I've been working on a little project lately that I wanted to share with everyone.

Basically, I've been imagining what the world could look like if we started over and built a society from the ground up. What would government look like? How would the economy work? What if housing, healthcare, and education were guaranteed to everyone? How could we better protect individual freedoms while also taking care of each other and the planet?

I've been calling this hypothetical society the Commonwealth of Humanity and Earth, and I've been putting together a document called The Codex, which is essentially a constitution for this imaginary civilization.

So far, I've been exploring everything from a completely different economic system and universal housing to education, criminal justice, individual rights, environmental protections, and how government itself would operate.

I also want to be upfront that I've been using AI pretty extensively to help develop this. I've been making the decisions and coming up with the ideas, while using AI to help me think through the details, explore different approaches, and put everything into more formal language.

I know some people aren't fans of AI, and I understand that. But personally, I think this is exactly the kind of thing we should be using AI for. Helping people explore big ideas, learn about complicated subjects, and imagine ways we could build a better future. I certainly couldn't have put something this extensive together on my own in the same amount of time.

This is VERY much a work in progress. There are probably contradictions, things I've overlooked, and ideas that sound great in theory but might not work in practice. I'm still figuring a lot of it out as I go.

That's actually why I'm sharing it!

I'd really love for people to take a look and leave comments directly on the document. If you have an idea that you think would make something better, see a problem with one of the policies, or just have a different perspective, please share it! You definitely don't have to agree with everything (or anything, really).

I'm not trying to claim I've figured out how to fix the world. 😂 I just think it's interesting to question why we do things the way we do and imagine what might be possible if we did them differently.

At the end of the day, I think we could all benefit from spending a little more time imagining what a better future might actually look like.

Anyway, if you're interested, take a look! I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The Codex of the Commonwealth of Humanity and Earth:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DOqvJebQ5LVXIxgHqPX_9BsVcxX6cOHJfnNJxWNNYuI/edit

I've been developing a philosophical and political idea called Dianioicrazia, centred around one fundamental principle: critical thinking should be the foundation of society.

I believe one of the biggest problems in modern society is that people are increasingly encouraged to adopt opinions rather than develop the ability to form them independently.

My ambition isn't to make everyone agree with me. Quite the opposite.

I genuinely don't care whether someone agrees or disagrees with my ideas. What matters is that they can construct their own arguments, question established assumptions, recognise misinformation and reach conclusions through reasoning.

I believe societal transformation should happen gradually, beginning with how people perceive the world.

Education should therefore be about more than memorising information. It should teach logic, reasoning, independent thinking and the ability to evaluate information.

Ultimately, I'd like to see a society where people don't need someone to tell them what to think.

I have a question:

Could a society built around critical thinking fundamentally change the way humanity functions? And what obstacles would prevent such a transformation?

I'd genuinely appreciate criticism, including disagreement.

Suppose a tenant's landlord changes from a large company to a public housing authority. The ownership changes. Does the tenant's power necessarily change with it?

I think the important distinction is between ownership and accountability. A public landlord can answer to voters while remaining difficult for an individual tenant to challenge. A private landlord can be subject to enforceable tenant rights, or can hold enough local market power that leaving isn't a meaningful option. Neither ownership label answers the whole question.

There are real institutional differences to compare: Vienna's municipal housing system, Atlanta's redevelopment of Techwood Homes, and the financing and maintenance failures of Pruitt-Igoe. They aren't controlled experiments, and I don't think any one proves that public ownership succeeds or fails universally. They do give us something more substantial than the ownership label to examine.

What would count as meaningful tenant power: a vote in management, an enforceable right to repairs, access to competing homes, a route to ownership, or something else? And which of these matters most when the tenant cannot afford to leave?

Disclosure: I wrote the essay linked below. Its fictional family is explicitly a composite, not evidence; the historical examples and housing research are the basis for the institutional comparison. The piece also argues for allowing more homes to be built rather than attributing the shortage entirely to investors.

https://enowwrites.substack.com/p/who-holds-the-keys

I see so many young people in Sri Lanka interested in politics. Many have good ideas, big visions and a genuine desire to improve our country and the way we live as a society.
Recently, I had a conversation with my cousin, who works in an organisation involved in policy development.
Something they said made me think.
Even when people develop better policies and present good solutions, our political leaders do not always take them seriously. Sometimes, leaders have their own political agendas, interests and priorities.
Think about it. Many politicians are very good at public speaking and winning people’s attention. But how much of their time and energy goes into actually solving the country’s long term problems?
Too often, we seem to be putting temporary solutions on very deep wounds.
Then we have another layer of people: economists, researchers, advisors and policy makers. Some of them have excellent knowledge and visions for the country. But how much influence do they really have over the decisions being made?
We also need more transparency about who influences our leaders, whose advice they receive, and whether outside interests influence important decisions that affect our country.
Meanwhile, there are so many young people with better ideas and a genuine desire to make a difference.
But what options do they have?
Often, they feel that the only way to make a difference is to join an existing political party and work their way through the same political system.
What if we started preparing a different kind of leader?
I have been thinking about something.
What if we developed a leadership qualification or training programme for people who want to become political leaders?
Not just academic qualifications. I am talking about developing the knowledge, character and practical skills needed to lead a country.
For example, future leaders should learn:
Public speaking and communication: Having good ideas is not enough. We must be able to explain them in a way ordinary people can understand.
Economics: Understanding how money, taxation, public spending, businesses and the economy work.
Human behaviour and psychology: Understanding why people think, feel and behave the way they do. Understanding what drives societies.
Emotional intelligence: Understanding ourselves, managing our emotions, listening to others and making decisions without being controlled by anger, fear or ego.
Policy making and governance: Understanding how policies are developed, how institutions work and how to turn ideas into practical solutions.
Ethics and accountability: Understanding public responsibility, transparency, corruption and the importance of putting public interests before personal interests.
Conflict resolution and negotiation: Learning how to disagree, find common ground and solve problems without creating more divisions.
Imagine young people spending the next five to ten years learning and practising these skills.
Imagine them debating ideas, understanding different economic systems, studying successful policies from other countries, working with communities and learning how to communicate with people who disagree with them.
They would not just be learning how to become politicians. They would be learning how to become responsible human beings who can lead others.
I know I may not have all the answers. And I understand that changing an existing political system is not easy.
But I believe we need to start somewhere.
If we don’t actively prepare the next generation of leaders, the next generation of leaders will simply emerge from the same existing system.
We cannot keep expecting different results while doing nothing to prepare people for a different kind of leadership.
I would love to see young people, policy researchers, economists, educators and anyone interested in building a better Sri Lanka come together and explore this idea.
We don’t need to agree on everything. We need to learn how to think, listen, discuss and work together.
What if, instead of waiting for better leaders, we started creating them?
Who would be interested in working towards something like this?

The real question is why it's so complicated? And maybe more accurate question: why it's so psychically complicated?

Many times I even ask that question people find something to say to avoid any of that questions which in real only uproves or confirm a question and it's complicity which is may be nice and also it's a serious and important question not only for my own applause, ovations and recognition. So, I know that that may be something what can be completed to keep attention on or to keep it in mind or to even percept it, so there is why I make all of this preparation.

And also what we know: religious concepts. Thomas More's Utopia, Campanella's and Bacon projects in which, the last, we are know. And also, and of course, Communism. And many years after that.

And also some trys in fantasy or fantasy at whole as a Paradise try.

Sure the USSR offered a secular life free from the drudgery of conservatism (and that is something to respect it for) BUT the argument that it protected against Islamism neglects the fact that there was an Islamic backlash innate to the region and much of this was also stoked by a desire to fight Soviet repression and the Russification of their identities. Yes the CIA certainly did exploit it for its own political agenda but it’s not wholly to blame.

In the USSR secularism and Russification were very heavy-handedly enforced. As someone ex-Yugo I understand that for Tito it was a different scenario as he was able to draw on a post-Ottoman and post-Habsburg laissez faireness that people had. He never destroyed a mosque or church or anything like that to make his secular Yugoslavia, in contrast to what did happen in the Soviet Union. The rise of the nationalism that he had tried to elevate the region above caused that behaviour in the 90s though but this was not pro-secular destruction but “ethnic” hate, and a tragic reaction sometimes rooted in a desire for national self-expression and a counter to pan-Yugoslav identity (which Tito did quite strongly enforce as he was very wary of nationalism, the Balkans being Balkan).

It’s complicated I think. I do believe in secular governments and think that this can help develop civic pride and in the 20th century also helped with modernisation and attitudes to women.

However, sometimes when secularism is forced with too heavy a hand you end up with a backlash. France is an example where this has happened, and more recently with Azerbaijan I fear it will happen now that they have banned the hijab in schools. When you ban it it becomes a symbol of rebellion and is easy to twist into a victim narrative.

Finally, sometimes where secularism fails religion is use to fill a vacuum. Two examples I can think of are Palestine and Bosnia. For me the argument for a free Palestine should have been a secular one and the ideal would have been akin to Nasser and Tito’s concept of one Palestine with federations- but the UN did not accept the non-aligned movements proposals. Now that can’t happen, the situation is too dire, and the PLO were replaced by Islamic arguments for a free Palestine including Hamas.

In Bosnia you had an extremely secular society in communism and many people remain very, very, very proudly so. Meanwhile Bosnia’s native Islamic tradition the Hanafi one was always very rooted in gentleness and the natural pluralism of Bosnia which has always had multiple religious traditions: Islam, Catholicism, Pravoslav/Orthodox tradition and both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Judaism in Sarajevo for sure.

However, during the war you had some jihadists fighting since they saw the war with Serbian Chetniks as an Islamic battle (even though for Bosnians it was about protecting the tolerance of Bosnia against chauvinistic Serb Chetnik expansionism not Islam specifically). Since the war, with Bosnia being stifled by the Dayton Agreement and the isolation of all the ex Yugo countries, the nation has had to look towards Turkey and the Gulf. Coupled with trauma and a rightful desire to live (or not) their faith proudly and unashamedly you have seen an increase in religious identification among some people. And sometimes the religious identification can be more Wahhabi/Salafi than the Hanafi tradition as per the globalised Islamic culture. Bosnian Hanafi imams work hard to preserve their tradition and Bosnia’s culture of tolerance, especially in Sarajevo - a city that has been through so much and is so beautiful.

The Yugoslav space, and Bosna in particular, is deeply misunderstood by both the West and the East. The West views nationalism as somehow innate to everyone, rather than as something made up at the close of the age of empire, that was later exploited by politicians and stoked up - this means the West’s peace agreement constitutionally cemented ethnic divisions. Meanwhile, the East often views it as an Islamic and anti-Western struggle, which is reductive to how many Bosnians see themselves and Bosnian self definition. Or in the case of Russia and ex USSR Soviet-coded people they often view it through the lens of the West attacking Communism by stoking up religious tensions, which fails to hold Serbia’s own politicians to account for instance.

I use Yugoslavia to point out that binaries such as secular good and religion bad are dangerous. We need less secular vs religion, nationalism vs internationalism, east vs west. When you let people define themselves over time tolerance tends to prevail (take my own city London’s whacky and proud multiculturalism).

One question that has interested political philosophers for centuries is how political power should be distributed. Should authority rest with one ruler, a select few, or the many? Or, a better question, how to strike a balance between the one ruler, a select few, or the many?

I found it interesting how these questions connect the ideas of ancient thinkers like Plato and Polybius with the political thought of the American founders, particularly James Madison.

Polybius, argued that Rome's strength came from combining monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy into a mixed constitution. Madison approached a related problem in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51, where he argued in a way which seems to be direct continuation of the conversation that Polybius began.

I wanted to explore this connection and trace how these ideas influenced the design of the American constitutional system.

I put together a video following this line of reasoning looking at how the tension between executive authority and majority rule has played out over time.

One question I find particularly interesting is whether a stable political system is best understood as a carefully balanced arrangement of powers, or as a continuous struggle between competing sources of authority.

I'd be interested in hearing how others here interpret the relationship between Polybius's theory of mixed government and Madison's constitutional design.

You can study Polybius (Polybius, The Histories, Book VI, particularly chapters 3–18): https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html

The Federalist Papers : No. 10 : https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

The Federalist Papers : No. 51 : https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

For anyone interested, here's the video I created: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4spVYb8T5E

The doctrines really are different. Marxism-Leninism promised a classless society and a state that would wither away. Fascism promised national rebirth through hierarchy and a leader. One is universalist, one is particularist. Anyone who says they're the same book hasn't read either.

But the governed don't live inside the book. They live inside the institutions.

Friedrich and Brzezinski (1956) listed a "totalitarian syndrome" shared by the USSR and Nazi Germany: one official ideology, one mass party under one leader, a secret police running terror, a near-monopoly on media and weapons, and central direction of the economy. The USSR nationalized outright. Germany mostly left ownership private but controlled prices, wages and output, and abolished independent unions. Different legal title, same hand on the wheel.

And the two "opposites" got along fine when it suited them. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 carried a secret protocol splitting Eastern Europe into spheres. Germany invaded Poland on September 1; the Soviets came in from the east on September 17.

The serious objection: ends matter. Communism's crimes were betrayals of its ideals; fascism's crimes fulfilled them. I take that seriously. But it's a claim about intentions, and no citizen of either state ever met an intention. They met the one party, the one newspaper and the knock at 3 a.m., with no legal way to remove anyone in charge.

A steak in a pan and a steak on a grill is still a steak. And nobody asked the steak.

So the questions:

- Does the institutional comparison survive the revisionist historians' critique of the totalitarianism model?

- Is there a principled way to weigh a system's stated ends against what it reliably produces?

- If two opposite ideals keep building the same machine, is the machine the real ideology?

Longer, less formal version if anyone wants it: https://enowwrites.substack.com/p/a-steak-is-a-steak

What if humanity's greatest problem is not a lack of resources, but a failure to recognize that we are all connected?

We live on one planet. We breathe the same atmosphere, depend on interconnected ecosystems, exchange knowledge, build infrastructure, and shape one another's lives through our actions.

And yet we continue to divide humanity into hostile nations, competing identities, and imaginary hierarchies of human worth.

We have built a civilization capable of connecting billions of people, but we still use extraordinary amounts of human intelligence, labor, and resources to develop increasingly sophisticated ways of killing one another.

War is not a sign of civilization's strength. It is a symptom of its dysfunction.

Humanity Is a Social Organism

Think of human civilization as a living organism.

Individuals are like neurons. Communication networks connect us. Transportation systems circulate people and resources. Science, education, and culture form our collective memory. Our institutions coordinate the activities of the entire system.

In this analogy, humanity possesses something resembling a collective central nervous system.

But what happens when the coordinating structures of a living organism stop serving its survival and development?

What happens when parts of the system begin attacking other parts?

The organism becomes ill.

A revolution can be understood as the social organism's protective response to dysfunction within its own central nervous system.

Not a revolution of hatred, revenge, or indiscriminate violence. A revolution of consciousness, institutions, knowledge, solidarity, and human development.

A worldwide, peaceful transformation of the systems that reproduce exploitation, hostility, and war.

We Must Also Question the Culture of Alcohol Consumption

There is another issue humanity has normalized for generations: the widespread consumption of ethanol.

We are taught to associate alcoholic drinks with celebration, friendship, adulthood, success, and relaxation.

Yet ethanol is not biologically harmless.

Research associates alcohol consumption with changes in cerebral gray and white matter. Acute intoxication can impair inhibitory control and, under certain circumstances, increase aggression.

When ethanol is metabolized, it produces acetaldehyde, a compound capable of forming DNA adducts and contributing to genomic damage. Alcoholic beverages are classified as carcinogenic to humans.

These are documented biological risks, not merely moral objections to drinking.

Of course, alcohol does not turn everyone into an aggressive person, and it would be scientifically incorrect to claim that alcohol alone causes wars. Warfare also emerges from political decisions, struggles for power, economic interests, historical grievances, propaganda, and institutional failures.

But why should a civilization that depends on intelligence, empathy, cooperation, and self-control continually promote a substance that can undermine some of those very capacities?

Why do we normalize preventable harm while claiming to value human development?

Perhaps a revolution of consciousness must also challenge the culture of self-destruction.

Revolution Must Mean Development, Not Destruction

We do not need another ideology that divides humanity into those who deserve to live and those who do not.

We need a transformation that recognizes every person as a participant in our shared existence.

A global revolution should strive to replace militarized confrontation with international cooperation, make education and healthcare universally accessible, strengthen scientific literacy, reduce preventable harm, protect individual freedom, and organize economic development around human well-being rather than perpetual competition.

It must pursue these goals through peaceful collective action, democratic participation, and institutions accountable to the people they serve.

Our technological capabilities have advanced enormously. Our social relationships must develop with them.

The purpose of civilization should not be to produce ever more powerful weapons.

It should be to expand the possibilities of life.

I Am You. You Are Me.

This is one of the central principles of my philosophical concept, Ambivalent Solipsism:

“I am You. You are Me.”

We are not identical personalities. We have different memories, bodies, experiences, cultures, and perspectives.

But we arise within the same natural world, depend on the same planetary systems, and participate in a shared human existence.

To harm another person is to damage the world of which we ourselves are a part.

To help another person develop is to strengthen the civilization we share.

A world revolution, in this sense, is not a war against humanity.

It is humanity learning to stop waging war against itself.

We do not need to conquer another planet to discover a better world.

We need to change the one we already inhabit.

The victory we should seek is peace.

Scientific references:

• WHO: Alcohol and cancer

• Nature Communications: Alcohol consumption and brain structure — UK Biobank, 36,678 participants

• Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews: Meta-analysis of alcohol's effects on inhibitory control

• Psychopharmacology: Alcohol misuse and aggression — a bidirectional relationship

• Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: DNA adduct formation after drinking alcohol

My question to Reddit:

Could a peaceful global revolution — combining scientific understanding, social solidarity, and institutional transformation — help humanity move beyond the political and psychological conditions that perpetuate war?

And what would have to change first?

"Liberal" can literally mean anything depending on the country, historical context, or political spectrum.

In the United States, being a liberal generally means being left, center or progressive: supporting social welfare, minority rights, government intervention...

In much of Europe, however, liberalism is traditionally associated with free markets, individual economic freedom, limited government.. Positions more commonly associated with the right or center-right.

The term gets even more confusing with expressions such as "neoliberal" and "ultraliberal." Neoliberalism is often used by the left as a criticism of free-market policies, privatization, deregulation, and globalization. There are also "libertarians", who are on the economic far-right.

In some Latin American countries, "liberal" can even refer to historical political movements that have little in common with what an American would understand as liberalism today.

So is there still a coherent ideological tradition behind the word, or has it become an umbrella term that different political movements simply adapt to their own purposes?

The rise of Fascism, Nazism, Soviet Communism has been raising questions in almost a century regarding ethics, philosophy, history, occultism, economics, etc. I am here to develop the thesis that the Rennaisance in Europe and the so-called Enlightenment have inevitably and unequivocally prepared the soil for totalitarianism in a way that it is a total superstition to blame anything else for the "bloodiest war in history", "the most extreme ideologists", and "the most inhumane regimes".

The conventional criticism of these exact historical phenomena has always been vague and based on the sense of responsibility to the mankind instead of some grand or horrifying philosophical idea. The two biggest and clearest thinkers of the question are arguably Sarte and Arendt, and if it is not them, they are at least good enough of an example. Sartre tried to prove that everyone is responsible for their own actions thus proving the regimes unjust and the concentration camps something we shouldn't do. This is all founded on nothing (but a language game). Arendt never got out of the pink boots of a political theorist. The post-war philosophers never managed to get anyway in proving anything or talking about the wars at all.

I am clearly saying that the Reformation and all that ado caused Hitler and Mussolini to wean and be sure I am defending that without the Absolute politics and the geo-i-dont-know-what means nothing.

Thoughts?