text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?/Why Choose Life's Possible Endpoint?

Although life’s imagined omnipotent climax is nothing more than a possible, perhaps probable, conclusion to evolution, it does seem to be our best choice of meta-purpose, the one that would then be used to guide the written definition of a universal purpose. Nothing else so focuses our attention upon ensuring that life (which includes us) has a future. When we select and use this meta-purpose we are forced to pay attention to the health of our planet, and our survival chances increase (to say nothing of the quality of life we live). No other purpose so aptly points out the criteria we need to use when making moral decisions (see ../../Determining Moral Behaviours/ for illustrative examples) both today and in the future.

However, there is another, and, at first sight, strong, meta-purpose contender that has not yet been mentioned. In recent years, the idea of zero growth or sustainable development has been much debated. It would be quite possible to select this as our meta-purpose, and make moral decisions guided by the need to maintain the planetary status quo. It would be quite possible, but it would be an appalling choice.

In a zero-growth state, production levels just balance requirement levels. All life would exist in peaceful equilibrium, as some seem to believe was once the case. However, such a state never existed. Life has always exploited its environment for resources, and life forms that do not continuously attempt to take all possible advantages will be overtaken by others that do. Stagnant life does not survive.

A two-way disruptive process featuring life and its environment operates continuously. Environmental changes precipitate evolutionary changes, and life’s evolution disrupts its environment, particularly the number and kind of other life forms that live in the vicinity. In the past, life-effected disruptions were minor and local in scale; today, due principally to population and technology, they are not. We notice environmental degradation now due to its extent and magnitude. It is pervasive and escalating, because we have just about shut down or eliminated many of life’s formerly capacious buffering biomes, but also because we are running out of planet to exploit. This last factor, were we to adopt a zero growth rate, would soon create serious psychological consequences.

Mankind has not yet absorbed the fact that there is almost nowhere else on Earth to go. This planet has always provided new and interesting territory for humans to discover, explore and exploit. The open space and natural wealth found as our reach expanded provided avenues of escape for the oppressed and a challenge for the restless. This, in turn, helped to maintain the political and social stability of the countries left behind, and enabled the population explosion that has been our constant companion for the past three centuries. But we have reached our territorial limit. Today, only the oceans and space itself remain unexplored.

Psychologically we have not fully realized what this means. Subconsciously (particularly in the West), we still expect that limitless expansion—moving on, growing, and building a place of our own—will always be the intrinsic state of affairs. Life has been able to expand upon this planet, in one manner or another, for the past four billion years. Room to roam and exploit has always been at hand for all who so desired. It was always thus—but is so no longer. And, when we eventually have no place to walk that has not been trod before, have only food that has been artificially modified in some manner, have instant but sanitized and censored news and ideas, and have only vacations that are virtual, or made of fibreglass and plastic, how then will we feel?

I think that I would feel I was approaching the end of all that was good in life. I would begin to think about the end of the world and about death, for, in an entirely controlled world that was going nowhere, I would see no future and no hope. Indeed, this is just how things do begin to appear for many of us, in our final years. When there seems to be nothing new to put your hand or mind to, one becomes suddenly very old. And this is likely to be how the population of a zero-growth world would feel, once it is realized that the planet has been ravished and the opportune time to expand into space was missed.

Expansion is necessary for life’s continued development—even expansion into space, throughout our galaxy and into others beyond. Yet life on this planet may have only the needed resources and psychological energy for one shot. It would dishonour all that life has accomplished to throw this opportunity away.

There is another aspect to this discussion about the viability of a zero-growth future. Evolutionary change occurs only when possible and advantageous: when niches open up, when food supplies vary, or when a mutation confers a bonus. If niches never alter, change brings penalty, not reward. If we choose zero growth, if we immobilize our niche, we will cease evolving. Without challenge, we do not advance. H. sapiens will regress and degenerate into obscurity.

There is only one direction to go, and that is forward. Returning to past views returns us to wars about beliefs, and ignores or debases scientific truth. Standing still amounts to slow death. We must go forward. Forward, eventually into space, amassing knowledge, understanding, and gaining an ever greater ability to control as we go.

As I have written earlier, there seems only one logical consequence to going forward forever. Life eventually, surely, must become an entity possessing omnipotent capabilities—oB. If this is so, or indeed, even if this is just a possibility, then why not adopt this endpoint as a surrogate “meta-purpose,” use it to define a robust “universal purpose,” then make collective moral decisions aimed at achieving that purpose? What better choice could we possibly make?

 * Return to Why Bother?, Introduction
 * ../Why Do Anything?/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?/Why Do Anything?

Why bother to do anything, when life will continue no matter what we do, and when, anyway, life may be ultimately purposeless and meaningless? These, indeed, are compelling questions.

If we take the short-term view, say for the next one hundred years or so, then, exactly, why bother? Why not just enjoy ourselves? Who cares what happens to life after we and our immediate descendants have gone? Does it matter that the world’s quality of life will deteriorate as resources run out and pollutants pile up—people will get used to it and will know no better. If all that really matters is we who are living right here and now, then, certainly, why bother? I suppose that narcissists, despotic and repressive dictators, psychopaths, and perhaps a few others may think this way. But I’m certain that you do not, for you would not have read what I have written so far were this the case. We must bother, because we care, and the majority of the world’s population also cares about others and the future they will have. Proof exists everywhere: thousands of schools, libraries, parks, museums, art galleries, specialty hospitals, and institutions throughout the world, owe their origin to individuals who cared, and their continuance to others who still care. Millions of individuals dedicate their time, energy and resources to help others less fortunate. Caring about and for others is part of the human condition.

The choice of meta-purpose and definition of a universal purpose must not be left to our various levels of government. Those who govern are seldom inclined to look more than five or ten years ahead—we need to think in terms of five or ten hundred years and more. Surely it is aggregated actions of individuals, not governments, that instigate enduring change.

However, it is important that the choice of meta-purpose not be left to any single individual—it must be a collective judgment. Consider inaction once more, but from this perspective. Let’s say that we do nothing, that we ignore the eventual need for a universal, integrating, fact-based religion. Almost certainly, some visionary will see the need and will come forth to lead us into a new (or back into an old) world-correcting religion. Many scenarios are possible, of course, but, to me, none seem attractive, for in all of them we would be lead by a single mind, and relinquish our freedom to choose. No matter how pleasant our existence might become, no matter how benign or how benevolent such a person might be, it would be their personal bias, their mental construct, we would be following. Effectively, life would just be putting in time until that person’s conception was overtaken by events or facts and required rewriting, just as may now be happening with our old religions. We would merely be swapping existing imaginings for a new set, repeating history (possibly even locked into a never-ending cycle), with humanity slowly decaying under its load of competing faiths and goals.

It is for this precise reason that the impartial facts must show us the way, not one individual’s emotional constructs. Let a multitude work together to interpret the known universal facts, then collectively design a morality that fits both reality and human needs—one that can be up-dated as new knowledge dictates. (But more about how this might be done later.)

Again, we could do nothing, and just aim to enjoy ourselves. And, why not? Isn’t this, more or less, the way many of us already live? Does it even matter—for in the long run the human species will certainly be replaced by another, just as has happened with other species so many times in the past.

Yes, certainly, humans will eventually be overtaken by, or evolve into, other species. So, in the longer run of things, why should it matter what we do today? Is there significance to anything we do? If not, why should we exert ourselves?

We must make this effort because, within the past quarter-million years or so, life has attained the ability to build upon the intellectual gains of the past. This development is extremely valuable, and to simply throw it away would be an enormous setback to life. Previously, life’s evolutionary masterpieces left little more than decaying matter and a minuscule amount of knowledge for future species to utilize. This is no longer the case. Humans now leave records of their errors and achievements that others can use and benefit from. Our knowledge and understanding, often almost in its entirety, is passed on to the future. We must care about what purpose we select to guide our moral and practical decision making, because the lives of our descendants will be affected by how we behave as we follow our choices. We must not sit back and let unreasonable fundamentalists or irrational fanatics set our path, for they often destroy records of the past in trying to ensure the future of their fantasies. We cannot risk having our hard-won knowledge destroyed, as we now have so much to contribute.

Let me describe what I think we present-day humans have to contribute to the future. I might best do so by discussing three time periods: the near term, the middle term, and the ultimate.

As we begin this new century we bring with us more than two millennia of religious conflict. This discord exists at the personal level, where, in many minds, fears of afterlife “penalties” battle with hopes of an everlasting reward. And it exists at the community level, wherever the Catholic vs. Protestant, Christian vs. Muslim vs. Hindu, and all the other religion-based conflicts, occur, in so many places around the world. If we do not attempt to unite differences under a collective universal purpose, this situation is bound to continue. But if we choose a new purpose that looks forwards instead of continually backwards, there is a chance that these conflicts may eventually die out. What is preferable to pass to our successors: fears, bitterness and outdated notions from the past; or consideration, vision and reality-based hope for the future? The best short-term contribution we could possibly make would be to revise our view of what is important in life. We bequeath a disturbing legacy to our children if their only choices to satisfy their need for a religion are those that rule by fear and ferment discord. We must offer an alternative—one that might be developed if a suitable collective meta-purpose were first adopted. In my view, this would be the best short-term contribution we could make to humanity’s path forward.

To appreciate the possible value of the middle-term contribution I will be suggesting, we must project into the future. Eventually, although perhaps not for several hundred years, we will encounter intelligent life elsewhere. This may be via electromagnetic radiation of some frequency, such as radio waves, light waves or the like. Perhaps this will occur by way of interacting space probes, or through quantum space tunnelling. Or, maybe we will develop something like telepathy, if ever such a transmission mode is uncovered. However it occurs, when we do interact with an intelligent alien species what will matter most in what we communicate will be our identity, not our knowledge, because they will more than likely possess at least our level of understanding about the universe. As part of assessing our merits, what will likely be of most interest to exospecies will be who we are, what we think about ourselves, and what is important to us. To convey that we periodically take up arms and kill each other, that we routinely destroy our own habitats, that we have not supported the continuance of other species—these attributes should disgrace us, not to mention alarm those we communicate with. But to also reveal that the majority of us fear death while nevertheless believing that after death we assume a loving relationship with the “Creator” after destroying what He has created—what kind of fallacious thinking is this? (I am glad that I will not be here to witness us tell aliens this, for I would be so ashamed of our human condition.) I would not blame any sentient being for immediately terminating contact with entities advocating such beliefs and actions.

But to convey that we think, or even believe, that life, everywhere, is embarked on a journey of discovery; that it will learn and grow in ability as it voyages; that it will unite in learning with other sentient beings along the way and eventually coalesce into one entity that possesses “god-like” abilities—would be wonderful. Were I in their shoes, I would want to learn from a civilization with such concepts, for their convictions accept and embrace me, as well as all of life. Indeed, a universal belief such as this could well be our most valuable medium-term contribution to life’s future.

Our possible long-term gift may be to contribute to the way this universe ends. Let me elaborate.

I fantasize about life’s potential behaviour as it approaches an omnipotent state. This may take place in several locations throughout the universe at more or less the same time, or it may happen only once, in some well-favoured locale. I ask myself what such an entity would do next. All its history has been spent acquiring knowledge and learning how to control matter and events, but this magnificent endeavour would be reaching an end. Presumably, it would have long since sought and found other pockets of advanced life, then merged and consolidated knowledge and abilities. Presumably too, if there were other such beings, all would unite to form one “oB” for the same reason. Eventually, there would be nothing new to learn, nothing which hadn’t been experienced at least once, or couldn’t be experienced if considered worth the effort.

And ultimately, this being would be all alone. After maybe thousands or millions of millennia spent learning from, being with, and perhaps uniting with a multitude of other complex life forms, there will be none of equal capabilities remaining in the universe. In effect, oB will have consolidated all knowledge and experience into its own being. It will have no mental companions and few challenges left to surmount. What might such an entity do?

Moreover, time within the universe may be coming to an end for life. There may be very few energy differences remaining to exploit, as expansion and entropy take their toll on all that is physical, or as the universe collapses into a terminating singularity. And this entity’s abilities will be retained only as long as there remain energy differences that can be exploited and put to use, for even it must obey the laws of physics and the demands of its supersystem, the universe.

Surely, as the sole and complete repository of all that is to be learned from within the universe, oB wouldn’t just wither and expire. I find that very hard to imagine. But, there might be one last endeavour that it might undertake, some deed that would represent a fitting end for a being of such capability. Conceivably, oB could perhaps arrange matters so that the universe would rebound and restart, creating a new one from the old. Such a scenario might just be possible. Knowing all there is to know might point to a way that this could be done. A complete fantasy to us, yes, but to it? We do not know enough to judge.

The additional challenge for oB then, would be to see if it could somehow improve upon the past universe, perhaps slightly modifying one or more parameters, so making it possible for life in the subsequent universe to develop in new ways.

This, to me, is a very attractive thought. It opens the possibility of life being truly without end. In this fantasy, life effectively hibernates at the end of each universe, its existence to be reconstructed in the next. Each successive universe is given its initiating parameters in the final act of the oB of the universe past. In this way, we might have an endless, continually varying succession of life-bearing universes. Reincarnations without end.

Indeed, if this is what might come to be in the far, far distant future of this universe, then it follows that it could also have happened in the past, before time in this universe began. What can happen endlessly in the future can also have happened countless times in the past; an infinity of times in one direction necessitates an infinity of times in the other. And (but, I think, only in a context such as this), we could then even say that a god did create this universe. A god of the universe past, formed from the life that evolved in that earlier universe, itself created by the succession of gods of prior universes, without beginning or end. Who knows; perhaps this past god did implant the conditions necessary and sufficient for life to form, when it structured the laws of physics that we are beginning to understand and utilize today. That the exact parameters necessary for life to arise and evolve within the universe were built into the universe at its beginnings has been postulated by many authors. Perhaps the most significant contribution to this discussion has been made by Barrow and Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. They maintain that a life-giving factor had to have been designed into the origins of the universe. Their rationale is that none of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics can be altered without resulting in a universe that could not support life.

This theory, of course, has been countered. The most significant rebuttal contends that this universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes, each somewhat different from the other. Those that provide conditions that allow life to exist, eventually develop life; those that do not, do not. By definition, we must exist within a life-developing universe, and the fact that its parameters cannot be changed without making it unable to support life proves nothing. Martin Rees has written an interesting and relatively short book that explores the significance of these universal constants, and prefers this latter explanation of our existence. (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe [New York: Basic Books, 2000].) Superstring theory (see ../../Gödel’s Theorem, General Systems Theory, and The Conservation Laws/) actually predicts the existence of an infinite number of universes.

Barrow and Tipler conclude that we must be the only intelligent life to exist (which might be inferred from the title they chose for their publication). This is an unlikely possibility in most scientists’ view, given the vast number of planets that must exist. Toward the end of their book Barrow and Tipler argue that, once begun, life must continue to evolve until it has “regulated” everything within all possible universes (pages 675 and 677). I agree, as the similar conclusion formed in this book indicates.

In this scenario, if we need to give praise to anything, it would have to be to the life within universes past that created the universe present. And future life, in future universes, would be indebted to the final life form that evolves within this universe. Formed, perhaps, with a contribution from us—if we survive to contribute—for this is where we might provide our long-term contribution.

In the very long run, millions or even billions of years ahead, what we have to contribute, I think, is our emotional perceptions of life’s significance. We don’t have to contribute our rationality, or our knowledge and understanding, because life forms everywhere will evolve toward intelligence, and will uncover exactly the same facts about life and the universe as we are discovering. The universe is everywhere governed by the same physical laws, and any conscious life, anywhere in the universe, should eventually be able to discover its properties and underlying controlling forces. However, humankind’s emotional outlook is unique to our species, and much of it is fleeting.

What might perhaps become our long term contribution is sometimes called our “spirituality” or our humanity. We feel it when we look at the stars, when we are alone by the sea, or in a quiet forest clearing. A wonder, an awe, a sense of beauty or mystery, a feeling of immense peace and oneness. We sense it, but it is very difficult to convey to others because words are defined by personal memories—individual mental constructs and their meanings reside only in individual minds. However, these very emotions may be what is important to contribute to life’s evolution in the long run.

We can’t precisely contribute these feelings by words, paintings or sculptures; such items are culture-bound and contain nuances that could never be fully comprehended many, many, millennia into the future. But we may be able to contribute our emotions through our music. The music of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, and of so very many more wonderful composers come to mind. Their symphonies, concertos, requiems, sonatas, masses, love-songs, blues and jazz—all convey something of the essence of what it is to be human. Just possibly, morsels of music might survive passage through the ages, a million or more millennia, and contribute a little of what it has meant to be human toward the final shaping of that which life will become and may do.

But exactly what difference would any of this make, in the very long run?

One last dream. Maybe, just maybe, perhaps through music, perhaps by some other means, the essence of our humanity, what we feel about life, now, in these still early stages of life’s intellectual journey, will be conveyed through time and make its way into the thoughts of oB, the god-like entity that life may become. Maybe our contribution will demonstrate how we feel about this marvellous life we live. Maybe our emotions today will affect oB’s outlook at time’s end.

And, maybe, just maybe, this is where we have most to offer. Maybe our feelings of happiness in simply being alive will influence the way oB designs the parameters that control life’s evolution in the next universe, if it were to take that last, final, step. For instance, oB might make a change that could allow all future life to know more frequently the joy in living that today most of us only intermittently feel. To enrich the design of that which follows—what a contribution to make! To participate in creating a new beginning! That act alone adds purpose and meaning to each speck of life that has ever lived.

But, to make such a contribution, we must survive. And, we must make efforts to sustain our feelings of joy and spirituality, by living in expectant anticipation of the future. We must cease living in fear, mired in ideas from the past, as many of us seem to be today.

 * Return to Why Bother?, Introduction
 * ../Summary/

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?/Summary

So, why bother? Because the media and globalization—if nothing else —is forcing us to improve the way we think and act. Because we cannot continue indefinitely arguing and fighting among ourselves. What better time to stop and think about all we have endured, experienced and learned during these past millennia than now—now, at the beginning of a new millennium, and before we travel too far in the wrong direction. Now, now that we realize just how completely our minds shape all of our thoughts and actions. Consider our new-found abilities—what might not be possible in just a few years? Our future can be wonderful, exciting and long, or it could be frightening, aimless and uncertain. The difference is simply a matter of taking the time to think, choosing a sensible direction to follow, and planning a path forward. We have gained the ability to think rationally. We have cultivated the intellect to discover the properties of matter and energy that open so many opportunities to us. And we are developing the technology that will allow us to colonize the planets, one that may later take us to the stars. The power and ability to control being unleashed by our increasing understanding appears to be unlimited. The choice of future is ours, and we are being asked to make it now. We can do nothing, and humanity may wither and die. Or we can unite in purpose and action, and humanity may flourish in ways it never has before.

 * Return to Why Bother?, Introduction
 * Possible Applications, Introduction


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications

This chapter turns from conceptions to reality, and looks at some current global situations which might be improved were humanity to focus upon its collective future much more often than is the case today.

There are three factors related to purpose which are critical to the success of any organization’s endeavour—whether it is a corner store or an international conglomerate, and whether its aims are to make money, obtain power or preserve peace. These factors are vision, clarity and commitment.

Vision is important because visions, not purposes, excite efforts to succeed. It is the vision the preacher paints that holds our attention, not the bare statement that heaven, or hell, awaits. It is the vision of living in luxury and leisure that attracts many, not the target of amassing a million dollars. Visions are vastly more compelling than statements of purpose, but both are required when deciding how to act to solve problems . Clarity of purpose is important because clarity determines how well subordinate goals can be defined and prioritized, and how well actions can be planned, resourced, carried out and evaluated. But commitment is most important of all, for no effort succeeds if those involved lack the desire for success. These three factors are also collectively important, because together they help to foster unity of mind, thought and effort. Not a carbon-copy identical-ness or single-mindedness, but a common desire to attain a common goal, where individuals each play their part in their own way.

The possible applications discussed in this chapter thus call for these three components. The “vision” stems from adopting the idea of supporting Life’s journey to become oB as our meta-purpose; this provides the visionary power to surmount any distracting lesser purposes. “Clarity” stems from translating the meaning of this concept into a robust statement of “universal purpose,” a definition that allows practical actions to be planned and undertaken. And “commitment” will likely stem from involving many throughout the world in defining both of these concepts. (This third step is a fairly straight-forward [although lengthy and complex] procedure, and need not be discussed until later in the book.)

The possible applications of a universal purpose are many, but only a few will be raised here. The first issue below discusses how world problems are currently managed, and attempts to show in general terms why “purpose” is key to success. Subsequent examples are provided to illustrate the range and scope of our vision’s unifying possibility. It is by no means certain that adopting a universal purpose, in an attempt to develop unity of desire and action, would change much in any of the situations presented below. Many of the issues are so large, and involve so many people, that any kind of change (particularly one of the magnitude and pervasiveness being suggested here) will require multiple years to take effect. But please do not dismiss the idea as naïve, simplistic or Pollyanna-ish before asking yourself whether what is being suggested offers any possibility for improvement over our present state of affairs. If we grant that commitment to a clear purpose has critical organizing value and much to do with organizational success, then we are ready to examine some possible applications.

 * 1) /World Problems/
 * 2) /Exploitive Excesses/
 * 3) /Globalization/
 * 4) /Genetics/
 * /Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications/World Problems

Large scale problems exist throughout the world. A few words can readily bring some to mind: famine, diseases, polluted water and air, drought, climate change, deforestation, resource depletion, species extinctions, soil loss, wars, genocide, corruption, social and economic disparities—once begun the list may run for pages. Lumped all together they are immensely depressing. Many seem irresolvable—how can we even hope to improve such situations?

It’s not that efforts haven’t been made. We have addressed these issues as nations by setting up international organizations. The United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, G8, UNESCO, NATO, OECD, and numerous other international bodies, are all intended to support, improve and preserve what the concerned influential regard as important.

Consider just one institution, the United Nations. Its website (http://www.un.org) illustrates the scope of its activities. At the time of writing, the UN site linked to the following sub-sites: Peace and Security (which stated that there were over 750,000 military and civilian personnel participating in some seventeen peace-keeping operations); Economic and Social Development (which linked to Environment, Population, Trade and Sustainable Development); Human Rights; and Humanitarian Affairs. From just one of these sub-sites (Environment) there were links to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, Acid Rain, Hazardous Wastes and Chemicals, Biological Diversity, Fish and Marine Resources, Marine Pollution, Desertification, Forests, and Fresh Water. Within another (Population), data were presented that traces the world’s population from 300 million two millennia ago, doubling to 600 million three centuries ago, increasing tenfold to six billion today, and predicting a fifty percent increase—to hit nine billion—within the next two generations. Where will all these people live? Not in my backyard, you say? It is easy to view others outside of our immediate community as potential poachers, likely to take what we do not actively defend. We exhibit this kind of thought pattern when we erect trade barriers, restrict immigration, perpetuate or tolerate racial hatred, amass excessive wealth, or mouth obscenities in road-rage. As the world’s population increases, we can expect this behaviour to increase in frequency and degree, because life acts in this manner when its survival is threatened. If such behaviour is already happening, it is not too hard to predict how another two or three billion people will affect the quality of life for all, no matter where this increased number of people live.

We have also tackled these matters on a somewhat less formal scale. There are hundreds of Not-For-Profit and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), staffed by paid and voluntary workers. The World Health Organization alone, for instance, lists close to two hundred NGOs whose activities are related to health. There are countless others to be located via the web. Their sites typically outline their concerns, what has been accomplished, and what remains to be achieved.

And we have also sought solutions as concerned communities. There must be thousands of small groups: churches, schools, colleges, clubs, associations and modest organizations, all striving to address issues of importance to them. Yet, even with all of this work being carried out, the overall number and magnitude of major world problems never seems to diminish.

Some problems are quickly solved, of course. Small groups, particularly, often make an immediate difference. Eyeglasses are delivered and fitted, a school is built, a well dug, water pipes laid, land irrigated, wind generators erected, hospitals staffed and supplied. Many beneficial results have been achieved.

Mid-sized organizations may not be able to act as promptly as smaller ones; however, money, tents, equipment, medical aid and food supplies usually do reach those in need, once the frequent obstacles (of a political, financial, religious and, all-too-often, military nature) are overcome.

It is the large scale institutions and interventions that seem so often to be ineffectual—neutered during conception, continually delayed, and acting too late. (The United Nations actually apologized not long ago, acknowledging that its lack of swift action had permitted the slaughter of over half a million people in Rwanda.)

There is something to be learned from a comparison of these results.

Large international governmental organizations become unable to carry out their mandate whenever national interests are allowed to overrule collective good. Representatives of different nations all too often seek results that favour national, rather than global, interests, and this then obstructs unreserved agreement upon a common objective. Speeches are used to obfuscate, delay or prevent, rather than as means to consolidate, collaborate and obtain action. When something is achieved, it is, too frequently, too little and too late. This is irresponsible behaviour on the part of the organization’s members. Loyalty to their own national interests causes them to act irresponsibly with respect to the aims of the global organization, and to their own purported reason for participating in that organization.

Smaller organizations, associations and groups generally succeed perhaps because they are able to work more effectively than more expansive ones. More compact groups are not too large to consult local authorities, to collaborate and jointly build a vision of some desirable outcome, and to use the know-how and skills of both giving and receiving groups to solve problems and so obtain success. They use, perhaps unwittingly, techniques that every successful enterprise, small or large, uses. They try to involve as many stakeholders as possible in their attempts to improve the situation, and they collectively find ways to overcome or neutralize subsidiary purposes that might distract or confuse by focusing upon achieving their mutual, overriding, purpose. This is responsible behaviour: responsible to those who support and fund their efforts, to the jointly built ideal, and to those who will ultimately benefit from their actions. Collectively building, holding and valuing a clear vision of the desired result, in my opinion, accounts for much of the success achieved by participants in small-scale endeavours.

Of course, visions of an improved future can also be effective on broader scales, and have been used to unite international interests in the past. When England and her allies were battling the Nazis and Fascism in World War II, indecision and bickering between and among the various leaders likely occurred on numerous occasions and at many levels, but these distractions must have been surmounted. The Allies’ conviction that they were fighting to maintain a civilized society provided a common vision, which would have given all involved the same purpose. It was the common goal that united, providing an integrative reason to ignore parochial differences.

One last point on the topic of obtaining success in large and small organizations. There are many instances of leaders turning dying organizations into successes. A common factor in all such turnarounds is that the leaders were attempting to achieve some sort of vision—their vision of how the organization might be improved. The vision, of course, was used to define one or more practical statements of purpose, which were then used to determine intermediate goals, plan activities, motivate, measure successes, etc. Accomplishments such as these suggest that organizations (of any size, international as well as local) benefit from being guided by a consolidating vision.

 * Return to Possible Applications, Introduction
 * ../Exploitive Excesses/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications/Exploitive Excesses

../../Life And Exploiting/ pointed out that living entails (and is inseparable from) exploiting the environment for resources. Exploiting therefore, at its roots, is constructive. Indeed, the exploitive ability of the creative has improved the quality of life for billions. We should never fear our exploitive nature, but we must manage its excesses.

Over the centuries, we have developed different techniques to curtail humanity’s exploitive excesses, each practice yielding an increased measure of civilization as it took effect. For example, in religious doctrine we command ourselves to love one another and covet not. Progressive nations separate the Church’s power over the mind from the State’s power over the body, to limit the damage that both acting together might do. In the Magna Carta, we placed limits on what a king might bring about. In democratically run countries we expect opposition parties to uncover and expose dishonesty and exorbitance in those we elect to govern. We value freedom of the press for a similar reason. We try to ensure that competition exists in free markets, because monopolies act to satisfy themselves before satisfying their clientele. We develop and enact laws that constrain the ability of individuals or organizations to excessively exploit others or the world’s resources. We set up courts, build prisons, and enforce contracts. Stockholders and legislators hold meetings and hear from auditors. Most definitely, we have learned that humanity’s ever-present inclination to over-exploit must be controlled, and we have developed specific means by which to do so.

Unfortunately, the world has grown into the idea that the most expedient way for one nation to behave toward another is to “live and let live.” Collectively, nations have come to regard other nations as families regard other families who live in separate houses: we avoid meddling in their internal affairs. Even in extreme situations, when excessive exploitation is not being contained and one country, for example, declares war on another, those outside the war zone usually sit on the sidelines and observe, hoping the conflict will be settled without their involvement.

This “hands off” outlook primarily developed because, in the past, the world was large, and distant wars were often little more than topics of detached discussions. However, this is not the case today. Globalization is making the world’s conflicts everyone’s conflicts.

This view that nations should not intervene in the affairs of other nations is slowly changing. We are coming to hold that ethical atrocities (particularly genocide) must be opposed, even when they occur within the boundaries of another nation. We act (although usually not soon enough) if world opinion seems to support an intervention. Presumably this is because such immoral activity, if unopposed, would affect how we view ourselves, and devalue our concept of who we are and what we believe in. We feel a kind of moral obligation to do something, but can’t clearly state why this is so, or what is right for us to do. The universal rationale needed to justify intervention is missing, weak, or unclear.

Section one of this chapter referred to some of the world’s major problems, and to the impression that so many seem to be beyond humanity’s power to prevent. International organizations like the UN are frequently rendered powerless because membership nations lack the moral authority and supporting wherewithal to require other nations to behave responsibly, as various recent (or current) issues relating to countries such as Rwanda, Iraq and North Korea demonstrate.

It is not impossible to influence the internal behaviour of organizations or individuals within any one nation from outside that nation. The clearest evidence of this is the European Union, where Common Market Standards have been developed that constrain a wide variety of activities in member nations. But other examples abound—Interpol and the International Criminal Court being obvious ones. The key to success for any such endeavour is a willingness to participate, brought about by the recognition that participation offers benefits that outweigh the costs.

The means of curbing exploitive excesses within the boundaries of any one nation noted in the second paragraph of this section were originally developed, directly or indirectly, from that society’s collective beliefs in what was “right” and “wrong” behaviour. Frequently, this authority stemmed from ideals espoused by the nation’s major religion. But, globally, humanity holds no common religious ideal. A first step in this direction might be the formation of an organization to explore the possible benefits of developing a meta-purpose and defining its specific meaning. Widening the support for such a purpose might become a second step, and using it to unite dissenting nations might follow.

 * Return to Possible Applications, Introduction
 * ../Globalization/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications/Globalization

Globalization’s expansion is rampant, and its consequences are being felt everywhere. Money sloshes from shore to shore. Crime syndicates become multinationals. Trade patterns gyrate and jobs spring in and out of existence. Immigration and the media blur cultural boundaries. Terrorists infiltrate and create havoc. The World Wide Web provides instant gratification. And the future no longer resembles the past.

Globalization disrupts traditional ideas, challenges cultural identity, exposes acts of degenerate human behaviour that few knew about a generation ago, and clouds our self-images. Our national identities are waning. Once, we looked to the past to define what is important; this is becoming harder and harder to achieve and justify. Old information becomes obsolete, old ways become inefficient or ineffective, and old religions seem unable to cope. Conflicts between ideas, cultures and faiths erupt everywhere.

However globalization is not all doom and gloom. To me, it is little more than the industrial revolution being applied world wide. As it was occurring, the industrial revolution was thought by many to be a detrimental development—introducing new ideas, instituting different methods and means, and forcing people to change their traditional manner of earning a living. Nonetheless, few today would deny that it bought great benefits to humankind. In industrial societies, since the 1870s the average life expectancy has nearly doubled, working hours about halved, years of schooling tripled, and the range of consumer goods immeasurably increased.

However, the industrial revolutions that occurred in various countries were simple compared to globalization because each took place within the confines of a nation’s traditions and laws. No such regularizing principles govern the globe’s activities. So we cope. Each nation does its best to patch up and modify existing structures. Organizations, municipalities and schools educate their employees, citizens and students, showing how different cultures can live together in harmony. Minority opinions are given full weight in crafting legislation. Institutions of global scope such as the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the European Union, and others of their ilk, are established, adjusted and strengthened. Nations meet to draft international standards, revise trading practices, debate subsidy elimination, enact pollution-limiting laws, constrain land and ocean harvesting, and so on. Immigration policies are developed, money-laundering controls formulated, child labour laws sanctioned, statements of people’s rights prepared, and more.

Behind the bustle of activity associated with the machinery of globalization one senses an ideal—the unformulated, perhaps unrecognized, notion of what is best for humankind. This notion should be made clear to all, so that it might properly influence what is occurring. For instance, a global legal system is emerging and, certainly, one global legal system will eventually have to be created—but ad hoc, in disconnected units, as is now being done? Sub-committees of various international organizations are hacking out multiple statements of right and wrong, seemingly unconcerned about the need for consistency and unification. This is producing a series of disjointed compromises (few of which will fit seamlessly together) and creating a tangled playground that high-priced lawyers of the future will have to unravel.

Much the same is happening with respect to trading practices and human rights, to name just two examples. This multiple approach toward global standardization may be expeditious, but it clearly cannot be the best way to proceed. Far better would be to first develop a centralizing universal purpose, one that encapsulates a grand vision of what human life is aiming toward. Working backward from a single desired goal is how supporting sub-goals and “right” actions are properly developed; it is the only way international laws and controls can be linked rationally together.

To grow as living organizations (whether as individuals, companies or as nations) we must provide the condition that life demands—the freedom to exploit available resources. And this condition must be fostered world-wide. Encouraging growth within one’s own country while neglecting or suppressing it in others will inevitably generate significant disparities and problems associated with inequality. Global media networks, which show the world what some, but not all, possess, turn this prediction into a certainty.

A world view of “correct” behaviour and a global legal system are important pieces of the solution, but they cannot be forced upon all nations. Perhaps a world federation with appropriate admission standards might be developed, much like the European Union where countries desirous of participating must first arrange their affairs to conform to certain principles. These admission standards, for reasons that were developed in ../../Life And Exploiting/, must centre upon the provision of freedom for individuals and organizations to exploit, but they must also include democratic measures to control exploitive excesses of any kind, wherever they occur, in any of the member countries.

Concomitantly, if we recognize that every individual is a potential contributor to life’s well-being, we must provide as many equalizing social programs as we can afford without jeopardizing the operation of the other (means- and money-generating) conditions. These three ideals—freedom to exploit, democratic control of excesses, and social progress—can be imagined to be corners forming the base of a triangular pyramid. The pyramid’s apex represents the vision that guides our decision making—the vision that tells all where we intend to go, and why these three ideals form the base as our foundation. Hopefully, a federation built in this way, and that begins as a relatively small group of nations, might end up becoming a global amalgamation of civilized countries.

History tells us how we have solved problems of excessive exploitation in the past. There is no reason to think that similar solutions can’t also be utilized in the future, once we learn how to apply them on a larger scale. Legislation enacted by an elected parliament has typically been our method of control, and is likely to remain so. Thus, global law, seeking to regulate nations, their institutions, and their citizens, enacted by elected representatives, must become a reality before a working global civilization can be fully realized.

But how realistic is it to expect any nation to subordinate itself to an international body of law as matters stand today? The United States, Russia, China, or, for that matter, any nation, would never let troops of an international agency, even one seeking to uphold “global law,” intrude upon their institutions without retaliating. In our conventional view of the world, national interests are paramount, and such interference is unthinkable. But it need not always be so.

Willingness to abide by international regulations by all people, at all levels, and in all walks of life, depends upon these individuals believing such precepts to be more important than other desires or demands. A belief that life’s continuation—our children’s children’s future—is more important than our country’s shorter-term goals (or those of any of its organizations), may give rise to such a willingness, were it made the bedrock of global law.

Stable societies eventually enact laws which parallel those taught by their nation’s significant religion. Globalization can only succeed if the same principle is applied globally. Loyal Rue recognizes this in the concluding chapter of his book, By the Grace of Guile. He writes that a “robust moral order” which embodies a “core of (shared) moral values” is needed to attain and sustain social “coherence and stability.” Exactly so.

One overall vision, generated by a belief in the importance of some meta-purpose, together with an accompanying definition of what this rationally means (the “universal purpose”), must guide global law-making. Only this kind of focusing foundation can integrate, then ensure wide spread recognition and acceptance of the validity of such legislation.

 * Return to Possible Applications, Introduction
 * ../Genetics/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications/Genetics

What will research into human genetics uncover next? Curbing the growth of (or even curing) many kinds of cancer; correcting conditions that may contribute to heart or lung disease; regenerating organs, tissues and bones on demand; pre-screening ova and sperm to remove genes causing hereditary diseases; all, and much more, may be achievable over the next few decades. Even an extra fifty or one hundred years of life expectancy may be on our grandchildren's agenda. These advances promise a wonderfully healthy future.

New possibilities resulting from genetic manipulation unfold every week or two. We routinely manufacture plants, adding disease resistance and increasing vitamin content, changing size, shape, colour, scent, texture, height, growth rate—whatever wished for—to suit any market. We do the same with animals, creating living factories that duplicate top-rate fish, meat, milk, and egg-producers at will. Parents select the sex of their next child. Before long, they will likely be able to pre-determine its size, shape and colour; choose its probable intelligence, artistic aptitude and physical dexterity; and replace genes likely to precipitate diseases or cancers. And, as each gene's role is deciphered by researchers, humanity treads closer to learning how to control the future of life itself.

New knowledge always brings both opportunities and challenges, and some of our past bio-engineering activities have already caused problems. Plants bred to resist herbicides have crossed with others to produce weeds that cannot be eradicated by conventional methods, and fish engineered to double in size have escaped captivity to breed predators that have decimated wild species, to give only two examples. Once produced, life evolves, and a future spent seeking and eradicating escaped and possibly dangerous genetic misfits can be horrifying to imagine.

There are many questions related to genetic manipulation that should be answered before rushing to apply research's findings. Perhaps the most important include: What practices should be permitted? How can the applications of each discovery be controlled? and, Who should benefit?

(The question of who should benefit is not a trivial one. Gene treatments that alleviate or cure diseases are turning out to be very expensive, at least currently. If only the wealthy—individuals or nations—are to benefit, then we will have created yet another world-wide inequity that will likely provoke retaliation.)

Part One noted that rational decisions are made by referring to the purpose to be achieved. In making decisions about gene modification, what are we seeking? Do we declare that all knowledge is important, and thereby allow any manner of research, or do we state that some knowledge can be dangerous and try to regulate certain lines of genetic inquiry? Do we decide that only those who can afford it deserve to benefit from research because it is they who have paid, or do we desire the best for all humanity? Is it morally right to allow prospective parents to make any kind of genetic choice they desire concerning their future children, or should there be some universal standards drafted to protect the interests of the unborn?

And, whatever is decided, how will we ever be able to enforce our decisions?

A whole industry is rapidly developing to take advantage of our ability to control life by manipulating genes. Biomedical companies are springing up everywhere, run by entrepreneurs, staffed by well-trained scientists, and funded by venture capitalists, all eager for recognition or gain. Again, this is natural, not wrong; it is an expression of life exploiting a potential opportunity that may bring success to those that exploit. The problem, as usual, is one of control. How does society control an industry whose products need long-term screening, yet whose markets will clamour and pay for immediate gratification? Nations can legislate, but what good might that be when organizations can move offshore anytime they wish? One nation can act responsibly toward its people, however nothing requires all nations to act responsibly toward all people of the world. And the problems that may arise in this arena could be world-threatening.

Developing new life forms, beneficial or otherwise, is becoming a simple task. But it is next to impossible for an outside agency to detect the covert pursuits of another country until too late, as Russia, Afghanistan, North Korea and other nations, have taught us. There may be several ways to counter such activity, but one stands above others in effectiveness—that derived from individuals within an organization whose moral sensitivity is affronted by suspect endeavours. Disaffected individuals are prime sources of intelligence and counter-activity. Unfortunately, individuals have different concepts of moral correctness.

As noted in ../../Revelations And Conversions/, most ideas about morality stem from religions, and most religions have as their focus individual benefit, not that of the community. Consequently, how human activity in one location is affecting distant communities and different life forms is seldom considered until the damage has been done if it is considered at all. A global religion would generate a global awareness and conscience. While developing a global religion is a tall order, as a first and more practical step, developing a universal purpose is possibly the best countermeasure we may currently be able to adopt.

 * Return to Possible Applications, Introduction
 * ../Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Possible Applications/Summary

The world is plagued with problems. That a universal purpose may help us to more effectively address some of them may seem a far-fetched idea, but those who lead organizations and nations already know that people will strive to attain a purpose they have come to believe in and consider important. Perhaps the benefits to be obtained from a universal purpose (as sketched in this and the previous chapter) are overstated, but we won’t know the true extent of its possibilities until we have tried. As the saying goes, “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Can we really continue the way we have been, letting the winds of chance blow us hither and thither? Should each nation continue acting independently and as they wish? Or are we ready to think collectively as we shape the future our grandchildren will inherit?

If the idea of developing a universal purpose seems implausible, the idea of eventually developing a universal religion based upon this purpose must seem preposterous. How could anyone think that adding a new religion to the existing mix might simplify the situation when religions themselves often contribute to—and may even create—some of the very problems we are trying to solve?

The idea of deliberately trying to develop a new religion might have seemed nonsense when first opening this book. But, if it did so, perhaps this was because so little has been generally understood about how the founders of our various religions obtained their ideas, and why those who followed these leaders created religions. Religions are commonly thought to be based upon ideas that came from a god, but one of this book’s purposes has been to show that this may not have been what actually happened.

Religions are social tools, designed and fostered quite deliberately by human beings to ameliorate social ills. What was done with success in the past can be done again with success in the future. Please re-assess my contention that humanity needs a universal religion. Is it not actually quite a plausible suggestion? And would developing a religion that is consistent with our current understanding of reality actually be so difficult to do? I do not think so.

How we might begin to undertake such a task is discussed in the next two chapters.

 * Return to Possible Applications, Introduction
 * Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours

Currently our “universal religion-to-be” is an undefined figment; it needs substance to give it shape. Just what is entailed in supporting life’s journey to possess omnipotent abilities? What moral injunctions might be imposed by adoption of such a doctrine? This chapter begins a discussion of questions such as these.

Because moral decisions made within a religious framework are intended to further the attainment of a religion’s purpose, then moral codes must be logically linked to, and derivable from, this purpose. When this connection is not readily evidenced or traceable, behavioural codes appear to be adrift and may fall open to different interpretations. Moreover, various codes may well be at odds with one another, for without sound links connecting them to the desired purpose any injunction may be embodied. In short, causal relationships are as important in religion as they are in science and for exactly the same reason: the universe is causal, and correct explanations will bear witness to this causality. Similarly, correct behaviour will also be causal—the event sought determines the causal action required (i.e., “correct behaviour” is purpose directed behaviour). Further, our rational minds need the ability to cross-check their analyses, because they have evolved to operate this way through being successful in a rational universe. Causal links provide this ability.

But until the precisely worded universal purpose is defined, we must work with our proposed meta-purpose concept. This renders the process more complex; moral behaviours derived from a meta-purpose rather than a universal purpose will almost always be imprecise, and some may be completely off the mark. This chapter simply serves to illustrate how a “moral” direction might be deduced—a feat that will be more judiciously accomplished once a universal purpose has been defined. Thus, in that they serve only as examples, my derivations in this chapter are of limited practical application other than as a spring board for further discussion.

We again set out from the beginning by restating the facts that form the basis of our current understanding of reality.

 * 1) /The Facts Of Life/
 * 2) /Behaviours Rewarded By Life/
 * 3) /Behaviours That Enhance Life/
 * 4) /Determining Moral Behaviour/
 * 5) /Killing/
 * 6) /Personal Freedom/
 * 7) /Genetic Manipulation/
 * /Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/The Facts Of Life

The facts of life presented in earlier chapters can be summarized as follows.

Life is a process whereby chemical complexes exploit their environments to obtain energy and resources. Living and exploiting are inseparable activities, present at the base level in all life forms. Replication is a secondary function that (if sexual, rather than simply division) facilitates diversity. Diversity helps life to survive in a changing environment.

The elemental nature of life's underlying process (chemical processes exploiting their environment) implies that it can, and will, arise anywhere, whenever suitable conditions exist. Once begun, life continues until all usable energy differences are exhausted; ceasing prior to this point would simply leave niches where new life could arise and evolve.

Sporadic mutations that improve or have no negative effect on life's ability to successfully exploit environmental resources are carried through into subsequent generations.

Living organisms add new structures and cell processes to those they already possess, making entities more complex as time goes by. This creates an evolutionary trend toward intelligence because, to become beneficial, compounded body augmentations require more elaborate controlling abilities. Furthermore, since energy-exploitation becomes more difficult as energy resources are consumed, the very act of living creates conditions that necessitate enhanced problem-solving ability. That is, declining resources (and challenges of any kind) beget increased mental ability or intelligence.

Life learns how to exploit and control its environment by perceiving, investigating, understanding, then utilizing the relationships that exist between objects and events. This is possible because the universe is causally constructed.

Causality's chain seems to break, from an insider's point-of-view, at the physical and temporal boundaries of our universe. Internal causality cannot be connected to anything external to this universe because the properties of that which lies beyond (if anything does exist outside) cannot be understood from a position within.

There are many other important aspects to the nature of life and the universe but those listed above will suffice for the purposes of this chapter.

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Behaviours Rewarded By Life/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Behaviours Rewarded By Life

One vitally important fact is missing from the above list: humans are not the whole of life. With the meta-purpose we have chosen, it is our relationship to life itself that determines “moral” behaviour. Thus, we must carefully examine what this relationship entails.

Humans are just one species, one twig of a giant tree, and this places us in a rather precarious position. As a twig, we are not only beset by the storms and upheavals that continuously affect and change our physical environment, we are further subjected to the demands that the tree itself places upon us.

Life is our father and mother. Life produced us. It nurtures us, and it will absorb us once we die. Life creates and maintains our support system, and structures much of our playground. Life itself is the totality to which we owe allegiance, and to which we should be paying most attention. Living life—not some imaginary after-death life—is our true supersystem.

Knowing this, I ask myself what subsystem behaviours might such a supersystem reward, and what might it punish?

To my way of thinking, the following statements are self-evident in the context of the supersystem “Life.” (The word “Life,” although from our perspective is currently constrained to that which exists on our planet, has been capitalized in several places throughout the remainder of the book to signify that the context applies wherever life exists.)

 * Subsystems (including humans) will be tolerated by their encompassing supersystem (Life) as long as they do not hinder its continuance. (For instance, plants will provide oxygen and convert sunlight into energy forms that we and other living entities can consume—as long as we do not eliminate them.)
 * Life “punishes” entities that disrupt its existence or growth. (For instance, discharging pollutants diminishes the abundance and variety of food producers, eventually creating a future that becomes one of subsisting rather than of plenty.)
 * Life “rewards” entities that foster its spread and development. (For instance, enlarging rain forest acreage increases the abundance and variety of food and other resources that it supplies.)

(To best appreciate these points, think of the long-term implications of any endeavour, human or otherwise, that impacts upon some part of the ecosystem, then imagine what might happen if the scope and depth of this impact were to be greatly increased. Projecting to the limit often clarifies what may well be happening, unnoticed, on a smaller scale or behind the scenes.)

There are likely several other truths about the relationship between humans (or any species) and our supersystem that deserve to be uncovered and discussed, but those stated above are sufficient to move to the next step.

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Behaviours That Enhance Life/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Behaviours That Enhance Life

When I consider our relationship to the supersystem Life as we experience it on Earth, I find that Life is actually behaving very much in a traditional “god-like” manner. It is effectively “judging” what its subsystems—including humans—do, and it subsequently rewards or punishes their behaviour. These rewards and punishments are meted out continuously, in various forms and locations, over short and long time-spans. Humans are learning to recognize these repercussions, but we still have a long way to go before we learn to respect—or even to expect—Life’s judgements.

However, we can choose to behave in a manner that allows us to benefit from our relationship to our supersystem Life. For instance, we can reduce the harm we inflict on our supersystem by ensuring our discharges are benign. This would precipitate the reward of having more resources—food and oxygen, for instance—made available as greater diversity (and numbers) of other life forms survive and thrive. Or, as another example, we can increase rather than decrease the world’s rain forest coverage, thus increasing the variety and number of benefits-to-life that accompany biological diversity. We can choose to behave in such ways (and many of us do), but the activities of numerous others, some for profit some simply to survive, are hastening the demise of significant portions of Life’s supersystem.

The reasons humans do not all act in ways that benefit Life are many and varied, but two are particularly significant to our discussions. First, as previously stated, we are only just recognizing, and do not yet fully comprehend, the fact that humans are simply a processing subsystem, subordinate to and dependent upon, a larger system. Second, failing to recognize our dependency, few of us value it appropriately.

There are also degrees of valuing. We can give a wary nod to an idea, or we can embrace it wholeheartedly. Thus, we could pay lip-service to the idea of Life being our supersystem and say, “sure, I think this idea is important,” but carry on as before—and nothing changes. Or we could say, “yes, the ecosystem is very important; I’ll be careful not to pollute,” and start, for example, participating in the community’s recycling program—producing a little change. Or we could say, “let me consider more fully this relationship between humans and Life,” then seek others already active in this area to investigate what can be done. In the latter situation, actions having greater impact might result. The degree to which we value the relationship between ourselves and Life affects the future that all life (not just our descendants) will experience on this planet. And while our effects on life’s future are typically minimal, the ramifications of humanity’s actions are increasingly far-reaching.

Well, let’s think about what insights might be gained were we to recognize that our supersystem’s journey toward eventual possession of omnipotent abilities is the very same journey that all species as subsystems are undertaking, albeit that each will travel only an infinitesimal part of the way.

If we were to regard Life’s continued evolution as an activity well worth supporting, and, particularly, if we were to use this “meta-purpose” to define the universal purpose that guides our moral decision making, then a whole new range of behaviours would become valued. We can use the ideas listed in section two above to educe what these behaviours would be. We can even make moral judgements and infer what types of activities should be considered “right” and which should be considered “wrong” within the confines of such a value system.

When I attempt this, I find the following.
 * It is right to learn, to support others’ learning, to try to understand how and why the universe and its contents are the way they are—because Life lives and advances by learning and by putting this knowledge to use.
 * It is right to pass on this knowledge, to store it for future generations, to link knowledge together in theories, to find new avenues of thought—because Life has evolved intelligence as a helping mechanism, and knowledge is the food that nurtures capacity, intelligence and understanding.
 * It is right to make use of this knowledge, to expand our limits, our control and our ability to exploit—because Life lives, grows, reproduces and becomes richer in every aspect, by using the energy and resources it has learned to extract from its environment.
 * But it is equally right, and necessary, to control excessive exploitations—because these harm Life’s future. Determining where to draw the line between helpful exploitation and harmful excesses is, and always will be, a difficult undertaking, but one which must be made a priority if civilization is to continue.
 * And, it is right to help other humans and other life forms—because Life’s progress may benefit from the contributions of others as much as, or even more than, it does from ours.

These behaviours (and many others, of course) would be “right” for any living entity in this universe to practice, simply because actions of this kind help Life to actualize its potential. In response, the supersystem “rewards” subsystems for supporting its operations. That such actions are also “right” for humans to practice because they help each of us attain our own potential is likely to be secondary to Life’s progress (although it usually is very important to our personal well-being). That which helps Life, helps us. The order of importance must be this way around, not the other, because humans are a subordinate system. What are to be considered “right” actions, in the logical system of morals we are developing, must always be determined by putting Life’s advancement, not human advancement, first.

With this process of reasoning in place, new behavioural boundaries (i.e., rights and wrongs) might be established. Some of those newly “recognized” above as being “right” to practice have been ignored or even discouraged within traditional religions, although others have always been important. For instance, before now there has not been a rational explanation of why teaching and learning are so important, such “right” functions. Furthermore, just as we can now clearly judge learning to be right, we can now immediately state why it is wrong to restrict knowledge, to burn books, to tell lies, to spread hatred, to prevent or limit the development of other life forms.

If, as a community, we were to adopt the practice of rationally deducing moral behaviour from the purpose we elect to support, we would, after sustained effort, eventually be able to justify our morality to any intelligent being (including those beyond our planet). Our existing moral systems would probably become subsumed within the rational one, and some components of the former might in due time simply fade away.

Any rational being can deduce a moral code from a statement of desired purpose together with knowledge of the environment containing the criteria a successful solution must meet. If enough of humanity chose to value the living environment more than any possible dead one, then we could combine efforts to logically educe what behaviours should be called “morally wrong” or “morally right.” Given enough time, we should be able to formulate a set of moral statements, each element of which would be traceable back to its origins. This latter feature is important, as it ensures that each assertion is adjustable should new information or understanding make correction necessary. And we would know what is to be gained, both immediately and in the distant future, by acting in accordance with these values.

Until we reach this stage, our beliefs regarding which behaviours are “right” or “wrong” stem only from what we have been taught by our parents, teachers, or religion’s authorities. That is, until we embrace logically deduced moralities, there is no rational way to independently verify the truth of such statements, and no straight-forward method to incorporate changes resulting from improved knowledge. (Christians, for instance, accept the authority of the Commandments on faith. These cannot be modified even if circumstances should so merit.)

With a guiding universal purpose statement and its derived set of moral codes in place, it would no longer be necessary to separate religious thought from rational or scientific thought. Causal links and logical deductions could be made in both domains, with the two becoming inter-dependent and mutually supporting. The data, their sources, the need to inquire, and the methods used when investigating, would become identical for science and religion, unifying these two great endeavours. Effectively, they become one and the same search for reality’s truth.

Moreover, we would know that any intelligent living entity, anywhere in the universe, would be able to uncover rational reasons to value and support Life reaching its full potential, and thus develop the same ethical standards as we support. Rationality provides the means to develop a truly universal religion.

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Determining Moral Behaviour/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Determining Moral Behaviour

Even these first few steps in our exploration of a possible future morality move us far enough along to begin an examination of some of the contentious moral problems we are facing in the world today. I will try to illustrate how rational connections might be made between a few current ethical issues and a desire to support Life’s continued evolution. The examples I have chosen to discuss include killing, some aspects of personal freedom, and genetic manipulation.

But, before we can begin, several cautionary points need be made. First, possessing the “potential to contribute” to Life’s advancement needs much careful consideration when exploring moral positions. It is possible to state that all living things have this, and that their potential to contribute should never be limited. But this creates an impossible situation—eating kills what is consumed and moving crushes entities underfoot. Any kind of exploitation reduces potential in exploited arenas (raising it in others), but, as discussed, life and exploitation cannot be separated. In like vein, it could be argued that no individual’s action should be curtailed because any action may hold the future possibility of “contributing” to Life’s advancement. “Potentiality” is clearly a very important concept, and the meaning, scope and depth of this term need defining and limiting before any significant work on moral behaviour can be advanced. I have mostly ignored the importance of any “potential” contribution in the following subsections (largely because I have not the ability nor inclination to examine such a difficult issue) and leave it as a task that others might perform.

Second, the discussions that follow attempt to show how a code of moral behaviour that relates to human interactions might be developed. It does not explore how humans might appropriately behave towards animals, plants, or other non-human life forms. Certainly, any moral code that proposes supporting Life’s evolutionary journey should detail appropriate behaviour toward any and all kinds of life—more work left for others to consider.

Third, accepting Life’s possible evolution to become oB as the meta-purpose we support (made useful by sculpting from it a definition of a universal purpose) means that decisions would be made toward furthering the attainment of that meta-purpose. We would value new discoveries, new knowledge, new understandings, and the increased ability to control each might bring, because each paves tiny sections of the highway to Life’s future. Currently, we all “contribute” to helping life achieve its “meta-purpose,” and we do so never learning the ultimate significance of our contribution. (In fact, any lengthy periods during which we do not contribute, may, in some of us, create the feeling that our lives were becoming meaningless.) But once we had decided to use the meta-purpose to guide our morality, our “moral duty” becomes much clearer; we would know we were acting irresponsibly whenever we behaved in a manner that undermined its attainment.

Thus it would appear that one takes on certain responsibilities when adopting Life’s meta-purpose as one’s own. The notions of “responsibility” and “contributing” lie at the heart of our attempt to define a moral code and I will be referring to them from time to time below. However, these terms should also be carefully defined—another difficult task that perhaps others might undertake.

Lastly, teams of experts working jointly on individual issues would be needed to develop rational connections and usable codes of behaviour once a universal purpose had been defined; the sub- sections below are simply the product of my mind’s undeniably biased constructs. They are included to demonstrate how a desire to support the attainment of some purpose might be used to determine “right” (and therefore also “wrong”) behaviour. It is clear that this determination must be possible, as everyone of us does exactly this each time we decide how to act to solve problems standing in the way of completing our daily tasks. However, it will likely soon be equally clear that I am not the person to join any of those hypothetical teams!

Now to the examples.

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Killing/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Killing

The rationale for stating that it would be wrong to kill an individual is easy to state: any individual’s actions may contribute to the objective of supporting Life’s continued evolution, thus each life is valuable and should be preserved. Killing an individual prevents that individual from contributing (discounting the body’s store of nutrients and energy that inevitably recycle and do contribute). However, this seemingly simple premise hides a few surprises, the first stemming from how we define an individual.

Two separate cells, the sperm and ovum, before joining to form a zygote do not constitute an individual. They each contain part of the potential to form an individual, but they have not yet become an individual. Our new morality would therefore likely state that there is nothing “wrong” in killing these cells. And life routinely does exactly that—our bodies produce many more sperm and ova than are needed or used.

An embryo, then a fetus before birth, is also a “potential” individual, not yet able to contribute directly to Life’s evolution (although it may very well be inspiration for some of the contributions made by its parents). Thus, our rational new religion would probably rule that it is not wrong to kill developing embryos at any stage.

This may be its rational declaration, but human emotions would most often have it otherwise. Few parents would want to harm or kill their children-to-be. It would feel emotionally wrong to do so.

Our new religion may even come to the same conclusion about killing infants, as well as those individuals that no longer possess the ability to contribute, by arguing along the following lines.

Newborns are potential individuals, not individuals as we typically understand fully developed adults to be. Newly born babies exist as separate beings, having wonderfully formed bodies but relatively empty minds. Empty, that is, of most of the stored memories, links and thoughts that will rapidly form to produce an individual in its own right. Our new rational religion would likely not call a physical body, mostly empty of mind, an individual, and would probably not state that it is “wrong” to kill such an entity. But, of course, we do state that it is wrong.

We denounce killing newborns for emotional, cultural, and legal reasons. It feels wrong to kill children of any age, and the law in recognition of this usually declares that newborns become individuals at birth. Clearly we will continue to state that killing newborns is wrong, but it is possible that our new religion may not actually state that it is “morally wrong” to do so (for instance, if “potential to contribute” is given minimal weight by the religion’s developers).

A similar argument applies to the way we regard mature individuals. In the grand view of Life’s endeavour, the individual is everything and nothing. It is everything while it is contributing to Life’s journey; it is nothing when it has made its contribution. During our lifetime, we all, knowingly or unknowingly, strive to support Life’s journey. We all do our best to learn, to grow, to create, to procreate, to feel that we are living a productive and meaningful life. These are innate behaviours that are carried out daily—part and parcel of being a living entity. We may even accept them as responsibilities. But, as we end our days, with our physical and mental powers deteriorating, we become free of this duty to contribute. Our new moral code is likely to state that at this stage, those who so choose have every right to seek death when they are ready for it, be it self-awarded or assisted.

The same contention might well apply when a person’s brain becomes damaged or debilitated by disease or accident. As long as there is the slightest chance that the individual will recover, to be able to contribute once more, then our new moral system would probably rule that it is wrong to kill or to sanction suicide for that individual. But this ruling could change as conditions worsen, as death becomes imminent, or as living becomes unbearably painful. For such individuals who will never be further able to contribute, our new religion would probably state that euthanasia is not morally wrong. However, as we may know, even under such circumstances it is next to impossible to kill someone we love. Our emotions (quite apart from our laws) make it very hard to hasten their death. But our new religion would now possibly offer consolation, not condemnation, were we to do so.

Using similar arguments, our new religion would probably tell us that it is irrational to simply declare abortion or euthanasia wrong, and also that there are times when we may morally allow compassion to rule.

Thus we begin to see that morality would likely differ from what it is now. Our new religion would clearly separate rational, emotional and legal arguments, allowing us to frankly examine the contribution each makes. It would open the way for our old, sometimes simplistic, sometimes cruel, laws to be reconsidered, and perhaps, if thought necessary, eventually modified. (Indeed, its construction would force us to reassess our understanding of what it is to be a thinking human).

On the surface, our new religion may seem hard and cold, ruling by logic first, and only allowing emotions to be considered second. But our proposed religion must be so constructed because the universe is so constructed, and because life evolves in obedience to the laws of physics that govern and define the universe and all its contents. While animal behaviour is largely emotionally governed—animalistic—because it has no other option, humans have gained the ability to be objective. Humans, in following their minds’ attempts to think rationally, also try to behave rationally, and the two foremost dimensions of humanity, emotion and logic, are often at war in the effort. Our new religion, if developed rationally, should allow us to separate, then balance, emotion and reason, giving us tools to assess both before making any decision. We would no longer be commanded by dogma, emotions or beliefs, but by logical rationality. Surely, this is what our modern minds are asking us to institute when they react against the occasional religious (or parental, legal, employment, or other) requirement that seems irrational.

There are other “wrongs” to reconsider, for instance, the rationale for stating that birth control is morally wrong. If circumstances dictate that additional progeny will harm, rather than help, Life’s continued evolution on this planet, then birth control would necessarily be considered by our new religion sensible and “right.” What value to Life would there be in saturating an overpopulated environment with individuals if nothing remains for them but an arduous search for nutrients and niches where precious few are to be found? When would such individuals ever find the time, or develop the ability, to contribute? Of course, there will always be many outstanding individuals who will do exactly that in any population. Perhaps one percent, or, say, five, would surmount their disadvantageous surrounding conditions. Birth control, some might contend, would have denied Life their contributions. But that argument ignores the possibility that, if this world was less densely and more equitably populated, then a great many more than one or five percent would be in a position to contribute. Of course, it is not simply a matter of quantity, it is more one of quality. But, again, there are many more opportunities for quality to emerge in an educated and liberated environment than there are in a poverty-stricken or hopelessly overcrowded one.

(The overwhelming need for world population controls is one of the implications of a report written by Mathis Wackernagel et al. This report discusses the compilation and findings of human “ecological footprint” statistics [the planetary acreage needed to sustain human life at its current rate of resource usage]. Two of its findings are particularly relevant to this discussion. First, that humans, on average, expend thirty per cent more than nature is able to sustain (and this figure is increasing rather than decreasing). And, second, that the resources of five more Earths would be needed for everyone to live at the average current North American rate. Clearly, the majority can never live as North Americans now live. But all could, should they so desire, were there fewer for the planet to nourish. One billion people is about this planet’s limit, if the North American way of life is universally accorded. However, the world’s population is currently over six billion, and could reach ten billion in thirty years. )

Another issue to contemplate is capital punishment. As above, the criteria used to weigh the merits of this practice would need to be reconsidered. Under the rationality of our new religion, anyone able to “contribute” should be allowed to live. While we may want retribution for heinous crimes committed, this is an emotional, not reasoned, reaction. However, if an individual was clearly unable to “contribute,” if serial killing (for example) was his or her sole motivating interest, then there may be no rational reason (nor religious, for our religion would be rational) to let that individual continue living. The problem then, as always, becomes one of judging whether or not enough is known to be certain about the true state of affairs.

Our proposed new religion tells us why individuals are important—because each individual has the potential to make a difference. He or she can uncover new facts, find new linkages and applications, discover new meanings, and perhaps augment Life’s ability to control. This is why each and every individual matters. Embryos and fetuses before birth cannot contribute in this manner, infants in their first few months, and some individuals, perhaps in the closing days of their life or if criminally insane, cannot contribute. In these circumstances our new religion would likely tell us that killing is not morally wrong (although it is unlikely to decree that it is morally right). Our new doctrine would probably conclude that such individuals are of no relevance as they are and offer no guidance at all. (This, at least, would free us from religious censure if we choose to follow the dictates of our emotions.)

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Personal Freedom/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Personal Freedom

Individuals have to be free to explore and exploit their environment if they are to maximize their ability to contribute to Life. This suggests that the freedom of individuals should not be restricted in any way (provided their actions are not restricting the ability of others to contribute, of course). And this implies that individuals should be free to act in ways that might harm themselves.

The over-riding necessity for individual freedom affects how a rational religion might view private activities. For instance, individuals abusing drugs may be acting irrationally, and they may eventually suffer for doing so, but our new religion would likely not consider this action morally “wrong.” Who knows what discoveries, what new insights and understandings, might be realized were a drug-induced state to open neural channels routinely by-passed in everyday thinking? (And there have been many instances when drugs have enhanced an artist’s creativity, and others now reap benefits from that individual’s experience. )

Many countries legislate against the recreational use of drugs. Clearly we need laws that protect immature individuals from harm but legislation itself will not accomplish this end. Declaring drug use to be illegal simply hands drug control (and its resulting profits) to criminal organizations. Their activities simply make matters worse, as prohibition tried to teach us.

Our new religion would state that individuals must have the freedom to experiment knowledgeably and to face the ensuing consequences. This is how every animal learns: they act, analyze the results of their action, then modify, cease, or repeat the action, learning and developing physical and mental skills as they do so. Education, not legislation, properly limits the harm that ill-considered experimentation can do. That occasionally people die through their own careless actions is distressing, but we cannot logically expect this to never happen, even were we able to foresee and forbid all possible harmful actions. We need to teach, for example, why wearing bicycle helmets and seat belts is important, not legislate then spend money, time and resources enforcing their use. Laws and their enforcement simply remove degrees of the self-responsibility that all individuals must possess if they are to mature.

A great deal of this education can, and should, be performed by the primary authority figures in our lives, our parents. This assumes first that the parent figures have been retrained in the traditional moral values and respect. In today's world, where social workers step in to prevent authority figures even directing children in the art of creating respect, the parents must be provided the training and freedom to raise their offspring in a manner that is conducive to creating social harmony. Within three generations we can start to move towards a society that fosters mutual respect, both within a society and internationally.

Creating laws that take away common freedoms, as opposed to major crimes, only create disharmony, fear and fat pockets for the lawyers. Teaching self responsibility for behaviour towards others will quickly spread through a society and create a peer pressure on those who would rule the world (or their own little patch)to conform to a higher moral order or be ex-communicated by their own society.

 * Return to Determining Moral Behaviours, Introduction
 * ../Genetic Manipulation/