Elaboration 3

What, now, is the difference between a mondial sociologist and other sociologists? The difference is not one of degree, but one of kind. Today's (1985) sociologists like to work exactly as the physical scientist, thereby overlooking the fundamental difference (in kind, not in degree) between life and the inanimate. They, then, describe socio as 'how it is' not 'how it would better be'. This is why science fiction, can be so important for the study in sociology. The serious sort, fantasize expertly how things could be. In physics, it is meaningless to study e.g. gravitation laws, or gas behaviour, as we would like them to be. In a sociology, however, the same limitation is fatal, and cannot master the problem of man extinguishing all life on the planet. For this, contra-physically, we must study how it would better be. We should not only study things as they are, history in other words, but futures. A future leading to disaster, and a future leading to a safe and happy existence. Wells, in his Outline of History (and Holy Terror, Joan, World Set Free, The Work, Outlook, etc.), shows this clearly. He shows how things were, how things could better have been, how things should be in future in order to avoid disaster. His study, naturally, forced him into realizing that all big problems are mondial problems, that hence, only a mondial way of thinking, a mondial sort of solution was necessary. The difference with other sociologists and historians is precisely this. They are nationalist in everyday-life AND in their studies, theories, publications etc. (One shudders at the thought of them becoming socialist too, the combination of national socialism being some- what bestial). This then leads to false notions of internationalisms, of international agreements, co-operations that are per se impossible and so on. They try the impossible in science. Wells realized the possibilities, that are ever so much needed, i.e. a mondial integrate (versus an international agreement). Wells, so much is clear, cannot be missed in a proper sociology, a sociology that tells how things should be, and how this could be achieved, nor could Schwarzschild, Spencer, Malthus and others. Wells, the only one who was scientific enough to remind us that NO Utopia is of any help UNLESS it is one on a mondial organisatory scale, (see: 'Modern Utopia') also implies that Utopia's can, as sc. fic. be very helpful in working out how things should and could be. The man of science immediately asks whether the story is just one of those islands 'as if' there is nobody else on Earth. But Wells remained a unionist (instead of integrationist) and a democratist. He therefore makes mistakes with regard to the Rights & Duties of man. In his 'Phoenix' he chooses the wrong part of Mill's paradox. Indigestible to integrationists, he holds that every man has a right to the utmost freedom of expression, discussion, association and worship (Sankey Declaration). It was how the Nazis came to power, it was how e.g. a Ku Klux Klan cannot be forbidden, how there still is a monkey war going on between 'creationists' allowed to teach superstition, and 'evolutionists' wanting to teach a likely scientific concept, it is why religious shots and bombs are still fired in anger all over the world.