Quote from the book "I, You, and All of Us" (p. 221)

Your young generation has been awakened by the terrible vision of the collapse of the Earth's global climate. It was not your fault that many traditional scientists sided with the money-grubbing economy. So-called climate protection was artificially declared to be the most important concern of our world community and was heated up more and more with strange methods. I have already stressed several times in this book that the environmental catastrophe threatening us all must indeed be taken very seriously. At the same time, I have also appealed for people to stop "climate protection" because that is a misunderstanding. The climate on Earth is not an earthly phenomenon, but a cosmic one. We cannot "protect" this climate. Just as we cannot "protect" the sun or the solar system. What is, however, one of our most urgent and important tasks is to prepare ourselves and our descendants as effectively as possible for the effects of current and future natural changes in the global climate.

Climate models based only on the analysis of the Earth's surface and atmosphere cannot reflect historical reality because they ignore the cosmic nature of the global climate. A reliable climate model must also allow for a historically accurate reconstruction of past periods in the Earth's climate. And not just over decades, but over millennia. None of the climate models that today's science "sells" us can do that. None! No matter how many hundreds or thousands of the traditionalists will get together. On the other hand, the simplest analysis of the Earth's energetic embedding in the Cosmic Hierarchy of the Solar System leads to an excellent match between our climate model and historical reality. The last almost two thousand years of this reconstruction are shown in the following diagram. It clearly shows the Medieval Optimum of the global climate (section 4) and the current Optimum (section 12), as well as the Little Ice Age (section 9). But you can also see that the global climate in the 14th century was even colder than in the 17th century. One also sees that the traditionally preferred restriction of the analysis to the years between 1860 to 1990 does not allow a generally valid conclusion when it comes to the causes of the rising global temperature during this period. In our cosmic analysis, on the other hand, there is no human factor for the actual increase in global temperature in this period 1860-1990.

The additional advantage of our cosmic analysis is the possibility to look into the future. The upper diagram also presents the prediction of the change in the global temperature of the Earth's surface up to the year 2500. In the next few centuries, the Earth will never be as warm as it has been in recent decades. The 24th century will be "bitterly" cold again. The only possibility of a temporary warming of the Earth lies in the slowly intensifying impacts of cosmic bodies on the Earth. But we should rather not hope for that, because with our present science and technology we can do even less against such impacts than against the coming changes in the global climate. Therefore, we should rather concentrate on a better design of our world community in the coming decades and centuries. Hopefully, our descendants will find a better solution to future problems than we are capable of today.

Quote from the book "I, You, and All of Us" (p. 237)

As is well known, the world never stands still. We are a part of Nature. And the natural evolution of the Solar System, the Earth, and life on it is not yet complete. It continues, with the same steps of the Cosmic Hierarchy of the Solar System, as in the last 7.1 billion years. Our first species of the genus Homo sapiens Sapiens has so far lived through six periods of the so-called "Great Civilisations of Mankind" and gained some experience in the coexistence of peoples and nations. One of the best of these experiences, and, we hope, one with the best prospects for the next millennium, is the invention of democracy. Let us now consider where this idea still weakens, and how it can be made even more sustainable (i.e. capable of evolution). To this end, I present my vision of a practical modification of the idea of democracy that I would like to see for us and for future generations.

In March 2020, Prof. Rainer Mausfeld gave a lecture at the German-American Institute in Heidelberg on the topic of "Renewing Democracy". I quote some of his thoughts here because they make a constructive contribution to our present topic. He emphasised that power is a basic category of social coexistence among human beings. (P. J.: I remind you here, however, that this has only been true in the last 10000 years or so; earlier, power, in the sense of the exercise of violence, was not yet an issue for the people of that time because they lived as if in paradise). Then Rainer Mausfeld describes the basic idea of democracy: "... because democracy arose precisely from the effort to get excesses of power under control." He then goes on to consider: "What structural beams have been developed in society to contain power, to get a grip on power? What man wants desperately is not some grand, let's say philosophical, conception of freedom, but - negatively - we don't like coercion. There is nothing worse for us than coercion imposed on us. So what do we want? We want to avoid the bloodstains of history. We want to prevent it from becoming like it was back then, in the Thirty Years' War, in the Second World War. This is called the development of civilisation. We want to learn lessons from history and say: we don't want these things any more. So people began, especially at the time of the Enlightenment, to analyse these things from this point of view and asked themselves what were the deep causes of the bloodstains of history. It was then discovered that they were always power excesses. They arose because one group of people declared themselves privileged (as in slavery, or colonialism) by some criteria over others. So what is called chauvinism, nationalism, racism, exceptionalism and so on. There is always a group of people who claim to have a greater right to exercise power and the right to oppress everyone else."

I find these thoughts actually form the core of our matter of restructuring the world community. This is how we know what we must avoid at all costs.

Quote from the book "I, You, and All of Us" (p. 240)

“And this is also, in my view, the most important practical goal that we must achieve and ensure in the renewal of our world community: To create a public debate space in which "one can reconcile the infinite diversity of individual interests through the process of a public debate." Reiner Mausfeld, as a non-physicist, may speak of an "infinite diversity" of interests. But I, as a physicist, have the duty to reduce the humanistic "infinite" to a practically realisable scale. To this end, I am developing a model in which we can reconcile billions of our voices, debated by a natural hierarchy of democratically elected representatives, yet in a practical way.

What is new in our model of "Familiar Democracy" is the structure of the public debating space. In our previous experience with democracy, we would have to learn painfully that it is practically impossible to reconcile all individual interests. Therefore, we need to build our public debate space not on the "infinite" number of individual votes, but on the hierarchy of the demographic spectrum. A parent of a Base Family represents the voices of his or her whole family (including those of the children). A representative of a Great Family represents the democratically determined opinions of all 12 Base Families of his Great Family. And so on up the spectrum, to the national, continental and finally to the world level.

Reiner Mausfeld still warns us (and we should take this warning seriously): "If the public debate space is not intact, there can be no democracy. Democracy provides egalitarian procedures for peacefully reconciling different positions for political action. Democracy is indispensable if we want to contain power and violence. The alternative to democracy is always barbarism."

A brief overview of the current problems of a global democracy is sufficient to understand the difficulties inherent in the present form of democracy. Above all, the question arises: How can we improve democracy in such a way that it can effectively and satisfactorily regulate our common life of the First Global, truly world-spanning civilisation for all? Is this even possible? I think, yes, it is possible. But for that to happen, we must first change something at the other end of the problem. Namely, we must first be clear about who we really are? And then, what does that mean, "all of us together"?

We must finally understand that the last centuries have been counterproductive in terms of society building. The so-called Western half of the world, in particular, has degraded its societies into a colourful, loose, and discontented with themselves collection of individualists. Western societies are not really societies any more. We have learned to see this change as a natural evolution of humanity. We no longer question it. We start every discussion about democracy with the "finished" (i.e. adult) citizens in mind and want to see the voice of each individual as important as that of everyone else. In the process, we have completely forgotten about Nature. We have disconnected ourselves from Nature not only ecologically but also socially. But if our First Global Civilisation on Earth is to be seen as a natural evolutionary stage of development, then the participatory democracy that is to regulate the coexistence of this civilisation should also be linked to the natural foundations of life for all members of this civilisation. Here, however, we must be very clear: This natural basis of the life of each and every member of our civilisation is still, and remains forever, his or her own family. Apart from pathological exceptions, there are no members of our civilisation who are not descended from a family.

It is precisely for this reason that we devote our effort here to an overview of our understanding of the concept of family as the source of people, that is, of participants in a naturally participatory democracy.