Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

A very inspired and poetic question description!

However, a very prosaic worry: Where will all the educated as you mention find jobs, what will they be doing after they are educated? Will society be able to absorb them? Or are you envisioning an education system only for the elite (who, after receiving the education you're describing, will go on to rule the world?)

I wish this gives a little bit of food for thought!

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

Thank you for your sincere response and for raising a crucial dimension: the integration of education into social reality.

However, I believe the question of “employability” belongs to a paradigm that is nearing its end. In the society of the future — if civilization follows an ascending trajectory on the Kardashev Scale, from our current level (approximately 0.7) toward level 2 — we will harness solar energy on a planetary scale, and the competition for resources will give way to symbolic cooperation and distributed creativity.

In such a context, education will no longer be about “getting a job,” but about choosing a role in civilization.

People will contribute to meaning, not just to production.

This is a democratic and humanist vision, in which free will — both in its spiritual and civic sense — allows each individual to decide how they wish to participate in shaping the future.

Education thus becomes a symbolic infrastructure, not a mechanism of selection. And the question is no longer “who will be employed?” but rather “how can we inhabit the future with presence and depth?”

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Many thanks for this and for bringing the Kardashev scale to my attention. However I get an overwhelming feeling that your answer above is overly (too overly even, if you'll allow me to indulge in a bit of audacious grammar) optimistic. Will this society of the future you're describing be classless and equal? It seems (from what I understand) that you'd be inclined to answer 'yes' to my question above, however I'd be interested to hear where you base this 'yes', given the current climate of what some people describe as technofeudalism. It seems that the current financial configuration of the ownership of technologies has made very few people uber-rich, whilst the rest of us feed their greed with our data. Any idea about the in-between, the 'becoming' if you wish, between this state and what you describe?

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

Thank you again for your thoughtful reflections. I must clarify: my answer is no — I do not believe in a classless or egalitarian future. Egalitarianism, while noble in intent, has historically led either to idealistic projections (as in Thomas More’s Utopia) or to systemic failures (as in communism). The only viable framework, in my view, remains capitalism, but one that evolves toward meritocracy — not through slogans, but through a multi-capital equilibrium, as theorized by Pierre Bourdieu.

Economic capital alone is insufficient. To sustain influence, one must also possess cultural capital (symbolic literacy, refinement) and social capital (trust, networks, legitimacy). These dimensions form a kind of orbital system of symbolic gravity.

Let me illustrate this metaphor physically:

A satellite remains in geostationary orbit only if it satisfies the condition:

v = √(GM / r)

Where:

• v is the orbital velocity,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• M is the mass of the Earth,
• r is the radius from the Earth's center.

If the satellite lacks the required velocity or altitude, it will be pulled down by gravity. Similarly, in society, ascension is not enough — one must maintain symbolic velocity and altitude through a fusion of capital forms. Otherwise, the system reabsorbs the individual into its gravitational field — anonymity, irrelevance, or dependency.

Thus, the real question is not who rises, but who remains in orbit — and why. I envision a future not of flat equality, but of symbolic stratification, where meaning, not just money, sustains altitude.

Warm regards,

Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

Ambassador of Technoculture

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

Thanks for this, quite formidable and substantial vision!

However, I have to stand opposed to it with all my energy. I have to believe in egalitarianism and democracy, and work with all my might against capitalism.

Just a small question though, cultural and social capital sound quite 'noble' as far as capitals go (though I have to be against both nobility and capital, hehe), however, what will their currency be? :)

Best Wishes,

Haris

Dear Haris,

I appreciate the clarity of your convictions and the sincerity with which you express them.

As a reflective human being, I believe each person is free to contemplate society from their own perspective.

I merely expressed a point of view, and I respect that there are different opinions on this matter.

I have nothing further to add except to say that this discussion is now closed.

Thank you for your opinions and responses.

Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

Dear Adrian Leonard Mociulschi ,

I'm a bit surprised by the tone of your last message, apologies if i sounded a bit rough, i didn't mean to.

Up to you though, if you want to close this discussion we can close it.

Best Wishes,

Haris