The concept of the we-world community has emerged out of a number of apparently disparate observations and reflections, some of which are presented here


  • Marginalized people seem to be neglected in the rush for well-being of the majority. A decent community should care for their own people. But this society is built to serve production rather than production being built to serve society. This causes the equivalencing of an individual´s human value with its productivity, rather than assigning to production a human value. Our society has turned into a corporation that cares only for the interest of the stockholders. And the stockholders are the democratic majority. Only because a few people keep up old-fashioned, unselfish and irrational ideas of compassion and empathy, the less fortunate get a trifle from the rich table. Our social security systems look more like becoming disguises for a fascistoid society, than expressions of a solidarity that should come to all, according to our situation and our equal value as human beings.

    This is particularly obvious when it comes to people in heavy need, e.g. those living in the third world. To count them as parts of the civilization, to see them as our poor, would be too expensive - it might cost us our present well-being, which we have worked so hard to achieve, and, after all, it was them that wanted their independence, not we.

    The total UN budget is less than a half per mill of the US budget. UN is in the hands of the rich majority and to expect this organization to exercise a true solidarity based on all peoples equal value, is dreaming, in spite of solemn proclamations in this spirit.

    What we see are reluctant governments acting to maintain political correctness, rather than to unite skill and resources to the ends of creating a proper global governance based on the principle of people´s equal value.


  • We live in a reform style of society. To reform is to improve things a little when the time is appropriate and the means are there, and above all, when the system benefits more from reform than from keeping conditions unreformed. Inequalities generate profit. The present society thrives from such and does all it can to mitigate negative reactions from the unequals until these become so pressing that they have to be reformed away.


  • The scientific attitude, characterized by objectivity tends to spread to areas where subjectivity would be more becoming. People out of reach for regulated power tend to be regarded as things, towards which there is no moral obligations. To them we can do, or not do whatever we want, without encumber. This is inequality in practice.


  • While UN claims to be the united nations, in reality it is the united governments, There are millions of so called NGOs all over the world that run their own non governmental, non profit projects. Most of these, however, depend on financial support from the governments. NGOs thus do the government work but at lower cost. Some NGOs are, however, independent of governmental funding and should therefore maybe be called GIOs, Government Independent Organizations. Their non profit projects usually are financed by the public or by private donors. GIOs can determine their activity more freely, and their staff can often claim a fair remuneration.

  • NGOs constitute the so called civil society, which intends to serve as a third limb of the society between the political an commercial leg. Democracy, however, already, at least theoretically, puts power in the hands of the people (the culture). The division between politics and civil society would be more easy to understand if it was an expression for critizism of democracy. Without neither political nor commercial aspirations civil society find their platform in culture. They very strongly object to the underdog position that political and commercial powers have placed culture in. Without common goals except for loose agreements on global righteousness, they unite on fear and hate of the corporately directed globalization process, a process that seemingly further the marginalization of culture. But if culture take the lead from commerce and politics, then, how finance this? It should be done by reforming society, so that resources now burnt on prestige and profit projects be used for cultural enforcement. But this would not change the position in a radical way. Civil society still would be in the hands of those that make the money. To get off the hook, culture has to become economically independent. Culture has to start earning. It is not interested in accepting responsibility for its own financing, yes lazy. Socially concious art is rare and culture revenues, with a few exceptions small. To accomplish desired means, with retained cultural independence, creative thinking is needed.


  • Technology is about building and maintaining social structure. People invent and society implements. But this is part true – as social control diminishes when commercial powers (which certainly claim to be part of the society, but in reality run their own race) take command. Big corporations determine which technologies to be used – those that provide largest profits. People are made believe the choice is still theirs and that large profits proves it. But that is an illusion. It is well known that unsupported technical inventions runs badly in the commercial race. Nevertheless there is an obvious need social structure to be developed to meet the needs of global community. And this development got to be controlled by people not by big corporations.

Modify Website

© 2000 - 2011 powered by