On apostles of degeneration

At one of the Western universities, a debate is taking place. Several hundred people gathered in the lecture hall are calmly listening. A female biologist at the microphone is explaining that there are objectively, biologically determined differences between men and women. When she mentions that men are statistically taller than women, a group of activists stands up and starts shouting. A commotion ensues. After a while, order is restored, and the activists are let go.

The ideology that denies biological differences between the sexes is a product of a complete detachment from reality. Its popularity is a sign of societal degeneration. It is no surprise, then, that in today’s times it finds people willing to ruin careers, disrupt lectures and debates, and cause various types of disturbances in its name. These people are willing to act and resort to violence. Ordinary people, who are not so detached from reality, are passive and peaceful. The police throw the activists out the door and do nothing more about the matter. No one condemns the troublemakers.

The situation in which society is passive while the apostles of degeneration are active and unpunished is troubling. It is a sign that society is confused and cannot properly address views that are blatantly false but strongly charged with nihilistic ideology. This, in turn, is a windfall for such movements, which, facing no resistance, can continue to recruit and act more intensively and on a larger scale. When this happens, it becomes even harder to stop them, so they continue to act and attract even larger numbers of reality-detached, ideology-prone people. And so on, in a vicious cycle, until complete collapse.

How would a vibrant society react to this ideology? Every attempt to disrupt a university lecture or debate would be seen as an attack on freedom of speech (which it indeed is) and would be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Sometimes even brutally, if the situation required it. Moreover, any ideologies strongly charged with nihilism and blatantly opposed to scientific knowledge would be widely ridiculed as foolish and detached from reality.

Decadence and Defensiveness

Indeed, Europeans are fortunate. If it weren’t for the Ukrainians resistance and the Americans willingness to help them, the Russian army would have reached the European Union’s borders two years ago, allowing Vladimir Putin to negotiate whatever he wanted from the Europeans. That was his plan. However, the Russians lacked the intelligence and vitality to quickly defeat the Ukrainians and have become bogged down in this conflict for years to come.

One of the main signs of a decaying society is its defensiveness. Vital societies can defend themselves proactively, striking before the opponent can gather strength to attack. When attacked, they first repel the attack and quickly go on the counter-offensive. Decaying societies view all conflict and brutality as primitive and immoral, primarily disrupting their comfort and stability. They seek to avoid it at all costs, building passive lines of fortifications that allow them to defend at a lower cost but prevent active defense and quick counterattacks. History is full of examples of decaying but still prosperous societies hiding behind powerful fortifications like the Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, or the Maginot Line. Besides this defensive strategy, they usually have another one – hiding behind someone else who will fight for them, who will protect them. Many examples can be given here, but recent history provides a fresh example – the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Great Wall of China

War is evil. There is no doubt about that. Thousands die in it, and those who survive often return with lifelong injuries and traumas. These are often young people. War is also an enormous, senseless waste of resources that could be used much better, such as for development. Constant wars are undoubtedly a negative aspect of European history. However, it is impossible not to respect the Europeans of the past: tough, brave, willing to take risks and make great sacrifices, and expansive. Such an old European makes a particularly strong impression when compared to his modern descendant, who is terrified not only of war but of any significant offensive initiative and conflict escalation. Against this backdrop, the old European resembles a mythical hero.

What happened to the Europeans? They tremble before Russia, which has long passed its prime. Russia, whose population, military, and economic potential are much smaller than Europe’s. Europeans support Ukraine, yes. But they panic at the slightest mention that if Ukraine could no longer resist the invasion, troops should be sent into Ukraine. They see it as irresponsible and madness.

Where did this defensiveness come from? It is a sign of the age of decadence that Western and Central Europe has entered. The main values, which have become comfort, peace, and pleasures, do not align with aggression, even when it is necessary to ensure safety. Any conflict is seen in Europe as a last resort, and if it can be avoided or postponed, the better, regardless of the costs.

Reflections on the Zero-Sum Game Mentality in Geopolitics

Geopolitics has become very popular in recent years. For the past few decades, many in the West believed that “geopolitics was dead”; that their world had become a liberal utopia—free from wars, tensions between rival blocs, and energy crises. The war in Ukraine was a complete shock to many in the West, especially in Europe. Many sought explanations for why Russia attacked Ukraine, wanting to understand if they themselves were at risk and what to expect in the future. This growing demand for explanations related to military and security competition has elevated some previously niche specialists to the status of celebrities.

The problem with many geopolitics experts is that they are often people driven by a zero-sum game mentality. They view every international issue as one where each party seeks to gain benefits for itself. If they see a country pursuing a higher goal but acting against its own narrow interests, they perceive it as foolishness and naivety of its leaders. In other words, they do not believe in any nobility in international politics and are deeply skeptical of cooperation in any field. A prime example is the views of renowned international politics scholar John Mearsheimer on the Russia-Ukraine war:

The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.

In other words, he believes that Ukraine had no right to pursue integration with the West as it did. It had no right to seek dynamic economic and civilizational development like Poland and the Baltic States because Russian decision-makers saw it as a security threat to their country in a distant, undefined future. Ukraine was supposed to be content with slow economic growth and Russian dominance, manifesting in occasional energy blackmail or military intervention if its policy became too independent and deviated from the Kremlin’s line.

Those who think this way sometimes call themselves “realists” and are proud that they have not been deceived by any nobility and humanitarianism in international politics. They consider themselves the ones who see things as they are, without false embellishments and wishful thinking. In reality, however, they are not “realists” but simply cynics. Cynics reject all cooperation and magnanimity, as well as the benefits and synergy effects that manifest as lies to persuade the naive to act against their own interests.

This zero-sum game mentality is highly dangerous. If humanity is to survive and develop dynamically, potentially becoming The Great Civilization one day, it needs to solve several problems that cannot be resolved alone. Their realization will require enormous costs, global coordination, and acting against narrowly defined, particular interests. Convincing many countries to participate, even though their resolution will serve the interests of all humanity, will be difficult. Here are a few examples:

  • Global Warming requires unanimous action by all countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If only some countries introduce necessary measures such as CO2 emission taxes, production will shift to countries where these measures do not exist, making production cheaper and undermining efforts.
  • Nuclear Proliferation Limitation requires joint action by the most powerful countries to discourage and prevent new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Lack of unanimity on this issue will result in the mechanism’s ineffectiveness, leading to more countries possessing nuclear weapons, significantly increasing the risk of accidental incidents and wars where nuclear weapons are used.
  • Cybersecurity has a transnational nature. For example, a hacker living in Russia can attack computer systems located in the USA or China—he doesn’t have to be there physically. This means that hackers protected by their state can cause significant damage while remaining out of reach of law enforcement in the attacked country. Therefore, only a coordinated, global system for prosecuting cybercriminals can be truly effective.
  • Terrorism thrives primarily where governments not only turn a blind eye to it but also support it. Therefore, limiting global terrorism is only possible when no country in the world tolerates terrorist groups within its borders—this requires unanimity.
  • The Breakdown of the Global Economy could become a reality due to open hostility between countries, potentially creating rival geopolitical blocs as during the Cold War. Such a division would be a severe shock to the global economy, significantly impoverishing humanity. New barriers to economic cooperation would undoubtedly limit economic growth and innovation.
  • AI-related Threats can only be resolved unanimously. If some countries opt out and do not regulate artificial intelligence, they will attract companies that irresponsibly prefer to avoid restrictions and regulations. This would make mitigating AI-related threats much less effective.

At the same time, there are several projects whose realization is necessary if humanity is to become a Great Civilization one day:

  • Space Exploration is one of the most technologically challenging fields. If progress in this area is to be dynamic, large amounts of capital, time, and talent are needed. The more countries that conduct space programs and the more they coordinate and support each other, the better. There are only a few organizations in the world developing space technologies on a large scale, such as NASA, SpaceX, CNSA, ESA, and a few others. If these institutions operate entirely separately, they will achieve much less than they could by cooperating.
  • Energy Transformation will be very costly, even if it succeeds quickly enough to prevent significant damage from global warming. However, these costs can be significantly reduced if countries cooperate. One ambitious project in this field is the concept of a supergrid, densely connecting neighboring countries. In this way, energy that cannot be used in one place due to exceptionally strong winds, for example, can be used in another country where the wind is not blowing. Since HVDC technology enables the transmission of large amounts of energy over long distances, this solution provides significant savings, thereby increasing the energy security of all countries.
  • Continuation of Globalization. Globalization has been the most important growth factor in the last seven decades. There is still much to be done, as over a billion people worldwide still live in poverty, and hundreds of millions in extreme poverty. Globalization has shown that it can effectively eliminate both poverty and extreme poverty. If it continues, the fate of the poorest people worldwide will continue to improve. However, globalization is not a law of physics—global conflicts and tensions can halt or even reverse it.
  • The Biggest Scientific and Technological Problems. Science and technology rely on brilliant individuals who make breakthroughs. These individuals are largely the product of exceptional genes, good living conditions, and access to high-quality education. It is very difficult to predict where the next Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison will be born. However, the more people grow up in good material conditions and study in good schools, the more geniuses humanity will statistically produce. Moreover, collaboration is one of the driving forces of science and technology. Severing international cooperation in these fields would significantly slow their progress.

The examples mentioned above, and many more, clearly show that international politics requires cooperation to solve common problems and undertake developmental projects. If, for some reason, this becomes impossible, it will threaten civilization’s survival over the centuries and make the Great Civilization project unattainable. Therefore, international cooperation is an existential issue for humanity, and those who oppose it are enemies of civilization.

Signs of a Bright Future for the Nuclear Energy Sector

In my previous post, I noted that the last four decades have been a period of stagnation in nuclear energy worldwide. However, there are signs that this situation may soon change. Here are a few of them:

  • The American company TerraPower broke ground last month on a new nuclear power plant named Natrium. Planned for completion in 2030, the plant will generate about 350 MW of electricity. The fast reactor will be cooled by sodium and use advanced passive cooling mechanisms. The energy generated by the reactor will be stored in molten salt, allowing flexible energy distribution to the power grid. If the plant functions as planned and its construction stays on budget and schedule, it will undoubtedly be a significant achievement, boding well for the future of nuclear energy. Bill Gates, involved in this project, stated that to make a real difference, over a hundred plants would need to be built based on this model, indicating TerraPower’s high ambitions.
  • In December 2023, China brought into commercial use the world’s first Generation IV reactor, the HTR-PM. This small, high-temperature modular reactor generates 210 MW of electricity and is gas-cooled.
  • The Russian BN-800 reactor began commercial electricity production in 2016. While not classified as a Generation IV reactor, it employs numerous modern solutions, being a fast reactor cooled by sodium and capable of being fueled by MOX. It uses passive safety systems.

What is driving the acceleration in the nuclear energy sector? There are at least four reasons:

  1. Increased demand for electricity. New technologies, including LLM models, electric cars, and green hydrogen production, have substantial electricity needs. To keep up with the growing energy demand, countries must build new power plants.
  2. Climate goals. Most developed countries have adopted targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, necessitating the construction of “green” power plants. Since wind and solar plants have limitations—wind doesn’t always blow, and sunlight is available only during the day—and pose challenges for power grids, nuclear power plants are the only sensible solution.
  3. Technological progress. Despite the nuclear energy sector’s stagnation over the past forty years, several modern reactor projects, known as Generation IV reactors, have been simmering in the background. Many of these projects started in the 1980s and 90s. Progress was slow, but after four decades, it seems to be yielding concrete results. Generation IV reactors are significantly safer and more efficient. This increased safety particularly helps reduce the fear associated with nuclear energy.
  4. Competition. The West, especially the United States, increasingly views China as its main competitor. China, in turn, has made significant advances in nuclear technology and was the first in the world to build and commercially operate a Generation IV reactor (HTR-PM) in January 2024. Additionally, China has been rapidly increasing the number of nuclear power plants within its borders for two decades. If nuclear energy is considered a field of competition, China is undoubtedly winning in this area. Russia, the second most important opponent of the West, also competes in this field and is currently a leader in fast neutron reactor technology. Moreover, it is steadily—though slowly—increasing its nuclear electricity production and building nuclear power plants in many countries worldwide, including China, India, Egypt, Turkey, and Hungary.

Based on these observations, I predict that the 2030s and 2040s will see a renaissance in the nuclear energy sector. The logic seems straightforward to me—the demand for energy will increase, and there are no better alternatives for its production than nuclear technology, especially as Generation IV reactors become more widespread. The only thing that could halt this trend is another major nuclear power plant disaster. However, I believe this is much less likely than it was in the 1970s and 80s when the incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl shocked the world. The risk now seems negligible.

Reference unit power of nuclear energy power plants in China
Source: China: nuclear energy capacity 2022 | Statista

Thoughts on stagnation in the nuclear power industry

Stagnation in the nuclear energy sector began in the 1980s due to two significant incidents involving nuclear reactors. The first was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, followed by the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. While the first incident caused a slowdown in nuclear energy primarily in the United States, the second had a worldwide impact. A glance at the graph shows the line flattening around 1990. It’s important to note that building nuclear power plants is a time-consuming and capital-intensive process, leading to inertia – many plants under construction at that time were completed and put into service, explaining the lag on the graph.

Source: Three Mile Island accident – Wikipedia

Both events highlighted the potential dangers of nuclear technology. The Chernobyl incident is considered the most costly disaster in human history, with estimated damages of $700 billion1. However, nuclear energy has been around for nearly 80 years, with over 400 reactors operating globally for the past 40 years. During this time, only three major incidents have occurred.

This leads me to conclude that the reaction to the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters was exaggerated. The reason for this was the media coverage – these disasters affected average people, the technology is the same as that used in atomic bombs, and radiation, though deadly, is invisible. Moreover, the media does not typically report on nuclear plants operating without issues for decades. Any threat, however, attracts significant media attention, contributing to the negative perception of nuclear power.

It’s also essential to compare the risks of nuclear plants with those of other power plants. Over the past few decades, most energy has been generated from coal and natural gas. While coal and gas plants do not experience spectacular disasters like nuclear plants, they pose significant risks due to severe air pollution. These threats are not directly observable, making them less compelling topics than nuclear plants. Perhaps when the effects of global warming become more evident, people will appreciate the dangers of burning millions of tons of coal and billions of cubic meters of gas, rather than uranium and plutonium.

In response to the aforementioned disasters, societies did everything possible to halt the development of nuclear energy – permits were no longer issued, local communities opposed new investments, and the number of regulations and safety requirements increased dramatically. Consequently, capital began to leave the sector, new plants stopped being built, young people avoided nuclear engineering studies, and progress and innovation slowed sharply.

Thus, the stagnation in nuclear energy over the past forty years is not due to a lack of engineering competence or talent, nor a lack of capital – the latter is merely a consequence, not a cause. The real cause is an irrational fear manifesting in societal resistance to this technology. What was missing was a cool, rational assessment of the fact that active opposition to nuclear energy would result in stagnation in the sector, with very high consequences. Undoubtedly, much of the greenhouse gas emissions from the past forty years and at least the next forty years could have been avoided. Moreover, if the sector had continued to grow at the same pace as before the disasters, fourth-generation nuclear plants, which are much more efficient and safer, would likely be widely built by now. Instead, we live in times of stagnation, and it’s not surprising that most fourth-generation reactor projects – generally started in the 1980s and 1990s – are still in development. It’s also noteworthy that nuclear energy, when not overly burdened with regulations, is cost-effective. The cost of energy production is highly correlated with societal wealth. Who knows how much wealthier we would be if, instead of a handful, we had built a thousand new reactors in the past forty years?

A final observation for contemplation: Nuclear energy is currently the best source of electricity available to humanity. It generates energy continuously (not just when the sun shines or the wind blows), is clean, inexpensive (if the sector is not overregulated), and does not complicate energy grid management. However, we refrain from using this superior technology in such a crucial field as energy due to irrational fear and widespread misunderstanding. In light of this, can we consider ourselves truly advanced as a society? Can we claim that we are not living in an era of technological stagnation?

  1. 2016_chernobyl_costs_report.pdf (usc.edu) ↩︎

Thoughts on technological stagnation

To understand my philosophy, one must first disabuse themselves of the notion that we live in an era of rapid technological development. Comparing the current pace of this development to historical averages may make it seem like we do. However, objectively speaking, the pace of technological advancement over the past fifty years has been fast only in the realm of computers—semiconductors, software, and the Internet. In other fields, unfortunately, development has not only been slow, but there has been stagnation or even regression. Here are some key examples to support this thesis:

  • In the early 1970s, there were about 60 nuclear reactors worldwide. By 1990, this number had increased to 424. How many are there now, over thirty years later? Only 443. Moreover, some countries, like Germany, have begun closing nuclear power plants for ideological reasons.
  • Between the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were six manned landings on the Moon. Since then, this has not been repeated. Those who in the 1970s predicted vacations on the Moon available to everyone within a few decades must be very disappointed. Moreover, between 2011 and 2020, the United States could not independently send astronauts to the International Space Station—they had to rely on Russian help. Plans for manned missions to Mars, which seemed realistic in the 1970s, are still distant. Dreams of widespread and affordable access to commercial space flights have also not been realized, despite progress in recent years.
  • Nuclear fusion technology, despite significant financial investments and decades of effort, seems no closer to reality than in the 1970s.
  • Battery technology, particularly lithium-ion batteries, has improved during this time, but only incrementally. The fundamental chemistry of batteries has not changed radically.
  • Transportation infrastructure has changed little since the 1970s. We still travel by cars, planes, and trains—there has been no major breakthrough in this field. Additionally, in many countries, even those considered advanced, transport speeds have changed little. A great example is the development of jet airplanes. The revolutionary Boeing 707 was introduced in 1958 and achieved a speed of 977 km/h. What speed does the Boeing 737 MAX, introduced over 60 years later, reach? Over a hundred kilometers per hour less, specifically 839 km/h.
  • There have also been no radical changes in construction, and we have been facing significant housing shortages for many decades, driving prices to very high levels. Affordable, comfortable housing available even to the poorest remains a dream.
  • The development of antibiotics has significantly slowed in recent decades. Since the 1980s, the number of new antibiotics introduced to the market has regularly decreased.

These are just a few of the most obvious signs that technological development is not as dynamic as we think. In fact, just look at the lifestyle of the average person. If we exclude all computers, their life will be very similar to life in the 1970s. We still need to take out multi-decade loans to buy a home, pay high bills for electricity and heating, have to work, commute to work by car or train, cannot cure cancers, life expectancy has increased by just a few years, colonizing Mars and vacations on the Moon remain dreams.

I mention this because the more optimistic futurists in the 1970s envisioned a world half a century later where all of those things would be oposite. And that really would be a world of the future—but it has not yet arrived, nor does it seem likely to arrive within the next fifty years. There is a lack of optimism and a sense that everything is in our hands, that if we really want it, we can achieve even the most ambitious goals. Perhaps artificial intelligence will do many things for us. If it does not, however, I am skeptical of our ability to create a true future.

Thoughts about progress in the last five decades

Over the last few decades, we have experienced technological stagnation. Yes, the development of technologies related to bits—computers, the Internet, software—was very dynamic, but beyond that, little has happened. For example, nuclear energy hit a glass ceiling and fell into stagnation, and space technologies regressed.

Therefore, I reject claims that technological development was the dominant area of human progress in the last half-century. I believe that development in information technologies has mainly benefited humanity indirectly—by accelerating globalization. And it is globalization that is responsible for the lion’s share of the progress we have made as humanity in recent decades.

Put differently, the life of the average person has not changed radically due to information technologies. Yes, we have much better access to information, we can communicate much faster and cheaper, we can order products online just as we can conduct banking or accounting. We can also stream movies and TV series, play computer games, and meet new people thanks to the Internet. Computers, in turn, have given us more efficient tools for writing texts, creating presentations, and calculations. On the other hand, we still have to go into debt for decades to buy an apartment, energy is expensive, means of transport are the same and as slow as ever, many professions are still highly repetitive and boring, we still die of cancer, energy crises, and very high inflation still regularly plague societies.

However, globalization has made the lives of many people radically better. Of course, not in the most advanced countries, but in poorer countries—where the majority of humanity lives—definitely yes. I could write a lot here, but a glance at the graph below—paying particular attention to the acceleration of the trend in the 1970s—is enough to understand how much the material conditions of the average person on Earth have changed:

Source: The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it – Our World in Data ↩︎

The most important conclusion from this graph is that in the 1950s, every second person in the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, it is less than one in ten. Lifting over 40% of humanity out of poverty in half a century is undoubtedly one of the greatest achievements in human history. At the same time—as mentioned above—technological development has been unilateral and uneven. This leads me to conclude that human progress over the last half-century has primarily been social progress. Of course, this social progress was not only economic but was also associated with progress in other areas such as the spread of education, increased average life expectancy, and democratization. This is evidenced by the following graphs:

Source: The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it – Our World in Data ↩︎

Thoughts about LLMs and Turing test

I remember that when I was studying computer science, over ten years ago now, the Turing test was presented as one of the Holy Grails in the field of artificial intelligence. At that time, I wasn’t sure if successfully passing this test would be possible within my lifetime.

Therefore, I am surprised that the fact that contemporary LLM models have successfully passed the Turing test2 has been largely ignored by futurists, scientists, and the media. Nowadays – I have no doubt about it – one of the most advanced models of this kind, ChatGPT-4, is capable of successfully impersonating a human3, making it indistinguishable from one. When talking to it, it seems to understand what is being said to it, keeps up with current events, and formulates its responses according to all the rules of the English language. If encouraged, it can also mimic the style of specified writers. In any case, I believe that successfully passing the Turing test is a great technological achievement – one of the greatest in the 21st century.

Source: What is the Turing Test? | Definition from TechTarget

Why then did this news not cause a greater stir? I think it’s a matter of inflated expectations. A decade ago, it was believed – and I shared this view – that only a General Artificial Intelligence could pass the Turing test. However, it turned out that much less ambitious statistical systems like LLMs are capable of achieving this. It must be admitted that if someone was expecting a (self-)aware, creative, independently thinking artificial intelligence, then even the most advanced LLM model today is no match for it. If this is the case, then this silence must be seen as an expression of deep disappointment.

Some AI researchers claim that the Turing test – now that it has been passed – is not a good metric for artificial intelligence systems3. This seems dubious – the bar was set at a certain level, and when it turned out that jumping over it was easier than expected, some people decide to negate its previous level and set it much higher. It’s incredible – what seemed like a distant future achievement decade ago has been reached, and at the same moment, it ceases to satisfy certain people. I appreciate high ambitions, but true achievements should also be recognized.

In a broader context, I believe that successfully passing the Turing test, and at a relatively early stage of LLM model development, is a milestone in computer science and a testament that progress in this field is not slowing down. This is a very favorable sign for the development of humanity.

  1. Study finds ChatGPT’s latest bot behaves like humans, only better | Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences ↩︎
  2. GPT-4 has passed the Turing test, researchers claim | Live Science ↩︎
  3. What Should Replace the Turing Test? | Intelligent Computing (science.org) ↩︎

Nietzsche and me

My philosophy may seem quite different from Nietzsche’s at first glance, but in essence, it is very similar. Nietzsche was fascinated by Ancient Greece, which he considered the most developed culture in history. He deeply analyzed all available information and developed his own theory about the causes and conditions that gave rise to this remarkable culture. Nietzsche’s goal was to transform 19th-century European society so it was able to create a culture that would not only match but surpass the Greek culture of Ancient Greece. All his proposals for renewing philosophy, art, politics, and other fields of human life should be interpreted in this spirit.

In my view, Nietzsche’s mistake was placing too much emphasis on culture, almost entirely neglecting scientific, technological, economic, and social development. He focused solely on culture, which significantly skewed his project of social renewal, making it one-sided and biased. His approach might have led to more dynamic cultural development but would have resulted in stagnation or even regression in the other four areas. Because of that, the average person would never support this project.

My approach avoids this mistake. I believe that all fields of development—scientific, technological, economic, social, and cultural—should be treated equally, ensuring dynamic progress in each. In other respects, I agree with Nietzsche: because of the Scientific Revolution humanity faced the “death of God,” undermining belief in the meaning of the universe and human existence, necessitating a new purpose. Nietzsche wanted humanity to set a goal that would give it meaning, with which I fully agree. For Nietzsche, this goal should be a highly developed culture, requiring a fundamental restructuring of society. In my case, the goal is to build a Great Civilization that would exist for tens of thousands of years, colonize the Solar System, produce vibrant, eminent and life affirming culture, and achieve the greatest and most ambitious accomplishments, as a byproduct of dynamic development in all areas.