Vitacracy is a new idea of ​​civilization

The beginning of the third millennium was marked by major upheavals. The mankind was defeated on all fronts. We have polluted the air we breathe and the water we drink to the extreme that it would eventually kill us. The mineral resources that stimulated technological advances are on the verge of exhaustion. The flora and fauna have been seriously depleted: 72 species of plants and animals disappear from Earth every day.

Ruthless destruction of nature provokes a lot of trouble. The economy is in deep crisis. While some countries and unions were able to maintain the appearance of well-being, today, more and more people look at the future – even in the United States and the European Union – with fear and concern. Eighteen thousand children die of hunger round the world every day. Every year, frost and heat are collecting their deadly toll on those who cannot afford heating and air conditioning.
The humanitarian situation is in decline. Arts, designed to teach how to live in beauty, create a cult of violence and immorality. Sport, which should demonstrate the best capabilities of a man, degenerated into a show with illegal drugs and narcotics, intrigues and corruption. Relationships between people are degraded to the ‘likes’ on the social networks. Traditional values ​​are blurred to the extreme that our ancestors would disown us – their descendants.
All these problems are not accidental given in one row. Everything is interconnected in the world, thus, it is senseless and useless to deal with each problem in turn.
As an example, we shall point out an attempt to develop a concept of sustainable development, undertaken by the United Nations at a conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The participants undertook tasks such as eradication of poverty, sustainable urban development, conservation of marine ecosystems, and so on.
However, nothing could be done: disputes between states, civil and political organizations prevent us from achieving this goal. But most importantly, these problems are just the tip of a system-wide crisis; the origins of which are avoided by participants of discussions. However, there is no point in resolving the consequences without addressing the origins.

Judge for yourself: under the guise of talking about democracy and equality, we were trying to build a civilization based on free market foundation for the last one hundred years. And, in the end, we came to the society of unbridled consumption, where the ability to acquire wealth is equated to the highest virtue and poverty is seen as retribution for sins.

For a while it worked. Not everywhere and not for everyone, however, there were some countries in the world, which citizens seemed to have been invited to heaven during their lifetime. Always smiling, well-fed, healthy and living in comfort, they constituted an unattainable ideal for those who lived in the backward societies. However, it lasted until the economy based on consumption reached its natural limitation.
What shall we expect in the future, if we continue to cling to the outdated paradigm? Looking back at the development of technologies, some futurists – in particular, Paul Mason – believe that people would work with less work. People would be replaced by machines under the control of artificial intelligence.
This all could lead to retrogression back to neo-feudalism. Today, the prosperity of so-called ‘Golden billion’ is provided by the resources of the rest of the planet. A hundred years later, the mankind could be divided into castes, the highest of which would be unlikely to count as much as a million of people, while billions will languish.
The logic leads us to think that this kind of future development awaits the modern world. Now it is clear that ‘the market’ paradigm is fundamentally inconsistent, ineffective, aggressive, anti-intellectual, non-spiritual, ecologically damaging, defectively urbanist and threateningly crime-provoking. Following this path would not only lead us to a dead end – it would end up with results intolerable for the vast majority of earthlings.
An alternative to the liberal model – the socialism based on the communist ideas – collapsed within less than a century. Despite the declared principles of humanism and democracy, socialism was afflicted by the thirst for use of sheer force and establishment of a false equality. The basic principle of human society – the voluntary association to achieve global objectives – was violated, which led to tragic results.

However, there is a third way of development of human civilization. It was proposed by the founder of cosmism, the Russian futurist philosopher Nikolai Fedorov, who suggested that "one should live not for oneself but with all and for all." What does this mean in practice?
Most dominant ideologies reject as insignificant the fact that we all are different. The point, of course, is not in colour of the skin or shape of the skull. However, the levels of intellectual development, mentality and religious traditions are different from person to person and from society to society. On the other hand, the sky is same for everyone. So is the ocean. The land that was given to us from above with all its wealth is for all.
Everyone, regardless of whether he was born in a wealthy aristocratic family of old Europe or in the lost African tribe, has one inalienable right, which is the right to life.
In the broadest sense, it is the right to safety and health, the right not to be hungry or destitute. The right to clean air and healthy food. The right to intellectual development and knowledge of the entire wealth of human culture and scientific achievements. Securing these rights can and should be a primarily concern of society and, most of all, in the advanced developed countries.

Today, under the pretexts of ‘democratization of totalitarian regimes’ and ‘human rights’ so-called Western coalition commits war crimes encroaching on the most fundamental right – the right to life. How many peaceful, innocent civilians fell victim to the ‘democratization’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria? And what is the result of this massacre?
Meanwhile, these sacrifices could be avoided if the goal of the international community was not in the establishing an abstract ‘democracy’ but in the realization of the right to life. And if it happens, the mankind would have probably enriched itself with new writers and artists, musicians and scientists. And who knows, maybe there could be a new Einstein and Shakespeare?
Human rights, including the right to life, are inseparable from responsibilities. And next to the comprehensive right to life is equally comprehensive duty of responsibility of everyone for everything that happens in the world. For overexploitation of flora and fauna. For poisoning of water and air. For abomination and violence. For injustice and stupidity. You cannot only get without giving something in return.
This balance of rights and obligations may be called a power of life or vitacracy. The new paradigm of civilization is not a utopia as it might seem at a first glance. Mankind spends more than $ 1 trillion on weaponry, which is the means of violation of the basic human right to life. Even larger amounts of money are spent on less reprehensible, but questionable goals such as espionage and militaristic propaganda. Such huge amount of money would be enough to feed the hungry, provide poor with a shelter and clothing and to educate everyone.

We do not need to organize the revolution and shed blood to implement the idea of vitacracy. All we need to do is to focus our minds on one task: not to think about how other people are different from us and therefore unpleasant but to consider how to help them to fully realize their right to life. We should abandon selfishness and consumerism. It must be remembered that we – humanity, flora and fauna of our planet, the atmosphere and the oceans – are a single entity. Any damage caused to any of these components will hit every one of us sooner or later.
When we are aware of the need for new thinking and when we start to live in harmony with the idea of vitacracy, the principles that are only declared today but not implicated in practice – equality and democracy – will be implicated automatically. There will be no need to impose them with the help of sanctions and bombs. The threats of mass unemployment would disappear; the economy will gain renewed momentum. And after that the renewed humanity will learn how to not only set the global and ambitious goals but to solve them together.
Humanity stands at the fork of civilizational development. Do we go down the beaten track of the fake democracy to new dark ages? Or do we make a small effort and choose vitacracy – the path of altruism, true equality and prosperity? The choice depends on each of us.