Andrei Latyshau

New Youth Policy (Canadian chapter)
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

About Andrei

Languages

English, Russian

Areas of Expertise

Software Engineering

An idea worth spreading

The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. Like the rich man of old, we have foolishly minimized the internal of our lives and maximized the external. We have absorbed life in livelihood. We will not find peace in our generation until we learn anew that "a man's life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses", but in those inner treasuries of the spirit which "no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts".

~ Martin Luther King ("Strength to love" 1963)

I'm passionate about

Building a true global multinational civil society as an open source societal system.

Comments & conversations

199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted 11 months ago
How would you define being "human"?
Human has soul (as well as consciousness and will). If soul was put in a wolf, wolf would become human. If soul was put in a robot, robot would become human. Brain -- is just an organ like hand or leg or liver. Brain has its specific function. But it is just a part of the body, which is the suit for the soul (or consciousness). An interesting remark is that in Russia it is traditional to count people in souls (a common speech phrase). While the animals are being counted in heads (the dead are being counted in bodies). PS BTW, there are people who are living unconsciously. Furthermore there is an ancient Russian proverb "we all are people, but not every of us is a human". Also there is a story of Diogenes of Sinope (a Greek philosopher). He became notorious for his philosophical stunts. He used to stroll about in full daylight with a lamp; when asked what he was doing, he would answer, "I am just looking for a human being."
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted 11 months ago
Is having a social class inevitable?
The only way to program a certain direction of development of civilization is to develop the appropriate sociology that as a result will produce the staff with appropriate mindset and governing skills. From that perspective, every particular sociological knowledge might serve solving one of two mutually exclusive problems: *Problem 1:* How a parasitic minority can effectively execute slave-ownership with respect to the rest of society, preferably with a minimum of force, on the basis of implementing the principle: slaves come into bondage themselves, they feed themselves, and they impel themselves to work; furthermore they believe they are free and they like it. *Problem 2:* -- eliminate organized parasitism of those or other minorities on the work and life of the majority, so that in the succession of generations all people will live freely, and the inclination towards parasitism, especially in its organized forms, will not reappear in new generations. Sociology that does not name things with their names is probably serving to the resolution of first one. As regards to the prospects of the humankind. This is not a matter of questions whether "we should solve" something or not, as if the human was here a host who decides and moves the process of natural evolution. I think that evolution is objective process and particularly I think that evolution of our planet from a planet of monkeys to a planet of people is inevitable. This is only the question of time. Nature is very wise and always finds the way. "And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners." Qur'an 3:50 (with Allah can be meant the wisdom of nature) The currently prevailing doctrine in society contradicts to the conception of evolution of Life. And this is the main reason of the systemic crisis that has been established during 20th century (two world wars) -- this is the crisis of control, consequence of ignorance and blindness, prelude to the end of the wrong system.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
What is the purpose of education?: The most important question in the education revolution
> If accepted then education is the passing of information from one generation to the next. 1) It is passing of information from all preceding generations rather than from only one. 2) Concept of "generation" is very abstract and it misses an important aspect, which is very significant for practical understanding of education: the de-facto hierarchy of means in this generation by ability to informationally influence on the people. Different concrete layouts of this hierarchy have different impacts on what behavioral information is passed through continuity of generations and what is blocked. Corresponding to that we can talk about conception of education or informational policy in society (or conception of selection of the information from the global culture -- if culture is understood as all information existing in society). This conception exists de-facto independent of whether anybody has designed it consciously (to execute particular conception of ruling) or it has been emerged spontaneously and unconsciously (and thus can be modeled by the sociologists to observe the trends and share or not share it with public). Corresponding to that we can talk about presence or absence of the informational sovereignty of people. This kind of sovereignty is available to the people only if they are educated in a sociology, that includes these aspects of informational safety. So the problem consists of two components: A) Develop a useful sociology that is able to grant informational safety and sovereignty to the people of the Earth B) Open possibilities for all people to learn this useful sociology You basically was focusing only on the second portion of this problem. Could you share your perspectives on the point A? Thank you.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Syria: What is the core principle?
Sam, do you trust any of the existing visible or hidden public, corporate or governmental institutions? And in general do you believe in future for humanity? Do you have a vision how the peace will be established on the planet in this or future generations of humans? Thank you.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Why? Is it not the primary duty of politicians to contribute to the resolution of social problems and establishment of the peace in the world? In my view, the meaning of giving the award is highlighting the person in eyes of the public. If the awarded person really contributes to the peace, then the award becomes of high value cos it spreads the important information and practice.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Our global civilization is a holistic complex organism, which has been already deeply and firmly interconnected: economically, informationally, ecologically. There is still partial cultural and administrative separation, some rudimentary informational propaganda walls. But the real setup of the world makes impossible anymore to isolate countries from each other, and impossible to run internal or external policy. The concepts of “internal and external policy” are obsolete concepts of previous civilizational setup that finished somewhere in 90-ies. We have now global politics that affect the whole civilization, and we have players of global politics and objects of global politics. And these players do not necessarily correspond to particular governments or nations: there might be a periphery of conceptually different players within the same governmental institution. Thus, the countries by themselves are not the players on the arena. And by far not all of the politicians and entrepreneurs still realized this evolutionary change on the planet. Those of them who realized are learning how to play in global politics and smoothly entering the arena. And instantly one of the most challenging topics that they meet is how to prevent the World War 3 and how to resolve the accumulated conflicts in all world regions. Some of them think only how to make profit and exploit the situation, others feel true personal global responsibility. Keeping all that in mind, my question is how people of the Earth think about Vladimir Putin, who undoubtedly is already an experienced player on this arena.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
A very good point, thank you! I completely agree with you that the Nobel Peace Awards is discredited and being used to show black as white. My question was: Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Award? And I see now that it might be understood ironically in the opposite sense:) So, first of all, there is no irony in my question. The objective of the question is to see what people really think about Vladimir Putin, whether they understand him as a person who deserves an “award for Global Peace” or not. In other words, what do you think: if the Peace Prize is given to Vladimir Putin, does it discredit the Nobel Prize or revives its public image? And of course, as it is a TED conversation, I look forward into identifying the reasons why people think so or so. Furthermore, it is useful to determine how people in general decide whether somebody deserves the “World Peace Award”. What they find important today for the global peace. How they understand what it means to make peace and how to make it. From my perspective, the world today is too close to World War 3. The issue is that the American government is simply incapable (as history shows) of resolving the global problem, but despite this fact they consider themselves as the only boss who knows what to do and how to bring the planet to peace and prosperity. The fear of being weak and the total distrust to other geopolitical players lead the whole nation in the dangerous direction. The American people have become hostages of the ill politics of their leaders. If it continues, then soon the America itself might need outside help in resolving its own psychological conflicts. Thus, maybe today America should just step back and try to work in collaboration with other people and institutions for developing peace on the planet. But do American people trust Vladimir Putin as a public figure and politician of global scale? And what they think about his official appeal to them on 9/11 of 2013?
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Toward Planetary Peace
The solution to a peaceful world does not lie in the area of finding better schema of agreements between ego-centrism-s of different people. The solution lies in the area of building such culture that does help to resolve own ego-centrism to the preadult age for everyone. For me is absolutely evident, that such culture will be built earlier or later. The question is only how much pain for humanity it will cost.
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
What is the purpose of education?: The most important question in the education revolution
I would rephrase the question into "What CONCEPTION of education we want to be". Why? Because education in any epoch in any society objectively does have a goal, even if this goal is not understood by the people of this society. And thus we basically have to answer both questions: - what is the goal (or conception) of the education right now - what goal (or conception) of the education we want to be As regards to the purpose of education, then it is simple = educate population = produce a particular statistics of distribution of people over particular mindsets, skills, etc. This expected statistics is defined by the `concept of the education` (or goal). The conception of the education that I personally want and propose is as next: - to produce the participants of the society able to participate in social governance - to nurture a constructive, creative, methodological culture of cognition, thinking and communication - to help people realize own unique potential - to provide methodological mindset so that everybody is able to build own holistic and integral understanding of the society and find own place in this system The conception of the education that I feel today is as next: - prevent realization of own unique potential - produce alienated recipients not able to participate in the social governance - restrict access to the integral knowledge, so that everybody understand only his particular area and never has chance to build a holistic perspective on the society - program people to learn not what they are potential of, but what is required for the capitalistic machine of exploitation of humans - nurture a non-constructive, ego-centric or dogmatic culture of cognition, thinking and communication explanation: ego-centric culture of thinking is required for an intellectually higher social layer of "managers and engineers", while dogmatic culture is required for a social layer of "hard-workers" who can execute under supervision of "managers"
199108
Andrei Latyshau
Posted about 1 year ago
Maintaining human civilization by focusing on the key challenges of our time: energy, food and resource depletion.
I think the key challenges of our time are completely different. Energy, food and resource depletion -> are not challenges at all. They are only consequences of the total ignorance and extremely low level of education. The key challenges are: (1) The education available to everybody and appropriate to the needs of the epoch. Nurturing an integral and systemic understanding of the society, sociotechnic and sociology, governance, economy, psychology, global historical process, religion, elements of mathematics; nurturing the constructive and methodological culture of cognition, thinking and communication. (2) Fulfillment of the appropriate maneuver towards the global society on principles of democracy (public sovereignty) and by that avoiding the third world war. This is a real challenge. The established practice and culture of diplomacy and global peace making is not appropriate: it accumulates conflicts in all regions of the Earth instead of discharging the conflicts, which have been accumulating for centuries of wars, racial and religious conflicts, etc. It is time to reevaluate the moral aspects of the interrelations between people of different cultures of the world. And build a new global culture which will not dominate over other cultures and erase them, but which will integrate them and persist their originality and unique identity. (3) Restrain the disruption of control in the technosphere, resolve the system crisis. (3.A) The growth of the amount of information and "informational garbage" is accelerating over years (3.B) It results in persistent increase of complexity of all systems (3.C) It worsens by separation of particular specialists in their domains: they speak different languages which only they understand (3.D) The growth of complexity results in the growth of entropy, ambiguity, unpredictability, "chaos". The technosphere becomes more and more unpredictable. Less understandable. We have the crisis of control. On what level are you agree with me?