What happens in the world
A. Voin
                                                           1.7.17
Abstract: The world is becoming more complex and less stable, and the processes that are flowing in it are flowing faster and more threatening the very existence of mankind. This article is an attempt to see a general picture of what is happening today in the world, to find the main factors that determine the course of the process, and on this basis to offer a way out of the situation.

 The main factors that determine what is happening today in the world are globalization, polarization and progress, which generates both.
In principle, the human world was polarized from the time of primitive tribes, but then there was no globalization and this polarization did not harm anyone. The primitive tribes had their own religion, their taboos, their totems, their language, and they were not ready for any compromises on these points. But on global processes on a global scale this had virtually no effect, since there were practically no global processes. Not only the specific tribe did not care about religion, totems, etc. of another tribe living far away from him, it simply did not exist for him, another dimension. And on a local scale, in the relations of neighboring tribes, this polarization played little or no role, since the relations between neighboring tribes at best included some kind of material exchange, and mostly reduced to wars for territory and material goods. And in war, what's the difference, what kind of gods your enemy prays, it's even psychologically easier to kill him, if you know that he is praying to some bad gods and does not respect and even watering your gods with filth.
As for the polarization within the tribes, it was minimal. Each member of the tribe from childhood grew up and was brought up in one religion and in one system of representations, which had no alternative: there was no pluralism within the tribe and there was no radio, television, print media and the Internet to convey another opinion from outside.
For the worse or for better, the tribe was united in the views within the tribe, which ensured its cohesion necessary for collective survival, although, of course, progress hindered, since for progress, as is known, struggle, competition of opinions and ideas is necessary.
Nevertheless, progress was on the way. At first it just crawled on barely, but now it rushes like a mad train. And this progress has led to the fact that the world has become extraordinarily complicated and has become global. Global - this means that if someone sneezed on the other side of the planet, then on this one someone will be sure to be outraged, because "it touches our interests". And he will immediately be supported by the furious chorus of his supporters and is clouded by the equally ferocious chorus of his opponents on this point, both inside his society and on the scale of the planet. Generally speaking, today everything concerns everyone and touches to the depths of the soul, the liver, etc. More precisely, for any occasion and event anywhere in the world there are fierce supporters and opponents who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are concerned to the depth, and ready at best to bark with frenzy on the Internet and other media. At worst - to grab for weapons, start a war, make a revolution or kill anyone under the name of "terror."
Well, it's all at the level of psychology. Besides, I've thickened the colors for imagery. But behind this psychology there is heavy objectivity. For example, Americans are printing trillions of dollars. It would seem that the dollar is their national currency, and what they want, what they do with it, and it does not concern anyone outside of America. But we know, that it is concerned, moreover, it serves simply as an instrument of robbery for the whole of the rest of the world. And this is not an invention of Zhirinovsky or any other similar politician who manipulates the consciousness of the masses and plays on their psychology in the name of their electoral interests. And if this dollar collapses or the Americans begin to squeeze the dollar mass, again it will affect everyone, not just Americans.
Further, modern missiles fly from anywhere in the world to any other. This means that if someone invented a new, more sophisticated rocket or stuffing to it, then this applies to everyone on the planet and every state must to think, how to increase its security in view of this event. Which happened on the other side of the world and in the former to the global world times would concern only this state and its nearest neighbors.
About the ecology common for all I even do not speak. Brazil destroys its forests, it would seem, is its internal business, but no, it's the lungs of the planet. China smokes the sky with its coal-fired power plants, its own sky. No, it is common, universal sky. Etc.
Finally, let’s take ideology, including religion. In Russia, the socialist revolution took place in the 17th year, as a result of which the Marxist ideology was established in it. It would seem, what business has it to other countries, let them in their country "having lifted trousers, run for komsomol". And it's not that the Bolsheviks at first planned to raise the revolution around the world. The fact is that when they abandoned this idea and engaged in the building of socialism "in one particular country", the "proletarians of all countries" still infected themselves with this idea and strove to bring revolutions in each place on the world,  what, therefore, affected all countries on the planet. Likewise, the American sex-liberal ideology is spreading around the world not only because the Americans are actively promoting it. It spreads around the world without it, because there is Hollywood and TV, and the Internet, distributing its products all over the world. And this objectively applies to everyone, not just to Milonov, who screams more than others about it.
The world has become not only global, but also very complex and its complexity is continuously increasing. The complexity of today's world is evident on the one hand, on the other - it can be written about this complexity forever. Strictly speaking, it is written about that in such numbers that no one is able to cover this flood of information, as a result of which information begins to work in the opposite direction. It is created in order for people to understand better what is happening, in what world they live, but, drowning in its abundance, they cease to understand anything at all.
Take, for example, the same ideology, in particular such an option as religion, and even more, take Christianity. When it arose, humanity was divided into two categories: believers in Christ and unbelievers. ("There is neither Greek nor Jew, there are only believers in Christ and unbelievers" - the apostle Paul). Then the Christians broke up into Catholics and Orthodox. Then the Protestants came, who immediately split into Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans. Then the Baptists, Adventists, etc. came. Today, there are thousands of Christian faiths and sects (in one source of 20 years old the figure was called 5,000 and every year there are many new ones), and they can differ from each other in the content of their teaching so much that the word "Christian"  became deprived of any definite content. 
A similar situation there is in the sphere of non-religious ideology and not only ideology, but also in the economy and many others. Such terms as "left", "right", "socialist", "liberal", "patriot", etc. have long ceased to serve as a sufficient definition of man. Here, let's say, Zyuganov. As a communist, he is the left ("Who is there walking right? Left, left, left!"). But as a patriot he is right. As an opponent of the sexual revolution, he is also right. Or let's take Kurginyan, a man educated and intelligent enough. In one of his speeches he declares that China has achieved economic success without any liberalism. The fact that China has achieved this precisely because it allowed private property and made free market prices, this is not liberalism for him. But for many others this is precisely what liberalism is all about.
And where should Limonov be attributed with his national-Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks are opponents of nationalism, internationalists. The nationalists are against Bolshevism, at least in its original Leninist version. And Limonov is also a glamorous liberal. And so on. If this goes on, then ideologically humanity will split up into individuals - each has its own ideology and completely rejects of any other.
This complexity of the world leads to the fact that unification of people on the basis of common views and adherence to certain common values and ideals is becoming practically impossible today. In the primitive tribe, the question of the commonality of views did not even arise, people even did not know such words, they were united by a community of blood, fate, etc. But even if such a question arose, it would not cause any problems: the commonality of views and values within the tribe was ideal. And today, let's take, for example, such a community as the Russian patriots. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union there were such Russian patriots who believed that ethnic Russians were deprived by all non-Russians living in the Union. And so it is necessary that the RSFSR would be separated from other republics. I do not know what was their percentage in the total number of Russians, but their voice sounded so loud then, that this was one of the main, if not the most important, reasons why the Union collapsed. And today it's not enough that these patriots are not heard, but if one of them appeared publicly, it would simply be broken by the current patriots. However, although those patriots today can not be heard, but they did not disappear at all. This is their representatives are fighting on the side of Ukraine in the Donbass.
But we should not think that the current patriots, those that are heard, is a single tribe. Suffice it to recall the existence of the so-called 5th Column, whose representatives claim that they are patriots, only understand patriotism differently. And although among them there are, of course, people who do not really care about Russia, but I do not doubt that there are others who love Russia and are ready to shed their blood for it. But not in the war in which those who call them the 5th column are ready to shed. By the way, I have no doubts that among the "true" patriots by self-determination, there are those who only cover themselves with patriotism for career or for psychological comfort.
But "true" patriots are far from united also. Some believe that it is necessary to revive the monarchy with Domostroy, others - the Soviet Union with the new Stalin, a pioneer and concentration camps, others invent home-grown projects. (I'm not talking about those who are for democracy and a free market, it's the 5th column).
I don’t want the reader will think that I gave this example to blame Russian patriots specially. Russian liberals are fragmented no less than patriots. And the fierceness of the struggle of supporters and opponents of Trump in America far exceeds the intensity of passions in Russia. And the classic watershed: democrats against Republicans are broken, and many Republicans are against Trump and democrats "for". It is generally for and against Trump. And for individual points of his program and actions, there is no general consensus either among his supporters or among his opponents. Similar irritation occurs in many European countries, in the Arab world, not to say about Ukraine.
The complexity of uniting people on the basis of a common ideology is also evident from the decline in the role of a serious theory in the struggle of today's ideologies. The victory of bourgeois revolutions with their liberal democratic ideology was preceded by the philosophy of  Walter, Rousseau and others, the socialist revolution was based on the philosophy of Marxism, the sexual revolution - on the philosophy of existentialism and Freudianism. And the disputes between parties and supporters of these ideologies in the past were conducted on a more or less theoretical level. Today, the question of the truthfulness and scientific validity of these ideologies does not concern either the carriers of one or the other of them, or opponents. And the controversy between them has shifted from the field of theory exclusively to the field of propaganda: who will more promise the voter and who will pile more dirt on the competitor. And the theoretical basis of the current nationalisms and fanatical religious movements and the level of theoretical disputes between them need no comment. These among themselves either bark at the level of the bazaar, or do not talk at all.
The impossibility (difficulty) of uniting people on the basis of common ideology and values leads to the loss of stability of such systems as "party", "state" and, finally, "humanity". We see how the boundaries between classical parties are increasingly popping in America and Europe, some of them fall apart, new parties and movements are emerging and growing like mushrooms after the rain. The borders of states are also rumbling under the onslaught of rapidly spreading separatism and simply as a result of the collapse of the ideological clasps, which previously provided the integrity of states. And even such an institution as the family and kinship ties is cracking and cracking under the pressure of atomization of ideology and values: the notorious break of generations, the growth of incomplete families, divorce, etc.
 The impossibility of uniting on the basis of a common ideology also leads to temporary associations based on various ersatz and substitutes for genuine ideology, the main of which is strong power, right up to the dictatorship, suppressing all dissent (and simply "thinking") and hatred of the conventional enemy. Unconditional enemy is when there is a clear ideology accepted by the majority, and there is an ideology opposite to it: communism vs fascism, for example. And if ideology is defined by one word "patriotism", and who is a true patriot, we can not agree, then unification is achieved by appointing a conventional enemy called "America", "Sanhedrin" or even more simply "Jews damned." And, all that does this enemy, it's bad, malicious and directed at destroying us, white and fluffy, who have always saved humanity, bearers who know what, etc. Similarly, for America, Europe and Ukraine if there is no water in the tap, then it means that Russians and Putin personally drank it. (Well, and the "Jews", of course, also with it).
This association based on hatred and totalitarian power combined with primitive and vague concepts is no less dangerous than the collapse of society, and more than once in the past led to senseless wars, such as religious medieval (also current between Shiites and Sunnis), or the First World War. Only in this past progress has not yet armed us with atomic bombs. And now, when we are already armed with these bombs, and the concepts we have remained as vague as in the Middle Ages (although more diverse and pseudo-scientific), we, humanity, are rapidly rolling to self-destruction.
So what do you need to do to change the direction of this process or at least to slow it down?
The first thing that needs to be done is to understand the confusion of concepts that exists today in the humanitarian sphere, which in combination with the absence of universally recognized objective criteria of truth and scientific validity of the theory turns this sphere into an unimaginable dump of information debris that poison people's minds with pseudo-intellectual feces, and their Souls - with  miasms of unhealthy passions. In this dump, any worthwhile idea and theory drowns and dissolves, and crowds of arrogant populist politicians who manipulate people's minds for their own selfish ends successfully grow on it.
The solution of this problem gives my unified method of substantiating scientific theories. (Единый метод обоснования научных теорий: Direct Media, Moscow-Berlin, 2017, 2nd edition, revised and enlarged). The method gives the criteria that separate science from pseudoscience. Part of the method is my theory of concepts.
I will not even briefly outline the essence of the method or examples of its application in the humanitarian sphere here (I refer the readers to this book), but I will immediately disappoint the reader by the fact that, while introducing the method into the system of higher education  the situation will improve situation and even substantially, but it certainly will not give us at complete solution of the problem under consideration. Because the volume of information in general and the debris in it are too large today, and while they are being raked on the scale of the planet with the help of the unified method of substantiation, mankind may well be bent. Therefore, more urgent measures of an organizational and international legislative nature are needed today to prevent such a sad finale.
What is happening today in Syria, where about fifty states participate, one way or another, in the internal conflict, under all sorts of plausible pretexts such as protecting human rights, fighting a bloody dictatorship, assisting coreligionists or co-workers, or at the invitation of a legitimate government, with almost unconcealed persecution of their Geopolitical, economic and even internal political goals and interests, and where the situation is balancing on the verge of a world nuclear war, perfectly illustrates the need for international law, prohibiting any interference in the internal affairs of other countries under any pretext of anyone except the United Nations. 
Similarly, the situation with North Korea, where a number of countries are trying to interact for to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, at the same time pursuing in passing each of their interests and secretly opposing each other and as a result of such "interaction" the situation is also approaching a war with the possible use of atomic Weapons. That also shows that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should not be dealt with by individual countries, but by the UN.
There are a number of other common human problems that the UN should resolve, rather than individual states or groups of states that are entitled to decide for all of humanity. For example, the problem of transnational corporations, which for a long time have already escaped from the control of national states and turned into an international player, superior to the power of many countries and eager to establish power over the world. Moreover, since these companies are not tied to any people, naturally, to the peoples of the world nothing good can be expected from them. The anti-globalists cry non-stop about this threat, but they incorrectly diagnose it and therefore suggest the wrong way, namely the way to fight globalism as such. The fallacy of this path stems from the fact that globalization is not a product of the activity of globalists, but is the result of a scientific and technical process, what, in fact, I showed above. Therefore, in order to stop and reverse the globalization, we must abandon the scientific and technological progress as such and return to the caves, thus destroying the greater part of humanity, which today it is impossible to feed without NTP. The correct way is not to stop globalization, but to do so that it does not bring harm to people and peoples, but only benefits. In particular, for this it is necessary to curb TNCs not with help of individual states, which can not cope with it, but the UN.
In order for the UN to be able to cope with these tasks, but not become a dictator interfering in the internal affairs of states, it must be transformed. On the one hand, it is necessary to give it greater powers, providing it with the means of exercising these powers, in particular by the appropriate armed forces. On the other hand, we need a UN constitution that would determine which cases are universal and, therefore, where the UN can force individual states to follow international norms and decisions of the UN itself, and which are internal affairs of individual states or relating to the relationship of a group of states among themselves.
In order to work out the UN constitution, as well as for the subsequent adoption of decisions based on the constitution, but concerning specific cases, it must create a bicameral parliament: the House of Representatives of the national states, to which each state delegates its representatives, appointed by his government or elected by his people, and a chamber, the deputies to which will be elected from all mankind.
The elaboration of the UN constitution requires not only the organization of the procedure for its adoption, in particular the bicameral UN parliament. No procedure in itself can guarantee the quality of the constitution. A preliminary theoretical development is needed, based on a correct and sufficiently comprehensive philosophy. I affirm that this is my philosophy. I will not here present it, nor prove its correctness and oppose it to other philosophical teachings. All this will be found in my books. (Глобальный кризис: причины и пути выхода. Lap-publishing, Saarbrukken, 2012; Начала новой макроэкономической теории. Direct Media, М. – Berlin, 2013; Неорационализм – духовный рационализм. Direct Media, М. – Berlin, 2014; Философия и глобальный кризис. Direct Media, М. – Berlin, 2016; Единый метод обоснования научных теорий. Direct Media, М. – Berlin, 2017, 2nd edition). Here I want to outline briefly the problems that such a constitution should take into account and my vision of their solution.
The main such problem is connected with the need to develop a new system of universal human values based on clear concepts, consistent and corresponding to the current situation in the world, which is essentially different from everything that humanity faced in its previous history (as shown above). The present and more or less generally accepted system of universal values represents a fair deal of vague concepts and conflicting norms that do not take into account the specifics of the present state of mankind, in particular, such factor as the possibility of its self-destruction in an atomic war, in an technogenic catastrophe or as a result of the destruction of the Environment.
I'm not talking about the smacking idiocy of the story, when Obama and Hillary Clinton threatened Russia and not only her use of economic sanctions for violating the rights of sexual minorities. (Then America finally got off this oak). But let’s consider the situation when in a particular country there are mass repressions on the national, religious or political (ideological) basis with numerous victims or even civil war, i.e. - a real human tragedy. Today, there is an international law on non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and at the same time everyone unreservedly recognizes human life as the highest value. But where one rule or value ends and another begins, it is not clearly defined. As a result, under loud cries about this very highest value and about human rights, there is armed intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states of all who wants it, without burdening ourselves with the care of the UN's consent. As we have today in Syria and yesterday (with the continuation of today) in Iraq, Libya, etc. At the same time, there is a loss of human lives in an amount incomparably greater than if they had not interfered in this conflict, and what is most importantly, not once or twice the situation is approaching the possibility of a world nuclear war. Hence, it is already clear that it is necessary to revise the existing universal human values and norms governing interstate relations. And only on the basis of these new, corrected, consistent and contemporary concepts and values it is possible and necessary to develop and adopt a constitution of the reformed UN.
As I said, this requires a new rich enough philosophy and I affirm that this is my philosophy. It goes without saying that my philosophy gives only a basis for the development of this system of values and norms, but this work itself remains to be done. Looking ahead, I will only give my suggestions on the problem of the relationship between the value of human life and the norm of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. First, the highest value should not be human life, but the indestructibility of mankind. From this point of view, the interference of some states in the internal affairs of other states under any pretext should be prohibited. And the UN intervention should be limited to the cases elaborated and stipulated in its constitution. In particular, neither other states nor even the UN should interfere in the issues of the system, economic formation and culture of a particular country. But the question of the right of nations to self-determination up to secession in the event of a conflict on this ground within a particular country, more specifically the question of the right to separate a part of the country on the basis of a national, cultural or ideological difference with the rest of the population, in the event of a conflict on this ground, should be administered by the UN with the right to intervene in the conflict, up to the use of force. Naturally, here again we need a theoretical study with a refinement of the concepts of the nation and in general those groups of the population to whom such a right can be granted and on what conditions.
Recognition of the indestructibility of mankind as the highest value also requires the specification of the very concept of mankind. The fact is that unlike the past, today this concept has ceased to be self-evident. The achievements of scientific and technological progress allow us today to change the very nature of human been with the help of genetic engineering, as well as through the implantation of artificial organs, including electronic chips, and the combination of the human brain with artificial intelligence, i.e. the transformation of human been into a cyborg. The successes of science and technology in this direction are so significant that they give rise to euphoria and the belief that all human problems, and above all the problem of the indestructibility of mankind, can be solved by reworking the nature of human been. Forgetting that we have already remade thoughtlessly nature and set it and thereby humanity to the brink of destruction through the destruction of the Environment. It also requires a lot of philosophical work to determine how long we can afford to invade the nature of human been in the name of fighting disease and aging, or in the name of the indestructibility of mankind. I personally for the indestructibility of mankind as an existing specie, formed as a result of natural evolution and continuing to evolve naturally through harmony with nature. And not for the indestructibility of some universal artificial intelligence that does not need our human mortal bodies and immortal souls.
 By the way, another function of the UN, which the states can’t deal with individually even by concluding international treaties, follows from here. I mean the safety control of STP. Today, for example, there is an international agreement on not invading the human genome, but it is almost universally violated, especially in China, which does not even hide it, and no one can stop it with the existing world order. Here again, a great preliminary philosophical work is needed to determine the danger of various directions of scientific and technical progress.