According to the wise, one should live in the present—carpe diem! According to the wiser, one will always be concerned with the future as well, for that is where one’s dreams of a better world are directed. As for me, I have yielded to this urge in two ways: through historical-futuristic non-fiction on the one hand, and through stories on the other. My latest novel, Homo superbus, depicts a world of modern humans who defeated death—a world that already exists, albeit only in the turbulent minds of a few Silicon Valley gurus. This world is both fantastical and deeply dystopian, yet it rapidly drawing ever closer to us. We must recognize: technology and science have catapulted human intelligence to phenomenal heights, while significantly diminishing our wisdom for living and surviving. We do not even know long reality – systematically violated by man – will tolerate us on this globe. I find the novel enchanting because it promises us the highest heights, and at the same time hopelessly oppressive because the new cyborgs are far more likely to plunge into the abyss. Comments ranging from restrained praise to scathing criticism are most welcome.
In One World – No Tower of Babel, I sketch out a vision of overcoming today’s race among nations. This book has been particularly praised by Paul Raskin, Jean Ziegler, Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Karl Acham, and Rolf Kreibich, the former president of Freie Universität Berlin. This is remarkable as no politician will find a course of action in this book that makes sense to them—mostly the exact opposite. An example: Global disarmament would be both sensible and urgently needed. Any reasonably sensible person understands that with every additional weapon, the globe becomes even more dangerous. Yet, to avoid being crushed between Russia (and China) on one side and the U.S. on the other, Europe must arm itself—ideally, by developing into a nuclear power. Such an obvious contradiction between an ideal goal and immediate action is by no means new. Anyone who had advised the Germans or the French to disarm when both were still declared hereditary and mortal enemies had to expect to be branded a traitor. And rightly so, for as long as the enemy grows stronger militarily, unilateral disarmament leads only to one’s own downfall. It was the hellish vision of mutual annihilation in a Third World War that brought the two great nations to their senses, that is, to unification in a common Europe, where they consciously renounce the use of weapons.
In our time, the once-bloody conflict between the French and the Germans has shifted to the grand world stage. Now it plays out between the superpowers. Once again, anyone who envisions a future of a united world, where the arms race gives way to reason, is reviled as a dreamer—and, unfortunately, for the time being, quite rightly so. For current politics stands in direct opposition to this vision; it preaches mutual isolation, emphasizes supposedly irreconcilable differences, and indulges in bellicose rhetoric—this applies primarily to Russia and China, but now also holds true for the United States—in a faithful imitation of the final phase preceding the unification of the two historic enemies, France and Germany. Unfortunately, this trodden path seems to remain the same over the centuries; it begins with seemingly insurmountable hatred and ends, in the best-case scenario, with a victory of reason. We are not there yet—before the world comes to its senses, it will continue to arm itself. For those who would first like to get an idea of the book’s theses, I am provisionally posting the English version online, for which I still hold the rights. Comments ranging from cautious praise to scathing criticism are most welcome.