At the beginning of the 21st century, humanity possesses sufficient knowledge to bring this seemingly endless cycle to completion. But who is in a position to set the process in motion?

 It is inherent in the nature of things that there is no established procedure for a previously unprecedented possibility. Moreover, the examination of such questions often falls neither clearly within the competence nor the responsibility of any single individual or institution. Nor is there any immediate practical necessity to address them. Should we therefore allow this process - which is not really a game at all - to continue for several more generations? It is not an easy decision.

  Current scientific and institutional structures may make it difficult to address such questions in a timely manner. Perhaps the next generation will have to take up the challenge. Had Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton not possessed the courage to publish discoveries that contradicted the prevailing worldview of their time, we might still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Likewise, the development of humankind would hardly have been conceivable if our evolutionary ancestors had not constantly questioned their ancestral foundations of life. If they had lacked the courage to climb down from the trees, we might still be living in them today.

  Max Planck, a physicist and Nobel laureate, later described an experience from his scientific career with the following words: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." 

  This behavior is rather peculiar. Among bricklayers, painters, and tile setters this is not the case. There, sound findings are put into practice within a reasonable amount of time. Such behavior is also unthinkable in municipal waste collection. New findings regarding urban waste management aren’t held back until the current generation of garbage collectors has passed away. Why does it seem easier in many fields outside science to question established ways of thinking and, where appropriate, implement new findings? If even Max Planck had to experience this during his own scientific career, the question arises as to whether, in certain areas, institutional frameworks prevent fundamentally new findings from being examined in a timely manner, to the detriment of individual scientists.

   However it happens – one way or another – the sun will rise eventually. If not during this generation, then perhaps with the next.  

     Why is there actually something and not just nothing?

  This question is the oldest and most fundamental question that has ever existed. To answer this question, you have to start from the very beginning. The very beginning is where the question no longer arises: "What was there before?" ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is the only term that no longer raises the question: "What was there before?"
   Absolutely nothing has never existed, because if there had ever been absolutely nothing, it would have always stayed that way. Because in absolute nothingness there would of course have been no possibility that this state would ever change, because even the slightest possibility would have been more than absolutely nothing. SOMETHING has therefore always been there, because if this SOMETHING had come into being, there would have been absolutely (without exception) nothing before its creation and it would have always stayed that way.

   However, why hasn't there been nothing without exception  and why did it not remain so?