What remains for all of us after the death of Nicolaus Copernicus, Albert Einstein, Theodore Roosevelt, or Mother Theresa, we know pretty well. But we are rarely aware of what remains after the death of all the other, mostly nameless people. Unjustly, because that is all of us - simply the world's population today. Without this contribution of the nameless, the contributions of the famous would also be worthless, because there would be no one to perceive this value. Is the contribution of the nameless less valuable only because we will never know their names? Absolutely not. Without the millions of the simple but successful family creations of the Nameless People, humanity would have died out long ago. The longer I think about it, the more the fact that we are still here seems like a miracle, like a matter of course. Despite all the terrible wars and epidemics of the Middle Ages (including the 20th century), there were still enough nameless men and women who together raised enough mentally healthy children so that the generational chain of humanity was not broken. The mental health of these children had to have been stable enough (statistically speaking) for these children to want to start their own families when the time came.

Today's "era" of world population holds a great danger for this continuity. The philosophy of individual freedom and the right to individual self-determination and realisation of the dreams of each of us seems to me to be even more deadly to this evolutionary continuity than all the horrors of Medieval Civilisation. Today, 37.2 % of all households in Germany are single households. 27.6 % of all households are occupied by couples without children. And only 24.9 % (i.e. one in four) households house couples with children. In Berlin, these figures are even more alarming: 49.1 % of all households are single households, 22.5 % are couples without children and only 15.4 % are couples with children. In 40-60 years, when all these singles and childless couples are dead, who will stay in Germany, who will stay in Berlin? The immigrants? Probably. But not only the Germans, but all the weak Western democracies of today are doing away with themselves in this way.

But it is not yet out of the question that they will soon realise that they cannot continue to ruin humanity the way they have been doing. Because demographic ruin also means economic and political ruin. You don't need a new military threat for that. Ongoing climate change seems to me to be only a third-rate threat in this context.

I see no other way to avert this trend than to return to a society of healthy families. And if democracy is to survive, then only as a familial-participatory democracy, which I have already described earlier in this app and in my book "Me, You, and All of Us". We don't have much time left to think about it.

Nowadays, people should no longer be divided geographically into Europeans, Asians or Africans. But you still have to divide them, unfortunately, according to their historical views. There is a majority of people who would like to leave the murderous Medieval Civilisation behind. But there is also still a small minority who do not want to leave the Middle Ages. They are still intellectually stuck in the thought patterns of the conquerors, the inquisitors, the conquistadors, or even the world rulers. This minority must be isolated as soon as possible, as was done with one of its worst representatives, Napoleon Bonaparte at the end of his criminal raids.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of democracy was not yet as widespread worldwide as it is today. But even today, people do not really understand what this idea is all about. It is not about the domination of the world by the people, the "world people". It is not about "ruling" at all. It is much more about the common management of all the natural goods that Nature offers us. In this, the main misunderstanding of the idea of democracy lies in how we can all together realise this common stewardship. Life, including today's war in Ukraine, clearly shows us that we - the "world people" - must not see ourselves as a bureaucratic collection of individuals. As a collection of adult human beings who all want and should have an equal voice in every decision. That can never work. Because we are not all adults of the same age. And quite naturally, we're not. It takes about 22 years for a child to really have a constructive say when it comes to world-changing issues. And it takes even longer at the end of a fulfilled life, when an old person no longer has the desire or strength to bother with such issues.

In short, the members of a 3-generation family are best and most effectively represented by a member of that family freely elected by that family. Instead of 12 potential equally entitled votes of a 12-member 3-generation Base Family, we then have only 1 vote of the representative. This practical (and necessary) reduction in the number of democratic votes goes even further up the demographic spectrum of the world's population. 12 Base Families of a Great Family democratically elect a common representative of this Great Family, who with his single vote represents the opinion of all (statistically - 144) members of his Great Family. And, what is even more important, this representative still personally knows all the people he represents. He knows the opinions and wishes of them all.

This procedure goes even further, up to the highest level of World Administration, which is composed of the representatives of all (statistically 140-150) Nations of the world. And all these representatives of the Nations still know each other and also respect each other personally. None of the Nations built on this family democracy ever gets the criminal idea of wanting to fight another Nation militarily. The parents and grandparents alone, or even uncles and aunts of such a potential criminal would put him under house arrest in time or render him harmless in some other way. In a familial-participatory democracy, Putins have no place from childhood onwards.

No human child will ever be able to become a healthy adult human being without a community in which it is embedded from birth. Only the still relatively young field of epigenetics has taught us that it is not genes alone, but the social environment in which a child grows up that has the decisive influence on the development of this nascent human being. No young child can escape the influence of its social community. Only an adolescent can begin to realise that under certain circumstances his environment can be harmful to him, and can begin to rebel against this influence.

This philosophical transition from individual to social being was also emphasised by Philip Pettit in his latest interview (by Barbara Bleisch; 3sat, Die Sternstunde der Philosophie, from 13th February 2022).

Nevertheless, even he still tends to follow the traditional (partly based on his enthusiasm for Albert Einstein) overvaluation of logical thinking over the feelings I prefer. According to my Universal Philosophy, feeling is the highest level of mental activity of any human being. Even his social "embeddedness" is based much more on feelings (being loved, recognised, welcomed) than on a logical calculation of what is worthwhile, or not worthwhile, for him.

It is precisely from this misunderstanding of traditional philosophy that Philip Pettit's certain perplexity also follows when it comes to a concrete proposal as to what practical structures a desirable democracy should build in order to be able to permanently guarantee the freedom of all people at the same time. And that is precisely why my latest book ("Me, You, and All of Us") is subtitled: "Where do we come from, and how can we build a family democracy". My proposal in this regard is a structure of demographic hierarchy of social communities that builds on the natural belonging of each person to his or her Base Family and Great Family. Only such a natural "embedding" of all human beings in their own respective social communities can give to each individually and to all collectively the feeling of freedom in Philip's Pettit sense, that is, the feeling of not being dominated by any other human being (not even by one's own family). Only such natural hierarchy of human communities can (if it functions properly) exclude any kind of domination at all its stages. Domestic violence, abuse of children and women in their own families cannot be excluded by any other social organisation better than the corresponding Great Family. Family-based participatory democracy is, in my view, the best option for our long-term future. And for the future of all other species that are not yet extinct from us.