In the short run, if we are thinking in terms of centuries, the future seems almost entirely unexpected.
Our current western societies have a technological evolution as their main implicit goal. All the other goals of welfare, equality, human rights and so on, are useful to attain that end. In fact technological prowess serves another end which is military supremacy. States do not trust one another, so they rely on sophisticated weapons to achieve some kind of security. And the 20th century has shown beyond doubt that technology has increasingly become the basis of military victory.
It is very difficult to imagine that such a belligerent mankind will survive just a few millennia. As technology develops, more and more people will become able to destroy more and more. Slowly but surely the planet will become too small for such fighting powers and we will either destroy ourselves or replace our more or less "open societies" by much stricter ones. Societies in which the right to think, to know, to express, is severely limited so that we can all live in peace! Or at least live.
There is, of course, an alternative. And that alternative, it seems to me, is inevitable in the long run (millions of years). The alternative is that we make of education a priority, a true education, not based on obedience but understanding, not based on fear but on beauty, admiration, happiness and love.
This seems inevitable to any species that relies little on biological knowledge (some prefer to call it "instinct"). As the volume of available knowledge is augmented to any such species, it becomes increasingly important to impart to the individuals of the species the relevant parts of that knowledge. Selecting from the vast amount of incompatible theories is a requirement for individuals such as ourselves, with our primate brains. But the evolving theories will become more and more complex, in the measure that they encompass more and more of reality. So it will be increasingly more difficulty to understand what they say. Notice how the development of the physical sciences, and even mathematics, have turned almost impossible for someone to master a particular field without decades of specialization.
In the long run we must wait until improvements to our brain provide a true "intelligent animal", that is, not only an animal provided with general reasoning, but an animal created by intelligence. That lives longer, that thinks faster and deeper, and remembers more. These beings will have to spend a lot of care in educating themselves. From education stems everything, like the software to a computer. We might have excellent hardware, but even that is completely useless if the programs are no good. So these two aspects will have to be highly cared for in any successful civilization.
But there is something that could save us thousands of years of wars and suffering. We cannot of course improve our brains or achieve immortality just yet. Perhaps that will come in just a few decades, or perhaps it will come in a few millennia. However caring for our education is something that we could start doing now.
Today, we see the achievement of our society mainly through its economic performance. We do not even have a way to gauge the values of the general population. Based on the idea of religious freedom, of freedom of thought, etc, we have abandoned the idea that values are something that the state should care about. Which, if we see it through the eyes of the past, seems something wonderful. But this independence between state and religion was not accompanied by a general "illumination" of society.
Surely the renaissance has brought to many the emancipation brought by reasoning and critical thinking. They have emancipated themselves from fears and superstitions, trying to look at the world as it really is, questioning, criticizing, seeing as far as they can, using all the perspectives that they may think of. But this unafraid way of looking at things, full of hope in the beauty and understandability of the world, was not widespread to the general population.
One of the best examples of the superstitions that still flourished in the large population can be seen in the reception of Thomas Paine criticism of religion. Although the leading elite would certainly agree with him, his book was ridiculed in front of the masses. For the uneducated citizen Jesus and the Virgin Mary were still the holders of purity and truth on which to base and evaluate one's life.
Fears an superstitions went on the rise instead of being replaced by a clear view of the world. In Europe they supported Britain and France's aristocracy, Mussolini's fancies of power, Hitler's hatred and hallucinations with the importance of survival, Eastern Europe's obsession with order, work and obedience, etc. In the US it has fueled the idea that it is the chosen land, a role to be even more obvious with the "second coming" of Christ, after an immense and awful last war that will bring down all the infidels. In large part, this belief has fueled support for the state of Israel from some Christian quarters. With the rest of the world is the same. We are involved in a web of lies and fears from which we seek support and understanding.
Is it possible that man is simply not ready for the beauty of such vast and complex universe. Can he not face infinity? Can he not face his own past? A past that includes every past civilization, every past tribe, every past species, the formation of the solar system and the galaxy, which includes even black holes and quasars... Do we really need to see ourselves as "special", or "different" from the rest of nature. When will we understand that whatever beauty we may have is precisely because we are a part, and not because we are different, of the rest of the Universe?
The teaching of morals, in the sense that I am proposing to be done by all societies that want to continue into the next millennium, is no different from the teaching of science and technology. It consists solely on the understanding that we are part of the world, and that the same impulse that leads us to protect and respect our selves, should by that reason apply also to the protection and respect of everything (and everyone) else.
But why should I protect and respect myself? This has certainly not an obvious reply. In fact most people are agressive to their selves. They don't listen to their inner voice, nor do they follow it. They don't admire their body. They don't admire their own desires, their freedom and unpredictable creativity. Instead they try to be something else. They smoke to become less childlike (less innocent, fresh and easily happy), they drink because they want to be more spontaneous, they study in order to become less like themselves and more like someone who they think they should be like (a respectable figure in the eyes that matter).
So, in fact, most of us do not feel we are worth protecting and respecting. We do feel, by the contrary,, that we are like a mold, that must be shaped in order to attain some usefulness, some role that will render it practical to others. And there we are, all of us trying to shape ourselves in order to be useful to others, but of course we would not ask that of those we truly love. So why would we apply this strategy to ourselves?
The answer is obvious. We don't love ourselves. And we don't love ourselves because we do not think we are beautiful (maybe because we are not beautiful).
So science is not enough. The scio (knowledge) is not enough. We must also find the beauty.
A true education, that comprises morality, will therefore have at least these two aspects: it must be thoroughly scientific, as far as it can be. But it must also search for beauty. For it is beauty, and not fear, that should be the fundamental support of our ethics and morals. Only when we find the beauty of the world, of the natural world, of the cultural world, of the artificial world, of the artistic world, of the imaginary world, of the microscopic world, of the cosmos... only then will we be truly moral.
For morality based on fear or rewards is just a sham. An ugly scam through which I grow in honor, power and privileges. It is all done to me, because of me, in reason of me, as detached from everything else. And that is why it is so ugly. Because it is a lie (I am not detached) and because, in reality, I, while thinking in this way, am against everything else. I am trying to save myself, through obedience, through belief, to get my own salvation. A selfish fear.
On the other hand, beauty implies love. The true kind of love, which does not search for possession, but delights on the experience of "being" the loved one. When I see a precious stone, I feel marveled by its beauty. It is of no interest to me, because, as a living being, I cannot eat it or breathe it, but the fact that it exists, somewhere in the universe, or simply as a possibility, feels me with delight.
This kind of delight is true love. We might feel it for people, animals, stars, plants, galaxies, molecules, quarks, whatever! But it is this sense of beauty, this amazement with the world, that will lead us to happy and harmonious lives.
It is this deep inner satisfaction brought by the realization that we live in a beautiful world, a wonderful world, that societies of cultural beings must teach their children if they are to survive their own increasing power.