In capitalist ideology, “employment” is brutally reduced to a purely instrumental equation: “Job → Income → Survival.” This logic chains human existence to capital’s hiring whims, systematically equating joblessness with social worthlessness.

Unemployment becomes morally weaponized—branded as proof of personal inadequacy, market failure, and individual worthlessness, driving people into cycles of shame and self-blame. Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets institutionally demonized as a policy that “breeds laziness,” destroys efficiency, and violates the sacred commandments of market fundamentalism.

However, under the framework of the Social-Civic Economy, this entire set of perceptions—based on fear and the supremacy of efficiency—must be thoroughly overturned:

Employment is not a chance gift bestowed by the market, but a fundamental right for citizens to participate in social production, service, and the sharing of civilizational fruits. Unemployment is not a matter of personal ability, but a structural risk generated by technological iteration and industrial transformation.

Basic Income is not alms, but a minimum dividend right to social common assets that citizens deserve as members of the “social community.”

This is the fundamental ethical and institutional watershed between a “capital-centric efficient market society” and a “human-centric civic civilized society.”

I. The Essence of Employment under Capitalist Economy: Not “Letting People Live,” but “Extracting Value from People”

Under capital-dominated economic structures, employment operates on a coldly singular principle: it exists not to ensure human survival and dignity, but to minimize production costs while maximizing capital returns. Workers become replaceable cost inputs rather than autonomous social beings with agency and worth.

This creates a ruthlessly optimized exploitation hierarchy:

High-Value Workers: Retained in the system, subjected to endless performance metrics and hypercompetitive pressure.

Transitional Workers: Discarded by the system, left to navigate risk and uncertainty as expendable individuals. Obsolete Workers: Abandoned entirely, relegated to social assistance as civilization’s unwanted burden.

Terms like “gig economy,” “flexible work,” and “independent contracting” often serve as euphemisms for capital’s exploitation of workers stripped of job security, benefits, and collective bargaining power. Capital cares nothing for workers’ long-term stability, development, or retirement—only whether your immediate “marginal value exceeds marginal cost.”

II. Redefining “Employment” in the Socio-Civic Economy: Not a Job, but a “Right to Social Participation”

In a Socio-Civic Economy, we must expand “employment” beyond the narrow confines of “serving capital’s needs” to encompass: “Institutional pathways for citizens to engage in social production, public service, governance, caregiving, and knowledge creation.”

This means that valuable labor is no longer equated only with labor that “produces direct financial profit.” It includes, but is not limited to:

Public Service Jobs: Basic services for the whole population provided by the government and non-profit organizations. Social Care: Care and emotional support for the elderly, children, and people with disabilities.

Community & Cultural Employment: Community governance, cultural heritage, artistic creation, and non-profit education. Ecological Restoration: Environmental protection, pollution control, and sustainable development projects.

Principles of Value Recognition:

As long as your labor possesses the following characteristics:

Real Social Value: Provides genuine and irreplaceable value to society. Public Resilience Contribution: Makes a real contribution to public safety and resilience. Communal Support: Provides authentic support for the survival of the community.

Such work deserves recognition as legitimate employment, complete with stable, dignified compensation and institutional protections. Without this broader definition, society inevitably creates a perverse system where genuinely valuable work—caregiving, basic research, community building—goes undone, while capital-intensive but socially hollow pursuits like financial speculation and marketing warfare attract all the talent.

III. The Civilizational Characterization of Unemployment: Not a “Loser,” but a “Structural Risk Bearer”

Capitalist moral narratives frame unemployment as personal failure—a scarlet letter marking insufficient effort, inadequate skills, or market maladaptation. This stigmatization dramatically amplifies social instability while crushing individual mental health.

In the Socio-Civic Economy, however, the true nature of unemployment must be de-moralized and objectively characterized as “Structural Sacrifice” caused by systemic forces such as technological iteration, industrial shifts, global capital fluctuations, and policy adjustments.

The Core Logic is:

It is not that you failed, but that the system has upgraded. It is not that you are valueless, but that the current capital structure no longer requires you.

Therefore, unemployment should not be subject to moral judgment, stigmatization, or personalization. It must be institutionally recognized: unemployment is not a personal error, but an inherent cost of social operation and progress.

Since it is a social operating cost, it must be borne collectively by all social citizens through institutional designs (such as social insurance and public finance), rather than being dumped as a survival crisis onto powerless individuals to fend for themselves. This collective responsibility is the basic contract of civilization.

IV. The Civilizational Essence of Basic Income: Not “Feeding People,” but “Giving People the Certainty of Living”

Capitalism’s deepest terror isn’t poverty—it’s the prospect that “citizens might live with dignity without capital’s control and coercion.” Guaranteed survival security would immediately unleash three structural revolutions:

1. Workers are no longer forced by “fear of survival” to accept unfair or humiliating working conditions. 2. Society can refuse to accept low-value, high-attrition “bullshit jobs,” optimizing the overall labor structure. 3. Citizens gain the time and space to “pause, think, and transition,” improving social innovation and resilience.

Therefore, Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the Socio-Civic Economy is precisely the tool for this institutional liberation. Its essence is not welfare, but:

The “Three Rights” Essence of Basic Income:

Minimum Dividend Right: The minimum income distribution right enjoyed by citizens as owners of “social common assets” (including natural resources, public data, basic intellectual property, etc.). Survival Rights Protection: Ensuring that no one starves or becomes homeless due to sudden events like unemployment, illness, or transition. Right to Refuse Support: Providing citizens with the institutional backbone to refuse humiliating and exploitative labor, preventing society from regressing into a barbaric structure driven by fear.

UBI does not guarantee “wealth,” but “freedom” and “certainty.” It is the minimum humanitarian guarantee of modern civilization.

V. The “Trinity” Reconstruction of Employment-Unemployment-Basic Income

In the ideal model of the Socio-Civic Economy, employment, unemployment, and basic income must be designed as a mutually supporting, dynamically stable “trinity” civilizational loop:

When these three are severed by capital logic, society forms a typically cruel structure: High Competition → High Elimination → High Fear → Low Dignity → Extreme Involution → Civilizational Autophagy. The reconstruction of the Trinity is meant to break this cycle of internal depletion.

VI. The Ultimate Question of the Technological Era: When Machines Replace Humans, Who “Deserves to Live”?

With the explosive development of artificial intelligence, automation, and algorithms, traditional and knowledge-based jobs are being systematically and irreversibly consumed.

In the logic of the capitalist economy, this means:

Efficiency increases → People are eliminated; Costs decrease → People become redundant; Structure upgrades → People become a burden.

Clinging to the barbaric equation “no job = no right to income” would plunge society into civilization’s gravest crisis: technological progress becomes a death sentence for growing masses of people. This trajectory leads inevitably to a dystopian reality where technological paradise coexists with human wastelands.

The only civilizational answer provided by the Socio-Civic Economy is:

When a person is no longer needed by the market, they are still needed by civilization and the community.

Basic income is the only non-barbaric, non-cold institutional response of human society to technological unemployment and the era of automation. It liberates the right to exist from “market eligibility” and re-anchors it in “citizenship.”

Conclusion: Whether a Society is Civilized is Not Judged by Employment Rate, but by “How the Unemployed Live”

The capitalist economy excels at creating illusions based on financial indicators: high employment rate → social success; high growth rate → people’s happiness.

But the Socio-Civic Economy focuses on a deeper, more brutal, and truer civilizational indicator:

When someone loses work due to technological disruption, economic shifts, or personal circumstances, does society still treat them as a human being deserving of dignity?

If the answer is no, then:

The celebrated prosperity rests on a foundation of survival terror for the vulnerable. The vaunted efficiency depends on systematically crushing individual dignity. The supposed stability requires existential coercion and endless rat races.

But when a society has the courage to institutionally guarantee: “You may stumble, you may pivot, you may pause—but you will never forfeit your fundamental right to exist”—in that moment, it crosses the threshold into a truly human-centered Socio-Civic Economy.

Amid a profound global demographic reversal, virtually all modern nations are performing the same quiet yet decisive institutional surgery: delaying retirement ages, extending contribution periods, and recalibrating benefit expectations. Technocrats package this transformation as “the necessary response to the aging crisis,” while fiscal departments frame it as “rational adjustments to ensure social security sustainability.”

Yet beneath these sanitized policy terms lies a starker reality: civilization itself is making an “implicit trade-off” between efficiency and humanity. States extract more time to preserve fiscal equilibrium, while individuals find their life plans forcibly deferred to maintain social order.

This isn’t one nation’s anomaly—it’s a global phenomenon. Consider the ticking countdown to America’s Social Security Trust Fund depletion, or Europe’s nationwide strikes over pension reforms. Look at Japan’s normalized “lifelong labor” culture, or China’s twin policy of gradual retirement delays and extended contribution requirements. Every government scrambles to defer systemic collapse, while every worker faces postponed dreams of freedom and fulfillment.

Extending pension contributions, therefore, transcends mere actuarial arithmetic or fiscal mechanics—it fundamentally questions civilization’s moral priorities. It poses a brutal test: How do we balance individual life’s finite nature against public institutions’ seemingly infinite appetite for survival? When systems demand longevity while human lives cannot proportionally extend in length or quality, we encounter modern civilization’s tragic paradox.

“Extended contribution periods” may superficially appear as institutional adaptation—a fiscal tool for managing demographic change. But from citizens’ lived experience, the damage extends far beyond “paying a few extra years.” It triggers wholesale social restructuring and fundamentally redefines individual destiny.

I. A Global Dilemma: Institutional Aging Outpaces Population Aging

The core of the global pension crisis is not that the absolute number of elderly people is too high, but that the institutional systems carrying the pension promises are aging even faster than the population structure.

Most current pension systems emerged during the mid-20th century’s “post-war boom.” Society then resembled a pyramid: high birth rates, low life expectancy, with average longevity barely exceeding 60 years. System architects built upon three seemingly unshakeable foundations: stable full-time employment, long-term single employers, and linear career trajectories.

By the 21st century, all three pillars had crumbled. Life expectancy now approaches 80; gig economies, flexible work, and entrepreneurship define the new normal; aging populations and plummeting birth rates dominate demographic trends. Yet our institutional frameworks remain frozen in industrial-age thinking—systems designed for Ford assembly-line workers now govern “liquid modern” digital-age lives.

Faced with the massive mismatch between “industrial-age institutions” and “post-industrial populations,” the solutions of various governments have almost converged on the same path:

Europe: Countries universally push minimum contributions from 15 to 20-25 years. France’s 2023 forced retirement age increase from 62 to 64 sparked massive social upheaval.

Japan: Chronic pension deficits drive policies toward “unlimited contribution periods”—essentially declaring that “paying until death still might not suffice.”

United States: With Social Security Trust Fund exhaustion projected by 2033, Congress debates pushing full retirement to 70.

China: Facing imminent demographic crisis, policies extending minimum contributions from 15 to 20 years (starting 2030) coordinate with delayed retirement—an unavoidable dual agenda.

Surface policy variations mask fundamental convergence: governments worldwide wield state power to force citizens into sacrificing precious life-time to sustain aging institutional machinery.

II. Extending Contributions = Delaying Freedom

The essence of pension insurance is a “current labor contract mortgaged by future certainty.” It requires workers to surrender a portion of their current income in exchange for the right to exit labor in old age and the guarantee of a dignified life.

When “contribution periods”—this core variable—stretch indefinitely, the contract’s very nature transforms. No longer protection, it becomes temporal bondage, implying:

• Compressed Life Agency: Citizens must labor continuously within institutional constraints for extended periods to “earn” retirement eligibility. • Penalized Alternative Paths: Freelancing, entrepreneurship, career pivots, or family-focused “intermittent living” face severe institutional punishment through contribution gaps. • Existential Alienation: Life’s primary purpose shifts from “realizing personal value” to “fulfilling contribution duties.”

Compression of Life Choices: Citizens are forced to perform continuous labor within the institutional tracks for a longer period to earn the qualification for “legal retirement.” Punishment for Non-Standard Lives: Freelancing, entrepreneurial exploration, mid-career shifts, or choosing an “intermittent life” for family or personal growth will face extremely high institutional penalties (due to interrupted or insufficient contributions). * Alienation of Existence: The primary meaning of “living” shifts from the “right to realize individual value” to the “responsibility to fulfill contribution obligations.”

The result: individuals must systematically postpone life itself—delayed retirement, deferred enjoyment, postponed self-realization. Personal dreams and life blueprints get subordinated to institutional timelines. Social creativity, diversity, and life’s natural flexibility yield to homogenized labor regimens optimized for bureaucratic control rather than human flourishing.

Social creativity, diversity, and the flexibility of life are uniformly replaced by a highly homogenized labor order that is easier to actuate and control.

III. The Breakdown of Intergenerational Balance: Pensions are No Longer Trust, but Debt

Any “pay-as-you-go” pension system runs not on money, but on trust—specifically, robust “intergenerational contracts.”

Young people are willing to pay high pension premiums based on a simple trust: they believe that when they grow old, the next generation will support them in the same way; they believe that the system’s promises are constant.

As contribution periods lengthen, retirement ages retreat, and inflation erodes purchasing power, this foundational trust rapidly disintegrates. New generations (Gen Z onward) confront a devastating calculation:

• They must contribute longer (more years) while expecting less (lower replacement rates) • They must work later (extended careers) while living more stressfully (diminished quality) • Their youth and productivity subsidize previous generations’ “growth dividend gaps,” yet the system offers no equivalent future security

Clear intergenerational fractures emerge: youth embrace “contribution nihilism” and “lying flat” mentalities; elderly panic over benefit erosion; middle-aged populations face triple compression—supporting aging parents, raising children, while building inadequate personal retirement reserves.

Pension insurance transforms from “collective risk-sharing” into “temporal tax extraction”—from sacred social contract to crushing intergenerational debt.

IV. Hidden Inflation: The Bottomless Pit of Institutional Absorption

The most direct fiscal purpose of extending contribution periods is not to make the pension pool “plentiful,” but to slow down the speed at which it becomes “bankrupt.”

In essence, this forces every individual citizen to bear the macro-fiscal risk of the entire system. This risk transfer is implicit, yet extremely heavy:

• Forced Asset Imprisonment: Extended contribution periods essentially delay state payment obligations for decades. Money appears “adequate” on paper while individuals lose asset control for their most productive years.

• Immediate Consumption Drain: Mandatory transfers to social security accounts—especially impacting lower and middle incomes—directly reduce spending power, suppressing domestic demand and economic vitality.

• Promise Depreciation: The ultimate risk: future pension payouts, after decades of inflation and inevitable policy adjustments (reduced replacement rates), may deliver far less purchasing power than original contributions warranted.

This constitutes “institutional inflation laundering”—using extended contribution timelines as leverage to silently transfer currency debasement costs, fiscal structural risks, and demographic transition deficits onto individual workers trapped within the system.

V. Labor Extension: Humans Penned by the System

When retirement becomes far-fetched and the contribution period becomes a sword of Damocles hanging overhead, the meaning of labor undergoes a profound alienation. It is no longer a creative activity to realize value, but degenerates into an “obligation to extend one’s life.”

• Work’s purpose transforms from pursuing better living to “meeting contribution quotas” for mere survival • Labor market aging (elderly forced to delay exit) inevitably squeezes youth employment opportunities and advancement, creating “intergenerational competition spirals” • Employers, burdened by aging workers’ high social costs and reduced innovation capacity, increasingly favor gig arrangements—further undermining system foundations

The final result is the evolution of society into a highly efficient “labor farm”:

Youth must enter the contribution “pen” early; elderly cannot leave until much later; middle-aged remain trapped at the center—simultaneously servicing mortgages, funding current pensions, supporting aging parents, and raising children.

This creates an elegant yet ruthless exploitation architecture: maximizing lifelong labor extraction under the guise of “security”—a sophisticated civilizational trap.

VI. The Collapse of Social Trust

Any social system, no matter how exquisitely designed, ultimately relies on the cornerstone of “trust.”

As pension insurance—a promise spanning half a century—is constantly revised by policies that “extend years, reduce benefits, and delay retirement,” the public gradually forms a highly corrosive consensus:

“I’m not paying ‘insurance’—I’m paying a mandatory tax with murky purposes and uncertain returns.”

When individual grievances crystallize into collective consensus, nationwide trust systems approach collapse. Youth choose “contribution strikes” or minimum payments as silent resistance; panicked elderly trigger benefit “runs”; states introduce policy patches to “maintain stability,” creating vicious cycles: policy betrayal → public resistance → fiscal deterioration → deeper policy betrayal.

The cost of collapsing trust is far higher than the pension deficit. It will severely damage social cohesion, institutional legitimacy, and the fundamental credibility of the state.

VII. The Cost of Civilization: A Society Losing Freedom and Trust

When a society relies long-term on “time extraction” measures like “extending contribution periods” to solve fiscal pressure, what it ultimately loses is not just short-term economic vitality, but the very foundation upon which civilization survives.

• Freedom’s Price: Individual life narratives become subordinated to institutional timetables. Personal sovereignty over life planning transfers to fiscal actuarial spreadsheets.

• Happiness Deferred: People cannot freely or dignifiedly plan their golden years—only anxiously await “qualification dates.” Fulfillment becomes perpetually just beyond reach.

• Trust Deficit: Youth lose faith in systems and futures. Intergenerational contracts face unilateral cancellation, shaking social consensus foundations.

• Innovation Drain: When labor becomes extended “servitude,” even social elites scramble to “complete their years.” Society loses innovative drive and spiritual renewal capacity.

The true crisis of a civilization is never a fiscal deficit, but a trust deficit.

When states trade individual happiness delays for short-term system stability, citizens respond with silence and non-violent non-cooperation. This silence signals not compliance, but structural despair.

VIII. Toward the Future: The Regeneration of a Civilized Pension System

Humanity must leap out of the institutional framework of the “industrial age” and redesign a pension system that aligns with the civilizational logic of the 21st century. Extending contribution periods is merely a painkiller to delay the crisis, not a prescription to solve the problem.

The true direction of civilization is to allow “humans” to regain sovereignty over “time.”

From State Monopoly to Social Ecosystem:

Break the first pillar’s (state) monopolistic burden. Aggressively develop occupational pensions (second pillar) and personal retirement accounts (third pillar), integrating community mutual aid and AI-assisted care. Transform pension responsibility from “single fiscal obligation” into “state-enterprise-individual-society” shared ecosystems.

From Rigid Uniformity to Flexible Choice:

Establish flexible retirement mechanisms allowing citizens to choose labor market exit timing and methods (including “semi-retirement”) based on health, finances, and family needs. Systems should guarantee basic security floors without mandating uniform labor rhythms.

From Contribution Years to Dignity Years:

Civilizational systems should be measured not by citizens’ contribution duration, but by post-labor years of dignity, quality, and security they enable.

From Fiscal Balance to Life Balance:

Reaffirm fundamental truth: economic systems serve human flourishing—not vice versa. People shouldn’t sacrifice precious life-time sustaining rigid institutional machinery.

Systems can be calculated, but civilization should not come at the cost of sacrificing humanity and compressing freedom.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Autonomy Over Time

Extended contribution periods—seemingly embodying “pay more, get more” fairness—have evolved, amid aging and economic deceleration, into “delayed fulfillment, compressed freedom, and risk transfer” models.

For citizens trapped within, costs transcend economic burden—they represent systematic existential downgrades. Individual time gets “institutionally hijacked,” life plans face “passive delays,” systemic risks transfer to individuals, choice “freedom” suffers dramatic dilution, and future “trust” approaches collapse.

Authentic pension reform must pivot from fiscal perspectives (“filling the pool”) toward human-centric approaches (“making citizen time valuable”). Without returning to “guaranteeing lifelong freedom and dignity” as the foundational design principle, additional contribution years merely extend institutional assembly-line existence without improving life quality.

Civilizational progress lies not in extending citizens’ system-serving years, but in expanding their freedom, dignity, and happiness. System greatness isn’t measured by fund longevity, but by how fully people can master their finite, precious life-time.

The artificial intelligence revolution should herald a “singularity” moment for human civilization—a time when knowledge becomes nearly free, tools amplify human capability exponentially, and individual creativity emerges as our most valuable asset.

Yet a profound irony unfolds before us: while machines evolve at breathtaking speed, our educational systems—particularly in many developed nations—seem locked in accelerating decline.

We persist in using an industrial-age relic—a system that judges human worth solely through standardized test scores—to shape the minds that will inherit tomorrow.

This system doesn’t seek to inspire; it seeks to control. It doesn’t unleash human potential; it manufactures conformity.

While AI’s transformative power reshapes every corner of society, we stubbornly cast the shadow of test-driven education over children who should be preparing for an unknowable future.

This isn’t mere institutional inertia—it’s a betrayal of the next generation. We are quietly laying the foundation for a civilizational catastrophe.

I. The “Misalignment” of Test-Oriented Education in the AI Era: An Institutional Delay That Should Not Exist

Test-oriented education wasn’t inherently flawed from the start—it was simply a product of its time. It emerged to serve two specific needs:

Industrial assembly lines that demanded “standardized workers” Bureaucratic hierarchies that required mass selection of “standardized managers”

The industrial age assembly line’s demand for “standardized workers”; The bureaucratic hierarchical system’s large-scale selection of “standardized managers.”

Efficiency ruled that world, and test-oriented education served it perfectly. The system systematically eliminated individuality, crushed diversity, and molded vibrant human beings into interchangeable, predictable components.

It prized conformity over excellence, compliance over creativity.

The AI era operates on fundamentally opposite principles.

AI represents the ultimate realization—and transcendence—of standardization. It will absorb every repetitive, rule-based, predictable task, whether manual or cognitive.

What this era demands is everything machines cannot replicate: non-standardized creators, integrators who grasp complex systems, and thinkers who pose fundamental questions.

This creates a catastrophic structural mismatch:

Our age demands individuals with unique minds and distinctive perspectives, yet our schools continue mass-producing cognitive conformists.

This misalignment goes far beyond institutional lag—it represents a fundamental collision between civilization’s trajectory and our educational system’s direction.

It has become our era’s greatest source of wasted human potential and our heaviest anchor dragging us backward.

II. The “New Era Wooden People” Shaped by Test-Oriented Education

Under AI’s harsh spotlight, those “high-scoring, low-ability” products of test-oriented education face a brutal new reality. The question is no longer whether their skills are sufficient—it’s whether their skills are relevant at all.

These individuals share deeply troubling characteristics. They aren’t simply underprepared for the future—they’re being systematically rendered obsolete, like puppets whose strings have been cut, motionless in a world that no longer values what they offer.

1. Loss of Thinking: While AI Can Answer Questions, Humans Still Memorize

Test-oriented education doesn’t kindle intellectual fire—it crams students with information. It replaces critical thinking with memorized responses, substituting mechanical problem-solving for genuine understanding.

The tragedy is stark: in memory capacity, processing speed, analytical precision, and computational power, even our most brilliant students cannot compete with AI.

Students who master memorization and rapid calculation are perfecting skills that AI surpasses effortlessly. When education rewards machine-like behavior, it systematically punishes distinctly human qualities—curiosity, skepticism, and the hunger to explore complexity.

Humanity’s greatest asset—our capacity for deep, original thought—gets steadily eroded by the relentless grind of test preparation.

2. Loss of Expression: Unable to Question, Communicate, or Dialogue

Test-oriented education produces “answer people,” not “question people.” It demands students provide “correct” responses within rigid frameworks, rather than encouraging them to transcend those frameworks and challenge underlying assumptions.

In the AI era, however, answers have become commodities—cheap and abundant. What’s truly precious is the ability to ask penetrating questions. Tomorrow’s most vital skill isn’t “how to solve” but “defining what deserves solving”; not rote memorization, but meaningful dialogue with diverse individuals, cultures, and AI systems themselves; not conforming to standards, but articulating unique, personal insights.

Puppets need no voice—only the ability to execute programmed instructions. Test-oriented education transforms generations of naturally vibrant children into silent, passive beings who wait for commands.

3. Loss of Direction: Only Obedience and Fear Remain, No Self and Desire

Test-oriented education’s hidden curriculum proves far more influential than its official one. It systematically shapes psychology through institutional pressure—within a system where “test scores determine everything,” children internalize three survival (not growth) instincts:

Afraid to make mistakes: Mistakes mean point deductions, meaning failure. Fear of responsibility: Taking responsibility means possibly making mistakes. Only able to wait for commands: Only standard answers and teachers’ instructions are safe.

This “compliant personality” served the industrial age well, but proves lethal in the AI era.

AI excels precisely at replacing “compliant labor.” What AI cannot replicate is inner drive, independent value judgment, and the courage to embrace risk and responsibility.

The consequence is clear: as AI advances, these perfectly “disciplined” individuals find themselves increasingly obsolete. They’ve lost the ability to navigate uncertainty and forge their own paths.

4. Loss of Creativity: All Non-Standard Answers Are Killed by the System

The soul of the future is creativity—connecting the “unrelated,” creating “something from nothing.”

Test-oriented education’s evaluation system fundamentally opposes creativity. It delivers a crushing message to students:

“Your insights may be profound, your expression eloquent—but if it’s not a ‘scoring point,’ it’s worthless.”

This is not only the stifling of individual talent, but the systematic weakening of a civilization’s evolutionary capacity.

Creativity thrives on diversity. When society trains people to accept only “one correct answer,” it destroys intellectual biodiversity. Such civilizations, like genetically uniform species, become dangerously fragile when facing environmental upheaval—such as the AI revolution.

III. Why Will Test-Oriented Education Bring Catastrophic Consequences in the AI Era?

If in the past, the drawbacks of test-oriented education were merely “developmental problems,” in the AI era, they will directly evolve into “survival problems.” The consequences are systematic and potentially irreversible.

1. Large-Scale Employment Structure Collapse

The AI revolution fundamentally dismantles standardization. It targets precisely those jobs with clear rules, defined boundaries, and quantifiable outputs—the very “standardized positions” our education system prepares students for.

Test-oriented education produces exactly this type of “standardized talent.”

This creates a cruel irony: the more “successfully” someone is shaped by test-oriented education, the more likely they are to face complete displacement by AI. This isn’t temporary unemployment—it’s structural obsolescence. An entire generation will find that their years of study provide no competitive advantage for the future, not even a foundation for reinvention.

2. Cliff-Like Decline in Social Innovation Capacity

Innovation does not come from nowhere; it depends on social soil that tolerates failure, encourages risk-taking, and respects dissenting views.

East Asian nations—China, Japan, South Korea—remain trapped in test-oriented education’s quicksand, facing a shared crisis:

Innovative talent remains desperately scarce, while test-obsessed conformists flood the market.

In the AI age, nations without creative capacity can only follow others’ lead. Without the power to define the future, they become mere “data colonies” in the global intelligence ecosystem.

A society of “wooden people” stands no chance in the intensifying global competition for technological and civilizational leadership.

3. Concentrated Outbreak of Family and Social Psychological Crises

When the single goal of “exam machines” is achieved (or fails), they will inevitably crash into the iceberg of “meaning crisis.”

When children are alienated into tools for realizing parents’ (or society’s) expectations, their personalities are incomplete. They will face:

Extreme doubt about their own value (“I am nothing without scores”); Pathological fear of failure (“One exam failure means total loss”); Escape from real-world responsibilities and challenges; * Pervasive career anxiety and future fear.

This will lead to collective psychological crisis of an entire generation, whose repair costs far exceed education itself.

4. Decline in Future National Governance Capacity

What kind of governance does a complex, ever-changing future society need?

It needs: citizens’ wisdom, independent judgment, profound insight, firm sense of responsibility, and consensus on core values.

But what does test-oriented education mass-produce?

Obedient, submissive, patient “refined egoists” or “mechanical operators” who only care about personal interests and lack public rationality.

The AI era needs “qualified citizens,” not “obedient tools.”

Thus, the nation will face the most dangerous situation:

The nation faces its most perilous scenario: effective governance demands sophisticated human wisdom to guide and control AI, yet our educational system mass-produces “wooden people.” When society’s primary constituents become command-waiting automatons, they inevitably demand authoritarian leadership—a regression toward tyranny, not civilizational progress.

IV. The Only Way Out for Future Education: Let Children Become Human Again

Confronting AI’s challenge, educational reform is no longer optional—it’s existential. We must undertake four fundamental transformations with unwavering resolve, returning education to its true purpose: helping children reclaim their humanity.

1. From “Answer Education” to “Question Education”

Future education must train children to ask penetrating questions, to thrive amid uncertainty, and to identify crucial variables within information chaos—not to memorize predetermined answers.

2. From “Obedience Education” to “Subject Education”

Children must evolve from “passive knowledge recipients” into “active meaning creators.” This requires cultivating independent character, intrinsic motivation, and self-awareness—not producing compliant “model students” devoid of personal judgment.

3. From “Standardized Education” to “Creative Education”

We must shatter the tyranny of “test scores above all.” Education should embrace differences, encourage experimentation, and accept failure. The goal isn’t trimming away everything “non-standard,” but providing fertile ground where every form of uniqueness can flourish.

4. From “Exam Education” to “Civilization Education”

Education’s ultimate aim is developing complete human beings and engaged citizens, not compliant automatons. This demands reviving “humanistic education”—cultivating ethics, empathy, aesthetic appreciation, collaboration, and commitment to justice and goodness. These represent humanity’s permanent advantages over AI.

Each transformation presents enormous challenges, yet each is absolutely critical. Together, they determine whether the next generation becomes AI’s servants or its masters.

Conclusion: The Future of Civilization Needs Souls, Not Wooden People

AI will never destroy humanity.

What truly threatens humanity is our own choices—especially choosing an educational system that transforms humans into the most easily replaceable version of themselves.

The real danger isn’t increasingly sophisticated technology—it’s increasingly regressive education.

A society that clings to test-oriented education’s false efficiency will forfeit its future entirely.

A civilization that mass-produces soulless automatons will ultimately lose its own soul.

Education exists not for testing, not for sorting, not even for employment.

Education serves one purpose alone: nurturing full humanity—

Enabling people to stand with dignity in an uncertain future.

Enabling civilization to advance purposefully through time’s currents.

In the AI era, nations compete not on technology alone, but on education; not merely on knowledge, but on the depth and authenticity of human development itself.

Modern scholars and commentators often see technology as the main engine of civilization. But if we look at the rise and fall of great civilizations, it becomes clear: technology is only an external factor. What truly determines the path of civilization is whether a society’s system can adapt, improve, and reform itself over time.

A system—meaning the structure of governance and power—controls how resources are organized, distributed, and shared. It defines who holds power, how conflicts are resolved, and how well a society can respond to shocks.

While technology can boost efficiency, if the system is rigid or closed, new technologies often end up helping elites tighten control, hoard resources, and deepen inequality—leading to social breakdown.

On the other hand, when a system is open and flexible, technology can become a powerful force for upgrading society.

So, the fate of civilization depends on whether its system evolves. Technology helps—but only when the system allows it.

II. Systems, institutions, and technology: how they work together

To truly understand how civilizations function, we must clarify the relationship between systems, institutions, and technology:
● System: The overall framework of governance and power dynamics. It sets the boundaries for how society is organized, how resources are distributed, and how the political environment functions. Examples include centralized states, feudal systems, monarchies, federal governments, and parliamentary democracies.
● Institution: The specific set of rules and mechanisms that operate within a system. Institutions regulate how power and resources are allocated, how competition works, and how people move through society. Examples include tax systems, voting systems, property laws, and freedom of speech protections.
● Technology: The tools and methods that drive productivity and social interaction. Technology increases efficiency and reshapes both the economy and social structures. Examples include gunpowder, the steam engine, the telegraph, the internet, and AI.

How they interact:
The system sets the scope for institutional development. Institutions shape how technology is used. Technology, in turn, affects the system.
When a system is rigid, institutions cannot evolve, and technology ends up serving those in power.But when a system is flexible and adaptive, institutions can evolve, and technology becomes a driver of progress and social advancement.

III. Extractive vs. inclusive institutions

In modern governance systems, institutions can generally be divided into extractive and inclusive types. These reflect how the same political structure can produce different outcomes depending on its capacity.
Extractive Institutions
Extractive institutions are systems where a small privileged group uses power, law, and resource control to block social mobility and technological diffusion. Their goal is to extract wealth from the majority to preserve their own dominance.
Features:
● High concentration of political and economic power
● Barriers to market access and fair competition
● Suppression of dissent and diverse ideas
● Technology used to strengthen control, not empower people
● Huge inequality in resource distribution

Historical examples:

● Late Roman Empire: Land was increasingly concentrated in the hands of nobles. Ordinary citizens became tenant farmers, while aristocrats controlled the empire’s core power, blocking upward mobility.
● Late imperial Chinese dynasties: Powerful clans and bureaucratic elites monopolized resources, suppressed the spread of technology, and resisted industrial and commercial development.
● Soviet authoritarian regime: Political power and productive assets were concentrated in the hands of the Party-state. Dissent and innovation were suppressed, leading to intense internal stagnation.

Inclusive Institutions
Inclusive institutions allow power and resources to circulate fairly within a legal framework. They protect property rights, keep markets open, encourage innovation, and support diverse competition.
Features
● Decentralized power with checks and balances
● Open markets that allow new entrants
● Respect for contracts and private property
● Support for technology diffusion and industrial innovation
● Limits on interference from privileged elites

Historical examples:
● England after the Glorious Revolution (1688): Parliament gained power over the monarchy, property rights and free trade were protected, laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.
● The Dutch Republic: Promoted commercial freedom, welcomed immigrants and intellectuals, and became the world’s financial and trade hub in the 17th century.
● The United States constitutional system: Built on separation of powers, open markets, and strong support for immigration and innovation, helping sustain long-term economic growth.

IV. Institutional progress ≠ Civilizational advancement

Reforming institutions is only an internal adjustment within a system’s existing capacity. It does not guarantee a higher level of civilization.
If the system lacks flexibility, even inclusive institutions can be reversed by elite groups and turn into new forms of extractive mechanisms.
Examples:
Britain’s colonial expansion in the 19th century, and the rise of tech monopolies in modern America,
both show how inclusive institutions can be captured and reshaped into subtle extractive systems during times of technological change.
Whether a civilization can keep progressing depends on whether its system can self-correct, restructure itself, and redistribute power and benefits. This is what real system-level progress means.

V. Systemic evolution as the foundation of civilizational progress

Systemic progress means a shift in national governance from rigid and exclusive structures to more open and inclusive ones. It includes:
● Decentralization of power
● Lower barriers to political participation
● Greater tolerance for dissent
● Flexible and adaptive institutions
● Stable mechanisms for the flow of power and wealth
● Institutionalized pathways for technology diffusion

In history, systems with these traits—such as Britain’s parliamentary reforms, the U.S. constitutional adjustments and anti-monopoly efforts, and the Dutch Republic’s open governance—have sustained centuries of civilizational growth.
On the other hand, systems that cannot evolve, even with short-term technological gains, eventually stagnate due to power concentration, social division, and declining innovation.

Conclusion

Civilizational progress is never driven by technology alone—it is powered by institutional upgrade.
Technology speeds things up, but the system decides where we are headed. If the system points in the wrong direction, more speed only leads to faster collapse.
A truly civilized nation is not defined by its GDP, military strength, or scientific achievements, but by whether its political and social systems can adapt, improve themselves, and fairly balance power and resources.
Technology and policies are tools—but without a system that can grow and self-correct, even the best tools will fail.
The system sets the boundaries for institutions. Institutions shape how technology works. And technology, in turn, influences the system. Together, they determine whether a civilization thrives or falls apart.

Throughout history—whether under monarchy, aristocratic republic, or modern democracy—societies have grappled with an age-old and complex question: who should make decisions, on what grounds, and for what ends. As communities grow larger, interests more tangled, and social structures more diverse, mechanisms are needed to bring individual will, resources, and collective goals into alignment.
At first glance, voting seems to provide a way to “gather the will of the people.” Yet in reality, voting has never been the same as decision-making, and voters themselves cannot truly serve as decision-makers. When the two are mistaken for one another, serious consequences inevitably follow.
This article examines this hidden but central mechanism of human governance by addressing four dimensions: the plural nature of voting, the professional nature of decision-making, the functional boundaries between them, and the social consequences of their conflation.

I. Voting: a mirror of will, interests, and resource distribution

Voting serves as a channel for expressing collective will and revealing how interests and resources are inclined to be distributed.In essence, it is a psychological mirror of the group and a projection of resource dynamics, but it is never decision-making itself.To treat voting as the basis of decision-making, or or even as a substitute for them, is to fall into institutional shortsightedness and a step backward in civilization.
In general, voting can be categorized into five basic forms:

1. Capital-interest voting
   This is the type of voting that really decides outcomes. Throughout history, control over military power, money, and material resources has always determined how organizations function and what strategies they can pursue. Whoever controls the capital holds the real power.
   Unlike public elections, this voting is usually hidden. The “votes” of military-industrial groups, financial elites, and energy companies may never be visible, yet they shape national security policies, economic directions, and even decisions on war and peace. Its hidden nature and resource bias make it the true locus of power within any system.
2. Civic-moral voting
   This type of voting shapes a group’s cohesion, sense of identity, and long-term stability. It reflects a society’s ideology, moral standards, corporate culture, and national spirit. Abstract though it may seem, it has a direct impact on the legitimacy of decisions and their ability to be sustained over time.
   When a nation loses the support of its people, an army lacks conviction, or a company loses its cultural foundation, failure becomes inevitable. The significance of civic-moral voting lies in its role as a source of validation for leaders’ decisions—determining whether a decision can endure and whether people are willing to bear the costs it entails.
3. Expertise voting
   In a professional society, the support of skilled individuals often determines whether a decision can work out. Engineers, scientists, medical staff, military officers, lawyers, and other specialists collectively cast what can be called a “skills-based vote.” They do not make the decisions themselves, but they determine whether a decision is feasible.
   If a nation, organization, or company ignores this form of voting and acts blindly, it risks technical gaps, failed implementation, and strategic breakdowns. Skills-based voting not only aggregates professional judgment but also serves as an early-warning system, signaling future trend and viable paths.
4. Political-orientation voting
   This form of voting captures society’s feelings about the present and expectations for the future. People express their support for radical reforms or cautious conservatism, for expansionist policies or peaceful restraint, through ballots, polls, petitions, and public opinion.
   While political voting can be unpredictable and influenced by emotions, it plays a crucial role in guiding a nation’s strategic adjustments and maintaining internal stability. It provides important context for decision-making, but it should never override professional strategic judgment.
5. Personal-affection voting
   This is the narrowest, riskiest, and most easily abused type of voting. Favoring friends, letting emotions guide decisions, or putting personal connections above merit is common in organizations, companies, and even governments.
   Personal-affection voting can seriously damage institutions. It often lets incompetent people rise to power and rewards the wrong individuals. If too much authority is decided this way, efficiency collapses, nepotism and factional infighting take over, and organizations or states can end up as little more than empty shells.

II. Decision-making: responsibility, insight, and strategic accountability

Unlike voting, decision-making is carried out by a small group of individuals who possess strategic capability, a global perspective, and the authority to act. They weigh the results of various votes, environmental factors, and available resources to make choices and issue directives.

1. The essence of decision-making
   Decision-making is not just adding up votes or public opinion. It is about filtering information through reason and setting a clear strategic direction. Good decision-makers must have the courage to go against popular sentiment, face risks head-on, and take responsibility for the results. Exceptional decision-makers never aim to please every vote; instead, they prioritize the survival of the group and the long-term strategic goals of the organization, charting a sustainable path forward.
2. Decision-making direction
   Voting results are just reference points. Decision-makers need to weigh practical limits, potential risks, international situations, and the balance of power at home and abroad to decide the right course: which way to move, whether to attack or defend, whether to act quickly or cautiously. If the direction is wrong, all efforts can fail.
3. Purpose of decision-making
   Every decision needs a clear goal: is it meant to preserve strength or gain advantage, to balance different factions or suppress rivals? Without a clear purpose, strategy has no foundation, and execution has no direction. Most voters cannot grasp these complexities, which is why they should not be the ones making the decisions.
4. Decision implementation and presentation
   Carrying out a decision is not just blindly following orders. It means turning a complex plan into concrete steps, and coordinating its execution across different stages, regions, and groups.
   Presentation matters too. Internally, it builds confidence and stability; externally, it shows strength and determination. Both execution and presentation are essential—without either, even the smartest plan can fail.

III. The consequences of confusing voters with decision-makers

When voters and decision-makers are treated as one, several serious problems arise:
● Short-sighted opportunism: Decisions are driven by immediate public opinion, often at the expense of long-term interests.
● Emotional rule: Highly charged groups sway decisions, fueling political populism and weakening governance.
● Fragmented power: Voters representing capital, skills, values, or personal ties compete for influence, splintering authority and preventing unified action.
● Reverse selection: When personal-affection voting dominates, the incompetent rise to power while those with real strategic ability are sidelined.
History demonstrates that systems where “the public directly decides major state affairs” tend to fall into extremes or collapse from internal conflict. Examples include the Greek city-states, late Rome, the French Revolution, and some modern nations.

IV. Conclusion: the principle of division in civilized governance

Voting is for expressing opinion, while decision-making is for taking responsibility. Keeping them separate is the foundation of a stable and civilized system. Voters shape the environment and available resources, while decision-makers use strategic judgment to make the final call.
The more advanced a civilization, the more refined this division of labor becomes. Mature communities use voting to gauge public will, decision-making to set direction, execution to test results, and oversight to correct mistakes. In contrast, weak or crude systems confuse votes with decisions and treat decisions as mere bargaining, ultimately risking collapse.
May readers of this article understand the logic of sound institutions, recognize the distinction between voting and decision-making, and avoid being swept up by emotion or dragged down by mediocrity.

The true purpose of a nation is to protect basic human rights, uphold the dignity of its people, and improve their quality of life.

If a country appears powerful but its people are suffering—if there is national pride but public anxiety—then that country is just an empty shell. It may look strong on the outside, but inside it is full of deep problems.

That is why it is essential to understand the difference between “serving the state” and “serving the people.” A modern government must see serving its people as the only true source of legitimacy. Only then can a nation remain stable, fair, and truly prosperous.

I. The conflict between serving the state and serving the people

“Serving the state” usually means focusing on national goals like economic growth, military power, global influence, and national security.

“Serving the people” means protecting individual rights—fair income, stable jobs, affordable housing and healthcare, free speech, fair justice, public welfare, dignity, and political participation.

These two goals should go hand in hand. But in practice, especially in how governments use power, there are often structural conflicts:

• Resource conflict: Governments spend more on big projects or military and choose to cut public welfare spending.
• Unequal participation in decision making: National strategies are decided by a small elite; ordinary citizens have little say.
• Different values: Power wants control and unity, while people need freedom and choices.
• Unfair benefits: “National interest” often serves the rich and powerful, while citizens are left behind.

These deep conflicts are the biggest problem with “state-centered” policies—and the real threat to the people.

II. What are the risks of “state-centered” policies?

Some governments, in order to protect national image or appear strong in foreign affairs, choose to sacrifice the rights and wellbeing of their citizens. Over time, this leads to seven major risks, with consequences that are hard to ignore:

1. Collapse of social trust

Citizens lose trust in the government, the legal system, and institutions. As a result, policies lose effectiveness.

2. Widening wealth gap

Powerful capital groups take advantage of national strategies to control resources. Wealth becomes concentrated among the few, while the poor get poorer.

3. Crisis of political legitimacy

Public confidence in the government fades. People no longer believe in the system, and the state’s legitimacy begins to erode.

4. Rising social anxiety

High costs of housing, jobs, education, healthcare, and retirement create widespread stress and insecurity.

5. Rigid policymaking

Decision-making is dominated by a small elite. Without public input or checks and balances, policies become outdated and tensions build up.

6. Backlash from media control

When free speech is suppressed, public frustration grows beneath the surface, creating a false sense of peace while unrest brews underneath.

7. Decline in long-term national strength

A society without freedom and fairness loses its creativity, innovation, and energy. In the long run, the nation’s global competitiveness will suffer.

III. Core principles of a people-centered government

A truly modern government must be guided by four key principles that serve the people:

1. People’s wellbeing comes first

Government spending must first support basic needs—healthcare, education, housing, jobs, and retirement.

2. Protection of rights

The constitution must guarantee citizens’ rights to know, to speak, to participate, and to hold power accountable.

3. Transparency in public finances

Budgets, spending, and government decisions must be fully transparent. Taxpayers have the right to monitor how public funds are used.

4. Limits on state power

State power must be bound by law, used only for the public good—not for personal gain, private interest, or political inheritance.

IV. A balanced structure for national governance

To build a fair and effective system, We need three-pillar governance model with dual-level counterbalance.

V. Reforming the civil service: new standards for a modern era

A truly modern civil servant must meet the following criteria:

1. Public-first mindset: serve the interests of taxpayers, not just follow orders from above.

2. Performance-based evaluation: measured by public well-being, citizen satisfaction, and policy implementation results.

3. Lifetime accountability: retirement does not exempt one from responsibility for past actions.

4. Public reporting system: regularly report achievements and problems to citizens, and accept public questioning.

5. Separation from business interests: strict bans on collusion with capital groups; assets must be declared and transparent.

VI. A mature model of tripartite governance

In a fully modern state, governance should evolve to the following form:

• Reduced government scope: government is limited to macro coordination, national defense, foreign affairs, justice, and legislation.
• Full autonomy of social organizations: sectors like healthcare, education, academia, and community affairs are managed by self-governing bodies.
• Comprehensive citizen oversight: establish citizen assemblies, policy referendum days, and annual government satisfaction voting.
• Public budgeting under citizen control: national budgets must be approved by a citizen assembly each year.
• Transparent public projects: major national projects require open proposals, public opinion surveys, and third-party evaluations.

VII. Conclusion: serving the people is the foundation of the state

A country may appear strong, but if its people suffer, that strength is hollow and unstable.

A country may seem powerful, but without public trust, it cannot last.

The only rightful path to national governance is to build a people-centered modern system—rooted in citizen rights, focused on quality of life, guided by people-first budgeting, protected by limited and transparent power, and secured through open and participatory institutions.

Only then can a nation achieve lasting peace, public trust, and sustainable development.

To understand these two distorted educational patterns, we must go beyond blaming individual parents or schools. Instead, it is necessary to examine the deeper cultural and historical roots—particularly the long-standing authoritarian structure of Chinese civilization.

For centuries, Chinese society operated under centralized power, where a person’s fate was tightly linked to political authority. Even minor dissent could lead to bring disasters to not only the individual but their entire family. In such a high-risk environment, people developed two common survival strategies:

• The first was extreme caution—avoiding responsibility, staying silent, and never standing out. Even when faced with injustice, lies, or wrongdoing, many chose to ignore it in order to stay safe.
• The second was extreme aggression—using violence, connections, or authority to suppress others and secure personal gain. In a system where justice is weak and rules are unclear, power and force became tools for survival.

Over generations, these survival behaviors were passed down through family traditions, education systems, social norms, and public discourse. Gradually, they became deeply embedded in the cultural mindset.

As a result, from a young age, individuals are often taught one of two belief systems. Some grow up hearing messages like:

• “Mind your own business.”
• “The nail that sticks out gets hammered.”
• “Do not talk about right or wrong—just say what benefits you.”

Others grow up with messages like:

• “Whoever has the strongest fist gets to decide.” “The one in charge is always right.”
• “If you can use force, there is no need for reason.” “We cannot fight them, so we might as well submit.”
• “Power and money make you a god.” “Everything is about money.”

This is precisely the civilizational and psychological soil in which the dual personalities of cowardice-based and brutality-based education are especially likely to emerge in Eastern societies—particularly in China.

II. The vicious cycle in social ecology: how cowardice-based and brutality-based education reinforce each other

At first glance, these two types of education seem opposites—one soft, the other harsh. But in reality, they create the perfect breeding ground for each other and sustain one another.

Why is that?

Because the brutal rely on the silence of the cowardly, and the cowardly rely on the dominance of the brutal.

The cowardly dare not speak the truth, uphold justice, or resist wrongdoing, which only encourages the arrogance of the brutal. Meanwhile, the brutal use violence, connections, and power to suppress opposition, pushing ordinary people to become even more fearful.

Results:

• Good people are silenced like terrified birds, while bullies reap the benefits.
• Righteous voices quietly disappear, leaving evil to dominate the conversation.
• Integrity is mocked as foolishness and dismissed as angry rebellion.
• Violence becomes the passport, the true representative of power.

Such a systemic vicious cycle exists universally, whether in the Qing imperial court of old or in modern arenas like online public opinion, the workplace, government, and the capital market.

The worst part of this structural issue is that it gives rise to a false stability where society seems organized but is actually breaking down from within.

When wrongdoing goes unchecked, when power acts without limits, and when everyone seeks only self-preservation without responsibility, even the richest and largest societies will quickly become fragile and collapse.

III. On the civilizational level: collapse patterns of cowardice- and brutality-driven societies

Looking across the history of human civilizations—from the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Qing Dynasty, to the Soviet Union—almost every collapsed civilization follows a common pattern:

• The common people become generally fearful, unwilling to question authority or seek the truth.
• The ruling class abuses power violently, rules break down, and justice becomes impossible.
• Institutions appear normal on the surface, but morality, justice, order, and trust systems are completely shattered.
• Society is reduced to mere calculations of self-interest, lacking shared values and any pursuit of justice.

Ultimately:

• Before external enemies arrive, the system collapses from within.
• Before finances fail, public trust dissipates.
• Before external threats intensify, internal conflict destroys.

A culture of cowardice erodes the moral foundation, while a culture of brutality destroys the rule of law. Under this dual assault, even the most seemingly powerful civilizations quickly disintegrate.

Today, if this culture continues to spread unchecked in the East and exports itself through globalization to other civilizations, humanity faces a catastrophic future—a global collapse of shared values, widespread cowardice, and normalization of violence.

IV. Current reality: how is the Chinese education model harming the world?

At present, the cowardly and brutal aspects of the Chinese education model are spreading and impacting global public environments in various ways.

• Capital penetration: Large capital-driven enterprises, prioritizing profit above all else, exploit workers, monopolize resources, and evade laws. They promote a culture of pure profit-seeking, spreading across Southeast Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, driving a brutal system that values power and profit over justice.

• Social discourse dissemination: Through the internet, social media, and short video platforms, values rooted in cowardice—such as “it is none of my business,” “the less trouble, the better,” “backing down is a survival strategy,” and “standing up is foolish”—are being promoted, gradually eroding young people’s sense of responsibility and moral courage around the world.

• Cultural clashes through migration: The migration of individuals shaped by cultural norms emphasizing submission and authoritarianism introduces informal power dynamics—such as patronage networks, rule-bending practices, and non-confrontational attitudes—into liberal democratic societies, posing serious threats to institutional trust and civic order.

• Erosion of international order: Passive nations stay silent, aggressive regimes provoke. Rules lose meaning, justice becomes costly, evil becomes easier. The world sees more wrongdoing—and fewer consequences.

If this cultural virus continues to spread unchecked, global social governance will spiral out of control, public morality will fracture, and institutionalized violence will become rampant.

V. The path forward: restoring courageous character and rebuilding civilizational bottomline

What will truly save Eastern civilization—and perhaps world civilization—is not producing more clever cowards, smooth opportunists, profit-driven minds, or power worshippers. It is cultivating individuals with courage, principles, a sense of responsibility, and unshakable integrity.

That is the ultimate mission of education.

Priorities for future educational reform:

• Parents should teach children to take responsibility, not just protect themselves.
• Schools should encourage students to speak the truth, not simply say what sounds good.
• Public discourse should welcome critical questioning, not suppress opposing voices.
• Government institutions should uphold justice, not enable authoritarian power.
• The international order should hold wrongdoers accountable, not surrender through compromise.

Only in this way can we rebuild a character rooted in courage and integrity, restore the value of justice, and protect civilization from being devoured by cowardice and brutality.

Conclusion

The culture of cowardice and brutality in Eastern education (especially Chinese eduaction) is not just a problem for one region, but a growing threat to the future of global civilization.

If we do not see it clearly today, tomorrow we may face a world of broken order, widespread cynicism, growing violence, and the loss of justice.

Courage and responsibility are the foundation of a living, lasting civilization.

When people have backbone, society stays strong. When integrity is lost, civilizations fall. Let this be a wake-up call to us all.

They preach “transcending ideology and belief,” claim “we are all connected” and share a “common humanity.” With this vague, blurry moral rope that erases the line between right and wrong, they tie justice to evil, oppressors to victims, and executioners to their prey.

This is the most insidious, gentle poison in modern civilization, easily mistaken for kindness.

What is the true nature of “something deeper than belief”?

On the surface, it sounds like a call for world peace, racial reconciliation, cultural cooperation, and gender equality. But in reality, it erases moral judgment and undermines justice. It lets evil justify itself openly, repaints oppression as “cultural differences,” and grants tyranny legitimacy under the name of “social order.”

They wave the banner of humanity, blurring all evil and suffering into vague calls for “understanding,” “tolerance,” and “we are all the same.” Meanwhile, those who expose wrongdoing, resist oppression, or stand firm in their principles are labeled as “paranoid,” “extreme,” or “irrational.”

When you call out oppression, they say, “You’re too rigid—we need to move beyond ideology.”

When you stand up for justice, they tell you, “We’re all connected; there’s no need for conflict.”

When you expose evil, they shrug, “There’s no absolute evil; everyone’s just human.”

—This is the devil’s softest tune, played to lull us all to sleep.

The sixfold poison:

The approach of “transcending ideology and belief” inflicts sixfold damage on human civilization worldwide—corrupting political systems, social order, our understanding of humanity, bureaucratic structures, and public discourse:

1. The poison of politics: false legitimacy

When authoritarian regimes, exploitative powers, or oligarchic capital suppress people, strip away rights, and violate freedoms, they cloak themselves in the language of “national stability,” “social order,” and “cultural differences.”

Crackdowns become “maintaining order,” censorship becomes “preventing division,” and eliminating opposition becomes “removing social unrest.”

This gives political violence a false sense of legitimacy, allowing those in power to excuse their crimes as “just part of governing”.

2. The economic poison: entrenching class division

The global economy has long thrived on inequality and the exploitation of the working class. And whenever the oppressed begin to resist, someone would step forward to say: “Rich or poor, we are all human. We need to understand each other.”

With words like “connection,” “empathy,” and “shared humanity,” they blur the lines of class struggle, mask systemic theft, and soften the sharp edges of injustice.

In the end, the machinery of wealth extraction—class hierarchies, colonial economies, and obscene inequality—continues to run smoothly, anesthetized by the language of compassion.

3. The social poison: moral coercion disguised as virtue

In today’s global discourse, this rhetoric isolates anyone who dares to resist, speak out, or stand firm in their beliefs.

Raise your voice against injustice? You are being extreme. Expose oppression? You are being intolerant.

Under the soft but insidious weight of this emotional manipulation, society gradually loses its radical edge—its spirit of resistance and moral judgment. People begin to censor themselves, terrified of crossing invisible lines. Rebellion fades. Compliance becomes the norm.

4. The civilizational poison: losing our backbone

Great civilizations are built on the defense of core values—freedom, justice, dignity, belief, and the courage to speak out against injustice. But the logic of “transcending ideology and faith” amounts to self-castration at the level of civilization.

Instead of standing firm on principle, we are told to promote “peaceful coexistence” and “everyone has their own perspective.”

In practice, this means turning a blind eye to atrocities—as long as you stay silent, evil is no longer called evil.

Over time, humanity lose their backbone. What remains is a hollow shell: soft, compromised, and comfortably mediocre.

5. The poison to humanity: the pacification of the soul

On the level of individual consciousness, this rhetoric breeds generations who learn to numb themselves and rationalize evil.

They are taught to empathize with abusers, pity the exploiters, and forgive those in power—while treating the true defenders of justice as “dangerously extreme.”

Under this soft anesthesia of “human understanding,” human society gradually loses its ability to feel anger, resist oppression, or even recognize wrongdoing.

6. The bureaucratic poison: corruption in alliance

Within bureaucratic systems, the language of “transcending ideology” becomes the perfect excuse to suppress dissent, deflect accountability, and conceal corruption.

Every challenge is labeled “too emotional.” Every demand for justice is recast as “disruptive to stability.”

Thus, corrupt officials and enforcers of “order” form a silent pact—shielding one another while jointly harvesting power and resources under the soothing veil of moral neutrality.

Conclusion: Civilization must have a spine

Ideals may evolve, and faiths may be renewed—but they must never be abandoned, transcended, or rewritten.

True civilization is built on moral boundaries: to protect the vulnerable, to judge evil, and to uphold justice.

Anyone who claims to “transcend ideology and belief,” no matter how kind their tone or how gentle their words, is ultimately fighting to legitimize evil. They are playing the devil’s flute.

And those who applaud this narrative—who nod along with smiles and praises—should repent for their complicity, not bask in their self-satisfaction.

We may be kind, but we are not fools. We have empathy, but we do not applaud hypocrisy.

The backbone of civilization lies not in vague “connections,” but in clear moral boundaries and an uncompromising stand for justice.

1. What is a state? What is a citizen?

A state is not merely a set of borders, institutions, regimes, or ruling authorities. In its modern form, a state is a political community voluntarily formed by a group of social citizens, organized around shared interests, common security, and collective visions for the future. Citizens are the foundation and core of the state. Without genuine citizens, a state loses its legitimacy as a political community and degenerates into a mere instrument of rule and coercion.

True citizenship is not defined solely by residence or possession of national identity documents. It is defined by the exercise of political sovereignty.

Only when individuals possess political sovereignty can they become true agents within the national community—able to decide, monitor, participate in, and place checks on the operation of state power. Only then does the state become “our state,” rather than a tool monopolized by a privileged few.

2. Historical depth: the evolution of the state and sovereignty

Looking back through human political history, the earliest forms of the state emerged from tribal alliances, military conquest, and territorial rule. These early “states” were held together by force and bloodline, with individuals stripped of rights and subjects possessing no sovereignty of their own.
In the age of feudal empires and theocratic regimes, political sovereignty was concentrated entirely in the hands of monarchs, popes, nobles, and clergy. The people were treated as livestock—powerless, disposable, and voiceless.

It was not until the rise of the modern nation-state—through the Enlightenment, bourgeois revolutions, and the creation of constitutional governments—that the idea of popular sovereignty and citizen political participation began to enter state structures. The French Revolution declared that “sovereignty belongs to the people.” The U.S. Constitution established a “government of the people” and a popularly elected legislature. From this point onward, the political legitimacy of modern states began to rest on the principle of citizen sovereignty.

Yet even today, truly citizen-sovereign states remain rare. In most countries, the idea of “rule by the people” exists only in name. In practice, power is still concentrated in the hands of a few, while citizens remain passive, subordinate, and politically excluded.

Where citizens are absent, sovereignty is hollow. Where sovereignty is hollow, the state decays—and with it, civilization stalls.

3. The true meaning of political sovereignty

Political sovereignty is not a symbolic clause in the constitution, nor is it limited to occasional elections. It is the genuine right of citizens to participate meaningfully in the operation of state power, the making of public decisions, the allocation of public resources, and the design of governance structures.

This system includes:

• Decision-making power: Citizens have the right to express opinions, propose ideas, and take part in decisions on major national issues—not merely to passively accept outcomes made by others.
• Oversight power: Citizens have the right to monitor the actions of the government, judiciary, military, and public institutions, holding them accountable and preventing abuse of power.
• Recall power: Citizens have the right to remove officials who violate public interests or harm citizens’ rights.
• Participation rights: Citizens should be able to engage widely in national affairs—whether through parliaments, civic organizations, public forums, or digital platforms—across domains such as law, economy, education, welfare, and environmental policy.

If a state allows only formalistic voting but denies citizens substantive political sovereignty, then the people become mere numbers, and the state becomes an oligarchy.

4. Without sovereignty, citizenship is just a lie

In today’s world, many countries claim to be “citizen-based,” but in reality, citizenship often exists only in name. Citizens are given legal identity, but not real power. They have no sovereignty and no true role in governing the country.

They carry obligations and pay the price, but are left out of the decision-making process, becoming mere subordinates of the state.

This means:

• Public resources are neither fairly nor transparently distributed, and decisions are made behind closed doors, allowing a small elite to monopolize the benefits meant for all.
• The legal system does not always protect equality. Some people enjoy privileges, while basic rights for the majority are often ignored.
• Policies are shaped by powerful interest groups. There is no strong system to protect public interest.
• Public opinion is manipulated and citizens have no real way to speak their minds.

This creates a troubling social structure: the state promises to put citizens first, but fails to treat them as true participants in public affairs.

When sovereignty slips from the hands of the people, the state loses its power to unite hearts and minds. Social trust begins to crumble, and the foundation of civilization starts to shake. In the end, such a nation no longer belongs to all its people—it becomes the private property of a privileged few, and its decline becomes irreversible.

5. The impact of lost sovereignty on a nation’s fate

History and reality both repeatedly prove this: any nation that strips its citizens of sovereignty will eventually fall into four major crises:

1. Social fragmentation: When political power is overly concentrated and the public lacks channels for participation and oversight, social classes become rigid, and tensions between different groups cannot be resolved through institutional means. This may ultimately lead to deep division or even national disintegration.
2. Crisis of legitimacy: A government’s legitimacy depends on citizens’ trust and sense of belonging. Once people are politically marginalized, collective identity weakens, and public trust in government declines. The regime is then forced to rely on coercion to maintain order, pushing the state into a crisis of rule.
3. Collapse of public morality: When governance revolves solely around power and profit—rather than responsibility and the common good—public morality begins to erode. Core values like justice, fairness, trust, and accountability lose institutional support, leading to moral decline and social decay.
4. National decline and collapse: History shows that whether empires or modern states, once they lose the support of the people, their systems of governance break down, and their social structures weaken, they become unable to respond to internal and external challenges—ultimately falling into irreversible decline or complete collapse.

6. The only path to a civilized future

If human civilization is to continue progressing, there is only one viable path: the full establishment of a modern state system based on citizen political sovereignty. This means:

• All state power must belong to the citizens, and political authority must be derived from their consent.
• Citizens must enjoy equal, open, and ongoing rights to political participation.
• A strict system of checks, balances, and accountability must be in place to prevent the privatization of power and the formation of political oligarchies.
• Public affairs must be transparent and open, allowing citizens to express their views in real time and receive meaningful responses and feedbacks.
• A citizen-led society must be built, advancing mechanisms for local governance, industry self-regulation, and community-level consultation.

Only through such a system can a nation truly become a citizen-based state—one that is stable, just, and prosperous. Only then can civilization continue to evolve.

Conclusion

Without citizen sovereignty, there can be no true citizen state.

A nation without the political sovereignty of its citizens becomes nothing more than a regime of elites and a machine of coercion.

A society without citizen sovereignty becomes a stage of oppression, exploitation, and hollow performances.

A civilization without citizen sovereignty is destined to fall into darkness, corruption, and collapse.

The true owners of a country can only be its civic citizens—those who hold political sovereignty in their own hands. The future belongs to the citizens: those who have the courage to awaken, to participate, to claim, and to defend their sovereignty.

This is the bottom line for the existence of any nation, and the final safeguard for the future of civilization.

Not every gentle voice brings peace—some quietly lead us away from justice. People who often well-dressed and well-educated, speak sweetly about “going beyond beliefs,” “transcending oppositions,” and “celebrating our shared humanity.” They speak of how “we are all the same” and how “our shared humanity matters more than our differences.” On the surface, they seem kind, wise, even morally superior. But behind that charming smile and polished language often hides one of the most dangerous forces in modern civilization: the subtle poison that dulls our sense of justice, the devil dressed in the clothing of righteousness.

Recently, I listened to a Harvard graduate named Jiang Yurong give a speech at her commencement. It reminded me of those who, throughout history, stood beside tyrants—softening the blow of violence with talk of love and unity, helping to silence the cries of the oppressed by urging “understanding” and “tolerance.”

That is why this article must be written.

“Transcending beliefs and values”? It is moral cowardice.

Our beliefs and values are the very foundation of civilization.They are the hard-earned boundaries of right and wrong, forged through centuries of suffering, struggle, and reflection.They tell us what is just, what is unjust, what must be defended, and what must never be allowed.

To speak of “going beyond beliefs and values” is, in plain terms, to abandon moral clarity. It is to stop naming evil, to stop standing for what is right. It means letting the powerful get away with cruelty, letting the wicked commit harm, letting tyrants flourish—while still asking you to “understand them,” to “be inclusive,” and become their servant, pray and tool.

This is not tolerance. It is betrayal. This is not open-mindedness. It is a slow erosion of the soul.

The dangerous kindness that serves power

Anyone who preaches “something deeper than belief” or “moving beyond ideology” may appear to be advocating peace and compassion. But in reality, they are clearing the path for oppression and dressing power in the robes of righteousness. They weaponize language—using words like “love” and “humanity” to blur the lines between victim and perpetrator, to place justice and injustice on the same moral footing, and to wash away the crimes of power by reminding us that “everyone bleeds the same.”

Yes, we are all human, but that does not make us equal. The hunter and the prey do not stand on common ground. When “shared humanity” is used to silence the truth of oppression, it becomes a second wound to those already bleeding.

This is the darkest kind of persuasion: telling the lamb that the butcher loves it; teaching the chained to mistake rust for warmth.

Social difference goes far beyond gender and culture

Discussions of gender equality, racial equity, and cultural respect are common. But the most fundamental and violent division in society is class. It is class that determines who sets the terms, and who must submit to them. Who wields the power to decide, and who is left powerless in the outcome.

So when someone talks only of “shared humanity,” “empathy,” or “transcending ideology” without addressing class, they are tying the oppressed and the oppressor together with the same moral rope. For the powerful, it is a performance of mercy. For the powerless, it is a death sentence.

They say, “We are all connected.” Well, I once said the same thing to a turkey on Thanksgiving.
The turkey did not quite grasp the beauty of that connection—but in today’s world, many of the hunted are smiling through the slaughter.

The devil’s flute

The call to “transcend ideology and belief” is nothing more than a flute in the devil’s hand. It plays a sweet, seductive tune—one that lulls people into thinking there is no real evil in the world, that everything can be solved through dialogue, connection, and reconciliation.

But once you put down your convictions—your beliefs, your principles—you also lower your guard. You lose your ability to judge, to resist, to draw lines. In the end, you become part of a compliant crowd: easy to control, easy to consume—grateful, even, to be served as someone else’s feast.

Conclusion

Ideas can evolve, and faith can grow deeper. But they must never be erased, abandoned, or overrided. They are the anchor of civilization, the sword of justice, and the dignity of humanity.

Those who speak of “moving beyond ideology and belief,” no matter how gentle their tone or how innocent their face, are fighting for the devil’s right to define justice. We can be kind, but we will not be fools. We have empathy, but we will not applaud hypocrisy.

Remember—some voices may sound warm and gentle, but they are nothing more than the executioner’s decree, disguised in the costume of compassion.