mentality no desire to produce.
..     But can we influence this mindset, a system of values? Is a desire to snatch more and, if possible, even on a freebie in the nature of man? Must recognize that such a things exist in human nature. But there is in human nature and consciousness of solidarity with another people. Always have been people and today are ready to serve the general interest, and even to the detriment of their own. Changed only their ratio with eager to snatch at a maximum without regard to anything else. It made under the influence of religion in society, or philosophy and circumstances. And such a powerful factor today, as shown above is a scientific and technological progress. Hence the path to change the situation for the better.
.   It is necessary to revise our attitude towards scientific and technological progress, as an absolute good. Of course, it does not mean a complete abolition of it and return back to the caves. But in some areas it should be restricted or even banned. Actually, this is already done, but it was still too timid. Prohibited, for example, research on the development of biological weapons. But when it comes to powerful new technologies, which poses tremendous risks for humanity in the distant future, such as GMOs, cloning and so forth, there still prevail speculation on humanism, based on false values. Here, they say, we are saving people from disease and hunger, and human life - the highest value. This is wrong. Human life - great value, but not above all else. In particular, it is no higher than the survival of humanity. Therefore, the production of wealth must cease to be the main goal of humanity. The main goal should be the spiritual, moral and intellectual improvement of man. Accordingly, should change and evaluation of man in society. A person contributing to spiritual, moral and intellectual progress of society, should be valued more than people doing its material prosperity. Such a system of values is not something totally new. You can find it in history almost from prehistoric times. It can be found and today among traditionalist societies in which the highest value has a spiritual teacher, guru, etc. But for the technologically backward societies optimality of such a value system is controversial because, as one writer said, "the highest highs of spirit born of the physical suffering of millions" and throughout the previous history of those millions they were suffering from the lack of manufactured product. And for the technologically advanced society, this optimality is indisputable, because even further material prosperity of such society depends more on its spiritual and moral state than from the actual technological progress.  As both myself and technological progress and the economics and politics suffer from low mental and moral state of society, and in worst cases, despite the high science and technology, society is facing a crisis, chaos, economic ruin, civil war, etc.
    The adoption of such a system values solves also the problem of parasitism of those who are exempt by scientific and technical progress of production of material goods. Now all they have enough work in the production and dissemination of spiritual values. The main thing is that they were the true spiritual values, not the ersatz and the guff about the spirit that now flood the western society. And in order to distinguish the genuine from the ersatz spirituality, rational theory of spirit is demanded. And I say that I have such theory developed. («Неорационализм», Part 5, «От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи», Kiev,1999, etc.). And in a spiritually and intellectually advanced democratic society cunning politics can not come to power, dishonest judges can not be kept at their posts and then the oligarchs will be difficult to assign themselves an excessive share of the total product. It is difficult, both because that would be harder to evade the law, that a purely psychological. It is one thing to share material goods with parasites, and another thing – with people whose value to society above yours. Last change and the motivation of their activities and make them ready to take the optimal distribution of the total product, i.e. accept a lower share of the product, they leave themselves in comparison with that which they leave themselves today.