Why we are afraid to introduce the visions of the future?

Why we are afraid to introduce the visions of the future?

We can take effect on the future, but we can just give punishments because things, what are happened in the past. This is the thing, which is interesting. When people are writing fiction about the past, that thing is a good film or good book, which portraits things at least realistic. These kinds of movies and books are happening in some very well known environments or cases, but the main characters are fully fiction, but those stories are ever childish, they are meant for an adult audience.

But when somebody would write the book or makes a movie about the future, that thing is somehow childish. This is a really good thing to think about, and one really good question is why a person, who imagines the future is using imagination, but the person, who makes fiction about the past is making novels or movies. Why the writing and thinking about the future is not so respected than writing about the past?

If we are thinking about a fictional book about the Mars-base or colonies in somewhere else in the space, we are facing the thing, that nobody would punish because of those writings. But if we are writing fictional writing about some WWII officer, and somebody takes those things as the real thing, that can cause punishment for an innocent person, or otherwise saying, war criminals can be released because of those writings.

And here we are coming to the future and writing about it. We can take effect things, what are happening in the future, as I have written before. But the effect of every decision cannot be predicted if we would not have the ability to see to the future, and that means that the result of every decision has some effect, but we cannot know, what the final effect would be, and how long that effect would stand. If we would know those things, we would make very wise decisions.

So what means futurology. Some of my friends that thing is some kind of science fiction. And that thing is true from some point of view, but futurology is the science, what mission would be predicted, what some technical advantages would cause to mankind, and when we are thinking the role of technology, that thing alone is not dangerous. But if the technology is connected to some other science that thing turns dangerous.

And the question is why we are developing new tools? The answer is that we need new tools for two things. If we like to sell merchandise to markets, we must create new things for maintaining people's interest in buying new tools and new things, and that keeps markets growing. But another thing is that if we are thinking about the violence of mankind, we must develop more and more effective weapons and tools for soldiers.

And the thing, what those people are giving as an argument about the development of nuclear weapons and combat robots is that somebody would make those tools anyway sooner or later. The second argument is that those robots can be destroyed or their actions can deny by using weapons, which have not to effect to humans.

Those weapons are computer viruses and electromagnetic radiation, which would deny the communication of those drones. But there is a possibility that high power radio transmission would affect the human nervous system, and that thing makes those things terrifying.

There is a possibility, that the high power radio transmission could reboot the brains, and adjust the EEG to the new form. And that means that the computer viruses, which contains the synthetic EEG would be the next-generation weapons, which can infect the human brains, and turn the henchmen against their leaders. That is one thing, what we must realize when we are talking about the future.

Counter-terror and politics.

Counter-terror and politics.

The counter-terror operations and revenge campaigns are a problematic way to act, in international politics. We know that terrorists would not surrender, and if those people are staying free, they will go make more terrorist actions against civilians. And attacks against civilians is the essence of terrorism. In this kind of war attacks, acts of revenge and counter revenge are the things, what is one of the most notable and difficult things in the world.

One of the questions is how to recognize terrorists, and how to make sure, that the right person would be set in the killing list? Sometimes specialists have said that the statement, where the targeted person would confess to being a member of the organization, what has made terror actions could be targeted to hit list, and that thing would cause problems in the public eye.

What if somebody uses disinformation for targeting wrong people like personal enemies to the hit list of the counter-terror force?

The most feared thing is that if those films are dubbed, or somehow else faked? Could the person, who has been photographed on the street go to the film, what is created by a terrorist organization, and say in that material things, what they even remember to say?

This kind of thing is one thing, that we must afraid of. The faked information like increasing the wrong backgrounds to that kind of film material is causing the possibility, that even Finland and Sweden can claim to be supporters of the terrorists. And this kind of thing is causing a threat to national security.

We must realize that terrorists are criminals. They are making sometimes very good propaganda for turning sympathy to their side, and those people are really good to tie everybody around them in their agenda. And this is the major problem of those organizations. Thigs how they argue their actions seem fantastic and justified. But the fact is that when those radical organizations are taking power, they would turn to dictators themselves.

One of the most well known and the best examples is the case of Egypt, where dictator Hosni Mubarak kicked off from power because of massive demonstrations. The thing is that the government replaced by the military dictatorship, which is one of the toughest in the world. And that kind of case is bringing one question in the mind, "who is the real benefiter of terrorism?".

So long as there is Isis in that area, western leaders are willing to give support for those hardcore military persons, who are ruling their countries. Western intelligence and military forces are needing the translation services, support bases and relationships to local actors, that they could get information about the terrorists. In this kind of war, the role of agents is highlighted, because the enemy is moving very fast, and the weapons can be hidden everywhere.

The person, who claims to be the leader of an organization, might be only the frontman for those cells. And the real leader might say in shadows out from publicity.

Those agents must slip in the discussions, what those terrorists are doing, and then they must call attackers because there would be only a couple of minutes to react, and the weapons can be destroyed quite easily if they are located. But if the counter-terror force wants to get the vital information they should take prisoners.

Even if the leader of the group, or the person, who is claimed a leader is dead, there could be a vice man for replacing that person. And when we are thinking more carefully, the person, who claims to be a leader might be only the spokesman. And the real leader might be somewhere else. And if we would kill the frontman, we cannot ever interrogate that person by using sodium Amytal and get any information.

Here I must say, that the intelligence agencies and special forces all around the world have skills and maybe also relationships to create their terrorist organization, which would serve those leaders, as the eliminator of the political resistance and make provocations, what are justifying the actions against the opposition.

In history, we must remember one case about terrorism. The case is the rise of Bolsheviks in Russia. That organization was created "Okhrana" the emperor's political police, and the role of it was that tsar, the Emperor of Russia used that faked organization for eliminating his political resistants, and the thing was that this organization just slipped from the hand of the tsar, and then it replaced him by the communist organization in 1917.