We all desire a future.

It seems we all desire a better future, why? Possibly because we do not feel satisfied with our past and/or present. Now what is satisfaction but a feeling of internal, personal fulfilment right? So we are not fulfilled, we are not happy, then shall we change?
If we want a better future, we must change the present, because the future is inexistant and uncertain. We fear the future, it is unexpected, eternal, it is always past. I look into the future and soon enough I'm looking back at what I should have done, yet again though when I look into the past or the present I'm looking into the future and through the lenses I use to see this past I reach, grasp a future I will never hold. I look at the future not knowing what it is.
As I said before it doesn't exist. We cannot prove its existence because we cannot experience it, though we can hope to but not expect. I know the past existed and I know the present does, though it is always past. We could say that the present never actually exists and that the present is in fact more inexistant than the future. I can imagine the future but not the now, as what I think now is a late response to an interaction I cannot anticipate. The future is inexistant only in the sense that it is one, as it is in fact many. It is subjective. My future is my present, or is that past? My future is what I do now. It is built on my hopes and my desires. But that is my future, yours only belongs to you. This way there are many futures, but they end up converging at the point we call present and we experience it in the past.
If there are many futures, what will it look like? We cannot know, it is uncertain. Just as we cannot know how green the grass was in the past we cannot know it in the future. We imagine the past's grass green, as this is how we have experienced it. Likewise we can imagine the future grass green but this is only if on the one hand our perceptions of now are correct and on the other if this state of colour will not change. We can all imagine a state in which the grass is blue, but as this does not coincide with our experiences we conclude it will be green, but why and how greener?
Why do we expect or hope for a better future? Surely the future will only be what our past experiences will make of it. We can only imagine that with which we have played with in our minds or with our hands. Our thoughts can create new experiences but based on past ones, none come independantly out of the blue green. Well as our experiences are subjective, our futures are also subjective. This is why there are many, as the future time perceived dawns it converges into the shared reality of the status quo. However if many perceive, play, imagine and hope for a better status quo ante, moreover they stand by it or fight or act, the convergence will occur in a realm which is still quo, just different to the past status quo though based on it. If, by acting, we open up awareness of other futures to people, then we are helping to create a change in the present. If we desire a better future, we can only achieve it if we act, if not this future possible will slowly just become a piece of puzzle in the past.

Non-violence, the world and Lybia.

It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.

On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.

Imagine.

On Education and Realism.

I was listening to a post the other day in which there was Johann Hari, my favourite journalist. There was a brief mention on education which I found interesting. Our system isn't fair and equitable. It is clear that many people don't have the chance to finish high school because their upbringing hasn't put enough importance into it, the same with university. Of course university isn't for everyone, many shouldn't be here and many who don't go lead much happier lives than us under and post-grads will.
My point though is, our system isn't egalitarian because we don't expect everyone to have education. We look at homeless and assume they dropped out at 12 when they started doing drugs; but worse, when we see a middle-aged woman working in a convenience store, we don't expect her kids to go to university, or that she did. So we are almost automatically subjecting the children of this poor hypothetical woman, who is probably working her arse off to provide as good an education as she can to them, to a lack of future in our current society. This is a reality. We tend to make differences in our heads of what constitutes a good job and which one is bad. Even though in the future we won't have as many psychologists as those studying to be one, nor will we have as many english teachers, people still see university as the front door to a well-paid job instead of a personal desire to learn more. I feel this is misguided, many will feel unfulfilled because they won't be able to compete. We should wait to the future though to watch the outcome.

On a point aside and unrelated, I believe political realists are those people who don't believe change is possible, they don't see into the achievements of our past and they cannot accept that we can break out of a so called human nature. On the other hand, idealists are already in the process of changing this world which has so many wrongs. Needless to say I'm an idealist.